Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-05-13 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. Monday, May 13, 2019 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 11 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. Public comment may be addressed to the full City Council via email at City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Special Orders of the Day 5:00-5:15 PM 1. Proclamation Honoring Affordable Housing Week Study Session 5:15-6:15 PM 2. Presentation and Discussion With the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) Staff Regarding the 2040 Caltrain Business Plan Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 6:15-6:25 PM Oral Communications 6:25-6:40 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. 2 May 13, 2019 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Consent Calendar 6:40-6:45 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3.Acceptance of the City of Palo Alto Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan in Compliance With the San Francisco Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit 4.Adoption of a Resolution Extending the City Manager’s Authority to Execute Transactions Under Master Renewable Energy Certificate Purchase and Sale Agreements With Pre-qualified Suppliers in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $5,000,000 per Year During Calendar Years 2019-2024; and Repealing Resolution Number 9379 5.SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Allow for Minor Increases in Height and Floor Area to Provide Access to Rooftop Decks on Existing Structures in the Commercial Downtown (Community) CD-C Subdistrict. Environmental Assessment: Exempt per Sections 15301 and 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Zone District: CD-C(GF)(P). (FIRST READING: February 25, 2019 PASSED: 5-2 Dubois, Kou no) 6.SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Chapter 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Update the Code to Reflect Recently Adopted Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Regulations. This Ordinance is Exempt From Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15305 (FIRST READING: April 15, 2019 PASSED: 6-0 Tanaka Absent) 7.Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C19172281 With Municipal Resource Group (MRG) to Increase the Not-to-Exceed Compensation by $50,000 (for a new Not-to-Exceed Amount of $200,000) to Provide Continued Transportation Support Services for the Office of Transportation Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 6:45-8:30 PM 8.Acceptance of the City of Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Study Report and Direction to Staff on Workplans, Q&A MEMO 3 May 13, 2019 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. Outreach, Stakeholder Process, and Prioritization of Programs, Including Proposed RPP Programs for Old Palo Alto and Green Acres 8:30-9:30 PM 9. Connecting Palo Alto Grade Separation Planning: Revision of Alternatives for Further Study and Direction to Staff Regarding Evaluation Criteria Weights State/Federal Legislation Update/Action 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 May 13, 2019 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. Finance Committee Meeting May 15, 2019 Sp. City School Liaison Committee Meeting May 16, 2019 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Proclamation Recognizing May 12-18, 2019 as National Police Week, and May 15, 2019 as National Peace Officers’ Memorial Day Public Letters to Council Set 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 10277) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 5/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Affordable Housing Week Proclamation Title: Proclamation Honoring Affordable Housing Week From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Attachments: • Attachment A: Proclamation Honoring Affordable Housing Week 2019 Proclamation AFFORDABLE HOUSING WEEK WHEREAS, affordable housing is one of the cornerstones of democracy and part and parcel of the American Dream; and WHEREAS, each year, thousands of Silicon Valley families struggle to find an affordable home in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation; and WHEREAS, on any given night in Santa Clara County, 7,400 individuals are experiencing homelessness, 74 percent of whom are unsheltered; and WHEREAS, affordable housing is a regional need that requires regional solutions and participation from all cities and the County; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto is committed to safe, stable, and affordable housing for all its residents; and WHEREAS, the strength of Palo Alto’s community and economy depends on providing access to housing options that allow current and future residents of all income levels to live where they work; and WHEREAS, affordable housing near employment centers and transit reduces traffic congestion, air pollution, and emissions, and lowers housing and transportation costs for local workers; and WHEREAS, many organizations throughout Santa Clara County are dedicated to providing safe, stable, permanent and affordable housing to all members of the community, and are collaboratively working to bring the need for affordable housing to the forefront of discussion in Silicon Valley; and WHEREAS, these organizations have partnered with local agencies and community members to organize Affordable Housing Week to encourage the sharing of best practices, opportunities, and solutions to provide affordable housing that is the right of all individuals. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Eric Filseth, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim the week of May 3-May 17th, 2019 as Affordable Housing Week in the City of Palo Alto, and call upon all members of our community to support affordable housing solutions and to recognize the successful efforts of the City of Palo Alto and its dedicated partners who seek to improve access to affordable housing opportunities in Palo Alto and our neighboring communities. Presented: May 13, 2019 ______________________________ Eric Filseth Mayor City of Palo Alto (ID # 10335) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Transportation and Traffic Summary Title: Caltrain Business Plan Review and Discussion Title: Presentation and Discussion With the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) Staff Regarding the 2040 Caltrain Business Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: Transportation Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council receive a presentation and discuss the 2040 Caltrain Business Plan with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain). Discussion In 2018, Caltrain began the Caltrain Business Plan discussions with initial workshops involving key local, regional, and state stakeholders. Development of the Business Plan is a joint effort with agency partners and communities along the corridor to plan for changes in housing and jobs in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties. The intent of the business plan is to understand and plan for future transportation needs in the region. The Business Plan accounts for Caltrain electrification that provides for increased train service. The City Council requested this presentation. Recent Documents Related to the Business Plan: •The May Quarterly Board Update PowerPoint (also available online at: https://www.caltrain2040.org/wp- content/uploads/CBP_Quarterly_Board_Update_May2019.pdf) •The Caltrain Fact Sheet for Palo Alto (also available online at: https://www.caltrain2040.org/wp- content/uploads/CBP_CIA_Factsheet_PaloAlto.pdf) At the City Council study session, Caltrain will discuss the following documents: •Attachment A: Palo Alto Specific Information the Caltrain Business Plan City of Palo Alto Page 2 • Attachment B: The General Caltrain Business Plan Fact Sheet Attachments: • Attachment A: Palo Alto Specific Information the Caltrain Business Plan • Attachment B: The General Caltrain Business Plan Fact Sheet CaltrainBusinessPlan May 2019 Palo Alto City Council Over view What Why What is the Caltrain Business Plan? Addresses the future potential of the railroad over the next 20-30 years. It will assess the benefits, impacts, and costs of different service visions, building the case for investment and a plan for implementation. Allows the community and stakeholders to engage in developing a more certain, achievable, financially feasible future for the railroad based on local, regional, and statewide needs. Service •Number of trains •Frequency of service •Number of people riding the trains •Infrastructure needs to support different service levels Business Case •Value from investments (past, present, and future) •Infrastructure and operating costs •Potential sources of revenue What Will the Business Plan Cover? Organization •Organizational structure of Caltrain including governance and delivery approaches •Funding mechanisms to support future service Community Interface •Benefits and impacts to surrounding communities •Corridor management strategies and consensus building •Equity considerations Technical Tracks Where Are We in the Process? We Are Here Board Adoption of Scope Stanford Partnership andTechnical Team Contracting Board Adoption of 2040 Service Vision Board Adoption of Final Business Plan Initial Scoping and Stakeholder Outreach Technical Approach Refinement, Partnering, and Contracting Part 1: Service Vision Development Part 2: Business Plan Completion Implementation Electrification is the Foundation for Growth with Plans for More 2040 Demand The Caltrain corridor is growing •By 2040 the corridor expected to add 1.2 million people and jobs within 2 miles of Caltrain (+40%)1 •80% growth expected in San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties Major transit investments are opening new travel markets to Caltrain •Downtown Extension and Central Subway •Dumbarton Rail, BART to San Jose, and improvements to Capitol Corridor and ACE •HSR and Salinas rail 2015 Population & Jobs 7 Exploring the Potential Long Term Demand for Caltrain Service Description 2017: 92 Trains/Day 2040: ~360 Trains/Day Daily 62,000 240,000 Peak 50,000 185,000 Off-Peak 12,000 55,000 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 2017, 92 Trains per Day 2040, ~360 Trains per Day Peak Off-Peak Using Plan Bay Area numbers for projected growth in jobs and housing, an unconstrained model run of high frequency, all-day BART-like service in the Caltrain corridor suggests that by 2040 there could be underlying demand for approximately 240,000 daily trips on the system 2040 Service Scenarios: Different Ways to Grow Amount of Investment /Number of Trains Design Year 2033 High Speed Rail Phase 12022 Start of Electrified Operations 2018 Current Operations Baseline Growth 2040 Service Vision Moderate Growth High Growth 2029 HSR Valley to Valley & Downtown Extension 2040 Baseline Growth Scenario (6 Caltrain + 4 HSR) Features •Blended service with up to 10 TPH north of Tamien (6 Caltrain + 4 HSR) and up to 10 TPH south of Tamien (2 Caltrain + 8 HSR) •Three skip stop patterns with 2 TPH –most stations are served by 2 or 4 TPH, with a few receiving 6 TPH •Some origin-destination pairs are not served at all Passing Track Needs •Less than 1 mile of new passing tracks at Millbrae associated with HSR station plus use of existing passing tracks at Bayshore and Lawrence Options & Considerations •Service approach is consistent with PCEP and HSR EIRs •Opportunity to consider alternative service approaches later in Business Plan process Skip Stop High Speed Rail Service Type Conceptual 4 Track Segment or Station Infrastructure 4 3 2 1 <1 Service Level (Trains per Hour) 2 Trains / Hour 4 Trains / Hour 2 Trains / Hour 2 Trains / Hour 22nd St Bayshore South San Francisco San Bruno Millbrae Broadway Burlingame San Mateo Hayward Park Hillsdale Belmont San Carlos Redwood City Palo Alto California Ave San Antonio Mountain View Sunnyvale Lawrence Santa Clara San Jose Diridon Atherton Menlo Park College Park Tamien Capitol Blossom Hill Morgan Hill San Martin Gilroy 4 Trains / Hour PEAK PERIOD , EACH DIRECTION Salesforce Transit Center 4th & King / 4th & Townsend Moderate Growth Scenario (8 Caltrain + 4 HSR) Features •A majority of stations served by 4 TPH local stop line, but Mid- Peninsula stations are serviced with 2 TPH skip stop pattern •Express line serving major markets –some stations receive 8 TPH •Timed local/express transfer at Redwood City Passing Track Needs •Up to 4 miles of new 4-track segments and stations: Hayward Park to Hillsdale, at Redwood City, and a 4-track station in northern Santa Clara county (Palo Alto, California Ave, San Antonio or Mountain View. California Ave Shown) Options & Considerations •To minimize passing track requirements, each local pattern can only stop twice between San Bruno and Hillsdale -in particular, San Mateo is underserved and lacks direct connection to Millbrae •Each local pattern can only stop once between Hillsdale and Redwood City •Atherton, College Park, and San Martin served on an hourly or exception basis Local Express High Speed Rail Service Type Conceptual 4 Track Segment or Station Infrastructure 4 3 2 1 <1 Service Level (Trains per Hour)4 Trains / Hour 4 Trains / Hour 4 Trains / Hour 22nd St Bayshore South San Francisco San Bruno Millbrae Broadway Burlingame San Mateo Hayward Park Hillsdale Belmont San Carlos Redwood City Palo Alto California Ave San Antonio Mountain View Sunnyvale Lawrence Santa Clara San Jose Diridon Atherton Menlo Park College Park Tamien Capitol Blossom Hill Morgan Hill San Martin GilroyPEAK PERIOD , EACH DIRECTION 4 Trains / Hour Salesforce Transit Center 4th & King / 4th & Townsend High Growth Scenarios (12 Caltrain + 4 HSR) Features •Nearly complete local stop service –almost all stations receiving at least 4 TPH •Two express lines serving major markets –many stations receive 8 or 12 TPH Passing Track Needs •Requires up to 15 miles of new 4 track segments: South San Francisco to Millbrae, Hayward Park to Redwood City, and northern Santa Clara County between Palo Alto and Mountain View stations (shown:California Avenue to north of Mountain View) Options & Considerations •SSF-Millbrae passing track enables second express line; this line cannot stop north of Burlingame •Tradeoff between infrastructure and service along Mid- Peninsula -some flexibility in length of passing tracks versus number and location of stops •Flexible 5 mile passing track segment somewhere between Palo Alto and Mountain View •Atherton, College Park, and San Martin served on an hourly or exception basis Local Express High Speed Rail Service Type Conceptual 4 Track Segment or Station Infrastructure 4 3 2 1 <1 Service Level (Trains per Hour) 22nd St Bayshore South San Francisco San Bruno Millbrae Broadway Burlingame San Mateo Hayward Park Hillsdale Belmont San Carlos Redwood City Palo Alto California Ave San Antonio Mountain View Sunnyvale Lawrence Santa Clara San Jose Diridon Atherton Menlo Park College Park Tamien Capitol Blossom Hill Morgan Hill San Martin Gilroy 4 Trains / Hour 4 Trains / Hour 4 Trains / Hour 4 Trains / Hour 4 Trains / Hour PEAK PERIOD , EACH DIRECTION Salesforce Transit Center 4th & King / 4th & Townsend Ridership Projections High Growth Existing Electrification Downtown Extension Business Plan Growth Scenarios - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Baseline Growth 20% Increase Moderate Growth High Growth 25% Increase On its current, baseline path, Caltrain would experience demand of up to 161,000 daily riders by 2040. The Moderate and High Growth scenarios would increase demand to 185,000 and 207,000 riders, respectively. Crowding may impact Caltrain’s ability to fully capture future demand. When projected ridership is constrained to 135% of seated capacity, all-day ridership in the baseline scenarios could be 6% lower and 4% lower in the moderate growth scenario. There is sufficient capacity in the high growth scenario to serve all projected demand. Peak Hour Throughput as Freeway Lanes Caltrain’s peak load point occurs around the mid-Peninsula. Today, Caltrain serves about 3,900 riders per direction during its busiest hour at this peak load point. This is equivalent to 2.5 lanes of freeway traffic. The Baseline Growth Scenario increases peak hour ridership to about 6,400 riders at the peak load point –equivalent to widening US-101 by 2 lanes. Peak hour demand exceeds capacity by about 40%. The Moderate Growth Scenario increases peak hour ridership to about 7,500 riders at the peak load point –equivalent to widening US-101 by 2.5 lanes. Peak hour demand exceeds effective capacity by about 35% due to higher demand for express trains. The High Growth Scenario increases peak hour ridership to over 11,000 at the peak load point –equivalent to widening US-101 by 5.5 lanes. All ridership demand is served. Freeway Lanes of Ridership Assumes capacity constrained to a 135% max occupancy load - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Baseline Growth Moderate Growth High Growth Existing Freeway Lanes "New" Freeway Lanes Existing +2 Lanes +2.5 Lanes +5.5 Lanes Service Business Case This update describes different illustrative 2040 service concepts that underlie each Growth Scenario. The different concepts shown are not proposals or recommendations. They represent an indicative range of options for how Caltrain service could grow given different levels of investment in the corridor During the spring of 2019 the Business Plan team will develop a detailed “Business Case” analysis for each of the different growth scenarios. The Business Case will quantify the financial implications and wider costs and benefits of each growth scenario How do we Choose a Service Vision? Choosing a long range “Service Vision” is not just about picking which service pattern looks the best-it requires evaluating which package of service and investments will deliver the best value to the corridor and the region The Interface Between the Railroad and its Surrounding Communities Creates both Opportunities and Challenges Noise/Vibration Physical Structures Visual Impact Traffic/Safety Local/Regional Mobility Place-Making Land Use Opportunities Economic Development Grade Separations are a Critical Investment •42 at-grade crossings on the corridor Caltrain owns between San Francisco and San Jose •28 additional at-grade crossings on the UP-owned corridor south of Tamien At-Grade Crossing by County in Caltrain Te rritory •San Francisco:2 at-grade crossings •San Mateo:30 at-grade crossings •Santa Clara:10 at grade crossings (with 28 additional crossings on the UP-owned corridor) To day, during a typical weekday, Caltrain’s at-grade crossings are traversed by approximately 400,000 cars. This is equivalent to the combined traffic volumes on the Bay Bridge and San Mateo Bridge 17 18 Calculating the Need •Across the corridor, cities are undertaking studies and projects to look at grade separation •Caltrain has accounted for all of these projects in our analysis of the potential need for grade separation in the corridor as well as additional investments •In total, the Business Plan team estimates that the total need for investment in grade separations could be between $8.5 and $11 Billion dollars Ta king the Next Step •Incorporate grade separation investments into Business Plan financial and funding analysis •Develop corridor wide grade separation strategy addressing topics like; •Risk assessment and prioritization factors •Construction standards and methods •Project coordination and sequencing •Community resourcing and organizing •Funding analysis and strategy Grade Separations are a Critical Investment Crossings With Grade Separations or Closures Planned or Under Study by Local Jurisdictions Focus on Palo Alto Palo Alto Corridor Conceptual Overtakes and Passing Tracks Required to support service “concepts”: •Moderate-A single 4-track “passing station” would be required somewhere in northern Santa Clara County. This station could be Palo Alto, California Ave, San Antonio, or Mountain View •Baseline-None •High-A longer 4-track section would be required in northern Santa Clara County. This segment would generally fall within the area of the corridor between Palo Alto Station and just north of Mountain View Station Palo Alto (University) Station Scenario Total Weekday Stops Peak Stops/Hour/ Direction Off-Peak Stops/Hour/ Direction Weekday Ridership Existing (2017)86 4-5 1 7,410 Baseline (2040)174 6 3 14,950 Moderate (2040)268 8 6 15,720 High (2040)348 12 6 18,020 Potential Service Levels and Projected Ridership California Ave Station Scenario Total Weekday Stops Peak Stops/Hour/ Direction Off-Peak Stops/Hour/ Direction Weekday Ridership Existing (2017)57 1-2 1 1,670 Baseline (2040)58 2 1 3,720 Moderate (2040)116 4 2 4,840 High (2040)116 4 2 4,220 Potential Service Levels and Projected Ridership Potential Gate Down Times At-Grade Crossing Existing (minutes / peak hour) Baseline (2040) Moderate (2040) High (2040) Palo Alto Avenue (Alma St.) 8:00 13:00 15:00 22:00 Churchill Avenue 6:00 11:00 15:00 19:00 W.Meadow Drive 7:00 13:00 14:00 19:00 W. Charleston Road 7:00 13:00 16:00 19:00 Potential Gate Downtimes by Scenario (AM Peak Hour) The table on the right shows how bad gate downtimes could be if nothing were done •Gate downtimes shown are indicative projections based on extrapolating existing crossing gate performance •Projected downtimes do not increase linearly with number of trains -primarily due to increasingly large numbers of overlapping gate activations at higher levels of train service Grade Separation Grade Separation Projects: The Caltrain Business Plan is incorporating the cost of a major investment in grade separations and crossing improvements throughout the corridor –including those under consideration in Palo Alto; •Key projects include potential grade separation projects at Churchill, East Meadow Drive and Charleston Road as well as a potential future project at Palo Alto Ave The plan is currently carrying placeholder costs that fall within the range of cost estimates being considered by the City. These costs can be updated as Palo Alto advances its study process Next Steps, Outreach & Engagement Next Steps Ongoing Analysis •Service simulation and integration analysis •Capital costing and Operations and Maintenance Analysis •Economic analysis and benefits calculations •Organizational assessment •Community Interface documentation and peer case studies Upcoming Milestones •Major Board Workshop targeted for July to review expanded set of materials and discuss recommended “Service Vision” •Subsequent adoption of Service Vision in August timeframe pending Board discussion and stakeholder feedback Over the next two months the Business Plan team is working to complete a full set of draft materials to support Board consideration and adoption of a 2040 Service Vision 26 Next Steps Work to be Undertaken following Board Adoption of a “Service Vision” •Near-and mid-term service planning •First-and last mile analysis •Additional organizational analysis •Funding analysis including; •Commercial revenue strategies •Potential new sources of funding Following Board designation of a long range “Service Vision” staff will work to complete a full Business Plan document by the end of 2019 27 Outreach Activities to Date July 2018 –March 2019 Timeline July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Local Policy Maker Group City/County Staff Coordinating Group Project Partner Committee Stakeholder Advisory Group Partner General Manager Website & Survey Launch Community Meetings (SPUR SJ & SF, Friends of Caltrain, Reddit TownHall) Sister Agency Presentations Community Jurisdiction Meetings (One Per Jurisdiction) Jan Feb Mar 2018 2019 Outreach Activities to Date July 2018 –March 2019 by the Numbers Stakeholders Engaged 26 Public Agencies 21 Jurisdictions 88 Stakeholder Meetings 93 Organizations in Stakeholder Advisory Group Public Outreach 1000+ Survey Responses 26 Public Meetings and Presentations 7,900 Website Hits 27,000 Social Media Engagements Business Plan Website is Up! -Project timeline -Project summary -Corridor-wide factsheet -Jurisdiction-specific factsheets -Monthly presentations -Glossary of key terms -FAQs www.caltrain2040.org 30 FOR MORE INFORMATION WWW.CALTRAIN.COM The Bay Area population and economy have continued to grow, leading to: Caltrain is one of the busiest commuter rail systems in the country and demand for our service is growing. The Caltrain Business Plan is a joint effort with agency partners and communities along the corridor to plan for this growth. The Business Plan will help us develop a better understanding of the region’s future transportation needs and will identify opportunities and strategies for how the Caltrain system can help. SERVICE BUSINESS CASE ORGANIZATION COMMUNITY INTERFACEWhat is the best service Caltrain can provide to meet the needs of our customers and the communities we serve? How many trains should we run? How do we best match service to riders’ needs? What infrastructure improvements will be needed to provide the service? How can Caltrain effectively connect to other transit services? Why should we choose one service vision over another? How can we maximize the value of current and future investments in the Caltrain corridor? How much will the service cost to operate? How will we fund it? What is the best organizational structure for overseeing and growing Caltrain service in the future? What are the benefits and impacts of increasing service on the corridor to each community? How can we work together to grow the railroad in a way that balances the needs of all communities along the corridor with the need to expand service and operate a safe and efficient railroad? How can we ensure this planning process and the outcomes are equitable? Electrification also creates the potential for expanded Caltrain service that will meet the current and future needs of our region. The Business Plan will identify the best strategies for maximizing this potential by developing a long-term service vision for the corridor, defining the infrastructure needed to support that service vision, and identifying opportunities to fund the implementation of these improvements. WHY THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE CORRIDOR? Caltrain provides a cost effective, convenient alternative to driving and connects jobs and housing, but the system will need to grow to meet current and future demand. WHAT IS THE CALTRAIN BUSINESS PLAN? Electrification of the Caltrain corridor is already underway and will allow Caltrain to run faster, more frequent service while reducing noise and emissions. The Caltrain Business Plan includes four major focus areas that address key questions shaping the future of the railroad: Traffic congestion and longer, unreliable commutes Over-crowded trains Increased cost of transportation and housing CALTRAIN BUSINESS PLAN A 2040 VISION FOR THE CORRIDOR Daily Riders62,000 Local Jurisdictions21 FOR MORE INFORMATION We recognize that Caltrain is woven into the diverse communities we serve and want to hear from you about your needs and what you’d like Caltrain service to look like in the future. Check the project website for ways to get involved, regular project updates, and a calendar of events. WHO IS INVOLVED? The Caltrain Business Plan is a collaborative effort led by Caltrain with funding and participation from Stanford University and other organizations. We understand that each of the local jurisdictions we serve has a unique set of priorities, projects, and plans for growth. We are working closely with policymakers, stakeholders, Caltrain riders, and community members to make sure the Caltrain Business Plan considers everyone’s needs. WHEN IS IT HAPPENING? Caltrain2040.org 650.508.6499 BusinessPlan@Caltrain.com Initial Workshop with Key Local, Regional, and State Stakeholders Business Plan Development Begins Detailed Analysis and Review Public Outreach and Feedback Implementation Adoption of a Service Vision by the Caltrain Board Adoption of the Full Business Plan by the Caltrain Board 2018 2019 2020 City of Palo Alto (ID # 9883) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date:5/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Climate/Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Summary Title: Acceptance of City of Palo Alto Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan Title: Acceptance of the City of Palo Alto Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan in Compliance With the San Francisco Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1.Accept the City of Palo Alto Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Plan (Attachment A). 2.Direct Staff to implement the GSI Plan in a comprehensive manner when carrying out each Department’s responsibilities. Executive Summary Staff recommends that Council accept the City of Palo Alto GSI Plan (Plan) and thereby comply with the State’s Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP) in the San Francisco Bay Area (Order R2-2015-0049). The Plan outlines how the City intends to transform its stormwater infrastructure over years to slow the flow of storm runoff, increase infiltration, recharge groundwater, increase irrigation and other uses, and remove contamination. This Plan identifies and prioritizes GSI opportunities on City-owned properties to manage stormwater runoff on-site utilizing pervious pavement,bioretention areas, and similar measures.It also describes next steps, which include the consideration of GSI in planning, designing, constructing and maintenance of City Facilities. Background Staff envisions gradually integrating GSI measures into the City’s urban landscape while building on and learning from its existing installed systems (Attachment A, Chapter 1). GSI is based on City of Palo Alto Page 2 natural processes and serves as a complementary approach to a traditional (or gray) storm drain system for managing stormwater runoff. GSI provides a pathway for rain water to infiltrate,to have pollutants removed,and,in some cases, to provide water reuse opportunities for irrigation or toilet flushing. The following describes the variety of benefits provided by GSI: ·direct benefits such as improving stormwater quality by reducing pollutants conveyed in stormwater to local creeks and the Bay; slowing and reducing flows to the storm drain system and receiving waters; and providing opportunities for rainwater capture and reuse; and ·ancillary benefits including reduced ponding and localized flooding1; increased tree canopy; decreased urban island effect and climate change impacts; improved air quality; enhanced pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities; and increased ecological habitat. This Plan is the first phase in realizing the City’s vision to slow the flow of water and clean stormwater prior to discharge to our local creeks and the Bay. This initial phase identifies and prioritizes GSI opportunities on City-owned properties to manage stormwater runoff on-site, utilizing pervious pavement,bioretention areas,and similar measures.The City’s right-of-way, which includes streets, sidewalks, planter strips, and medians, can also be retrofitted with GSI during transportation improvement projects, creating “Green (or Sustainable) Streets.” The idea of projects in the City’s right-of-way is explored in this Plan phase; however, the next phase will assess how to prioritize right-of-way locations throughout the City; focus on implementation actions; and identify opportunities to increase GSI on private properties, both residential and non-residential. The major elements in the City’s GSI Plan are briefly listed below and are described further in the Discussion section. ·Description of general types of GSI and of those measures installed in the City ·Plan development process ·Identification and prioritization process for City properties (locations, rather than project concepts) ·Impervious surface targets ·Project tracking system ·Construction guidelines and specifications ·Integration with City plans ·Evaluation of funding options ·Outreach and education ·Implementation plan 1 This Plan defines ponding and localized flooding as less than six inches; however, this definition may be amended after further research. In addition, after performance assessments, the City may find that GSI may be used in areas that have larger amounts of ponding. City of Palo Alto Page 3 ·Regulatory Framework The City is subject to the requirements of the State’s Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit2 in the San Francisco Bay Area (Order R2-2015-0049,) also known as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), which became effective on January 1, 2016. The MRP applies to 76 municipalities and flood control agencies that discharge stormwater to the San Francisco Bay (Bay). Under the MRP and previous permits, new development and redevelopment projects on private and public property that exceed certain size thresholds have been required to mitigate stormwater quality impacts by incorporating site design, pollutant source control and stormwater treatment measures (also known as GSI) as appropriate. One of the requirements of the current MRP is to identify public (and potentially) private opportunities to proactively integrate GSI measures into streets, roads, parking lots, roofs, and other elements beyond the current threshold requirements. This long-term GSI Plan serves to meet the MRP requirement and outlines how the City of Palo Alto aims to transform its stormwater infrastructure over years to come. Discussion Plan Development Collaboration and Outreach Internal collaboration during Plan development involved creating an interdepartmental GSI Workgroup, made up of various departments, including Public Works, Planning & Community Environment, Development Services, Transportation, Utilities, and Community Services, that served as stakeholders of this Plan in some fashion. External collaboration was instrumental in developing the GSI Plan, and updates were presented to the Stormwater Management Oversight Committee (SWMOC) on a regular basis. This Committee was formed to review proposed stormwater management capital improvements and operating programs to ensure consistency with the City’s Stormwater Management Fee. City staff also focused on public education efforts by: ·Presenting to the Parks and Recreation Commission (Nov. 2018 and Jan. 2019) and Planning and Transportation Commission (Jan. 2019); ·Holding a public meeting on March 26, 2019; ·Sharing the 85% and 100% Draft versions of the GSI Plan to the public for feedback; ·Mailing two 2018 utility bill inserts: in August regarding GSI in streets and in April regarding the City’s stormwater rebate program; and ·Establishing a City webpage (www.cityofpaloalto.org/gsi) to provide information about GSI and the Plan. The website was periodically updated with new draft versions of the Plan and, once accepted, the final GSI Plan will also be posted. Implementation Process 2 See Provision C.3.j. in the MRP for specific language regarding the GSI Plan. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Public Works –Watershed Protection Group staff will serve as the lead for Plan implementation. In order to ensure successful implementation, staff will carry out the following (but not limited to) tasks, while ensuring City staff are provided sufficient opportunities to provide feedback. 1.Conduct regular, collaborative meetings with the GSI Workgroup, which will serve as a platform to assess GSI opportunities; provide feedback on tools, policies, and other products; evaluate and track best practices and lessons learned; and collaborate across departments to create multi-benefit projects and leverage financial resources; 2.Develop applicable tools, policies, guidelines and resources and their updates as needed; 3.Update City documents as needed; 4.Develop necessary evaluation metrics, tracking, and reporting tools; and 5.Track and implement best practices. Implementation Components Implementation of this Plan entails the establishment of a transparent and collaborative legal and programmatic structure as well as user-friendly tools and systems, all of which will take time to develop. The following briefly describes some of the items addressed in the Plan as key implementation actions. 1.Updates to Palo Alto Municipal Code a.Implementation Authority In parallel with the development of the Plan, updates to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11 (to be renamed Stormwater Compliance Program) are being prepared, both to provide appropriate implementation authority for the GSI Plan and to ensure overall compliance with the MRP. The Municipal Code Chapter update is tentatively scheduled to be presented to Council for consideration in late summer 2019. b.Increase of Low Impact Development (LID) at parcel scale One of the proposed Chapter 16.11 updates would increase the use of LID, a management approach and set of (non-engineered) practices that can reduce runoff and pollutant loadings by managing runoff as close to its source(s) as possible3. 2.Updates to City Plans and Programs Per the MRP, the City is required to “adopt policies, ordinances, and/or other appropriate legal mechanisms to ensure implementation of the GSI Plan.” Based on an analysis of City planning documents, the Plan references documents that have already been updated; those that will be updated by end of calendar year 2020 (per the MRP); and those that will be updated at a later point. To ensure a smooth transition into Plan implementation, an interim policy will be adopted by the City Manager to begin implementing the Plan in a coordinated fashion. The application of the policy would vary according to Department responsibilities, from managing projects to maintaining assets. The sections below highlight 3 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/bbfs2terms.pdf City of Palo Alto Page 5 examples of plans or programs that support the establishment of GSI throughout the City that are anticipated to be included in the City Manager’s policy. a.Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) (Office of Transportation) While an update of the BPTP is not planned to occur by 2020, the interim policy would direct future Transportation projects4 to consider the feasibility of including GSI until the update occurs. The future update of the BPTP should be based on sustainable street guidelines5, which would establish street design standards that would not only consider pedestrian, bike and school safety, but also provide GSI and multiple benefits to highly- used transporation routes. b.Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP)(Department of Public Works) The next update to the SDMP, which identifies and prioritizes capital improvement program (CIP)projects to meet a 10-year storm level of service by the City’s storm drain system, will not be conducted before the end of the MRP term. Meanwhile, the City Manager’s interim policy will direct staff to consider the feasibility of integrating GSI in planned and proposed CIP projects. The future SDMP update should include an analysis of how the combination of both traditional and GSI can provide adequate capacity for all size storms and compare upfront construction costs and short-and long-term maintenance costs of both types of infrastructure. c.CIP projects (Department of Public Works) The interim policy will direct staff to evaluate CIP projects for GSI opportunities during the project scoping process. In addition, this policy will direct staff to include in relevant CIP project pages of the capital budget a summary of the evaluation process and results, and estimates for the cost of GSI feature maintenance. Because funding can be a deterrent to full-scale GSI implementation, identification of leveraging opportunities is essential. 3.External Project Oversight The SWMOC can provide a vehicle for residents and other members of the public to provide feedback and ideas throughout Plan implementation, as it did during its development. Their responsibilities may include making recommendations for consideration by staff; providing feedback on potential projects; and reviewing proposed policies. This oversight is not intended to replace the City’s already existing CIP public review and approval process but will help augment the process with respect to GSI, potentially allowing discussion and consideration of projects at in advance of the existing review process. 4 The specifics of this policy are yet to be determined. Public Works Staff will work with OOT to determine next steps and the language and approach that supports both GSI Plan and OOT goals as well as MRP requirements. 5 One frequently-referenced guideline is the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ 2017 Urban Street Stormwater Guide. City of Palo Alto Page 6 4.GSI Project Feasibility Assessment Staff will use a standard process to assess the feasibility of integrating GSI into projects that will be vetted by staff and adapted over time. The following briefly describes a proposed process: 1.Meetings during CIP project scoping process to determine feasibility, placement and extent of GSI measures. Revisit at particular design phases, such as 30, 50, 75 and 90 percent. 2.Evaluation of GSI feasibility using pre-determined criteria, mapping software, other tools, professional judgement, a budget analysis, and staff collaboration. 3.Assessment of an evolving project locations list, with prioritized projects considered through the City’s yearly CIP planning process. 4.Identification of potential opportunities by Public Works –Watershed Protection Group staff through regular plan review processes if not identified through a prior process. 5.Tracking Tools Practical tools, such as a project checklist, will be available to evaluate the potential integration of GSI,document results and costs, and track the project from planning through design, construction, and maintenance. Not only will projects be evaluated by these tools, but the results will also be distributed to stakeholders via an annual progress report. 6.Details and Specifications As part of creating a structured program, engineering design standards and specifications will be used, first for City projects, and then made available for use on private properties. A consultant will be retained to assist in the development of City-specific standards, which will be based on a Countywide Handbook and requirements from City departments. This will also allow staff to standardize typical City work practices and designs and assure consistency between various contractors. 7.Maintenance and Monitoring Plan The long-term maintenance of GSI measures is as crucial to their life cycle as accurate design and construction. A Maintenance and Monitoring Plan will evaluate current practices; identify and schedule responsibilities; conduct effectiveness assessments using an adaptive management approach; set performance goals; assess training needs and opportunities; and identify potential partnerships with local organizations. Staff will apply this Plan to GSI measures on City property and in the right-of-way and provide it as guidance for private landowners. 8.Pilot Projects a.CIP Projects In support of the City’s vision, staff will explore and implement pilot projects on City- owned parcels and rights-of-way to assess where and how GSI can be implemented in City of Palo Alto Page 7 the future. The City will also consider pilot projects on properties identified as high priority per the process used in the GSI Plan, such as City-owned parking lots, and those that meet other Department needs, such as Urban Forestry’s shade requirement. b.Local Partnerships and Volunteer Programs Partnering with local organizations will allow the City to leverage its resources and obtain additional support to offset high maintenance costs. The City is piloting a program with a local group, Grassroots Ecology, in which the group will draw upon its expertise to conduct non-mechanical maintenance tasks and investigate the use of native plants and pollinators to diversify plant palettes used in bioretention areas. In addition, the pilot will involve educating residents about GSI and training volunteers to monitor and provide minor maintenance support in their neighborhoods. Next Steps –Further Exploration Some items deemed necessary to ensure successful long-term implementation of this Plan were identified by staff as needing further exploration beyond the Plan development period or through feedback from the public. The timeline for each item will vary based on available resources, but will be identified and integrated into an overall workplan in the coming months. 1.Right-of-Way Opportunities The GSI Plan prioritizes City-owned locations but does not identify GSI project opportunities in the City’s rights-of-way. A process will be determined to identify high priority areas as well as procedures to determine project opportunities when staff is evaluating street improvements and enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian features. 2.Project Cost Tracking The need to track, document and evaluate life cycle costs and avoided costs (e.g., reduction in irrigation use) is important to determine the economic impacts and benefits of GSI Plan implementation. Next steps will involve 1) evaluating cost tracking tools; 2) establishing cost tracking procedures and data analysis methods; 3) determining which cost/benefit approach to use; 4) analyzing data over time that can be used to fortify project opportunity evaluations and budgeting; and 5) adapting systems over time. 3.Funding Analysis A common concern for a municipal plan that establishes new requirements, particularly leading to new projects, is funding for both construction and maintenance. As such, staff has worked with a consultant to conduct a preliminary analysis of funding opportunities. Staff plans to conduct a more thorough analysis based on the findings and assess current maintenance costs as well as past project costs. This analysis will increase understanding of both construction and maintenance costs for City facilities as well as identify and prioritize funding opportunities. 4.Performance Metrics City of Palo Alto Page 8 There is a clear need to determine what type of performance metric(s) should be used to establish appropriate goals and assess the effectiveness of GSI Plan implementation over time. Additional research will be conducted to determine the best metric for the City considering the availability of data, the cost of obtaining additional data and conducting a baseline analysis, and the work necessary to regularly conduct future analyses to evaluate progress over time. 5.Rating Tools Evaluating the performance of the design, construction and maintenance of projects can help provide transparency regarding the use of public funds and encourages staff to continuously improve effectiveness. In order to holistically manage complex projects that can meet multiple objectives of various Departments, support the City’s Comprehensive and Sustainability and Climate Action Plans (among others), and provide accurate, data- supported results to the public, performance rating tools should be evaluated to choose which best assesses performance of varying scales of GSI projects. Such a tool can be integrated into the GSI evaluation process and follow projects through the design, construction and maintenance phases. 6.Private Property Opportunities The GSI Plan focuses on public property under the jurisdiction of the City. However, to increase the impact of GSI implementation City-wide, it is imperative to consider the establishment of additional requirements for private property, investigate opportunities to encourage installation of GSI measures in the City’s right-of-way as well as create incentives that will reward private property owners for installing and maintaining GSI beyond what is required. This Plan does not propose new requirements, but rather it sets the stage for increasing the scale of GSI implementation throughout the City. Staff will fully research private property opportunities post-acceptance of this Plan. Resource Impact The Stormwater Management Fee ballot measure passed by voters in April 2017 included annual funding to support GSI. Funding to provide seed money for implementation of the GSI plan was allocated in the Fiscal Year 2019 budget at approximately $505,000. This amount is equivalent to about 6.5 percent of the Stormwater Management Fee revenues. Staff is researching addditional funding sources,which may include grant funding or funding from individual CIP project budgets, to support the construction and maintenance of GSI measures. Policy Implications The GSI Plan is in alignment with both the Comprehensive Plan 2030 and the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (see the 2019 Earth Day Report). Its implementation necessitates integration of GSI into other pertinent City planning documents (Attachment A, Chapter 8). Environmental Review City of Palo Alto Page 9 The GSI Plan identifies and prioritizes GSI opportunities on City-owned properties, and describes next steps in the work plan, including a process for consideration of GSI in planning, designing and implementing City projects. The Plan is part of a planning study, and is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it does not have the potential to result in a physical change in the environment. An environmental assessment in accordance with CEQA will be prepared for each constructed project prior to its approval. Attachments: ·CPA_GSI_Plan_Document_FINAL DRAFT_042319 City of Palo alto • PubliC Works–Watershed ProteCtion 2501 EmbarcadEro Way • Palo alto, ca 94303 • cityofPaloalto.org/gsi • 650.329.2122 Green Stormwater InfraStructure Plan cIty of Palo alto Stormwater Planter Permeable Pavement Bioretention area tree well filter Page IntentIonally left Blank Green Stormwater InfraStructure Plan City of Palo alto Submitted by: city of Palo alto 250 Hamilton avenue, Palo alto, ca 94301 In compliance with Provision C.3.j.i.(1) of Order R2-2015-0049 Page IntentIonally left Blank Stormwater Planter Permeable Pavement Bioretention Area Tree Well Filter Green Stormwater InfraStructure Plan Stormwater Rebates Available for Residents and Businesses. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i eXecutIVe SummarY ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Palo Alto (City) envisions gradually integrating green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) measures into the City’s urban landscape while building on and learning from its existing installed measures. GSI is based on natural processes and serves as a complementary approach to a traditional (or gray) storm drain system for managing stormwater runoff. The following describes the variety of benefits provided by GSI: • direct benefits such as improving stormwater quality by reducing pollutants conveyed in stormwater to local creeks and the Bay; slowing and reducing flows to the storm drain system and receiving waters; and providing opportunities for rainwater capture and reuse; and • ancillary benefits, including reduced ponding and localized flooding1; increased tree canopy; decreased urban island effect and climate change impacts; improved air quality; enhanced pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities; and increased ecological habitat. This Plan is the first phase in realizing the City’s vision to integrating GSI into its urban landscape. This initial phase identifies and prioritizes GSI opportunities on City-owned properties to manage stormwater runoff on-site, utilizing pervious pavement, bioretention areas, and similar measures. The City’s right-of-way, which includes streets, sidewalks, planter strips, and medians, can also be retrofitted with GSI during transportation improvement projects, creating “Green (or Sustainable) Streets.” The idea of projects in the City’s right-of-way is explored in this Plan phase; however, the next phase will assess how to prioritize right-of-way locations throughout the City; focus on implementation actions; and identify opportunities to increase GSI on private properties, both residential and non-residential. The City is subject to the requirements of the State’s Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit2 in the San Francisco Bay Area (Order R2-2015-0049,) also known as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), which became effective on January 1, 2016. The MRP applies to 76 municipalities and flood control agencies that discharge stormwater to the San Francisco Bay (Bay). Under the MRP and previous permits, new development and redevelopment projects on private and public property that exceed certain size thresholds have been required to mitigate stormwater quality impacts by incorporating site design, pollutant source control and stormwater treatment measures (also known as GSI) as appropriate. One of the requirements of the current MRP is to identify public (and potentially) private opportunities to proactively integrate GSI measures into streets, roads, parking lots, roofs, and other elements beyond the current threshold requirements. This long-term GSI Plan serves to meet the MRP requirement and outlines how the City of Palo Alto aims to transform its stormwater infrastructure over years to come. The following serves to meet MRP requirements and has been identified as key items to ensure successful Plan implementation. Plan DeveloPment CollaBoratIon anD outreaCh Internal collaboration during Plan development involved creating an interdepartmental GSI Workgroup, made up of various departments, including Public Works, Planning & Community Environment, Development Services, Transportation, Utilities, and Community Services, that served as stakeholders of this Plan in some fashion. External collaboration with the Stormwater Management Oversight Committee (SWMOC) was instrumental in developing the GSI Plan, and updates were presented to the SWMOC on a regular basis. This Committee was formed to review proposed stormwater management capital improvements and operating programs to ensure consistency with the City’s Stormwater Management Fee. ImPlementatIon ComPonents Implementation of this Plan entails the establishment of a transparent and collaborative legal and programmatic structure as well as user-friendly tools and systems, all of which will take time to develop. The following briefly describes some of the items addressed in the Plan as key implementation actions. 1. Updates to Palo alto Municipal Code a. Implementation Authority In parallel with the development of the Plan, updates to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11 (to be renamed Stormwater Compliance Management Program) are being prepared, both 1This Plan defines ponding and localized flooding as less than six inches; however, this definition may be amended after further research. In addition, after performance assessments, the City may find that GSI may be used in areas that have larger amounts of ponding. 2See Provision C.3.j. in the MRP for specific language regarding the GSI Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii to provide appropriate implementation authority for the GSI Plan and to ensure overall compliance with the MRP. b. increase of low impact Development (liD) at Parcel Scale One of the proposed Chapter 16.11 updates would increase the use of LID, a management approach and set of (non-engineered) practices that can reduce runoff and pollutant loadings by managing runoff as close to its source(s) as possible3. 2. Updates to City Plans and Programs Per the MRP, the City is required to “adopt policies, ordinances, and/or other appropriate legal mechanisms to ensure implementation of the GSI Plan.” Based on an analysis of City planning documents, the Plan references documents that have already been updated; those that will be updated by end of calendar year 2020 (per the MRP); and those that will be updated at a later point. To ensure a smooth transition into Plan implementation, the City Manager will establish a policy to direct staff to consider GSI in its planning, design, and construction of capital improvement projects (CIPs) and maintenance of its assets. Moreover, it will direct staff to include GSI language as documents are updated. The application of the Policy would vary according to varying Department responsibilities. 3. External Project oversight The SWMOC can provide a vehicle for residents and other members of the public to provide feedback and ideas throughout Plan implementation, as it did during its development. Their responsibilities may include making recommendations for consideration by staff; providing feedback on potential projects; and reviewing proposed policies. 4. GSi Project feasibility assessment Staff will use a standard process to assess the feasibility of integrating GSI into projects that will be vetted by staff and adapted over time. The following briefly describes a proposed process: 1. Meetings during CIP project scoping process to determine feasibility, placement and extent of GSI measures. Revisit at particular design phases, such as 30, 50, 75 and 90 percent. 2. Evaluation of GSI feasibility using pre- determined criteria, mapping software, other tools, professional judgement, a budget analysis, and staff collaboration. 3. Assessment of an evolving project locations list, with prioritized projects considered through the City’s yearly CIP planning process. 4. Identification of potential opportunities by Public Works – Watershed Protection Group staff through regular plan review processes if not identified through a prior process. 5. tracking tools Practical tools, such as a project checklist, will be available to evaluate the potential integration of GSI, document results and costs, and track the project from planning through design, construction, and maintenance. Not only will projects be evaluated by these tools, but the results will also be distributed to stakeholders via an annual progress report. 6. Details and Specifications As part of creating a structured program, engineering design standards and specifications will be used, first for City projects, and then made available for use on private properties. A consultant will be retained to assist in the development of City-specific standards, which will be based on a Countywide Handbook and requirements from City departments. This will also allow staff to standardize typical City work practices and designs and assure consistency between various contractors. 7. Maintenance and Monitoring Plan The long-term maintenance of GSI measures is as crucial to their life cycle as accurate design and construction. A Maintenance and Monitoring Plan will evaluate current practices; identify and schedule responsibilities; conduct effectiveness assessments using an adaptive management approach; set performance goals; assess training needs and opportunities; and identify potential partnerships with local organizations. Staff will apply this Plan to GSI measures on City property and in the right-of-way and provide it as guidance for private landowners. 8. Pilot Projects a. CIP Projects In support of the City’s vision, staff will explore and implement pilot projects on City-owned parcels and rights-of-way to assess where and how GSI can be implemented in the future. The City will also consider pilot projects on 3https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/bbfs2terms.pdf Wiv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY properties identified as high priority per the process used in the GSI Plan, such as City- owned parking lots, and those that meet other Department needs, such as Urban Forestry’s shade requirement. b. local Partnerships and Volunteer Programs Partnering with local organizations will allow the City to leverage its resources and obtain additional support to offset high maintenance costs. The City is piloting a program with a local group, Grassroots Ecology, in which the group will draw upon its expertise to conduct non-mechanical maintenance tasks and investigate the use of native plants and pollinators to diversify plant palettes used in bioretention areas. In addition, the pilot will involve educating residents about GSI and training volunteers to monitor and provide minor maintenance support in their neighborhoods. next stePs – further exPloratIon The items below were identified by staff as necessary to ensure successful long-term implementation of this Plan, but need further exploration beyond the Plan development period or through additional feedback from the public. 1. Right-of-Way opportunities The GSI Plan prioritizes City-owned locations but does not identify GSI project opportunities in the City’s rights-of-way. A process will be determined to identify high priority areas as well as procedures to determine project opportunities when staff is evaluating street improvements and enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian features. 2. Project Cost tracking The need to track, document and evaluate life cycle costs and avoided costs (e.g., reduction in irrigation use) is important to determine the economic impacts and benefits of GSI Plan implementation. Next steps will involve 1) evaluating cost tracking tools; 2) establishing cost tracking procedures and data analysis methods; 3) determining which cost/benefit approach to use; 4) analyzing data over time that can be used to fortify project opportunity evaluations and budgeting; and 5) adapting systems over time. 3. funding analysis A common concern for a municipal plan that establishes new requirements, particularly leading to new projects, is funding for both construction and maintenance. As such, staff will conduct a thorough funding analysis to evaluate funding options and assess current maintenance costs as well as past project costs. This analysis will increase understanding of both construction and maintenance costs for City facilities as well as identify and prioritize funding opportunities. 4. Performance Metrics There is a clear need to determine what type of performance metric(s) should be used to establish appropriate goals and assess the effectiveness of GSI Plan implementation over time. Additional research will be conducted to determine the best metric for the City considering the availability of data, the cost of obtaining additional data and conducting a baseline analysis, and the work necessary to regularly conduct future analyses to evaluate progress over time. 5. Rating tools Evaluating the performance of the design, construction and maintenance of projects can help provide transparency regarding the use of public funds and encourages staff to continuously improve effectiveness. In order to holistically manage complex projects that can meet multiple objectives of various Departments, support the City’s Comprehensive and Sustainability and Climate Action Plans (among others), and provide accurate, data-supported results to the public, performance rating tools should be evaluated to choose which best assesses performance of varying scales of GSI projects. Such a tool can be integrated into the GSI evaluation process and follow projects through the design, construction and maintenance phases. 6. Private Property opportunities The GSI Plan focuses on public property under the jurisdiction of the City. However, to increase the impact of GSI implementation City-wide, it is imperative to consider the establishment of additional requirements for private property, investigate opportunities to encourage installation of GSI measures in the City’s right-of-way as well as create incentives that will reward private property owners for installing and maintaining GSI beyond what is required. This Plan does not propose new requirements, but rather it sets the stage for increasing the scale of GSI implementation throughout the City. Staff will fully research private property opportunities post-acceptance of this Plan. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v acknowledGementS City staff worked tirelessly and enthusiastically to develop the City of Palo Alto’s Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Plan, the first phase in realizing the City’s vision of integrating GSI into its urban landscape. Thanks to all staff, the Stormwater Management Oversight Committee and members of the public who contributed their expertise, guidance, ideas and feedback; conducted thorough document reviews; and attended various meetings. Staff looks forward to working together on implementation of this Plan. funDIng Stormwater Management fee The City’s GSI Plan was made possible with funding provided by the City’s Stormwater Management Fee that was approved by City of Palo Alto property owners in April 2017. sPeCIal thanks to Stormwater Management oversight Committee Hal Mickelson (Chair) Dena Mossar (Vice Chair) David Bower Peter Drekmeier Marilyn Keller Bob Wenzlau Richard Whaley Core team City of Palo alto Brad Eggleston...............Director, Department of Public Works Phil Bobel.........................Assistant Director, Department of Public Works Karin North......................Manager, Watershed Protection Group, Department of Public Works Pam Boyle Rodriguez.....Manager, Stormwater Compliance Program, Department of Public Works Isabel Zacharczuk...........Associate Stormwater Engineer, Department of Public Works Daren Anderson.............Manager, Parks and Open Spaces, Department of Community Services Jodie Gerhardt...............Manager, Planning, Planning and Community Environment Jon Hospitalier................Assistant Director, Department of Public Works Michel Jeremias..............Senior Engineer, Department of Public Works Walter Passmore.............Urban Forester, Department of Public Works Sylvia Star-Lack...............Manager, Office of Transportation Consultants anD ContrIButors EOA, Inc. Jill Bicknell........................Project Manager Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Page IntentIonally left Blank liSt of taBlES Viii liSt of fiGURES Viii liSt of aPPENDiCES iX aBBREViatioNS X 1. iNtRoDUCtioN 12 1.1 City’s Vision XX 1.2 The Purpose of this Document XX 1.3 Green (Stormwater) Infrastructure 1.3.1 Introduction XX 1.3.2 GSI on City Right-of-Way XX 1.3.3 Site-Scale GSI XX 1.3.4 Types of GSI Measures XX 1.3.5 Examples of Existing GSI Measures within the City of Palo Alto XX 1.4 Regulatory Context XX 1.4.1 Federal and State Regulatory Drivers XX 1.4.2 Regional Regulatory Driver: Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit XX 1.4.3 Regulatory Requirement Addressed through the GSI Plan XX 2. City of Palo alto DESCRiPtioN aND BaCKGRoUND 30 2.1 Background and Land Use XX 2.2 Surface Water Bodies and Natural Resources XX 2.3 Groundwater Resources XX 2.4 Transportation XX 2.5 Population and Growth Forecasts XX 3. PlaN DEVEloPMENt aND CooRDiNatioN 35 3.1 Plan Development Oversight and Staff Involvement XX 3.2 Public Participation XX 3.3 SCVURPPP Guidance and Inter-Agency Coordination XX 4. PRoJECt iDENtifiCatioN aND PRioRitiZatioN MECHaNiSM 40 4.1 Introduction XX 4.2 Step One: SWRP Prioritization Summary XX 4.2.1 Parcel-Based Project Opportunities XX 4.2.2 Green Street Project Opportunities XX 4.3 Step Two: City Prioritization Summary for City-Owned Parcels XX 4.3.1 Overview of City Prioritization Steps XX TABLE OF CONTENTS vii taBle of contentS 5. iMPERVioUS SURfaCE taRGEtS 56 6. PRoJECt tRaCKiNG SyStEM 59 6.1 City Project Tracking System XX 6.2 County-Wide Project Tracking System XX 6.2.1 Data Collection Process XX 6.2.2 Data Output XX 7. GUiDEliNES aND SPECifiCatioNS 60 7.1 Design Guidelines XX 7.2 Details and Specifications XX 7.3 Incorporation of Typical GSI Details and Specifications into City Standards XX 7.4 Input from City of Palo Alto Staff XX 8. iNtEGRatioN WitH City PlaNS aND DoCUMENtS 63 8.1 Regulatory Requirements XX 8.2 City Planning Documents XX 8.3 Special Planning Areas and Specific Plans XX 8.4 Future Integration of GSI Language XX 8.5 Regional Plans XX 9. EValUatioN of fUNDiNG oPtioNS 69 9.1 Current Funding Sources XX 9.2 Evaluation of Additional Funding Options 9.2.1 Alternative Compliance XX 9.2.2 Balloted Approaches XX 9.2.3 Benefit Assessment and Community Facilities Districts XX 9.2.4 Business Improvement Districts XX 9.2.5 Development Impact Fees XX 9.2.6 Grants XX 9.2.7 Integration with Transportation Projects XX 9.2.8 Long-Term Debt Instruments XX 9.2.9 Public-Private Partnerships (P3) XX 9.2.10 Realignment of Municipal Services XX 9.2.11 Volunteer Programs XX 9.2.12 Summary of GSI Funding Options XX 10. oUtREaCH aND EDUCatioN 81 10.1 Inter-Departmental Meetings XX 10.2 External Coordination Efforts XX 10.3 Training XX 10.4 Informational XX 11. aDoPtioN of tHE GSi fRaMEWoRK aND PlaN 88 12. lEGal UPDatES 90 12.1 Authority to Implement GSI Plan 12.2 Stormwater Municipal Code Update—A Step Toward Increasing Site-Scale LID XX viii TABLE OF CONTENTS 13. CHaNGE of City PERSPECtiVE—PoliCiES aND PRoGRaMS 97 13.1 Updates to City Plans and Programs via a City Manager’s Policy XX 13.1.1 Office of Transportation’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan (BPTP) XX 13.1.2 Department of Public Works, Division of Engineering Services (PWE) XX 13.1.3 Community Services Department XX 14. iMPlEMENtatioN CoMPoNENtS 99 14.1 Implementation Management and Coordination XX 14.2 External Project Oversight XX 14.3 Feasibility Assessment XX 14.4 Tracking Tools XX 14.5 Details and Specifications XX 14.6 Maintenance and Monitoring Plan XX 14.7 Pilot Projects XX 14.7.1 CIP Pilots XX 14.7.2 Local Partnerships and Volunteer Programs XX 15. NEXt StEPS—fURtHER EXPloRatioN 100 15.1 Right-of-Way Opportunities XX 15.2 Project Cost Tracking XX 15.3 Performance XX 15.3.1 Performance Metrics XX 15.3.2 Rating Tools XX 15.4 Funding Analysis XX 15.5 Private Property Opportunities XX liSt of taBlES Table 1.1 Summary of GSI Plan Elements XX Table 4.1 Public Parcel and Green Streets Project Location Opportunities XX Table 4.2 GSI Project Location Prioritization Criteria XX Table 4.3 Prioritization Criteria Values XX Table 4.4 Planned City-Owned GSI Measures XX Table 5.2 Actual and Predicted Extent of Impervious Surface Retrofits via GSI XX Implementation on Privately-Owned Parcels in the City by 2020, 2030, and 2040 Table 5.3 Projected Cumulative Land Area Anticipated to be Addressed by GSI Facilities XX Installed on Private Property Table 8.1 City Plans/Policies and Status of GSI Integration Table 9.1 Potential GSI Funding Strategies for the City liSt of fiGURES Figure 1.4 Example of Bioretention Planter in Southgate Neighborhood, Palo Alto XX Figure 1.5 Tree Well with Suspended Pavement System XX Figure 1.6 Example of Permeable Interlocking Pavers XX Figure 1.7 Example of Pervious Concrete in Bellarmine School, San José XX Figure 1.8 Example of Porous Asphalt in Creekside Park, Los Gatos XX Figure 1.9 Example of Grid Pavement XX Figure 1.10 Infiltration Trench that Captures Runoff from Alley (City of San José Martha Gardens) XX Figure 1.11 Example of Subsurface Infiltration System XX Figure 1.12 Above-ground Cistern in Mills College, Oakland XX Figure 1.13 Subsurface Detention System (City of Philadelphia) XX Figure 1.14 Example of Green Roof XX TABLE OF CONTENTS ix Figure 1.15 Stanford/Palo Alto Community Playing Fields: Turf Fields with Below-Grade Facility; XX Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers (bottom left); and a Vegetated Swale (bottom right) Figure 1.16 Alma Street Infiltration Trench XX Figure 1.17 Southgate Neighborhood Green Street: Stormwater Curb Extension and XX Pervious Pavement Crosswalk Figure 1.18 Mitchell Park Community Center and Library: Green Roof; Bioretention Area in XX Parking Lot; and Pervious Pavement Parking Spaces Figure 1.19 Rinconada Library: Infiltration Trench (left) and Bioretention Area (right) XX Figure 1.20 Kellogg Ave. and Middlefield Rd. Three-way Intersection: Stormwater XX Curb Extension Figure 2.1 Land Use throughout the City (City of Palo Alto, 2014) XX Figure 2.2 Depth to Groundwater and Contamination Plume Approximate Limits XX Figure 3.1 City Staff Meetings for GSI Plan Development XX Figure 3.2 Inter-Agency Coordination XX Figure 4.1 City-Owned Properties and Proposed/Planned Projects Prioritized by Location XX Figure 5.1 Existing and Projected Cumulative Land Area Anticipated to be Addressed by XX GSI in the City of Palo Alto Figure 7.1 Example Detail of a Bioretention Planter XX Figure 9.1 Stormwater Management Fee Allocations XX Figure 10.1 City-Wide Outreach and Education Efforts XX Figure 10.2 Green Stormwater Infrastructure Utility Bill Insert, 2016 (front and back) XX Figure 10.3 Green Stormwater Infrastructure Utility Bill Insert, 2018 XX Figure 11.1 GSI Plan Acceptance Timeline XX Figure 13.1 Faces of Elysian Valley by Freyja Bardell and Brian Howe of XX Greenmeme (2010-2017) Figure 13.2 Examples of Downspout Designs (top: “Downspout 101” designed by Buster XX Simpson; bottom is borrowed from the book “Artful Rainwater Design: Creative Ways to Manage Stormwater) Figure 14.1 Maintenance on a Bioretention Feature XX Figure 14.2 Hoover Park Rain Garden in Palo Alto Planted by Grassroots Ecology XX Figure 15.1 Greenroads Evaluation—West Hacienda Avenue Green Street (City of Campbell) XX Figure 15.2 Examples of Rain Barrels Collecting Roof Runoff XX Figure 15.3 Examples of Roof Runoff Diverted to Site-Scale Landscaped Areas/Planters XX Figure 15.4 Examples of Diversion of Surface Runoff from Impervious Areas to Rain Gardens XX in a Neighborhood and Small Parking Lot liSt of aPPENDiCES Appendix A: Proposed Bikeways (per Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, 2012) XX Appendix B: Historic Land Use in 1980 XX Appendix C: Key Development Areas XX Appendix D: Localized Ponding and FEMA Flood Zone Designations XX Appendix E: Trash Generation Designations XX Appendix F: Parcel Slope XX Appendix G: Contaminated Groundwater Plume Approximate Limits XX Appendix H: Existing City-Owned GSI Locations XX Appendix I: Quadrant Reference Map for City-Owned Properties and Proposed/Planned XX Projects Prioritized by Location Appendix J: City-Owned Properties and Proposed/Planned Projects Prioritized by XX Location—Quadrant 1A Appendix K: City-Owned Properties and Proposed/Planned Projects Prioritized by XX Location—Quadrant 1B Appendix L: City-Owned Properties and Proposed/Planned Projects Prioritized by XX Location—Quadrant 2 x TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix M: City-Owned Properties and Proposed/Planned Projects Prioritized by XX Location—Quadrant 3 Appendix N: City-Owned Properties and Proposed/Planned Projects Prioritized by XX Location—Quadrant 4 Appendix O: City-Owned Prioritized Project Location List XX Appendix P: Integration with City Plans and Documents XX Appendix Q: Utilities Department—Electric Fund CIPs for 2019-2023 (FY18 Adopted XX Capital Budget) Appendix R: Utilities Department—Gas Fund CIPs for 2019-2023 (FY18 Adopted Capital XX Budget) Appendix S: Utilities Department—Wastewater Fund CIPs for 2019-2023 (FY18 Adopted XX Capital Budget) Appendix T: Utilities Department—Water Fund CIPs for 2019-2023 (FY18 Adopted Capital XX Budget) aBBREViatioNS ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments BASMAA Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association Bay San Francisco Bay BID Business Improvement District BPTP Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Caltrans California Department of Transportation CFD Community Facilities District CIP Capital Improvement Project County Santa Clara County CPA City of Palo Alto CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FY Fiscal Year GI Green Infrastructure GIS Geographic Information System GSI Green Stormwater Infrastructure Handbook SCVURPPP C.3 GSI Handbook IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan LID Low Impact Development MRP Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System O&M Operation and Maintenance OOT Office of Transportation P3 Public Private Partnership PAUSD Palo Alto Unified School District PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls POC Pollutant of Concern PWE Public Works Engineering RAA Reasonable Assurance Analysis RFP Request for Proposal ROW Right-of-Way RWQCB/Regional San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Board SCVURPPP Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program SDMP Storm Drain Master Plan SIP Sustainability Implementation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS xi SFEP San Francisco Estuary Partnership SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SLR Sea Level Rise SOP Standard Operating Procedure SOFA South of Forest Area State Water Board State Water Resource Control Board STORMS Strategy to Optimize Resource Management of Stormwater SWMF Stormwater Management Fee SWMOC Stormwater Management Oversight Committee SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board SWRP Stormwater Resource Plan TIF Transportation Impact Fee UBI Utility Bill Insert UFMP Urban Forestry Master Plan Valley Water Santa Clara Valley Water District VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Watershed Protection Public Works—Environmental Services—Watershed Protection Group 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS IntroductIon 1SeCTIon SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 3 4 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 CIty of Palo alto’s vIsIon The City has long been a leader in sustainability, in areas such as greenhouse gas emission reductions, zero waste, energy efficiency, wastewater quality, recycled water and urban forestry. This Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI)1 Plan (Plan) supports and widens the City’s commitment to sustainability by taking a first step in envisioning a different way of managing its stormwater at its source, decreasing water quality impacts to local creeks, Baylands, and the San Francisco Bay (Bay), and harnessing its benefits instead of treating it as a nuisance. This Plan establishes a guidance framework to integrate GSI measures into the City’s urban landscape in combination with targeted, traditional (gray) storm drain system infrastructure improvements to manage intense, large storms. An increase of GSI measures throughout the City can achieve multiple direct and indirect benefits (see Section 1.3.1). Furthermore, the integration of GSI into the current storm drain system may provide cost-effective solutions when strategically planned and implemented. This Plan provides an opportunity to evaluate the use of and determine the balance of both green and gray approaches to manage the City’s stormwater and at the same time provide other benefits to residents and others who work in or visit the City. Due to its close proximity to the Bay and its changing tides as well as local geology, the City has experienced frequent flooding, from localized ponding issues at street intersections to much more significant amounts that have damaged private properties and public infrastructure. As a result, the City has focused on improving deficiencies in its “gray” storm drain system and maintaining it in optimal condition. However, the impervious nature of cities does not allow rain to infiltrate into the ground and instead increases the rate that stormwater runoff (rainfall that flows over the ground surface) reaches receiving creeks and the Bay. These large volumes of water can erode creeks and wash away important habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates that live in the creek or the Bay. Moreover, stormwater runoff picks up many different pollutants that are found on paved surfaces such as sediment, bacteria, oil and grease, trash, pesticides and metals. These pollutants come from a variety of sources, including pet waste, lawn fertilization, cars, construction sites, illegal dumping and spills, and pesticide application. These pollutants have created havoc in our creeks and the Bay. The use of GSI can help mitigate the urbanization impacts to our City. 1.2 the PurPose of thIs DoCument This Plan is the first step (or phase) in realizing the City’s Vision. This phase focuses on outlining how to implement the vision on City-owned properties by identifying an information-based, decision-making process to identify and prioritize City properties for potential future GSI project opportunities. In addition, this Plan defines GSI and Low Impact Development (LID) and provides examples that exist in Palo Alto; assesses project opportunities as part of City projects that are planned or proposed by City Departments; identifies prioritization criteria; provides background regarding Plan development; and sets a framework for implementation. The idea of projects in the City’s right-of-way (e.g., streets, sidewalks and planter strips) is briefly explored; however, the next phase will assess project opportunities in right-of-way locations and prioritize them throughout the City, focus on various implementation actions and identify opportunities to increase GSI on private properties, both residential and non-residential. Although this Plan focuses on retrofitting the City’s current developed areas, it also notes the importance of the City’s open space areas and Baylands, important natural (or green) infrastructure that helps infiltrate rain, protects the City from climate change impacts, and supports a variety of plant and animal species. These valuable resources are outlined in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Therefore, this Plan focuses on Green Stormwater (or built) Infrastructure, which provides an important connection to the aforementioned plans. In addition, this Plan meets the requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP) for Phase I municipalities and agencies in the Bay Area (Order R2-2015-0049). One of the MRP’s requirements is a GSI Plan and particular elements that are outlined in Table 1.1. This table also lists other sections that were included to ensure success of both the Plan’s implementation and the GSI measures themselves. 1Although the MRP uses the term green infrastructure (GI), the agencies within Santa Clara County, including the City of Palo Alto, prefer to use the term green stormwater infrastructure (GSI). Henceforward, the term GSI will be used. SeCTI on 1 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 5 1.3 green stormwater InfrastruCture 1.3.1 IntroDuCtIon “Green Stormwater Infrastructure” (GSI) is engineered or man-made infrastructure that is based on natural processes to manage stormwater runoff, creating a sustainable system to manage stormwater (Figure 1.1). GSI is an alternative to traditional, “gray” storm drain infrastructure, providing a vehicle for rain and stormwater to infiltrate, to reduce and/or treat pollutants, and in some cases, to provide water use opportunities for irrigation or toilet flushing to lower demand on potable water. The following describes a variety of benefits: • direct benefits such as improving stormwater quality by reducing pollutants conveyed in stormwater to local creeks and the Bay; slowing and reducing flows to the storm drain system and receiving waters; and providing opportunities for rainwater capture and use; AND • ancillary benefits such as include reduce ponding and localized flooding2; increased tree canopy; decreased urban island effect and climate change impacts; improved air quality; enhanced pedestrian taBle 1.1: SummarY of GSI Plan elementS GSi Plan Elements GSi Plan Section MRP Requirement Project Identification and Prioritization Mechanism 4 X Prioritized Project Locations and Timeframes Appendix O X Completed Project Tracking System 6 X Guidelines and Specifications 7 X Integration with other Plans 8 X Evaluation of Funding Options 9 X Implementation Mechanisms 14 X Outreach and Education 10 X Impervious Surface Targets 5 X Hydrologic Sizing Requirements Appendix Q X Implementation Schedule 15 Maintenance and Monitoring Manual 14.6 Plan Adoption 11 2This Plan defines ponding and localized flooding as less than six inches; however, this definition may be amended after further research. In addition, after performance assessments, the City may find that GSI may be used in areas that have larger amounts of ponding. Source: phillywatersheds.org Figure 1.1: Example of a Sustainable Stormwater Drainage System (managed with both Green and Gray Infrastructure) 6 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION and bicycle transportation facilities; and increasing ecological habitat. GSI can be applied at various scales, from a parcel or street to a neighborhood or commercial area. At a larger scale, GSI can refer to the patchwork of larger areas that provides habitat, runoff reduction, cleaner water, and cleaner air. At a smaller scale, GSI refers to engineering systems that mimic the natural hydrologic cycle by capturing, storing, evapotranspiring, and treating water. Examples include, but are not limited to, landscape-based stormwater “biotreatment” or “bioretention” using soil and plants ranging in size from grasses and shrubs to trees; pervious paving systems (e.g., interlocking concrete pavers, porous asphalt, and pervious concrete); rainwater harvesting systems (e.g., cisterns); and other methods to capture and use stormwater as a resource. Low Impact Development (LID), a subset of larger- scale GSI systems, focuses on designing a site to minimize impervious cover and implementation of practices that can be employed at the parcel-level to control stormwater on-site. These type of practices focus on the infiltration3, evapotranspiration4 and the harvesting and use of rainwater. Site design can include disconnecting downspouts and diverting site runoff to landscaping or other permeable features to infiltrate all or the majority of runoff (created by large or long-term storms), thereby managing the amount of pollutants and flows created on-site. These types of LID measures are generally not “engineered” with off- site soils or other especially chosen materials, but are rather a result of site and construction design. 1.3.2 gsI on CIty rIght-of-way This Plan refers to the establishment of GSI on City- owned properties to manage stormwater runoff on-site at the parcel level, such as with pervious pavement and bioretention areas, to infiltrate runoff and minimize flows to the street and storm drain system. However, the City’s right-of-way, which includes streets, sidewalks, planter strips, and medians, can also be retrofitted with GSI during transportation improvement or significant maintenance projects, creating “Green (or Sustainable) Streets.” Green Streets are usually created in combination with a street design approach in mind called “Complete Streets” (Figure 1.2), which incorporates all modes of travel equally, particularly to increase safety and access for bicyclists and pedestrians. Smart Growth America, an 3SCVURPPP defines “infiltration” as the use of filtration, adsorption, and biological decomposition properties of soils to remove pollutants prior to the intentional routing of stormwater runoff to subsurface storage for potential groundwater recharge. 4SCVURPPP defines “evapotranspiration” as the loss of water to the atmosphere by the combined processes of evaporation (from soil and plant surfaces) and transpiration (from plant tissues). Figure 1.2: Examples of a Street (top, before) Designed with a “Complete Street” Approach (below, after) Source: urbanland.uli.org SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 7 SeCTI on 1 organization that focuses on strategic urban planning and development, provides helpful resources to fully understand this well-established approach, which can be referenced in City design. California became the first state to adopt legislation, with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signing Assembly Bill 1358 to establish the Complete Streets Act in 2008. The law, which took effect in 2011, requires cities and counties, when updating their general plans, to ensure that local streets and roads meet the needs of all users. The integration of the goals of both Complete Streets and Green Streets has coined several new terms such as “Living Streets,” “Better Streets” and “Sustainable Streets.” This movement recognizes that environmentally and holistically designed streets achieve multiple benefits: increased multi-modal travel and safety; clean water and air; climate change resilience and mitigation; placemaking and community cohesion; habitat; and energy savings. Types of GSI that might be used in Green Streets include, but are not limited to, the following (Figure 1.3): • Bioretention planters in the planting area/strip between the curb and sidewalk or as a “bulb-out” to make a street more narrow or add a bicycle or pedestrian feature; • Pervious pavement in sidewalks, pedestrian walkways or a bike or parking lane. Particular types and designs may be used in streets where appropriate; and • Trees planted to provide shade, cooling and pedestrian safety This Plan focuses on identifying, creating and prioritizing GSI opportunities throughout the City at the parcel-scale, with the second phase focusing on the street and neighborhood scale with the intention of spreading and connecting these measures throughout the City over time. Figure 1.3: Examples of Applications of GSI in a Street and Sidewalk Sources: nacto.org (top left and right); foresthills.com (bottom) 8 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.3.4 tyPes of gsI measures This Section describes types of GSI measures, some of which can be designed and integrated into a combination of applications to the: (1) property or site; and/or (2) City right-of-way or private parking lots, sidewalks and walkways. Some of these features may be best placed within the City right-of-way in order to maximize resources and stormwater management. Although private property owners may use this Section as a general introduction, it should be noted that this Section was focused on the first phase purpose of this Plan, which focuses on City-owned property. A description of the following is provided below: (1) bioretention; (2) stormwater tree well filters and suspended pavement systems; (3) pervious pavement; (4) infiltration facilities; (5) rainwater harvesting and reuse facilities; and (6) green roofs. The preservation, restoration and creation of open space and natural areas have been one of the City’s goals for many years. Per the City’s “Comprehensive Plan 2030” (adopted in 2017), over one-third of the City’s land area consists of designated Open Space and Public Conservation Land, with most located outside of the densely populated urban section of the City. Although a portion of this land is privately-owned, the majority is devoted to passive use that supports diverse ecosystems, natural assets and wildlife. Moreover, upland/foothill areas act like sponges, allowing rain to be intercepted by vegetation and infiltrate in soils, leading to a significant reduction in stormwater runoff to the downstream watershed. In addition, the City’s Baylands, along the City’s entire shoreline along the Bay, support the spreading of stormwater runoff over its marshlands and filtering of pollutants before flowing into the Bay. Thus, continuing to preserve and restore these open space areas is an important of aspect of managing stormwater with a non-gray approach; however, it is not intended to be a highlight of this Plan as they are not constructed or engineered to treat or retain stormwater. Bioretention areas Bioretention areas (Figure 1.4), also known as biotreatment measures, are depressed landscaped areas that consist of a ponding area, mulch layer, plants, and a special soil media composed of sand and compost, underlain by drain rock and an underdrain, if required. Bioretention is designed to retain stormwater Figure 1.4: Example of Bioretention Planter in Southgate Neighborhood, Palo Alto Source: EOA, Inc. SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 9 SeCTI on 1 runoff, filter runoff through biotreatment soil media and plant roots, and either infiltrate runoff to underlying soils as allowed by site conditions or release treated runoff to the storm drain system. In some cases, these systems are designed so that infiltration may occur but can also overflow to the storm drain system during large storms. Bioretention areas may be placed in a variety of locations on parcels and within the street right-of-way. Planter strips between sidewalks and curbs may provide space for bioretention, and curb bulb-outs and curb extensions installed for pedestrian access and improved visibility and other transportation benefits can also provide opportunities for siting bioretention facilities. Parking lots can accommodate bioretention areas of any shape in medians, corners, and pockets of space unavailable for parking. Types of bioretention systems in the streetscape are called stormwater planters, stormwater curb extensions, and stormwater tree well filters (described in the following Section). The configuration of the street and sidewalk, the right-of-way width, and existing and intended uses of the right-of-way dictate which type of system is most appropriate and feasible. A stormwater planter is a linear bioretention facility in the public right-of-way along the edge of the street, in back of either the existing curb or sidewalk. They are deeper than landscaped areas along sidewalks and are designed to have a flat bottom with vertical (typically concrete) sides; however, they can also have sloped sides depending on the amount of space that is available and proximity to sidewalks or paved areas. A stormwater curb extension (or bulb-out) is a bioretention system that extends into the roadway and involves modification of the curb line and gutter. Stormwater curb extensions may be installed midblock or at an intersection. Stormwater curb extensions and bulb-outs have the added benefits of decreasing street widths and pedestrian crossing distances, and reducing vehicle speed, which can increase bicyclist and pedestrian safety. stormwater tree well filters and suspended Pavement systems A stormwater tree well filter is a type of bioretention system consisting of an excavated pit or vault that is filled with biotreatment soil media, planted with a tree and other vegetation, and underlain with drain rock and an underdrain, if needed. Stormwater tree well filters can be constructed in series and linked via a subsurface trench or underdrain. A stormwater tree well filter can require less dedicated space than other bioretention areas. Suspended pavement systems may be used to provide increased underground treatment area and soil volume. These are structural systems designed to provide support for pavement while preserving larger volumes of uncompacted soil for tree roots. Suspended pavement systems may be any engineered system of structural slabs placed on structural supports or commercially available proprietary structural systems6. These systems allow use of a particular soil volume amount, as required by the City’s Urban Forestry Section of the Public Works Department. Stormwater tree well filters and suspended pavements systems (Figure 1.5) are especially useful in settings between existing sidewalk elements where available space is at a premium or if the site location allows additional catchment of runoff from the adjacent street. They can also be used in curb extensions or bulb-outs, medians, or parking lots if surrounding grades allow for drainage to those areas. The systems can be designed to receive runoff through curb cuts or catch basins, or allow runoff to enter through pervious pavers on top of the structural support. 6Various companies, such as GreenBlue Urban, Deeproot, and CityGreen, create comparable suspended pavement systems. Source: Deeproot Figure 1.5: Tree Well with Suspended Pavement System 10 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Pervious Pavement Pervious pavement is hardscape that allows water to pass through into the ground below. It reduces or eliminates stormwater runoff by providing open pore spaces or joints through which water can enter a storage area filled with gravel prior to infiltrating into the underlying soils or directed to the storm drain via an underdrain. Types of pervious pavement include permeable interlocking concrete pavers (Figure 1.6), pervious concrete (Figure 1.7), porous asphalt (Figure 1.8), and grid pavement (Figure 1.9). Pervious pavement is often used in parking areas or on low- speed residential roads with limited vehicle traffic that are not frequently used by larger heavy vehicles where bioretention is not feasible due to space constraints or if there is a need to maintain parking. Pervious pavement does not require a dedicated surface area for treatment and allows a site to maintain its existing hardscape (as opposed to replacement with plant material). Porous asphalt and pervious concrete are similar to traditional asphalt and concrete, but do not include fine aggregates in the mixture, allowing water to pass through the surface. There are two types of pervious pavers: Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers and Permeable Pavers allow water to pass through the joint spacing between solid pavers, and Permeable Pavers allow water to pass through the paver itself and therefore can have tighter joints. Figure 1.6: Example of Permeable Interlocking Pavers Figure 1.7: Example of Pervious Concrete in Bellarmine School, San José Source: stormwater.allianceforthebay.org/ Source: EOA, Inc. Figure 1.8: Example of Porous Asphalt in Creekside Park, Los Gatos Source: EOA, Inc. Figure 1.9: Example of Grid Pavement Source: NACTO SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 11 SeCTI on 1 Infiltration facilities Where soil conditions and the depth of the water table (depth to groundwater) permit, infiltration facilities can be used to capture stormwater and infiltrate it into native soils. The two primary types are infiltration trenches (Figure 1.10) and subsurface infiltration systems (Figure 1.11). An infiltration trench is an excavated trench backfilled with a stone aggregate, and lined with a filter fabric. Infiltration trenches collect and detain runoff, store it in the void spaces of the aggregate, and allow it to infiltrate into the underlying soil. Infiltration trenches can be used along roadways, alleyways, and the edges or medians of parking lots. Subsurface infiltration systems may be used beneath parking lots or parks to infiltrate larger quantities of runoff. These systems, also known as infiltration galleries, are underground vaults or pipes that store and infiltrate stormwater while preserving the uses of the land surface above parking lots, parks and playing fields. Storage can take the form of large-diameter perforated metal or plastic pipe, or concrete arches, concrete vaults, plastic chambers or crates with open bottoms. Prefabricated, modular infiltration galleries are available in a variety of shapes, sizes, and material types that are strong enough for heavy vehicle loads. Figure 1.10: . Infiltration Trench that Captures Runoff from Alley (City of San José Martha Gardens) Figure 1.11: Example of Subsurface Infiltration System Source: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=5722 Source: https://www.conteches.com/stormwater-management/detention-and-infiltration/terre-arch-detention-and-infiltration 12 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION rainwater harvesting and use facilities Rainwater harvesting is the process of collecting rainwater from impervious surfaces and storing it for later use. Storage facilities that can be used to harvest rainwater include rain barrels, above-ground or below- ground cisterns (Figure 1.12), open storage reservoirs (e.g., ponds), and various underground storage devices, such as tanks, vaults, pipes, and proprietary storage systems (Figure 1.13). The harvested water is then fed into irrigation systems or non-potable water plumbing systems, either by pumping or by gravity flow. Uses of captured water may include irrigation, vehicle washing, and indoor non-potable use such as toilet flushing, heating and cooling, or industrial processing. The two most common applications of rainwater harvesting systems are (1) collection of roof runoff from buildings; and (2) collection of runoff from at-grade surfaces or diversion of water from storm drains into large underground storage facilities below parking lots or parks. Rooftop runoff usually contains lower quantities of pollutants than at-grade surface runoff, and can be collected via gravity flow. Underground storage systems typically include mechanical pre- treatment facilities to remove pollutants or micro- organisms from stormwater prior to storage and use. Figure 1.12: Above- ground Cistern in Mills College, Oakland Figure 1.13: Subsurface Detention System (City of Philadelphia) Source: EOA, Inc. Source: Philadelphia Water Department SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 13 SeCTI on 1 green roofs Green roofs (Figure 1.14) are vegetated roof systems that filter, absorb, and retain or detain the rain that falls upon them. Green roof systems are comprised of a layer of planting media planted with vegetation, underlain by other structural components including waterproof membranes, synthetic insulation, geofabrics, and underdrains. A green roof can be either “extensive,” with 3 to 7 inches of lightweight planting media and low-profile, low-maintenance plants, or “intensive,” with a thicker (8 to 48 inches) of media, more varied plantings, and a more garden-like appearance. Green roofs can provide high rates of rainfall retention, at both commercial and residential scales given proper design, via plant uptake and evapotranspiration and can decrease peak flow rates in storm drain systems because of the storage that occurs in the planting media during rain events. 1.3.5 examPles of exIstIng gsI measures wIthIn the CIty of Palo alto The City has been a leader in the implementation of LID and GSI techniques since the early 2000’s. It was one of the first cities in the Bay Area to establish a storm drain utility and adopt a property-based fee in 2005 for managing its drainage infrastructure and complying with water quality requirements. It was also one of the first cities to establish a Stormwater Measures Rebate Program, introduced in 2008, for residents, businesses, and City departments. The Rebate Program provides rebates for capturing rainwater in rain barrels or cisterns, constructing or reconstructing driveways, patios, walkways, and parking lots with permeable pavement, and constructing green roofs. The City has been requiring private developers to comply with permit requirements for installing stormwater treatment measures on their properties since 2003 (see Section 1.4). In addition, the City has constructed a number of LID and GSI facilities on public property and rights-of-way. Descriptions of these facilities are provided below. Refer to Appendix H for a map of all GSI locations on City property. stanford/Palo alto Community Playing fields The Community Playing Fields, also known as Mayfield Sports Park, is a soccer complex at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real funded by Stanford University and operated by the City. Constructed in 2005, the project included two artificial turf playing fields that drain to a below-grade infiltration facility (rock dry well) on the site. The site also contains Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers in the plaza area between the fields and a vegetated swale in the parking lot along El Camino Real. These GSI measures were among the first of their kind, installed before regulatory requirements mandated their use, and served as an example of green design to other communities (Figure 1.15). Figure 1.14: Green Roof Example Source: Hydrotech 14 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION alma street Infiltration trench To address flooding issues on Alma Street, this project involved installation of an infiltration trench along the west side of Alma, from Loma Verde to San Antonio (Figure 1.16). Roadway runoff drains through cuts in the asphalt curb into the trench and infiltrates into the soil. Completed in 2008, this is the City’s first GSI project in a street right-of-way. southgate neighborhood green street The Southgate Neighborhood is a single-family residential neighborhood, which was designed in the 1920s to have a storm drainage pattern based on gutter flows, and thus, with no storm drain system infrastructure. Over time, drainage problems within the neighborhood resulted in extended stormwater ponding. The City decided to retrofit the neighborhood to improve surface drainage and incorporate green street elements to improve water quality. The treatment measures include 16 bioretention areas, pervious pavement crosswalks, and a pervious pavement “paseo” (pedestrian walkway connecting two streets). The bioretention areas were incorporated into the street right-of-way and existing parkway strips (vegetated areas between the sidewalks and the streets) (Figure 1.17). Selected crosswalks were reconstructed using pervious pavement that intercept and infiltrate storm runoff (Figure 1.17). The project was completed in 2014. It was constructed using extra Rebate Program funds that had accumulated over several years, along with other funding sources. mitchell Park Community Center The new Mitchell Park Library & Community Center on Middlefield Road includes a two‐story, 41,000 square Figure 1.15: Stanford/Palo Alto Community Playing Fields: turf fields with below-grade facility; permeable interlocking concrete pavers (bottom left); and a vegetated swale (bottom right) Source: EOA, Inc. SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 15 SeCTI on 1 foot library building and a 15,000 square foot single‐ story community center and court yard. The project includes approximately 11,000 square feet of green roof, a living green wall, bioretention areas, pervious paving in the parking area, and rainwater harvesting (Figure 1.18). The project was completed in 2014, and the building received a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum certification. The project was funded by a bond measure (Measure N), passed in November 2008 by City of Palo Alto voters. rinconada library The rehabilitation of the Rinconada Library in 2014 preserved the historical character of the original 1958 Edward Durell Stone building, while adding a new program room and group study rooms to expand and enhance the facility’s functionality. Special consideration was taken to preserve existing trees and not disturb existing site features. The project provided LID treatment using biotreatment areas that treat both on-site stormwater runoff (Figure 1.19) and groundwater pumped from underneath both the Library and the Art Center structures. The project was funded by a bond measure (Measure N), passed in November 2008 by City of Palo Alto voters. kellogg avenue and middlefield road Intersection Improvements Middlefield Road at Kellogg Avenue is a busy street with frequent pedestrian crossings to access Walter Hays Elementary School, the Junior Museum and Zoo, and Lucie Stern Community Center. To improve pedestrian access at this intersection, curb bulb-outs at the ends of Kellogg Avenue and curb extensions on Middlefield Road Figure 1.16: Alma Street Infiltration Trench Source: Google Street View Figure 1.17: Southgate Neighborhood Green Street: stormwater curb extension and pervious pavement crosswalk Source: EOA, Inc. 16 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION were installed in 2018 to reduce the pedestrian crossing distance and increase pedestrian visibility to drivers. Four bioretention areas were constructed within the curb bulb- outs and extensions (Figure 1.20). Charleston/arastradero Corridor Project The 2.3-mile Charleston/Arastradero Corridor is a residential-arterial road that is undergoing major modifications to reduce traffic speeds, provide safer conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists, and beautify the streetscape. The project includes the installation of landscaped medians, curb extensions/bulb- outs, enhanced bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and traffic signal modifications. Five bioretention facilities will be integrated into the traffic calming features. The expected completion date is 2020. gsI Projects Constructed in Partnership with the City Grassroots Ecology, a local non-profit organization, recently completed a number of GSI and native plant demonstration projects within the City, using grants from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) and partnerships with the City and the AmeriCorps Watershed Stewardship Program. These projects include: • Elizabeth F. Gamble Garden, 1431 Waverly St. – In 2018, a rain garden (bioretention facility) with native plants was constructed to capture runoff from the parking lot while providing habitat for birds and insects. A 260-gallon rainwater storage cistern collects runoff from the roof of the event center and drains to the rain garden facility. A 55-gallon rain barrel was also installed to collect roof runoff for irrigation. • Hoover Park, 2901 Cowper St. – In 2017, part of the park’s lawn area was replaced with a native rain garden that provides habitat for birds and insects while keeping pollutants from entering the storm drain. This site demonstrates the use of a 200-gallon water harvesting system to capture rainwater off the roof of the public bathroom and drip-irrigate the stone-lined garden. • Peninsula Conservation Center, 3921 E. Bayshore Rd. – In 2017, non-native Indian Hawthorn shrubs were replaced with a native rain garden that slows and sinks rainwater while providing habitat for birds and insects. This site showcases a 500-gallon tank that captures rainwater off the roof and feeds it into the stone-lined garden. Figure 1.18: Mitchell Park Community Center and Library: green roof; bioretention area in parking lot; and pervious pavement parking spaces Source: Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. (top and bottom right) and EOA, Inc. SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 17 SeCTI on 1 other gsI examples The City continues to look for opportunities to include GSI measures in public projects where feasible. For example, the City installed pervious pavement at the San Francisquito and Matadero Pump Stations, as well as in the El Camino Park parking lot. In addition, the City is also planning or constructing a number of capital improvement projects (CIPs) that are required to install GSI measures per regional regulations (see Section 1.4), including replacement of Fire Station #3 on Embarcadero Road, the new Public Safety Building on Sherman Avenue, the new California Avenue Parking Garage, and the Highway 101 Pedestrian/ Bicycle Bridge Project. 1.4 regulatory Context 1.4.1 feDeral anD state regulatory DrIvers The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has authority under the Clean Water Act to promulgate and enforce stormwater-related regulations. For the State of California, EPA has delegated the regulatory authority to the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), which in turn, has delegated authority to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) to issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits in the San Francisco Bay Region. Stormwater NPDES permits allow stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (or storm drain systems) to local creeks, the Bay, and other water bodies as long as they do not adversely affect the beneficial uses of or exceed any applicable water quality standards for those waters. Since the early 2000’s, the EPA has recognized and promoted the benefits of using GSI in protecting drinking water supplies and public health, mitigating overflows from combined and separate storm sewers, and reducing stormwater pollution from storm drain systems (like those in the City of Palo Alto). It has also Figure 1.19: Rinconada Library: infiltration trench (left) and bioretention area Source: EOA, Inc. Figure 1.20: Kellogg Ave. & Middlefield Rd. three-way intersection: stormwater curb extension Source: EOA, Inc. 18 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION encouraged the use of GSI by municipal agencies as a prominent component of their municipal stormwater programs . The State Water Board and its Regional Water Boards followed suit in recognizing not only the water quality benefits of GSI, but also the opportunity to augment local water supplies in response to the impacts of drought and climate change. Moreover, the 2014 California Water Action Plan called for multiple benefit stormwater management solutions and more efficient permitting programs . These Federal and State initiatives have influenced approaches in Bay Area municipal stormwater permits, as described in Section 1.4.2. 1.4.2 regIonal regulatory DrIver: munICIPal regIonal stormwater PermIt The City is subject to the requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP) for Phase I municipalities and agencies in the Bay Area (Order R2-2015-0049), which became effective on January 1, 2016. The MRP applies to 76 large, medium and small municipalities (counties, cities, and towns) and flood control agencies that discharge stormwater to the Bay, collectively referred to as Permittees, as referenced in Figure 3.2. Over the last 13 years, under the current MRP and previous permits, new development and redevelopment projects on private and public property that exceed certain size thresholds (known as “Regulated Projects”) have been required to mitigate impacts on water quality by incorporating site design, pollutant source control, stormwater treatment and flow control measures (also known as GSI) as appropriate. Regulated Projects include new development and redevelopment for certain project types that create and/or replace at least 5,000 square feet of impervious surface (e.g. auto service facilities, gas stations, restaurants, and uncovered parking lots), as well as new development and redevelopment that creates and/or replaces at least 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces for certain projects. LID measures, such as disconnecting downspouts and diverting site runoff to landscaping, have been required on most Regulated Projects since December 2011. Construction of new roads is covered by these requirements, but projects related to existing roads and adjoining sidewalks and bike lanes are not regulated unless they include creation of an additional travel lane. 1.4.3 regulatory requIrement aDDresseD through the gsI Plan Provision C.3.j of the MRP requires the City to develop and implement a long-term GSI Plan for the inclusion of measures into storm drain infrastructure on public and private lands, including streets, roads, storm drains, parking lots, building roofs, and other elements. Per MRP requirements, the GSI Plan must be adopted by City Council by September 30, 2019. As previously stated, this phase of the Plan identifies how the City will move forward with integrating GSI into its own property and right-of-way, with the next phase focused on private project opportunities. As part of the GSI planning process, Provision C.3.j.i.(1) required Permittees to adopt a Green (Stormwater) Infrastructure Plan Framework (Framework) by June 30, 2017 and submit it to the Water Board by September 30, 2017. In compliance with this provision, the City completed a GSI Framework, which was signed by the City Manager and included tasks and timeframes that would be completed as part of the required elements of the GSI Plan. While Provision C.3.j of the MRP contains the GSI program planning and analysis requirements, other provisions (C.11 and C.12) establish a linkage between public and private GSI features and required reductions in pollutant discharges. Permittees in Santa Clara County (County), collectively, must implement GSI on public and private property to achieve specified pollutant load reduction goals by the years 2020, 2030, and 2040. These efforts will be integrated and coordinated county-wide for the most effective and resource-efficient program. As an indication as to whether these load reductions will be met, Permittees must include in their GSI Plans estimated “targets” for the amounts of impervious surface to be “retrofitted” as part of public and private projects (i.e., redeveloped or changed such that runoff from those surfaces will be captured in a stormwater treatment system or GSI measure) over the same timeframes (2020, 2030, and 2040); these estimated targets are outlined in Section 5.0. A key part of the GSI definition in the MRP is the inclusion of GSI measures at both private and public property locations. This has been done in order to plan, analyze, implement and credit GSI for pollutant load reductions on a watershed scale, as well as recognize all GSI accomplishments within a municipality. Thus, the next phase of the GSI Plan may also establish opportunities to include GSI measures at private properties or in conjunction with private development, in order to assist with meeting the target load reductions on a county-wide level as well as implement GSI on a larger scale. ! ! FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAN D H I L L R D ALM A S T SEAL E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QUA 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 CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y PASTEU R D R CALI F O RNIA A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN 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 NF R A N C I S C O B A Y Los Altos Arastradero Preserve Baylands Preserve ByxbeePark 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 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 MP RE H E N S IV E P L A N L A N D U S E D E S I G N A T I O N S SECTION 2: CITY OF PALO ALTO DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND 19 cItY of Palo alto deScrIPtIon and BackGround 2SeCTIon 2.1 BaCkgrounD anD lanD use Incorporated in 1894 as the town to support Stanford University, the City of Palo Alto is located in northern Santa Clara County, in the mid-peninsula region of the Bay Area. The City is located between forested foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest, and the Bay and adjacent Baylands to the northeast. The City (Figure 2.1) can be described as a suburban residential community with a vibrant economy in the high technology and medical sectors. The commercial and mixed-use areas serve as the focal points for, and are within walking distance of, residential neighborhoods. They also include important civic buildings, schools, and parks for community use. The employment districts are relatively large districts with job-generating office, technology, and light industrial uses. The City’s open space preserves in the southern foothills and the Baylands make up a large portion of land within the City limit. While the City has a total land area of 25.79 square miles, approximately 59 percent of this area is protected open space. Development in the City is concentrated within the Urban Service Area, which has a land area of 13.95 square miles. The main land use areas in the City’s urban area can be categorized as residential neighborhoods, commercial centers and employment districts. There are about 35 residential neighborhoods in the City, which include single-family homes and multi-family structures. Of the estimated 28,500 housing units in the City, approximately 62 percent are single-family residential units. 2.2 surfaCe water BoDIes anD natural resourCes The City is located within three main watersheds: San Francisquito, Matadero, and Adobe Creeks. All of the creeks flow to the Bay and enter the Bay at the City’s Baylands. • San Francisquito Creek forms the northern border of the City adjacent to Menlo Park and East Palo Alto. The main tributaries to San Francisquito Creek are Corte Madera Creek (in Portola Valley and Stanford), Bear Creek (in Woodside and Menlo Park), and Los Trancos Creek (in Portola Valley and Stanford). • The Matadero Creek watershed includes Deer Creek, Arastradero Creek, the Stanford Channel, and 20 SECTION 2: CITY OF PALO ALTO DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Mayfield Slough. Except for the Stanford Channel, the watershed consists of natural channels upstream of El Camino Real. Downstream of El Camino Real to the Flood Control Basin, all of the creeks are engineered, concrete channels adjacent to or in the backyards of residences. • The Adobe Creek watershed drains south Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills, and Los Altos. Barron Creek is part of this watershed; it flows through south Palo Alto to meet Adobe Creek just before it enters the the Flood Control Basin. Both Adobe Creek and Barron Creek are mostly natural channels upstream of El Camino Real and are in engineered, concrete channels downstream of El Camino Real. Surface water bodies in the City of Palo Alto include ponds, lakes, creeks, and the Bay. Ponds and lakes include Boronda Lake in Foothills Park, and Arastradero Lake and John Sobey Pond in the Pearson- Arastradero Preserve. A freshwater marsh with open water habitat also occurs in the Emily Renzel Marsh portion of the Baylands Preserve. The City is one of 3,409 cities in the United States that holds the Arbor Day Foundation’s “Tree City USA” status due to its dense urban canopy and more than 300 different species throughout streets, parks, and other landscaped areas. Protecting, maintaining and enhancing the urban forest, as called for in the City’s 2015 Urban Forest Master Plan, is a high priority for the City. In addition, the City encompasses a variety of natural plant communities within a densely built environment. The Baylands and undeveloped land in the western hills contain undisturbed plant communities and habitat for a variety of species. The following natural plant communities exist within the City’s boundaries: (1) Annual Grassland (various locations); (2) Coastal Scrub (foothills); (3) Chamise Chaparral (foothills); (4) Forests (Redwood, Montane Hardwood-Conifer, Montane Hardwood in foothills); (5) Oak Woodland (foothills); and (6) Wetlands (Baylands). 2.3 grounDwater resourCes Although the City’s major water supplies are provided by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), the City maintains eight groundwater wells as an emergency water supply source and as a potential supply source for use during a prolonged drought. The groundwater quality of the City’s wells is considered fair SECTION 2: CITY OF PALO ALTO DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND 21 SeCTI on 2 Figure 2.1: Land Use throughout the City (City of Palo Alto, 2014) ! ! FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAN D H I L L R D ALM A S T SEAL E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QUA 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 CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y PASTEU R D R CALI F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN 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 ByxbeePark 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 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 MP RE H E N S IV E P L A N L A N D U S E D E S I G N A T I O N S 22 SECTION 2: CITY OF PALO ALTO DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND to good quality, but less desirable in comparison to SFPUC’s supplies. Except for maintenance purposes, the City has not operated these wells since 19911. The City is situated next to the southwest shoreline of the Bay, and shallow groundwater levels are highly influenced by its tides. The City has a shallow water table throughout much of the urban area with depth to groundwater levels from 5.0 to 20.0 feet below grade in most of the area east of El Camino Real. In addition, five main contaminated groundwater plumes as well as smaller ones are known to exist, as a result of historical land uses and chemical management practices (see Figure 2.2). Depth to groundwater and the presence of contaminated plumes are two factors that will influence the selection of locations and design of GSI measures and were important considerations when prioritizing potential GSI project areas in the City. 2.4 transPortatIon Regional vehicular access to Palo Alto is provided by Interstate 280 passing through the western part of the City, Highway 101 passing along the eastern perimeter of the City, and State Route 82 (El Camino Real) which passes through the heart of the City. The Palo Alto Transit Center is a regional transit hub with connections to Caltrain, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), San Mateo County Transit District, and Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District. Additionally, the City operates a free, public shuttle service, and Stanford University’s Figure 2.2: Depth to Groundwater and Contamination Plume Approximate Limits §¨¦280 ¬«82 £¤101 City of EastPalo Alto City ofLos Altos City of LosAltos Hills City ofMenlo Park City ofMountainView City ofAtherton StanfordUniversity FoothillExpressway Ea s t B a y s h o r e R o a d W estBayshoreRoad Charlesto n R o a d El C a m i n o R e a l SandHillRoad LomaVerdeAvenue Channing Avenue Unive r s i t y A v e n u e East M eado w Drive P a g e Mill R oad Loui s R o a d Orego n E x p r e s s w a y Alm a S t r e e t Colorad o A v e n u e Mid d l e f i e l d R o a d Embarcader o R o a d SanAntonioRoad Palo Alto Mountain View Los Altos Sunnyvale Cupertino Los AltosHills RCRC Moffett Field SA N FRA N C IS C O B AY Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS& 0 1 2 Miles I Source: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo AltoDate: November 2018 Legend City Limits Groundwater Plume Known Limits 500-foot Plume Buffer Depth to First Groundwater 0 to 10 ft. 10 to 20 ft. 20 to 30 ft. 30 to 50 ft. 50 to 100 ft. Greater than 100 1City of Palo Alto Urban Water Management Plan, 2015. 2The California Department of Finance estimates the current population of the City to be 69,721 as of January 1, 2018. SECTION 2: CITY OF PALO ALTO DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND 23 SeCTI on 2 Marguerite Shuttle provides free public bus service to destinations on the Stanford campus and at the Stanford Shopping Center. The City has approximately 65 miles of existing bikeways and adopted a Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan in July 2012. In addition to bikeways operated and maintained by the City, regional bikeways operated by VTA and San Mateo County provide connections to points throughout Palo Alto and beyond. The focus on bicycle and pedestrian safety throughout the City melds well with the goals of this GSI Plan. 2.5 PoPulatIon anD growth foreCasts According to the 2010 Census, the City has a population of 64,4032. The City experienced relatively stable and slow population growth from 1970 to 2000 but has been growing significantly faster since 2000, a trend that is projected to continue. Between 2000 and 2013, the City of Palo Alto was one of the fastest growing cities in the County, with an overall 13 percent increase (Comprehensive Plan, 2017). Estimates of future growth indicate a moderate and steady increase in population over the next 20 years. By the year 2035, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) estimates that the population of Palo Alto will reach 84,000. The City completed an update of its Comprehensive Plan in November 2017, and growth/development forecasts were developed as part of this process. These data were used in development of estimates of impervious surface retrofit targets for 2020, 2030, and 2040, as discussed in Section 5.0. Page IntentIonally left Blank 24 SECTION 3: PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND COORDINATION 25 Plan deVeloPment and coordInatIon 3SeCTIon 26 SECTION 3: PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND COORDINATION 3.1 Plan DeveloPment oversIght anD staff Involvement The City’s Stormwater Program Team , housed in the Watershed Protection Group (Watershed Protection) of the Public Works Department’s Environmental Services Division, managed the development of the GSI Plan, with support from a consultant team. Collaboration during Plan development involved creating a staff-level GSI Workgroup, made up of staff from various departments, including Public Works Engineering, Planning & Community Environment, Development, Utilities, and Community Services, that served as stakeholders of this Plan in some fashion. Meetings were held periodically with the Workgroup, with small staff meetings held in-between these periods to discuss pertinent topics in-depth. These meetings were facilitated by Watershed Protection staff. In addition, Watershed Protection staff attended various meetings to keep abreast of City projects that may be coordinated with the GSI Plan; developed relationships with project managers; gave presentations at Department staff meetings; and provided updates via email communications. Information obtained was imperative in helping to provide Plan direction, prioritize projects, outline City processes and obtain staff support across Departments. Figure 3.1 is a word cloud depicting the various Departments that collaborated together throughout the development of this Plan. Figure 3.1: City Staff Meetings for GSI Plan Development 3.2 PuBlIC PartICIPatIon There were several opportunities for public participation in the development of the GSI Plan. Updates on the development of the GSI Plan were presented at meetings with the Stormwater Management Oversight Committee (SWMOC), which was formed to review the expenditures of the proposed City’s Stormwater Management Fee (SWMF). During the development of the Plan, six SWMOC, publicly-noticed meetings were held, where an update was provided. Furthermore, Watershed Protection staff presented at the Parks and Recreation Commission in November 2018 and again in January 2019, as well as the Planning and Transportation Commission in January 2019 to provide background on the Plan and inform the Commissions of how the Plan aligns with the Commissions’ respective goals. The GSI Plan was accepted by Council on May 13 , 2019. Commission and City Council meetings are also publicly-noticed. In addition, a public meeting was held on March 26, 2019 to share the Plan with the public and obtain feedback before finalizing it. SECTION 3: PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND COORDINATION 27 SeCTI on 3 Finally, notification of both the 85 percent and 100percent Draft GSI Plan versions were sent out to key stakeholders, including but not limited to, Grassroots Ecology, Peninsula Watershed Forum, Save Palo Alto Groundwater, and neighborhood groups and local organizations. Moreover, a City webpage (www.cityofpaloalto.org/gsi) was established in July 2018 to provide information to the public and will be periodically updated. The drafts of the Plan were posted on the website, and the Final Plan will be posted here as well once accepted. Additional outreach efforts are described in Section 10.0. 3.3 sCvurPPP guIDanCe anD Inter-agenCy CoorDInatIon The City is a member of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), an association of thirteen cities and towns in the Santa Clara Valley, the County, and Valley Water that collaborate on stormwater regulatory activities and compliance. The City’s Plan was developed with support from SCVURPPP, which included technical guidance, templates, and completion of certain GSI Plan elements at the county-wide level. SCVURPPP Ba y   A r e a   M u n i c i p a l   R e g i o n a l   St o r m w a t e r   P e r m i t   ( M R P )   BASMAA   (Bay  Area-­‐wide)   Coun<es/Management  Areas   (Alameda,  Contra  Costa,  Santa  Clara,  San  Mateo,  Fairfield-­‐Suisun  and  Vallejo)   Municipali<es   (Local  level)   guidance and products are discussed in more detail in relevant Sections of the Plan. The City worked with other SCVURPPP member agencies to review, approve and fund GSI-related work plans and provide input on SCVURPPP technical guidance and products. City representatives regularly met with other agencies as part of SCVURPPP Management Committee meetings and C.3 Provision Oversight Ad Hoc Task Group meetings to discuss work products, issues and lessons learned related to Plan development and implementation. The City, via SCVURPPP, also coordinated with the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) on regional GSI guidance and received feedback through BASMAA from MRP regulators on GSI expectations and approaches. BASMAA members include other county-wide stormwater programs in Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo Counties, and area-wide programs in the Vallejo and Fairfield-Suisun portions of Solano County, whose participating municipalities are permittees under the MRP. Figure 3.2 illustrates this inter-agency coordination. Figure 3.2: Inter-Agency Coordination Page IntentIonally left Blank 28 SECTION 3: PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND COORDINATION §¨¦280 ¬«82 £¤101 City of EastPalo Alto City ofLos Altos City of LosAltos Hills City ofMenlo Park City ofMountainView City ofAtherton StanfordUniversity FoothillExpressway Calif o r n i a A v e n u e Ea s t B a y s h o r e R o a d We s t B a y s h o r e R o a d Los R o b l e s A v e n u e Charlesto n R o a d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R o a d Loma V e r d e A v e n u e Channing Avenue Page M i l l R o ad Unive r s i t y A v e n u e East Me a d o w D r i v e Loui s R o a d Orego n E x p r e s s w a y AlmaStreet Colorad o A v e n u e Mid d l e f i e l d R o a d Embarcader o R o a d SanAntonioRoad SAN F R A N CIS C O B A Y Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS& 0 0.5 1 Miles I Source: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo AltoDate: November 2018 Legend High Medium Low SECTION 4: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION MECHANISM 29 ProJect IdentIfIcatIon and PrIorItIZatIon mecHanISm 4SeCTIon 30 SECTION 4: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION MECHANISM 4.1 IntroDuCtIon To meet the requirements of the MRP, the City’s GSI Plan must describe the mechanism by which the City will identify, prioritize and map areas for potential and planned projects that incorporate GSI components in different drainage areas within the City. The mechanism must include the criteria for prioritization and outputs that can be incorporated into the City’s long-term planning and capital improvement processes. For the purposes of this Plan, Watershed Protection staff conducted a thorough assessment and an initial prioritization of potential GSI project locations on City-owned property. Locations within the right-of-way, areas such as streets and sidewalks, were prioritized as part of a county-wide effort; however, further prioritization of the City’s rights-of-way will be conducted in the future. Large private property owners in the City, such as Stanford and the Palo Alto Unified School District, are not required to create their own GSI Plans. Because the City does not have jurisdiction over these properties, they were not included in the prioritization process. However, the City will seek collaboration opportunities with both parties to integrate GSI throughout their jurisdictions. The prioritization process for City-owned properties involved two major steps. The quantitative prioritization mechanism used for the City’s GSI Plan was based on the process used in the Santa Clara Basin Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP). The SWRP (2018) was developed by SCVURPPP, in collaboration with Valley Water, on behalf of SCVURPPP member agencies. It establishes a county-wide, watershed- based planning and implementation guide for stormwater and dry weather runoff capture and use projects on publicly-owned land and rights-of-way. The SWRP produced a list of prioritized project locations eligible for future State implementation grant funds as the first step of the prioritization process. The second step in the prioritization process involved overlaying the City-specific criteria, planning areas, upcoming City projects and local knowledge onto the county-wide results to align the results of the SWRP process with the City’s priorities. The result is a list of proposed project locations for City-owned properties. The steps are described in detail below. 4.2 steP one: swrP PrIorItIzatIon summary Building on existing documents that describe the characteristics and water quality and quantity issues within the Santa Clara Basin (i.e., the portion of the County that drains to the Bay), the SWRP identified and prioritized multi-benefit GSI project locations throughout the Basin. A metrics-based approach was used for quantifying project location benefits, such as volume of stormwater infiltrated and/or treated and quantity of pollutants removed. The metrics- based analysis was conducted using hydrologic/ hydraulic and water quality models coupled with (map-based software) Geographic Information System (GIS) resources and other tools. The products of these analyses were a map of opportunity areas for GSI project locations throughout the Basin, an initial prioritized list of potential project locations, a limited list of project concepts across the Basin, and strategies for funding these and future projects. Table 4.1 provides a count of the identified projects throughout the County as well as the City. The process began by identifying and screening public parcels and public rights-of-way. GSI project location opportunities were categorized as LID, regional, or green streets projects. LID projects are GSI facilities that are built on a parcel to treat runoff generated from impervious surfaces on that parcel. Regional projects are larger-scale GSI projects that are intended to collect and treat runoff from a large drainage area, including runoff from on-site and off-site areas. LID project location opportunities were defined as GSI project opportunities identified on parcels with an area less than or equal to 0.25 acres, whereas regional GSI opportunities were identified on parcels with an area greater than 0.25 acres. Green street project location opportunities were defined as GSI project retrofit opportunities in the public right-of-way along existing street segments. The screening and prioritization metrics for these projects are described below. 4.2.1 ParCel-BaseD ProjeCt oPPortunItIes The screening criteria for LID and regional project locations were ownership (focusing only on public parcels), land use, and site slope. The screened parcels were then prioritized based on physical characteristics, proximity to flood-prone areas, proximity to potential pollutant sources, whether they were in a priority development area, whether they were within a defined SECTION 4: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION MECHANISM 31 proximity to a planned project, and whether the project was expected to have other benefits such as augmenting water supply, providing water quality source control, re-establishing natural hydrology, creating or enhancing habitat, and enhancing the community. Prioritization metrics for LID project scoring is available in the SWRP. Key metrics for regional project locations were the size of the parcel, size of the drainage area, and proximity to a storm drain (from which stormwater and dry weather flows could be diverted). The result of parcel prioritization was a list of potential project locations based on this criteria. This list was reviewed and updated by the City as part of Step Two (Section 4.3). 4.2.2 green street ProjeCt oPPortunItIes The screening criteria for green streets projects in the public right-of-way were ownership, surface material, slope, and speed limit. The screened public right-of- way street segments were then prioritized based on physical characteristics, proximity to storm drains, proximity to flood-prone areas, proximity to potential pollutant sources, whether they were in a priority development area, whether they were in proximity to a planned project, and whether the project was expected to have other benefits (similar to LID and regional projects). The initial prioritization process resulted in too many potential green streets project opportunities within the Santa Clara Basin. In order to identify the optimal locations for green street projects, the SWRP identified and mapped those street segments in each municipality’s jurisdiction with scores in the top 10 percent of ranked green street opportunities. A limited number of street segments from the top 10 percent of potential locations were reviewed by the City (Section 4.3). 4.3 steP two: CIty PrIorItIzatIon summary for CIty-owneD ParCels Watershed Protection staff followed a comprehensive process to further prioritize parcel-based project locations and certain Department projects that are not parcel-based, such as the Storm Drain Master Plan projects, beyond the SWRP regional level, so that the project locations met specific City needs. Projects from the Utilities Department were not prioritized at this time due to various utility conflicts that will be considered in Section 7.0; however, maps of the Utilities projects that are currently outlined in the Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Capital Budget document are included in Appendices Q – T. While streets were prioritized in the SWRP, staff did not further prioritize street project locations with additional City- specific criteria. However, staff did review the streets prioritized as “high” by the SWRP; staff will further review streets surrounding key development areas and parcel-based project locations identified as “high” priority in the future. Below is an outline of the steps taken by Watershed Protection staff to conduct the City-specific prioritization for project location opportunities. This Section provides additional detail to each of these steps. 4.3.1 overvIew of CIty PrIorItIzatIon stePs A. Updated SWRP proposed parcel (regional and LID) list. B. Developed prioritization criteria based on SWRP criteria, data review and staff recommendations. C. Determined which criterion should result in a higher prioritization based on the importance of project location characteristics. Then created SeCTI on 4 taBle 4.1: PuBlIc Parcel and Green StreetS ProJect locatIon oPPortunItIeS (Source: Santa clara BaSIn Stormwater reSource Plan, 2018) Project Type # Public Project Locations # City-owned Project Locations Regional 120 70 LID 152 84 Green Street 2758 2758 90th Percentile Green Street 250 250 total 3280 3162 32 SECTION 4: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION MECHANISM categories for each criterion to match those characteristics. D. Identified a value for criteria categories, with high-priority characteristics receiving a larger value than low-priority characteristics. E. Compared each project location against the criteria categories and assigned the appropriate value for each criterion to the project location based on its characteristics. F. Totaled the values for each project location. G. Calculated the 85th percentile to designate the “high priority” project locations. H. Calculated the 25th percentile to designate the “low priority” project locations. I. The remaining projects were designated as “medium priority” project locations. Part A: Updated SWRP Proposed Parcel (Regional and LID) List City staff adapted the parcel project location list from the SWRP effort described in Step One to create a final (draft) comprehensive City-specific project location list. As required by the MRP, the City has maintained a list of planned and constructed public projects that included GSI for the last three fiscal years (15-16, 16-17, and 17-18) and will continue to do so until the end of the permit term (approximately January 2020). Table 4.4 includes the currently planned projects that will include GSI. City staff reviewed the MRP list and ensured all projects were included in the overall list. All projects in the Fiscal Year 2018 Adopted Capital Budget document were assessed for GSI project location potential. If a project was determined to have potential, even that of ‘low,’ it was added to the existing project list. In addition, other sources such as the Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, the Storm Drain Master Plan and all City-owned properties were reviewed to create a comprehensive list. Once these potential project locations were compiled from various sources, staff analyzed these project locations by viewing locations on Google Earth, mapping projects in GIS, and by discussing projects with other City staff. Mapping these potential GSI project locations allowed staff to view their proximity to planned GSI projects, key development areas1 as well as other pertinent criteria. Part B: Developed Project Prioritization Criteria Next, staff developed the list of criteria below to be analyzed for each potential project location from the updated project location list (Part A). This criteria was a combination of the SWRP prioritization method, as well as new criteria that was deemed significant throughout GSI Workgroup meetings and discussions with City staff, as outlined below in Table 4.2. All project locations were compared against this criteria to ultimately produce a prioritization of high, medium, and low priority project locations. The following section outlines each criterion (bulleted) and provides a description of the information deemed important for that criterion. This information led to choosing the categories and allocated values defined in Table 4.3 (for those with the green categories listed below). • Project Status Planned CIPs/bikeway projects received a higher priority than non-planned projects according to the FY 2018 Adopted Capital Budget document. Since the CIP document identifies projects that are incorporated within the City’s long-term budget, they received a higher priority than projects that do not yet have allocated funding. • Prioritization Criterion Criterion Categories Project Status Planned in FY18 Adopted Capi- tal Budget Not planned in FY18 Adopted Capital Budget • Proximity to Proposed Bikeway Projects Project locations that are adjacent to a proposed bikeway project according to the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2012) received a higher priority than project locations that are not adjacent to any proposed bikeway projects. Since the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan identifies projects with a higher likelihood of being implemented, there is a greater opportunity for coordinating projects with GSI measures on-site. Refer to Appendix A for a map of these proposed bikeway projects. Prioritization Criterion Criterion Categories Proximity to Proposed Bikeway Projects Adjacent to a proposed bikeway project Not adjacent to a proposed bikeway project 1Key development areas are locations throughout the City that provide opportunities for comprehensive planning between mixed-use buildings, housing, transportation, and GSI. See Appendix C for more information. SECTION 4: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION MECHANISM 33 SeCTI on 4 • Parcel area Parcels that are greater than or equal to 0.25 acres received a higher priority than parcels that are less than 0.25 acres. Parcels that are at least 0.25 acres provide an opportunity for implementing a stormwater runoff capture or treatment project that can treat a larger drainage area, whereas parcels that are less than 0.25 acres are more limited to on- site projects. Prioritization Criterion Criterion Categories Parcel Area > 0.25 acres < 0.25 acres • land Use (Current) Parcels with a current land use dedicated to parking and transportation received the highest priority due to the large amounts of impervious cover associated with these land uses. Parcels with a current land use dedicated to commercial use, public parks, office parks, SOFA I/ II-designations2, and major institutions received the next highest priority. Parcels with commercial use, office parks, and major institutions typically include larger amounts of impervious surface on-site. SOFA I/ II areas may not have as high amounts of impervious areas as parking lots; however, they can be ideal candidates for regional GSI projects that align with other community benefits. Public parks can be ideal candidates for larger GSI projects, such as stormwater retention on-site, due to the larger amounts of pervious surface accessible in parks. Parcels with a land use dedicated to residential use, open space, public conservation land, or schools received the lowest priority. The MRP does not provide the City jurisdiction over the Palo Alto Unified Public School District (PAUSD), and as such, PAUSD is not required to comply with the GSI requirements under Provision C.3 of the MRP. However, voluntary or partnership GSI project opportunities exist at many PAUSD properties. The open space and public conservation land areas within the City are considered a lower priority since most have a parcel slope greater than fifteen percent, which presents additional design challenges. Furthermore, these areas already provide, by design, natural processes that result in a reduction in stormwater runoff and pollutants. Residential spaces are also included in this lower priority category, since residential properties typically include smaller parcel areas with smaller drainage areas and contribute less pollutants than higher priority land uses. Prioritization Criterion Criterion Categories Land Use (Current) Parking lots and transportation Commercial, public parks, of- fice parks, SOFA I/II, and major institutions Residential, open space, public conservation land, and schools • land Use (Historic) Project locations that had an “industrial” land use designation in 1980 or project locations that were adjacent to a parcel that had an “industrial” land use designation in 1980 received a higher priority than non-industrial land uses from this 1980 time period, as past industrial uses have been linked to various pollutants that caused significant impacts to the environment. These parcels are identified as “old industrial” in Appendix B. Parcels identified as “old urban” in Appendix C include parcels that depict urbanized areas in 1980. Parcels identified as “open space” in Appendix B include undeveloped land. Since pollutant sampling data is not available on a widespread scale throughout the City, parcels with an industrial land use in 1980 serve as a proxy for potential pollutant indicators. Implementing GSI measures can assist with filtering out and treating any legacy pollutants that may have resulted from past industrial uses. Prioritization Criterion Criterion Categories Land Use (Current) "Industrial" in 1980 Not "industrial" in 1980 • Key Development areas Projects that are located within one of the key development areas throughout the City— California Ave. Priority Development Area, 2SoFA encompasses a nine block area located south of Forest Avenue. The City developed two SoFA Coordinated Area Plans—SoFA I and SoFA II—to define future land uses and guide development in this area. 3Major institutions are defined as governmental uses and lands that are either publicly-owned or operated as non-profit organizations. 34 SECTION 4: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION MECHANISM Downtown Business Improvement District, North Ventura Coordinated Area, and SOFA I/II areas— received a higher priority than projects located outside one of these areas. Refer to Appendix C for an outline of these areas. Prioritization Criterion Criterion Categories Key Development Areas Located within key development area Located outside of key develop- ment area • localized Ponding City staff identified areas of localized ponding during various GSI Workgroup and small meetings. Projects that are located within an area identified to have localized ponding following rain events received a higher priority than projects located in an area without ponding. The former also tend to be in areas with a higher water table. Refer to Appendix D for a map of these areas. Prioritization Criterion Criterion Categories Localized Ponding Located within areas of localized ponding Located outside of areas of localized ponding • flood Zone Designation Project locations that are outside of a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), including Zones D and X, received a higher priority than areas located within an SFHA. Project locations within an SFHA that are further inland from the Bay, including Zones A, AO, and AH, received the second highest priority. Project locations that are within an SFHA and also alongside the Bay received the lowest priority. Project locations that are closer to the Bay are more likely to have clay soils, which do not allow for infiltration or detention. As a result, project locations closer to the Bay received lower priority. Refer to Appendix D for a map of these areas. FEMA defines each flood zone as the following: o Zone X is an area between the limits of the 100- year and 500-year floods. o Zone D is a moderate risk flood area with possible but undetermined flood hazards. o Zone A is a high risk flood area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood event generally determined using approximate methodologies (i.e. no depths or base flood elevations are shown within these zones. o Zone AO is a high risk flood area subject to inundation by 1 percent annual chance shallow flooding (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain) where average depths are between one and three feet. o Zone AH is a high risk flood area subject to inundation by 1 percent annual chance shallow flooding (usually areas of ponding) where average depths are between one and three feet. o Zone VE is a high risk flood area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood event with additional hazards due to storm- induced velocity wave action. o Zone AE is a high risk flood area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood event determined by detailed methods (i.e. base flood elevations are provided for these areas). Prioritization Criterion Criterion Categories Flood Zone Designa- tion FEMA-designated Zones D and X FEMA-designated Zones A, AO, and AH FEMA-designated Zones VE and AE • trash Generation Designation The City has four trash generation designations, including very high, high, moderate, and low. The MRP defines “very high” areas as areas that generate greater than 50 gallons/acre/year of trash; ‘high” areas as areas that generate 10-50 gallons/acre/year of trash; “moderate” areas as areas that generate 5-10 gallons/acre/year of trash; and “low” areas as areas that generate less than 5 gallons/acre/year of trash. Refer to Appendix E for a map of these areas. Project locations that are adjacent to parcels with a “very high” trash generation designation received the highest priority; project locations that are adjacent to parcels with a “low” trash generation designation received the lowest priority. Since certain GSI measures can act as trash capture devices if designed and maintained properly, prioritizing GSI in higher trash generation areas may assist with lowering the trash generation designation. SECTION 4: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION MECHANISM 35 SeCTI on 4 Prioritization Criterion Criterion Categories Trash Generation Des- ignation Very high High Moderate Low • Proximity to Groundwater Plume approximate limits Projects that are located at least 500 feet outside of a groundwater plume approximate limits received a higher priority than projects located on or within 500 feet of a groundwater plume approximate limits. Projects located within 500 feet of a groundwater plume approximate limits received lower priority, since project locations within these areas require additional design considerations for any proposed GSI measures in order to minimize impacts to the plume. Refer to Appendix G for a map of these areas. Prioritization Criterion Criterion Categories Proximity to Ground- water Plume Approxi- mate Limits Located at least 500 feet out- side of a groundwater plume approximate limits Located within a groundwater plume approximate limits • Co-location with Existing City-owned GSi Measures Projects located within 500 feet of an existing public GSI measure received a higher priority than projects located outside of a 500-foot buffer surrounding GSI measures based on the potential for increased stormwater retention in a connected area. Refer to Appendix H for a map of these City- owned GSI measures. Prioritization Criterion Criterion Categories Co-location with Ex- isting City-owned GSi Measures Located within 500 feet of an existing public GSI measure Located more than 500 feet away from an existing public GSI measure • Groundwater Recharge area Projects located within a groundwater recharge area and at least 500 feet away from a contaminated groundwater plume approximate limits received a higher priority than projects that did not meet both of these criteria due to the fact that the Valley Water’s Groundwater Management Plan recognizes that stormwater management opportunities may act as a source of groundwater recharge. Prioritization Criterion Criterion Categories Groundwater Re- charge Area Located within a designated groundwater recharge area and located at least 500 feet outside of a groundwater plume ap- proximate limits Located outside of a designated groundwater recharge area While many of these City-specific criteria overlapped with the SWRP prioritization criteria, there were several SWRP metrics that were not included within the City prioritization due to the various reasons listed below: • Proximity to Geotracker Site Staff utilized City-specific groundwater plume data in place of utilizing the SWRP Geotracker data. Although both the SWRP and City-specific groundwater plume data were based off of Geotracker data, the staff analysis was more restrictive by prioritizing project locations that were more than 500 feet outside of a groundwater plume approximate limits. • Proximity to PCB interest area City staff utilized historic industrial land use data as a proxy for PCB indicators since PCBs sampling data is not available on a widespread scale throughout the City. • Distance from Storm Drain The SWRP analysis used a county-wide data set of storm drains that are 24 inches or more in diameter, and prioritized regional project opportunities that are located close to those storm drains. However, it is possible to divert water to smaller-scale GSI projects from storm drain pipes that are smaller than 24 inches. Thus, the City staff did not utilize distance from a 24-inch storm drain as a prioritizing criterion. • Drainage area Estimate and Drainage area Slope After reviewing the FY 2018 Adopted Capital Budget and other City plans, staff added several new projects to the prioritization list that were not initially included in the SWRP project list. Since these projects were added after the SWRP prioritization process, staff does not have drainage area data (including drainage area slope) to compare for all projects. To ensure consistency, the data was not used at all in the City’s process. • Hydrologic Soil Group According to the SWRP initial project prioritization, approximately 94 percent of the soil throughout the City and the County for the identified project locations consists of Hydrologic Soil Group C/ 36 SECTION 4: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION MECHANISM D4. Due to the lack of heterogeneity, staff did not utilize Hydrologic Soil Group as a prioritizing factor. • imperviousness Percent City staff considered using percent imperviousness as a criterion. Although data was not calculated for each parcel, general knowledge and mapping research were used to assess approximate imperviousness. Parcels with parking and transportation as a primary land use were prioritized as the highest priority based on the large percentage of impervious cover for these parcels. • Parcel Slope City staff did not prioritize projects on parcels greater than fifteen percent due to the additional design challenges associated with these parcel slopes. Parcels with less than fifteen percent slope were not prioritized differently compared to one another since the exact parcel slope does not offer significant advantages as long as the slope is less than fifteen percent. However, staff may still consider project locations with slopes higher than fifteen percent if other site considerations are optimal. Refer to Appendix F for a map of parcel slope greater than 15 percent throughout the City. • located in Disadvantaged Community Per the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Program, we do not have any information regarding disadvantaged communities in the City. As a result, staff did not consider this criterion in the City-specific prioritization. taBle 4.2: taBle 4.2 GSI ProJect locatIon PrIorItIZatIon crIterIa Criteria City- Specific SWRP Project Status X Proximity to Proposed Bikeway Projects X Parcel Area X X Land Use (Current)X X Land Use (Historic)X Key Development Areas X Localized Ponding X Flood Zone Designation X X Trash Generation Designation X Proximity to Groundwater Plume Approximate Limits X Co-location with Existing City-owned GSI X Groundwater Recharge Area X Proximity to Geotracker Site X Proximity to PCB Interest Area X Distance from Storm Drain X Drainage Area Estimate and Drainage Area Slope X Hydrologic Soil Group X Imperviousness Percent X Drainage Area Estimate X Parcel Slope X Located in Disadvantaged Community X Located in Community of Concern X 4Hydrologic soil groups are categorized based on their drainage properties, with Soil Group A representing the most well-drained soils and Soil Group D representing the least well-drained soils. SECTION 4: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION MECHANISM 37 SeCTI on 4 • located in Community of Concern5 None of the City projects identified in the SWRP were located in a Community of Concern. As a result, staff did not consider this criterion in the City-specific prioritization. Parts C – E: Identified Prioritization Criteria Values Once Watershed Protection staff determined the criteria and respective categories, staff allocated points per criteria category based on whether the parcel met the higher-prioritized category of each criterion, as described above. If the project location met the higher-prioritized category, the project location would be assigned the larger value. These values are outlined below in Table 4.3. Staff reviewed each project location and assigned the appropriate value based on the project location characteristics. taBle 4.3: PrIorItIZatIon crIterIa ValueS Prioritization Criteria Criteria Category Assigned value Project Status Planned in FY18 Adopted Capital Budget 3 Not planned in FY18 Adopted Capital Budget 1 Proximity to Proposed Bikeway Projects Adjacent to a proposed bikeway project 3 Not adjacent to a proposed bikeway project 1 Parcel Area > 0.25 acres 3 < 0.25 acres 1 Land Use (Current) Parking lots and transportation 5 Commercial, public parks, office parks, SOFA I/II, and major institutions 3 Residential, open space, public conservation land, and schools 1 Land Use (Historic)"Industrial" in 1980 3 Not "industrial" in 1980 1 Key Development Areas Located within key development area 3 Located outside of key development area 1 Localized Ponding Located within areas of localized ponding 3 Located outside of areas of localized ponding 1 Flood Zone Designation FEMA-designated Zones D and X 5 FEMA-designated Zones A, AO, and A 3 FEMA-designated Zones VE and AE 1 Trash Generation Desig- nation Very high 3 High 2 Moderate 1 Low 0 Proximity to Groundwater Plume Approximate Limits Located at least 500 feet outside of a groundwater plume approximate limits 3 Located within a groundwater plume approximate limits 1 Co-location with Existing City-owned GSi Measures Located within 500 feet of an existing City-owned GSI measure 3 Located more than 500 feet away from an existing City-owned GSI measure 1 Groundwater Recharge Area Located within a designated groundwater recharge area and located at least 500 feet outside of a groundwater plume approximate limits 3 Located outside of a designated groundwater recharge area 1 5The Metropolitan Transportation Commission defines communities of concern as census tracts that have a concentration of both minority and low-income households, or that have a concentration of three or more of the following six factors but only if they have also have a concentration of low-income households: limited english proficiency, zero-vehicle household, seniors 75 and over, people with disability, single-parent family, or severely rent-burdened household. 38 SECTION 4: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION MECHANISM Parts F – I: City Prioritization Results After assigning the appropriate values for each project location characteristic, staff totaled the criteria values for each project location to determine one final value per project location. Once completed, staff calculated the following percentiles based on the distribution of the final values to designate priority levels: • “High priority” project locations: 85th percentile or higher • “Medium priority” project locations: 26th – 84th percentiles • “Low priority” project locations: 25th percentile or lower “High priority” project locations include the project locations deemed to hold the most potential §¨¦280 ¬«82 £¤101 City of EastPalo Alto City ofLos Altos City of LosAltos Hills City ofMenlo Park City ofMountainView City ofAtherton StanfordUniversity FoothillExpressway Calif o r n i a A v e n u e Ea s t B a y s h o r e R o a d We s t B a y s h o r e R o a d Los R o b l e s A v e n u e C harlesto n R o a d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R o a d Loma V e r d e A v e n u e Channing Avenue Page M i l l R o a d Univ e r s i t y A v e n u e East Me a d o w D r i v e Loui s R o a d Orego n E x p r e s s w a y AlmaStreet Colorad o A v e n u e Mid d l e f i e l d R o a d Embarcadero R o a d SanAntonioRoad SA N FR AN C I S C O B A Y Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS& 0 0.5 1 Miles ISource: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo AltoDate: November 2018 Legend High Medium Low for installing GSI measures, based on a number of characteristics described above. While these associated priorities will be beneficial in guiding efforts for assessing potential locations of GSI measures, the priorities are subject to change with the City’s infrastructure and community needs. As such, the list of prioritized project locations will be reviewed annually per the City’s approved yearly Capital Annual Budget, updates to other City Plans (per Section 8) and to accommodate other changes, such as in funding or project status. The final prioritized project location list and associated maps are available in Appendices A – O. Figure 4.1 is an overview of the prioritized project locations throughout the City. Figure 4.1: City-Owned Properties and Proposed/Planned Projects Prioritized by Location6 6See Appendices A – o for additional maps and table of prioritized locations. SECTION 4: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION MECHANISM 39 SeCTI on 4 7 Fire Station 3 is currently under construction and has an anticipated completion date by Fall 2019. taBle 4: Planned cItY-owned GSI meaSureS Project Name Project Type Type of GSi Project Location Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bi- cycle Overpass Construction Special Highway 101 corridor north of San Anto- nio Road interchange by Adobe Creek California Ave Area Parking Garage (Lot 7)Construction Parcel 350 Sherman Avenue Downtown Parking Garage (Lot D)Construction Parcel 375 Hamilton Avenue Public Safety Building (Parking Lot 6)Construction Parcel Parking Lot C-6 (250 Sherman Avenue) Charleston / Arastradero Cor- ridor Construction Street Charleston/Arastradero Road from Fabian Way to Miranda Avenue Fire Station 37 Construction Parcel 799 Embarcadero Road Page IntentIonally left Blank 40 SECTION 4: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION MECHANISM §¨¦280 ¬«82 £¤101 City of EastPalo Alto City ofLos Altos City of LosAltos Hills City ofMenlo Park City ofMountainView City ofAtherton StanfordUniversity FoothillExpressway Calif o r n i a A v e n u e Eas t B a y s h o r e R o a d WestBayshore R o ad Los R o b l e s Aven u e Charleston Road El Ca m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R o a d LomaVerdeAvenue Channing Avenue Page M i l l R o a d Unive r s i t y A v e n u e EastMeadow Drive Loui s R o a d Orego n E x p r e s s w a y AlmaStreet Colorad o A v e n u e Midd l e f i e l d R o a d Emb arc a d ero R o a d SanAntonioRoad RiconadaLibrary Mitchell ParkLibrary andCommunity Center Stanford /Palo Alto CommunityPlaying Fields El CaminoPark SouthgateGreenStreets Matadero PumpStation SanFrancisquito PumpStation Middlefieldand Kellogg Alma Street GambleGardens Hoover Park RossRoad SAN FRANCISCO B AY Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS& 0 0.5 1 Miles ISource: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo AltoDate: November 2018 Legend City-Owned GSI Projects SECTION 5: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TARGETS 41 ImPerVIouS Surface tarGetS 5SeCTIon 42 SECTION 5: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TARGETS 5.1 BaCkgrounD The MRP requires the City of Palo Alto to predict the levels of redevelopment and the associated green stormwater infrastructure (GSI)1 implementation that will occur in the City by 2020, 2030, and 2040 on both City-owned and private retrofitted2 properties. The following predictions are based on a high-level, data- based modeling scenario carried out by SCVURPPP, which conducted this work for all municipalities that participate in its program area (all Santa Clara County municipalities that discharge into the Bay). Predictions are based on data of past development, the City’s Comprehensive Plan 2030 and direction from the Planning Department; however, estimating the future development market is complex and based on various assumptions and unknowns. Thus, these should only be used as indications of potential GSI implementation in the future. City staff will work to refine these preliminary estimates over time, as systems are put in place to better document redevelopment and the amount of associated GSI measures. This refined approach is described below and includes two phases, both of which have been implemented and the results are described in this memorandum: 1) Predicting the anticipated level of future GSi implementation via Redevelopment of Private- and City Parcels – A non-spatial analysis was conducted to predict future GSI implementation on City-owned and private parcels within the City’s jurisdiction, based on the rate of redevelopment that has occurred over the past 10 years in the City of Palo Alto.3 This phase provides a prediction of the cumulative acres of land in 2020, 2030, and 2040 that are anticipated to be addressed via GSI measures installed on City and privately-owned parcels. 2) identifying the location of future GSi implementation and Developing impervious Surface Retrofit targets – Subsequent to Phase I, a spatial analysis was conducted to derive impervious surface targets for GSI retrofits associated with these parcels, as required by the MRP. Phase II provides a prediction of the land use of the parcels that are anticipated to be addressed via GSI measures by 2020, 2030, and 2040. 5.2 Phase 1 – PreDICtIng the antICIPateD level of future gsI ImPlementatIon The goal of this Phase was to identify levels of GSI implementation predicted to occur by 2020, 2030 and 2040 via the redevelopment of City- and privately- owned parcels in the City regulated by new and redevelopment requirements in the current MRP. Provision C.3 requires projects that create (i.e., new development) or replace (i.e., redevelopment) at least 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces (e.g., roofs, parking lots and walkways) must include GSI that treats runoff created on-site. For future redevelopment predictions, the 10- year timeframe of 2009 to 2018 was used, as it is considered to be typical of future redevelopment (2019-2040 in the Bay Area). A total of 267 acres were redeveloped in the City during the 2009-2018 timeframe4, resulting in a rate of 26.7 acres per year. However, because of expected drops of future non-residential redevelopment in the City (per the Comprehensive Plan), staff chose to use a rate of 15.0 acres per year for this analysis (i.e., to estimate the amount of impervious surfaces created per the rate of future redevelopment). This rate (15 ac/yr.) was applied to the 2020, 2030, and 2040 milestones outlined in the MRP in order to estimate the amount of GSI that will be installed. These estimates assumed that the amount of installed GSI equaled that amount of acres being redeveloped (i.e., 15 acres being redeveloped = 15 acres of GSI being installed). Although 267 acres were redeveloped in the City from 2009-2018, only 240 acres have been identified to have included GSI. Thus, 240 acres were used as a baseline (or “best” estimate) for the amount of GSI that is expected to have been installed through the end of 2018. Table 5.1 shows that 240 acres was used as a starting point to estimate the amount of GSI that will be redeveloped at each of the milestones mentioned. It provides the outputs of the analysis 1For the purpose of this memorandum, GSI-associated redevelopment projects include those that are either privately or City-owned and parcel-based (i.e., no green streets, or GSI in the right-of-way, are included in the predictions). All predictions assume that all redevelopment projects would be regulated by new and redevelopment requirements in the current MRP (i.e., C.3 project). 2Retrofitted means that land that does include GSI triggers MRP requirements when redeveloped and must install GSI to treat runoff created on-site. 3All information on GSI measures and land area addressed by GSI in the Santa Clara Valley was accessed through the SCVURPPP GSI database, which is currently under development and will be City accessible in late 2019. 4Total area addressed by parcel-based redevelopment projects with GSI completed (excludes green street projects). SECTION 5: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TARGETS 43 SeCTI on 5 and represents the total acreage known to be addressed by GSI based on the baseline of 240 and applies the rate of 15 ac/yr. to estimate cumulative land area addressed by GSI in 2020 (270 acres), 2030 (420 acres), and 2040 (570 acres) on City and private parcels. Furthermore, the same rate is used to estimate both the “low” (i.e., 50% < “best”) and “high” (i.e., 50% > “best”) estimates to account for a range of potential redevelopment levels and account for uncertainty in the “Best” estimate. 5.3 Phase II – IDentIfyIng the loCatIon of future gsI ImPlementatIon anD DeveloPIng ImPervIous surfaCe targets As previously mentioned, the MRP requires the City to develop (and include in its GSI Plan) targets for the amount of impervious surface in the City that will be retrofitted via GSI by 2020, 2030 and 2040. The estimated amounts of future GSI implementation developed via Phase I provides a starting point for addressing these needs. However, to develop impervious surface retrofit targets, the general types of land use that may be redeveloped was analyzed as different types of land uses are assumed to have varying ranges of associated percent imperviousness. Thus, estimating the general locations of redevelopment allowed an estimate of impervious targets by land use. The process and assumptions used to predict future locations of GSI implementation (i.e., the general locations of the 15.0 ac/yr.) are described in this Section, including the results of the analysis. 5.3.1 loCatIon anD tImIng of future gsI ImPlementatIon applicable land areas subject to future gsI requirements Additional City-owned and private parcels subject to MRP requirements to install GSI (due to 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces) were considered to be conceptually available for redevelopment with GSI. Using land use data compiled and improved by SCVURPPP over the past 10 years, particular land uses that do not have to meet the MRP requirement as well as parcels with existing GSI and those parcels that are planned to be or being actively redeveloped were excluded from the analysis. The following categories were excluded from the impervious surface targets analysis: • Already contains GSI (240 acres) • Known (planned/active) redevelopment projects (38 acres) • Residential (~4,060 acres) • Open space and large pervious areas, such as parks and undeveloped urban areas5 (~7,380 acres) • City schools (K-2), colleges and universities (~220 acres) • Freeways/expressways (~195 acres) • Roadways/streets (~325 acres) taBle 5.1: ProJected cumulatIVe land area (acreS) antIcIPated to Be addreSSed VIa GSI meaSureS InStalled on PrIVate and cItY ParcelS In tHe cItY of Palo alto BY 2020, 2030, and 2040. Year Low1 (ac) Best 2 (ac)High3 (ac) Existing GSI (installed 2009-December 31, 2018)-240 - 2020 255 270 285 2030 330 420 510 2040 405 570 735 2040 405 570 735 1Low estimate – projected from 50% of “Best estimate”; 2Best estimate – rate of redevelopment based on 10-year average (2009-2018); and 3High estimate – projected from 150% of “Best estimate”; 4 5Undeveloped urban areas were excluded from the analysis of potential locations for GSI implementation because they are largely pervious and therefore do not fit the intent of provision C.3.j.i.2.(c), which requires Co-permittees to develop and include in their GSI Plans targets for the amount of impervious surface that will be retrofitted. 44 SECTION 5: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TARGETS • Railroads lines and stations (~50 acres) • Utilities – water/wastewater/electrical substations (~25 acres) • Airports (~ 90 acres) • Federal Veterans Affairs (VA) Hospital (~65 acres) The remaining parcels not excluded in this list are primarily commercial, industrial, retail, and high- density residential land uses. The outcome is that there are approximately 880 additional parcels totaling 1,500 acres that were identified as areas subject to the MRP that may be redeveloped and have potential for GSI implementation by 2040. Identifying which Parcels are likely to undergo redevelopment Based on the redevelopment rates calculated in Phase I, a total of 300 acres of land within the City is anticipated to be redeveloped with GSI measures between 2020 and 2040 based on the “best” estimate (Table 5.1). Consequently, only a portion of the area available for redevelopment (1,500 ac) is predicted to actually redevelop by 2040 based on the rate of redevelopment used for the City in this analysis (15 ac/ yr.). To assist in identifying the subset of land areas available for redevelopment that have a higher probability of being redeveloped and addressed via GSI measures by 2040, information on the characteristics of land areas recently redeveloped in the Santa Clara Valley were used to develop a model for predicting redevelopment potential. Although it is not possible to precisely determine the exact locations where GSI will be implemented in the future, predicted locations are needed to establish impervious surface retrofit targets required by the MRP. To develop the predictive model, the following factors/ characteristics of parcels redeveloped in the Santa Clara Valley between 2002 and 20176 were evaluated to determine if they should be considered when predicting future GSI implementation: 1. Date of initial development or previous redevelopment 2. Existing land use type 3. Size of parcel 4. Proximity to other/prior redevelopment areas Data from 2002-2017 for all of Santa Clara County was used when evaluating these factors to increase the size of the dataset. The results of the evaluation and associated weighting factor selected as model inputs are briefly summarized in Table 5.3. In addition to the deterministic factors in Table 5.2, a “randomization” factor was included in the process to identify parcels that will likely redevelop by 2040. Adding a randomization factor adjusted for inappropriate skewing of predicted redevelopment towards large industrial parcels. taBle 5.2: SummarY of weIGHtInG factorS for eacH cHaracterIStIc IdentIfIed aS an ImPortant VarIaBle to PredIct tHe locatIon of future GSI ImPlementatIon In Santa clara ValleY Characteristic Weighting Factors Justification Age of Previous Development/ Redevelopment 0 to 1 Parcels built in the 1990s are projected to redevelop at a lower rate than par- cels developed prior to this date. Parcels built after 2000 are not projected to redevelop between 2020 and 2040. Land Use 0.43 to 0.76 Parcels with certain land uses are redeveloping at higher rates, compared to others. The weighting factor for each land use was adjusted such that the parcels selected for redevelopment are in the same proportion to those previ- ously redeveloped between 2002 and 2017. Parcel Size 0 to 1 Between 2002 and 2017, larger parcels have redeveloped at a higher rate than smaller parcels. 5Undeveloped urban areas were excluded from the analysis of potential locations for GSI implementation because they are largely pervious and therefore do not fit the intent of provision C.3.j.i.2.(c), which requires Co-permittees to develop and include in their GSI Plans targets for the amount of impervious surface that will be retrofitted. 6The Santa Clara redevelopment data evaluation was completed before 2018 redevelopment data were available, the evaluation was completed using data from the 2002 and 2017 timeframe. SECTION 5: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TARGETS 45 5.3.2 loCatIon anD tImIng of future gsI ImPlementatIon Using the current land uses of the predicted locations of GSI implementation developed via the redevelopment model described in Section 5.3.1 and associated impervious surface percentage coefficients for each land use type, estimates of the amount of impervious surface that would be retrofitted with GSI on City and privately-owned parcels were developed. Table 5.3 lists the impervious surface percentage for each land use class, based on impervious surface coefficients typically utilized, and the estimated impervious surfaces for City and private parcel- based projects that are predicted to be retrofitted by 2020, 2030 and 2040 in the City of Palo Alto via new GSI implementation. These predictions should be considered first-order estimates and are subject to revision as information improves over time. Estimates of impervious surface retrofits due to future GSI projects conducted in the City right-of-way will also be added in the future. taBle 5.3: actual (2002-2018) and PredIcted (2019-2040) eXtent of ImPerVIouS Surface retrofItS VIa GSI ImPlementatIon on cItY- and PrIVatelY-owned ParcelS In tHe cItY of Palo alto BY 2020, 2030, and 2040. Land Use % of Area imperviousa Retrofits via GSi implementation 2002-18 2019-2020 2021-2030 2031-2040 Total (2002-2040) Total Area (acres) Impervious Area (acres) Total Area (acres)c Impervious Area (acres) Total Area (acres) Impervious Area (acres) Total Area (acres) Impervious Area (acres) Total Area (acres) Impervious Area (acres) Commercial 83%113 94 9 7 73 60 96 80 290 241 Industrial 91%34 31 4 4 61 56 15 14 115 105 K-12 Private Schools 67%2 2 0 0 6 4 10 6 18 12 Residential - High Density 82%30 24 0 0 14 11 5 4 49 40 Residential - Low Density 47%20 10 0 0 3 2 0 0 24 11 Retail 96%20 19 2 2 4 4 21 20 47 45 Urban Parks 20%18 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 20 4 Open Spaceb 1%3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 6 0 Totals 240 183 16 14 164 137 149 124 569 458Cumulatived240183256197420334569458 aSource: existing Land Use in 2005: Data for Bay Area Counties, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), January 2006 bDevelopment totals from 2002-2018 may include new development of open space and vacant properties. cThe total area for 2019-2020 is based on measures that are currently under construction or planned to occur prior to 2020 and not the Phase I redevelopment rate and may therefore deviate from the “Best” acres presented for 2020 in Table 5.1. dTotals in this table differ slightly from predictions presented in Table 5.1 due to the inclusion of entire parcels in this table, as opposed to more generic “land areas” projections presented in Table 1. Page IntentIonally left Blank 46 SECTION 5: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TARGETS SECTION 6: PROJECT TRACKING SYSTEM 47 ProJect trackInG SYStem 6SeCTIon 48 SECTION 6: PROJECT TRACKING SYSTEM As part of implementing the GSI Plan, the City must have a process for tracking and mapping completed public and private projects, and making the information available to the public. The City will provide data to SCVURPPP for county-wide tracking of completed public and private GSI projects. These tracking systems are described in more detail below. 6.1 CIty ProjeCt traCkIng system The City currently utilizes an internal tracking system to manage stormwater program inspections and enforcement actions. In calendar year 2019, the City will update its internal tracking system to a cloud- based stormwater compliance software, which will allow the City to manage a comprehensive database of GSI and other stormwater treatment measures. This new, map-based, software will allow staff to complete inspection reports in real-time in the field; sync inspection sites with GIS data for accurate location data and additional knowledge of sites; integrate with planning and asset management systems within the City (including Accela and Maintenance Connection); schedule inspections and automatic follow-up actions; and have access to more comprehensive metrics. Moreover, the City will have the ability to export relevant data to be uploaded into the county-wide project tracking system, as described in the Section 6.2. 6.2 County-wIDe ProjeCt traCkIng system SCVURPPP developed a centralized, web-based data management system, with a connection to GIS platforms for tracking and mapping all GSI projects in the Santa Clara Valley. The GSI Database provides a centralized, accessible platform for municipal staff to efficiently and securely collect, upload, and store GSI project data, and enhances SCVURPPP’s ability to efficiently and accurately calculate and report water quality benefits associated with GSI projects. It also allows portions of the GSI project information to be made publicly available. 6.2.1 Data ColleCtIon ProCess The primary GSI data collection process is implemented at the City level. City staff will continue to collect and manage information on GSI projects locally using the data management systems described above. City staff will then directly enter project data into the SCVURPPP GSI Database through a web-based data entry portal for individual projects or upload data for multiple projects in batch using standardized formats. 6.2.2 Data outPut The GSI Database has the capability to output information required for regulatory annual reports as well as data needed to calculate pollutant loads reduced, runoff volume reductions, and impervious area reduced. Maps displaying project locations and other related attributes such as pollutant generation, watershed boundaries, and water bodies can also be produced. SECTION 7: GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS 49 GuIdelIneS and SPecIfIcatIonS 7SeCTIon 50 SECTION 7: GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS The MRP requires that the Plan include general design and construction guidelines, and standard specifications and details (or references to those documents) for incorporating GSI components into projects within the City. These guidelines and specifications should address the different street and project types within the City, as defined by its land use and transportation characteristics, and allow projects to provide a range of functions and benefits, such as stormwater management, bicycle and pedestrian mobility and safety, public green space, and urban forestry. The City, along with other SCVURPPP agencies, helped fund and provided input to the development of county-wide guidelines by SCVURPPP to address the MRP requirements and guide the implementation of GSI Plans. The resulting SCVURPPP GSI Handbook1 (Handbook) is a comprehensive guide to planning and implementation of GSI projects in public streetscapes, parking lots and parks. The City intends to use this Handbook as a reference when creating City-specific guidelines and specifications to meet the needs of the various departments. The contents of the Handbook are described in the following Sections. 7.1 DesIgn guIDelInes Part 1 of the Handbook provides guidance on selection, integration, prioritization, sizing, construction, and maintenance of GSI measures. It includes sections describing the various types of GSI, their benefits, and design considerations; how to incorporate GSI with other uses of the public right-of- way, such as bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and parking; and guidelines on utility coordination and landscape design for GSI. In addition, the Handbook also provides guidance on post-construction maintenance practices and design of GSI to facilitate maintenance. Part 1 also contains a section on proper sizing of GSI measures. Where possible, GSI measures should be designed to meet the same sizing requirements as Regulated Projects, which are specified in MRP Provision C.3.d. In general, the treatment measure design standard is capture and treatment of 80 percent of the annual runoff (i.e., capture and treatment of the small, frequent storm events). However, if a GSI measure cannot be designed to meet this design standard due to constraints in the public right-of-way or other factors, the City may still wish to construct the measure to provide some runoff reduction and water quality benefit and achieve other benefits (e.g., decreasing street widths and pedestrian crossing distances, etc.). For these situations, the Handbook describes regional guidance on alternative design approaches developed by BASMAA for use by MRP permittees2. 7.2 DetaIls anD sPeCIfICatIons Part 2 of the Handbook contains typical details and specifications that have been compiled from various sources within California and the U.S. and modified for use in Santa Clara County (see Figure 7.1 for an example detail). The Handbook includes details for pervious pavement, stormwater planters, stormwater curb extensions, bioretention in parking lots, infiltration measures, and stormwater tree wells, as well as associated components such as edge controls, inlets, outlets, and underdrains. It also provides typical design details for GSI measures in the public right- of-way that address utility protection measures and consideration of other infrastructure in that space. 7.3 InCorPoratIon of tyPICal gsI DetaIls anD sPeCIfICatIons Into CIty stanDarDs The City’s engineering standards for both the Departments of Public Works and Utilities were reviewed as part of the development of a process and recommendations for incorporation of the GSI details and specifications from the Handbook into the City standards. The standards include definitions and technical specifications for elements (such as sidewalks and curb and gutters) that may affect the implementation of GSI in the City. Consequently, the City will need to create its own GSI specifications (based on those recommended by SCVURPPP) that incorporate requirements from these City departments as well as others. 1The SCVURPPP GSI Handbook is available online at http://scvurppp.org/scvurppp_2018/swrp/resource-library/. 2BASMAA, 2018. Guidance for Sizing Green Infrastructure Facilities in Street Projects. SECTION 7: GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS 51 7.4 InPut from CIty of Palo alto staff Two meetings were held with staff from different City departments in October 2018 to obtain additional feedback regarding City-specific GSI guidelines and standards for both public and private projects. The meeting goals included the following: • Provide information on GSI, the City’s GSI Plan, and available resources. • Review examples of SCVURPPP typical GSI details and compare them to the City’s existing details. • Obtain input regarding the process for incorporating the GSI details and specifications into City departmental standards, such as for Public Works and Utilities. • Inform a Scope of Work for a consultant to create City-specific GSI specifications. The following is a summary of the input received from City staff during the two meetings in October regarding the process and recommendations for the incorporation of the GSI details and specifications into the City standards: • Develop an index of standard conditions for GSI measures based on staff input. • Outline a process for integrating GSI into public rights-of-way, with a focus on smaller transportation projects. • Review and, if needed, improve the plan review process for GSI projects in the public right-of-way. Ensure that all projects in the right-of-way are SeCTI on 7 Figure 7.1: Example Detail of a Bioretention Planter3 SECTION - BIORETENTION PLANTER ON STRUCTURE C HEIGHTVARIES 12" (MIN) 2"-6" CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. INTEGRATE WATERPROOFING WITH BUILDING ROOFING/WATERPROOFINGSYSTEMS INCLUDING WATERPROOF PIPE PENETRATIONS, JOINTS, AND LINERCONNECTIONS. 2. OVERFLOW STRUCTURE (MATERIAL ANDWORKMANSHIP) SHALL CONFORM TO APPLICABLE SAN FRANCISCO DBI ANDPUBLIC WORKS CODES AND REQUIREMENTS . ADJACENT SURFACE, VARIES ADJACENTBUILDING CONVEYANCE CONNECTION,DESIGNER TO SPECIFY 2" (MIN) FREEBOARD 18" (MIN) EDGE TREATMENT, DESIGNER TO SPECIFY MATERIAL OVERFLOW STRUCTURE,DESIGNER TO SPECIFY, SEE NOTE 2 ADJACENTSURFACE, VARIES OVERFLOW TO BUILDING DRAINS ROOF DRAIN (TYP) ROOF DECK IMPERMEABLE LINER,SEE NOTE 1 AND UNDERDRAIN, SEE GC1.2 WIDTH VARIES WIDTH VARIES DEPENDINGON EDGE TREATMENT STREAMBED COBBLES OR EQUAL FOR ENERGY DISSIPATION RAIN CHAIN OR EQUAL EXTEND LINER OR EQUAL WATERPROOFING TO TOP OF PONDING ELEVATION WHENADJACENT TO BUILDING WALL DESIGN PONDING ELEVATION BC5.2BC5.1 AGGREGATE STORAGE, SEE BC 4.1 MULCH 2"-3" MULCH (TYP) GC1.1 ATRIUM GRATE,DESIGNER TO SPECIFYMODEL AND SIZE WALL PENETRATION PERARCHITECTURAL PLANS BIORETENTION SOIL \\M K T F P S 0 1 \ d a t a \ W W E P \ 1 6 _ S t o r m w a t e r \ 0 3 _ S D G \ B M P S p e c s \ P h a s e I I \ F i n a l P h a s e I - I I D e t a i l s \ F i n a l P h a s e I a n d I I e d i t s \ 0 3 _ B i o r e t e n t i o n P l a n t e r \ B P 5 . 7 . d w g P l o t t e d 8 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 6 BP1.1 BP1.2 BP2.1 BP2.2 BP3.1 BP3.2 BP4.1 BP4.2 BP5.1 BP5.3 BP5.5 BP5.6 BP5.7BP5.2BP4.3 BP4.4 BP4.5 BP4.6 BP5.4 3Typical Details for Site-Specific Design Specifications and Design Guidelines (SFPUC): https://www.sfwater.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=9101. 52 SECTION 7: GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS reviewed by the Utilities Department and other departments as needed. • Ensure that the design team for GSI projects has experience with the construction and implementation of GSI projects. • Develop a flow chart to evaluate the feasibility of a potential project in the right-of-way based on field conditions and the presence of utilities. • Include funds for utility relocation in a GSI project’s budget. • Document lessons learned from both completed GSI projects in the City, and effective details and specifications utilized throughout those completed projects. • Include maintenance and its associated funding as a significant consideration for integrating GSI in City projects. These considerations should include maintenance issues, such as evaluating the effort required for maintaining plant types and removing stains on permeable pavers. • Evaluate and integrate differing edge conditions, such as curbs, into the standard drawings. • Integrate GSI considerations into the Underground Service Alert (USA dig alert) protocols. • Ensure as-builts of utility locations are available to all departments and GSI designers. Integrate utility standards within GSI standards. • Include all departments in the development of GSI standards within City standards. The information collected during these workshops will inform the City’s Scope of Work to hire a consultant that will assist the City in creating City- specific guidelines and specifications following the acceptance of the Plan. These will not only meet MRP requirements, but will also allow public and private GSI projects to be designed and constructed consistently. Consequently, the projects will be able to be monitored, maintained and inspected using standardized protocols to ensure long-term effectiveness. §¨¦280 ¬«82 £¤101 City of EastPalo Alto City ofLos Altos City ofMenlo Park City ofMountainView City ofAtherton StanfordUniversity FoothillExpressway Califo r n i a A v e n u e Ea s t B a y s h o r e R o a d We s t B a y s h o r e R o a d Los R o b l e s A v e n u e Charlesto n R o a d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R o a d Loma V e r d e A v e n u e Channing Avenue Page M i l l R o a d Unive r s i t y A v e n u e East Me a d o w D r i v e Loui s R o a d Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y AlmaStreet Colorad o A v e n u e Midd l e f i e l d R o a d Embarcadero R o a d SanAntonioRoad SAN FRANC I S C O B AY Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS& 0 0.5 1 Miles I Source: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo AltoDate: November 2018 Legend California Avenue Priority Development Area Downtown Business Improvement District North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Area South of Forest Area I (SOFA I) South of Forest Area II (SOFA II) SECTION 8: INTEGRATION WITH CITY PLANS & DOCUMENTS 53 InteGratIon wItH cItY PlanS and documentS 8SeCTIon 54 SECTION 8: INTEGRATION WITH CITY PLANS & DOCUMENTS 8.1 regulatory requIrements To ensure effective implementation of the Plan, the City’s planning documents and policies should include adequate wording to align with the Plan and ensure integration per the City’s vision with respect to GSI. The MRP states that the GSI Plan “shall contain” various elements, including integration per the wording below (emphasis purposely added to some statements). Consequently, various City planning documents across Departments were evaluated to determine to what extent they were aligned with the Plan. “(h) A summary of the planning documents the Permittee has updated or otherwise modified to appropriately incorporate green infrastructure requirements, such as: General Plans, Specific Plans, Complete Streets Plans, Active Transportation Plans, Storm Drain Master Plans, Pavement Work Plans, Urban Forestry Plans, Flood Control or Flood Management Plans, and other plans that may affect the future alignment, configuration, or design of impervious surfaces, including, but not limited to, streets, alleys, parking lots, sidewalks, plazas, roofs, and drainage infrastructure. Permittees are expected to complete these modifications as a part of completing the Green Infrastructure Plan, and by not later than the end of the permit term. (i) To the extent not addressed above, a work plan identifying how the Permittee will ensure that green infrastructure and low impact development measures are appropriately included in future plans (e.g., new or amended versions of the kinds of plans listed above).” 8.2 CIty PlannIng DoCuments Several planning documents address different elements related to GSI, including land use, transportation, sustainability, conservation, urban forestry, environmental leadership, infrastructure, and housing. Overall, no planning documents were identified that prevent the implementation of GSI projects within the City. Moreover, some planning documents already contain language to support the GSI Plan. However, various plans need to be better aligned with the GSI Plan to require the integration of GSI and use of the various tools, specifications and guidelines addressed in this Plan and through subsequent implementation. 8.3 sPeCIal PlannIng areas anD sPeCIfIC Plans Specific plans (as well as comprehensive area and master plans) are valuable tools for coordinating multiple planning, design, infrastructure, utilities and GSI elements. This type of approach optimizes shared amenities, efficient use of resources and ensures that various planning goals can be met at a workable scale. Watershed Protection staff is currently participating in both the development of the City’s North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan and the co-design by both the City and PAUSD of the Cubberley Master Plan in order to integrate GSI and LID approaches throughout the planning sites and effectively coordinate with Planning staff. Watershed Protection will continue to be actively involved in these type of efforts, such as the upcoming Downtown Coordinated Area Plan, to ensure adequate integration with the GSI Plan vision. 8.4 future IntegratIon of gsI language Table 8.1 lists all City plans that were reviewed for GSI integration as well as documents currently in development. It also provides a general timeline regarding updates to improve integration with this Plan. Additional details regarding the extent of GSI language included within each plan are provided in Appendix P. Per the MRP, language supporting GSI will need to be added to these plans during their next update. If these updates do not occur during the current permit term, an interim policy will be adopted by the City Manager to direct staff to follow the GSI Plan. Watershed Protection staff will support the City’s plan development process when revising or updating existing planning documents or when developing new planning documents in order to ensure that GSI requirements and policies are incorporated. Finally, the implementation process described in Section 14.0 will help ensure this requirement is met. 8.5 regIonal Plans The City is working with SCVURPPP, Valley Water, and other agencies to integrate and coordinate several large-scale planning efforts related to stormwater management and GSI, including the following: • Santa Clara Basin Stormwater Resources Plan (SWRP) – A collaboration between SCVURPPP and SECTION 8: INTEGRATION WITH CITY PLANS & DOCUMENTS 55 SeCTI on 8 taBle 8.1: cItY PlanS/PolIcIeS and StatuS of GSI InteGratIon Title Last Approved/ Updated Projected Update includes Language to Support GSi Language? PLANS/POLiCiES iN PLACE Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Jul-12 Unknown Yes City Parks Sustainability Review 2014-2015 Unknown Yes Comprehensive Plan Jun-17 Unknown Yes Department of Public Works Strategic Plan (2016-18) Dec-15 Unknown Yes Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Revised Draft, May 2017) Aug-17 Unknown Yes Sea Level Rise Adaptation Policy Mar-19 N/A (to be followed by Implementation Plan) Yes Sewer System Management Plan Nov-17 Fall 2019 No Storm Drain Master Plan Jun-15 Unknown No Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Nov-16 2020 Yes Sustainability Implementation Plan Dec-17 2020 Yes Urban Forest Master Plan May-15 2020 Yes Urban Water Management Plan Jun-16 2021 (estimate)No PLANS iN PROGRESS Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan (BCCP) Not yet adopted; estimated fall 2019 In Progress To be included Cubberley Community Center Co-Design Master Plan Not yet adopted; estimated summer 2019 N/A (New effort) To be included North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Not yet adopted; estimated summer 2020 N/A (New effort) To be included Sea Level Rise Implementation Plan Not yet adopted; estimated summer 2020 N/A (New effort) To be included Tree and Landscape Technical Manual Not yet adopted; estimated Fall 2019 In Progress To be included Valley Water during 2017-2018, the SWRP supported municipal GSI Plans by identifying and prioritizing potential multi-benefit GSI opportunities on a high level for both parcels owned by the various municipalities and street rights-of-way throughout the Basin (i.e., Santa Clara Valley). Inclusion of these potential project locations allows them to be eligible for State bond-funded implementation grants. The SWRP includes a list of prioritized GSI opportunity locations for each SCVURPPP agency, including the City of Palo Alto. The GSI Plan builds on the SWRP output to further identify, evaluate, and 56 SECTION 8: INTEGRATION WITH CITY PLANS & DOCUMENTS prioritize potential opportunities, while developing the comprehensive long-term GSI implementation roadmap for the City. • Reasonable assurance analysis (Raa) – To meet MRP requirements, SCVURPPP initiated a county- wide effort to develop an RAA to estimate baseline PCB and mercury loads in stormwater discharges to the Bay from its member agencies’ jurisdictions, determine load reductions to meet assigned load allocations, and set goals for the amount of GSI needed to meet the portion of PCB and mercury load reduction the MRP assigns to GSI. The RAA is planned for completion by September 2020, and some results from the efforts to date have informed this GSI Plan. • one Water Plan – Valley Water’s Watershed Division is leading an effort to develop an Integrated Water Resources Master Plan to identify, prioritize, and implement activities at a watershed scale to maximize established water supply, flood protection, and environmental stewardship goals and objectives. The One Water Plan establishes a framework for long-term management of Santa Clara County water resources, which eventually will be used to plan and prioritize projects that maximize multiple benefits. The One Water Plan incorporates knowledge from past planning efforts, builds on existing and current related planning efforts; and coordinates with relevant internal and external programs. The One Water Plan has five goals: o “Valued and Respected Rain” – Manage rainwater to improve flood protection, water supply, and ecosystem health. o “Healthful and Reliable Water” – Enhance the quantity and quality of water to support beneficial uses. o “Ecologically Sustainable Streams and Watersheds” – Protect, enhance and sustain healthy and resilient stream ecosystems. o “Resilient Baylands” – Protect, enhance and sustain healthy and resilient Baylands ecosystems and infrastructure. o “Community Collaboration” – Work in partnership with an engaged community to champion wise decisions on water resources. Tier 1 of the effort, for which a draft plan was completed in 2016, is a county-wide overview of major resources and key issues along with identified goals and objectives. Tier 2 (2016 to 2020) will include greater detail on each of the County’s five major watersheds. Efforts related to the Coyote Watershed are in progress. • the Bay area’s integrated Regional Water Management Plan (iRWMP) – The Bay Area IRWMP is a comprehensive water resources plan for the Bay region that addresses four functional areas: (1) water supply and water quality; (2) wastewater and recycled water; (3) flood protection and stormwater management; and (4) watershed management and habitat protection and restoration. It provides a venue for regional collaboration and serves as a platform to secure state and federal funding. The IRWMP includes a list of over 300 project proposals, and a methodology for ranking those projects for the purpose of submitting a compilation of high priority projects for grant funding. The Santa Clara Basin SWRP was submitted to the Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee and incorporated into the IRWMP as an addendum. As SWRP projects are proposed for grant funding, they will be added to the IRWMP list using established procedures. SECTION 9: EVALUATION OF FUNDING OPTIONS 57 eValuatIon of fundInG oPtIonS 9SeCTIon 13%16% 5% 24% 36% 58 SECTION 9: EVALUATION OF FUNDING OPTIONS The total cost of GSI includes costs for planning, capital (design, engineering, construction) and ongoing expenditures, including operations and maintenance (O&M), utility relocation, and measure replacement. It is likely that no single source of revenue will be adequate to fund implementation of GSI, and a portfolio of funding sources will be needed. There are a variety of approaches available to help fund up-front and long-term investments. This Section discusses the City’s current stormwater management funding sources as well as a list of potential future options to complement the current funding. This list is a starting point, while Watershed Protection develops a thorough funding strategy to implement this Plan. 9.1 Current stormwater management funDIng In April 2017, City of Palo Alto property owners demonstrated their high level of commitment to stormwater issues by voting to approve the continuation of a new Stormwater (known as Storm Water when passed) Management Fee (SWMF), which became effective June 1, 2017. The SWMF funds routine stormwater system maintenance and operation that keep the City’s stormwater infrastructure at peak performance and provides for stormwater system improvements that prevent street flooding. Moreover, the SWMF also provides approximately 7 percent ($505,000 for fiscal year 20191) annually for GSI projects and “innovative” type projects, such as the City’s residential and commercial incentive rebates for installing GSI measures such as cisterns, rain barrels, and pervious paving. The fee also funds stormwater pollution prevention programs and other projects necessary to meet MRP requirements. In FY 19-20, GSI funds will be used to help fund the construction of GSI measures as part of City projects and obtaining consultant support to complete additional items determined necessary to implement the GSI Plan. Funding from the SWMF can help jumpstart GSI projects, and, more importantly, leverage funding sought from granting agencies and foundations. Figure 9.1 outlines how the fee is allocated annually. 1Fiscal year 2019 lasts from July 1, 2018-June 30, 2019. fIGure 9.1: Stormwater manaGement fee allocatIonS (fIScal Year 2019) 13% 7%16% 5% 24% 36% $7.78 of the fiscal year 2019 fees (55%) would fund new capital projects, “green infrastructure” and rebate programs that help businesses and residents reduce flooding and pollution. $6.27 (45%) would fund on-going stormwater management (base) programs Green infrastructure and incentive programs, $0.97 Debt Service for Past Capital Projects, $1.82 Storm Drain Capital improvements and Repairs, $4.99 Stormwater Quality Protection (preventing pollution at construction sites, industry and business), $2.19 Engineering, $0.74 Storm Drain System Maintenance and Emergency Response SECTION 9: EVALUATION OF FUNDING OPTIONS 59 SeCTI on 9 9.2 evaluatIon of aDDItIonal funDIng oPtIons As required by the MRP, the City conducted an evaluation of potential private and public funding options for design, construction, and long-term maintenance of prioritized GSI projects. Sources of information used as references for the City’s evaluation of funding options included: • SCVURPPP’s GSI Funding Options Guidance (2018); • San Mateo City/County Association of Governments’ Potential Funding Source Analysis and Recommendations (2014); and • California Stormwater Quality Association’s Stormwater Funding Barriers and Opportunities (2017). This section provides a brief description of the different funding options evaluated by the City as part of preparing the Plan, including development impact fees, grants and private-public partnerships. Note that these options are not presented in an order of priority or importance. 9.2.1 alternatIve ComPlIanCe Alternative compliance, using off-site construction or in-lieu fees, allows a developer flexibility to build or contribute financially to an off-site stormwater treatment system when unable to meet stormwater treatment requirements within the regulated project site or when it is more beneficial for water quality to provide stormwater treatment or flow controls off- site. Provision C.3.e.i of the MRP allows the following alternative compliance options: • Construction of a joint stormwater treatment facility that treats combined runoff from two or more regulated projects; • Construction of a stormwater treatment system off- site (on public or other private property) that treats an equivalent amount of impervious surface and provides a net environmental benefit; • Payment of an in-lieu fee (for capital and O&M expenses) for a Regional Project or municipal stormwater treatment facility on other public or private property. Another type of alternative compliance program is a credit trading program. Credits are created by one property owner and traded with other property owners. The program is typically managed by a government agency and can create incentives to treat stormwater in excess of the permit requirements on regulated sites, while also creating incentives to install systems that treat stormwater on non-regulated sites. The current MRP does not specifically mention credit trading programs, but such a program could be developed in consultation with the Regional Water Board as a form of alternative compliance. Each alternative compliance option creates obligations for City staff in addition to benefits and drawbacks for the City and developer. In addition, some of the options may require updates to an agency’s municipal code in order to implement them. The City currently allows alternative compliance approaches within its jurisdiction but like most other Bay Area agencies, it does not have an established in-lieu fee or credit trading program. The City will consider these approaches in the future as they become more widely used and accepted and as local models for in-lieu fee and credit trading programs become available. 9.2.2 BalloteD aPProaChes As a result of the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996, the California Constitution requires voter or property-owner approval to levy new taxes or fees for stormwater management. Parcel taxes, property- related fees, general obligation bonds and other special taxes are the basic types of balloted measures appropriate for stormwater funding. Other types of balloted measures include Infrastructure Financing Districts (requires 2/3 vote of affected properties) and motor vehicle license fees (now considered a tax requiring a 2/3 vote). Since the City already has the SWMF, a property-related fee established via a Proposition 218 process, it does not intend to pursue any other types of balloted approaches at this time. 9.2.3 BenefIt assessment anD CommunIty faCIlItIes DIstrICts Local governments can levy benefit assessments on property owners to pay for public improvements and services that specifically benefit their properties. The amount of the assessment is directly related to the amount of benefit the property receives. For example, all property owners in a watershed could be assessed to fund stormwater runoff management programs that provide direct benefit to properties within that watershed. Assessments are not taxes or fees, and must be approved by a weighted majority of the affected property owners that cast votes. Many municipalities currently have localized special tax and assessment districts that fund the maintenance 60 SECTION 9: EVALUATION OF FUNDING OPTIONS and operations of various types of local infrastructure, including Community Facilities Districts (CFDs), “Mello-Roos Districts,” and Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts. CFDs may be appropriate for capital-intensive spending in a relatively small area, such as “green street” development. Both CFDs and benefit assessments are very effective and manageable, but are primarily a tool for new development and are commonly used for larger residential developments throughout California. Most importantly, they are routinely established during the residential development phase, while the developer owns all the property, because establishment is more politically challenging (requiring a balloting of all impacted property owners) after the homes have been sold. The viability of these funding mechanisms depends on the level of remaining potential development or redevelopment in the City. However, parcels in CFDs and Benefit Assessment Districts need not be contiguous. In other words, the municipality can create revenue districts and require new development to be annexed into the districts as a condition of development. Benefit Assessment Districts and CFDs are typically used to pay for the annual O&M of something that benefits the paying property, like a local GSI installation. Care should be taken to clearly differentiate between what activities are funded by the CFD levy and a property-related fee/tax, so that both can be collected from the impacted property. CFDs are generally preferred over benefit assessments, because they provide slightly broader flexibility in use and are slightly less expensive to annually administer. The City may consider a benefit assessment or community facility district in the North Ventura neighborhood or other area of major redevelopment as a potential mechanism for funding GSI construction and/or maintenance. 9.2.4 BusIness ImProvement DIstrICts A Business Improvement District (BID) is a mechanism in which businesses and property owners tax themselves and manage the funds to build or maintain certain assets. The BID can be set up and administered by the community members. The City current administers a BID in downtown Palo Alto (managed by the Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association) and assesses an annual fee paid by all businesses within the District. The fee varies based on the type, location, and type of business. The City will consider whether there are any areas within its jurisdiction in which a BID supporting GSI would be appropriate. 9.2.5 DeveloPment ImPaCt fees A municipality may enact a development impact fee that is paid by an applicant seeking approval of a development project. This type of fee is used to defray all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project. Under state law, a development impact fee is not a tax or special assessment, and therefore is not subject to voter approval. However, municipalities must carefully prepare and enact a development impact fee program to ensure it meets the requirements in California Government Code §§ 66000-66025 (the Mitigation Fee Act). The City considers implementing development impact fees to be a potential source of funding for GSI capital projects. In lieu of an impact fee, the City may consider requiring developers to install GSI measures in the public right-of-way adjacent to development or redevelopment projects as part of project conditions of approval. For example, if a redevelopment project necessitates improvements to the sidewalk or curb and gutter along its street frontage, this may create an opportunity for integration of GSI along the frontage, in addition to the on-site stormwater treatment and reduction the project would be required. In this example, the City could explore partnering options for maintenance as well. 9.2.6 grants Federal, state, and regional grant programs have funding available to local governments to support GSI efforts. These grant programs include: • California Water Resources Control Board Proposition 1 Stormwater Implementation Grant Program2; • US EPA: Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund; • California Department of Water Resources: Integrated Regional Water Management Program Implementation Grants; 2As a result of Senate Bill 985, now incorporated into the California Water Code, stormwater capture and use projects must be part of a prioritized list of projects in a Stormwater Resource Plan in order to compete for state grant funds from any voter-approved bond measures. The Santa Clara Basin SWRP contains a list of prioritized potential parcels and street segments within Palo Alto that would be eligible for funding. SECTION 9: EVALUATION OF FUNDING OPTIONS 61z SeCTI on 9 • California State Parks: Land & Water Conservation Fund and Rails-to-Trails Programs; • California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection: Urban and Community Program; • Strategic Growth Council: Urban Greening Program; • California Office of Emergency Services 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; • Caltrans Cooperative Implementation Agreements or Grants Program; • One Bay Area Grant Program (transportation projects). The City has sometimes used grants as a source of funding and will consider applying for grants to help fund GSI projects in the future. 9.2.7 IntegratIon wIth transPortatIon ProjeCts The complete streets and green streets movements have brought more attention to incorporating environmental mitigation elements, such as GSI, into traditional transportation projects. The resulting multi-benefit projects demonstrate how transportation funding can be leveraged to satisfy stormwater goals cost-effectively. Typically, there are three approaches to integrating GSI funding into transportation projects: 1. Opportunistic: Piggy-backing onto transportation grants, or looking for particular sources of transportation funding (e.g., the State Transportation Improvement Program – Transportation Enhancement) that are allowed to be used for both streetscape or bike/pedestrian improvements and stormwater treatment. 2. Planning and Budgeting: Coordinating with the various City departments that are involved with long-range planning and/or the development of CIPs that are transportation-related and evaluating ways to allocate additional funding for GSI elements. 3. Grant-related: Coordinating grants from multiple sources for a single GSI/transportation project. The City has used some of these approaches in the past and is continuing to look for opportunities to incorporate GSI into transportation projects and leverage transportation funding. Palo Alto has a City-wide Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) that is assessed against a development project that will have traffic impacts on the City. The amount of the fee is designed to recover some of the costs to the City of mitigating that impact, usually through investment in capital projects. The TIF is designed to recover approximately 4-5 percent of the costs associated with relieving traffic congestion from new development through 2025. Transportation-related CIPs partially funded by these fees may incorporate GSI in the future. 9.2.8 long-term DeBt Instruments While long-term debt financing is not an additional source of revenue, it is a way for local agencies to obtain funding to jumpstart projects. This approach provides a large injection of capital, which can greatly accelerate public right-of-way improvements such as GSI implementation and storm drain pipeline rehabilitation. General Obligation (GO) Bonds and Certificates of Participation (COPs) are popular methods of funding physical improvements intended to last longer than the repayment period. These mechanisms have low interest repayment rates but incur administrative costs. COPs are not secured and do not need voter approval. The California Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) is one option for long-term debt financing at low interest rates. The debt can be secured by various revenue sources including parcel and other special taxes, fees and assessments. Since its inception in 1989, the CWSRF has provided below-market rate financing for the construction of wastewater treatment and water recycling facilities and other types of pollution control solutions. Eligible projects now include the planning, design, and/or construction of publicly-owned stormwater capture and treatment facilities. The CWSRF also has principal forgiveness loans available for “Green Project Reserve” (GPR) projects that address water or energy efficiency, mitigate stormwater runoff, or encourage sustainable project planning, design, and construction (including GSI projects). The GPR program has a principal forgiveness of 50 percent of actual GPR eligible costs or 75 percent of GPR eligible planning costs, with a maximum loan forgiveness amount of $4.0 million. The City has used CWSRF financing for past wastewater and recycled water projects and will consider this mechanism for GSI projects. 9.2.9 PuBlIC-PrIvate PartnershIPs (P3) Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) have the potential to help communities optimize their limited resources through agreements with private parties to help build and maintain their public infrastructure. P3s have successfully designed, built, and maintained 62 SECTION 9: EVALUATION OF FUNDING OPTIONS many types of public infrastructure such as roads and drinking water and wastewater utilities across the U.S. Only recently have agencies begun to explore the use of P3s specifically for stormwater management or to meet Clean Water Act requirements. In California, P3-enabling legislation was enacted by the state in 2007, and since then, several agencies have used P3s for public infrastructure projects, such as Caltrans with the Presidio Parkway (Doyle Drive) approach to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco and the State of California judicial system with a courthouse in Long Beach.3 However, to-date, there do not appear to be any P3s that have been developed in the state for the explicit purpose of implementing GSI, possibly because few agencies have stormwater fees that can be leveraged in a P3 program. The City has such a fee and may be able to consider the P3 model for funding a major GSI project. 9.2.10 realIgnment of munICIPal servICes “Realignment” of stormwater program services to other, more readily-funded services such as water, sewer and refuse collection is a means of leveraging existing resources within the constraints of Proposition 218. Under Proposition 218, water, sewer and refuse collection fees are exempt from the voter approval requirement. A number of public agencies in California have identified stormwater program elements that may legally qualify for inclusion in the water, wastewater or refuse collection categories and have established new or increased fees, and/ or re-negotiated existing franchise agreements for such services. An agency should only realign services where there is a clear connection to sewer, water, and/or refuse collection services4. Potential applications related to GSI include re- aligning a portion of the costs to: • Capture and infiltrate urban runoff to the water service provider on the basis of recharging groundwater supplies that are or will potentially be tapped for drinking water. • Capture and infiltrate urban runoff to the water service provider on the basis that such runoff is a direct byproduct of water usage (e.g., irrigation leading to runoff). Ideally, the fees for such services will be largely borne by properties that overuse water, creating urban runoff. • Capture urban runoff to the sewer provider on the basis of reducing wet weather infiltration and inflow to sewer pipes. The City currently uses this option to some extent and will consider different ways to align current services in the future. 9.2.11 volunteer Programs Some municipalities have programs for engaging the community with GSI. Typically, engagement includes installation and/or maintenance of landscaping in stormwater bioretention facilities. These programs can benefit the agency by reducing maintenance staff time for paid agency workers or contractors. However, the burden of setting up, administering, training volunteers and tracking results can create a net cost to the agency, and volunteers may not be reliable in the long run for these activities. Partnerships with established volunteer agencies can help alleviate these burdens. Other benefits can include public education and building support for stormwater fees which can make the programs more valuable. The City has had success partnering with Grassroots Ecology (formerly Acterra) and Canopy to get citizens involved with construction of rain gardens and rain barrels, tree planting, and maintenance of landscaped features and trees, and will continue to encourage these joint efforts. However, volunteer labor is not expected to offset a significant amount of the funding required to construct and maintain GSI facilities. 9.2.12 summary of gsI funDIng oPtIons Table 9.1 summarizes funding strategies that will be considered by the City as potential funding sources as the Plan is implemented. For each type of funding mechanism, the table provides a brief overview and specifics related to GSI, requirements for employing the mechanism, pros and cons, and applicability to funding planning, capital, and/or long-term O&M costs. This table will be refined over time. 3For other examples of P3s in California, see: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Public-Private_Partnership_Policy_Casebook. 4It should be noted that AB 2403, signed by Governor Brown in 2014, amended Section 53750 of the California Government Code to clarify that stormwater management activities that benefit or enhance local water supplies can be included in water service fees (which are not required to gain voter approval). AB 2403 appears to broaden the definition of water under Proposition 218 and may help to facilitate programs and projects that use stormwater for water supply. SECTION 9: EVALUATION OF FUNDING OPTIONS 63 SeCTI on 9 SECTiON/OvERviEW/ USE FOR GSi REqUiREMENTS PROS CONS APPLiCABLE USE Alternative Compliance: Allows developers the flexibility to build, or fund through payment of an in-lieu fee, off-site stormwater treatment systems for regulated projects or set up credit trading programs. Le- verages development activities to build and maintain GSI systems. Stormwater can be treated off-site if there is a net water quality benefit. Credits must be calculated using a standardized metric for water quality or quantity benefit. • Gives flexibility to site GSI systems in locations that optimize pollutant loading reduction and other benefits to the community. • Can be difficult to come up with viable alternative locations for GSI installations. • Planning • Allows for off-site stormwater treatment when stormwater management requirements can’t be met within a regulated project site. • Can be difficult to quantify how much a developer should pay upfront for long-term maintenance costs that the municipality will bear. • Capital • An in-lieu fee and/or credit trading system can be used to achieve additional retrofits and installation of GSI. • May require agencies to modify the stormwater sections of their municipal codes to allow for the creation and/or use of the desired options/programs. • O&M • Multi-benefit opportunities of on-site GSI (e.g., traffic calming, heat island, bike lanes, etc.) will be lost when GSI is implemented at a different location. Benefit Assessment and Community Facility Dis- tricts: Typically used to build and/or maintain fa- cilities for the benefit of a specific area. Could be used for GSI improve- ments and/or services. Established through new development projects as a condi- tion of approval or through a balloting of all impacted prop- erty owners. • Can be used to fund maintenance and operations. • Requires property owners and/ or businesses to agree that the need is present and that they should be (at least partially) responsible for funding it. • Capital • Administrative workload required to implement on small distributed/ localized areas for a citywide program may not be cost-effective. • O&M Business Improvement Districts: Businesses and property owners tax themselves and manage the funds to build or maintain improvement such as GSI assets. Can be set up and administered by the community mem- bers. • Can provide sense of ownership and pride in the neighborhood when results are visible. • Can burden businesses, property owners and others to the extent that they are unwilling to approve other funding measures. • Planning • Capital • O&M Development Impact Fees: paid by an appli- cant seeking approval of a development project. Could potentially be used to fund retrofits of adjacent public ROW with GSI as part of de- velopment or redevel- opment projects. Impact fee pro- gram must meet the requirements in California’s Mitiga- tion Fee Act. • Cost for retrofitting streets can be leveraged through development activities. • If a fee is found to not relate to the impact created by the development project, or to exceed the reasonable cost of providing the public service, then the fee may be declared a “special tax” subject to approval by a 2/3 majority of voters. • Planning • Cannot be used for O&M.• Capital • Revenue generated is fairly small and may not be sufficient for anything substantial. taBle 9.1: PotentIal GSI fundInG StrateGIeS for tHe cItY 64 SECTION 9: EVALUATION OF FUNDING OPTIONS SECTiON/OvERviEW/ USE FOR GSi REqUiREMENTS PROS CONS APPLiCABLE USE Grants: one time funds that require an applica- tion from a funding agency. Could be used to plan, design and/or build GSI. Application, report- ing, coordination, and grant deliver- ables. • Can fund programs or systems that would otherwise take up significant general fund revenues. • Usually a one-time source of funding. • May need to create new programs and systems for each grant. • Usually have strings attached for matching funds and other requirements. • Planning • Little control over timing of applications and payment can lead to difficulties in coordination with other programs and grants. • Capital • Can be very competitive and resource intensive to apply. • No guarantee of success. • Post-project O&M costs must be borne by the agency. Integration with Transportation Projects: transportation funding is leveraged to cost-effec- tively include stormwa- ter quality elements. Installation and mainte- nance of GSI facilities as part of integrated roadway programs Make the con- nections between roadways and drain- age systems that are green and complete, where allowed by conditions of the funding source. • Roadway projects have more funding than stormwater programs and are generally more popular with the public. • Roadways have been designed in certain ways with expectations of costs and purposes for decades. • Complete and green streets may be more popular with the public than traditional car- focused streets. • Many roadways are in poor condition and there is not enough funding to fix them all. • Planning • Green streets may be less expensive than traditional streets based on a life cycle cost analysis. • GSI is perceived as an “added” cost which, could reduce the number of roadways that can be maintained. • Capital • Transportation funding is often restricted to certain roadway construction elements. Long Term Debt: Borrow money up-front against a dedicated stream of revenue projected over the life of the program. Can borrow money from future revenues to construct GSI systems in the present. No voter approval. Municipality’s credit rating may be a factor. • Well understood process of raising funds. • Need a dedicated stream of revenue to pay off debt. • Planning • Allows acceleration of improvements to compliance deadlines. • If the general fund is used, can put the general fund at risk if jurisdiction cannot make the payments, credit rating will be downgraded jeopardizing other programs. • Capital taBle 9.1: PotentIal GSI fundInG StrateGIeS for tHe cItY (CONTINUED...) SECTION 9: EVALUATION OF FUNDING OPTIONS 65 SeCTI on 9 SECTiON/OvERviEW/ USE FOR GSi REqUiREMENTS PROS CONS APPLiCABLE USE Public-Private Partner- ships (P3s): agreements or contracts between a municipality and a private company to per- form specific tasks. Can provide for the design, construction and main- tenance of GSI systems over a long period. Stormwater fee or other source of stable revenue over the life of the P3 contract. • Leverages public funds while minimizing impacts to a municipality’s debt capacity. • Access to advanced technologies. • Planning • Improved asset management. • Stormwater fee or other source of stable revenue over the life of the P3 contract is required. • Capital • Draws on private sector expertise and financing. • Contracts out to the private sector the construction and maintenance of GSI systems, possibly removing some municipal control. • O&M • Benefits local economic development and “green jobs.” • Relieves pressure on internal local government resources. • Implementation timeline is faster. Realignment of Municipal Services: municipalities shift costs to programs where rev- enue can be increased such as sewer, water and trash. Could be used to plan, design, build and/or maintain GSI where there is a nexus between programs Leverage funding from other depart- ments for stormwa- ter activities, or reas- sign the stormwater activity to another department. • A means of leveraging existing or new resources funded by non-balloted fee structures. • Bureaucratic issues can be difficult to overcome. • Planning • Sewer, trash and water may be controlled by different agencies that may not be able to coordinate or share resources. • Capital • There may be political restrictions to significant increases in rates. • O&M • Not clear if resource can be realigned to fund stormwater programs. Volunteer Programs: Provide community- based volunteer labor for specific tasks, such as helping build or maintain GSI facilities. Administration, training, tracking and monitoring of volunteers. • A low-cost source of labor. • Can be time intensive for staff to set up and administer. • Planning • Educational program for community. • May not be dependable in the long run. • Capital • Can build support for a stormwater fee or other funding source. • pal control depending on program specifics. • O&M taBle 9.1: PotentIal GSI fundInG StrateGIeS for tHe cItY (CONTINUED...) 66 SECTION 9: EVALUATION OF FUNDING OPTIONS Page IntentIonally left Blank SECTION 10: OUTREACH AND EDUCATION 67 outreacH and educatIon 10SeCTIon 68 SECTION 10: OUTREACH AND EDUCATION One of the most important steps in the development of the GSI Plan was educating and developing relationships with department staff, managers, residents and elected officials regarding the purposes and goals of GSI, the required elements of the GSI Plan, and steps needed to develop and implement the GSI Plan. Implementation success is much more likely if Watershed Protection staff obtains complete buy-in and commitment to the Plan and this new stormwater management approach from staff across City Departments as well as members of the public. Outreach and education tasks that Watershed Protection staff carried out beginning in fiscal year (FY) 15-16 and those that will continue through the GSI Plan development and implementation process are described below. A summary of these outreach efforts is outlined in Figure 10.1. 10.1 Inter-DePartmental meetIngs Watershed Protection staff consistently met with various departments, in both small- and large-scale settings throughout this GSI planning process. These meetings focused on discussing GSI requirements, obtaining early and frequent feedback, and building connections to work together in GSI planning/design, implementation, maintenance, and monitoring strategies and requirements. For smaller-scale meetings, Watershed Protection staff met with relevant staff and management from individual departments to discuss the GSI Plan as it related to that specific group in order to obtain their feedback and perspective. Obtaining this individualized feedback from City departments will ultimately ensure that the design, Figure 10.1: City-wide Outreach and Education Efforts SECTION 10: OUTREACH AND EDUCATION 69 SeCTI on 1 0 implementation, and maintenance of GSI measures are carried out in an efficient and effective manner. In addition to these individual meetings, Watershed Protection gathered a GSI Workgroup consisting of Department Managers and Supervisors that regularly met to help with the development and implementation of the GSI Plan. This Workgroup initially met in March 2017 to discuss development of this Framework for the GSI Plan and overall permit requirements. This Workgroup continued to meet during the GSI Plan development, with support from a consultant team, on a regular basis until March 2019, when the Plan was finalized. Watershed Protection staff also invited the Workgroup to provide feedback on the GSI Plan Scope of Work before it was sent out to potential consultants. Communication was consistently maintained via email outside of these meetings as well. Throughout these small- and large-scale meetings, Watershed Protection staff asked for feedback regarding project opportunities to incorporate GSI. With assistance from Department staff and per MRP requirements, Watershed Protection staff analyzed both proposed and planned capital projects for opportunities to incorporate GSI before and during the development of the GSI Plan. To submit with the MRP Annual Report, Watershed Protection maintained a list of planned and constructed public projects that included GSI for the last three fiscal years (15-16, 16-17, and 17-18) and will continue to do so until the end of the permit term (approximately January 2020). 10.2 external CoorDInatIon efforts Watershed Protection staff conducted outreach efforts to the public through various committees and external partnerships. The City coordinates with SCVURPPP on a comprehensive outreach and education program. The key audiences of this program include: the general public (e.g. county-wide, and in the neighborhood or municipality where GSI projects are located); the development community (e.g. developers, engineers, landscape architects, and contractors); and elected officials. In addition to coordinating with SCVURPPP on their outreach and education program, City staff participates in SCVURPPP committees and workgroups that coordinate county-wide GSI activities through which Permittee representatives provide guidance and feedback on documents and other products. These documents and products (e.g. SCVURPPP C.3 GSI Handbook) are circulated through the City’s Workgroup when appropriate to encourage City staff to provide feedback and input that is then shared with SCVURPPP. Watershed Protection staff has also provided several presentations to City committees made up of a diverse group of residents, including the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning and Transportation Commission, regarding the GSI Plan. In addition, various meetings have been held with the SWMOC in the past year to obtain guidance and direction during the development of the Plan. Meetings will continue during the implementation of the GSI Plan as well. Public Works Engineering and Watershed Protection staff have also assisted with outreach by working with a local, non-profit organization, Grassroots Ecology, to develop small-scale GSI projects in local neighborhoods and educate residents about rain harvesting and stormwater measures. 10.3 traInIng Watershed Protection staff worked closely with SCVURPPP in both the development and training for the GSI Plan. City staff highly promoted the SCVURVPPP training workshops involving the GSI Plan, and continues to encourage staff to attend upcoming trainings. A list of these workshops is outlined below: • “Developing Your Green Infrastructure Program and Identifying Opportunities to Turn Gray to Green” on April 25, 2016, at the Campbell Community Center in Campbell, to educate municipal staff on the GSI requirements in the MRP. The workshop included presentations on developing and implementing municipal GSI Plans, review of public projects for identifying GSI opportunities, and a group exercise to review an example CIP project list for GSI opportunities. The workshop also included an optional field trip to the Hacienda Avenue Green Street in Campbell. • “Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure – Meeting New Requirements” on June 9, 2016, at the Mitchell Park Community Center in Palo Alto. The workshop covered basic C.3 training, updates on new requirements in the MRP, a panel on C.3 implementation, vendor presentations on pervious paving and stormwater treatment products, and an afternoon session on design, construction and maintenance considerations for pervious paving. 70 SECTION 10: OUTREACH AND EDUCATION The workshop also included a tour of the LID features of the Mitchell Park Community Center. • “Green Infrastructure Design and Implementation” on April 19, 2017, at the Quinlan Community Center in Cupertino. The workshop included presentations on GSI design guidelines; implementing GSI projects; integrating GSI into other public works projects such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities; overview of the forthcoming SCVURPPP GSI Handbook; and GSI landscape and maintenance considerations. • “Green Stormwater Infrastructure Handbook Details: Pervious Pavement, Infiltration Trenches and Utility Protection and Coordination” on April 10, 2018, at the Mitchell Park Community Center in Palo Alto. The purpose of the workshop was to review and receive input on typical details compiled for the SCVURPPP GSI Handbook Part 2. The workshop included breakout sessions for group discussion and a panel of utility agency staff to discuss dealing with utility conflicts when designing and constructing GSI projects. • “Green Stormwater Infrastructure Handbook Details: Stormwater Curb Extensions, Stormwater Planters and Stormwater Tree Well Filters” on April 24, 2018 at the Quinlan Community Center in Cupertino. The purpose of the workshop was to continue to review and receive input on typical details compiled for the SCVURPPP GSI Handbook Part 2. The workshop included breakout sessions for group discussion and special presentations on lessons learned on GSI construction projects and design of suspended pavement systems to enhance stormwater tree well filters. In addition to training for City staff, SCVURPPP conducted a workshop on the SWRP and GSI project planning and implementation for local builders, developers, and engineering consultants on November 29, 2018. The workshop also included an overview of the SCVURPPP GSI Handbook. A total of 36 consultants attended the workshop. This training for the development community was part of the Proposition 1 planning grant that Valley Water received on behalf of SCUVRPPP to develop the SWRP. City staff provides training for residents as well. Public Works Engineering staff conducts annual workshops to educate and encourage residents to install stormwater harvesting media to reduce runoff, reduce pollutants, and utilize rainwater for non-potable use. 10.4 InformatIonal Watershed Protection staff provides outreach to both residents and elected officials through various formats, including utility bill inserts (UBIs), workshops, and factsheets. In both 2016 (Figure 10.2) and 2018 (Figure 10.3), the City developed and sent out new informational UBIs regarding GSI to approximately 26,000 residential accounts each year. The UBI in 2016 focused on GSI measures that are more applicable for installation on residential properties, whereas the UBI in 2018 focused on GSI measures that are more applicable for installation on public parcels. WPG staff also developed a City webpage focused on GSI, where various types of GSI information is stored including, but not limited to, both UBIs, the GSI Framework, and, when completed, the accepted GSI Plan. Staff will continue to provide outreach materials to the general public regarding the GSI Plan and benefits, as well as available City rebates for residents to implement small GSI features on private property. SCVURPPP has also supported the City and other municipalities by providing outreac on a County- wide scale. For the public, SCVURPPP developed a factsheet titled “Greening our Streets, Roads, and Parking Lots” that is posted on SCVURPPP’s Watershed Watch website, distributed at events, and used by member agencies to educate their residents. SCVURPPP also developed a set of informational graphics on types of GSI features and how they are integrated into neighborhoods. These can be accessed on the Watershed Watch Green Streets webpage1 or from the City’s GSI webpage2. This Green Streets webpage is promoted in Watershed Watch online advertisements to educate residents on LID/GSI features that they can integrate into their yards and garden components, and generate support for future green street projects. Residents can also access a map of all installed GSI features in the Santa Clara Valley. For Elected Officials, SCVURPPP developed a factsheet titled “Integrating Green Stormwater Infrastructure into Public Streets, Roads, Buildings, and Parking Lots,” as well as a brief presentation for agencies’ use in conducting outreach to elected officials on GSI. 1http://www.mywatershedwatch.org/residents/green-streets/ 2https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gsi SECTION 10: OUTREACH AND EDUCATION 71 SeCTI on 1 0 Figure 10.2: Green Stormwater Infrastructure Utility Bill Insert, 2016 (front and back) Storm Water Management Program fees funded commercial and residential rebate programs for permeable walkways and parking lots, rain barrels, cisterns and green roofs. For more information visit cityofpaloalto.org/stormwaterfee or call (650) 329-2295. Palo Alto’s Storm Water Management Program Reduces Street Flooding and Protects Creeks. PrevenTInG STreeT fLoodInG relies on the smart design of City storm drain infrastructure and streetscapes that slow, spread and sink storm water runoff. The health of Palo Alto creeks depends on programs that keep litter, leaf debris, sewer overflows, and construction and industrial pollutants from entering our watershed. Since 2005, Palo Alto’s Storm Water Management Program fees have funded seven high-priority storm drain pipeline and pump station capital improvement projects, a precedent-setting green infrastructure project (see reverse side), and more than 100 rebates to property owners for rainwater catchment, permeable driveways, and green roofs. Engineered bioretention beds mimic nature by slowing, spreading, sinking and filtering storm water. New storm drain pipes were installed along Channing Avenue in 2011 to reduce frequent street flooding along this important vehicle and bike corridor. School programs, volunteer creek clean-up events and construction and industrial inspection services prevent storm water pollution. The San Francisquito Creek Storm Water Pump Station installed in 2009 clears storm water from streets in a 1,250 acre neighborhood in northeastern Palo Alto. Individuals with disabilities who require accommodations to access 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 the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or email ada@cityofpaloalto.org 11/16 Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper, bleached without chlorine. The City of Palo Alto offers commercial and residential rebates to install pervious surfaces, rain barrels and cisterns and green roofs. Visit cityofpaloalto.org/stormwater or call (650) 329-2295 to learn more. What Green Storm Water Infrastructure Looks Like. In natural landscapes, rain soaks into the soil which slows the speed of runoff and filters pollutants. In urban areas, “impervious” surfaces such as roofs, concrete and asphalt interrupt this natural process. This increases flooding risks and pollution that washes into creeks and San Francisco Bay. “Green storm water infrastructure” mimics nature by slowing, spreading, sinking and filtering runoff. The Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requires Palo Alto and other Bay Area agencies to develop a Green Storm Water Infrastructure (GSI) Plan by September 30, 2019 and identify locations for GSI implementation. Bioretention Planters are areas landscaped with native plants and underlain with layers of soil and crushed rock. These planters filter and treat storm runoff that is directed into them. rainwater Cistern Cisterns capture rainwater so that it can be used for irrigation. Rainwater Cistern in Coldwater Canyon Park, Beverly Hills. Photo courtesy of TreePeople.org Green roofs are attractive and allow rainwater to soak into vegetation instead of running off the building. Green roofs also reduce heating and cooling costs and reduce heat-island effects. Green roof installation on Mitchell Park Library, Palo Alto Pervious concrete, asphalt, and pavers reduce runoff by letting rain percolate into soil below. These surfaces can be used in crosswalks, sidewalks, plazas, driveways, parking spaces and emergency vehicle access lanes. What if Palo alto streets Were designed to reduce storm runoff and Water Pollution While adding beauty? Individuals with disabilities who require accommodations to access 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 the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or email ada@cityofpaloalto.org 11/16 Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper, bleached without chlorine. 72 SECTION 10: OUTREACH AND EDUCATION Funded by your monthly Stormwater Management Fee. Individuals with disabilities who require accommodations to access 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 the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or email ada@cityofpaloalto.org 8/18 Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper, bleached without chlorine. Green StreetS Improve CommunItIeS “Green Streets” slow, absorb and filter pollution in stormwater runoff and improve pedestrian and bicycle safety. Learn more about Green Streets and the City’s Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan at cityofpaloalto.org/GSI or call 650-329-2122. permeable pavement reduces runoff by percolating rain into the soil below. Bioretention Areas filter runoff collected from hardscapes through drought-tolerant plants and well-draining soils. They can also provide traffic-calming features. utilize suspended pavement systems so that roots can extend further; this allows trees to grow taller, provide more shade, and absorb more runoff. tree Well Filters capture, filter, and slow roof runoff from disconnected downspouts. Stormwater planters Figure 10.3: Green Stormwater Infrastructure Utility Bill Insert, 2018 SECTION 11: ADOPTION OF THE GSI FRAMEWORK & PLAN 73 adoPtIon of tHe GSI framework and Plan 11SeCTIon 74 SECTION 11: ADOPTION OF THE GSI FRAMEWORK & PLAN Watershed Protection staff was committed to inter- departmental collaboration during the development of both the GSI Framework as well as the Plan. Staff engaged various City Departments to create an all- inclusive GSI Plan through GSI Workgroup and small staff meetings and provided various documents and updates via email communication. In addition, staff had the opportunity to provide feedback at various stages of Plan drafts, including the 50 percent, 85 percent and final draft. Finally, the SWMOC was involved throughout the process, and local non- profit organizations and members of the public were provided access to copies of the 85 percent and final versions for review. The City’s GSI Framework (or outline) was based on the framework template provided by SCVURPPP. The template outlined the steps to develop the GSI Plan and involve City staff in the process. The GSI Plan Framework was approved by the City Manager on June 30, 2017. The development of the GSI Plan was carried out from Fall 2017 through Spring 2019. In addition to involvement and support of staff and the SWMOC, the Plan was also presented to the Parks and Recreation and Planning and Transportation Commissions in late 2018/early 2019. It was then presented to Council in May. Refer to Figure 11.1 for specific dates of this process. Figure 11.1: GSI Plan Adoption Timeline SECTION 12: LEGAL UPDATES 75 leGal uPdateS 12SeCTIon 76 SECTION 12: LEGAL UPDATES 12.1 authorIty to ImPlement gsI Plan As part of the Plan process, the City reviewed its existing ordinances and other legal mechanisms related to the implementation of MRP requirements in order to identify documents that need to be updated or modified to provide sufficient legal authority to implement the Plan and associated requirements and processes. In parallel with the development of the Plan, the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 16.11, titled Stormwater Compliance Management Program (previously titled Stormwater Pollution Prevention), was updated, both to provide this aftorementioned authority and to ensure overall compliance with the MRP. The Municipal Code Chapter 16.11 update was adopted by City Council by July1 2019. 12.2 stormwater munICIPal CoDe uPDate—a steP towarD InCreasIng sIte-sCale lID One of the updated requirements in Chapter 16.112 is in regards to LID, previously described in Section 1.3.3 as a management approach and set of practices that can reduce runoff and pollutant loadings by managing runoff as close to its source(s) as possible3. The current MRP requires implementation of one LID practice on all project sites (including residential) that create or replace at least 2,500 square feet of impervious surface (collectively over the entire site). Per the MRP, non-single family residential projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more are required to use stormwater treatment measures (or GSI) to treat all runoff on-site (refer to Section 1.4). Thus, this updated requirement helps to reduce runoff from sites that create or replace less than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. With the Chapter 16.11 update, the threshold has been decreased from 2,500 square feet to 2,000 square feet. Moreover, because single-family homes are not required by the MRP to implement GSI as are other project types, single-family residential projects that create or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface and are located on a parcel with area greater than 10,000 square feet or more will have to implement additional LID practices (four or more). As an overall site design approach, LID can usually be applied as individual small-scale stormwater management practices (isolated LID practices) at less than the cost of GSI. Such site design measures include diverting runoff from sidewalks, driveways and parking lots to landscaping instead of to a drainage pathway leading to the curb and gutter, and, thus, the City’s storm drain system. This new requirement is a step forward for a new overall approach to treat stormwater runoff with a combination of gray and green infrastructure throughout the City. Refer to Municipal Code language for details. 1This is an estimate and will be updated if necessary. 2Ch. 16.11 is currently being updated, and it is anticipated that City Council will adopt the new language by July 2019. 3https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/bbfs2terms.pdf SECTION 13: CHANGES OF CITY PERSPECTIVE—POLICIES & PROGRAMS 77 cHanGe of cItY PerSPectIVe— PolIcIeS and ProGramS 13SeCTIon 78 SECTION 13: CHANGES OF CITY PERSPECTIVE—POLICIES & PROGRAMS An important aspect of GSI Plan implementation is a change of staff perspective regarding project management—considering sustainability, GSI and LID at the forefront of every design for every size construction and maintenance project. This adapted perspective has been regularly discussed with the SWMOC, Workgroup and other City staff meetings. This adjustment can become part of a standardized approach the includes a collaborative and transparent process, manageable assessment and tracking tools and guidance that meet MRP requirements, and adequate funding but that also supports the City’s structure and decision-making framework. Moreover, per the MRP, the City is required to “adopt policies, ordinances, and/or other appropriate legal mechanisms to ensure implementation of the GSI Plan.” In addition to the legal changes mentioned in Section 12, policies can be established to direct the integration and complement of GSI in CIPs; street/sidewalk/alley construction and improvements; small- and large-scale bicycle and pedestrian safety projects; and operation and maintenance practices. This way, each public project can provide multiple benefits, increase asset values, meet sustainability goals, and support inter- departmental coordination. The following is a list of adjustments to the City approach and perspective to implement this Plan and meet MRP requirements. The list is not prioritized and will be phased-in following Plan acceptance by City Council. 13.1 uPDates to CIty Plans anD Programs vIa a CIty manager’s PolICy Per the MRP (refer to Section 8 for permit language), the City must update or modify all of its planning documents to incorporate GSI requirements, particularly those that affect the future of any impervious surfaces on City property and in the right-of-way as well as the “gray” storm drain infrastructure. These updates must occur by the end of the Permit term, approximately the end of calendar year 2020. As noted in Section 8 as well as Appendix P, most documents are not anticipated to be updated within this time period. Thus, an interim policy will be adopted at the City Manager’s (CM) level to direct staff to conduct work responsibilities with GSI in mind. The application of the policy would vary according to Department responsibilities, from managing projects to maintaining assets. The Sections below highlight key plans or programs that would most support the establishment of GSI throughout the City and examples of programs that would adjust its work per the policy. In response to the policy, each Department will update necessary documents and plans as resources allow with support from Watershed Protection staff. 13.1.1 offICe of transPortatIon’s BICyCle & PeDestrIan transPortatIon Plan (BPtP) The public right-of-way and associated infrastructure plays a crucial role in stormwater management in the City, as impervious surfaces (e.g., streets and sidewalks) directly convey runoff into the storm drain system without treatment. Integrating GSI and LID into this type of infratructure can help filter roadway pollutants and litter, slow down the flow, and in some cases, infiltrate or capture and use rainwater. At minimum, even in areas with a high water table, runoff can still be slowed, reducing street ponding and flooding, and allowing the receiving storm drain system to better manage large storm events. The Office of Transportation’s (OOT) BPTP supports various goals and requirements, including those of the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan and the state’s Complete Streets Act and regional Sustainable Communities Initiative. National Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) 2017 Urban Street Stormwater Guide builds upon prior complete street design publications and “provides practitioners, leaders, and other advocates with the tools to design streets for successful stormwater management, showing how GSI can bolster strategies to provide a safe and pleasant walking and biking experience, and safer streets for all users.” Consequently, adjusting the next BPTP update to focus on sustainable streets, rather than just complete streets, (the combination of the complete street approach with GSI) is the appropriate next step. While an update of the BPTP will take longer than two years (the Permit deadline), the CM’s interim policy will guide future OOT projects1 to include GSI when feasible. A subsequent phase would involve a comprehensive BPTP update to be led by the OOT, which would establish street design standards that would not only consider pedestrian, bike and school safety, but also provide GSI and multiple benefits to highly-used transporation routes. 1The specifics of this policy are yet to be determined. Watershed Protection will work with ooT to determine next steps and the language and approach that supports both GSI Plan and ooT goals as well as MRP requirements. SECTION 13: CHANGES OF CITY PERSPECTIVE—POLICIES & PROGRAMS 79 SeCTI on 1 3 13.1.2 DePartment of PuBlIC works, DIvIsIon of engIneerIng servICes (Pwe) storm Drain master Plan (sDmP) The next update to the SDMP, which identifies and prioritizes (CIP) to meet a 10-year storm level of service by way of the City’s storm drain system, will not be conducted before the end of the Permit term. Meanwhile, the CM’s policy will direct PWE to consider the feasibility of integrating GSI in planned and proposed CIPs with the support of Watershed Protection. The future SDMP update should include an analysis of how the integration of both traditional and green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) can be designed to provide adequate capacity for all size storms, while considering the varying groundwater table depths throughout the City. The analysis can consider using GSI in areas that experience ponding to treat smaller storms (2-year storms) as well as in combination with larger pipe infrastructure (designed to convey 10- year storms). In addition, the update should compare upfront construction costs and short- and long-term maintenance costs of both types of infrastructure. street and sidewalk Improvements Program (Program) Since streets and associated impervious surfaces are direct stormwater runoff conduits to the storm drain system, and while there is a major focus to continuously provide City streets at excellent condition, it is a clear fit to integrate GSI into this Program. This will not only meet MRP requirements, but also support meeting multiple Departmental goals. Although streets may sometimes be improved at the surface, it is important to nevertheless establish a standard that each project will be assessed using GSI feasibility tools. Although a plan is not in place for this Program, the CM policy will guide how all future improvements are constructed and designed. This policy will be adjusted over time as-needed and as funding becomes available. Recommendations will also be included in the Sidewalk Assessment Study as well as resulting actions or responsive documents. Pwe Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) The CM’s policy will direct staff to evaluate CIPs for GSI opportunities during the project scoping process. In addition, this policy will direct staff to include in City Manager Reports a discussion of (1) the evaluation process and results; and (2) availability and need of funding for GSI construction and maintenance. This would be similar to how some jurisdictions have added “Environmental Impact” or “Sustainability Impact” to staff report templates as a mechanism for elected officials to more easily gauge the progress and implementation of sustainability plans and policies2. Because funding can be a deterrent to full-scale GSI implementation, identification of leveraging opportunities is essential. For example, if a CIP is required to construct on-site GSI or stormwater treatment measures (otherwise known as MRP Provision C.3) at a particular location, the GSI measures can be moved off-site or expanded to treat additional paved surfaces on the right-of-way (i.e., the sidewalk or street), while still meeting on-site requirements. Watershed Protection will help conduct project coordination meetings to ensure these opportunities are identified early in the design process. 13.1.3 CommunIty servICes DePartment Park services As with PWE projects, Park Services staff will also be directed to consider the integration of GSI in its construction and maintenance of CIPs. This would involve not only constructing GSI when funding resources allow, but also participating in assessing maintenance and monitoring best practices of GSI measures on properties for which Park Services staff is responsible. In addition, staff would participate in assessing and identifying the best equipment and materials that should be used during maintenance practices, such as an appropriate plant palette or an easy-to-maintain pervious material. education and art in City Projects Creating a theme around stormwater quality protection will increase public understanding and support for GSI projects and stormwater management around the City as well as increase water stewardship behaviors. Consequently, the City will create outreach products that will be placed at GSI locations on public property, where feasible. Products could include a new logo that identifies GSI or temporary or permanent educational signage. In addition, the City will encourage and promote the creative use of stormwater for fountains, public display, education and public art. A required one percent (1%) set aside for public art from the City’s annual CIP budget and in coordination with the City’s Public Art Program could help support a project that was art-centered. 2SCVURPPP guidance memo titled “Mechanisms for Green Infrastructure Plan mplementation” (March 20, 2017) was used as a resource. 80 SECTION 13: CHANGES OF CITY PERSPECTIVE—POLICIES & PROGRAMS Figure 13.2 provides an example of an art project that has integrated stormwater for educational purposes. In addition, Figure 13.1 provides an example of a roundabout in Riverside de Bridge, Los Angeles that utilizes public art to achieve stormwater management, native landscaping, and solar energy benefits. The traffic circle includes permeable pavers, bioretention, a 25,000-gallon rainwater cistern, and solar energy 3Source: https://inhabitat.com/striking-solar-powered-la-roundabout-manages-stormwater-runoff-with-art/?variation=b 4The branching downspout is part of a public art project called “Growing Vine Street” that uses visual and provocative conveyance techniques to raise awareness of the stormwater flowing through the neighborhood. that powers the roundabout’s reclaimed wastewater irrigation, lighting, and artwork in order to capture the stormwater from the adjacent bridge and roads; these stormwater measures ultimately allow the roundabout to capture and treat approximately 500,000 gallons of stormwater runoff. The central point of the roundabout includes nine egg-shaped stone sculptures that each features a different face of a randomly-chosen community member.3 Figure 13.1: Faces of Elysian Valley by Freyja Bardell and Brian Howe of Greenmeme (2010 – 2017) Figure 13.2: Examples of Downspout Designs (top: “Downspout 1014” Designed by Buster Simpson; bottom is borrowed from the book “Artful Rainwater Design: Creative Ways to Manage Stormwater) SECTION 14: IMPLEMENTATION COMPONENTS 81 ImPlementatIon comPonentS 14SeCTIon 82 SECTION 14: IMPLEMENTATION COMPONENTS 14.1 ImPlementatIon management anD CoorDInatIon As with the development of the Plan, Watershed Protection will serve as the main lead and coordinator of Plan implementation. Watershed Protection staff will carry out the following tasks as well as additional ones as they arise, while ensuring City staff are provided sufficient opportunities to provide feedback. 1. Conduct regular, collaborative GSI Workgroup meetings; 2. Create and manage subcommittees to meet various needs, such as the development of the Maintenance and Monitoring Manual; 3. Develop applicable tools, policies, guidelines and resources and their updates as needed; 4. Update City plans and policies; 5. Develop necessary evaluation metrics, tracking, and reporting tools; 6. Track and implement best practices; and 7. Perform outreach and education as feasible. The purpose of the GSI Workgroup will be modified from Plan development phase to implementation. The Workgroup will serve as a platform to assess GSI opportunities; provide feedback on tools, policies, and other products; evaluate and track best practices and lessons learned; and collaborate among departments to create multi-benefit projects and leverage financial resources. Workgroup membership should include a minimum of one representative from each pertinent department and can break down into subcommittees for specialized responsibilities, such as maintenance. 14.2 external ProjeCt oversIght An external committee can provide a vehicle for residents and other members of the public to provide feedback and ideas throughout Plan implementation. The SWMOC served in that role during Plan development and can continue to do so during Plan implementation. Their responsibilities may include making recommendations to be researched by staff; providing feedback and funding approval on proposed projects; and reviewing proposed policies. If necessary, a separate group can be formed to provide additional support. This project oversight is not intended to replace the City’s already existing CIP review and approval process but will help fill the gap to discuss projects at a more detailed level or provide oversight before projects are ready for the existing review process. 14.3 feasIBIlIty assessment The following list addresses a proposed process to determine GSI feasibility for each City project on a parcel or in the right-of-way. The list provides an outline of what will ultimately serve as a standard operating procedure. It will be amended over time in response to feedback with changing City procedures and policies. Funding is not addressed in this Section. • Project Manager holds meetings at the beginning of CIP scoping process to determine feasibility, placement and extent of GSI measures through the structure of the GSI Workgroup or one of its subcommittees. Revisit at particular design phases, such as 30, 50, 75 and 90 percent. • GSI feasibility is evaluated using pre-determined criteria, mapping software, other tools, professional judgement, and staff collaboration. This standardized process will be vetted by the GSI Workgroup and others as needed. • The current list of prioritized project locations in Section 4.1.2 will be used to assess opportunities as well, with this list being updated as new CIPs are planned. Once the list is assessed per the process in this Section, the City’s prioritized project locations will be included in the annual Adopted Capital Budget document when it is updated. The CIP plan is updated every year and is planned at 5-year intervals. Projects with a GSI component may be included in the CIP as funded or unfunded projects. An unfunded project’s inclusion in the annual Adopted Capital Budget document demonstrates that it is a City priority pending adequate funding. • Watershed Protection staff identifies potential opportunities through regular plan review processes if not identified through a prior process. • Based on separate funding opportunities, a preliminary budget may be created to determine financial feasibility. 14.4 traCkIng tools Practical tools will be available to evaluate the potential integration of GSI and to track results and costs. A checklist will be used to document the consideration of GSI and other Department objectives. This checklist SECTION 14: IMPLEMENTATION COMPONENTS 83 SeCTI on 1 4 will be available via the City computer network, and within two years, will be available through cloud-based software. For those projects that will include GSI, a project checklist will be used to track the project from planning and Request for Proposal (RFP) development, through design, construction, and maintenance. Ultimately, tool and resources packages will be available for each project phase, all of which will be vetted by staff. Not only will projects be evaluated by these tools, but the results will also be distributed to stakeholders via an annual progress report to showcase GSI features within public projects. Information about GIS installations will be recorded into the City’s GIS so that data can be viewed internally across departments and shared with other organizations as needed. It should be noted that some tools will be developed at the County level in collaboration with other municipalities, and thus, timelines will not always be under City control. Furthermore, these tools will take time to develop due to limited City resources. 14.5 DetaIls anD sPeCIfICatIons As mentioned previously in Section 7, the MRP requires the GSI Plan to include general design standards and specifications. As described, the City reviewed and provided feedback regarding example specifications presented in the SCVURPPP GSI Handbook (Parts 1 and 2). City staff will reference these examples and adapt them as needed for specific projects. In calendar year 2019, a consultant will be contracted to create City-specific standards and guidelines that will be used for City projects and for private projects, as appropriate. City staff may choose to pilot particular standards before finalizing them, especially to determine requirements for private property. This will also allow staff to standardize typical City work practices; agree on consistent designs that meet requirements of various City Departments; and assure consistency between various contractors. 14.6 maIntenanCe anD monItorIng manual An item not included in MRP requirements is a Maintenance and Monitoring Manual for the GSI measures on City property and the right-of-way. This additional plan will document and evaluate current maintenance practices; identify and schedule maintenance and monitoring responsibilities; conduct effectiveness assessments using an adaptive management approach; and set performance goals. With a kickoff also planned for calendar year 2019, the plan’s development will be carried out in collaboration with the City-specific standards and guidelines. During this process, staff will also identify funding needs and potential partnering opportunities with local organizations. As part of an overall effort to improve the maintenance of GSI on City property, the landscape maintenance staff should be trained in GSI practices and Bay-Friendly practices as well as certified through the National Green Infrastructure Certification Program, which is likely to grow in the state of California in the coming year. Contractors who provide GSI maintenance services should also be trained and certified. Once the Maintenance and Monitoring Manual is completed, staff and contractors will be trained to carry out responsibilities outlined in the Manual. Figure 14.1 is an example of maintenance on a bioretention feature. Source: SFPUC Figure 14.1: Maintenance on a Bioretention Feature 84 SECTION 14: IMPLEMENTATION COMPONENTS 14.7 PIlot ProjeCts 14.7.1 CIP PIlots In support of the City’s vision, staff is exploring pilot projects on City-owned parcels that may influence where and how GSI is implemented in the future on City right- of-way and properties and potentially requirements and/ or incentives for private projects. Currently, the City’s Urban Forestry soil volume requirements for streets are usually met by installing suspended pavement systems beneath trees (see Section 1.3.4) to hold the required amount of soil (in place of using structural soil, which does not support Urban Forestry goals). A stormwater treatment soil mix can be used in combination with the planting soil within the suspended pavement systems to create a larger area that can soak up additional runoff from the street, which would allow sites to surpass minimum stormwater requirements with systems that are already required by the City. Watershed Protection is coordinating with Urban Forestry to incorporate this pilot project within the design for the upcoming Public Safety Building to treat neighboring streets and sidewalks. Once implemented, the project would be evaluated via the tracking tools described in Section 14.3 to determine feasibility for other project applications. The City will also consider pilot projects on a property identified as high priority per the process explained in Section 4.3, such as a City-owned parking lot. A project that can also meet other Department needs, such as Urban Forestry’s shade requirements, will be explored. 14.7.2 loCal PartnershIPs anD volunteer Programs Partnering with local organizations will allow the City to leverage its resources and obtain additional support to offset high maintenance costs. The City is contracting with a local group, Grassroots Ecology, to pilot a small program in which the group conducts non-technical maintenance tasks using significant plant restoration experience. This program will involve collaboration with Parks Maintenance Division staff to identify these tasks, with the approach to be based on the Maintenance and Monitoring Manual once completed. Finally, because this group’s primary experience is with native plant propagation and plantings, this project will investigate the use of native plants and pollinators to diversify plant palettes used in bioretention areas. In addition, Grassroots Ecology has significant experience establishing volunteer programs and conducting volunteer-supported restoration projects and school and family educational activities (see Figure 14.2 for an example rain garden implemented by Grassroots Ecology). This pilot will also involve training volunteers to monitor and provide minor maintenance support in their neighborhoods. Volunteers will, at the same time, learn about the benefits of GSI and see a successful partnership in action. The City will investigate partnering with additional local organizations in the future. Source: https://www.grassrootsecology.org/demo-gardens Figure 14.2: Hoover Park Rain Garden in Palo Alto Planted by Grassroots Ecology. SECTION 15: NEXT STEPS—FURTHER EXPLORATION 85 neXt StePS– furtHer eXPloratIon 15SeCTIon 86 SECTION 15: NEXT STEPS—FURTHER EXPLORATION This Section addresses items deemed necessary to ensure successful long-term implementation of this Plan that were identified by staff as needing further exploration beyond the Plan development period or through feedback from the public. The timeline for each item will vary based on available resources, but will be identified and integrated into an overall workplan in the coming months. 15.1 rIght-of-way oPPortunItIes This GSI Plan prioritizes City-owned locations but does not identify GSI project opportunities in the City’s right-of-way. As described in Section 1.3.2, the right-of- way, which includes streets, sidewalks, planting strips and alleys, offers various stormwater treatment options that provide numerous benefits, including social and environmental. A process will be determined to identify high priority areas throughout the City as well as how to determine project opportunities when staff is assessing street improvements and enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian features. 15.2 ProjeCt Cost traCkIng The need to track, document and evaluate project costs is important to determine the economic impacts and benefits of GSI Plan implementation. This involves costs related to project planning, design, installation, operation and maintenance as well as replacement over time. In addition, going a step further to assess avoided costs, such as lowered irrigation costs due to a stormwater capture and reuse project, will help future funding decisions in regards to the use of a new stormwater management approach that uses GSI in complement with gray, or traditional, storm drain projects. Next steps will involve (1) evaluating cost tracking tools and the use of asset management systems; (2) establishing cost tracking procedures and data analysis methods; (3) determining which cost/benefit approach to use; (4) analyzing data over time that can be used to fortify project opportunity evaluations and budgeting; and (5) adapting systems over time. 15.3 PerformanCe 15.3.1 PerformanCe metrICs There is a clear need to determine what type of performance metric(s) should be used to establish appropriate goals and assess the effectiveness of GSI Plan implementation over time. Various metrics are being used across the country, including acreage or percentage of impervious surface reduction; stormwater runoff volume reduction; amount of “greened” acres (those acres treated by GSI); or particular water quality objectives. Additional research needs to be conducted to determine the best fit for the City considering the availability of data, the cost of obtaining additional data and conducting a baseline analysis, and the work necessary to regularly conduct future analyses to evaluate progress over time. 15.3.2 ratIng tools Evaluating the performance of the design, construction and maintenance of projects can help provide transparency to the use of public funds and encourages staff to continuously improve their effectiveness. Using rating tools, such as the Envision Sustainable Infrastructure Card or the Greenroads Rating System Program, will help evaluate, verify, and document performance according to Department goals and strategies. Figure 15.1 provides the Greenroads evaluation summary for the West Hacienda Avenue project in the City of Campbell1. In order to holistically manage complex projects that can meet multiple objectives of various Departments, support the City’s Comprehensive and Sustainability Plans (among others), and provide accurate, data- supported results to the public, these type of tools should be evaluated to choose which best assesses performance of varying scales of GSI projects. Such a tool can be integrated into the GSI evaluation process and follow projects through the design, construction and maintenance phases. 15.4 funDIng analysIs A common concern for a municipal plan that establishes new requirements, particularly leading to new projects, is funding for both construction and maintenance. Funding solutions for both need to be explored and may need to be addressed separately, with some taking more time to establish. Additional work needs to be carried out to alleviate this concern, and a high priority item post-acceptance of this Plan is to conduct a comprehensive funding needs and opportunity analysis for short- and long-term needs. This analysis will increase our understanding 1Source: https://www.greenroads.org/141/92/hacienda-green-street-improvements.html SECTION 15: NEXT STEPS—FURTHER EXPLORATION 87 SeCTI on 1 5 of both construction and maintenance costs for City facilities as well as identify and prioritize funding opportunities. The following lists potential future solutions to provide stakeholders with a sense of the direction the City may choose to go: • A program that would allow private developers to provide a financial contribution equal to a pre-determined amount toward public GSI in- lieu of building on-site GSI. This program could be triggered, for example, if a private site cannot construct on-site GSI due to physical constraints or if a CIP is being planned nearby where GSI could treat a larger area. • Benefit or Improvement Districts for commercial or residential areas that would allow assessment fees to be directed toward installation and maintenance of GSI within the boundary of said district. For downtown Palo Alto, which is already designated as a Business Improvement District, amendments could be made to include GSI. For residential areas, a Green (Stormwater Infrastructure) Benefit District could be created to fund and maintain GSI and other landscaping located in the right-of-way within that area. Local examples include the Dogpatch and Northwest Potrero Hill Districts in the City of San Francisco. • Pilot private-public partnerships in which the cost of construction and/or maintenance is shared between the two parties. This could involve various combinations of responsibilities, with maintenance taken on solely by a private contractor at a lower rate than staff or an influx of construction in an area where a larger development is taking place. 15.5 PrIvate ProPerty oPPortunItIes This GSI Plan focuses on public property under the jurisdiction of the City. However, to increase the impact of GSI implementation City-wide, it is imperative to consider the establishment of additional requirements for GSI on private property; creating incentives that will reward private property owners for installing and maintaining GSI; and providing guidance regarding implementation of LID on smaller properties that may not be required to install GSI. Furthermore, the City will investigate opportunities to encourage private property owners to install and maintain GSI in the public right-of-way. Through the update of Chapter 16.11 of the Municipal Code (as mentioned in Section 12), additional redeveloped sites may be required to install on-site LID, which can lead to a greater number of small-scale stormwater management systems throughout the City. LID will keep stormwater runoff on-site, while providing more affordable options to engineered treatment measures. New construction or redevelopment provides an ideal opportunity to manage on- site stormwater runoff differently by site design Source: City of Campbell Figure 15.1: Greenroads Evaluation –West Hacienda Avenue Green Street (City of Campbell) 88 SECTION 15: NEXT STEPS—FURTHER EXPLORATION approaches, including, but not limited to, minimizing impervious surfaces, grading walkways or driveways to drain to nearby landscaping instead of the sidewalk or street, or by taking care to not compact soils that will be planted post-construction. Even if a private property owner may not be able to redesign a site, stormwater runoff may be captured and sometimes used using LID approaches (Figures 15.2 – 15.4). For example, property could be designed or retrofitted so that downspouts are “disconnected” from the street and storm drain system. This could be done by diverting roof runoff to one or a combination of the items below: • An existing, non-modified landscaped area, particularly if several downspouts can divert smaller amounts of roof runoff across the property; • A retrofitted landscaped area that may be amended with soil and/or a subsurface layer with base rock for increased infiltration or dug down to have a depression for more water-holding capacity (sometimes called a “rain garden”); and/or • An above- or below-ground rain barrel or cistern that can store runoff to be used. 5noTe: The following information should not be used as detailed guidance, but rather as a starting point to rethink how stormwater can be generally managed on private properties, whether residential or non-residential. Constraints such as depth to groundwater, soil type and/or location of utilities should be considered and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Figure 15.2: Examples of Rain Barrels Collecting Roof Runoff Source: http://craftspost.com/3-top-diy- rain-barrel-ideas-gather-water-garden/ Source: https://backyardville.com/why-you- should-add-a-rain-barrel-to-your-yard/ Another way that a site may be retrofitted is to construct a depressed landscaped area, but relatively shallow, with permeable soils and drought-tolerant and/or native plants. Planting trees in the outer boundaries can also help with water uptake. In addition to capturing roof runoff, or simply rain, these rain gardens (when appropriately sized) can capture runoff from walkways, sidewalks, driveways and small parking lots if these impervious areas are graded to drain to them, or in some cases, piped underground to them. These rain gardens are different from bioretention or biotreatment areas/planters, as they do not need to be engineered or designed to treat a particular amount of runoff. Finally, property owners may also choose to use pervious materials to construct walkways, driveways or other impervious surfaces, which allow rain to infiltrate through the material to the underlying soil. Some private property owners may choose to install GSI measures (even when not required) in addition to some of the approaches mentioned in this Section. General descriptions are provided in Section 1.3. Overall, it is important for property owners to not SECTION 15: NEXT STEPS—FURTHER EXPLORATION 89 SeCTI on I I I only consider design and construction costs, but also maintenance requirements during the decision- making process. GSI may be necessary for pollutant removal on large commercial and industrial sites, and to obtain multiple benefits throughout the City. Therefore, post-acceptance of the Plan, it would be a logical step to investigate other options to increase private property GSI. This Plan does not propose new requirements, but rather it sets the stage for increasing the scale of GSI implementation throughout the City. The following lists potential options for consideration that could increase the amount of GSI on private properties; however, additional options will be evaluated. Figure 15.3: Examples of Roof Runoff Diverted to Site-Scale Landscaped Areas/Planters Figure 15.4: Examples of Diversion of Surface Runoff from Impervious Areas to Rain Gardens in a Neighborhood and Small Parking Lot Source: https://www.architerradesigns.com/landscape-planters- rooftop-installation-blog/2019/2/23/bioretention-planters Source: https://www.sfbetterstreets.org/find-project- types/greening-and-stormwater-management/stormwa- ter-overview/channels-and-runnels/ Source: https://www.architerradesigns.com/landscape-plant- ers-rooftop-installation-blog/2019/2/23/bioretention-planters Source: https://blazingstargardens.com/ Source: https://horsleywitten.com/ 90 SECTION 15: NEXT STEPS—FURTHER EXPLORATION • Decreasing the size threshold trigger for required stormwater treatment (Provision C.3 as described in Section 1.4.2). • Leveraging current requirements: The City’s Urban Forestry soil volume requirement for street trees is usually met by using suspended pavement systems placed beneath the trees (see Section 1.3.4) to hold the required amount of soil. A stormwater treatment soil mix can be used in combination with the planting soil to create a larger area that can soak up additional runoff from the street. Thus, a project can treat additional paved surfaces beyond the required parcel area for minimal additional construction costs. Maintenance responsibilities will need to be determined, and a legal agreement that includes the Maintenance and Monitoring Manual approach will need to be established. • Providing incentives, such as expedited permitting and/or reduced permit fees, for projects that install GSI beyond the requirement. For example, the project could include treating a particular amount of public right-of-way and taking on maintenance of the features based on an agreement (as described above). A reduced permit fee could offset a percentage of the City’s estimated long- term maintenance costs. Moreover, the property owner may be able to forego installing on-site treatment, if the site was plumbed to the right-of- way treatment measure. • Requiring new development projects that meet a certain size threshold, and that are already required to construct new right-of-way features, to also install GSI measures. An agreement would outline maintenance and replacement of features over time. • Explore collaboration opportunities with both Stanford and PAUSD to integrate GSI throughout their jurisdictions (as described in Section 4.1). REFERENCES 91 referenCes BASMAA’s Guidance for Sizing Green Infrastructure Facilities in Street Projects. Prepared by Dan Cloak Environmental Consulting and EOA, Inc. 2018. BASMAA’s Interim Accounting Methodology for Total Maximum Daily Loads Reduced. Prepared by Geosyntec Consultants. March 2017. C.3 Stormwater Handbook: Guidance for Implementing Stormwater Requirements for New Development and Redevelopment Projects. 2016. Prepared by EOA, Inc. June 2016. City of Palo Alto 2012-13 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013. Prepared by City of Palo Alto Administrative Services Department. City of Palo Alto 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. June 2016. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030. Prepared by PlaceWorks, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), and Hexagon Transportation Consultants. November 2017. City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works Strategic Plan FY 2016-18. Prepared by the City of Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 - Draft. Prepared by the City of Palo Alto. April 18, 2016. Comprehensive Plan 2030. Adopted by Palo Alto City Council on November 13, 2017. Comprehensive Plan Update Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palo Alto, Volume 1: Draft EIR. 2016. Prepared by PlaceWorks in Association with Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. and MIG I TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc. February 5, 2016. Comprehensive Plan Update Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palo Alto, Volume 1: Supplement to Draft EIR. 2017. Prepared by PlaceWorks in Association with Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. and MIG I TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc. February 10, 2017. Green Infrastructure Funding Mechanisms. 2015. Prepared by the San Francisco Estuary Partnership. Bradt, Joshua and Jennifer Krebs. State Water Resources Grant Agreement Number 12-415-550. August 2015. Green Infrastructure Resources Library Memo. 2017. Developed by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program with assistance from EOA, Inc. Schultze-Allen, Peter and Jill Bicknell. January 27, 2017. Mechanisms for Green Infrastructure Plan Implementation Memo. 2017. Developed by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program with assistance from EOA, Inc. Schultze-Allen, Peter and Jill Bicknell. March 20, 2016. Model Green Infrastructure Language for Incorporation into Municipal Plans. 2016. Developed by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program with assistance from EOA, Inc. September 2016. Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan. 2017. Prepared by City of Palo Alto and MIG, Inc. May 2017 Draft. Page IntentIonally left Blank APPENDIX 93 aPPendIX 94 APPENDIX aPPendIX a: Proposed Bikeways1 (per Bicycle and Pedestrian transportation Plan, 2012) 94 APPENDIX Foot h i l l E x p r e s s w a y Calif o r n i a A v e n u e E astBayshoreRoad W e s t B a y s h o r e R o a d Los R o b l e s A v e n u e Charlest o n R o a d ElCa mino Real Sand H i l l R o a d Loma V e r d e A v e n u e Channing Avenue University Avenue East Me a d o w D r i v e Loui s R o a d Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y Alm a S t r e e t Colorad o A v e n u e Mid d l e f i e l d R o a d Embarcader o R o a d SanAntonioRoad §¨¦280 ¬«82 £¤101 City ofAtherton City of EastPalo Alto City ofLos Altos City of LosAltos Hills City ofMenlo Park City ofMountainView City ofPortolaValley StanfordUniversity S AN FRA N C I SC O B A Y Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS& 0 0.5 1 Miles I Source: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo AltoDate: November 2018 Legend Class 1 1a 2 2e1 2e2 3 4 ABC ABCO Accom Rd 1Caltrans defines the bikeways as the following: Class I bikeways are facilities with exclusive right-of-way for bicyclists and pedestrians; Class II bikeways are bike lanes established along streets and are defined by pavement striping and signage to delineate a portion of a roadway for bicycle travel; Class III bikeways designate a preferred route for bicyclists on streets shared with motor traffic not served by dedicated bikeways to provide continuity to the bikeway network; Class IV bikeways are for exclusive use of bicycles, physically separated from motor traffic with a vertical feature. AP P en DIX APPENDIX 95 aPPendIX B2: Historic land use in 1980 AP P en DIX §¨¦280 ¬«82 £¤101 City of EastPalo Alto City ofLos Altos City ofMenlo Park City ofMountainView City ofAtherton StanfordUniversity FoothillExpressway Calif o r n i a A v e n u e Ea s t B a y s h o r e R o a d We s t B a y s h o r e R o a d Los R o b l e s A v e n u e C harlesto n R o a d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R o a d Loma V e r d e A v e n u e Channing Avenue Page M i l l R o a d Unive r s i t y A v e n u e East Me a d o w D r i v e Loui s R o a d Orego n E x p r e s s w a y AlmaStreet Colorad o A v e n u e Mid d l e f i e l d R o a d Embarcader o R o a d SanAntonioRoad SA N F R A N C IS C O B A Y Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS& 0 0.5 1 Miles ISource: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo AltoDate: November 2018 Legend Land Use (1980) Open Space Old Industrial Old Urban - Not Residential/Parks Old Urban - Residential/Parks §¨¦280 Pag e Mill R o ad 2This map is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review, consult, and/or field verify the primary data and information sources to determine the usability of the information. 96 APPENDIX aPPendIX c: key development areas3 §¨¦280 ¬«82 £¤101 City of EastPalo Alto City ofLos Altos City ofMenlo Park City ofMountainView City ofAtherton StanfordUniversity FoothillExpressway Calif o r n i a A v e n u e Ea s t B a y s h o r e R o a d W e s t B a y s h o r e R o a d Los R o b l e s A v e n u e Charlesto n R o a d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R o a d Loma V e r d e A v e n u e Channing Avenue Page M i l l R o a d Unive r s i t y A v e n u e East Me a d o w D r i v e Lou i s R o a d Orego n E x p r e s s w a y AlmaStreet Colorad o A v e n u e Mid d l e f i e l d R o a d Embarcader o R o a d SanAntonioRoad SAN FRA N C I S C O B A Y Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS& 0 0.5 1 Miles ISource: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo AltoDate: November 2018 Legend California Avenue Priority Development Area Downtown Business Improvement District North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Area South of Forest Area I (SOFA I) South of Forest Area II (SOFA II) 3Key Development Areas are defined in Section 4.3.1. AP P en DIX APPENDIX 97 aPPendIX d4: localized Ponding5 and fema flood Zone designations6 §¨¦280 ¬«82 £¤101 City of EastPalo Alto City ofLos Altos City of LosAltos Hills City ofMenlo Park City ofMountainView City ofAtherton StanfordUniversity FoothillExpressway Calif o r n i a A v e n u e Ea s t B a y s h o r e R o a d We s t B a y s h o r e R o a d LosRoblesAvenue C harle sto n R o a d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R o a d Loma V e r d e A v e n u e Channing Avenue Page M i l l R o a d Unive r s i t y A v e n u e East Me a d o w D r i v e Loui s R o a d Orego n E x p r e s s w a y AlmaStreet Colora d o A v e n u e Mid d l e f i e l d R o a d Embarcadero R o a d SanAntonioRoad SA N F R A N C IS C O B A Y Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS& 0 0.45 0.9 Miles ISource: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo AltoDate: November 2018 Legend Localized Ponding Flood Zones Zone D Zone X Zone A Zone AH Zone AO Zone AE ZoneVE Foothi l l E x p r e s s w a y Page M i l l R o a d Foothill Expressway PageMillRoad 4This map is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review, consult, and/or field verify the primary data and information sources to determine the usability of the information. 5Localized ponding is defined in Section 1.3.1. Additional areas may be identified in the future. 6FeMA flood zone designations are defined in Section 4.3.1. 98 APPENDIX aPPendIX e: trash Generation designations7 7Trash generation designations are defined in Section 4.3.1. §¨¦280 ¬«82 £¤101 City of EastPalo Alto City ofLos Altos City of LosAltos Hills City ofMenlo Park City ofMountainView City ofAtherton StanfordUniversity FoothillExpressway Califo r n i a A v e n u e Ea s t B a y s h o r e R o a d We s t B a y s h o r e R o a d Los R o b l e s A v e n u e Charlesto n R o a d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R o a d Loma V e r d e A v e n u e Channing Avenue Page M i l l R o a d Unive r s i t y A v e n u e East Me a d o w D r i v e Loui s R o a d Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y AlmaStreet Colorad o A v e n u e Mid d l e f i e l d R o a d Embarcader o R o a d SanAntonioRoad S AN FRANCI S C O B A Y Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS& 0 0.5 1 Miles I Source: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo AltoDate: November 2018 Legend Very High High Medium Low AP P en DIX APPENDIX 99 aPPendIX f8: Parcel Slope §¨¦280 ¬«82 £¤101 City of EastPalo Alto City ofLos Altos City of LosAltos Hills City ofMenlo Park City ofMountainView City ofAtherton StanfordUniversity FoothillExpressway Califo r n i a A v e n u e EastBayshoreRoad W e s t B a y s h o r e R o a d Los R o b l e s A v e n u e Charlesto n R o a d ElCaminoReal Sand H i l l R o a d Loma V e r d e A v e n u e Channing Avenue Page M i l l R o a d Unive r s i t y A v e n u e East Me a d o w D r i v e Lou i s R o a d Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y AlmaStreet Colorad o A v e n u e Mid d l e f i e l d R o a d Embarcadero R o a d SanAntonioRoad SA N F R ANCI S C O B AY Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS& 0 0.5 1 Miles ISource: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo AltoDate: November 2018 Legend Slope > 15% City-Owned §¨¦280 8This map is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review, consult, and/or field verify the primary data and information sources to determine the usability of the information. 100 APPENDIX aPPendIX G9: contaminated Groundwater Plume10 approximate limits §¨¦280 ¬«82 £¤101 City of EastPalo Alto City ofLos Altos City of LosAltos Hills City ofMenlo Park City ofMountainView City ofAtherton StanfordUniversity FoothillExpressway Calif o r n i a A v e n u e Ea s t B a y s h o r e R o a d We s t B a y s h o r e R o a d Los R o b l e s A v e n u e C harle sto n R o a d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R o a d Loma V e r d e A v e n u e Channing Avenue Page M i l l R o a d Univ e r s i t y A v e n u e East Me a d o w D r i v e Lou i s R o a d Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y AlmaStreet Colora d o A v e n u e Mid d l e f i e l d R o a d Embarcadero R o a d SanAntonioRoad SAN FR A N C I SC O BA Y Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS& 0 0.5 1 Miles ISource: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo AltoDate: November 2018 Legend Groundwater Plume Approx. Limits 500-foot Buffer Califo r n i a A v e n u e El Cam i n o R e a l Colorado A v e n u e OregonExpressway Alma S t r e e t Page M i l l R o a d 9This map is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review, consult, and/or field verify the primary data and information sources to determine the usability of the information. 10See Section 2.3 for more information. AP P en DIX APPENDIX 101 aPPendIX H: existing city-owned GSI locations11 §¨¦280 ¬«82 £¤101 City of EastPalo Alto City ofLos Altos City of LosAltos Hills City ofMenlo Park City ofMountainView City ofAtherton StanfordUniversity FoothillExpressway Calif o r n i a A v e n u e Ea s t B a y s h o r e R o a d WestBayshore R o a d Los R o b l e s A v e n u e Charle s tonRoad El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R o a d LomaVerdeAvenue Channing Avenue Page M i l l R o a d Unive r s i t y A v e n u e EastMeadow Drive Loui s R o a d Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y AlmaStreet Colorad o A v e n u e Mid d l e f i e l d R o a d E m b ar c a d e r o R o a d SanAntonioRoad RiconadaLibrary Mitchell ParkLibrary andCommunity Center Stanford /Palo Alto CommunityPlaying Fields El CaminoPark SouthgateGreenStreets Matadero PumpStation SanFrancisquito PumpStation Middlefieldand Kellogg Alma Street GambleGardens Hoover Park RossRoad SAN FRA N C I S C O B A Y Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS& 0 0.5 1 Miles I Source: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo AltoDate: November 2018 Legend City-Owned GSI Projects 11See Section 1.3.5 for more information. 102 APPENDIX aPPendIX I: Quadrant reference map for city-owned Properties and Proposed/Planned Projects Prioritized by location City of Mountain View City of Mountain View !4 !3 !2 !1B !1 !1A Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS& San Fran c s i c o B a y 0 0.5 1 Miles I Source: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo AltoDate: November 2018 Legend High Medium Low AP P en DIX APPENDIX 103 aPPendIX J: city-owned Properties and Proposed/Planned Projects Prioritized by location—Quadrant 1a Embarcader o R o a d Channing Avenue Univ e r s i t y A v e n u e £¤101 Scott StreetMini Park Museum ofAmericanHeritage Lot N FireStation 1 Cogswell Plaza / Lot C Lot F Lot E JohnsonPark Lawn Bowling Green Park Gamble Garden Center AlmaSubstation TowerWell HeritagePark andPA History Museum. 250 Univ.AveGarage EleanorPardeePark RinconadaPark TennisCourts Center DriveSD CapacityUpgrade El Camino MedianLandscapeImprovements SD CapacityUpgrade Quarry Roadand TransitImprovements San FrancisquitoCreek Riparian Area Webster/ CowperParking Garage HopkinsCreeksidePark San F r a n c i s q u i t o C r e e k Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS& 1A! 0 0.15 0.3 Miles I Source: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo AltoDate: November 2018 Legend High Medium Low Creek Downtown City Hall Lot S/L Lot H Lot D Lot R Lot Q Lot O Lot K Lot A Lot T Lot G Lot N Downtown Library Lot K Lot P1A Kellogg Parkette 104 APPENDIX aPPendIX k: city-owned Properties and Proposed/Planned Projects Prioritized by location—Quadrant 1B Calif o r n i a A v e n u e Mid d l e f i e l d R o a d StanfordUniversity College Terrace Children Center / Library / Mayfield Park BoulwarePark ParkSubstation AlmaParkette Kellogg Parkette Lawn BowlingGreen ParkGambleGarden Center Landscaped Area Residentialdrive-thru JerryBowden Park AlmaSubstation WerryPark WeisshaarPark CameronPark Peers Park ChurchillAve EnhancedBikewayEl Camino MedianLandscapeImprovements El Camino RealPedestrian Safety /Streetscape Project EmbarcaderoRoad atEl Camino Quarry Roadand TransitImprovements Ma t a d e r o C r e e k Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS& !1B 0 0.15 0.3 Miles I Source: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo AltoDate: November 2018 Legend High Medium Low Creek Lot 8 Lot 5 Lot 3 Lot 7 Lot 4 Lot 9 Lot 1 Lot 2 Public Safety Building / Lot 6 Lot 4 Sarah Wallis Park AP P en DIX APPENDIX 105 aPPendIX l: city-owned Properties and Proposed/Planned Projects Prioritized by location—Quadrant 2 Ea s t B a y s h o r Embarcade r o R o a d Charles t o n R o a d Lo maVerde Aven u e East M e a d o w D r i v e Lou i s R o a d Alm a S r e e t Colora d o A v e n u e W estBayshore ad Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y Mid d l e f i e l d R o a d City of EastPalo Alto Mata d e r o C r e e k Barro n C r e e k San F r a n c i s q u i t o C r e e k Adob e Cree k BoulwarePark Mitchell Park Midtown CourtParkingLot SealePark Winter Lodge/ SwimCenter RamosPark Greer Park Sterling Canal HooverPark Los AltosTreatmentPlant BaylandsPath Baylands BaylandsAthleticCenter SD CapacityUpgrade SD CapacityUpgrade SD CapacityUpgrade OverflowSD SD CapacityUpgrade FireStation 4 MunicipalServiceCenter ByxbeePark RWQCP Palo AltoAirport Park S Colorado Receiving Station Colorado PS /Matadero PS SD Capacity Upgrade SD Capacity Upgrade PS Dealership Parking Lot Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS&!2 0 0.3 0.6 Miles I Source: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo AltoDate: November 2018 Legend High Medium Low Creek £¤101 PS SD/PS ConnectionAdobe Creek Substation SD Capacity Upgrade PS SD Capacity Upgrade Adobe Creek PS 106 APPENDIX aPPendIX m: city-owned Properties and Proposed/Planned Projects Prioritized by location—Quadrant 3 LosRoblesAvenue Charles t o n R o a d ElCamino Real SanAntonioRoadAlm a S t r e e t City ofLos Altos ¬«82 Barr o n C r e e k TermanPark Briones Park /Fire Station 5 Maybell Substation Water Main Mitchell Park Monroe Park RoblesPark Clover Leaf ROW Ventura Park PA Community Child Care Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS&!3 0 0.3 0.6 Miles I Source: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo AltoDate: November 2018 Legend High Medium Low Creek AP P en DIX APPENDIX 107 aPPendIX n: city-owned Properties and Proposed/Planned Projects Prioritized by location—Quadrant 4 FoothillExpressway Calif o r n i a A v e n u e LosRoblesAvenue City of LosAltos Hills §¨¦280 StanfordUniversity Ba r r o n Cr e e k Matadero Creek De e r C r e e k Utilities Easement BoulwareParkWerry Park WeisshaarPark FireStation 2 SensingUnit / HillviewRelieve Valve Bol Park Esther Clark ParkPearson Arastradero Parking Lot Foothills Park Schaaf WheelerCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS&!4 0 0.3 0.6 Miles I Source: Data obtained from Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo Alto Date: November 2018 Legend High Medium Low Creek 108 APPENDIX aPPendIX o: city-owned Prioritized Project location list Project Project Location Total Prioritzation Lot Q (High/Alma North Garage)430 High Street 32 High Public Safety Building (Parking Lot 6)Parking Lot C-6 (250 Sherman Avenue)32 High Quarry Road Improvements and Transit Center Access Quarry Road between El Camino Real and Welch Road 32 High Embarcadero Rd at El Camino Real Improvements Embarcadero Road and El Camino Real 31 High Churchill Avenue Enhanced Bikeway El Camino Real and Churchill Avenue 30 High Fire Station 1 (University Park Fire Station)301 Alma Street 30 High Fire Station 4 and Transfer Station 3600 Middlefield Road 30 High Lot D (Downtown Parking Garage)375 Hamilton Avenue 30 High Lot N (Emerson/Hamilton Lot)501 Emerson Street 30 High Mitchell Park 600 East Meadow Drive 30 High Peers Park 1899 Park Boulevard 30 High Cogswell Plaza and La Comida (includes Parking Lot C) 256 Lytton Avenue 29 High El Camino Median Landscape Improvements City limits - University Ave. & Page Mill - Arastradero.29 High Lot O (Emerson/High Lot)430 Emerson Street 29 High Lot S/L (Bryant/Lytton Garage)445 Bryant Street 29 High Lot T (Lytton/Kipling Lot)434 Lytton Avenue 29 High 250 University Avenue Garage 250 University Avenue 28 High City Hall/King Plaza and Police Department 250 Hamilton Avenue 28 High Colorado Pump Station Integration with Matadero Pump Station Colorado Avenue and W Bayshore Road 28 High Downtown Library 270 Forest Avenue 28 High Gamble Garden Center 1431 Waverley Street 28 High Heritage Park and Palo Alto History Museum. 300 Homer Avenue (bounded by Waverley, Homer, and Bryant)28 High Hoover Park 2901 Cowper Street 28 High Lawn Bowling Green Club Park 474 Embarcadero Road 28 High Lot A (Emerson/Lytton Lot)437 Emerson Street 28 High Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton Lot)457 Hamilton Avenue 28 High Lot K (Lytton/Waverley Lot)351 Lytton Avenue 28 High Lot P (High/Hamilton Lot)561 Hamilton Street 28 High Lot R (High/Alma South Garage)Between 528 High Street and Alma Street 28 High Rinconada Park 777 Embarcadero Road (between Hopkins Ave, Middlefield Rd, and Embarcadero Rd) 28 High Robles Park 4116 Park Boulevard 28 High Tennis Courts near Rinconada Library 777 Embarcadero Road 28 High West Bayshore Pump Station West Bayshore Road near Highway 101 to Adobe Creek outfall 28 High West Bayshore Road to Adobe Creek Storm Drain Capacity Upgrade 3480 W Bayshore Road to Adobe Creek outfall 28 High AP P en DIX APPENDIX 109 aPPendIX o: city-owned Prioritized Project location list (continued) Project Project Location Total Prioritzation Bol Park 3590 Laguna Avenue Between Roble Ridge Rd., Matadero Ave. and Laguna Ave. 27 Medium Colorado Receiving Station 1080 Colorado (by Matadero Canal)27 Medium El Camino Real Pedestrian Safety and Streetscape Project 2962 Page Mill Road 27 Medium Lot F (Florence/Lytton Lot)425 Florence Street 27 Medium Briones Park and Fire Station 5 (same parcel number)600 Arastradero Road 26 Medium Corporation Way/East Bayshore Road Pump Station Corporation Way and East Bay- shore Road 26 Medium Greer Park 1098 Amarillo Avenue 26 Medium Lot 7 (California Ave Area Parking Garage)350 Sherman Avenue 26 Medium Lot 8 (Sherman Ash)448 Sherman Avenue 26 Medium Lot E (Gilman/Bryant Lot)642 Gilman Street 26 Medium Lot G (Gilman/Waverley Lot)671 Gilman Street 26 Medium Museum of American Heritage 351 Homer Avenue 26 Medium Terman Park 655 Arastradero Road 26 Medium Weisshaar Park 2298 Dartmouth Street 26 Medium Werry Park 2100 Dartmouth Street between College and Stanford Avenues 26 Medium Clover Leaf ROW 200 San Antonio Road and Alma Street 25 Medium East Meadow Circle Storm Drain Connection to Adobe Creek Pump Station 1034 through 1098 E Meadow Circle 25 Medium Fire Station 2 (Mayfield)2675 Hanover Street 25 Medium Johnson Park 251 Waverley Street 25 Medium Winter Lodge/Swim Center 3009 Middlefield Road 25 Medium Cameron Park 2101 Wellesley Street 24 Medium Center Drive Storm Drain Capacity Upgrade Center Drive from Channing Av- enue to Hamilton Avenue 24 Medium Eleanor Pardee Park 851 Center Drive 24 Medium Esther Clark Park Old Adobe Road 24 Medium Fabian Way Storm Drain Capacity Upgrade 3798 - 3890 Fabian Way 24 Medium Lot 3 (Ted Thompson Parking Garage)275 Cambridge Avenue 24 Medium Lot 4 (Cambridge/Birch)407 Cambridge Avenue 24 Medium Lot 5 (Cambridge E/Garage)451 Cambridge Avenue 24 Medium Lot K (Lytton/Waverley Lot)364 Bryant Street 24 Medium Lot N (Emerson/Ramona Lot)Between 539 Emerson and Lane 12 West (behind Lytton Plaza)24 Medium Lytton Plaza Emerson Street and University Avenue 24 Medium Maybell Substation 527 Maybell Avenue 24 Medium Municipal Service Center 3201 E Bayshore Road 24 Medium Palo Alto Tower Well 201 Alma Street 24 Medium Park Substation 3291 Park Boulevard 24 Medium Ventura Park 3990 Ventura Court 24 Medium 110 APPENDIX aPPendIX o: city-owned Prioritized Project location list (continued) Project Project Location Total Prioritzation 6" Water Main 4028 Park Boulevard 23 Medium Adobe Creek Substation 1157 East Meadow Road 23 Medium Baylands 2375 Embarcadero Road 23 Medium Byxbee Park Completion 2500 Embarcadero Road 23 Medium Foothills Park 1530 Arastradero Road 23 Medium Hopkins Creekside Park Palo Alto Avenue from Emerson Street to Marlowe Street 23 Medium Kellogg Parkette Waverley and Embarcadero (next to Gamble Garden)23 Medium Monroe Park 375 Monroe Drive 23 Medium Parkette Area at Alma Street 103 Embarcadero Road 23 Medium Boulware Park 401 Fernando Avenue 22 Low East Charleston Road to Adobe Creek Storm Drain Capacity Upgrade E Charleston Road to Adobe Creek (between Fabian Way ad Louis Road) 22 Low Henry W. Seale Park 3100 Stockton Place 22 Low Jerry Bowden Park 2380 High Street 22 Low Lot 1 (Cambridge/Park)270 Cambridge Avenue 22 Low Lot 2 (Cambridge/Birch)366 Cambridge Avenue 22 Low Lot 9 2320 Birch Street 22 Low Midtown Court Parking Lot 2700 Midtown Court 22 Low Portion of Golf Course/Baylands Athletic Center 1900 Geng Road 22 Low Adobe Creek Pump Station 1198 E Meadow Drive 21 Low East Meadow Drive to Adobe Creek Pump Station Storm Drain Capacity Upgrade East Meadow Drive between E Meadow Circle and Adobe Creek 21 Low Hamilton Ave Storm Drain Capacity Upgrade Hamilton Ave from Rhodes Drive through Center Drive 21 Low Louis Road Overflow Storm Drain Louis Road (Seale-Wooster Canal to Matadero Creek) 21 Low Louis Road SD Capacity Upgrade Louis Road (Embarcadero Road to Seale-Wooster Canal)21 Low Pearson Arastradero Preserve Parking Lot Improvement 1530 Arastradero Road 21 Low Ramos Park 800 East Meadow Drive 21 Low Scott Street Mini Park End of Scott Street at the intersec- tion of Scott Street and Addison Avenue 21 Low Sensing Unit/Hillview Relieve Valve 3402 Hillview Avenue 21 Low Sterling Canal 3101 Maddux Drive thru 3298 Maddux Drive 21 Low Airport 1925 Embarcadero Road 20 Low Alma Substation (Current land use is an apartment building)801 Alma Street 20 Low Los Altos Treatment Plant 1237 N San Antonio Road 20 Low Palo Alto Community Child Care 3990 Ventura Court 20 Low Sarah Wallis Park 202 Ash Street 20 Low College Terrace Children Center and Library, and Mayfield Park 2300 Wellesley Street 19 Low AP P en DIX APPENDIX 111 aPPendIX o: city-owned Prioritized Project location list (continued) Project Project Location Total Prioritzation Loma Verde Ave Storm Drain Capacity Upgrades Loma Verde Ave (Louis Road to Sterling Canal) 901 Loma Verde Ave - 1100 Loma Verde Ave 19 Low Matadero Creek Barron Park neighborhood 19 Low 20' Wide Footpath/Bike Path at Baylands 2525 E Bayshore Road 18 Low Dealership Parking Lot 17 Low Landscape Area at Oregon Expressway and Alma Street 103 Colorado (Between Oregon and Colorado)17 Low Regional Water Quality Control Plant 2504 Embarcadero Way 17 Low Strip of Land by San Francisquito Creek dividing Palo Alto and Menlo Park Riparian buffer along San Francis- quito Creek that runs between Em- erson Street and Marlowe Street 16 Low Residential drive-thru 2297 Williams Street 15 Low Strip of Land by San Francisquito Creek dividing Palo Alto and Menlo Park Riparian buffer along San Francis- quito Creek that runs between Em- erson Street and Marlowe Street 16 Low Residential drive-thru 2297 Williams Street 15 Low 112 APPENDIX aPPendIX P: Integration with city Plans and documents As described in Section 8.0, the City’s planning documents were reviewed to determine to what extent these included language to support GSI and if any changes were needed for the City to effectively implement the GSI Plan. The City determined that none of the reviewed documents prevent the implementation of GSI projects within the City. Moreover, several planning documents already contain some language to support the GSI Plan. However, various plans need to be better aligned with the GSI Plan to require the integration of GSI and use of the various tools, specifications and guidelines addressed in this Plan and through subsequent implementation. The following sections provide a brief discussion for each planning document that was reviewed for GSI integration, including examples of language supporting GSI in these documents where applicable. Additional examples of GSI- related language can be found in references such as SCVURPPP’s Model Green Infrastructure Language for Incorporation into Municipal Plans (2016). A workplan for future integration of GSI language is provided in Section 8.3 of the main document. Certain documents and plans will be updated in calendar years 2019-2020. This section will be updated once those documents are finalized. BICyCle anD PeDestrIan transPortatIon Plan (2012) The Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) contains the policy vision, design guidance, and specific recommendations to increase walking and biking rates to help achieve local and regional targets for accommodating new growth, maintaining mobility, and reducing overall environmental impacts. It was updated in July 2012 and includes limited language regarding the incorporation of GSI into transportation projects, namely: Section 2.2 Strategic Guiding Principles: At the project scale, seek integrated design solutions that achieve multiple benefits (e.g., a sidewalk extension that also provides landscaping or stormwater management opportunities) and avoid or improve abrupt transitions in the public realm. The next update will include language that will integrate the GSI Plan appropriately. Until the next update occurs, a policy will be established to ensure staff adequately considers GSI in the future. Example language that can be considered for this policy is provided below: • Encourage and support the inclusion of green stormwater infrastructure in the design of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. GSI can provide multiple benefits such as stormwater treatment, beautification and can be efficiently incorporated into bicycle and pedestrian projects. • Regularly coordinate scopes and timelines of roadway maintenance, GSI implementation, utility, and private development activities to identify potential collaboration opportunities on the bikeway network and within priority pedestrian areas. CIty Parks sustaInaBIlIty revIew (2014-2015) The Parks Sustainability Review identifies opportunities to increase sustainable and resource-saving practices associated with the operation and management of parks and open space, as well as recreational facilities within the City. Like the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Parks Master Plan), the City Parks Sustainability Review document already includes adequate references to support GSI implementation, namely: • Introduction and Background o Water Conservation and Quality • Policies and actions that promote activities that support stormwater capture…are considered to further sustainability goals. • Water Conservation and Quality o Item 6: Adopt a planting approach that focuses on transitioning to native and/or drought-tolerant plants and also provides ecological services such as improving water quality. o Item 9: Design stormwater improvements throughout the park system to incorporate LID systems to treat pollutants in stormwater runoff (e.g., through rain gardens, bioretention areas and living roof systems). • Site and implement treatment wetlands where they will provide the highest return on investment (e.g., adjacent to creeks or other wetlands). AP P en DIX APPENDIX 113 • Naturalize creek edges adjacent to parks and open space where feasible. o Item 10: Increase the use of permeable pavements in parking lots with filtration systems for pollutants. • Climate Change and Air Quality o Item 3.b: Use pervious surfaces in place of pavement where feasible. o Item 4.b: Design adaptive green infrastructure along creeks where increasingly unpredictable levels of precipitation and sea level rise will impact adjacent properties and ecosystems. The language in the City Parks Sustainability Review will be revised as part of future updates to directly relate to the GSI Plan. ComPrehensIve Plan (2017) The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan strives to build a coherent vision of the City’s future with input from its stakeholders. It integrates the aspirations of the City’s residents, businesses, neighborhoods and officials into a bold strategy for managing change. The Comprehensive Plan is the primary tool for guiding the future development of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides a guide for making planning and development choices by describing long-term goals for the City’s future as well as policies to guide day- to-day decisions (p. I-1). The Comprehensive Plan was updated in November 2017 and includes language to promote GSI and support the GSI Plan. For example, page I-3 of the introduction describes the City’s commitment to sustainable design: • Protecting and Sustaining the Natural Environment o With most of the Baylands and foothills already protected as permanent open space, the Comprehensive Plan’s focus turns inward to the fragile ecosystems within developed portions of the City. The natural infrastructure, which includes a network of trees, open spaces, parks and other green spaces, and the connections between them, will provide access to nature. The City’s urban forest, which benefits humans, plants, animals, and microorganisms, will be promoted throughout the City. The Comprehensive Plan fosters energy and water conservation, healthy soils, and a sustainable water supply. During the life of this Comprehensive Plan, climate change is expected to affect Palo Alto’s physical infrastructure and natural ecology. To minimize these impacts, and to protect the natural environment, the City will maintain a holistic approach to managing its creek corridors, habitat areas and green infrastructure, which have been a source of civic pride. Implementation of the climate change adaptation strategies identified in the Comprehensive Plan will ensure that Palo Alto meets today’s needs without compromising the needs of future generations. GSI references in other sections of the Comprehensive Plan include the following: • Transportation Element o Policy T-4.7: Require new residential development projects to implement best practices for street design, stormwater management and green infrastructure. o Policy T-5.8: Promote vehicle parking areas designed to reduce stormwater runoff, increase compatibility with street trees and add visual interest to streets and other public locations… • Program T5.8.1: Study the feasibility of retrofitting City-owned surface parking lots to implement best management practices for stormwater management and urban heat island mitigation, including green infrastructure, permeable pavement and reflective surfaces. • Program T5.8.2: Identify incentives to encourage the retrofit of privately-owned surface parking areas to incorporate best management practices for stormwater management and urban heat island mitigation… • Program T5.8.3: Update City requirements regarding trees and other landscaping that capture and filter stormwater within surface parking lots to take advantage of new technology. • Natural Environment Element o Policy N-2.1: Recognize the importance of the urban forest as a vital part of the City’s natural and green infrastructure network that contributes to public health, resiliency, habitat values, appreciation of natural systems and an attractive visual character which must be protected and enhanced. There are opportunities to expand GSI language and to clearly connect this Comprehensive Plan to the GSI Plan in the next update. 114 APPENDIX DePartment of PuBlIC works strategIC Plan (2016-2018) The Department of Public Works Strategic Plan (2016- 2018) describes the Department’s vision, mission and value statements. It guides the Department to make informed decisions about where to direct resources most efficiently, as well as outlines Division goals and how to measure progress towards accomplishing them. Language to support the GSI Plan is adequately incorporated in the current Strategic Plan, as described below: • Public Works Engineering Services Division 3-Year Strategic Goals, Key Performance Measures & Success Indicators o Reduce stormwater runoff and protect the quality of waters discharged to creeks and the Bay while improving the storm drain system. o Complete a Green Infrastructure work plan that includes Low Impact Design (LID) for drainage features in public and private streets, parking lots, roofs, etc., to reduce adverse water quality impacts of development and urban runoff. The next update (planned for 2019) will reference GSI implementation progress. Parks, traIls, natural oPen sPaCe anD reCreatIon master Plan (2017) The Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Parks Master Plan), updated in September 2017, presents the vision for the future of Palo Alto’s parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system, based on guiding principles, goals and concepts developed through a rigorous analysis of the existing system and a robust community engagement process. This Parks Master Plan incorporates sustainable best practices in the maintenance, management and development of facilities where consistent with ecological best practices and also promotes stormwater-friendly design. The following Policy 6.E Programs support GSI: • Program 6.E.16: Explore stormwater runoff capture opportunities in parks for recycling in irrigation. • Program 6.E.19: Promote urban greening by integrating stormwater design into planting beds, reducing irrigation and providing interpretive information about park contributions to City water quality. • Program 6.E.21: Ensure project designs for new facilities and retrofits will be consistent with sustainable design principles and practices. This includes evaluating all projects for opportunities to implement green stormwater infrastructure such as bioswales, stormwater planters, rain gardens, permeable pavers and porous concrete and asphalt. • Program 6.E.22: Identify locations and develop swales, detention basins and rain gardens to retain and treat stormwater. The next update of the Parks Master Plan will include language more specific to GSI and the GSI Plan. It is not considered a high priority, as this plan already supports the use of GSI, and staff is aware of moving towards integrating this approach in future work. sea level rIse aDaPtatIon PolICy (2019) The City’s Sea Level Rise Adaptation Policy was approved by City Council in March 2019. It will be followed by a Sea Level Rise (SLR) Implementation Plan to be completed in summer 2020. The Policy defines GSI and also lists various actions to be conducted by Departments deemed necessary to support the Policy. One of those actions is Watershed Protection serving as lead for implementation of the GSI Plan. Watershed Protection staff will remain involved to ensure further integration with the upcoming development of the SLR Implementation Plan. sewer system management Plan (2017) The City of Palo Alto Sewer System Management Plan describes the City’s procedures involved in the planning, management, and operation and maintenance of the City’s sanitary sewer system. It was last updated in November 2017. Sections of the document offer opportunity to incorporate language in support of the GSI Plan, which will be incorporated with the next update. storm DraIn master Plan (2015) The Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP), updated in 2015, discusses the background, analysis, and proposed solutions for managing the City’s storm drain system. AP P en DIX APPENDIX 115 The SDMP also includes design standards for larger infrastructure projects needed to provide a 10-year storm level of drainage service throughout the City. The document briefly describes MRP LID requirements and provides references (web links) for more information on LID and GSI. Chapter 6, Section 6.6, recommends the following: “The City should consider incorporating LID elements into street and utility improvement projects. Elements, such as sidewalk storage, bioswales in park strips, and tree preservation, can slow rainwater discharge to the storm drain system, and may reduce nuisance ponding through additional storage, although are not intended to reduce discharge to the system during larger events such as the 10-year storm.” However, the SDMP should be updated to ensure projects are properly vetted to include GSI (to treat smaller storms), that no opportunity is lost, and that the connection between the SDMP and the GSI Plan is strengthened and fully integrated. Implementation will involve establishing a policy for staff to consider this amended approach during the project scoping phase. sustaInaBIlIty anD ClImate aCtIon Plan (2016) The Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Framework (S/CAP), adopted by City Council in November 2016, is intended as a road map for development of subsequent Sustainability Implementation Plans. The S/CAP proposes high-level implementation pathways for how the City will continue its environmental stewardship, and exceed state requirements for greenhouse gas emission reductions. The S/CAP sets strategic direction and overall goals, and suggests initial priority actions. In particular, it calls out a need for a GSI policy, meeting MRP requirements, and considering GSI in future projects. Specific language incorporated in the S/CAP to support the GSI Plan includes: • Climate Adaptation: Preparing for Change o Strategy: Build resilience considerations into City planning and capital projects, especially near the Bay shoreline. • Pursue “green infrastructure” as required by the RWQCB and as warranted by staff analysis; include supporting policies in the Comprehensive Plan Update aimed at increasing stormwater capture and infiltration. • Regeneration and the Natural Environment o Strategy: Deploy Green Infrastructure. • Develop a green infrastructure policy • Require consideration of green infrastructure strategies whenever street or open space improvements may be made, including construction, landscaping and traffic calming projects. • Coordinate strategies across departments to leverage benefits. For example, reduced roadway and parking demand resulting from single occupancy vehicle‐ reducing transportation strategies would enable more permeable surfaces and water capture; include such economic benefits in analysis of those transportation projects. • Map City water flows and soil types to evaluate which types of green infrastructure investments and locations could provide greatest benefits. • Incentivize Green Roof Installation. Address through building policy or utility incentive the promotion of green roofs. • Establish City Policy on Green Streets and Green Parking Design. • Include Green Streets, alleys and curb cuts in street work, parking strips, planter areas of sidewalks, curb extensions, and street medians. • Establish City design policies to include green parking infrastructure in all new parking facilities. • Incorporate additional green infrastructure elements into parking lot designs, including permeable pavements installed in sections of a parking lot and rain gardens and bioswales included in medians and along a parking lot perimeter. There is adequate language supporting the GSI Plan. The S/CAP will reference GSI progress in the 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Update. sustaInaBIlIty ImPlementatIon Plan (2017) The 2018 -2020 Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP), accepted in December 2017, is related to the 116 APPENDIX S/CAP and focuses on two key concerns – carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and Water – and four key areas of activity: Energy, Mobility, Electric Vehicles, and Water. The key actions for Water include: • Develop programs and ordinances to facilitate the use of non-traditional, non-potable water sources (e.g. graywater, stormwater, black water, etc.); and • Develop a Green Stormwater (previously Storm Water) Infrastructure Plan to better capture and infiltrate stormwater back into the hydrologic cycle. While the language supporting the GSI Plan is considered adequate, the SIP will reference GSI progress in its next update, which will be included in the 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Update. urBan forest master Plan (2015) The Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP), updated in May 2015, is a guide to how the City manages its urban forest. Elements of the UFMP include an analysis of current urban forest conditions and recommendations for future management and implementation actions. The following language to support the GSI Plan is incorporated in the UFMP: • Vision Statement o Both tangible and intangible benefits of green infrastructure will be valued, and stewardship will reflect collaboration by City leaders, City staff, residents, property owners, business owners, and partners. Although it currently supports the GSI Plan, language should be expanded in future updates to directly relate to the GSI Plan, especially regarding use of tree well filters and suspended pavement systems for capturing and treating stormwater. This will be addressed in the next update. urBan water management Plan (2016) The City of Palo Alto Urban Water Management Plan describes the City’s water demands, water supply distribution system and reliability, and guides management of the water system. It was last updated in June 2016. Various sections of the document offer opportunity to incorporate language in support of the GSI Plan, which will be incorporated with the next update. AP P en DIX APPENDIX 117 aPPendIX Q: utilities department—electric fund cIPs for 2019-2023 (fY18 adopted capital Budget) 118 APPENDIX aPPendIX r: utilities department—Gas fund cIPs for 2019-2023 (fY18 adopted capital Budget) Down t o w n North Profe s s o r v i l l e Unive r s i t y South Cresc e n t Park Comm u n i t y Cente r Duve n e c k / St Fr a n c i s Lelan d M a n o r / Garla n d Old Palo A l t o South g a t e Colle g e Terra c e Everg r e e n Park Midto w n / Midto w n W e s t Palo Verde Fairm e a d o w Charl e s t o n Mead o w s Green m e a d o w Ventu r a Barro n Park Green Acres Palo A l t o Hills Unive r s i t y Park Char l e s t o n Terra c e Rese a r c h Park Oak Creek Walli s C t Donald Dr i v e Enci n a G r a n d e D r i v e Cer e z a D r i v e Los R o b l e s A v e Villa Vera Verdosa Drive Campana Drive Solana Drive Georgia Ave Ynigo Way Driscoll Ct ngArthur'Maybell Way May b e l l A v e n u e Frandon Ct Flo r a l e s D r i v e Geo r g i a A v e n u e Amaranta Avenue Am a r a n t a C t MirandaGreen Foothill Ex p r e s s w a y Ki sCourt Terman Drive Baker Avenue Vista A v e n u e Wisteria Lane Pena Ct Coulombe Drive Cherry Oaks Place Pomona Avenue Ara s t r a d e r o R d Abel Avenue Clemo Avenue Villa R e a l Cur t n e r A v e n u e Ven t u r a A v e n u e Mac l a n e Emerson Street Ventura Court Park Boulevard Mag n o l i a D r i v e S o u t h Cypress Lane (Private) GlenbrookD Fairm e d e A v e n u e Aras t r a d e r o R o a d Irv e n C o u r t Los P a l o s C i r LosPalosPlace May b e l l A v e n u e Alta Mesa Ave Kelly W a y Los Palos Ave Suzanne Dri v e Suzanne Dri v e rive El Camino Re a l Suza n n e C t Lorab e l l e C t McKellar Lan e El Camin o W a y Jam e s R o a d Mac l a n e Second Street Wilkie Way Camin o C o u r t Wes t M e a d o w D r i v e Thain Way Bar c l a y C t Vict o r i a P l Interdale Way (Pvt) West C h a r l e s t o n R o a d Tenn e s s e e L a n e Wilkie Way Caro l i n a L a n e Tenn e s s e e L a n e Park Boulevard Wilkie C o u r t Dav e n p o r t W a y Alma StreetRoosev Monr o e D r i v e Wilkie Way Whitclem PlaceWhitc l e m D r i v e Dulu t h C i r c l e Edlee A v e n u e Dina h ' s C o u r t Cesa n o C t Mon r o e D r i v e Miller Ave Whitclem Way Whitclem Ct Fern e A v e n u e Ben L o m o n d D r i v e Fairf i e l d C t Fern e A v e n u e Ponce DriveHemlockCourtFerne Court Alma Street Mon r o e D r San A n t o n i o R o a d NitaAvenue Ruthelma AvenueDarlin g t o n C o u r t East C h a r l e s t o n R d LundyLane New b e r r y C t Park Boulevard Geor g e H o o d L a n e Alma Street eltCircle LinderoDrive Wright Place StarrKingCircle Sha s t a D r i v e Mackay DriveDi a b l o C o u r t Scripps Avenue Scri p p s C o u r t Nelson Drive Tiog a C o u r t Cree k s i d e D r i v e Gree n m e a d o w W a y Ben L o m o n d D r i v e Park s i d e D r i v e Dixon Place Ely P l a c e Dake Avenue Ferne Avenue San Antonio Court (Private) Ely P l Ely P l a c e Adobe P l a c e Nelso n C t Kea t s C o u r t Middlefield Road Duncan Place Carlson Cour t Dunc a n P l a c e Mumford Pl East C h a r l e s t o n R d San A n t o n i o R o a d Eas t M e a d o w D r i v e Emerson Street Court BryantStreet RooseveltCircle RamonaStreet CarlsonCircleRedwoodCircleSouth Leghorn S t r e e t Mont r o s e A v e n u e Mapl e w o o d A v e n u e Charleston CtEast C h a r l e s t o n R o a d Semin o l e W a y Sutherland Drive Nelson Drive El Ca p i t a n P l a c e Fabian S t r e e t Lom a V e r d e A v e n u e Bryso n A v e n u e Midt o w n C o u r t Cowper St Gary C t Waverley Street South Court Bryant Street Ramona Street Alma Street Coa s t l a n d D r Byron Street Middlefield Road Gaspar Ct More n o A v e n u e El C a r m e l o A v e n u e Cam p e s i n o A v e n u e Dym o n d C t Mar t i n s e n C t Ramona Street Bryant Street Towl e W a y Towle Pl Wells b u r y C t FlowersLane Mackall Way Loma V e r d e A v e Cowper Street South Court Waverley Stre e t El V e r a n o A v e n u e Wells b u r y W a y La Middlefield Road St C l a i r e D r i v e Alger D r i v e Asht o n A v e n u e St Michael Drive St Michael Drive Maur e e n A v e Cowp e r C o u r t Rambow Drive East M e a d o w D r i v e Ashton Court Murdoch Drive CowperStreet Murd o c h C t St Michael Court MayCourt May v i e w A v e n u e Middlefield Ro a d Ensi g n W a y Bibbit s D r i v e Gailen C o u r tGailen A v e n u e Grove A v e n u e Sa n A n t o n i o R o a d Co m m e r c i a l S t r e e t Indu s t r i a l A v e n u e Bib b i t s D r i v e East Cha r l e s t o n R o a d Fabia n W a y T East M e a d o w D r i v e Grove AvenueChri s t i n e D r i v e Corina W a y Ross Ro a dCori n a W a y Louis R d Nath a n W y Transport Street Orteg a C o u r t East M e a d o w D r i v e yneCourt alisman Loma V e r d e A v e n u e All e n C t Ross C o u r t Loma Verde Place Am e s A v e n u e Ric h a r d s o n C o u r t Holly O a k D r i v e Ames A v e CorkOakWay Middlefield Road Ames Ct Am e s A v e n u e Ross Road Rorke Way Ston e L a n e Toyo n P l a c e Torre y a C o u r t Lupine Avenue Thorn w o o d D r i v e DriftwoodDrive Tali s m a n D r i v e Arbutus Avenue Ross Road Louis Road Aspe n W a y Evergreen Drive East Me a d o w D r i v e Corp o r a t i o n W a y Elwe l l C o u r t Janice Way East Meadow Circle East Meadow Circle GreerRoad Bayshore Freeway Ell s w o r t h P l San C a r l o s C t Winte r g r e e n W a y Sut t e r A v e n u e Clara D r i v e Price CtSte r n A v e n u e Color a d o A v e n u e Randers Ct Ross Rd. Syca m o r e D r i v e Sevyson Ct Stelling Driv e Ross Road David Avenue MurrayWay Stelling D r i v e Stel l i n g C t ManchesterCourt Ken n e t h D r i v e ThomasDrive Stockton Place Vernon Terrace Louis Road Janic e W a y Thom a s D r Kenn e t h D r i v e Loma V e r d e A v e n u e CliftonCourt ElbridgeWay Clar a D r i v e BautistaCourtStockton Place Morris Drive Madd u x D r Pie r s C t Louis Road Mora g a C t Old P a g e M i l l R o a d Deer Creek Road CoyoteHillRoad Hillvie w A v e n u e Porter Drive Hillview Ave Hano v e r S t r e e t Foothill Expressway Aras t r a d e r o R o a d Miranda Avenue Stan f o r d A v e n u e Amherst Street Columbia Street Bowdoin Street Dartmouth Street Hanover Street Col l e g e A v e n u e Cali f o r n i a A v e n u e Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Pag e M i l l R o a d Hansen Way Hanover Street Old A d o b e R o a d Old Trace Court Arast r a d e r o R o a d Miranda Avenue MockingbirdLane OldTraceRoad Manuela W a y RobbRoad Manuela C o u r t Mesa A v e n u e Oa k H i l l A v e n u e Ma n u e l a A v e n u e Mira n d a A v e n u e Lag u n a C t Barro n A v e Jos i n a A v e Ken d a l l A v e Tippawingo St Julie CtMat a d e r o A v e n u e Ilim a W a y Ilim a C o u r t Lagu n a O a k s P l Carlitos Ct La Calle Laguna Ave Para d i s e W a y Roble R i d g e LaMataWay Chim a l u s D r i v e Mata d e r o A v e Pau l A v e n u e Kend a l l A v e n u e Whitsell Avenue Bar r o n A v e n u e CassWay Los R o b l e s A v e Laguna Way La P a r a A v e n u e San J u d e A v e n u e El Centro Street Tim l o t t L a n e La J e n n i f e r W a y Magn o l i a D r i v e N o r t h La Donna Avenue Rinc Manzana Lane onCircle MesaCourt Cro s b y P l Geo r g i a A v e n u e Hubbartt D r i v e Willm a r D r i v e Donald Dr Arastr a d e r o R o a d Foothill Expre s s w a y Miranda A v e n u e San J u d e A v e Magnolia Drive Milita r y W a y Arbol Drive Orme Street Fern a n d o A v e n u e Mat a d e r o A v e n u e Lam b e r t A v e n u e Han s e n W a y Marg a r i t a A v e n u e Mata d e r o A v e n u e Wilt o n A v e n u e Oxfo r d A v e n u e Harvard Street Cal i f o r n i a A v e Wellesley Street Princeton Street Oberlin Street Cornell Street Cam b r i d g e A v e Col l e g e A v e n u e Williams Street Yale St Staunton Ct Oxfo r d A v e n u e El Camino Real Chu r c h i l l A v e n u e Park B o u l e v a r d Park A v e n u e Escobita Avenue Chu r c h i l l A v e n u e Sequo i a A v e n u e Mar iposa Avenue Castilleja Avenue Miram o n t e A v e n u e Madrono Avenue Portola Avenue Man z a n i t a A v e n u e Col e r i d g e A v e n u e Lel a n d A v e n u e Stan f o r d A v e n u e Birch Street Ash Street Low e l l A v e n u e Alma StreetTen n y s o n A v e n u e Gran t A v e n u e Sher i d a n A v e Jaca r a n d a L n El Camino Real She r m a n A v e n u e Ash St Page M i l l R o a d Mimosa Ln Ches t n u t A v e n u e Por t a g e A v e n u e Pepp e r A v e n u e Olive A v e n u e Acac i a A v e n u e Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda StreetBirch St Ash Street Pag e M i l l R o a d Ash Street Park Blvd Col l e g e A v e n u e Cam b r i d g e A v e New M a y f i e l d L n Birch Street Cal i f o r n i a A v e Park BlvdNogal Lane Ri n c o n a d a A v e n u e San t a R i t a A v e n u e Park Boulevard Seal e A v e n u e Wash i n g t o n A v e San t a R i t a A v e n u e Bryant Street High Street Emerson Street Colo r a d o A v e Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El D o r a d o A v e n u e Alma Street Alma Street HighStreet Emerson Waver l e y O a k s ( P r i v a t e ) Was h i n g t o n A v e n u e Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson StNeva d a A v e N Ca l i f A v e Ramona St High Street North C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e Oreg o n E x p w y Mari o n A v e n u e Ramona Street Colo r a d o A v e n u e Waverley Street Kipling Str eet South Court Cowper Street Anto n C t Neva d a A v e n u e Tasso StreetTasso Street Ore g o n A v e n u e Marion Place Webst e r S t Middlef ield Road Ross Road Warr e n W a y El Cajon Way Prim r o s e W a y Iris W a y Tulip L a n e Tulip Lane Garl a n d D r i v e Gre e r R o a d Gre e r R o a d Hamilto n A v e n u e Hilb a r L a n e Alannah Ct Edge Rho d e s D r i v e Marshall Drive Moren o A v e n u e MarshallDrive Denn i s D r . Agnes WayOre g o n A v e . Bla i r C o u r t Santa Ana Street Elsin o r e D r i v e Elsinore Court El Cajon Way Greer Road Cali f o r n i a A v e n u e Colora d o A v e n u e Syca m o r e D r i v e Am a r i l l o A v e n u e l Bruc e D r i v e Colo n i a l L a n e More n o A v e n u e Celi a D r i v e Burnham Way Greer Road Indian Drive Elmdale PlC Tanland Drive More n o A v e n u e Ama r i l l o A v e n u e West Bayshore Road Sandra Place Clara Drive Color a d o A v e n u e Gr eer Road Colo r a d o A v e n u e Simkins Court Ot t e r s o n C t Higgins Pl. Lawr e n c e L a n e Maddux Drive Genevieve Ct MetroCircle MoffettCircle Greer Road East Bayshore Road ardinalWay Santa Catalina Str e e t ArrowheadWayAztec Way Chabot TerraceOreg o n A v e n u e Carmel Drive SierraCourt StFrancisDrive West Bayshore Road Tanland Dr. East B a y s h o r e R o a d woodDrive Edgewood Drive WildwoodLane Ivy Lane East Bayshore Road St F r a n c i s D r i v e Wild w o o d L a n e Watso n C o u r t Laura L a n e O'Brin e L a n e ( P r i v a t e ) Embarcad e r o R o a d FaberPlaceEmb a r c a d e r o R o a d Geng R o a d Embarcadero Way Emb a r c a d e r o R o a d CountryClubCourt Alexi s D r i v e AlexisDrive Pasteur Dri v e Qua r r y R o a d Welch Road Arboretum Road Quar r y R o a d Sand H i l l R o a d Hom e r A v e n u e Lane 8 West Medica l F o u n d a t i o n W a y Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Embar c a d e r o R o a d Encin a A v e n u e El Camino Real Urban L a n e Wells A v e n u e Fores t A v e n u e High Street Emerson Street Cha n n i n g A v e Alma StreetAlma Street El Camino Real Mit c h e l l L a n e Haw t h o r n e A v e n u e Eve r e t t A v e n u e Lytt o n A v e n u e Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lan e 2 1 G ilm an Str eet Ham i l t o n A v e n u e Uni v e r s i t y A v e n u e Bry a n t C o u r t Lane 3 0 Florence Street Kipling Str eet Tasso Street Cowper Street Rut h v e n A v e n u e Lane 3 3 PaloAltoAvenue Poe S t r e e t Waverley Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue Webster Street Eve r e t t C o u r t Byron Street Fult on Street Middlefield Road Chur c h i l l A v e n u e Tenn y s o n A v e n u e Mel v i l l e A v e n u e Cowper Street Tasso Street Webster Street Byron Street Nort h C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e Col e r i d g e A v e n u e Waverley Street Bryant Street Emerson Street Alma StreetKing s l e y A v e Port a l P l a c e Ross Road Oreg o n A v e n u e Garl a n d D r i v e Lane A West Lane B West Lane B East Lane D West Lane 59 East Whitm a n C o u r t Kell o g g A v e n u e Emba r c a d e r o R o a d King s l e y A v e n u e Linco l n A v e n u e Addi s o n A v e . Linc o l n A v e n u e Downing Lane Hom e r A v e n u e Lane D East Lane 39 Lane 56(Pvt.) Ham i l t o n A v e n u e Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Str eet Bryant Street Ramona Street Scott Street Byron Street Palo Hale Street Seneca Street Lytt o n A v e n u e PaloAltoAvenue Fult on Street Kell o g g A v e n u e Middlef ield Road Byron Street Webster Street Cowper Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Add i s o n A v e n u e Boy c e A v e n u e Hami l t o n A v e n u e Hom e r A v e n u e Guinda Street Middlef ield Road Cha n n i n g A v e n u e AltoAvenueChaucer StreetChaucer S t r e e t Uni v e r s i t y A v e n u e Addi s o n A v e n u e Regent P l Guinda Street Lin c o l n A v e n u e Fult on Stre e t Mel v i l l e A v e n u e Byron Street King s l e y A v e n u e Mel v i l l e A v e n u e Hamilton A v e n u e Ha m i l t o n C t Forest A v e n u e For e s t C t Marl o w e S t r e e t Map l e S t r e e t Palm S t r e e t Somerse t P l Pitman A v e n u e Fife Aven u e Forest Av e n u e Dana Ave n u e Linc o l n A v e n u e University A v e n u e Col e r i d g e A v e n u e Lowe l l A v e n u e Cowper Street Tenn y s o n A v e n u e Nor t h a m p t o n D r i v e Wes t G r e e n w i c h P l Middlef ield Road Newell Road Guinda Street Eas t G r e e n w i c h P l Sou t h a m p t o n D r i v e Kirb y P l Kent Plac e Tevis P lMartin Ave n u e Cent e r D r i v e Harri e t S t r e e t Wils o n S t r e e t Ceda r S t r e e t Harker A v e n u e Greenwo o d A v e n u e Hutc h i n s o n A v e Channing A v e n u e Hopkins A v e n u e Emba r c a d e r o R o a d Ashby Drive Dana AvenueHamilton Avenue Pitman Avenue Sout h w o o d D r i v e WestCrescentDrive CrescentDrive Unive r s i t y A v e n u e Center Driv e EastCrescen Arcadia Place Louisa Court Newell P l Sha r o n C t Erstw i l d C o u r t Walt e r H a y s D r i v e Walnut Dr i v e Ne w e l l R o a d Parkinso n A v e n u e Pine S t r e e t Mark Twain Street Louis Road Barbara Drive Primr o s e W a y Iris W a y Emba r c a d e r o R o a d Walter H a y s D r i v e Lois L a n e Jordan P l Lois Lane Heat h e r L a n e Bret Harte Street Sta n l e y W a y De Soto D r i v e De S o t o D r i v e Ales t e r A v e n u e Walter H a y s D r i v e Channin g A v e n u e Iris Way tDrive Dana Avenue Hamilton Avenue New e l l R o a d Kings Lane EdgewoodDrive Isla n d D r i v e Jeff e r s o n D r i v e JacksonDrive Pat r i c i a L a n e Madi s o n W a y EdgewoodDrive Ramona Street Addi s o n A v e n u e Cha n n i n g A v e n u e Tenn y s o n A v e n u e Seal e A v e n u e Middlef ield Road Byron Street Webster Street Mari o n A v e n u e Welc h R o a d Sedro Ln Peral Lane McGre g o r W a y Mon r o e D r i v e Silva Ave Sil v a C o u r t Mille r C o u r t Briarwood Way Drisc o l l P l a c e Pau l s e n L n Commun i t y L a n e Lane 15 E Cour t Madeline Court Arroy o C t Davi d C t Alexis Dr i v e Green Manor Orego n E x p r e s s w a y Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y Oreg o n E x p w y Page M i l l R o a d Pag e M i l l R o a d Foothill E x p r e s s w a y Miranda A v e n u eFoothill Exp r e s s w a y Miranda A v e n u e Foothill Expr e s s w a y Cerri t o W a y Emerson Street Lane 2 0 W Lane 2 0 E Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y Univ e r s i t y A v e n u e Mack a y D r i v e Jaco b ' s C t ( P v t ) CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Str eet Clark Way Durand Way Pasteur Driv e Wel c h R o a d San d h i l l R o a d Swain WayClark W a y Mosher Way Charles Marx Way Orch a r d L a n e Vineyard Lane Oak R o a d Sand H i l l R o a d San d H i l l R o a d Sand H i l l R o a d El Camino Real Foothill Expressway Hillvie w A v e n u e Aras t r a d e r o R o a d Lane 66 Bla k e W i l b u r D r i v e Campus Drive E a s t Ca m p u s D r i v e W e s t Wes t C h a r l e s t o n R o a d Campu s D r i v e E a s t Campus Driv e W e s t Palm D r i v e Campus Drive West Campus Drive East Quarry Road Ca m p u s D r i v e E a s t Stock F a r m R o a d Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore RoadBayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Palo Road Shopping Center Way Sho p p i n g C e n t e r W a y Sho p p i n g C e n t e r W a y London Plane Way Plum Lan e Sweet Olive Way Pear Lane Cam p u s D r i v e Lane 66 LaSelvaDrive Grove C o u r t Miran d a C t Sta n f o r d A v e n u e Lane 12 W Lane 5 E Serra Stree t Argu e l l o W a y Gal v e z S t r e e t Campus Drive East Nelson Drive Arboretum Road Lau s e n S t r e e t Galv e z S t r e e t Museum Way Roth Way Lom i t a D r i v e Serra Street Escondido Ro a d Cam p u s D r i v e E a s t Bowdoin Street Escondido RoadCom s t o c k C i r c l e AngellCourt BlackWelderCourt JenkinsCourt McFarlandCourt SerraStreet HoskinsCourt ThoburnCourt HulmeCourt BarnesCourt OlmsteadRoad DudleyLane CaballoLane JohnMarthensLane(Private) Page MillRoad Banderadrive LaurelGlennDrive AlexisDrive PhillipsRoad Pist a c h e P l a c e Sant a Y n e z S t r e e t Salvatierra S t r e e t Lane B Alvarado A v e n u e Mayfield Avenue Costonzo Street Cabrillo Avenue Camp u s D r i v e E a s t San Juan Street Lane C Coro n a d o A v e n u e Dolo r e s A v e n u e El D o r a d o A v e n u e OakCreekDrive Clara D r i v e Bellview Dr Eve r e t t A v e n u e LosTrancosRoad LosTrancosRoad Emerson Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Emerson St Alma Street Waverley Street Alma Street Middlef ield Road Webster StreetWebster Street Waverley Street Webster Street Fult on Street Seneca Street Newell Road Fult o n S t r e e t Coastland Dr Van Auken Circle Louis RoadLouis Road Linc o l n A v e n u e Uni v e r s i t y A v e n u e Ham i l t o n A v e n u e Fore s t A v e n u e Fore s t A v e n u e Lytt o n A v e n u e Uni v e r s i t y A v e n u e Haw t h o r n e A v e n u e Palo A l t o A v e n u e Pal o A l t o A v e n u e Cha n n i n g A v e n u e Add i s o n A v e n u e Hom e r A v e Hom e r A v e n u e Mel v i l l e A v e n u e Chur c h i l l A v e . Sea l e A v e n u e Emba r c a d e r o R o a d Embar c a d e r o R o a d East Bayshore Road Edgewood Drive San d a l w o o d C t Morto n S t r e e t Hut c h i n s o n A v e Ne w e l l R o a d Guinda Street De S o t o D r i v e Nor t h a m p t o n D r i v e Field i n g D r . Fielding Gr eer RoadMadd u x D r i v e Greer R o a d Sut t e r A v e n u e Rosewood Dr Ros e w o o d D r Sutt e r A v e n u e Kipling St Avalon Court Rorke Way Rorke Way Nath a n W a y Loui s R o a d Corin a W a y Fabia n W a y Kipling Street Marg a r i t a A v e n u e Lam b e r t A v e n u e Mata d e r o A v e n u e Wilton A v e n u e El Camino Real Pag e M i l l R o a d Alma Street Byron Street Calc a t e r r a P l a c e Chri s t o p h e r C t Monr o e D r May b e l l A v e n u e Barro n A v e n u e Hano v e r S t r e e t Porter Drive Pag e M i l l R o a d Hill v i e w A v e n u e Foothill Expressw a y El Cerrito RoadEl C e r r i t o R d Glenbrook Driv e Willmar D r i v e Miranda Avenue Hetch H e t c h y R O W Hetch Hetchy ROW Hillvi e w A v e n u e Moan a C t Arastrad e r o R o a d Arastradero Ro a d Sa n A n t o n i o R o a d Channi n g A v e n u e Linc o l n A v e n u e Lin c o l n A v e n u e Morton S t r e e t Dr. Sha u n a L n Sa n A n t o n i o R o a d Maddux Drive Varia n W a y She r m a n A v e n u e Gra n t A v e n u e She r i d a n A v e Los R o b l e s A v e Springhill D r Maplew o o d P l Las Trampas V a l l e y R o a d Las Trampas Vall e y R o a d Las Trampas Valley Road Vista Hil l R o a d Vista H i l l R o a d Vista Hil l R o a d Vista H i l l R o a d Madera Point Road Las Trampas V a l l e y R o a d Ma d e r a P o i n t R o a d Page Mill Road Page Mill Roa d Emma Ct Galv e z M a l l Arg u e l l o W a y Alm a V i l l a g e C i r c l e Alm a V i l l a g e L a n e OlmstedRoad OlmstedRoad OlmstedRoad Abrams Ct Olmsted Road Olms t e d R o a d Olm s t e d R o a d OlmstedRoad Page Mill R o a d Arastradero Road E l C a m i n o R e a l S a n A n t o n i o A v e n u e C harleston Road O r e g o n E x p r e s s w a y M i d d l e f i e l d R o a dUn i v e r s i t y Aven u e A l m a S t r e e t F o o t h i l l E x p r e ssway L o s T r a n c o s R o a d East Bayshor e West Bayshor e F a b i a n Sa n d H i l l R o a d Emb a r c a d e r o R o a d This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Gas Projects CIP Construction Projects FY'19 - FY'23: FY'19 (Single Services - not shown on the map)FY'20 (GMR 23) FY'21 (GMR 24) FY'22 (GMR 25) FY'23 (GMR 26) 0'2500' GAS FUND 2019-2023CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CITY O F PALO A LTOINCORPORATED CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altossantos, 2018-03-22 13:17:31Gas Fund Map 2019-2023 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\ssantos.mdb) AP P en DIX APPENDIX 119 aPPendIX S: utilities department—wastewater fund cIPs for 2019-2023 (fY18 adopted capital Budget) Down t o w n North Profe s s o r v i l l e Unive r s i t y South Cresc e n t Park Comm u n i t y Cente r Duve n e c k / St Fra n c i s Lelan d M a n o r / Garla n d Old Palo A l t o South g a t e Colle g e Terra c e Everg r e e n Park Midtow n / Midto w n W e s t Palo Verde Fairm e a d o w Charl e s t o n Mead o w s Green m e a d o w Ventu r a Barro n Park Green Acres Palo A l t o Hills Unive r s i t y Park Charl e s t o n Terra c e Resea r c h Park Oak Creek Walli s C t Donald Dr i v e Enc i n a G r a n d e D r i v e Cere z a D r i v e Los R o b l e s A v e Villa Vera Verdosa Drive Campana Drive Solana Drive Georgia Ave Ynigo Way Driscoll Ct ngArthur'Maybell Way May b e l l A v e n u e Frandon Ct Flor a l e s D r i v e Geo r g i a A v e n u e Amaranta Avenue Ama r a n t a C t MirandaGreen Foothill E x p r e s s w a y KisCourt Terman Drive Baker Avenue Vist a A v e n u e Wisteria Lane Pena Ct Coulombe Drive Cherry Oaks Place Pomona Avenue Ara s t r a d e r o R d Abel Avenue Clemo Avenue Villa R e a l Curtn e r A v e n u e Vent u r a A v e n u e Mac l a n e Emerson Street Ventura Court Park Boulevard Magn o l i a D r i v e S o u t h Cypress Lane (Private) GlenbrookD Fairm e d e A v e n u e Ara s t r a d e r o R o a d Irve n C o u r t Los P a l o s C i r LosPalosPlace Mayb e l l A v e n u e Alta Mesa Ave Kelly W a y Los Palos Ave Suzanne Drive Suzanne Drive rive El Camino Real Suza n n e C t Lora b e l l e C t McKellar Lane El Ca m i n o W a y Jame s R o a d Macla n e Second Street Wilkie Way Camino C o u r t Wes t M e a d o w D r i v e Thain Way Barcl a y C t Victo r i a P l Interdale Way (Pvt) West C h a r l e s t o n R o a d Ten n e s s e e L a n e Wilkie Way Caro l i n a L a n e Tenn e s s e e L a n e Park Boulevard Wilki e C o u r t Dave n p o r t W a y Alma StreetRoosev Mon r o e D r i v e Wilkie Way Whitclem PlaceWhit c l e m D r i v e Dulut h C i r c l e Edle e A v e n u e Dina h ' s C o u r t Cesa n o C t Monr o e D r i v e Miller Ave Whitclem Way Whitclem Ct Fern e A v e n u e Ben L o m o n d D r i v e Fairf i e l d C t Ferne A v e n u e Ponce DriveHemlockCourtFerne Court Alma Street Mon r o e D r San A n t o n i o R o a d NitaAvenue Ruthelma AvenueDarlin g t o n C o u r t East C h a r l e s t o n R d LundyLane Newb e r r y C t Park Boulevard Georg e H o o d L a n e Alma Street eltCircle LinderoDrive Wright Place StarrKingCircle Sha s t a D r i v e Mackay DriveDi a b l o C o u r t Scripps Avenue Scrip p s C o u r t Nelson Drive Tiog a C o u r t Cree k s i d e D r i v e Gree n m e a d o w W a y Ben L o m o n d D r i v e Park s i d e D r i v e Dixon Place Ely P l a c e Dake Avenue Ferne Avenue San Antonio Court (Private) Ely P l Ely P l a c e Adobe P l a c e Nelson C t Kea t s C o u r t Middlefield Road Duncan Place Carlson Cou r t Dun c a n P l a c e Mumford Pl East C h a r l e s t o n R d San A n t o n i o R o a d Eas t M e a d o w D r i v e Emerson Street Court BryantStreet RooseveltCircle RamonaStreet CarlsonCircleRedwoodCircleSouth Leghorn S t r e e t Montr o s e A v e n u e Mapl e w o o d A v e n u e Charleston C t East C h a r l e s t o n R o a d Sem i n o l e W a y Sutherland Drive Nelson Drive El Ca p i t a n P l a c e Fabian S t r e e t Lom a V e r d e A v e n u e Bryso n A v e n u e Midt own Court Cowper St Gary C t Waverley Street South Court Bryant Street Ramona Street Alma Street Coas t l a n d D r Byron Street Middlefield Road Gaspar Ct More n o A v e n u e El C a r m e l o A v e n u e Cam p e s i n o A v e n u e Dym o n d C t Mart i n s e n C t Ramona Street Bryant Street Tow l e W a y Towle Pl Well s b u r y C t FlowersLane Mackall Way Lom a V e r d e A v e Cowper Street South Court Waverley Str e e t El V e r a n o A v e n u e Well s b u r y W a y LaMiddlefield Road St C l a i r e D r i v e Alger D r i v e Ashto n A v e n u e St Michael Drive St Michael Drive Maur e e n A v e Cowp e r C o u r t Rambow Drive East M e a d o w D r i v e Ashton Court Murdoch Drive CowperStreet Murd o c h C t St Michael Court MayCourt Mayv i e w A v e n u e Middlefield R o a d Ensig n W a y Bibbi t s D r i v e Gailen C o u r tGailen A v e n u e Grove Av e n u e Sa n A n t o n i o R o a d Co m m e r c i a l S t r e e t Indu s t r i a l A v e n u e Bibbi t s D r i v e East Ch a r l e s t o n R o a d Fabia n W a y T East M e a d o w D r i v e Grove AvenueChri s t i n e D r i v e Corina W a y Ross Ro a dCori n a W a y Louis R d Nath a n W y Transport Street Orteg a C o u r t East M e a d o w D r i v e yneCourt alisman Loma V e r d e A v e n u e All e n C t Ross C o u r t Loma Verde Place Am e s A v e n u e Ric h a r d s o n C o u r t Holly O a k D r i v e Ame s A v e CorkOakWay Middlefield Road Ames Ct Am e s A v e n u e Ross Road Rorke Way Ston e L a n e Toyo n P l a c e Torr e y a C o u r t Lupine Avenue Thorn w o o d D r i v e DriftwoodDrive Tali s m a n D r i v e Arbutus Avenue Ross Road Louis Road Aspe n W a y Evergreen Drive East Me a d o w D r i v e Corpo r a t i o n W a y Elwe l l C o u r t Janice Way East Meadow Circle East Meadow Circle GreerRoad Bayshore Freeway Ell s w o r t h P l San C a r l o s C t Winte r g r e e n W a y Sutt e r A v e n u e Clara D r i v e Price CtSter n A v e n u e Colo r a d o A v e n u e Randers Ct Ross Rd. Syca m o r e D r i v e Sevyson Ct Stelling Driv e Ross Road David Avenue MurrayWay Stelling D r i v e Stel l i n g C t ManchesterCourt Ken n e t h D r i v e ThomasDrive Stockton Place Vernon Terrace Louis Road Janic e W a y Thom a s D r Kenn e t h D r i v e Loma V e r d e A v e n u e CliftonCourt ElbridgeWay Clar a D r i v e BautistaCourtStockton Place Morris Drive Madd u x D r Pie r s C t Louis Road Mora g a C t Old P a g e M i l l R o a d Deer Creek Road CoyoteHillRoad Hillvi e w A v e n u e Porter Drive Hillview Ave Han o v e r S t r e e t Foothill Expressway Aras t r a d e r o R o a d Miranda Avenue Stan f o r d A v e n u e Amherst Street Columbia Street Bowdoin Street Dartmouth Street Hanover Street Col l e g e A v e n u e Cali f o r n i a A v e n u e Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Pag e M i l l R o a d Hansen Way Hanover Street Old A d o b e R o a d Old Trace Court Aras t r a d e r o R o a d Miranda Avenue MockingbirdLane OldTraceRoad Manuela W a y RobbRoad Manuela C o u r t Mesa Av e n u e Oak H i l l A v e n u e Man u e l a A v e n u e Miran d a A v e n u e Lagu n a C t Bar r o n A v e Jos i n a A v e Ken d a l l A v e Tippawingo St Julie CtMata d e r o A v e n u e Ilim a W a y Ilim a C o u r t Lagu n a O a k s P l Carlitos Ct La Calle Laguna Ave Para d i s e W a y Roble R i d g e LaMataWay Chim a l u s D r i v e Mat a d e r o A v e Pau l A v e n u e Ken d a l l A v e n u e Whitsell Avenue Barro n A v e n u e CassWay Los R o b l e s A v e Laguna Way La P a r a A v e n u e San J u d e A v e n u e El Centro Street Timl o t t L a n e La J e n n i f e r W a y Mag n o l i a D r i v e N o r t h La Donna Avenue Rinc Manzana Lane onCircle MesaCourt Cros b y P l Geo r g i a A v e n u e Hubbartt D r i v e Willm a r D r i v e Donald Dr Aras t r a d e r o R o a d Foothill Ex p r e s s w a y Miranda Av e n u e San J u d e A v e Magnolia Drive Milita r y W a y Arbol Drive Orme Street Fern a n d o A v e n u e Mata d e r o A v e n u e Lam b e r t A v e n u e Hans e n W a y Marg a r i t a A v e n u e Mata d e r o A v e n u e Wilto n A v e n u e Oxf o r d A v e n u e Harvard Street Cali f o r n i a A v e Wellesley Street Princeton Street Oberlin Street Cornell Street Cam b r i d g e A v e Colle g e A v e n u e Williams Street Yale St Staunton Ct Oxf o r d A v e n u e El Camino Real Chu r c h i l l A v e n u e Park B o u l e v a r d Park A v e n u e Escobita Avenue Chu r c h i l l A v e n u e Sequ o i a A v e n u e Mar iposa Avenue Castilleja Avenue Mira m o n t e A v e n u e Madrono Avenue Portola Avenue Manz a n i t a A v e n u e Col e r i d g e A v e n u e Lela n d A v e n u e Sta n f o r d A v e n u e Birch Street Ash Street Lowe l l A v e n u e Alma StreetTenn y s o n A v e n u e Gran t A v e n u e Sher i d a n A v e Jac a r a n d a L n El Camino Real She r m a n A v e n u e Ash St Page M i l l R o a d Mimosa Ln Che s t n u t A v e n u e Porta g e A v e n u e Pep p e r A v e n u e Olive A v e n u e Aca c i a A v e n u e Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda StreetBirch St Ash Street Page M i l l R o a d Ash Street Park Blvd Colle g e A v e n u e Cam b r i d g e A v e New M a y f i e l d L n Birch Street Calif o r n i a A v e Park BlvdNogal Lane Ri n c o n a d a A v e n u e San t a R i t a A v e n u e Park Boulevard Seal e A v e n u e Wash i n g t o n A v e Sant a R i t a A v e n u e Bryant Street High Street Emerson Street Colo r a d o A v e Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South CourtEl D o r a d o A v e n u e Alma Street Alma Street HighStreet Emerson Wav e r l e y O a k s ( P r i v a t e ) Wash i n g t o n A v e n u e Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson StNeva d a A v e N Ca l i f A v e Ramona St High Street Nor t h C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e Oreg o n E x p w y Mari o n A v e n u e Ramona Street Colo r a d o A v e n u e Waverley Street Kipling Str eet South Court Cowper Street Anto n C t Nev a d a A v e n u e Tasso StreetTasso Street Oreg o n A v e n u e Marion Place Webs t e r S t Middlef ield Road Ross Road Warre n W a y El Cajon Way Prim r o s e W a y Iris W a y Tulip L a n e Tulip Lane Garl a n d D r i v e Gree r R o a d Gree r R o a d Hamilton A v e n u e Hilb a r L a n e Alannah Ct Edge Rhod e s D r i v e Marshall Drive More n o A v e n u e MarshallDrive Denn i s D r . Agnes WayOreg o n A v e . Blai r C o u r t Santa Ana Street Elsin o r e D r i v e Elsinore Court El Cajon Way Greer Road Cali f o r n i a A v e n u e Color a d o A v e n u e Syca m o r e D r i v e Am a r i l l o A v e n u e l Bruc e D r i v e Colo n i a l L a n e More n o A v e n u e Celia D r i v e Burnham Way Greer Road Indian Drive Elmdale PlC Tanland Drive More n o A v e n u e Ama r i l l o A v e n u e West Bayshore Road Sandra Place Clara Drive Color a d o A v e n u e Gr eer Road Color a d o A v e n u e Simkins Court Ot t e r s o n C t Higgins Pl. Lawr e n c e L a n e Maddux Drive Genevieve Ct MetroCircle MoffettCircle Greer Road East Bayshore Road ardinalWay Santa Catalina Str e e t ArrowheadWayAztec Way Chabot TerraceOre g o n A v e n u e Carmel Drive SierraCourt StFrancisDrive West Bayshore Road Tanland Dr. East Ba y s h o r e R o a d woodDrive Edgewood Drive WildwoodLane Ivy Lane East Bayshore Road St Fr a n c i s D r i v e Wildw o o d L a n e Watson C o u r t Laura L a n e O'Brine L a n e ( P r i v a t e ) Embarc a d e r o R o a d FaberPlaceEmb a r c a d e r o R o a d Geng R o a d Embarcadero Way Emb a r c a d e r o R o a d CountryClubCourt Alexi s D r i v e AlexisDrive Pasteur Dri v e Quar r y R o a d Welch Road Arboretum Road Qua r r y R o a d Sand H i l l R o a d Home r A v e n u e Lane 8 West Medica l F o u n d a t i o n W a y Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Embar c a d e r o R o a d Encin a A v e n u e El Camino Real Urban La n e Wells A v e n u e For e s t A v e n u e High Street Emerson Street Cha n n i n g A v e Alma StreetAlma Street El Camino Real Mit c h e l l L a n e Haw t h o r n e A v e n u e Eve r e t t A v e n u e Lytt o n A v e n u e Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 2 1 G ilm an Str eet Ham i l t o n A v e n u e Uni v e r s i t y A v e n u e Brya n t C o u r t Lan e 3 0 Florence Street Kipling Str eet Tasso Street Cowper Street Ruth v e n A v e n u e Lane 3 3 PaloAltoAvenue Poe S t r e e t Waverley Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue Webster Street Ever e t t C o u r t Byron Street Fult on Street Middlefield Road Chu r c h i l l A v e n u e Ten n y s o n A v e n u e Mel v i l l e A v e n u e Cowper Street Tasso Street Webster Street Byron Street Nort h C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e Col e r i d g e A v e n u e Waverley Street Bryant Street Emerson Street Alma StreetKing s l e y A v e Por t a l P l a c e Ross Road Oreg o n A v e n u e Garl a n d D r i v e Lane A West Lane B West Lane B East Lane D West Lane 59 East Whi t m a n C o u r t Kel l o g g A v e n u e Embar c a d e r o R o a d Kin g s l e y A v e n u e Linco l n A v e n u e Addi s o n A v e . Linco l n A v e n u e Downing Lane Hom e r A v e n u e Lane D East Lane 39 Lane 56(Pvt.) Ham i l t o n A v e n u e Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Str eet Bryant Street Ramona Street Scott Street Byron Street Palo Hale Street Seneca Street Lytt o n A v e n u e PaloAltoAvenue Fult on Street Kel l o g g A v e n u e Middlef ield Road Byron Street Webster Street Cowper Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Addis o n A v e n u e Boy c e A v e n u e Ham i l t o n A v e n u e Hom e r A v e n u e Guinda Street Middlef ield Road Cha n n i n g A v e n u e AltoAvenueChaucer StreetChaucer S t r e e t Uni v e r s i t y A v e n u e Addi s o n A v e n u e Regent Pl Guinda Street Linc o l n A v e n u e Fult o n S t r e e t Melvil l e A v e n u e Byron Street King s l e y A v e n u e Mel v i l l e A v e n u e Hamilton A v e n u e Ha m i l t o n C t Forest A v e n u e For e s t C t Marl o w e S t r e e t Map l e S t r e e t Palm S t r e e t Somerse t P l Pitman A v e n u e Fife Ave n u e Forest Av e n u e Dana Ave n u e Linc o l n A v e n u e University A v e n u e Col e r i d g e A v e n u e Low e l l A v e n u e Cowper Street Ten n y s o n A v e n u e North a m p t o n D r i v e West G r e e n w i c h P l Middlef ield Road Newell Road Guinda Street East G r e e n w i c h P l Sout h a m p t o n D r i v e Kirb y P l Kent Pla c e Tevis P lMartin Av e n u e Cent e r D r i v e Harri e t S t r e e t Wils o n S t r e e t Ced a r S t r e e t Harker A v e n u e Greenwo o d A v e n u e Hutc h i n s o n A v e Channing A v e n u e Hopkins A v e n u e Embarc a d e r o R o a d Ashby Drive Dana AvenueHamilton Avenue Pitman Avenue South w o o d D r i v e WestCrescentDrive CrescentDrive Unive r s i t y A v e n u e Center Dri v e EastCrescen Arcadia Place Louisa Court Newell P l Sha r o n C t Erstw i l d C o u r t Walt e r H a y s D r i v e Walnut Dr i v e Ne w e l l R o a d Parkinso n A v e n u e Pine S t r e e t Mark Twain Street Louis Road Barbara Drive Primr o s e W a y Iris W a y Emba r c a d e r o R o a d Walter H a y s D r i v e Lois L a n eJordan Pl Lois Lane Heat h e r L a n e Bret Harte Street Stanl e y W a y De Soto D r i v e De S o t o D r i v e Ales t e r A v e n u e Walter H a y s D r i v e Channin g A v e n u e Iris Wa y tDrive Dana Avenue Hamilton Avenue New e l l R o a d Kings Lane EdgewoodDrive Isla n d D r i v e Jeffe r s o n D r i v e JacksonDrive Patr i c i a L a n e Mad i s o n W a y EdgewoodDrive Ramona Street Add i s o n A v e n u e Chan n i n g A v e n u e Tenn y s o n A v e n u e Sea l e A v e n u e Middlef ield Road Byron Street Webster Street Mari o n A v e n u e Welc h R o a d Sedro Ln Peral Lane McGreg o r W a y Monro e D r i v e Silva Ave Sil v a C o u r t Mille r C o u r t Briarwood Way Dris c o l l P l a c e Pau l s e n L n Commu n i t y L a n e Lane 15 E Cour t Madeline Court Arroy o C t Davi d C t Alexis D r i v e Green Manor Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y Oreg o n E x p w y Pag e M i l l R o a d Page M i l l R o a d Foothill Ex p r e s s w a y Miranda A v e n u eFoothill Expres s w a y Miranda Ave n u e Foothill E x p r e s s w a y Cerri t o W a y Emerson Street Lane 2 0 W Lan e 2 0 E Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y Univ e r s i t y A v e n u e Mack a y D r i v e Jaco b ' s C t ( P v t ) CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Str eet Clark Way Durand Way Pasteur Driv e Wel c h R o a d San d h i l l R o a d Swain WayClark W a y Mosher Way Charles Marx Way Orch a r d L a n e Vineyard Lane Oak R o a d Sand H i l l R o a d San d H i l l R o a d San d H i l l R o a d El Camino Real Foothill Expressway Hillvie w A v e n u e Arastra d e r o R o a d Lane 66 Blak e W i l b u r D r i v e Campus Driv e E a s t Ca m p u s D r i v e W e s t West C h a r l e s t o n R o a d Campus D r i v e E a s t Campus Driv e W e s t Pal m D r i v e Campus Drive West Campus Drive East Quarry Road Ca m p u s D r i v e E a s t Stock Far m R o a d Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway West Bayshore Roa d East Bayshore Roa d East Bayshore Road East Bayshore RoadBayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Palo Road Shopping Center Way Sho p p i n g C e n t e r W a y Shop p i n g C e n t e r W a y London Plane Way Plum La n e Sweet Olive Way Pear Lane Cam p u s D r i v e Lane 66 LaSelvaDrive Grove C o u r t Mirand a C t Sta n f o r d A v e n u e Lane 12 W Lane 5 E Serra Stree t Arg u e l l o W a y Galv e z S t r e e t Campus Drive East Nelson Drive Arboretum Road Laus e n S t r e e t Gal v e z S t r e e t Museum Way Roth Way Lom i t a D r i v e Serra Street Escondido Ro a d Cam p u s D r i v e E a s t Bowdoin Stree t Escondido RoadCom s t o c k C i r c l e AngellCourt BlackWelderCourt JenkinsCourt McFarlandCourt SerraStreet HoskinsCourt ThoburnCourt HulmeCourt BarnesCourt OlmsteadRoad DudleyLane CaballoLane JohnMarthensLane(Private) Page MillRoad Banderadrive LaurelGlennDrive AlexisDrive PhillipsRoad Pista c h e P l a c e San t a Y n e z S t r e e t Salvatierra S t r e e t Lane B Alvarado Ave n u e Mayfield Avenue Costonzo Street Cabrillo Avenue Camp u s D r i v e E a s t San Juan Street Lane C Cor o n a d o A v e n u e Dolo r e s A v e n u e El D o r a d o A v e n u e OakCreekDrive Clar a D r i v e Bellview Dr Eve r e t t A v e n u e LosTrancosRoad LosTrancosRoad Emerson Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Emerson St Alma Street Waverley Street Alma Street Middlef ield Road Webster StreetWebster Street Waverley Street Webster Street Fult on Street Seneca Street Newell Road Fult o n S t r e e t Coastland Dr Van Auken Circle Louis RoadLouis Road Linc o l n A v e n u e Uni v e r s i t y A v e n u e Ham i l t o n A v e n u e Fore s t A v e n u e Fore s t A v e n u e Lytt o n A v e n u e Uni v e r s i t y A v e n u e Haw t h o r n e A v e n u e Palo A l t o A v e n u e Palo A l t o A v e n u e Cha n n i n g A v e n u e Add i s o n A v e n u e Hom e r A v e Hom e r A v e n u e Mel v i l l e A v e n u e Churc h i l l A v e . Seal e A v e n u e Embarc a d e r o R o a d Embar c a d e r o R o a d East Bayshore Road Edgewood Drive Sand a l w o o d C t Morto n S t r e e t Hutc h i n s o n A v e Ne w e l l R o a d Guinda Street De S o t o D r i v e Nort h a m p t o n D r i v e Field i n g D r . Fielding Gr eer RoadMadd u x D r i v e Greer R o a d Sutt e r A v e n u e Rosewood Dr Rose w o o d D r Sutter A v e n u e Kipling St Avalon Court Rorke Way Rorke Way Nath a n W a y Loui s R o a d Cor i n a W a y Fabia n W a y Kipling Street Mar g a r i t a A v e n u e Lam b e r t A v e n u e Mat a d e r o A v e n u e Wilto n A v e n u e El Camino Real Page M i l l R o a d Alma Street Byron Street Calc a t e r r a P l a c e Chris t o p h e r C t Monr o e D r Mayb e l l A v e n u e Bar r o n A v e n u e Hano v e r S t r e e t Porter Drive Page M i l l R o a d Hillvi e w A v e n u e Foothill Expressway El Cerrito RoadEl C e r r i t o R d Glenbrook Drive Willmar Driv e Miranda Avenue Hetch H e t c h y R O W Hetch Hetchy ROW Hillvie w A v e n u e Moan a C t Arastrader o R o a d Arastradero Road San A n t o n i o R o a d Channing A v e n u e Linco l n A v e n u e Linco l n A v e n u e Morton S t r e e t Dr. Sha u n a L n San A n t o n i o R o a d Maddux Drive Varia n W a y Sher m a n A v e n u e Gran t A v e n u e She r i d a n A v e Los R o b l e s A v e Springhi l l D r Maplewo o d P l Las Trampas V a l l e y R o a d Las Trampas Valle y R o a d Las Trampas Valley Road Vista Hill R o a d Vista H i l l R o a d Vista Hill R o a d Vista H i l l R o a d Madera Point Road Las Trampas V a l l e y R o a d Ma d e r a P o i n t R o a d Page Mill R o a d Page Mill Roa d Emma Ct Galv e z M a l l Arg u e l l o W a y Alm a V i l l a g e C i r c l e Alm a V i l l a g e L a n e OlmstedRoad OlmstedRoad OlmstedRoad Abrams Ct Olmsted Road Olms t e d R o a d Olms t e d R o a d OlmstedRoad Pag e M ill R o a d Arastradero Road E l C a m i n o R e a l S a n A n t o n i o A v e n u e C harleston Road O r e g o n E x p r e s s w a y M i d d l e f i e l d R o a dUn i v e r s i t y Aven u e A l m a S t r e e t F o o t h i l l E x p r e s swa y L o s T r a n c o s R o a d East Baysho r e West Baysho r e F a b i a n Sa n d H i l l R o a d Emb a r c a d e r o R o a d This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Wastewater Projects CIP Construction Projects FY'19-FY'23: FY'19 (SSR 28) FY'20 (SSR 29) FY'21 (SSR 30) FY'22 (SSR 31) FY'23 (SSR 32) 0'2500' WASTEWATER FUND 2019-2023CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CITY O F PALO ALTO IN CORPORATED CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altossantos, 2018-03-22 15:37:33Wastewater Fund Map 2019-2023 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\ssantos.mdb) 120 APPENDIX aPPendIX t: utilities department—water fund cIPs for 2019-2023 (fY18 adopted capital Budget) Down t o w n North Profe s s o r v i l l e Unive r s i t y South Cresc e n t Park Comm u n i t y Cente r Duven e c k / St Fra n c i s Lelan d M a n o r / Garla n d Old Palo A l t o South g a t e Colle g e Terra c e Everg r e e n Park Midtow n / Midtow n W e s t Palo Verde Fairm e a d o w Charl e s t o n Mead o w s Green m e a d o w Ventu r a Barro n Park Green Acres Palo A l t o Hills Unive r s i t y Park Charl e s t o n Terra c e Resea r c h Park Oak Creek Walli s C t Donald Dr i v e Enc i n a G r a n d e D r i v e Cere z a D r i v e Los R o b l e s A v e Villa Vera Verdosa Drive Campana Drive Solana Drive Georgia Ave Ynigo Way Driscoll Ct ngArthur'Maybell Way May b e l l A v e n u e Frandon Ct Flor a l e s D r i v e Geo r g i a A v e n u e Amaranta Avenue Ama r a n t a C t MirandaGreen Foothill E x p r e s s w a y KisCourt Terman Drive Baker Avenue Vist a A v e n u e Wisteria Lane Pena Ct Coulombe Drive Cherry Oaks Place Pomona Avenue Ara s t r a d e r o R d Abel Avenue Clemo Avenue Villa R e a l Curtn e r A v e n u e Vent u r a A v e n u e Macla n e Emerson Street Ventura Court Park Boulevard Magn o l i a D r i v e S o u t h Cypress Lane (Private) GlenbrookD Fairm e d e A v e n u e Aras t r a d e r o R o a d Irve n C o u r t Los P a l o s C i r LosPalosPlace Mayb e l l A v e n u e Alta Mesa Ave Kelly W a y Los Palos Ave Suzanne Drive Suzanne Drive rive El Camino R e a l Suza n n e C t Lora b e l l e C t McKellar Lane El Ca m i n o W a y Jame s R o a d Macla n e Second Street Wilkie Way Camino C o u r t Wes t M e a d o w D r i v e Thain Way Barcl a y C t Victo r i a P l Interdale Way (Pvt) West C h a r l e s t o n R o a d Ten n e s s e e L a n e Wilkie Way Caro l i n a L a n e Tenn e s s e e L a n e Park Boulevard Wilkie C o u r t Dave n p o r t W a y Alma StreetRoosev Mon r o e D r i v e Wilkie Way Whitclem PlaceWhit c l e m D r i v e Dulut h C i r c l e Edle e A v e n u e Dina h ' s C o u r t Ces a n o C t Monr o e D r i v e Miller Ave Whitclem Way Whitclem Ct Fern e A v e n u e Ben L o m o n d D r i v e Fairf i e l d C t Fern e A v e n u e Ponce DriveHemlockCourtFerne Court Alma Street Monr o e D r San A n t o n i o R o a d NitaAvenue Ruthelma AvenueDarli n g t o n C o u r t East C h a r l e s t o n R d LundyLane Newb e r r y C t Park Boulevard Georg e H o o d L a n e Alma Street eltCircle LinderoDrive Wright Place StarrKingCircle Sha s t a D r i v e Mackay DriveDi a b l o C o u r t Scripps Avenue Scri p p s C o u r t Nelson Drive Tiog a C o u r t Cree k s i d e D r i v e Gree n m e a d o w W a y Ben L o m o n d D r i v e Park s i d e D r i v e Dixon Place Ely P l a c e Dake Avenue Ferne Avenue San Antonio Court (Private) Ely P l Ely P l a c e Adobe P l a c e Nelso n C t Kea t s C o u r t Middlefield Road Duncan Place Carlson Cou r t Dun c a n P l a c e Mumford Pl East C h a r l e s t o n R d San A n t o n i o R o a d Eas t M e a d o w D r i v e Emerson Street Court BryantStreet RooseveltCircle RamonaStreet CarlsonCircleRedwoodCircleSouth Leghorn S t r e e t Montr o s e A v e n u e Maple w o o d A v e n u e Charleston C t East C h a r l e s t o n R o a d Sem i n o l e W a y Sutherland Drive Nelson Drive El Ca p i t a n P l a c e Fabian Stre e t Lom a V e r d e A v e n u e Brys o n A v e n u e Midt own Court Cowper St Gary C t Waverley Street South Court Bryant Street Ramona Street Alma Street Coas t l a n d D r Byron Street Middlefield Road Gaspar Ct Mor e n o A v e n u e El C a r m e l o A v e n u e Cam p e s i n o A v e n u e Dym o n d C t Mart i n s e n C t Ramona Street Bryant Street Tow l e W a y Towle Pl Well s b u r y C t FlowersLane Mackall Way Lom a V e r d e A v e Cowper Street South Court Waverley Stre e t El V e r a n o A v e n u e Wel l s b u r y W a y LaMiddlefield Road St C l a i r e D r i v e Alger D r i v e Asht o n A v e n u e St Michael Drive St Michael Drive Maur e e n A v e Cowp e r C o u r t Rambow Drive East M e a d o w D r i v e Ashton Court Murdoch Drive CowperStreet Murd o c h C t St Michael Court MayCourt Mayv i e w A v e n u e Middlefield R o a d Ensig n W a y Bibbi t s D r i v e Gailen C o u r tGaile n A v e n u e Grove Ave n u e San A n t o n i o R o a d Co m m e r c i a l S t r e e t Ind u s t r i a l A v e n u e Bibbi t s D r i v e East Charle s t o n R o a d Fab i a n W a y T East M e a d o w D r i v e Grove AvenueChr i s t i n e D r i v e Corina W a y Ross Ro a dCorin a W a y Louis R d Nath a n W y Transport Street Orteg a C o u r t East M e a d o w D r i v e yneCourt alisman Lom a V e r d e A v e n u e All e n C t Ros s C o u r t Loma Verde Place Ame s A v e n u e Rich a r d s o n C o u r t Holly O a k D r i v e Ame s A v e CorkOakWay Middlefield Road Ames Ct Ame s A v e n u e Ross Road Rorke Way Ston e L a n e Toyo n P l a c e Torr e y a C o u r t Lupine Avenue Thor n w o o d D r i v e DriftwoodDrive Tali s m a n D r i v e Arbutus Avenue Ross Road Louis Road Aspe n W a y Evergreen Drive East Me a d o w D r i v e Corp o r a t i o n W a y Elwe l l C o u r t Janice Way East Meadow Circle East Meadow Circle GreerRoad Bayshore Freeway Ell s w o r t h P l San C a r l o s C t Wint e r g r e e n W a y Sutt e r A v e n u e Clar a D r i v e Price CtSter n A v e n u e Colo r a d o A v e n u e Randers Ct Ross Rd. Sycam o r e D r i v e Sevyson Ct Stelling Driv e Ross Road David Avenue MurrayWay Stelling D r i v e Stel l i n g C t ManchesterCourt Ken n e t h D r i v e ThomasDrive Stockton Place Vernon Terrace Louis Road Janic e W a y Thom a s D r Kenn e t h D r i v e Loma V e r d e A v e n u e CliftonCourt ElbridgeWay Clara D r i v e BautistaCourtStockton Place Morris Drive Madd u x D r Pie r s C t Louis Road Mora g a C t Old P a g e M i l l R o a d Deer Creek Road CoyoteHillRoad Hillvi e w A v e n u e Porter Drive Hillview Ave Han o v e r S t r e e t Foothill Expressway Aras t r a d e r o R o a d Miranda Avenue Stan f o r d A v e n u e Amherst Street Columbia Street Bowdoin Street Dartmouth Street Hanover Street Col l e g e A v e n u e Cali f o r n i a A v e n u e Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Pag e M i l l R o a d Hansen Way Hanover Street Old A d o b e R o a d Old Trace Court Aras t r a d e r o R o a d Miranda Avenue MockingbirdLane OldTraceRoad Manuela W a y RobbRoad Manuela C o u r t Mesa Av e n u e Oak H i l l A v e n u e Man u e l a A v e n u e Miran d a A v e n u e Lagu n a C t Bar r o n A v e Jos i n a A v e Ken d a l l A v e Tippawingo St Julie CtMata d e r o A v e n u e Ilim a W a y Ilim a C o u r t Lagu n a O a k s P l Carlitos Ct La Calle Laguna Ave Para d i s e W a y Roble R i d g e LaMataWay Chim a l u s D r i v e Mata d e r o A v e Pau l A v e n u e Ken d a l l A v e n u e Whitsell Avenue Barro n A v e n u e CassWay Los R o b l e s A v e Laguna Way La P a r a A v e n u e San J u d e A v e n u e El Centro Street Timl o t t L a n e La J e n n i f e r W a y Mag n o l i a D r i v e N o r t h La Donna Avenue Rinc Manzana Lane onCircle MesaCourt Cros b y P l Geo r g i a A v e n u e Hubbartt D r i v e Willm a r D r i v e Donald Dr Arast r a d e r o R o a d Foothill Ex p r e s s w a y Miranda Av e n u e San J u d e A v e Magnolia Drive Milit a r y W a y Arbol Drive Orme Street Fer n a n d o A v e n u e Mata d e r o A v e n u e Lam b e r t A v e n u e Hans e n W a y Marg a r i t a A v e n u e Mata d e r o A v e n u e Wilto n A v e n u e Oxfor d A v e n u e Harvard Street Cali f o r n i a A v e Wellesley Street Princeton Street Oberlin Street Cornell Street Cam b r i d g e A v e Colle g e A v e n u e Williams Street Yale St Staunton Ct Oxf o r d A v e n u e El Camino Real Chu r c h i l l A v e n u e Park B o u l e v a r d Park A v e n u e Escobita Avenue Chu r c h i l l A v e n u e Sequ o i a A v e n u e Mar iposa A v e n u e Castilleja Avenue Mira m o n t e A v e n u e Madrono Avenue Portola Avenue Manz a n i t a A v e n u e Col e r i d g e A v e n u e Lela n d A v e n u e Sta n f o r d A v e n u e Birch Street Ash Street Lowe l l A v e n u e Alma StreetTenn y s o n A v e n u e Gran t A v e n u e She r i d a n A v e Jac a r a n d a L n El Camino Real She r m a n A v e n u e Ash St Page M i l l R o a d Mimosa Ln Che s t n u t A v e n u e Port a g e A v e n u e Pep p e r A v e n u e Olive A v e n u e Aca c i a A v e n u e Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda StreetBirch St Ash Street Page M i l l R o a d Ash Street Park Blvd Colle g e A v e n u e Cam b r i d g e A v e New M a y f i e l d L n Birch Street Calif o r n i a A v e Park BlvdNogal Lane Ri n c o n a d a A v e n u e San t a R i t a A v e n u e Park Boulevard Seal e A v e n u e Wash i n g t o n A v e San t a R i t a A v e n u e Bryant Street High Street Emerson Street Colo r a d o A v e Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El D o r a d o A v e n u e Alma Street Alma Street HighStreet Emerson Wav e r l e y O a k s ( P r i v a t e ) Wash i n g t o n A v e n u e Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson StNeva d a A v e N Ca l i f A v e Ramona St High Street North C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e Oreg o n E x p w y Mar i o n A v e n u e Ramona Street Colo r a d o A v e n u e Waverley Street Kipling Str eet South Court Cowper Street Anton C t Neva d a A v e n u e Tasso StreetTasso Street Oreg o n A v e n u e Marion Place Webs t e r S t Middlef ield Road Ross Road Warre n W a y El Cajon Way Prim r o s e W a y Iris W a y Tulip L a n e Tulip Lane Gar l a n d D r i v e Gre e r R o a d Gre e r R o a d Hamilton A v e n u e Hilb a r L a n e Alannah Ct Edge Rhod e s D r i v e Marshall Drive More n o A v e n u e MarshallDrive Denn i s D r . Agnes WayOre g o n A v e . Bla i r C o u r t Santa Ana Street Elsin o r e D r i v e Elsinore Court El Cajon Way Greer Road Cali f o r n i a A v e n u e Colo r a d o A v e n u e Sycam o r e D r i v e Ama r i l l o A v e n u e l Bruce D r i v e Colo n i a l L a n e More n o A v e n u e Celi a D r i v e Burnham Way Greer Road Indian Drive Elmdale PlC Tanland Drive More n o A v e n u e Ama r i l l o A v e n u e West Bayshore Roa d Sandra Place Clara Drive Color a d o A v e n u e Gr eer Road Color a d o A v e n u e Simkins Court Ot t e r s o n C t Higgins Pl. Lawr e n c e L a n e Maddux Drive Genevieve Ct MetroCircle MoffettCircle Greer Road East Bayshore Ro a d ardinalWay Santa Catalina Str e e t ArrowheadWayAztec Way Chabot TerraceOre g o n A v e n u e Carmel Drive SierraCourt StFrancisDrive West Bayshore Road Tanland Dr. East Ba y s h o r e R o a d woodDrive Edgewood Drive WildwoodLane Ivy Lane East Bayshore Road St Fr a n c i s D r i v e Wild w o o d L a n e Watson C o u r t Laura L a n e O'Brine L a n e ( P r i v a t e ) Embarcad e r o R o a d FaberPlaceEmba r c a d e r o R o a d Geng R o a d Embarcadero Way Emb a r c a d e r o R o a d CountryClubCourt Alexis D r i v e AlexisDrive Pasteur Dri v e Quar r y R o a d Welch Road Arboretum Road Qua r r y R o a d Sand H i l l R o a d Hom e r A v e n u e Lane 8 West Medica l F o u n d a t i o n W a y Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Embar c a d e r o R o a d Encin a A v e n u e El Camino Real Urban La n e Wells A v e n u e Fores t A v e n u e High Street Emerson Street Cha n n i n g A v e Alma StreetAlma Street El Camino Real Mit c h e l l L a n e Haw t h o r n e A v e n u e Eve r e t t A v e n u e Lytt o n A v e n u e Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 2 1 G ilm an Str eet Ham i l t o n A v e n u e Uni v e r s i t y A v e n u e Brya n t C o u r t Lane 3 0 Florence Street Kipling Str eet Tasso Street Cowper Street Rut h v e n A v e n u e Lane 3 3 PaloAltoAvenue Poe S t r e e t Waverley Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue Webster Street Ever e t t C o u r t Byron Street Fult on Street Middlefield Road Churc h i l l A v e n u e Tenn y s o n A v e n u e Mel v i l l e A v e n u e Cowper Street Tasso Street Webster Street Byron Street Nort h C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e Col e r i d g e A v e n u e Waverley Street Bryant Street Emerson Street Alma StreetKing s l e y A v e Por t a l P l a c e Ross Road Oreg o n A v e n u e Garl a n d D r i v e Lane A West Lane B West Lane B East Lane D West Lane 59 East Whitm a n C o u r t Kell o g g A v e n u e Embar c a d e r o R o a d Kin g s l e y A v e n u e Linco l n A v e n u e Addi s o n A v e . Linco l n A v e n u e Downing Lane Hom e r A v e n u e Lane D East Lane 39 Lane 56(Pvt.) Ham i l t o n A v e n u e Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Str eet Bryant Street Ramona Street Scott Street Byron Street Palo Hale Street Seneca Street Lytt o n A v e n u e PaloAltoAvenue Fult on Street Kel l o g g A v e n u e Middlef ield Road Byron Street Webster Street Cowper Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Addi s o n A v e n u e Boy c e A v e n u e Ham i l t o n A v e n u e Hom e r A v e n u e Guinda Street Middlef ield Road Cha n n i n g A v e n u e AltoAvenueChaucer StreetChaucer S t r e e t Uni v e r s i t y A v e n u e Add i s o n A v e n u e Regent P l Guinda Street Linc o l n A v e n u e Fult o n S t r e e t Melvil l e A v e n u e Byron Street King s l e y A v e n u e Mel v i l l e A v e n u e Hamilton A v e n u e Hamil t o n C t Forest A v e n u e Fores t C t Mar l o w e S t r e e t Map l e S t r e e t Palm S t r e e t Somerse t P l Pitman A v e n u e Fife Ave n u e Forest Av e n u e Dana Ave n u e Linc o l n A v e n u e University A v e n u e Col e r i d g e A v e n u e Low e l l A v e n u e Cowper Street Ten n y s o n A v e n u e Nort h a m p t o n D r i v e West G r e e n w i c h P l Middlef ield Road Newell Road Guinda Street East G r e e n w i c h P l Sout h a m p t o n D r i v e Kirb y P l Kent Pla c e Tevis P lMartin Av e n u e Cent e r D r i v e Harr i e t S t r e e t Wilso n S t r e e t Ced a r S t r e e t Harker A v e n u e Greenw o o d A v e n u e Hutc h i n s o n A v e Channing A v e n u e Hopkins A v e n u e Embarc a d e r o R o a d Ashby Drive Dana AvenueHamilton Avenue Pitman Avenue Sout h w o o d D r i v e WestCrescentDrive CrescentDrive Unive r s i t y A v e n u e Center Dri v e EastCrescen Arcadia Place Louisa Court Newell P l Sha r o n C t Ers t w i l d C o u r t Wal t e r H a y s D r i v e Walnut D r i v e Ne w e l l R o a d Parkins o n A v e n u e Pin e S t r e e t Mark Twain Street Louis Road Barbara Drive Primr o s e W a y Iris W a y Emba r c a d e r o R o a d Walter H a y s D r i v e Lois L a n e Jordan Pl Lois Lane Heat h e r L a n e Bret Harte Street Sta n l e y W a y De Soto D r i v e De S o t o D r i v e Ales t e r A v e n u e Walter H a y s D r i v e Channin g A v e n u e Iris Way tDrive Dana Avenue Hamilton Avenue New e l l R o a d Kings Lane EdgewoodDrive Isla n d D r i v e Jeff e r s o n D r i v e JacksonDrive Patr i c i a L a n e Madi s o n W a y EdgewoodDrive Ramona Street Add i s o n A v e n u e Chan n i n g A v e n u e Tenn y s o n A v e n u e Sea l e A v e n u e Middlef ield Road Byron Street Webster Street Mari o n A v e n u e Welc h R o a d Sedro Ln Peral Lane McGreg o r W a y Monro e D r i v e Silva Ave Sil v a C o u r t Mille r C o u r t Briarwood Way Dris c o l l P l a c e Pau l s e n L n Commu n i t y L a n e Lane 15 E Cour t Madeline Court Arro y o C t Dav i d C t Alexis D r i v e Green Manor Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y Ore g o n E x p w y Pag e M i l l R o a d Page M i l l R o a d Foothill Ex p r e s s w a y Miranda Av e n u eFoothill Expres s w a y Miranda Ave n u e Foothill E x p r e s s w a y Cerri t o W a y Emerson Street Lane 2 0 W Lan e 2 0 E Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y Univ e r s i t y A v e n u e Mack a y D r i v e Jaco b ' s C t ( P v t ) CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Str eet Clark Way Durand Way Pasteur Driv e Wel c h R o a d San d h i l l R o a d Swain WayClark W a y Mosher Way Charles Marx Way Orch a r d L a n e Vineyard Lane Oa k R o a d San d H i l l R o a d San d H i l l R o a d San d H i l l R o a d El Camino Real Foothill Expressway Hillvie w A v e n u e Arastra d e r o R o a d Lane 66 Blak e W i l b u r D r i v e Campus Driv e E a s t Ca m p u s D r i v e W e s t West C h a r l e s t o n R o a d Campus D r i v e E a s t Campus Driv e W e s t Pal m D r i v e Campus Drive West Campus Drive East Quarry Road Ca m p u s D r i v e E a s t Stock Far m R o a d Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore RoadBayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Palo Road Shopping Center Way Sho p p i n g C e n t e r W a y Shop p i n g C e n t e r W a y London Plane Way Plum La n e Sweet Olive Way Pear Lane Cam p u s D r i v e Lane 66 LaSelvaDrive Grov e C o u r t Mirand a C t Sta n f o r d A v e n u e Lane 12 W Lane 5 E Serra Stree t Arg u e l l o W a y Galv e z S t r e e t Campus Drive East Nelson Drive Arboretum Road Laus e n S t r e e t Gal v e z S t r e e t Museum Way Roth Way Lom i t a D r i v e Serra Street Escondido Ro a d Cam p u s D r i v e E a s t Bowdoin Street Escondido RoadCom s t o c k C i r c l e AngellCourt BlackWelderCourt JenkinsCourt McFarlandCourt SerraStreet HoskinsCourt ThoburnCourt HulmeCourt BarnesCourt OlmsteadRoad DudleyLane CaballoLane JohnMarthensLane(Private) Page MillRoad Banderadrive LaurelGlennDrive AlexisDrive PhillipsRoad Pista c h e P l a c e San t a Y n e z S t r e e t Salvatierra S t r e e t Lane B Alvarado Ave n u e Mayfield Avenue Costonzo Street Cabrillo Avenue Camp u s D r i v e E a s t San Juan Street Lane C Cor o n a d o A v e n u e Dolo r e s A v e n u e El D o r a d o A v e n u e OakCreekDrive Clara D r i v e Bellview Dr Eve r e t t A v e n u e LosTrancosRoad LosTrancosRoad Emerson Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Emerson St Alma Street Waverley Street Alma Street Middlef ield Road Webster StreetWebster Street Waverley Street Webster Street Fult on Street Seneca Street Newell Road Fult o n S t r e e t Coastland Dr Van Auken Circle Louis RoadLouis Road Linc o l n A v e n u e Uni v e r s i t y A v e n u e Ham i l t o n A v e n u e Fore s t A v e n u e Fore s t A v e n u e Lytt o n A v e n u e Uni v e r s i t y A v e n u e Haw t h o r n e A v e n u e Palo A l t o A v e n u e Palo A l t o A v e n u e Cha n n i n g A v e n u e Add i s o n A v e n u e Hom e r A v e Hom e r A v e n u e Mel v i l l e A v e n u e Chur c h i l l A v e . Seal e A v e n u e Embar c a d e r o R o a d Embar c a d e r o R o a d East Bayshore Road Edgewood Drive Sand a l w o o d C t Morto n S t r e e t Hutc h i n s o n A v e New e l l R o a d Guinda Street De S o t o D r i v e Nort h a m p t o n D r i v e Field i n g D r . Fielding Gr eer RoadMadd u x D r i v e Greer R o a d Sutt e r A v e n u e Rosewood Dr Rose w o o d D r Sutte r A v e n u e Kipling St Avalon Court Rorke Way Rorke Way Nath a n W a y Loui s R o a d Cor i n a W a y Fabia n W a y Kipling Street Mar g a r i t a A v e n u e Lam b e r t A v e n u e Mat a d e r o A v e n u e Wilto n A v e n u e El Camino Real Page M i l l R o a d Alma Street Byron Street Calc a t e r r a P l a c e Chris t o p h e r C t Monr o e D r Mayb e l l A v e n u e Bar r o n A v e n u e Hano v e r S t r e e t Porter Drive Page M i l l R o a d Hillvi e w A v e n u e Foothill Expressway El Cerrito RoadEl C e r r i t o R d Glenbrook Drive Willmar Driv e Miranda Avenue Hetch H e t c h y R O W Hetch Hetchy ROW Hillvie w A v e n u e Moan a C t Arastradero R o a d Arastradero Ro a d San A n t o n i o R o a d Channing A v e n u e Linco l n A v e n u e Linco l n A v e n u e Morton S t r e e t Dr. Sha u n a L n Sa n A n t o n i o R o a d Maddux Drive Varia n W a y Sher m a n A v e n u e Gran t A v e n u e Sher i d a n A v e Los R o b l e s A v e Springhi l l D r Maplewo o d P l Las Tramp a s V a l l e y R o a d Las Trampas V a l l e y R o a d Las Trampas Valley Road Vista H i l l R o a d Vista H i l l R o a d Vista H i l l R o a d Vista H i l l R o a d Madera Point Road Las Tramp a s V a l l e y R o a d Mad e r a P o i n t R o a d Page Mill Ro a d Page Mill R o a d Emma Ct Galv e z M a l l Arg u e l l o W a y Alm a V i l l a g e C i r c l e Alm a V i l l a g e L a n e OlmstedRoad OlmstedRoad OlmstedRoad Abrams Ct Olmsted Road Olms t e d R o a d Olms t e d R o a d OlmstedRoad Page Mill R o a d Arastradero Road E l C a m i n o R e a l S a n A n t o n i o A v e n u e C harleston Road O r e g o n E x p r e s s w a y M i d d l e f i e l d R o a dUn i v e r s i t y Aven u e A l m a S t r e e t F o o t h i l l E x p r e s swa y L o s T r a n c o s R o a d East Baysho r e West Bayshor e Fa b i a n Sa n d H i l l R o a d Emb a r c a d e r o R o a d This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Water Projects CIP Construction Projects FY'19-FY'23: FY'19 (WMR 27) FY'20 (WMR 28) FY'21 (WMR 29) FY'22 (WMR 30) FY'23 (WMR 31) 0'2500' WATER FUND 2019-2023CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CITY O F PALO A LTO INCOR PORATED CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A PRIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altossantos, 2018-03-22 16:22:56Water Fund Map 2019-2023 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\ssantos.mdb) City of Palo Alto (ID # 10024) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Climate/Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Summary Title: Renewable Energy Certificate Transaction Authority Extension Title: Adoption of a Resolution Extending the City Manager’s Authority to Execute Transactions Under Master Renewable Energy Certificate Purchase and Sale Agreements With Pre-qualified Suppliers in an Amount Not-to- Exceed $5,000,000 per Year During Calendar Years 2019-2024 and Repealing Resolution Number 9379 From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff requests that the Council approve the attached resolution extending the City Manager’s authority to execute transactions under the Council-approved Master Renewable Energy Certificate Purchase and Sale Agreements (“REC Master Agreements”) and repealing Resolution No. 9379, as follows: 1. Allow for the purchase (and incidental sales) of Renewable Energy Certificates (“RECs”) via the Council-approved Master Agreements with prequalified suppliers to meet the needs of the PaloAltoGreen Program, the City’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, and the City’s Carbon Neutral Plan; 2. Maintain the annual expenditure authority for the REC purchases at $5,000,000 annually; and 3. Extend the term for REC transactions from calendar year 2019 through calendar year 2024. Executive Summary Facilities that produce renewable energy receive revenues both from the sale of the energy produced at the facility and from the “environmental attribute” associated with the project. The environmental attribute is sold separately as a Renewable Energy Certificate (REC). One REC represents the environmental attribute of one megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity City of Palo Alto Page 2 generated from a renewable energy facility. Owners of renewable energy facilities often sell the environmental attributes (RECs) associated with the renewable energy separately from the energy itself, or “unbundled.” Thus, RECs provide an additional source of funding for renewable energy projects to make them more economical to develop. The PaloAltoGreen (PAG) program, Carbon Neutral Plan, and Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) can use RECs to cost-effectively meet each program’s goals. In November 2013, Council authorized the City Manager, or his designee, to buy RECs from thirteen pre-qualified suppliers with whom the City has executed REC Master Agreements (Resolution No. 9379, Staff Report 4170). The authority granted by that resolution applied to transactions to meet the needs of the PAG program, the City’s RPS requirements, and the Carbon Neutral Plan, and was limited to $5,000,000 annually through 2018. The attached resolution extends this existing authority – at the same expenditure level but with an updated set of suppliers – to enable the purchase of RECs that may be required to meet the City’s PAG, RPS, and Carbon Neutral Plan objectives in a competitive, timely, and cost-effective manner. Note that none of these Council actions will necessarily result in any REC transactions at all; these actions simply enable the procurement of RECs as needed for the programs described in this report. Background Since 2003, RECs have been used as the primary source of renewable energy to meet the needs of the PAG program. Between 2003 and 2009, these RECs were purchased through the City’s PAG program administrator. Starting in 2009, REC Master Agreements were established competitively and efficiently procure RECs to meet the needs of PAG. In 2011, through a competitive request for proposal (RFP) process, the City executed REC Master Agreements with 13 suppliers. Table 1 shows a summary of transactions executed to date with each supplier under the current REC Master Agreement authority. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Table 1: REC Purchase Amounts per REC Master Agreement REC Supplier Transaction Volume ($) 3Degrees Group, Inc. $1,402,463 Bonneville Environmental Foundation $27,475 Constellation Energy Commodities Group $2,510 EDF Trading North America, LLC $247,549 Element Markets, LLC $0 Idaho Wind Partners 1, LLC $17,850 Lakeview Green Energy, Inc. $56,274 Nexant, Inc. $931,905 NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC $12,152 Pacific Corp. $988,649 Powerex Corp. $79,960 Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. $0 Sterling Planet Holdings, Inc. $0 TOTAL $3,766,787 Of these 13 suppliers, two are no longer operating or no longer selling RECs (Idaho Wind Partners 1 and Nexant, Inc.). In addition, in December 2016, Council approved a standard form REC master agreement (Resolution No. 9652, Staff Report 7428), which suppliers are able to execute at any time and become enabled with the City. Staff is in the process of executing new REC master agreements with several new counterparties (including ACT Commodities, RPS Advisors, and STX Group). Transactions allowed under the REC Master Agreements are limited to the purchase and sale of unbundled RECs. Note that these REC Master Agreements do not include individual transaction limits; the only authority limit applicable to these agreements is the annual aggregate limit of $5 million. This is due to the fact that the RECs the City purchases under these agreements are always transferred to the City within the year in which they’re purchased, and often within days of the date of purchase. Therefore, the City has no long-term exposure to counterparties under these agreements. Discussion RECs for PAG Currently, the requirements of the City’s PAG program are met via RECs procured through local solar projects owned by the City and through the REC Master Agreements. The PAG program is “Green-E” certified, which is a certification administered by an independent non-profit organization, the Center for Resource Solutions, which has established national and regional standards for verifying green power programs and codes of conduct regarding the use of RECs. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The RECs purchased under these Master Agreements for the PAG program are all Green-E certified, and the current market price for such RECs is about $1 per REC. When the City’s electricity supply became 100% carbon neutral, in 2013, the PAG program was closed to residential customers. It is currently open to commercial customers, and there is a relatively low demand for it – driven by customers who need to procure additional RECs to satisfy their own corporate sustainability objectives. In 2012, total PAG program demand was 75,539 RECs; in 2017, demand had fallen to 28,201 RECs, or about 3% of electric utility load. RECs for RPS The City, like all electric utilities in the state, is required to achieve an RPS level of 60% (of the City’s retail electric sales) by 2030.1 Under California’s RPS regulations, unbundled RECs are an approved resource to meet this requirement, with certain restrictions and limitations on the amount of RECs which may be used.2 The City has not historically used unbundled RECs to meet its RPS; however, the City may need to use them in the future for compliance purposes in the event that any of its committed renewable resources do not come on-line as planned or perform as expected. Or the City may opt to use unbundled RECs (which are significantly less expensive than RECs sold together with the associated energy from a renewable resource) in order to reduce its cost of complying with the RPS mandate. Staff expects renewable resources procured through long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) to be sufficient to meet compliance requirements and therefore does not anticipate using RECs to meet RPS at this time. Staff therefore requests authority to procure RECs for RPS needs through the REC Master Agreements in the event that such purchases become necessary or desired. RECs for Carbon Neutrality In March 2013, Council approved the Carbon Neutral Plan (Resolution No. 9322, Staff Report 3550), directing staff to procure resources to achieve carbon neutrality starting in 2013 within a rate impact limit of 0.15 cents per kilowatt-hour. Currently, the City is able to achieve carbon neutrality solely through the use of the City’s existing hydroelectric resources and long-term renewable PPAs, with unbundled RECs only needed in the event of a dry hydro year, or in the event that one or more of the City’s long-term resources do not perform as expected. The amount of renewable energy needed to meet carbon neutrality for the electric supply portfolio is highly dependent on hydrological conditions. In dry years, the amount of renewable energy needed will increase, and, conversely, in wet years the City will need less renewable energy to achieve carbon neutrality or it may have a surplus. For example, CY 2017 was such a wet year that the City ended up with about 369,000 MWh of carbon neutral energy in excess of 1 Per Senate Bill 100, approved in September 2018: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB100. 2 Under California’s RPS regulations, RECs that are sold independently of the associated energy (i.e., “unbundled RECs”) are categorized as a Portfolio Content Category 3 (“Bucket 3”) resource. Utilities are permitted to use Bucket 3 resources to meet a portion of their total RPS procurement requirements. The volume of Bucket 3 resources that a utility may use toward its RPS procurement requirements is limited to 10% of the total RPS resources it has procured on or after June 1, 2010. City of Palo Alto Page 5 its load. CY 2018 was much drier, and the City had to purchase a small volume of market power for the year as a result. In a scenario such as this, the City could have to procure some unbundled RECs to achieve carbon neutrality; however, because of the accounting protocols adopted in the Carbon Neutral Plan, the City was able to “bank” some of the excess renewable energy from CY 2017 and apply it to the City’s needs for CY 2018. Total Estimated REC Purchases The annual demand for RECs in the coming years will depend heavily on hydrological conditions as well as the City’s desired approach to complying with its RPS requirements (which will be the subject of another staff report in the coming months). Overall annual REC demand could range from 20,000 to 450,000, with a total purchase cost ranging from $10,000 to $2.25 million. Table 4 presents a summary of the range of staff’s estimate of the most likely REC purchase volumes (for each of the three programs described in this report) and costs. However, there is large uncertainty regarding the volumes of RECs needed and the REC market price. If REC prices are higher than expected, hydro conditions are extremely dry, and/or the resources that the City has under long-term PPA do not come online on time, the annual REC purchase cost could exceed the Table’s estimate and reach $4 million. Hence, authorizing the City Manager to transact up to $5 million per year should provide enough flexibility to competitively procure REC supplies for the next five years. (This authority limit is also within the combined rate impact limit for the City’s RPS program and Carbon Neutral Plan.) Table 2 provides a summary of the high and low “bookend” estimates of annual REC purchases. Table 2: Range of Total REC Purchase Volumes and Costs PAG RPS Carbon Neutral TOTAL Low Case Quantity 20,000 0 0 20,000 Low Price Scenario ($/REC) $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 Annual Cost - Low ($ million) $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.01 High Case Quantity 50,000 100,000 250,000 400,000 High Price Scenario ($/REC) $5 $5 $5 $5 Annual Cost - High ($ million) $0.25 $0.50 $1.25 $2.00 REC Selection Process The REC Master Agreements are enabling agreements which prequalify counterparties and establish general terms and conditions under which the City and the supplier will transact and settle transactions. The REC Master Agreement does not commit the City to any transactions. RECs will be procured through a competitive solicitation process through the suppliers with REC Master Agreements. Staff will award REC purchase contracts to the supplier with the lowest offer price and will award REC sale contracts to the supplier with the highest bid price. All City of Palo Alto Page 6 purchases are under the controls established by the City’s Energy Risk Management Policies, Guidelines and Procedures and must adhere to the City’s Purchasing requirements. All REC suppliers are required to satisfy the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS) protocols and transfer RECs to the City through WREGIS. These protocols ensure the validity of the RECs – verifying that RECs are only counted once and not resold to other buyers. Resource Impact Funds to procure RECs to meet PAG, Carbon Neutral Plan, and RPS needs have been budgeted for fiscal year 2019. Policy Implications Approval of the expansion of authority is consistent with the Council-approved Electric Integrated Resource Plan; supports the Council-approved 2018 Utilities Strategic Plan’s strategy to achieve a sustainable and resilient energy supply; and supports the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP). Environmental Impact The proposed contract authority request does not meet the definition of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21065, and, therefore, no environmental assessment is required. Attachments: • Attachment A: Resolution Approving REC Purchase Authority Extension Attachment A * NOT YET APPROVED * 6055175 Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Extending the City Manager’s Authority to Execute Transactions under Master Renewable Energy Certificate Purchase and Sale Agreements with Pre-qualified Suppliers at an Annual Expenditure Not Exceeding $5,000,000 During Calendar Years 2019-2024, and Repealing Resolution No. 9379 R E C I T A L S A. The City of Palo Alto (the “City") provides electricity to residential and commercial customers located within its jurisdictional boundary. B. The Council established the PaloAltoGreen voluntary renewable energy program (the “PAG Program”) in March 2003. C. Implementing the PAG Program involves the City’s purchase and sale of renewable energy certificates (“RECs”) to meet the PAG Program's retail customer demands in a competitive manner. D. California’s Senate Bill 100 (2018) requires all load serving entities to have a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) of at least 60 percent by 2030. RPS enforcement procedures adopted by the California Energy Commission (CEC) allow for limited use of RECs to meet RPS requirements, and the City of Palo Alto adheres to the CEC’s renewable resource eligibility requirements set forth in its enforcement procedures. E. Through Resolution No. 9322, the Council approved a Carbon Neutral Plan for the electric supply portfolio to achieve carbon neutrality in calendar year 2013 with a rate impact not to exceed 0.15 cents per kilowatt hour. The Carbon Neutral Plan allows for the use of RECs to achieve carbon neutrality. F. In 2013, through Resolution No. 9379, the Council delegated authority to the City Manager, or his designee, to execute purchases and sales of RECs to meet the needs of City’s PAG Program, RPS and Carbon Neutral Plan by negotiating and executing Master Agreements with the following thirteen pre-qualified suppliers, in an aggregate amount not to exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000) annually during calendar years 2013 through 2018, inclusive. 1. 3Degrees Group, Inc. 2. Bonneville Environmental Foundation 3. Constellation Energy Commodities Group 4. EDF Trading North America, LLC 5. Element Markets, LLC 6. Idaho Wind Power Partners 1, LLC 7. Lakeview Green Energy, Inc. 8. Nexant, Inc. 9. NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC 10. Pacific Corp. Attachment A * NOT YET APPROVED * 6055175 11. Powerex Corp. 12. Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. 13. Sterling Planet Holdings, Inc. G. Master Agreements were negotiated and executed with the thirteen suppliers listed above and expenditures for calendar year 2013 through 2018 were within the delegated annual expenditure amount. H. Extension of the authority delegated to the City Manager under Resolution No. 9379 is needed to implement the City’s PAG program, RPS and Caron Neutral Plan. I. In 2016, through Resolution 9652, the City Council approved a Standard Form Master REC Agreement that incorporates the contract terms and conditions required in City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.340(c). As a result, new REC suppliers are able to execute the Standard Form Master REC Agreement with the City after staff determines that they are qualified. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE, as follows: SECTION 1. Resolution No. 9379 is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 2. The Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute purchases and sales of RECs in furtherance of the City’s PAG Program, RPS and Carbon Neutral Plan with pre-qualified suppliers via Master Agreements. The aggregate REC transactions shall not exceed the annual expenditure amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000) during calendar years 2019 through 2024, inclusive. // // // // // // // // // Attachment A * NOT YET APPROVED * 6055175 SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution extending the City Manager’s authority to execute purchases (and incidental sales) of RECs is not a project subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review because adoption of this resolution is an administrative government activity that will not result in any direct or indirect physical change to the environment as a result (CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5)). INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 10263) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Second Reading: Rooftop Access and Deck Ordinance Title: SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Allow for Minor Increases in Height and Floor Area to Provide Access to Rooftop Decks on Existing Structures in the Commercial Downtown (Community) CD-C Subdistrict. Environmental Assessment: Exempt per Sections 15301 and 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Guidelines. Zone District: CD -C(GF)(P). (FIRST READING: February 25, 2019 PASSED 5-2, Dubois, Kou no) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council conduct a second reading and adopt the attached rooftop access ordinance (Attachment A) Background: On February 25, 2019, the City Council reviewed and held a first reading on a draft ordinance amending Title 18 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code to allow for minor increases in height and floor area associated with rooftop access for existing, noncomplying buildings in the Downtown Commercial (Community) Zoning District. The ordinance was accompanied by the approval of a Record of Land Use Action for architectural review and a conditional use permit to allow a roof deck on an existing building at 285 Hamilton Avenue. The motion below passed, moved by Council Member Kniss and seconded by Vice Mayor Fine, with a 5-2 vote (DuBois and Kou voting no). A. Find the proposed text amendment and architectural review and conditional use permit applications exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15305; City of Palo Alto Page 2 B. Introduce for first reading and adopt an Ordinance and approve the proposed Record of Land Use Action approving architectural review and conditional use permit applications; C. Amend the Ordinance to state “buildings located in the CD-C subdistrict that are noncomplying for height or gross floor area…”; D. Amend the Ordinance to provide the Director discretion to initiate a Director’s review of any CUP that is the subject of multiple complaints regarding noise; E. Amend the Ordinance to state “For the height limit exceptions, all fixtures and structures shall not intersect a plane measured at a forty-five-degree angle from the edge of the building starting at the rooftop deck surface sloping upward and inward toward the center of the property;” F. Amend the Record of Land Use Action Section 5. 4. to state “…8:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. daily;” G. Amend the Record of Land Use Action Section 5. 5., Amplified Music, to state “the use of sound amplifying equipment shall be prohibited;” and H. Direct Staff to return to Council in 2019 and outline options for the Ordinance to be extended to other areas in the City. The Ordinance has been modified to incorporate the changes cited in the Council’s motion above, with minor adjustments in phrasing for clarity. The summary of the Action Minutes are available online at the following link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=53384.24&BlobID=69868 for additional details. Since the February 25, 2019 hearing, the Council adopted an ordinance (Ordinance No 5462) to amend Section 18.18.120 to authorize changes of use in grandfathered facilities in the CD district. Because this ordinance does not take effect until May 23, 2019, these changes to Section 18.18.120 are not reflected in the attached ordinance. In the event both ordinances take effect, the code will be updated to incorporate all changes to Section 18.18.120. Attachments: Attachment A: Rooftop Access Ordinance (DOCX) Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.18 of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add a New Floor Area Exemption for Rooftop Access and Allowing Changes to Noncomplying Facilities to Allow for Such Rooftop Access Bonuses The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Section 18.18.060 (Development Standards) of Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.18.060 Development Standards … (e) Exemptions (1) When an existing building is being expanded, square footage which, in the judgement of the chief building official, does not increase the usable floor area, and is either necessary to conform the building to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, regarding disability related access, or is necessary to implement the historic rehabilitation of the building, shall not be counted as floor area. For the purposes of this section disability related upgrades are limited to the incremental square footage necessary to accommodate disability access and shall be subject to the Director’s approval not to exceed 500 square feet per site. Disability related upgrades shall only apply to remodels of existing buildings and shall not qualify for grandfathered floor area in the event the building is later replaced or otherwise redeveloped. (2) Buildings located in the CD-C subdistrict that are noncomplying for height or and gross floor area shall be permitted to increase height and expand floor area to the minimum degree necessary to provide rooftop access and related amenities. Such access and amenities may include features such as stairs, elevators, trellises, outdoor furniture, railings, lighting, and other similar features. For the purposes of this section rooftop access floor area shall not be counted as gross floor area. Rooftop access-related features may be located only on portions of buildings located at least 150 feet from a residential zone which, for the purposes of this section, includes the R-1, R-2, RMD, RM- 15, RM-30, RM-40, and SOFA districts or Planned Community (PC) districts that permit residential uses. Any request for a rooftop access exception under this section shall be subject to a conditional use permit. The Planning Director may initiate a formal review pursuant to Chapter 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals) of any conditional use permit granted under this section if the site is the subject of multiple complaints in violation of Chapter 9.10 (Noise). For buildings requesting increased height, all fixtures and structures shall remain below a plane measured at a forty-five degree angle beginning from the edges of the building, nearest the rooftop deck surface, and sloping upward and inward toward the center of the building. … SECTION 2. Section 18.18.120 (Grandfathered Uses and Facilities) of Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.18.120 Grandfathered Uses and Facilities (a) Grandfathered Uses (1) The following uses and facilities may remain as grandfathered uses, and shall not require a conditional use permit or be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.70: (A) Any use which was being conducted on August 28, 1986; or (B) A use not being conducted on August 28, 1986, if the use was temporarily discontinued due to a vacancy of 6 months or less before August 28, 1986; or (C) Any office use existing on April 16, 1990 on a property zoned CD and GF combining, which also existed as a lawful conforming use prior to August 28, 1986, notwithstanding any intervening conforming use. (2) The grandfathered uses in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and occupancy by the same use, provided such remodeling, improvement, or replacement complies with all of the following: (A) shall not result in increased floor area; (B) shall not relocate below grade floor area to above grade portions of the building; (C) shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope, building footprint or any other increase in the size of the improvement. For purposes of this section, “building envelope” shall mean the three dimensional shape and size occupied by an existing building. It is not the maximum, buildable potential of the site; (D) shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070; or (E) in the case of medical, professional, general business or administrative office uses of a size exceeding 5,000 square feet in the CD-S or CD-N district that are deemed grandfathered pursuant to subsection (1), such remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall not result in increased floor area devoted to such office uses. (F) The Director may approve minor changes to the building’s footprint, height, length, and the building envelope through Architectural Review of minor aesthetic architectural improvements and to improve pedestrian-orientation provided there is no increase to the degree of any non-complying feature. (3) If a grandfathered use deemed existing pursuant to subsection (1) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for 12 consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. (4) A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to subsection (1) which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. (b) Grandfathered Facilities (1) Any noncomplying facility existing on August 28, 1986 and which, when built, was a complying facility, may remain as a grandfathered facility and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.70. (2) The grandfathered facilities in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site for continual use and occupancy, by the same use, provided such remodeling, improvement, or replacement complies with all of the following: (A) shall not result in increased floor area; (B) shall not relocate below grade floor area to above grade portions of the building; (C) shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope, building footprint, or any other increase in the size of the improvement; (D) shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070; (E) The Director may approve minor changes to the building’s footprint, height, length, and the building envelope through Architectural Review of minor aesthetic architectural improvements and to improve pedestrian-orientation provided there is no increase to the degree of any non-complying feature, except as provided for rooftop access and amenities in Section 18.18.060(e). SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. The adoption of this Ordinance shall not impact the effectiveness of and shall be cumulative with Ordinance 5462, which also amends Section 18.18.120. SECTION 4. The Council finds that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 because it involves minor alterations of land use regulations. SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto (ID # 10324) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Second Reading: Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.42.110 (WCF) Title: SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Chapter 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Update the Code to Reflect Recently Adopted Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Regulations. This Ordinance is Exempt From Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15305 (FIRST READING: April 15, 2019 PASSED: 6-0 Tanaka Absent) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment This Ordinance was first heard by the Council on April 15, 2019, where it passed 6-0 (Tanaka absent). As compared to the ordinance published with the April 15, 2019 staff report, the attached ordinance (Attachment A) incorporates a minor revision to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.42.110(d)(7), as recommended by staff in the staff presentation. The final motion, as reflected in draft action minutes, is listed below: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Chapter 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Update the Code to Reflect Recently Adopted Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Regulations. The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended Approval of the Ordinance With Minor Modifications on March 27, 2019 (6-0 Roohparvar absent); and Adoption of a Resolution 9825 Entitled “Adopting Objective Aesthetic and Related Standards for Streetlight and Wood Utility Poles in the Public Rights of Way.” Environmental Assessment: This Ordinance and Resolution are Exempt From Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15305. City of Palo Alto Page 2 MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to: A. Adopt Staff recommendation to approve the Resolution and Ordinance; B. Direct Staff to come back as soon as possible, but no more than one year, with an updated Ordinance/Resolution that considers: i. Explicit hierarchies of preferred location and preferred type of installation. Applicants must use most preferred solution unless demonstrated to be infeasible. Preferred hierarchies should include: a. by zoning type; b. local context including characteristics such as visibility, street size and type, and existing foliage; c. by installation type; d. a clear definition infeasibility as suggested in Staff Report; ii. Create list of city-owned buildings that would be appropriate sites; iii. Propose recommended distances from homes and schools and between installations to preserve aesthetics; iv. Return to Council within one year with best practices regarding inspections of antennas; C. Review the effectiveness of the Ordinance in one year with Council; and D. Direct Staff to do federal legislative advocacy related to wireless facilities regulations. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-0 (Tanaka absent) Attachments: Attachment A: Ordinance Amending PAMC Section 18.42.110 (SECOND READING) (DOCX) Not Yet Approved 1 20190403 ay 0160010 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Chapter 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Update the Code Consistent with the FCC’s Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (FCC 18-133) The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The tremendous growth in personal wireless services has created an increased demand for new wireless antennas and equipment. Wireless service providers are increasingly seeking to utilize public rights of way to deploy small wireless facilities to improve and expand coverage. B. The unregulated installation of wireless facilities, including small cell antennas, in public rights-of-way and in other locations, poses a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, including: traffic and pedestrian safety hazards due to unsafe siting; negative and irreversible impacts to trees, landscaping, and infrastructure; noise concerns; and visual and aesthetic blight due to excessive height and lack of camouflaging, negatively impacting the unique character of the City. C. The reasonably regulated and orderly deployment of wireless telecommunications facilities in the public right-of-way is desirable, and unregulated or disorderly deployment represents a threat to the health, welfare and safety of the community. D. Local jurisdictions must reasonably allow wireless telecommunication facilities to be located in public rights-of-way, but may impose regulations based on published aesthetic standards. E. The regulations of wireless installations are necessary to protect and preserve the aesthetic character of the community and to ensure that all wireless telecommunications facilities are installed using the least intrusive means possible. F. The City Council has adopted a Wireless Communication Facilities (WCFs) code to regulate the various health, welfare, and safety impacts presented by the proliferation of WCFs and to balance these impacts with the interests of consumers in receiving the benefits of wireless technologies. G. Federal and state law place significant limits on the City’s exercise of local control over WCF matters. On September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission Not Yet Approved 2 20190403 ay 0160010 adopted a Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (WT Docket No. 17-79; WC Docket No. 17-84; FCC 18-133), further limiting local control. H. The purpose of the amendments herein is to establish uniform and comprehensive standards and regulations regarding the siting, development, and operation of wireless telecommunication facilities within the City in a manner consistent with State and Federal law. SECTION 2. Section 18.42.110 of Chapter 18.42 is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities (a) Purpose and Interpretation The purpose of this section is two-fold: (A) to implement within the jurisdictional boundaries of the city the applicable zoning, land use and other laws, rules, regulations and policies and procedures applicable to siting applications filed with the city by wireless communications facilities infrastructure owners and operators and wireless communications service providers, which seek to install or attach their facilities at locations in Palo Alto; and (B) to accommodate new wireless technologies and continued improvements to existing wireless communications facilities while minimizing their adverse visual and structural health and safety impacts. Consistent with that purpose, the provisions of this section are to be construed in a manner that is consistent with (1) the interest of consumers in receiving the benefits of the deployment of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communication facilities technology and innovations and the delivery of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communications facilities services, (2) the interest in safeguarding the environment, preserving historic properties, and addressing aesthetics and other local values, and (3) the interest in promoting the public health, safety and welfare in Palo Alto. Although this Section implements and references provisions of preemptive state and federal law, nothing in this Section shall be interpreted to create an independent source of the rights provided an applicant by such state or federal law. A wireless communications facility is permitted to be sited in Palo Alto subject to applicable requirements imposed by this chapter, which may include an architectural review process, a conditional use permit application process, or both. These processes are intended to permit wireless communications facilities that blend with their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, or public safety. The procedures prescribed by this chapter Section are tailored to the type of wireless communication facility that is sought. Building-mounted wireless communications facilities and collocation of facilities are preferred and encouraged, subject to all other provisions of this section. (b) Definitions The following abbreviations, phrases, terms and words shall have the meanings assigned in this section or, as appropriate, in Section 18.04.030 and Section 1.04.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time, unless the context indicates Not Yet Approved 3 20190403 ay 0160010 otherwise. Words that are not defined in this section or other chapters or sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall have the meanings as set forth in Chapter 6 of Title 47 of the United States Code, Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and, if not defined therein, their common and ordinary meaning. (1) "Antenna" means a that part of a wireless communications facility designed to radiate or receive radio frequency signals or electromagnetic waves for the provision of personal wireless services, as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(C)(i). This definition does not include antennas designed for amateur or household use. wireless antenna and its associated equipment. The term includes a macrocell antenna and a microcell antenna. (2) "Associated equipment" means any and all on-site equipment, including, without limitation, back-up generators and power supply units, cabinets, coaxial and fiber optic cables, connections, shelters, radio transceivers, regular power supply units, and wiring, to which a wireless antenna is attached in order to facilitate mobile broadband service and personal wireless service delivered on mobile broadband devices. (3) "Base Station" means the same as defined by the FCC at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), as it may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, this definition is stated as follows: a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC- licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein or any equipment associated with a tower. Base Station includes, without limitation: (i)a. Equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. (ii)b. Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including Distributed Antenna Systems ("DAS") and small-cell networks). (iii)c. Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the city under this section, supports or houses equipment described in paragraphs (i)-(ii) above and has been previously reviewed and approved by the city. (4) "Collocation" means the same as defined in valid regulations promulgated by the FCC, including 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.6002(g) or 1.6100(b), as those sections may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, the definition provided in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), for eligible facilities requests, is stated as follows: the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes. (5) "Eligible Facilities Request" means the same as defined by the FCC at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), as it may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, this definition is stated as follows: any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that, within the meaning of the Spectrum Act, does not substantially change the Not Yet Approved 4 20190403 ay 0160010 physical dimensions of that tower or base station, and involves (a) the collocation of new transmission equipment, (b) the removal of transmission equipment, or (c) the replacement of transmission equipment. (6) "Eligible Support Structure" means the same as defined by the FCC at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), as it may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, this definition is stated as follows: any existing tower or base station that exists at the time the application is filed with the city. (7) "Existing" means the same as defined by the FCC at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), as it may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, this definition is stated as follows: for a constructed tower or base station, means that the tower or base station is existing for purposes of an eligible facilities request if has been previously reviewed and approved under the applicable city zoning or siting process, or under another applicable state or local regulatory review process, provided that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is "Existing" for purposes of this definition. (8) "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission or successor agency. (9) "Project" means a WCF to be located in Palo Alto for which a permit is required by the city. (10) "RF" means radio frequency on the radio spectrum. (11) "Spectrum Act" means Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) (providing, in part, "… a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any Eligible Facilities Request for a modification of any existing wireless Tower or Base Station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such Tower or Base Station."). (12) "Small Wireless Facility," means the same as defined in any valid regulations adopted by the FCC. For purposes of convenience only, the definition provided at 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1312(e)(2) is stated here as follows: a facility that meets each of the following conditions: a. The structure on which antenna facilities are mounted: (I) Is 50 feet or less in height, or (II) Is no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or (III) Is not extended to a height of more than 10 percent above its preexisting height as a result of the collocation of new antenna facilities; and Not Yet Approved 5 20190403 ay 0160010 b. Each antenna (excluding associated antenna equipment) is no more than three cubic feet in volume; and c. All antenna equipment associated with the facility (excluding antennas) are cumulatively no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; and d. The facility does not require antenna structure registration under 47 C.F.R. Section 17; and e. The facility is not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 C.F.R. § 800.16(x); and f. The facility does not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified by the FCC. (1213) "Substantially Changes" means the same as defined by the FCC at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), as it may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, this definition is stated as follows: in the context of an eligible support structure, a modification of an existing tower or base station where any of the following criteria is met: (i)a. For a tower not located in the public rights-of-way: (aI) The height of the tower is increased by (I) more than ten (10) percent, or (II) by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty (20) feet, whichever is greater; or (bII) There is added an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower by (I) more than twenty (20) feet, or (II) more than the width of the tower at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater. (ii)b. For a tower located in the public rights-of-way and for all base stations: (aI) The height of the tower or base station is increased by more than ten (10) percent or ten (10) feet, whichever is greater; or (bII) There is added an appurtenance to the body of that structure that would protrude from the edge of that structure by more than six (6) feet; or (cIII) It involves the installation of ground cabinets that are more than ten (10) percent larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the structure; or (dIV) It involves the installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there is no pre-existing ground cabinet associated with that structure. Not Yet Approved 6 20190403 ay 0160010 (iii)c. For any eligible support structure: (aI) It involves the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four (4) cabinets; or (bII) There is entailed in the proposed modification any excavation or deployment outside of the current site of the tower or base station; or (cIII) The proposed modification would cause the concealment/camouflage elements of the tower or base station to be defeated; or (dIV) The proposed modification would not comply with the conditions associated with the prior siting approval of construction or modification of the tower or base station, unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding thresholds in this section. (iv)d. To measure changes in height for the purposes of this section, the baseline is: (aI) For deployments that are or will be separated horizontally, measured from the original support structure; (bII) For all others, measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. (v)e. To measure changes for the purposes of this section, the baseline is the dimensions that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. (1314) "Tower" means any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any FCC-licensed or -authorized antenna, including any structure that is constructed for wireless communications service. This term does not include a base station. (1415) "Transmission Equipment" means the same as defined by the FCC at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), as it may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, this definition is stated as follows: equipment that facilitates transmission of any FCC- licensed or authorized wireless communication service. (16) "Wireless Communications Facility" or "WCF" means any antenna, associated equipment, base station, small cell system, Small Wireless Facility, tower, and/or transmission equipment located in Palo Alto, but does not include : Not Yet Approved 7 20190403 ay 0160010 a. A facility that qualifies as an amateur station as defined by the FCC, 47 C.F.R. Part 97, or its successor regulation; b. An antenna facility that is subject to the FCC Over-The-Air- Receiving Devices rule, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000, or any successor regulation; c. Portable radios and devices including, but not limited to, hand- held, vehicular, or other portable receivers, transmitters or transceivers, cellular phones, CB radios, emergency services radio; d. Mobile services providing public information coverage of news events of a temporary nature. e. Telecommunications facilities owned and operated by any government agency or emergency medical care provider. (16) "Wireless Communications Service" means, without limitation, all FCC-licensed back-haul and other fixed wireless services, broadcast, private, and public safety communication services, and unlicensed wireless services. (c) Types of WCF Permits Required (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be required for an eligible facilities request, as defined in this section. (2) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be required for: (i)a. Any modification of an eligible support structure, including the collocation of new equipment, that substantially changes the physical dimensions of the eligible support structure on which it is mounted; or b. Any collocation of a Small Wireless Facility; or (ii)c. Any other collocation not eligible for a Tier 1 WCF Permit. (3) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be required for the siting of any WCF, including a Small Wireless Facility, that is not a collocation subject to a Tier 1 or 2 WCF Permit. An application shall not require a Tier 3 WCF Permit solely because it proposes the replacement in- place of an existing streetlight or wood utility pole. (d) WCF Application Requirements All applications for a WCF Permit shall include the following items: (1) Any applicant for a WCF Permit shall participate in an intake meeting with the Planning and Community Environment Department to file when filing an application; Not Yet Approved 8 20190403 ay 0160010 (2) The applicant must specify in writing whether the applicant believes the application is for an eligible facilities request subject to the Spectrum Act, and if so, provide a detailed written explanation as to why the applicant believes that the application qualifies as an eligible facilities request; (3) The applicant shall complete the city's standard application form, as may be amended from time to time; (4) The applicant shall include a completed and signed application checklist available from the city, including all information required by the application checklist; (5) Payment of the fee prescribed by the Municipal Fee Schedule; (6) The application must be accompanied by all permit applications with all required application materials for each separate permit required by the city for the proposed WCF, including a building permit, an encroachment permit (if applicable) and an electrical permit (if applicable); (7) For Tier 2 and 3 WCF Permits, the applicant must host a community meeting at a time and location designed to maximize attendance by persons receiving notice under this subparagraph to provide outreach to the neighborhood around the project site. The applicant shall give notice of the community meeting to all residents and property owners within 600 feet of the project site at least 14 days in advance of the community meeting. Applicants are encouraged to host the meeting before submitting an application. The Before an application may be approved, the applicant shall provide a proof of notice affidavit to the city that contains: (i)a. Proof that the applicant noticed and hosted the community meeting no later than 15 days after filing the application .before filing the application; (ii)b. A summary of comments received at the community meeting and what, if any, changes were made to the application as a result of the meeting; (8) For Tier 3 WCF Permits, the plans shall include a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed project that would be feasible and permitted by the Spectrum Act, using the proposed project as a baseline; and (9) Satisfy other such requirements as may be, from time to time, required by the Planning and Community Environment Department Director ("Director"), as publically stated in the application checklist. (e) Permit Review ("Shot Clock") Time Periods. The City shall review and act upon application materials in a manner consistent with any timeframes provided in controlling state or federal law, including valid regulations and orders promulgated by the FCC. (1) City review of application materials. The timeframe for review of an application shall begin to run when the application is submitted, but shall be tolled if the city finds the application incomplete and provides notice of incompleteness that delineates the Not Yet Approved 9 20190403 ay 0160010 missing information in writing. Such requests shall be made within 30 days of submission of the application. After submission of additional information, the city will notify the applicant within 10 days of this submission if the additional information failed to complete the application. If the city makes a determination pursuant to Section 18.42.110(e)(2)(i) that an application submitted as a Tier 1 eligible facilities request should be processed as a Tier 2 or Tier 3, then the Tier 2 or Tier 3 processing time, as applicable, shall begin to run when the city issues this decision. (2) Tier 1 processing time. For Tier 1 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the WCF application, together with any other city permits required for a proposed WCF modification, within 60 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (i) If the city determines that the application does not qualify as a Tier 1 eligible facilities request, the city will notify the applicant of that determination in writing and will process the application as a Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF Permit application, as applicable. (ii) To the extent federal law provides a "deemed granted" remedy for Tier 1 WCF Permit applications not timely acted upon by the city, no such application shall be deemed granted until the applicant provides notice to the city, in writing, that the application has been deemed granted after the time period provided in Section (e)(2) above has expired. (iii) Any Tier 1 WCF Permit application that the city grants or that is deemed granted by operation of federal law shall be subject to all requirements of Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7) and 18.42.110(j)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6). (3) Tier 2 processing time. For Tier 2 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the application within 90 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (4) Tier 3 processing time. For Tier 3 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the application within 150 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (5) Denial of application. If the city denies a WCF application, the city will notify the applicant of the denial in writing of the reasons for the denial. (f) Tier 1 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be final and shall not be appealable; (2) The Director shall grant a Tier 1 WCF Permit provided that the Director finds that the applicant proposes an eligible facilities request; (3) The Director shall impose the following conditions on the grant of a Tier 1 WCF Permit: Not Yet Approved 10 20190403 ay 0160010 (i)a. The proposed collocation or modification shall not defeat any existing concealment elements of the support structure; and (ii)b. The proposed WCF shall comply with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7), and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j). (g) Tier 2 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director, who may, in his or her sole discretion, refer an application to the Architectural Review Board. The Director's decision shall be appealable directly to the City Council. An appeal may be set for hearing before the City Council or may be placed on the Council's consent calendar, pursuant to the process for appeal of architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070(f). (2) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall grant a Tier 2 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all objective standards adopted and amended from time to time by resolution of the City Council or the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i). If such objective standards are repealed, an application shall not be granted unless, in addition to the other requirements of this section, and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) can be made. (3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 2 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. (h) Tier 3 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director, who may, in his or her sole discretion, refer an application to the Architectural Review Board and/or Planning and Transportation Commission. The Director's decision shall be appealable directly to the City Council. An appeal may be set for hearing before the City Council or may be placed on the Council's consent calendar, pursuant to the process for appeal of architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070(f). (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made and the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all objective standards adopted and amended from time to time by resolution of the City Council or the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i). and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. If the City Council repeals all objective standards, an application shall not be granted unless, in addition to the other requirements of this section, all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) can be made. (3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 3 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. (i) Generally Applicable Development Standards Not Yet Approved 11 20190403 ay 0160010 Unless the City Council has adopted more specific standards, and E except as otherwise provided in this section, a proposed WCF Project shall comply with the following standards: (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible antennae, radio, and associated equipment, as measured by volume, technically feasible to achieve a network objective; (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; (32) Shall be screened from public view; (43) When attached to an existing structure, shall be shrouded or screened using materials or colors found on existing structure Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; (54) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; (65) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area, such as the use of a monopine design; (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; (86) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to Shall not be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; (97) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend no more than fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; (108) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed beyond sixty-five (65) feet in height; and (119) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. (j) Conditions of Approval In addition to any other conditions of approval permitted under federal and state law and this Code that the Director deems appropriate or required under this Code, all WCF Projects approved under this chapter, whether approved by the Director or deemed granted by operation of law, shall be subject to the following conditions of approval: Not Yet Approved 12 20190403 ay 0160010 (1) Permit conditions. The grant or approval of a WCF Tier 1 Permit shall be subject to the conditions of approval of the underlying permit, except as may be preempted by the Spectrum Act. (2) As-built plans. The applicant shall submit to the Director an as-built set of plans and photographs depicting the entire WCF as modified, including all transmission equipment and all utilities, within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction. (3) Applicant shall hire a radio engineer licensed by the State of California to measure the actual radio frequency emission of the WCF and determine if it meets FCC's standards. A report, certified by the engineer, of all calculations, required measurements, and the engineer's findings with respect to compliance with the FCC's radio frequency emission standards shall be submitted to the Planning Division within one year of commencement of operation. (4) Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the city, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the city for its actual attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The city may, in its sole discretion and at Applicant's expense, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. (5) Compliance with applicable laws. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Code, any permit issued under this Code, and all other applicable federal, state and local laws (including without limitation all building code, electrical code and other public safety requirements). Any failure by the City to enforce compliance with any applicable laws shall not relieve any applicant of its obligations under this code, any permit issued under this code, or all other applicable laws and regulations. (6) Compliance with approved plans. The proposed Project shall be built in compliance with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. (7) Subject to City Uses. Any permit to install or utilize poles or conduit in the public rights of way is subject to the City’s prior right to use, maintain, expand, replace or remove from use such facilities in the reasonable exercise of its governmental or proprietary powers. Such permit is further subject to the City’s right to construction, maintain, and modify streets, sidewalks, and other improvements in the public rights of way. The City, in its sole discretion, may require removal or relocation of a permittee’s equipment, at permittee’s sole cost and expense, if necessary to accommodate a City use. (8) Replacement. Where feasible, as new technology becomes available, the applicant shall place above-ground equipment below ground and replace equipment remaining above-ground with smaller equipment, as determined by volume. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals for such replacement. Not Yet Approved 13 20190403 ay 0160010 (9) Permit length. WCFs permits shall be valid for the time provided in Section 18.42.110(n), except that a permit shall automatically expire after twelve months from the date of approval if within such twelve month period, the applicant has not obtained all necessary permits to commence construction. The director may, without a hearing, extend such time for a maximum period of twelve additional months only, upon application filed with him or her before the expiration of the twelve-month limit. (k) Exceptions (1) The decision-making authority may grant exceptions to objective standards adopted by City Council resolution or any provision of this Section 18.42.110, upon finding that: a. The proposed WCF complies with the requirements of this Section 18.42.110 and any other requirements adopted by the City Council to the greatest extent feasible; and either b. As applied to a proposed WCF, the provision(s) from which exception is sought would deprive the applicant of rights guaranteed by federal law, state law, or both; or c. Denial of the application as proposed would violate federal law, state law, or both. (2) An applicant must request an exception at the time an application is initially submitted for a WCF permit under this Section 18.42.110. The request must include both the specific provision(s) from which exception is sought and the basis of the request, including all supporting evidence on which the applicant relies. Any request for exception after the City has deemed an application complete constitutes a material change to the proposed WCF and shall be considered a new application. (3) If the applicant seeks an exception from objective standards adopted by City Council resolution or generally applicable development standards, the Director may refer the application to the Architectural Review Board for recommendation on whether the application complies with such standards to the greatest extent feasible. (4) The applicant shall have the burden of proving that federal law, state law, or both compel the decision-making authority to grant the requested exception(s), using the evidentiary standards applicable to the law at issue. The City shall have the right to hire independent consultants, at the applicant’s expense, to evaluate the issues raised by the exception request and to submit rebuttal evidence where applicable. (kl) Removal of Abandoned Equipment A WCF (Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) or a component of that WCF that ceases to be in use for more than ninety (90) days shall be removed by the applicant, wireless communications service provider, or property owner within ninety (90) days of the cessation of use of that WCF. A new Not Yet Approved 14 20190403 ay 0160010 WCF permit shall not be issued to an owner or operator of a WCF or a wireless communications service provider until the abandoned WCF or its component is removed. (lm) Revocation The Director may revoke any WCF Permit if the permit holder fails to comply with any condition of the permit. The Director's decision to revoke a Permit shall be appealable pursuant to the process applicable to issuance of the Permit, as provided in subdivisions (f), (g), and (h) of this section. (n) Expiration Except as otherwise provided in the permit or in a lease or license agreement with the City of Palo Alto, WCF permits shall be valid for a period of ten years from the date of approval. An applicant may seek extensions of an approved WCF permit in increments of no more than ten years and no sooner than twelve months prior to the expiration of the permit. The Director shall approve an extension request upon finding that that applicant has complied with all conditions of approval for the WCF permit and will comply with all other requirements applicable to WCFs at the time the extension is granted. Prior to issuing a decision on an extension request, the Director may seek additional studies and information to be prepared at the applicants expense. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 4. The Council finds that this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it does not authorize the construction of Wireless Communication Facilities in any locations where such facilities are not already permitted; therefore it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. The ordinance is further exempt under CEQA Guidelines sections 15301, 15302, 15303 and 15305 because it simply provides a comprehensive permitting scheme governing minor alterations to existing facilities or small structures. / / / / / / / / Not Yet Approved 15 20190403 ay 0160010 / / SECTION 5. 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: _____________________________ _______________________________ Deputy City Attorney Director of Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto (ID # 10336) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Transportation and Traffic Summary Title: Amendment 2 to MRG Contract for Transportation Services to Increase Compensation by $50,000 Title: Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C19172281 With Municipal Resource Group (MRG) to Increase the Not-to-Exceed Compensation by $50,000 (for a new Not-to-Exceed Amount of $200,000) to Provide Continued Transportation Support Services for the Office of Transportation From: City Manager Lead Department: Transportation Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council authorize the city manager to execute Amendment 2 to Contract C19172281 (Attachment A) with Municipal Resource Group (MRG) to increase the not-to-exceed compensation by $50,000 to provide continued transportation support services for the Office of Transportation, for a new total not-to- exceed amount of $200,000. Background In October 2018, the City Council authorized an agreement with the Municipal Resource Group (MRG) for Wayne Tanda to provide support services to the Office of Transportation. The support services included the following: •Task 1: Support the City’s review and development of process improvements for the implementation of multiuser transportation projects to maximize overall community acceptability. •Task 2: Review and make recommendations on the organizational structure and staffing of the City’s transportation functions, in order to ensure effective and sustainable services. The transportation functions include the City’s identified priority issues (rail grade separation planning, neighborhood traffic safety and bike boulevards, parking management, and commuter travel demand management), as well as related functions as operational and resource synergies may identify. City of Palo Alto Page 2 • Task 3: Review and recommend modifications to the City’s residential preferential parking program, in order to ensure an effective and sustainable program within finite staff resource allocation. • Task 4: Participate in ensuring adequate resources are provided for staff to support the City Council’s selection of preferred alternatives, project development, and funding strategy for railroad grade separations in Palo Alto. The October 2018 staff report and the original contract is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=46605.41&BlobID=67 242. Discussion Mr. Tanda of MRG has worked on each of his tasks and provided recommendations to the City Manager about the organizational structure and resources for transportation services. He also reviewed the parking program. With the transition of the Chief Transportation Official and the Deputy City Manager who supported the Transportation Office, Mr. Tanda has increased his work on Tasks 1, 3, and 4. The proposed contract amendment will allow Mr. Tanda to complete his work on the tasks with the added hours as shown below. The additional hours added by task are as follows: • Task 1: Add 68 hours to the current 317-hour total • Task 2: No change (same total of 181 hours) • Task 3: Add 85 hours to the current 90-hour total • Task 4: Add 65 hours to the current 90-hour total Resource Impact Sufficient savings have been identified in the FY 2019 Adopted Operating Budget to cover the cost of this amendment. No additional funding is needed. It is anticipated that with this contract amendment, MRG will be able to fulfill the rest of the tasks within this contract as well as provide some assistance in onboarding the new Chief Transportation Official this summer. Attachments: • Attachment A: Amendment No. 2 to Contract C19172281 MRG Transportation 1 Revision July 20, 2016 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C19172281 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GROUP, LLC This Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C19172281 (“Contract”) is entered into May 13, 2019, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GROUP, LLC., a California Limited Liability Company, located at 675 Hartz Avenue, Suite 300, Danville, CA 94526 ("CONSULTANT"). R E C I T A L S A. The Contract was entered into between the parties on October 15, 2018 for the provision of restructuring assistance for the Transportation Department. B. On February 12, 2019, the parties entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Contract to revise Exhibit “A” Scope of Services to provide clarification of a task with the addition of Section 1.9. C. Due to the unanticipated departure of key Transportation staff in the time since the Contract was entered into, CITY has had to utilize the services to a greater extent than originally planned. D. The parties wish to amend the Contract to increase the maximum compensation by $50,000.00, from $150,000 to an amount not-to-exceed $200,000.00 for additional hours of service reflected in Exhibit “B” Schedule of Performance. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION of the Contract 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” (“Basic Services”), and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C15CE2D-8AD4-44F4-B6B7-837955E078AA 2 Revision July 20, 2016 compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”.” SECTION 2. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this refer- ence: a. Exhibit “B” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”. b. Exhibit “C-1” entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE”. SECTION 3. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. 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: MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GROUP, LLC Attachments: EXHIBIT "B": SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT "C-1": RATE SCHEDULE DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C15CE2D-8AD4-44F4-B6B7-837955E078AA Mary Egan Partner 3 Revision July 20, 2016 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each task within the number of hours specified below. The time to complete each task may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. Scope Labor Estimated Hours Task 1 Principal Consultant 317 Task 2 Principal Consultant 181 Task 3 Principal Consultant 90 Task 4 Principal Consultant 90 AMENDMENT NO. 2 The following is added by Amendment No. 2 to the Contract. Scope Labor Estimated Additional Hours Task 1 Principal Consultant 78 Task 2 Principal Consultant 0 Task 3 Principal Consultant 90 Task 4 Principal Consultant 70 916 Total Hours (Original Hours & Hours Added Through Amendment No. 2) DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C15CE2D-8AD4-44F4-B6B7-837955E078AA 4 Revision July 20, 2016 EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES CONSULTANT will provide professional consulting services on an hourly basis by the calendar years as shown below: • 2018 - $200 per hour • 2019 - $210 per hour • 2020 - $220 per hour • 2021 - $230 per hour CONSULTANT will invoice for actual hours worked. If the CITY requests Additional Services, CONSULTANT will prepare an estimate and receive authorization before providing such services at the same hourly rate applicable to Basic Services for the then-current year. Reimbursable expenses include mileage reimbursement at the current IRS mileage rate ($0.545 per mile in 2018), lodging, meals, and minor costs incurred while performing the above described work. Costs and expenses will be reimbursed at CONSULTANT’S cost. Scope Labor Category Est. Hours Ave. Hourly Rate Est. Amount Task 1 Direct Principal Consultant 395 $210.00 $82,950 Reim. $3,600 Subtotal $86,450 Task 2 Direct Principal Consultant 181 $210.00 $38,010 Reim. $2,000 Subtotal $40,000 Task 3 Direct Principal Consultant 180 $210.00 $37,800 Reim. $1,040 Subtotal $38,800 Task 4 Direct Principal Consultant 160 $210.00 $33,600 Reim. $1,000 Subtotal $38,800 Direct Principal Consultant $192,360 Reim. $7,640 Total $200,000 000 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C15CE2D-8AD4-44F4-B6B7-837955E078AA Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 6C15CE2D8AD444F4B6B7837955E078AA Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: C19172281 MRG Transportation Support Amendment No 2.doc Source Envelope: Document Pages: 4 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Christopher Anastole AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 12.220.157.20 Record Tracking Status: Original 5/1/2019 8:13:17 AM Holder: Christopher Anastole chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Mary Egan egan@municipalresourcegroup.com Partner Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 198.153.61.134 Sent: 5/1/2019 8:17:00 AM Viewed: 5/1/2019 8:38:10 AM Signed: 5/1/2019 8:38:45 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Elizabeth Egli elizabeth.egli@cityofpaloalto.org Managment Analyst City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 5/1/2019 8:38:47 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Madina Klicheva Madina.Klicheva@CityofPaloAlto.org Administrative Associate II City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 5/1/2019 8:38:48 AM Viewed: 5/1/2019 9:14:08 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 5/1/2019 8:38:48 AM Certified Delivered Security Checked 5/1/2019 8:38:48 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 5/1/2019 8:38:48 AM Completed Security Checked 5/1/2019 8:38:48 AM Payment Events Status Timestamps City of Palo Alto (ID # 10247) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Transportation and Traffic Summary Title: Evaluation of the Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Title: Acceptance of the City of Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Study Report and Direction to Staff on Workplans, Outreach, Stakeholder Process, and Prioritization of Programs Including Proposed RPP Programs for Old Palo Alto and Green Acres From: City Manager Lead Department: Transportation Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Accept the City of Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Review Report (Attachment A) by the City’s consultant, Municipal Resource Group (MRG), and direct staff to return to City Council with a workplan to address the items in the report; 2. Identify the preferred forum for resident and business community engagement in evaluating the recommendations of the MRG report; 3. Direct staff to continue the proposed RPP district outreach and stakeholder process for Old Palo Alto and Green Acres, in accordance with the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommended prioritization; and, 4. Confirm that modifications to existing RPP districts (e.g., number of permits, etc.) will be put on hold until potential overall program changes are considered. Background In 2018 the City of Palo Alto engaged the consulting firm, MRG, to provide transportation support services. One of the services to be provided was to review and recommend modifications to the City’s Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program. RPP programs are used by cities throughout California to address negative impacts associated with non-resident City of Palo Alto Page 2 parkers in residential neighborhoods. Residents of households within an RPP district are issued permits by a city that exempts the permit holder from specified parking regulations. The scope of the MRG Report is to review the City’s RPP Program and recommend changes to the City’s parking services which would result in a more effective, sustainable, and efficient program. While the review focused on the RPP Program, recommendations extend to other services and issues that impact parking availability. Palo Alto RPP History in Brief: Palo Alto first utilized the RPP program more than 10 years ago in the College Terrace neighborhood in response to the spillover of employee parking from the Stanford Business Park, located in the unincorporated area to the north of College Terrace. The RPP exempts the residents from the two-hour parking time limits that curtail employee and other nonresident parking. The Crescent Park neighborhood was the second RPP. It was established in response to the intrusion of overnight parking by residents located outside of the Crescent Park neighborhood. The RPP exempts Crescent Park residents from the on-street no parking regulation between 2:00 am and 5:00 am. The provisions of both of these districts are relatively straightforward and are generally effective. About five years ago, in 2014, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a process that allows any neighborhood within the City to petition for a new RPP district. Unlike the two previously adopted RPP districts, the new program allowed for preferential parking privileges to residents and employees of businesses within an RPP district, by exempting them from on- street parking regulations. At the same time, the City also expanded the RPP program to the neighborhoods surrounding the Downtown and California Avenue commercial areas to exempt residents and employees from parking time limits. That action also spread out the distribution of employee parking in the neighborhoods through a combination of zones within each district and a limitation on the number of permits within each zone. In the Downtown, the practice has been to reduce the total number of employee permits if the permits were not used. In total, the City has established five (5) RPP districts over the past 10 years. Each district is tailored to meet the unique circumstances of that area. The districts include College Terrace, Crescent Park, Downtown, Evergreen Park-Mayfield, and Southgate. A map of each of the above districts is included as attachments in the MRG report. Two additional areas, Old Palo Alto and Green Acres, have initiated the process to establish an RPP district. Collectively, the five (5) existing districts encompass 28% of the City’s 27,600 households. The Downtown District is the largest district, with 5,154 households. The smallest district is Southgate, with 220 households. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Discussion The City’s cumulative actions to establish Residential Preferential Parking districts have resulted in a relatively complex parking management system. While many users have become accustomed to the system, it is challenging to navigate for a new resident, employer, employee or a visitor to Palo Alto. For residents who still find their street occupied by parked vehicles, the system seems ineffective. For employees unable to obtain permits, the system seems flawed. For visitors who are not familiar with the City’s zones, the system is perplexing. And for the staff responsible for the administration of parking services, the workload of the RPP Program is, at times, overwhelming. The City Manager suggested a review of the RPP program primarily to address staff sustainability and retention related to parking services. Due to the complex nature of the program and the high demands for constituent relations, this staff position is very vulnerable to burnout and frustration. The City of Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking Program Review provides analyses and recommendations aimed at (1) providing an overview of the limitations of the established parking programs, (2) better managing of the limited parking supply of the City, (3) identifying areas for improvements and resources needed to execute parking initiatives, and (4) encouraging participants to use alternatives to the single-occupant vehicles wherever possible. Report Recommendations: The 35 recommendations in the attached MRG report (Attachment A), Residential Preferential Parking Program Review, are intended to assist the City in addressing the above shortcomings. The recommendations also recognize the importance that the City places on the engagement of the community on services that directly affect residential neighborhoods. The recommendations are arranged in the three categories described below, reflecting the level of debate likely involved in each. Although listed in these categories, the City Council could determine that recommendations be handled in a variety of ways. 1. Action by City Council Three of the five recommendations will be formally considered by the City Council in future City Council meetings in the form of contracts for service or the Proposed Operating Budget. A fourth recommendation is to add a question to the Annual National Citizen Survey to obtain the opinion of residents affected by the RPP program. The other recommendation relates to the engagement of the community including, as an option, the establishment of a working group with representation from both residents and employers. 2. Actions by City Manager and Return to City Council as Needed City of Palo Alto Page 4 There are a total of 21 recommendations referred directly to the City Manager. Many of these items will require Council direction or action and others are purely administrative in nature. The actions that have policy and/or fiscal implications will return to the City Council for consideration and staff will include them in the parking workplan which will be brought back to City Council. 3. Obtain Community Input and Return to City Council with Recommendations The MRG report recommends direct community input on nine (9) items that relate to policy. The input would be consolidated by staff and return to the City Council with an assessment of the City Manager. Staff recognizes parking programs are complex and of great interest to the City Council and the community. Action on the 35 recommendations would result in noticeable changes for residents, employees, and visitors to Palo Alto, as well as changes to the City’s internal processes and organization. In order to implement these changes in the most effective way, staff recommends returning to the City Council with a parking workplan that reflects City Council direction on the 35 recommendations as well as an evaluation and implementation timeline. The requested resources in the Fiscal Year (FY 2020) budget will be helpful in the implementation of a parking workplan. Recognizing the level of community interest in this topic, staff recommends that a public forum be used to solicit public input before recommendations return to the City Council for consideration. This could logically be either the Planning and Transportation Commission or an independent group. If the latter, an informal working group could be convened by the City Manager to receive input and advise the City Manager regarding the issues identified in the report. Ideally, this forum would include a mix of participants and interest to support a balanced and sustainable program. If City Council prefers to create a working group through City Council action, the group would be subject to the requirements of the Brown Act and potentially State conflict of interest rules unless the group is purely advisory as defined in the FPPC regulations.1 Pending RPP Petitions On March 27, 2019, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) prioritized two neighborhoods that petitioned for RPP parking programs, Old Palo Alto and Green Acres. The Commission made a recommendation for staff to initiate an RPP process for several blocks of 1 To qualify as purely advisory, the body cannot (i) “make a final governmental decision”, (ii) “compel or prevent a governmental decision”, or (iii) make “substantive recommendations” that are “regularly approved without significant amendment or modification” by a City public official or City Council “over an extended period of time.” (FPPC Regulations 18700(c)(2)(A)). City of Palo Alto Page 5 the Old Palo Alto neighborhood east of the California Avenue Caltrain Station. The Green Acres neighborhood, adjacent to Gunn High School, was given the second priority due to the fact that it already has a time-of-day parking restriction. The PTC specifcally recommended that staff develop a program “without extensive RPP study” to solve what the PTC posited is a “much more narrow problem” for that neighborhood. With the City Council affirmation of the PTC’s direction, staff intends to address the first priority RPP petition but is uncertain whether sufficient resources would be available to complete the Green Acres program this calendar year as the work that would be needed to develop any parking program for Green Acres would be almost equivalent to that needed for a standard RPP district. In order to bring a recommendation to the City Council to launch an RPP program in Old Palo Alto in fall 2019, staff is collecting parking occupancy data in the affected area before the end of the current school year and will begin stakeholder outreach this summer. As noted in the RPP report, additional resources requested in the FY 2020 Operating Budget will help parking staff address community needs sooner. With additional resources, a Green Acres program could be evaluated in addition to other parking priorities that will be identified as part of the parking workplan. Policy Implications Regulating parking is consistent with the City’s approach to reduce traffic and parking demand and to manage parking. The Study would address the following existing Comprehensive Plan policies, goals and programs: • Goal T5: Encourage attractive, convenient, efficient and innovative parking solutions for all users. • Policy T5.1.2: Consider reducing parking requirements for retail and restaurant uses as a way to encourage new businesses and the use of alternative modes. • Policy T5.1.3: Work with stakeholders in each commercial center and employment district to monitor conditions and determine the appropriate timing for revisions to parking requirements • Policy T5.2: Continue to implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand management strategies citywide to optimize the use of existing parking spaces. • Policy T5.2.2: Study and implement pricing strategies for public parking in commercial districts, taking into consideration both employee parking demand and the needs of retailers and customers. Use pricing to encourage short term parking on street, long City of Palo Alto Page 6 term parking in parking garages and the use of alternative modes of transportation. • Policy T-5.5: Minimize the need for employees to park in and adjacent to commercial centers, employment districts and schools. • Policy T-5.11: Work to protect residential areas from parking impacts of nearby businesses and uses, recognizing that fully addressing some existing intrusions may take time. • Policy T5.11.1: Coordinate with neighborhood groups and local businesses and other stakeholders to evaluate the need for a residential parking permit program in areas without existing programs. Resource Impact Implementing the staff recommendation would involve the use of current staff resources in FY 2019 for community engagement and development of a parking workplan. The FY 2020 Proposed Operating Budget includes the addition of a Parking Manager (Transportation Programs Manager) that will be funded by the appropriate parking funds. Though it will take time to reoranize and scale all of the parking activities that will come in a parking workplan as a result of this report, the benefits to staff, customer service, public relations and the sustainability of the City’s parking programs will be very significant. Environmental Review The proposed actions are not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: Attachment A: MRG RPP Report 5.1.19 (PDF) Post Office Box 561 Wilton, California 95693 916-261-7547 www.Solutions-MRG.com CITY OF PALO ALTO RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW May 2019 Prepared by: Wayne Tanda, Consultant Municipal Resource Group, LLC May 1, 2019 City of Palo Alto Page i MRG Report: Residential Preferential Parking – May 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 1 City Council – Action by City Council ...................................................................... 1 City Manager – Action by City Manager and Return to City Council as Needed .................................................................................................................... 2 Community Engagement – Obtain Community Input and Return to City Council with Recommendations ............................................................................. 4 II. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 6 Background ............................................................................................................. 6 Project Scope .......................................................................................................... 6 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 6 III. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 7 Overview of the Palo Alto Residential Permit Parking Program ............................. 7 RPP Programs in Other Cities .................................................................................. 8 IV. EVALUATION ..................................................................................................................... 10 Balancing Quality of Life and Business Necessity ................................................. 10 Downtown RPP District Boundaries ...................................................................... 10 RPP District Parking Availability Standard ............................................................ 11 Reducing Number of RPP Employee Permits ....................................................... 12 New Developments ............................................................................................... 13 Employee Parking in Residential Neighborhoods ................................................. 13 Employee Parking in City Garages and Lots .......................................................... 14 RPP Employee Parking Permits ............................................................................. 14 RPP Reduced Price (Low-Income) Employee Permits........................................... 15 Neighborhood Serving Businesses ........................................................................ 16 Blocked from Parking in a Garage ......................................................................... 16 No Need to Park – Transportation Demand Management .................................. 16 Short-Term Parking Puzzle .................................................................................... 17 Improving User Interface ...................................................................................... 18 Integrity of RPP Program ...................................................................................... 18 Inconsistences Between Districts ......................................................................... 19 Creating New RPP Districts ................................................................................... 19 Annexing to Existing RPP Districts ........................................................................ 21 Modifications to Existing RPP Districts ................................................................. 21 City of Palo Alto Page ii MRG Report: Residential Preferential Parking – May 2019 Enforcement of RPP Regulations .......................................................................... 22 Downtown Parking Plan ........................................................................................ 22 Interim Action Plan ............................................................................................... 22 Paid Parking........................................................................................................... 23 Sustainability ......................................................................................................... 24 Funding ................................................................................................................. 24 Community Engagement ...................................................................................... 25 V. RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 26 City Council – Action by City Council .................................................................... 26 City Manager – Action by City Manager and Return to City Council as Needed .................................................................................................................. 27 Community Engagement – Obtain Community Input and Return to City Council with Recommendations ........................................................................... 29 VI. APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 31 A College Terrace RPP District Map B. Crescent Park RPP District Map C. Downtown RPP District Map D. Evergreen Park – Mayfield/California RPP District Map E. Southgate RPP District Map F. Chapter 10.50 PAMC Residential Preferential Permit Parking Districts G. Residential Permit Parking Administrative Guidelines City of Palo Alto Page 1 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Palo Alto is committed to preserving the quality of life in its residential neighborhoods. In 2014, the City Council adopted a policy which allows any neighborhood within the City to petition for a Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program. The Program provides preferential parking privileges to residents and employees of businesses within an RPP district, by exempting them from on-street parking regulations. The exemption is managed through the issuance of permits. The intent is to restore and enhance the quality of life in residential neighborhoods by reducing the impact of parking associated with nearby businesses, institutions and other uses. The City has established five RPP districts including College Terrace, Crescent Park, Downtown, Evergreen Park-Mayfield, and Southgate. Collectively, these districts encompass 28% of the City’s 27,600 households. The Downtown District is the largest, with 5,154 households. The smallest district is Southgate, with 220 households. A unique characteristic of the Palo Alto RPP Program is that it accommodates a significant amount of non-residential parking in some of the districts. The implementation of this policy has created a relatively complex parking services system. While many users have become accustomed to the system, it is challenging to navigate for a new resident, employer, employee or visitor to Palo Alto. For residents who still find their street occupied by parked vehicles, the system seems ineffective. For employees unable to obtain permits, the system seems flawed. For visitors who are not familiar with the City’s zones, the system is perplexing. And for the staff responsible for the administration of parking services, the workload of the RPP Program is, at times, overwhelming. The following recommendations are intended to assist the City in addressing the above shortcomings. The recommendations are arranged in categories to suggest the next steps in the process of improving the RPP Program. City Council – Action by City Council 1. Improve Parking Permit Management System – A contract should be approved to develop, implement, support and maintain a new comprehensive parking permit and citation management system. This contract is expected to be presented to the City Council in FY 2018-19. 2. Conduct Downtown Parking Operational Study – A contract (amendment) should be approved that provides the information and specific steps needed to move the City forward from a parking program built around a rigid system of pre-paid permits to a program built around the dynamic monitoring of usage and the application of pricing. It would also provide a roadmap to build community support for this effort. This contract is expected to be presented to the City Council in FY 2018-19. 3. Engage the Community in Modifications to the Residential Preferential Parking Program – The engagement of the community in making modifications to the Program is imperative City of Palo Alto Page 2 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 and could occur through the Planning and Transportation Commission or, as the City did five years ago, through a working group. To be effective, the City Council should be clear on the effort’s purpose, scope of work, parameters, and schedule. There are nine recommendations in this report that are identified to be referred to the Commission/Group. If a working group is selected, the membership should not exceed 12 individuals. 4. Increase Staff Resources – The City should add a Parking Manager to the Office of Transportation to meet the existing workload and to manage the improvements needed to move parking services forward. This proposal is expected to be presented to the City Council as part of the Proposed Operating Budget for FY 2019-20. 5. Amend the National Citizen Survey – To measure the long-term effectiveness of the RPP Program, consider adding a question to the annual National Citizen Survey (Palo Alto Community Survey Supplement) to obtain the opinion of the City’s households (28% of all households) about the Residential Preferential Parking Program City Manager – Action by City Manager and Return to City Council as Needed 6. Update Codes and Guidelines – The following regulations should be updated to reflect the changes in staff authority and responsibility with the establishment of the Office of Transportation (a) Chapter 10.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and (b) the Residential Permit Parking Administrative Guidelines. 7. Clarify the Downtown Residential Permit Parking District Boundary – Remove the ambiguity in the Resolution that adopted the boundary of the Downtown Residential Permit Parking District that does not appear to include the Downtown commercial area. 8. Communicate Availability of Employee Parking Spaces – The availability of employee parking permits in underutilized RPP zones should be communicated to employees who have been denied spaces in their preferred zone. 9. Communicate Available Downtown Reserved Parking Spaces – The availability of reserved spaces in the Downtown garages and lots should be communicated to employees who have been denied spaces in their preferred garages or lots. 10. Improve Parking Website – The City of Palo Alto parking website should be updated to ensure it is complete, user-friendly and intuitive. 11. Evaluate “Neighborhood Serving Businesses” – Giving “neighborhood serving businesses” a preference in obtaining employee parking permits should be reviewed by the City Administration to determine its policy, administrative, and legal implications. 12. Examine Purchase of Reserved Parking Spaces by Businesses Located Outside of a Business District – The City Administration should determine the ability of employees of a business located outside of a business district that helped to fund a garage, to purchase reserved parking spaces in that garage. City of Palo Alto Page 3 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 13. Measure the Performance of Transportation Demand Management Initiatives – The efforts of the Transportation Management Association and the City’s Shuttle Service should ultimately result in a reduction in the number of employees and business patrons who would otherwise need parking spaces. Outcome-based performance measures should be designed and utilized to determine the effectiveness of these efforts and to guide the direction of these services. 14. Evaluate Impact of Shared Rides – Evaluate the existing and potential use of services like Uber and Lyft to reduce the demand for parking as well as the impact on traffic. 15. Determine Best Reparking Regulation – Re-evaluate the value of trying to explain to motorists the meaning of the term “Initial” as it relates to the reparking of a vehicle versus the confusion created by the attempt to explain the term, and consider alternatives, such as “No same day reparking.” 16. Improve Process to Purchase Daily Permits – In the near-term, until a paid hourly system is implemented, the purchase of daily permits should be improved in terms of communications with the public, access to pay-on-foot, and multi-day permits. 17. Consider Paid Hourly Parking – A plan should be developed to initiate a paid parking program in the City’s garages and lots. A paid parking program could retain the initial three hours’ parking in garages to be free and set a reasonable fee above that time, versus the current jump to $25 after three hours. This recommendation could be incorporated with recommendation #2, above. 18. Change Payment Schedule for Reserved Parking in Garages and Lots – The 3-, 6-, and 12- month pay in advance permit system should be replaced with a monthly payment system that would be more amendable to the parker, and eliminate the accounting associated with the reimbursement of early termination. 19. Institute a Performance-Driven System – A performance metric should be established that measures the user’s perception of the quality of service to identify areas where corrective actions are needed, and which is used to take appropriate actions. 20. Maintain Integrity of Program – The City should routinely check the qualifications of permittees and the uses of permits. 21. Process Applications for New Residential Permit Parking Districts – Processing the proposals by the Old Palo Alto Neighborhood and the Green Acre Neighborhood should move forward pursuant to the schedule identified in Chapter 10.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, subject to the availability of adequate resources. 22. Treat Requests for Annexations Like Other Requests for Service – The request to annex an area on the west side of El Camino between Stanford Avenue and Park Boulevard into the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP District should follow the provisions in the RPP Ordinance and City of Palo Alto Page 4 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 the RPP Administrative Guidelines and should be placed into the backlog of work to be performed by parking services. 23. Minor Modifications to a Residential Permit Parking District – Because all changes in an RPP district may have unintended consequences and therefore warrant an appropriate level of evaluation, requests for modifications to an RPP district should be placed into the backlog of work to be performed by parking services. Two examples of this type of request include extending the days that parking time limits apply in the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP District to include those days games and other major events are held at Stanford University; and extending the duration of the parking time limits in the Downtown RPP zones near the commercial areas to curtail non-permitted employee parking. 24. Evaluate Consolidation of Parking Compliance Functions – The consolidation of the parking compliance functions in the Police Department and the Office of Transportation should be evaluated. 25. Review Parking Citation Fees – The fee schedule for parking infractions should be reviewed on a regular basis as part of the Master Fee schedule. 26. Review the Level of Funding Subsidy of the Residential Permit Parking Program – A review of the expenditures and revenues for the Residential Permit Parking Fund should be performed to ensure the level of support from the General Fund is appropriate. Community Engagement – Obtain Community Input and Return to City Council with Recommendations 27. Establish “Parking Availability Standards” – Parking availability standards should be established for the Downtown, Evergreen Park-Mayfield, and Southgate Residential Permit Parking Districts considering the residents’ perceptions of the impact of parking availability on their quality of life. Changes in the number of employee permits and boundaries of existing RPP districts should be deferred until parking availability standards are approved by the City Council. 28. Establish Approach to Reduce Employee Parking Permits – Develop a “quid-pro-quo” approach to reduce RPP employee permits where the addition of “employee spaces” in garages and lots triggers the reduction of RPP employee parking permits. 29. Provide Automatic Renewal for Employee Parking Permits – To avoid the mad dash to obtain a permit at the twice-a-year sale event, the City should consider providing for the automatic renewal of employee parking permits and the ability of applicants to be on a wait list. 30. Change Payment Schedule for Employee Parking Permits – The six-month pay in advance permit system should be replaced with a monthly payment system that would be more amendable to the parker and provide greater equity for employees whose duration of employment is less than six months. City of Palo Alto Page 5 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 31. Increase Cost of Employee Parking Permits – Consideration should be given to increase the cost of an RPP employee parking permit so that it is greater than the cost of a reserved space in a garage or lot, in order to incentivize parkers to choose off-street parking over on-street parking. 32. Standardize Cost of Employee Parking Permits – The cost of employee parking permits between the RPP districts should be the same, unless there are extenuating circumstances. The cost of a six-month employee parking permit is $74.50 in the Southgate District; $187.50 in the Evergreen Park-Mayfield District; and $375.00 in the Downtown District. 33. Change Payment Schedule and Increase Cost of Reduced-Price Parking Permits – The reduced-price parking permit is designed to support low-income employees (e.g. $50,000 or less annual income). When a monthly payment system is available, the cost of the permit should be at least $15.00 per month, which is less than $1 per day for a full-time employee. This amount is less than an outlay of $50 for the current six-month permit, and for some employees may be preferable. 34. Remove Inconsistences Between Districts – Inconsistencies between Residential Preferential Permit Parking districts should be eliminated, unless there are extenuating circumstances. The inconsistences include, but are not necessarily limited to, the number of resident permits, the cost of resident permits, and the number of single-day permits. 35. Review Renewal Dates – The renewal dates for residential and employee permits should be reviewed to determine the most efficient schedule for the City to administer that is still convenient for users. City of Palo Alto Page 6 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 II. INTRODUCTION Background In 2018 the City of Palo Alto engaged the consulting firm, Municipal Resource Group, LLC (MRG), to provide transportation support services. One of the services to be provided was to review and recommend modifications to the City’s Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program. The Palo Alto RPP Program provides preferential parking privileges to residents and employees of businesses within an RPP district, by exempting them from on-street parking regulations. The exemption is managed through the issuance of permits. The intent is to restore and enhance the quality of life in residential neighborhoods by reducing the impact of parking associated with nearby businesses, institutions and other uses. During the review, it became clear that the City’s RPP Program is an interdependent component of the City’s overall parking strategy. This study recognizes that the same staff resources are involved in all components of the parking strategy, including the RPP Program, the management of non-permit on-street parking spaces, the management of public off-street parking facilities, the addition of more public parking spaces, and the diversion of single occupant vehicle trips to other modes and methods of travel. Project Scope The scope of the project is to review the City’s RPP Program and recommend changes to the City’s parking services that result in a more effective and sustainable program. While the review focused on the RPP Program, recommendations encompass other parking services. Methodology Available documents relating to the RPP Program were reviewed. Some of the material reviewed included the formation and administration of the RPP districts; the Palo Alto Municipal Code; the RPP Administrative Guidelines; the California Vehicle Code; previous parking services studies; parking services contracts; City financial documents; parking inventory and performance data; service delivery responsibilities; and the parking websites of Palo Alto and other cities. City staff were interviewed to augment the above information about parking services and to assist MRG in understanding the level of community engagement in the creation of the RPP districts and the evolution of the RPP Program. The set of stakeholder meetings reported in the 2017 Downtown Parking Management Study were reviewed. The input from representatives of the most complex RPP districts, Downtown and Evergreen Park-Mayfield, was received and considered. City of Palo Alto Page 7 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 III. BACKGROUND Overview of the Palo Alto Residential Permit Parking Program The City of Palo Alto is committed to preserving the quality of life in its residential neighborhoods. In 2014, the City Council adopted a City‐wide Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Ordinance, which allows any neighborhood within the City to petition for initiation of an RPP Program. Three documents govern the creation of an RPP Program: 1. Chapter 10.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code outlines the criteria that must be met and the process that must be undertaken for a residential neighborhood to initiate an RPP Program; 2. A neighborhood‐specific resolution must be adopted by the City Council that outlines the specific characteristics of the individual RPP Program; and 3. The Residential Preferential Parking Administrative Guidelines provide additional detail on RPP policies and procedures. The Residential Preferential Parking Administrative Guidelines may be modified by the Planning and Community Environment Director. With the reorganization of the Office of Transportation, all references to the Director of Planning and Community Environment should be revised to reference the City Manager or designee. The City has established five RPP districts over the past 10 years. Each district is tailored to meet the unique circumstances of that area. The year each district was permanently established is shown below: 2009 College Terrace 2016 Crescent Park 2017 Downtown 2018 Evergreen Park-Mayfield 2019 Southgate (projected adoption) A map of each of the above districts is included in Appendices A through E of this report. Collectively, the above districts encompass 28% of the City’s 27,600 households. The number and percentage of households within each RPP district is shown in the following chart. The Downtown District is the largest, with 5,154 households. The smallest district is Southgate, with 220 households. PALO ALTO RPP DISTRICTS AND HOUSEHOLDS District Number of Households Percent of RPP Households Downtown 5,154 66% Evergreen Park-Mayfield 1,068 14% College Terrace 676 9% Crescent Park 616 8% Southgate 220 3% Total 7,734 100% City of Palo Alto Page 8 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 The College Terrace neighborhood was the first RPP district established by the City. It was in response to the spillover of employee parking from the Stanford Business Park, located in the unincorporated area to the north of College Terrace. The RPP exempts the residents from the on-street weekday two-hour parking time limits. The provisions for this district are relatively straight-forward and generally effective. The Crescent Park neighborhood was the second RPP district. It was established in response to the intrusion of overnight parking by residents located outside of the Crescent Park neighborhood. The RPP exempts the residents of Crescent Park from the on-street “no parking” regulation between 2:00 am and 5:00 am. The provisions of this district are relatively straightforward and generally effective. In the City’s next application of the RPP Program, the “degree of difficulty” increased significantly. The City desired to balance the competing interests of residents to curb parking within their neighborhood, and of businesses located in adjacent commercial areas to provide parking for their customers and employees. To provide structure to the Program, in 2014 the City adopted general RPP regulations that are codified in Chapter 10.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (see Appendix F). The processes, procedures, and additional details of implementing the Program are included in the Residential Preferential Parking Administrative Guidelines, promulgated by the City Administration, last updated on March 1, 2017 (see Appendix G). It appears that with the passage of time, the users of the RPP districts have become accustomed to the City’s processes and procedures. Concerns, however, remain. For residents who still find their street occupied by parked vehicles, the system seems ineffective. For employees unable to obtain permits, the system seems flawed. For visitors who are not familiar with the City’s zones, the system is perplexing. And for the staff responsible for the administration of parking services, the workload of the RPP Program is, at times, overwhelming. RPP Programs in Other Cities The RPP programs in other cities reflect the policy decisions and dynamics of those communities. As part of the 2017 Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study, the parking programs of 13 California cities were identified by the City for review. Based on the initial responses and available data provided by these cities, the pool of cities was narrowed down to eight. The cities from that pool that currently have RPP programs (7 cities) and the Cities of San Jose and San Francisco were reviewed. The latter two cities were added because of the relative complexities of their RPP programs, which are more like the RPP Program in Palo Alto. The following chart provides a highlight of the RPP programs in the City of Palo Alto and the nine other cities. City of Palo Alto Page 9 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 CITY RPP PROGRAM City Highlight Berkeley Uniform set of RPP provisions for the whole city with ability for residents to opt in the RPP program; permits for residents, their visitors and in-home care providers; limited merchant permits for businesses located within a specified address range in an RPP district Monterey Uniform set of provisions for RPP districts; preferential permits for residents only Mountain View Uniform set of provisions for RPP districts; preferential permits for residents and their guests, visitors, and contractors Palo Alto Provisions of RPP districts vary; preferential permits for residents and guests and non-residential (employees) for businesses located within an RPP district; coordination in issuance of parking permits in public garages and parking lots Pasadena For all streets with parking time limits, residents may request a permit to exempt them from the regulation through an annual overnight on-street parking permit and an annual daytime on-street parking permit San Mateo Uniform set of provisions for RPP districts; preferential permits for residents only Santa Monica Uniform set of provisions for RPP districts; preferential permits for residents and their guests and caregivers Sausalito For selected streets, residents may request a permit to be exempted from parking time limits San Jose Uniform set of provisions for RPP districts; preferential permits for residents and their visitors and businesses that reside within an RPP district San Francisco Uniform set of provisions for the RPP districts; preferential permits for residents and their visitors and in-home caregivers, businesses, goods delivery, schools, foreign consulates, active military, and full-time college students that reside within an RPP district The Palo Alto RPP Program exempts utility, government, emergency responder, delivery, and disabled vehicles from the parking regulations. An additional exemption is provided for vehicles parked for the purpose of attending or participating in an event taking place at a school within the Palo Alto Unified School District, provided that the vehicle is parked within two blocks of the venue, the venue received approval from the City, the venue distributes notices to all addresses within a two-block radius of the venue, and the resolution establishing the RPP district included the venue and falls within the number of permitted events per year. Palo Alto also excepts vehicles owned by a resident’s employer, vehicles that are being leased, and vehicles owned by live-in caregivers. There are three aspects of the Palo Alto RPP Program that are unique. The first is that the general provisions between districts vary, such as the number and cost of permits available for residents. The second aspect is the boundaries of the Downtown and Evergreen Park-Mayfield Districts. In other cities, the boundaries of an RPP district generally coincide with the boundaries of one or more residential neighborhoods. The boundaries of the Downtown and Evergreen Park-Mayfield Districts, however, include the adjoining major commercial areas. The third aspect is the creation and use of zones within a district to manage the location of the on-street parking of employees. Each of the above aspects is described in more detail in this report. City of Palo Alto Page 10 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 IV. EVALUATION Balancing Quality of Life and Business Necessity The RPP districts for the Downtown, Evergreen Park-Mayfield, and Southgate areas are designed to reduce the intrusion of non-residential parkers into the residential neighborhoods and to provide limited parking for the patrons and employees of businesses. The provision of limited employee parking in residential neighborhoods is a part of the City’s strategy to address the demand for employee parking, as shown below: 1. Increase the number of new off-street parking spaces; 2. Encourage the use of other modes and methods of travel; and 3. Manage limited employee parking on residential streets. The relationships of the parking exemptions for the residential permit parking districts and the adjoining commercial districts are shown in the following chart. Residents are eligible to obtain permits for themselves, their guests and visitors through a personal account with the City. Employees may obtain permits through a personal account with the City. Employers may create a corporate account and obtain up to 10 employee permits and a finite number of daily permits. In addition, the public can purchase daily permits that exempt them from the parking time limits at selected locations. The relative complexity of the RPP parking districts ranges from low for Crescent Park and College Terrace, to moderate for Southgate, and high for Evergreen Park- Mayfield and Downtown. PARKING EXEMPTIONS BY DISTRICTS District Location Eligible for Parking Exemptions Residents Employees *Public Crescent Park RPP On-street X College Terrace RPP On-street X Southgate RPP On-street X X Evergreen Park - Mayfield RPP Residential Zones On-street X X California Commercial On-Street Garages & Lots X X Downtown RPP Residential Zones On-street X X Downtown Commercial On-Street Garages & Lots X X * Daily permits may be used by customers of businesses, residents, employees and others Downtown RPP District Boundaries California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes the establishment, by city council action, of permit parking programs in residential neighborhoods for residents and other categories of parkers. It delegates the authority to local authorities to, “. . . designate streets upon which preferential parking privileges are given to residents and merchants adjacent to the streets for their use and the use of their guests, under which the residents and merchants may be issued a City of Palo Alto Page 11 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 permit or permits that exempt them from the parking prohibition or restriction.” The City of Palo Alto adopted Ordinance Number 5294, adding Chapter 10.50 to Title 10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). This Chapter establishes a City-wide procedure for RPP districts. In PAMC Section 10.50.020(g), an RPP district is defined as a geographical area in which the City Council has established a preferential parking permit system pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 22507. On June 25, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution number 9782 that restated the provisions of the Downtown RPP District Program. Section 3 of the resolution describes the Downtown RPP Program Area to be the streets in an exhibit. That exhibit is replicated and shown in Appendix C. The map, however, does not include the Downtown commercial area in the RPP District. This is obviously counter to the intent of the City Council and could be remediated by amending the exhibit to include the commercial area inside the boundaries of the RPP District. RPP District Parking Availability Standard Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.50.010 states that, “Residential preferential parking districts should be designed to accommodate non-residential parking when this can be done while meeting the parking availability standards determined by the City to be appropriate for the district in question.” For two of the RPP districts, a parking availability standard is unnecessary. In the College Terrace RPP District, the Program effectively curtails long-term employee parking during weekdays. In the Crescent Park RPP District, the Program effectively curtails overnight parking by non- residents. For the remaining RPP districts, the development of a standard is needed. Parking occupancy data by zone in the Evergreen Park-Mayfield and Downtown RPP Districts is shown in the following chart. The parkers include short-term parkers and parkers with resident or employee permits. The one-day snapshot was taken during the peak parking period. The data shows that for the zones in the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP District, between 33% to 81% of on- street parking spaces are available during the weekday peak parking period; and in the Downtown RPP District, between 39% and 79% of the spaces are available during the peak parking period. This type of usage, combined with the perception of residents, could lead to a consensus-based parking availability standard. A companion issue to be addressed is the size of the area to be measured, such as a district, a zone, or a block. City of Palo Alto Page 12 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 PARKING OCCUPANCY AND AVAILABILITY Area Zones Available Occupied % Occupied % Available Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Employee Zones A 112 73 65% 35% B 228 75 33% 67% C 208 40 19% 81% D 176 95 54% 46% E 145 96 66% 33% F 81 32 40% 60% G NA NA NA NA Downtown RPP Employee Zones 1 352 213 61% 39% 2 374 147 39% 61% 3 566 146 26% 74% 4 685 272 40% 60% 5 636 355 56% 44% 6 337 192 57% 43% 7 347 172 50% 50% 8 1102 373 34% 66% 9 790 168 21% 79% 10 1554 385 25% 75% Reducing Number of RPP Employee Permits To achieve the parking availability standards, the number of employee parking permits may need to be reduced. Three approaches are identified. One is based upon the creation of new reserved spaces in the garages and lots (Quid Pro Quo). The second is based on the prior year’s usage of employee permits (Use It or Lose it). The last is to simply reduce the number of permits (Just Do It). A description of the approaches follows. Quid Pro Quo For each new space created in the garages and lots, an appropriate number of RPP employee permits would be reduced. The appropriate number should reflect the showrate for long-term parkers. For example, for a showrate of 50%, or the percentage of permittees who park during the peak parking period versus total permits issued, two permits could be reduced for each new parking space provided. New parking spaces include reserved spaces designated in a new garage or lot, and additional spaces made available through the valet program. The “true-up” of new spaces versus available permits could be done annually or bi-annually. Use It or Lose It This approach would formalize the past practice of the City in the Downtown RPP District. The number of available employee permits has been reduced from an initial allotment of 1,500 in 2015 to the allotment of 1,000 in 2018. The number of permits issued by late-2018 was approximately 850 permits. Some residents of the Downtown RPP District have suggested that; (a) the City annually reduce the number of available employee permits, starting from a base of the actual number of the permits issued in 2018; (b) the City Manager would be authorized to issue a maximum of 100 permits above this amount after consultation with stakeholders and approval by City Council; and (c) this process would be done by January of each year so that adjustments are approved by the City Council before permits go on sale for that year. City of Palo Alto Page 13 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 Just Do It Some residents of the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP District have suggested that the City simply reduce the total number of non-residential permits from 290 to 165. It is noted that approximately 250 permits were issued in 2018, and beginning with the construction of the new California Avenue Garage, there will be a temporary displacement of parkers through the fall of 2020. New Developments The parking impacts of new commercial and/or residential developments is outside of the scope of this project. It is noted that new developments, reuse of existing facilities, and intensification of existing uses could create more long-term parkers. Employee Parking in Residential Neighborhoods The City manages the distribution of employee parking in residential districts through the sale of permits by zones. In the Southgate RPP District there are 2 zones, in the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP District there are 7 zones, and in the Downtown RPP District there are 10 zones. The configurations of the zones are shown in Appendices C, D, and E. The duration of employee permits is for six months and these permits are sold on a first-come basis. In some zones, the available long-term permits are sold out within 24 hours after the sale begins. It is not uncommon for employees and/or employers to express concerns when they cannot obtain permits in the zones that they prefer. The following charts show that in the Downtown RPP District, 4 of the 10 zones were entirely or almost sold out in 2018. Out of a total of 1000 permits available, roughly 15% were not used. In the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP District, 4 of the 7 zones were entirely or almost sold out in 2018. Out of a total of 290 permits available, roughly 13% were not used. Based on the showrate experienced in the City’s garages and lots, the number of employees parking in the residential area during the peak parking period is estimated to be one-half of the number of permits issued. DOWNTOWN RPP DISTRICT Zone Employee Decals Sold Employer Hang- Tags Sold Total Permits Sold Total Permit Inventory Permits Available 1 46 22 68 69 1 2 71 37 108 111 3 3 57 69 126 208 82 4 64 52 116 176 60 5 98 49 147 162 15 6 59 33 92 92 0 7 73 41 114 125 11 8 38 19 57 57 0 9 - - - - 0 10 - - - - 0 Total 506 322 828 1000 172 City of Palo Alto Page 14 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 EVERGREEN PARK-MAYFIELD RPP DISTRICT Zone Employee Decals Sold Employer Hang- Tags Sold Total Permits Sold Total Permit Inventory Permits Available A 8 6 14 20 6 B 25 30 55 55 0 C 10 16 26 30 4 D 7 13 20 20 0 E 28 50 78 80 2 F 2 18 20 45 25 G 13 26 39 40 1 Total 93 159 252 290 38 Employee Parking in City Garages and Lots An employee may purchase a parking permit that exempts him/her from the parking time limits in the City’s garages and lots. In theory, the permits are available throughout the year. In fact, the permits in many facilities are sold out before the end of the year. Applicants have the option of being placed on a wait list. The permits are available in increments of 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. In the California Avenue area there is a total of 879 parking spaces in the City’s garages and lots. None of the spaces are reserved. In 2018, 100% of the 980 permits available for employee parking (exempts permittee from parking time limits) were issued. Based on a showrate of 50%, about 540 employees were parked during the peak parking period, leaving 340 spaces for the public. In the Downtown area there is a total of 3,092 parking spaces in the City’s garages and lots. Approximately 1,700 of those spaces are designated as “reserved” and accommodate both employee permit parking and some of the daily permit parkers. Based on a showrate of 50%, the number of available employee permits is set at 3,250. The average number of active permits issued in 2018 was approximately 3,050. Approximately 200 permits were therefore available. Interestingly there is also a wait list to purchase permits at selected facilities, which probably reflects the employees’ preferences in facility parking. It is projected that 225 additional spaces may materialize through the City’s expanded Valet Parking Program, recently reapproved by the City Council. Assuming a showrate of 50%, hundreds of additional employees could park in the existing off-street parking facilities. RPP Employee Parking Permits Employees who work within an RPP district have the option of purchasing an employee parking permit for that district. The cost of an employee RPP permit is the same as permit parking in a garage or lot. There are, however, subtle differences between an employee on-street permit and a permit in an off-street facility, such as the garage/lot permit is available in increments of 3 months, 6 months, or 12 months versus 6 months for the RPP permit. The garage/lot permit is valid for a specified period from the time of purchase; the RPP permit is valid up to 6 months, with a specific end date that coincides with the twice a year sale cycle, regardless of when the City of Palo Alto Page 15 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 permit is purchased. There is a wait list for off-street parking facilities that secures a “place in line.” For RPP zones that reach the employee permit limits, there is no wait list. An employer can purchase a daily parking permit hangtag for employees or visitors that are one- day scratch-off permits. Contractors performing work in an RPP district may purchase one-week or one-month permits. The permit costs and related information for garage/lot spaces and RPP employee permits are shown in the below chart. A glaring difference is the cost of permits between districts. For example, the cost of a 6-month employee permit is $74.50 in the Southgate District; $187.50 in the Evergreen Park-Mayfield District; and $375.00 in the Downtown District. It is noted that the Southgate District fee will be increased to $187.50 when the District is approved as a permanent District. EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMITS: RPP AND GARAGE/LOTS Area Employee Renewal Sale Employer Southgate Southgate RPP $74.50 regular 6 Months April & October $25/Day 4 Permits/Month Evergreen Park-Mayfield Evergreen RPP $187.50 regular 6 Months March & Sept. $25/Day 4 Permits/Month City Garages & Lots $187.50 regular 6 months NA $25/Day Downtown Downtown RPP $375 regular 6 Months March & Sept $25/Day 4 Permits/Month Color Zone – Garages & Lots $375 6 months NA $25/Day Some community members have proposed that the cost of an employee RPP permit be increased to twice the amount of a permit parking space in a City garage. The objective is to discourage employees from parking on residential streets and to encourage them instead to park in garages and lots. The actual disposition of employees and the impact on employers is unknown. The proposers felt that low-income permits should be raised, but at a more moderate increase. RPP Reduced Price (Low-Income) Employee Permits Recognizing the economic constraints of low wage earners, the City reduced the cost of parking permits in the RPP zones for qualified individuals. An individual qualifies as low-income if total annual income is equal to or less than $50,000, or if he/she earns a pre-tax hourly wage equal to or less than double the greater of the City or State minimum wage. An applicant must provide proof of income. There is no cap on the number of low-income permits that are issued. There is a one-week advance sale of low-income permits before regular permits go on sale. There is no guarantee that an applicant will obtain a permit to park in his/her preferred RPP zone. But, as shown earlier in this report, parking spaces are available in the majority of the zones in the Downtown RPP District and in the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP District. In 2018, approximately 40% of the 850 employee permits issued in the Downtown RPP District were to low-income employees. City of Palo Alto Page 16 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 An employer suggested that existing low-income employee permit holders be given a grace period in which to renew that permit before it is sold to someone else, and in effect give low- income employees a preference over other employees. It was also suggested that the City better communicate the details and schedule of the RPP Program to its users. Currently, two weeks before the sale of permits begins, notifications are sent to all active accounts, details are posted on the City’s parking website, and postcard memos are mailed to all residents and employers within the RPP districts. The cost of a low-income employee permit is very low. The cost for a 6-month permit is $50, or less than $2 per week. This fee does nothing to promote other modes of travel, like transit or bicycling. Doubling the annual price of a permit, but reducing the duration of an individual permit, would have multiple benefits. Employees could be enticed to seek an alternate method of travel that eliminates the need for parking. Some employees whose work tenure is shorter than 6 months would also realize a savings. Neighborhood- Serving Businesses Some residents in the Downtown and Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Districts suggested that businesses that are primarily focused on serving residents be given a preference in the allocation of employer/employee parking permits. The so-called “neighborhood serving businesses” may include medical, dental, and senior care facilities. At the opposite end of the spectrum are businesses that require a regional customer base, like a major department store. The concept may have merit, but its execution would be very difficult and would need legal review. The City is in the process of evaluating this proposal. Blocked from Parking in a Garage The employees of businesses located outside of the California Avenue Business District and the Downtown Business District were denied parking permit spaces in the garages. The issue is whether a property that did not contribute to the construction of a garage should be able to secure a reserved parking space in the garage. The businesses are not seeking special treatment in obtaining the permit, price, or terms. The City is in the process of evaluating this situation. One business reported that some of its employees obtained RPP employee permits and are parking in the residential neighborhood because they were denied access to the garage. No Need to Park – Transportation Demand Management Reducing the number of trips by automobiles, and especially single-occupant vehicles, has a direct impact on the demand for parking. Over the past two fiscal years the City allocated $960,000 from the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund (aka Downtown Parking Fund) to the Transportation Management Association for travel demand management (TDM) activities. The objective of TDM is to decrease single occupant automobile trips by increasing the use of other modes of travel. From a parking perspective, a successful TDM program should decrease the demand for parking. The effectiveness of TDM activities could be determined with an appropriate set of outcome-based performance metrics, such as increases in transit usage, City of Palo Alto Page 17 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 bicycling, pedestrian traffic, and carpooling. The City’s shuttle system is a part of the transit system. In addition, shared rides through services such as Uber and Lyft occur in the commercial areas of Palo Alto and could potentially reduce the demand for parking. An evaluation of the existing and potential effects of shared rides in the Downtown and the California commercial areas is not available. Short-Term Parking Puzzle Most of the RPP districts accommodate short-term parkers through on-street parking time limits. In addition, short-term parking is provided in the City’s garages and lots, also through parking time limits. During the peak parking periods, the Downtown garages and lots are heavily utilized, with occupancy rates between 79% and 100%. The on-street spaces within the Downtown commercial area are heavily utilized too, with occupancy rates between 74% and 94%. All short- term parking is free. The following chart provides more information about the short-term parking regulations by RPP districts, areas, and zones. SHORT-TERM PARKING INFORMATION RPP District Area Number of Zones Parking Regulation Duration Resident Exemptions Employee Exemptions Crescent Park Crescent Park NA No Parking 7 Days 2-5a Yes No College Terrace College Terrace NA 2-hour time limit M-F 8-5p Yes No Southgate Southgate 2 zones 2-hour time limit M-F 8-5p Yes Yes Evergreen Park-Mayfield EPM Residential 7 zones 2-hour time limit M-F 8-6p Yes Yes EPM Commercial 1 zone 2-hour time limit M-F 8-6p No No Parking lots 2-hour time limit M-F 8-5p No Yes Parking garages 3-hour time limit M-F 8-5p No Yes Downtown Downtown Residential 10 zones 2-hour time limit M-F 8-6p Yes Yes Downtown Commercial 4 on-street color zones 2-hour time limit M-F 8-5p No No 4 parking lot color zones 2-hour time limit M-F 8-5p No Yes 4 parking garage color zones 3-hour time limit M-F 8-5p No Yes SOFA on-street zone 2-hour time limit M-F 8-5p No No A parker may attempt to circumvent a parking time limit by moving his or her vehicle to a nearby vacant space several times a day. The City has attempted to counter this move by adding that a motorist is prohibited from reparking within the same zone for the remainder of the day during the duration of the time limit (e.g. between 8 am and 5 pm). There are, however, a total of 24 zones within the Downtown, Evergreen Park-Mayfield and Southgate Residential Permit Parking Districts. The boundaries of the zones are not intuitive and are attempted to be conveyed to the parker through signage. City of Palo Alto Page 18 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 The City has attempted to remove ambiguity for the short-term parker and the abuser of the regulations though signage as shown in the photo. The explanation of the sign can be found on the City’s website. You park in a 2-hour space on the street in the Lime Zone at noon. (You may repark within the Lime Zone only during your initial two hours should you need to.) However, if you leave before the 2 hours are up, you cannot repark later that same day. Your car must leave the Lime Zone by 2 p.m. You may park in any other Color Zone except the Lime Zone, which you are now leaving. The above explanation is not clear or concise. An alternative is to state the regulation as, “No same day reparking.” Daily parking permits are available in the garages and lots for individuals who plan on parking longer than the time limits. Some businesses provide these permits to their visitors. However, for those who attempt to obtain a permit for themselves, the effort can be challenging. There is a shortage of signs to explain the system, the available signage is confusing, and the locations where a user can purchase a permit are not convenient. Moreover, the cost of a permit is $25. Anecdotally, an applicant for a job with the City of Palo Alto needed to stay four hours to complete a set of tests, one hour beyond the 3-hour free period. He found it absurd to have to pay $25 for parking one hour and indicated he was instead going to pass on the job. On the other hand, there are visitors who need to park several days in a row. These individuals are required to purchase a daily permit on each of the days that they park. There is an option to allow the purchase of several daily permits, but it is not activated. Improving User Interface The existing system of issuing RPP permits has evolved as the RPP Program has expanded. In response to the complaints of permittees, adjustments have been made within the limitations of the existing operating system. City staff have been diligently working on a contract to develop, implement, support and maintain a new comprehensive parking permit and citation management system. This contract will be considered by the City Council in FY 2018-19. Prospective and current permittees will be able to access the system through an on-line portal at their convenience. An updated parking website will replace the existing collection of websites. The new system will also provide the data for enhanced user security, complete and immediate information for the City, and the capture of information for auditing and reporting purposes. As the system comes on-line, its effectiveness should be measured so the concerns of permittees are quickly identified, and appropriate adjustments are made. The performance measures should include timeliness, cost, and customer satisfaction. Integrity of RPP Program A resident suggested that the eligibility of employees who obtain regular and low-income employee parking permits be audited. While no evidence of misuse was provided, there is the potential that permits are not being used for their intended purpose. Misuse, if it is occurring, City of Palo Alto Page 19 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 would have a negative impact on all the users of the RPP system who are adhering to the rules. An audit would be beneficial and should cover all permittees, including employees, employers and residents. Inconsistences Between Districts The sale of residential parking permits is done annually. Residents have the discretion to obtain annual permits up to a specified maximum. In some districts, residents can acquire transferrable permits to be used for guests and visitors, such as a nanny, baby-sitter, caregiver, household employee, or other regular visitor to the property. Daily permits are available and are valid for a single day to be used for events or gatherings at a household. The details in the application of the above provisions differ between districts. The differences give the impression that City residents do not receive equitable treatment. For example, the number of resident permits available per household varies from two in Crescent Park, to three in Southgate, and to four each in Evergreen Park-Mayfield and Downtown. In the College Terrace District, one permit is available for each vehicle owned. The cost of each permit is the same at $50, but in three of the five districts, the first permit is free. The cost of single day permits is the same, at $5 each, but the number of available permits ranges from 50 per year to 20 per quarter (maximum of 80 per year). These differences are shown in the following chart. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL PROVISIONS BETWEEN RPP DISTRICTS RPP District Resident Additional Daily Crescent Park RPP $50 /household-2 max NA $5/Day College Terrace RPP $50/vehicle $50/renter-2 max $5/20/quarter Southgate RPP $0 - $50/household-3 max $50/household-2 max $5/50/year Evergreen RPP $0-$50/household-4 max $50/household-2 max $5/50/year Downtown RPP $0-$50/vehicle-4 max $50/household -2 max $5/50/year The annual renewal date for 80% of the households in the RPP districts is in the month of March. The renewal dates for the other districts occur during the fall months, as shown in the chart below. When the new permit management system is installed, the renewal schedule should be evaluated to determine the best balance between convenience to the permittee and efficiency for the City. RENEWAL DATES FOR RPP DISTRICTS Renewal RPP District Number of Households % of Households March Downtown 6,222 80% Evergreen Park August College Terrace 676 9% September Crescent Park 616 8% October Southgate 220 3% 7,734 100% Creating New RPP Districts The designation of an RPP District is based upon the following criteria: a) That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents; City of Palo Alto Page 20 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 b) That the interference by the non-resident vehicle occurs at regular and frequent intervals, either daily or weekly; c) That the non-resident vehicles parked in the proposed district create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life; and d) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical. An evaluation is performed pursuant to the above criteria that includes an assessment conducted by the City. Parking occupancy studies are performed at various hours of the day and days of the week to determine percentages of occupancy by block face. In addition, the experiences and perspective of residents are considered such as: • Nature of the overflow parking problem, including the location and frequency; • Cause(s) of the overflow; • Boundaries of an RPP district; and • Neighborhood support. If it is determined that accommodations will be provided for employees who park within the residential neighborhood, the boundaries of the RPP district need to be designed to include the applicable businesses. Other items that need to be determined are the number of employee permits to be made available, if low-income permits will be provided, and the number and configuration of zones within the RPP district to ensure employees do not bunch up on the streets closest to businesses. The creation of a new RPP district can be initiated by direction of the City Council or by a petition from the affected neighborhood. Neighborhood requests are considered once a year and prioritized by the Planning and Transportation Commission. City staff will work with residents to determine if the City’s criteria are satisfied and to develop the details of the RPP district. The City may conduct a survey of households within an RPP district to ascertain the support for the RPP program. The recommended threshold of support is 70% of the returned surveys. The elements of a proposed district are memorialized in the City Council’s adoption of a resolution. The creation of a new district normally includes a trial period used to gather information to determine if the new district achieves its intended purpose and to address unintended consequences. Since the establishment of the above process, the City has engaged in three new RPP districts including Downtown, Evergreen Park-Mayfield, and Southgate. In 2019, there were three requests to form new RPP districts. The requests are moving through the RPP Program process. Under ideal conditions, the establishment of a new RPP district takes about one year from the beginning of the process with affected residents to the approval of a permanent district. City staff estimate that the resources required to process a new RPP district is a minimum of .15 full- time equivalent position and could be more than twice that amount of staff resources if the project becomes controversial. An alternative to the use of City staff is to contract for this City of Palo Alto Page 21 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 service. This is problematic due to a consultant’s limited institutional knowledge and the fact that City staff are still required to manage the contract. The demand for parking services is much greater than the Office of Transportation’s ability to meet those expectations. The processing of new requests for RPP districts is one of many work activities in a queue. It is expected that the City Council will consider this situation as part of its deliberation of the FY 2019-20 Budget. Annexing to Existing RPP Districts The residents of any block may petition the City Administration for annexation into a contiguous RPP District. If the petition meets the provisions in the RPP Ordinance and the RPP Administrative Guidelines, a resolution annexing that block to the RPP District shall be prepared by the City Attorney and submitted to the City Council, together with staff’s recommendation on the proposed annexation. The City Council may approve, deny, or modify the annexation. Some residents of the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP have requested that the District annex an area on the west side of El Camino between Stanford Avenue and Park Blvd to add 30-40 more spaces that could be used for employee permit parking. This request would need to follow the provisions established in the Administrative Guidelines as shown in Appendix G. Included in the provisions is the requirement that the City conduct parking occupancy surveys to ensure that a parking problem exists, that unintended consequences are understood and addressed, and that the affected property owners are involved. Modifications to Existing RPP Districts Modifications to a district are to be expected. An example is the recent request received by the City from representatives of the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP District regarding the negative impacts of parking associated with games and other major events at Stanford University. The request is to extend and enforce the parking time limits to include days when there are games and major events at Stanford University. A precedent is the regulation that exists in the Southgate RPP District. The request would be studied to ensure that a parking problem exists, that unintended consequences are understood and addressed, and that the affected property owners are involved. Another example is a staff-initiated request regarding the utilization of on-street parking spaces in the Downtown RPP District during the late afternoon just prior to the end of the parking-time limits. It appears that employees without RPP permits begin parking in these spaces, knowing they will not be cited before the expiration of the parking time limit at 6:00 pm. To ensure priority parking for customers, it is proposed that the duration of the parking time limits be extended. This situation would be studied to determine the severity of the problem, that unintended consequences are understood and addressed, and that the affected property owners are involved. City of Palo Alto Page 22 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 Enforcement of RPP Regulations The responsibility for the enforcement of parking regulations is split between the Office of Transportation and the Police Department. Parking regulations in the residential neighborhood portion of the Downtown, Evergreen Park-Mayfield, and Southgate RPP Districts is the responsibility of the Office of Transportation. The delivery of services is done through a contractor. The Police Department provides parking enforcement services outside of the RPP residential neighborhoods through non-sworn personnel. In addition, all aspects of parking enforcement in the College Terrace and Crescent Park RPP Districts are the responsibility of the Police Department. The collective efforts of the two groups are critical to the effectiveness of the RPP districts. The split in service responsibilities, however, creates some inefficiencies that should be reviewed to determine if a better model exists. Downtown Parking Plan The 2017 Downtown Parking Management Study recommended a set of actions that collectively would result in the best use of the available parking spaces in the commercial area. A direct benefit of the recommendations would be the creation of more spaces for employee parking, and the indirect benefit would be less spillover parking in the residential neighborhood. The recommendations covered paid parking, parking permits at off-street facilities, parking guidance and wayfinding, enforcement technology, and others. In April 2017, the City Council received the results of the Study. Council directed staff to conduct public outreach and work with the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Finance Committee to refine the recommendations and return with phasing, finance, and implementation plans for the Council’s consideration; and directed staff to coordinate paid parking in the Downtown with the RPP Program, garage permit pricing, and lot permit pricing. In October 2017, the Planning and Transportation Commission received public testimony on the Downtown Parking Management Study. Following considerable deliberation, the Commission unanimously voted to reject the recommendations of the study, and decided that the Commission instead would work interactively with local retailers, retail employees and staff to develop an alternative. It was the intent of the City staff to bring this matter back to the City Council, but it did not occur due to the departure of key transportation staff and the demands of other City priorities. Interim Action Plan Before the Chief Transportation Official left the City, he created an Interim Action Plan consistent with the October 2017 direction of the City Council to coordinate paid parking in the Downtown with the RPP Program and garage and lot permit pricing. The achievement of the plan has been hindered by staff turnover and vacancies. Beginning in 2018, the City has augmented the resources in the Office of Transportation with the temporary assignment of staff in the City Manager’s Office and limited contractor support. On a temporary basis, other staff in the Office of Transportation have also provided support. The cumulative efforts resulted in the progress as shown below: City of Palo Alto Page 23 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 FY 2018-19 • Parking wayfinding – Started but suspended; expect to restart in FY 2019-20; • Parking expanded valet (ambassador) program – Contract approved in April 2019; • Comprehensive permit and citation system – Prepared performance specifications, evaluated proposals, and recommended vendor. Expect to present the award of contract in FY 2018-19; • Automated parking guidance system – Defer to FY 2019-20; and • Parking operational study – Expect to present award of contract in FY 2018-19. FY 2019-2020 • Low-income garage and lot permits; • License plate recognition and enforcement and virtual permitting; and • New Downtown garage – Project on hold pending further direction from Council. FY 2021-2022 • Transition to on-street paid parking; • Garage and lot security cameras; and • California Avenue Parking Study. Paid Parking As described earlier in this report, the City Council directed staff to coordinate paid parking in the Downtown with the RPP Program, garage permit pricing, and lot permit pricing. Pursuant to that direction, a parking operation study was included in the above Interim Action Plan. The study will provide the information and specific steps needed to move the City forward from a program built around a rigid system of pre-paid permits to a program built around the dynamic monitoring of usage and the application of pricing. It would also provide a roadmap to build community support for the new program. Some of the topics in this study include the following tasks: • Ongoing education and outreach plan to continually solicit stakeholder feedback and ensure that the community is adequately informed; • Infrastructure and technology plan including equipment, estimated costs (including installation and ongoing costs), and proposed installation locations; • Financial modeling workbook with recommended rate structure(s) for a short-, mid-, and long-term implementation schedule; • Parking enforcement staffing, beats/routes, policies, and technologies; • Maintenance, collections, and adjudication requirements; • Adjustments to the Parking Districts; and City of Palo Alto Page 24 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 • Revenue management plan. Sustainability The delivery of RPP services is a City-wide effort. The Administrative Services Department issues parking permits and collects parking citation revenues. The City Clerk’s Office coordinates adjudication. The Police Department shares with the Office of Transportation the enforcement of parking regulations. The Public Works Department maintains the RPP signage. At the center of these services is the Office of Transportation. It is responsible for the coordination of all activities, the evaluation and follow-up to concerns about the existing program, expansion in districts, the fabrication and installation of new signage, and enhancements in the delivery of parking services through multiple contracts. There is one full-time position in the Office of Transportation dedicated to services that include the RPP Program and City-wide on-street and off-street parking facilities. The amount and complexity of the RPP Program alone is more than one person can effectively manage. This workload is compounded by the need to invest in initiatives that increase the availability and use of parking spaces in the commercial areas. While these initiatives will be developed by contractors, the contracts must still be managed by City staff. As mentioned earlier in this report, other City staff and consultant support have been temporarily assigned to augment the existing staff resources. This is an ad hoc arrangement and not a viable alternative for the long-term sustainability of parking services. The workload and challenging environment contributed to the departure of City staff. If not addressed, this situation may continue to impact the stability of the City’s workforce. To meet the existing demands for services and to move the programmed and planned initiatives forward, a Parking Manager position is needed in the Office of Transportation. The position would be funded through the appropriate parking funds. Funding The FY 2019 adopted budget for the Residential Preferential Parking Permit Fund shows a deficit of approximately $710,000. The actual deficit could be higher due to a drop-off in the collection of parking citation fines. Preliminary estimates for FY 2020 indicate that the deficit will increase unless modifications are made. The shortfall in revenues in the RPP Program are made up by the General Fund. A major revenue source for the RPP Permit Fund is the sale of on-street resident and employee parking permits. The annual fee for residential permits ranges from $0 to $50. The annualized fee for employee permits ranges from $149 to $750, and a discounted fee of $50 to $100 for qualified low-income employees. The relatively low cost of permits is consistent with the City’s policy that the cost of the RPP Program should be shared by the City, the affected residents and the other users of the Program. From an expenditure side, the cost to operate, manage, and maintain the Palo Alto Residential Preferential Permit Parking Program is high, and reflects the complexity of the existing system. City of Palo Alto Page 25 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 The FY 2018-19 budget shows expenditures of $1.8 million for a program that affects approximately 7,700 residential households and more than 1,300 employees. Community Engagement The creation of the Palo Alto RPP Program and the establishment of the RPP districts involved the engagement of the affected residents and other impacted parties. In 2014, a stakeholder group was convened to provide its input on the RPP Program. Over a period of nine months, City staff met with the stakeholder group to develop the structure for the Program. The incorporation of the different perspectives of many individuals resulted in a relatively complex system, not duplicated anywhere else. Representatives of the RPP districts and the businesses affected by the RPP Program have expressed an interest in participating in the evaluation of changes in the current parking system. If a workgroup were established, it would provide the community an opportunity to again work in concert with City staff. The goal would be the development of recommendations by consensus. To balance efficiency with inclusiveness, the size of the group should not exceed 12 individuals, and should include diverse perspectives. The following list is provided for illustration: • City staff; • Residents representing RPP neighborhoods; and • Representatives of employers/employees. Another approach is to refer the nine recommendations in this report to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). Through the public hearing process, the Commission would solicit the input of the community, and then after deliberation would provide its recommendations to the City Council. Based on the recommendations of the last parking item referred to the PTC by the City Council, the Downtown Parking Management Study, the City Council should ensure that the parameters of the referral are very clear. City of Palo Alto Page 26 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 V. RECOMMENDATIONS The City’s policy to accommodate non-residential parking in Residential Preferential Parking districts has resulted in a relatively complex parking management system. While many users have become accustomed to the system, it is challenging to navigate for a new resident, employer, employee or a visitor to Palo Alto. For residents who still find their street occupied by parked vehicles, the system seems ineffective. For employees unable to obtain permits, the system seems flawed. For visitors who are not familiar with the City’s zones, the system is perplexing. And for the staff responsible for the administration of parking services, the workload of the RPP Program is, at times, overwhelming. The following recommendations are intended to assist the City in addressing the above shortcomings. The recommendations are arranged in three categories to suggest the next steps to move the recommendations forward. City Council – Action by City Council 1. Improve Parking Permit Management System – A contract should be approved to develop, implement, support and maintain a new comprehensive parking permit and citation management system. This contract is expected to be presented to the City Council in FY 2018-19. 2. Conduct Downtown Parking Operational Study – A contract (amendment) should be approved that provides the information and specific steps to move the City forward from a parking program built around a rigid system of pre-paid permits to a program built around the dynamic monitoring of usage and the application of pricing. It would also provide a roadmap to build community support for this effort. This contract is expected to be presented to the City Council in FY 2018-19. 3. Engage the Community in Modifications to the Residential Preferential Permit Parking Program – The engagement of the community in making modifications to the Program is imperative, and could occur through the Planning and Transportation Commission or, as the City did five years ago, through a working group. To be effective, the City Council should be clear on the effort’s purpose, scope of work, parameters, and schedule. There are nine recommendations in this report identified to be referred to the Commission/Group. If a working group is selected, the membership should not exceed 12 individuals. 4. Increase Staff Resources – The City should add a Parking Manager to the Office of Transportation to meet the existing workload and to manage the improvements needed to move parking services forward. This proposal is expected to be presented to the City Council as part of the Recommended Operating Budget for FY 2019-20. 5. Amend the National Citizen Survey – To measure the long-term effectiveness of the RPP Program, consider adding a question to the annual National Citizen Survey (Palo Alto Community Survey Supplement) to obtain the opinion of the City’s households (28% of all households) about the Residential Preferential Permit Parking Program. City of Palo Alto Page 27 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 City Manager – Action by City Manager and Return to City Council as Needed 6. Update Codes and Guidelines – The following regulations should be updated to reflect the changes in staff authority and responsibility with the establishment of the Office of Transportation (a) Chapter 10.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and (b) the Residential Preferential Permit Parking Administrative Guidelines 7. Clarify the Downtown Residential Preferential Permit Parking District Boundary – Remove the ambiguity in the resolution that adopted the boundary of the Downtown Residential Preferential Permit Parking District that does not appear to include the Downtown commercial area. 8. Communicate Availability of Employee Parking Spaces – The availability of employee parking permits in underutilized RPP program zones should be communicated to employees who have been denied spaces in their preferred zone. 9. Communicate Available Downtown Reserve Parking Spaces – The availability of reserve spaces in Downtown garages and lots should be communicated to employees who have been denied spaces in their preferred garage or lot. 10. Improve Parking Website – The City of Palo Alto parking website should be updated to ensure it is complete, user-friendly and intuitive. 11. Evaluate “Neighborhood Serving Businesses” – Giving “neighborhood serving businesses” a preference in obtaining employee parking permits should be reviewed by the City Administration to determine its policy, administrative, and the legal implications. 12. Examine Purchase of Reserved Parking Spaces by Businesses Located Outside of a Business District – The City Administration should determine the ability of employees of a business located outside of a business district that helped to fund a garage, to purchase reserve parking spaces in that garage. 13. Measure the Performance of Transportation Demand Management Initiatives – The efforts of the Transportation Management Association and the City’s Shuttle Service should ultimately result in a reduction in the number of employees and business patrons who would otherwise need parking spaces. Outcome-based performance measures should be designed and utilized to determine the effectiveness of these efforts and to guide the direction of these services. 14. Evaluate Impact of Shared Rides – Evaluate the existing and potential use of services like Uber and Lyft to reduce the demand for parking as well as the impact on traffic. 15. Determine Best Reparking Regulation – Re-evaluate the value of trying to explain to motorists the meaning of the term “Initial” as it relates to the reparking of a vehicle, versus the confusion created by the attempt, and consider alternatives, such as “No same day reparking.” City of Palo Alto Page 28 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 16. Improve Process to Purchase Daily Permits – In the near-term, until a paid hourly system is implemented, the purchase of daily permits should be improved in terms of communications with the public, access to pay-on-foot, and multi-day permits. 17. Consider Paid Hourly Parking – A plan should be developed to initiate a paid parking program in the City’s garages and lots. A paid parking program could retain the initial three hours of parking in garages to be free and set a reasonable fee above that time, versus the current jump to $25 after 3 hours. This recommendation could be incorporated with recommendation #2, above. 18. Change Payment Schedule for Reserved Parking in Garages and Lots - The 3, 6, and 12-month pay in advance permit system should be replaced with a monthly payment system that would be more amendable to the parker, and eliminate the accounting associated with the reimbursement of early termination. 19. Institute a Performance Driven System – A performance metric should be established that measures the user’s perception of the quality of services, in order to identify areas where corrective actions are needed, and which is used to take appropriate actions. 20. Maintain Integrity of Program – The City should routinely check the qualifications of permittees and the uses of permits. 21. Process Applications for New Residential Permit Parking Districts – Processing the proposals by the Old Palo Alto Neighborhood and the Green Acre Neighborhood should move forward pursuant to the schedule identified in Chapter 10.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, subject to the availability of adequate resources. 22. Treat Requests for Annexations Like Other Requests for Service – The request to annex an area on the west side of El Camino between Stanford Avenue and Park Boulevard into the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP District should follow the provisions in the RPP Ordinance and the RPP Administrative Guidelines and should be placed into the backlog of work to be performed by parking services. 23. Minor Modifications to a Residential Permit Parking District – Because all changes in an RPP district may have unintended consequences and therefore warrant an appropriate level of evaluation, requests for modifications to an RPP district should be placed into the backlog of work to be performed by parking services. Two examples of this type of request include extending the days that parking time limits apply in the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP District to include those days games and other major events are held at Stanford University; and extending the duration of the parking time limits in the Downtown RPP zones near the commercial areas to curtail non-permitted employee parking. 24. Evaluate Consolidation of Parking Compliance Functions – The consolidation of the parking compliance functions in the Police Department and the Office of Transportation should be evaluated. City of Palo Alto Page 29 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 25. Review Parking Citation Fees – The fee schedule for parking infractions should be reviewed on a regular basis as part of the Master Fee schedule. 26. Review the Level of Funding Subsidy of the Residential Permit Parking Program – A review of the expenditures and revenues for the Residential Permit Parking Fund should be performed to ensure the level of support from the General Fund is appropriate. Community Engagement – Obtain Community Input and Return to City Council with Recommendations 27. Establish “Parking Availability Standards” – Parking availability standards should be established for the Downtown, Evergreen Park-Mayfield, and Southgate Residential Permit Parking Districts considering the residents’ perceptions of the impact of parking availability on their quality of life. Changes in the number of employee permits and boundaries of existing RPP districts should be deferred until parking availability standards are approved by the City Council. 28. Establish Approach to Reduce Employee Parking Permits –Develop a “quid-pro-quo” approach to reduce RPP employee permits where the addition of “employee spaces” in garages and lots triggers the reduction of RPP employee parking permits. 29. Provide Automatic Renewal for Employee Parking Permits – To avoid the mad dash to obtain a permit at the twice-a-year sale event the City should consider providing for the automatic renewal of employee parking permits and the ability of applicants to be on a wait list. 30. Change Payment Schedule for Employee Parking Permits – The six-month pay in advance permit system should be replaced with a monthly payment system that would be more amendable to the parker and provide greater equity for employees whose duration of employment is less than six months. 31. Increase Cost of Employee Parking Permits – Consideration should be given to increase the cost of an RPP employee parking permit so that it is greater than the cost of a reserved space in a garage or lot, in order to incentivize parkers to choose off-street parking over on-street parking. 32. Standardize Cost of Employee Parking Permits – The cost of employee parking permits between the RPP districts should be the same, unless there are extenuating circumstances. The cost of a six-month employee parking permit is $74.50 in the Southgate District; $187.50 in the Evergreen Park-Mayfield District; and $375.00 in the Downtown District. 33. Change Payment Schedule and Increase Cost of Reduced-Price Parking Permits – The reduced-price parking permit is designed to support low-income employees (e.g. $50,000 or less annual income). When a monthly payment system is available, the cost of the permit should be at least $15.00 per month, which is less than $1 per day for a full-time employee. This amount is less than an outlay of $50 for the current six-month permit, and for some employees may be preferable. City of Palo Alto Page 30 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 34. Remove Inconsistences Between Districts - Inconsistencies between Residential Preferential Permit Parking districts should be eliminated, unless there are extenuating circumstances. The inconsistences include but are not necessarily limited to, the number of resident permits, the cost of resident permits, and the number of single-day permits. 35. Review Renewal Dates – The renewal dates for residential and employee permits should be reviewed to determine the most efficient schedule for the City to administer that is still convenient for users. City of Palo Alto Page 31 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 VI. APPENDICES A. College Terrace RPP District Map B. Crescent Park RPP District Map C. Downtown RPP District Map D. Evergreen Park – Mayfield/California RPP District Map E. Southgate RPP District Map F. Chapter 10.50 PAMC Residential Preferential Permit Parking Districts G. Residential Permit Parking Administrative Guidelines City of Palo Alto Page 32 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 APPENDIX A COLLEGE TERRACE RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT APPENDIX A COLLEGE TERRACE RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT City of Palo Alto Page 33 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 APPENDIX B CRESCENT PARK RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT City of Palo Alto Page 34 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 APPENDIX C DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT City of Palo Alto Page 35 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 APPENDIX D EVERGREEN PARK – MAYFIELD RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT G 2 -H R C o m m e r c i al A r e a FEDCB A COLLEGE AVENUE YALE STREET CAMBRIDGE AVENUE CALIFORNIA AVENUE WILLIAMS STREET CALIFORNIA AVENUE GRANT AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL SHERMAN AVENUE SHERMAN AVENUE JACARANDA LANE ASH STREET NEW MAYFIELD LANE NEW MAYFIELD LANE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL CALIFORNIA AVENUE CALIFORNIA AVENUE PERAL LANE MIMOSA LANE SEDRO LANE CAMBRIDGE AVENUE COLLEGE AVENUE WELLESLEYSTREET OAD ASH STREET OXFORD AVENUE NFORD AVENUE LESLEYSTREET EL CAMINO REAL STANFORD AVENUE NUE CASTILLEJA AVENUE OBITA AVENUE SEQUOIA AVENUEAVENUE AMINO REAL PARK AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL MINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL ASH STREET LELAND AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD STANFORD AVENUE BIRCH STREET OXFORD AVENUE BIRCH STREET STANFORD AVENUE LOWELL AVENUE ALMA STREET MARIPOSA AVENUE SEQUOIA AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD BIRCH STREET LELAND AVENUE LELAND AVENUE ASH STREET SON STREET TENNYSON AVENUE ALMA STREET BIRCH STREET NEW MAYFIELD LANE CAMBRIDGE AVENUE BIRCH STREET BIRCH STREET COLLEGE AVENUE COLLEGE AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD CALIFORNIA AVENUE ALMA STREET PARK BOULEVARD SHERMAN AVENUE JACARANDA LANE PARK BOULEVARD ALMA STREET PARK BOULEVARD PARK BOULEVARD OXFORD AVENUE EMERSON STREET SEALE AVENUE EMERSON STREET RINCONADA AVENUE ALMA STREET RI EMERSON STREET SAN SANTA RITA AVENUE ALMA STREET HIGH STREET HIGH STREET EMERSON STREET COLORADO AVENUE COLORADO AVENUE EMERSON STREET HIGH STREET ALMA STREET ALMA STREET OREGO N EX PRES SWA Y OREGON AVENUE WASHI EMERSON STREET WASHINGTON AVENUE NORTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE NEVADA AVENUE OREGON A HIGH STREET OREGON EX STANFORD AVENUE WILLIAMS STREET YALE STREET GRANT AVENUE SHERMAN AVENUE SHERIDAN AVENUE SHERIDAN AVENUE ASH STREET BIRCH STREET BIRCH STREET GRANT AVENUE PAR NORTH CALIFO PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD E ALMA STRE STAUNTON COURT PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD NOGAL LANE Ramos Way JACARANDA LANE NINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JO OXFORD AVENUE ABRAMS COURT BARNES COURT LME COURT MS T ED ROAD O L MSTED R O A D OL MS T E D ROAD R T O L M S T ED RD D U D L E Y L A N E YALE ST EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL OLMSTED ROAD This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D Zone E Zone F Zone G 2 Hour Commercial Area abc RPP Zone Labels 0'500' Evergreen Park - Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program Eligibility & Enforcement Areas CITY O F PALO A LTO INCO R P ORAT E D CALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo AltoRRivera, 2018-02-15 14:39:09RPP EvergreenMayfield Zones (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) City of Palo Alto Page 36 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 APPENDIX E SOUTHGATE RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT City of Palo Alto Page 37 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 APPENDIX F CHAPTER 10.50 PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICTS Sections: 10.50.010 Purpose. 10.50.020 Definitions. 10.50.030 RFP designation criteria. 10.50.040 Initiation by City Council. 10.50.050 Initiation by neighborhood petition. 10.50.060 Establishment of residential preferential parking districts. 10.50.070 Administration of districts. 10.50.080 Annexation of new areas to existing districts. 10.50.085 Eligibility areas. 10.50.090 Modification or termination of districts. 10.50.100 Violations and penalties. 10.50.010 Purpose. Residential preferential parking districts are intended to restore and enhance the quality of life in residential neighborhoods by reducing the impact of parking associated with nearby businesses and institutional uses. The procedures and standards in this chapter are intended to provide flexibility so that the city council may adopt, after consultation with residents and neighboring businesses and institutions, parking programs that appropriately protect each neighborhood's unique characteristics. Residential preferential parking districts should be designed to accommodate non-residential parking when this can be done while meeting the parking availability standards determined by the city to be appropriate for the district in question. Residential preferential parking programs may be designed to reduce non-residential parking over time to give non-residential parkers time to find other modes of transportation or parking locations. (Ord. 5294 § 1 (part), 2015) 10.50.020 Definitions. The following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: (a) "Director" shall mean the director of planning and community environment. (b) "Dwelling unit" shall mean a self-contained house, apartment, stock cooperative unit, or condominium unit occupied by a single household exclusively for residential purposes. These residential purposes may include lawful home occupations. (c) "Employee permit" shall mean a permit issued to an employee working at a business located within an RPP District or as defined in an RPP district specific resolution. (d) "Guest permit" shall mean a permit issued to a resident on an annual basis for use by a person visiting a residence in an RPP District or for workers providing services such as caregiving, gardening, repair maintenance and construction, to the resident. The number of guest permits issued to residents shall be specified in administrative regulations adopted by the director. City of Palo Alto Page 38 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 (e) "Non-resident vehicle" shall mean a vehicle operated by a person whose destination is not to a residence within the Residential Preferential Parking District. (f) "Resident" shall mean a natural person living in a dwelling unit in an RPP District. (g) "Residential Preferential Parking District" or "RPP District" shall mean a geographical area in which the city council has established a preferential parking permit system pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 22507. (h) "Visitor permit" shall mean a temporary 24-hour permit issued to a resident for use by a person visiting a residence in an RPP District. (Ord. 5294 § 1 (part), 2015) 10.50.030 RPP designation criteria. The council may designate an area as a Residential Preferential Parking District based upon the following criteria: (a) That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents; (b) That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent intervals, either daily or weekly; (c) That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed district create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life; (d) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical. (Ord. 5294 § 1 (part), 2015) 10.50.040 Initiation by city council. The city council may, by motion, initiate consideration of a RPP District by directing staff to undertake the analysis and outreach process set forth in Section 10.50.050(d) and (e). (Ord. 5294 § 1 (part), 2015) 10.50.050 Initiation by neighborhood petition. Residents may request the formation of an RPP District in their neighborhood. The request shall be made, and considered, in the following manner: (a) Form of Application. (1) The director shall establish a standard form for the application for the formation of a new RPP District, as well as a list of submittal requirements for use by interested residents. These requirements shall include a narrative describing the nature and perceived source of non- residential parking impact, as well as suggested district boundaries. The director shall also approve a standard form for use in demonstrating resident support for the application. (2) Residents shall initiate a request for establishment of an RPP District by neighborhood petition by completing the official application form. (3) Residents are encouraged to consult with the employers and employees thought to be the source of the parking impact as they develop their proposals. (b) Timing and Review of Applications. Each calendar year, the director of planning and community environment shall review all applications received prior to March 31st of that year to determine whether the RPP District criteria established in this Chapter are met. City of Palo Alto Page 39 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 (c) Prioritization of Applications. Applications determined by the director to meet the criteria in paragraph (b) above shall be presented to the planning and transportation commission. The commission shall review the requests and recommend to the director which proposal or proposals should be given priority for review and possible implementation in the current calendar year. In making its recommendations, the commission shall consider the severity of non-residential parking impact, the demonstrated level of neighborhood support, and the staff resources needed to process requests. (d) Staff Review of Applications and Community Outreach. Once an application has been selected for council consideration during the current calendar year, staff shall promptly review the application, gather additional information and conduct a community outreach program. At a minimum the review process shall include the following: (1) The city shall complete parking occupancy studies to quantify the nature of the problem identified in the petition. Data shall be collected when schools in the Palo Alto Unified School District and Stanford University are in session, unless these institutions are irrelevant to the problem to be addressed. (2) Upon completion of the consultation and outreach process, the city attorney shall prepare a draft resolution containing the proposed boundaries and hours of enforcement. Staff shall undertake a survey of resident support within the RPP District. The results of this survey shall be included in and reported to the planning and transportation commission and the city council. (e) Planning and Transportation Commission Review. Staff shall bring the proposed RPP District to the planning and transportation commission no later than September of the calendar year in which consideration began. The commission shall review the draft resolution at a noticed public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council regarding the RPP District. This recommendation may include proposed modifications of the boundaries. The commission's recommendation shall be forwarded to the city council no later than September 30th. (Ord. 5294 § 1 (part), 2015) 10.50.060 Establishment of Residential Preferential Parking Districts. (a) Adoption of Resolution Establishing District. Following the completion of the procedures described in Section 10.50.050, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on a proposed resolution to establish the Residential Preferential Parking District. The resolution may specify a trial period of up to two years. Any such trial period shall begin running after the signs have been posted and permits issued. The council may adopt, modify, or reject the proposed resolution. (b) Resolution. The resolution shall specify: (1) The findings that the criteria set forth in Section 10.50.030 have been met. (2) The term of the trial period, if applicable. (3) The boundaries and name of the residential preferential parking district. The boundary map may also define areas which will become subject to the regulations of the Residential Preferential Parking District in the future if the council approves a resident petition for annexation as provided in Section 10.50.080 below. City of Palo Alto Page 40 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 (4) Hours and days of enforcement of parking regulations and other restrictions that shall be in effect for non-permit holders, such as two-hour parking limits, overnight parking limits, or "no re-parking" zones. (5) The number of permits, if any, to be issued to merchants or other non-residential users, which number may be scheduled to reduce over time. (6) Resident permit rates which are set by city council policy will be uniform across each district. (7) Such other matters as the council may deem necessary and desirable, including but not limited to fee rates and whether nonresidential parking permits are allowed to be issued and transferred. (c) Permanent Adoption. Before the expiration of the trial period, if applicable, the city council shall hold a noticed public hearing and determine whether the RPP District should be made permanent as originally adopted, modified or terminated. The council's action shall be in the form of a resolution. (Ord. 5294 § 1 (part), 2015) 10.50.070 Administration of districts. (a) Issuance and Fees. (1) No permit will be issued to any applicant until that applicant has paid all of his or her outstanding parking citations, including all civil penalties and related fees. (2) A residential parking permit may be issued for a motor vehicle if the following requirements are met: (A) The applicant demonstrates that he or she is currently a resident of the area for which the permit is to be issued. (B) The applicant demonstrates that he or she has ownership or continuing custody of the motor vehicle for which the permit is to be issued. (C) Any motor vehicle to be issued a permit must have a vehicle registration indicating registration within the area for which the permit is to be issued. (3) Visitor or guest parking permits may be issued for those vehicles or to those individuals or households that qualify for those permits under the resolution establishing the RPP District. (4) Employee parking permits may be issued to those individuals and for those vehicles that qualify for such permits under the resolution establishing the RPP District. (b) No Guarantee of Availability of Parking. A parking permit shall not guarantee or reserve to the permit holder an on-street parking space within the designated residential preferential parking zone. (c) Restrictions and Conditions. Each permit issued pursuant to this Section shall be subject to each and every condition and restriction set forth in this Chapter and as provided for in the resolution establishing the specific RPP District, as may be amended from time to time. The issuance of such permit shall not be construed to waive compliance with any other applicable parking law, regulation or ordinance. (d) Exemptions. The following vehicles are exempt from RPP District parking restrictions in this Chapter: (1) A vehicle owned or operated by a public or private utility, when used in the course of business. City of Palo Alto Page 41 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 (2) A vehicle owned or operated by a governmental agency, when used in the course of official government business. (3) A vehicle for which an authorized emergency vehicle permit has been issued by the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, when used in the course of business. (4) A vehicle parked or standing while actively delivering materials or freight. (5) A vehicle displaying an authorized exemption permit issued by the City of Palo Alto. (6) A vehicle displaying a State of California or military-issued disabled person placard or license plates. (7) A vehicle parked for the purpose of attending or participating in an event taking place at a school within the Palo Alto Unified School District or another event venue within the RPP District, provided that the vehicle is parked within two blocks of the venue, the venue has requested and received approval from the city at least fourteen days before the event date, and the venue distributes notices to all addresses within a two-block radius of the venue. The RPP District resolution shall specify the covered venues and number of permitted events per year. (8) All vehicles are exempt from parking restrictions pursuant to this Chapter on the following holidays: January 1, July 4, Thanksgiving Day, and December 25. (e) Authority of Staff. (a) The director is authorized to adopt administrative regulations that are consistent with the purposes of this Chapter. Prior to adoption the director shall conduct a noticed public meeting soliciting input on such guidelines. (b) The police department or private parking enforcement contractor as approved by the chief of police shall have the authority to enforce the administrative regulations established pursuant to this Chapter. (Ord. 5294 § 1 (part), 2015) 10.50.080 Annexation of new areas to existing districts. Residents of any block may petition the director for annexation into a contiguous RPP District. The petition shall be on forms provided by the department. If the petition meets the criteria established in administrative regulations adopted by the director, a resolution annexing it to the RPP District shall be prepared by the city attorney and submitted to the city council, together with the director's recommendation on the proposed annexation. The city council may approve, deny, or modify the annexation. (Ord. 5294 § 1 (part), 2015) 10.50.085 Eligibility areas. (a) When it is determined that particular areas may experience spill-over from previously designated RPP Districts, the Council may designate by resolution those areas as an Eligibility Area. (b) Designated Eligibility Areas may petition the director for annexation into an existing RPP District. The petition shall be on forms provided by the department. If the petition meets the criteria established in the administrative guidelines adopted by the director, the director shall approve the Eligibility Area for annexation. (Ord. 5380 § 2, 2016) City of Palo Alto Page 42 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 10.50.090 Modification or termination of districts. (a) Opting out. After final adoption of an RPP District, Residents may file an application with the director to opt out of the RPP District. The minimum number of blocks and percentage of units supporting the opt-out shall be specified by the director in the administrative guidelines. Applications for opting out shall be made in the form and manner prescribed by the director and shall be acted up on by the director. (b) Timing and Review of Opt Out Applications. Each calendar year, the director of planning and community environment shall review all opt out applications received prior to March 31st of the year to determine whether the opt out criteria established in the administrative guidelines are met. (c) Dissolution. The city council following a noticed public hearing may adopt a resolution dissolving the RPP District: (1) Upon receipt and verification of a petition signed by 50% or more of all the households within an approved RPP District boundary; or (2) Upon findings by the city council that the criteria for designating the RPP District are no longer satisfied. ( Ord. 5380 § 3, 2016: Ord. 5294 § 1 (part), 2015) 10.50.100 Violations and Penalties. (a) No person shall park a vehicle adjacent to any curb in a residential preferential parking zone in violation of any posted or noticed prohibition or restriction, unless the person has a valid and current residential preferential parking permit, visitor permit, guest permit or employee permit for that vehicle, or is otherwise exempt. Violations of this subsection shall be punishable by a civil penalty under Chapter 10.60.010. (b) No person shall sell, rent, or lease, or cause to be sold, rented, or leased for any value or consideration any RPP District parking permit, visitor permit or guest permit. Upon violation of this subsection, all permits issued to for the benefit of the dwelling unit or business establishment for which the sold, rented, or leased permit was authorized shall be void. Violation of this subsection (b) shall be punishable as an infraction. (c) No person shall buy or otherwise acquire for value or use any RPP District parking permit, guest permit or visitor permit except as provided for in this chapter. Violation of this subsection (c) shall be punishable as an infraction. (Ord. 5294 § 1 (part), 2015) City of Palo Alto Page 43 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 APPENDIX G CITY OF PALO ALTO RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL PARKING ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES Revised and Approved March 1, 2017 PURPOSE The City of Palo Alto is committed to preserving the quality of life of its residential neighborhoods. On December 2, 2014, City Council adopted a City‐wide Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Ordinance which allows any neighborhood within the City to petition for an RPP Program, where neighborhood parking is regulated for non‐permit holders. Three documents govern the creation of an RPP Program in the City of Palo Alto: 1. Chapter 10.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which outlines the criteria which must be met and the process which must be taken for a residential neighborhood to initiate an RPP Program; 2. A neighborhood‐specific Resolution, which must be adopted by the City Council and outlines the specific characteristics of the individual RPP Program; 3. The document within, “Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Administrative Guidelines,” which provides additional detail on RPP Program implementation. The Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Administrative Guidelines (Administrative Guidelines) may be modified by the Planning and Community Environment Director and provide detail on policies and procedures related to RPP Programs. All three documents work in concert to govern the development and operation of the City’s RPP Programs, and all should be reviewed prior to an RPP Program’s initiation. PARKING PERMIT POLICIES Parking Permit Sales RPP Program parking permits are sold online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking. Resident Parking Permit Eligibility The requirements to obtain a Resident Parking Permit are: • A completed application form (online) in the residents’ name and address. • A current DMV motor vehicle registration for each motor vehicle for which the applicant is requesting a Resident Parking Permit. • Proof of residency/ownership in the resident’s/owner’s name reflecting the permit address in the RPP Program area. Acceptable proof of residency shall be a driver’s license, the vehicle registration, a utility bill, car insurance policy, lease agreement or a preprinted personal check with the resident’s name and address. City of Palo Alto Page 44 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 Resident Parking Permit Types The types of Resident Parking Permits available in an RPP Program are outlined in the specific RPP Program Resolution. All Resident Parking Permit types may be used anywhere in the RPP Program area noted on the parking permit itself. Use of a Resident Parking Permit outside of the designated RPP Program area may result in a citation. 1. Annual Resident Parking Permit Stickers can be purchased by RPP Program area residents. These are decals affixed to a specific motor vehicle and are not transferable between motor vehicles. Annual Resident Parking Permit Stickers are intended for use by the residents of a specific property within the RPP Program area. 2. Annual Resident Parking Permit Hangtags can be purchased by RPP Program area residents for guests. These are annual permits hung from the rear-view mirror that may be used for a nanny, baby‐sitter, caregiver, household employee, or other regular visitor to the property. Annual Resident Parking Permit Hangtags must be purchased by the resident of the property and may be transferred between motor vehicles. 3. Daily Resident Parking Permit Hangtags can be purchased by RPP Program area residents for visitors. These are one‐day permits hung from the rear‐view mirror that may be used for events or gatherings at a household. Daily permits must be purchased by a resident of the household and are only valid for a single day use. Employee Parking Permit Eligibility All employees who work at a registered, code‐compliant business within an RPP Program area are eligible to purchase Employee Parking Permits, unless otherwise restricted by the RPP Program Resolution. The City may immediately revoke all permits issued to businesses and employees at businesses that are unregistered and/or operating in violation of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and/or state and federal regulations. The requirements to obtain a parking permit as an employee are: • Employed at a business within the RPP Program area and; • A completed application form (online) with the employee’s name and address; • A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle for which the applicant is requesting a parking permit; and • Proof of employment at a business registered with the Palo Alto Business Registry in the employee’s name, which includes an address within the RPP Program area. Acceptable proof of employment shall be a paystub, W‐2 or letter from the employer. Employee Parking Permit Types The types of Employee Parking Permits available in an RPP Program are outlined in the specific RPP Program Resolution. All Employee Parking Permit types may only be used in the Employee Parking Zone noted on the parking permit itself. Use of an Employee Parking Permit outside of the designated Employee Parking Zone may result in a citation. 1. Annual Employee Parking Permit Stickers are decals affixed to a specific motor vehicle and are not transferable between motor vehicles. City of Palo Alto Page 45 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 2. Six‐month Employee Parking Permit Stickers are decals affixed to a specific motor vehicle and are not transferable between motor vehicles. 3. Annual Employee Parking Permit Hangtags can be purchased for employees. These are annual permits hung from the rear-view mirror that may be transferred between motor vehicles. 4. Six‐month Employee Parking Permit Hangtags can be purchased for employees. These are six‐ month permits hung from the rear-view mirror that may be transferred between motor vehicles. 5. Daily Employee Parking Permit Hangtags can be purchased for employees or visitors. These are one‐day scratch‐off permits hung from the rear-view mirror that may be transferred between motor vehicles. 6. Contractor Permit Cards can be purchased by contractors working in the RPP Program area at the Development Center. These are one‐week or one‐month permits placed on the passenger‐ side dashboard that are not transferable between motor vehicles. Reduced Price Employee Parking Permits Certain employees may be eligible for a reduced‐price permit if they meet either of the income requirements listed below. Proof of income must be provided at the time of purchase, and information may be audited at any time by the City. 1. Option A: Employees who earn an annual income which is exactly or less than $50,000. The City will evaluate this limit annually and adjust for inflation. 2. Option B: Employees who earn a pre‐tax hourly wage which is equal to or less than double the governing city or state minimum wage (whichever is greater). Submittal requirements provided for proof of income include: tax return, two consecutive wage statements and/or a letter from employer. Prorated Parking Permit Cost and Refunds Annual and Six‐month Resident and Employee Parking Permit fees may be pro‐rated for purchase midway through the permit period (i.e. 50% discount). Refunds will only be granted within the first half of the permit period. The permit holder must remove the current RPP parking permit and return it to Revenue Collections in order to qualify for a refund. If an employee with an Annual or Six‐month Employee Parking Permit is terminated, the employer may transfer the remaining balance of the unused permit to another employee by returning the original permit and transferring the balance of time to a new one. The new permit will expire on the same date as the original permit. Other Policies 1. The City of Palo Alto is not responsible for the loss of or damage to any vehicle or its contents. City of Palo Alto Page 46 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 2. Parking a motor vehicle unmoved longer than 72 consecutive hours on any City street is in violation of PAMC 10.60.07(d). Parking permits shall not exempt motorists from this requirement. 3. Resident Parking Permits may be issued only for passenger non‐commercial and passenger commercial (i.e., SUVs, small pick‐up trucks, etc.) vehicles registered to residents residing within the RPP program area. Vehicles defined as oversized by the City’s Oversized Vehicle Parking ordinance, such as commercial trucks, boat trailers, RVs (camping trailers, motor homes, etc.), trailers and work‐type commercial vehicles, including taxis and limousines, are not eligible for Resident Parking Permits. 4. Temporary RPP parking permits can be printed online once an applicant has submitted payment for a permit. The temporary RPP parking permit must be displayed on the front dashboard of the motor vehicle. 5. The permit must be affixed on the outside of the rear windshield driver’s side lower left corner, or left side of the bumper. Do not place your permit in any other location. Placing your permit in another location or behind tinted windows shall invalidate your parking exemption. 6. RPP parking permits are not valid in any City parking garage or lot, and City‐issued garage or lot permits are not valid in RPP program areas. RPP parking permits are only valid for the RPP program area for which they are issued. 7. Possession of an RPP parking permit does not guarantee a parking space. It is understood that a greater amount of parking permits may be issued than there are available on‐street parking spaces. This may create an environment of natural competition for on‐street parking between neighborhood residents and other permit holders. 8. When obtaining a new motor vehicle, the permit holder must surrender the current valid RPP parking permit to Revenue Collections in order to receive a new permit for the new vehicle. If the permit does not come off intact, pieces will be accepted. 9. There is an RPP parking permit replacement fee of $10.00 for permits reissued for any reason prior to the normal renewal period. 10. Any attempt to alter an RPP parking permit shall immediately render the permit invalid. Exceptions for a Parking Permit Sticker Company Cars – A Resident Parking Permit Sticker may be issued for residents who use company cars for their primary motor vehicle. To obtain a permit, the person must be a legal resident within the RPP program area who has a motor vehicle for his/her exclusive use and under his/her control where said motor vehicle is registered to his/her employer and he/she presents a valid employee identification card or other proof of employment that is approved by the Planning and Community Environment Director. Leased Cars – A Resident Parking Permit Sticker may be issued for a resident who has a leased car. To obtain a permit, the person must be a legal resident within the residential permit parking area who has a motor vehicle registered to a vehicle‐leasing company and/or leased to City of Palo Alto Page 47 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 the resident’s employer, providing said vehicle is for the resident’s exclusive use and provides proof or the lease agreement which is approved by the Planning and Community Environment Director. The requirements to obtain a Resident Parking Permit Sticker for a company or leased car are: • A completed application form in the resident’s name and address. • A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle for which the applicant is requesting a • parking permit. • Proof of residency/ownership in the resident’s/owner’s name reflecting the permit address in • the permit area. Acceptable proof of residency shall be a driver’s license, the vehicle registration, a utility bill, car insurance policy, lease agreement or a preprinted personal check with the resident’s name and address. Caregivers – Caregivers may be issued a Resident Parking Permit Sticker the address of the resident receiving the care is within the RPP program area. The requirements to obtain a Resident Parking Permit Sticker for a caregiver are: • A completed application form in both the resident’s and caregiver’s name and address. • A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle for which the applicant is requesting a • parking permit. • Proof of residency/ownership in the resident’s/owner’s name reflecting the permit address in • the permit area. Acceptable proof of residency shall be a utility bill, car insurance policy, lease • agreement or a preprinted personal check with the resident’s name and address. • A letter from the resident identifying the permit applicant as the caregiver. Fine for Violations The fine for violation of Chapter 10.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is set within the City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule. Misuse of RPP Parking Permits Any person selling, fraudulently using, reproducing or mutilating an RPP parking permit shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be subject to a citation for each offense and the forfeiture of all parking permits in conflict, or such other fine or penalty as the City Council may set by ordinance. Neighborhood Support for RPP District Implementation As outlined in the ordinance, the Planning and Community Environment Director may choose to conduct a survey of a proposed neighborhood to determine whether support exists for the creation of a new RPP program. The survey may be conducted either prior to the recommendation of a new RPP program to Council, or during a trial period of the program, but before final implementation. The survey shall be conducted electronically or by mail via USPS. City of Palo Alto Page 48 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 Each residential unit with a separate mailing address will be allowed one (1) vote either in favor or against the creation of a new RPP program. The recommended threshold for the creation of a new RPP program is a vote of 70% of the returned surveys in favor of the program, however the Planning and Community Environment Director may seek direction from City Council regardless of the vote results. Eligibility Areas As outlined in the ordinance, the City Council may adopt a resolution identifying particular areas as RPP Program Eligibility Areas. Following the identification of the RPP Program Eligibility Areas, residents within these areas may petition the Planning and Community Environment Director to be annexed into an existing RPP program. The petition must include the following: • A completed application form (online) including the residents’ names and addresses. • A current DMV vehicle registration of each vehicle for which any RPP District parking permit had previously been approved in the applicants’ names. Upon the receipt of a petition that includes the above information for a simple majority, or 50%+1 of the identified segment’s residential units, the Planning and Community Environment Director may choose to conduct a survey of the proposed neighborhood to determine whether additional support exists for annexation into the existing RPP District. The survey shall be conducted electronically or by mail via USPS. Each residential unit with a separate mailing address will be allowed one (1) vote either in favor or against the creation of a new RPP program. The recommended threshold for the creation of a new RPP program is a vote of 70% of the returned surveys in favor of the program, however the Planning and Community Environment Director may seek direction from City Council regardless of the vote results. Approval of annexation for RPP Program Eligibility Areas may take effect without Council action. Opt Out Procedures Current residents in an existing RPP program area that no longer wish to participate in the RPP program may petition to opt out between January 1st and March 31st of each year. The petition will be approved at the discretion of the Planning and Community Environment Director. The petition is available as a standard form online, and must include the following: • A description of or map showing the proposed opt‐out area. • A completed application form (online) including the petitioners’ names and addresses. • A current DMV vehicle registration of each vehicle for which any RPP program parking permit had previously been issued in the petitioners’ names. Upon the receipt of a petition that includes the above information for a simple majority, or 50%+1 of the opt‐out area’s residential units, the Planning and Community Environment Director may choose to conduct a survey of the proposed opt‐out area residential units to determine whether the required support exists for opting out of the RPP program. The survey shall be conducted electronically or by mail City of Palo Alto Page 49 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 via USPS. Each residential unit with a separate mailing address will be allowed one (1) vote either in favor or against the creation of a new RPP program. The recommended threshold for opting out of an existing RPP program is a vote of 70% of the returned surveys in favor of opting out, however the Planning and Community Environment Director may seek direction from City Council regardless of the vote results. Effective upon approval of the opt‐out petition, residential units within the opt‐out area will no longer be entitled to obtain Resident Parking Permits for the respective RPP program. Approval of an opt‐out petition does not exempt residents of the opt‐out area from RPP program parking regulations or any other parking regulations. Also, upon approval of the opt‐out petition, the Planning and Community Environment Director shall provide written notice electronically or via USPS to all residential units impacted by the opt‐out, including the effective date of the opt‐out, the expiration date of any remaining valid parking permits, and contact information for further inquiries or concerns. Parking Occupancy Study Requirements During the course of new RPP program initiation, the Planning and Community Environment Director will conduct parking occupancy studies for the proposed RPP program area and adjacent areas. These studies will be conducted at various hours of the day and days of the week and be compared to an inventory calculation to show percentages of occupancy by block face. Weekday studies will not be conducted on Mondays, Fridays or holidays. City of Palo Alto Page 50 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 Neighborhood Petition Form City of Palo Alto Residential Parking Permit Program Request Form The purpose of this form is to enable neighborhoods to request to be annexed to an existing Residential Preferential Parking area or initiate a new Residential Preferential Parking Program in accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s adopted Residential Parking Permit Program Policy and Procedures. This form must be filled out in its entirety and submitted with any request to: City of Palo Alto Transportation Division 250 Hamilton Avenue, Floor 5 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Feel free to attach additional sheets containing pictures, occupancy maps, additional testimony or additional text if the space provided is insufficient. 1. Requesting Individual’s Contact Information Name: ____________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________ Phone Number: _______________________________________ Email: _______________________________________ 2. Please describe the nature of the overflow parking problem in your neighborhood. 1. What streets in your neighborhood do you feel are affected by overflow parking? 2. How often does the overflow occur? 3. Does the impact vary from month to month, or season to season? 3. Can you identify a parking impact generator that is the cause of overflow parking in the neighborhood? Are there any facilities (churches, schools, shopping centers, etc.) near this location that generate a high concentration of vehicle and pedestrian traffic? Please list your understanding of the causes: 4. Please describe how a Residential Parking Permit Program will be able to eliminate or reduce overflow parking impacting the neighborhood. Please include your suggestion for the boundary of the program: 5. Is there neighborhood support for submittal of this Residential Parking Permit Program application? Have you contacted your HOA/Neighborhood Association? Neighborhood Petition Form (Street by Street Basis) City of Palo Alto Page 51 MRG Report: Residential Preferential Permit Parking – May 2019 THE UNDERSIGNED BELOW AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. All persons signing this petition do hereby certify that they reside on the following street, which is being considered for residential preferential parking: ______________________________________ 2. All persons signing this petition do hereby agree that the following contact person(s) represent the neighborhood as facilitator(s) between the neighborhood residents and City of Palo Alto staff in matters pertaining to this request: Name: _________________________ Address: ___________________ Phone #: __________________ Name: _________________________ Address: ___________________ Phone #: __________________ Name: _________________________ Address: ___________________ Phone #: __________________ ONLY ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD Name (Please Print) Address Phone Number Signature 1.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 2.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 3.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 4.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 5.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 6.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 7.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 8.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 9.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 10._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 11._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 12._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 13._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 14._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 15._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 16._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 17._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 18._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 19._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ TO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF PALO ALTO HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 8 WILLIAM RIGGS, CHAIR, PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MAY 13, 2019 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8: Acceptance of the City of Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Study Report and Direction to Staff on Workplans, Outreach, Stakeholder Process, and Prioritization of Programs Including Proposed RPP Programs for Old Palo Alto and Green Acres Attached is a letter being forwarded to Council on behalf of Planning and Transportation Commission Chair, William Riggs. 1of1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 05ECC330-BA4F-4636-8118-3EC5D9E1251A CITY OF PALO ALTO PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329 2441 May 9, 2019 Honorable City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Item 8 on City Council agenda, meeting date 5/13/2019; Evaluation of the Residential Preferential Parking {RPP) Program As you may be aware the Planning and Transportation Commission had a retreat in February where we did a teambuilding and explored ways that we could educate ourselves and our community on best practices in transportation and land use planning. We agreed to engage in a process of inviting experts to speak to the commission to explore ideas that could potentially be used to address issues in our community. We hosted the first of these, focused on parking innovation on May 8. Synergistically, also on May 8, the Planning and Transportation Commission had a brief discussion at the end of our meeting regarding the staff report for Item 8, containing recommendations by the consulting firm MRG, engaged by the city to provide transportation support services. In the item, recommendations for City Council consideration are arranged in three Categories. Category Three, page 4, paragraph 4, recommends that a public process be used to solicit input on the topic before it returns to the City Council for consideration. The report identifies the Planning and Transportation Commission as a logical body to conduct such a meeting or a (new) independent group could be formed to do so. We would be interested, and in fact delighted, to in serve in this capacity if the City Council feels that it would be a good way to solicit public input on the parking issues. Respectfully submitted, ~OocuSlgned by: OJiUi/U\\ ~~s EDD04123D4584E4 William Riggs, Chair Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto (ID # 10345) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Grade Separations Summary Title: Connecting Palo Alto Rail Grade Separation Followup: Alternatives and Criteria Title: Connecting Palo Alto Grade Separation Planning: Revision of Alternatives for Further Study and Direction to Staff Regarding Evaluation Criteria Weights From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council discuss and direct staff to proceed on the following issues: A. Future handling of a Citywide tunnel as an alternative to study, either: i. Removing the citywide tunnel from further study and consideration; ii. Refining the description of the alternative that will continue to be studied and considered to “Tunnel from Channing Avenue and the southern City limit”; or iii. Making no change. B. Weighting of evaluation criteria to guide discussion and decision-making. Background At the April 22, 2019 City Council meeting, the City Council adopted a rail workplan and modified the list of alternatives for further study and consideration. The alternatives, after City Council action on April 22, includes the following: 1. South Palo Alto | Rail Tunnel (passenger and freight in tunnel) [eliminated the separate freight variation]; 2. Churchill Avenue | Full Closure [added the ability to consider all street mitigation options including Embarcadero]; 3. Churchill Avenue | Viaduct [added this alternative of a viaduct in the Vicinity of Churchill] 4. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road | Hybrid; City of Palo Alto Page 2 5. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road | Rail Trench; 6. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road | Viaduct; 7. Citywide Tunnel In addition to those actions, the City Council also directed staff to return to City Council with an update on the Citywide Tunnel alternative. Councilmembers were also invited to identify any further information needed to fully understand the Citywide Tunnel alternative. At the March 18, 2019 Committee of the Whole (COTW) meeting, the COTW recommended a set of actions relating to rail grade separation including direction to prepare a dynamic model that orders alternatives based on Council-approved criteria. Staff included a recommendation in the rail workplan to bring the evaluation criteria to the City Council through an iterative approach where City Council would provide an initial weighting scale to review the alternatives under consideration. A possible weighting model is presented in this report. Discussion Citywide Tunnel Information The Citywide tunnel animation is available online at: (https://pagradesep.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/04/Palo-Alto_Full_Tunnel-05.wmv). The animation illustrates where the tunnel would need to start and where the temporary tracks would need to be located in order to build the tunnel. Specific details about the tunnel are provided below: 1. Tunnel start location: Running north to south, the proposed tunnel north portal would begin 500 feet north of Churchill Avenue. 2. Reason for starting location: In order to avoid major impacts and complete re- construction of the Palo Alto Caltrain Station and University Avenue underpass, the north end of the tunnel begins south of the Palo Alto Station. The tunnel requires that the tracks descend in a trench to a depth of 44 feet below ground for the tunneling operation to commence. Because there is not enough room to do construction right at the end of the Palo Alto (University Avenue) Caltrain Station, in order to begin constructing the descending trench section, the temporary (shoofly) tracks need to swing away from the Palo Alto Caltrain Station for an approximate length of 800 feet before the trench construction begins. Then the length of trench then required to reach a depth of 44 feet below ground is approximately 2,300 feet (assuming a 2 percent grade1 and the required length of vertical curve2). The distance between Palo Alto Avenue and University Avenue is 1,975 feet which is much shorter than the required distances listed for the trench. Consequently, if the trench were to begin at Palo Alto Avenue, the vertical curve and trench would cut through the Palo Alto Caltrain Station 1 Caltrain has not given the City any indication that they would accept a design exception for more than 1%. Their response letter to the City can be found online at: __________ 2 Vertical curve is a smooth curve drawn tangent to two intersecting grade lines to provide a smooth transition from one grade to another. City of Palo Alto Page 3 and University Avenue underpass. Therefore, in order to avoid rebuilding the Palo Alto Caltrain Station, the proposed Citywide Tunnel design begins the trench just south of the Palo Alto Caltrain Station. 3. Tunnel end location: The southern portal of tunnel is defined (constrained) by the city boundary with Mountain View. This complies with the City Council direction to keep the tunnel within the City limits of the City of Palo Alto. 4. Why can’t you build the tunnel adjacent to the existing rail line and use the existing tracks as the temporary tracks during construction (similar to the plan for the viaduct at Meadow-Charleston)?: The impact of building the tunnel along Alma instead of on the existing tracks would be the same as the impact of building the tunnel along the existing tracks since the overall width of construction is equivalent for above ground considerations related to the tunnel. This is because the open trench required to launch the Tunnel Boring Machine is approximately 100 feet wide and 44 feet deep. Each single bore is 34 feet in diameter outside dimension and the two bores are positioned with a minimum of 15 feet between them. The temporary (shoofly) trackway is 40 feet wide and there is a 5-foot separation between the pit wall and the temporary (shoofly) fence (Attachment A). If the tunnel launch pit were located on Alma Street it would also have significant underground utility impacts. 5. Are there any alternative locations for the temporary (shoofly) tracks?: Placing the shoofly on the west side of the existing tracks would require significant property acquisition, with most of the impacted properties residential. No other location for the temporary (shoofly) track is feasible without greater impacts. 6. Is there an opportunity for value capture to pay for the tunnel?: “Value capture” is the strategy of using increased land values associated with a public project as the basis for financing the project. Land values rise when development potential increases, typically through higher density. This approach was discussed in the white paper “Funding for Palo Alto Grade Separation and Crossing Improvement” prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in November 2017 (https://pagradesep.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/08/Palo-Alto-Grade-Separation-Financing-White-Paper-1.pdf). The report also states: “The value capture funding potential increases with the amount of new development that is assumed to be directly attributable to grade separation and related improvements. For example, assuming 1,000 new residential units and 500,000 square feet of new commercial space (e.g., office and retail) is developed, approximately $130 million might be available for infrastructure. Under a more aggressive scenario, 3,000 new residential units and 1 million in new commercial square feet might generate about $340 million of value capture funding. While the potential funding levels illustrated above are relatively significant, the timing and predictability of future revenue streams is often a critical challenge to effective use of most value capture tools. The level of development illustrated in all of the scenarios would likely take many years to materialize and be subject to market fluctuations, challenging entitlement and City of Palo Alto Page 4 land assembly issues, and other uncertainties. Indeed, a substantial portion of the development is premised on prior completion of the grade separation improvements, presenting a phasing and financing dilemma.” The level of development and the timing of it may also make the value capture option less viable for the City as a tool in the tunnel discussion. Options for the Citywide Tunnel given the information above: (i) Remove all forms of the tunnel from further study and consideration. (ii) Refine the description of the alternative to be further studied and considered to “Tunnel from Channing Avenue and the southern City limit” confirming that the City is not studying or considering a tunnel alternative between the Menlo Park boundary and Channing Avenue. (iii) Make no change. Evaluation Criteria Weighting and Modeling City Council adopted evaluation criteria in September 2017 to provide staff with guidance for narrowing down the list of grade separation ideas from the initial list of 34 ideas. As staff continued to work with the criteria, staff and the consultant team illustrated the differences between alternatives under each criterion using a color spectrum. With the City Council progressing forward and even further narrowing the alternatives, the Council directed staff to develop a way to apply the evaluation criteria using a dynamic evaluation model. Based on this discussion, a current Community Advisory Panel (CAP) member drafted an online evaluation matrix allowing anyone to weigh the alternatives based on the evaluation criteria. Staff drafted some initial weights that can be easily incorporated into the online interactive model and is seeking City Council confirmation on the weighting. Using the City Council’s weighting, staff will follow up with the Expanded Community Advisory Panel to use this tool as a basis for evaluating the alternatives and reporting to the City Council their recommendation regarding a quantitative comparison of the alternatives. The model below shows an example of the southern segment with the criteria listed and possible weights given for each criterion with the exception of two (2) criteria that are pass/fail. The idea of the pass/fail criteria an acknowledgement that some criteria are less about a scale and more about whether the criteria is met or not. The two criteria listed as pass/fail in the example below are “support continued rail operations” and “finance with feasible funding sources.” If the alternative does not allow for Caltrain to continue its operations or the City feels that the cost is out of reach for any given alternative, then the alternative would be given a “fail” for each of those criteria. City of Palo Alto Page 5 The rest of the criteria are given sample percentages and weights that the City Council can discuss together to come up with the first round of weights which can be later reevaluated after testing them out and sharing them with the Expanded Community Advisory Panel. Model that orders the alternatives based on the City’s criteria For purpose of illustration only – Southern Segment EXAMPLE ONLY: SOUTHERN SEGMENT: CHARLESTON AND MEADOW CROSSINGS Criteria Relative Weight Value/Score (Score = value times relative weight) Viaduct Southern Tunnel Trench Hybrid City Tunnel D Support continued rail operations Pass/Fail E Finance with feasible funding sources Pass/Fail A Improve east-west connectivity 10% B Reduce traffic congestion and delays 15% C Provide clear, safe routes for pedestrians and bikes 10% F Minimize right-of- way acquisition 15% G Reduce rail noise and vibration 5% H Maintain or improve local access 15% I Minimize visual changes along the corridor 5% J Minimize disruption and duration of construction 10% K Order of magnitude of (City) cost 15% Total 100% City of Palo Alto Page 6 The table below contains the same information but goes a step further and shows a score for each criterion and then the additional box is used for the total points (relative weight times the value chosen). Council is being asked to provide the relative weights. EXAMPLE ONLY: SOUTHERN SEGMENT: CHARLESTON AND MEADOWS CROSSINGS Criteria Relative Weight Value/Score (Score = value times relative weight) Viaduct Southern Tunnel Trench Hybrid City Tunnel D Support continued rail operations Pass/Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass E Finance with feasible funding sources Pass/Fail Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail A Improve east- west connectivity 10% 10 10 10 B Reduce traffic congestion and delays 15% 10 10 10 C Provide clear, safe routes for pedestrians and bikes 10% 10 10 10 F Minimize right- of-way acquisition 15% 10 10 2 G Reduce rail noise and vibration 5% 5 6 9 H Maintain or improve local access 15% 10 10 10 I Minimize visual changes along the corridor 5% 4 5 10 J Minimize disruption and duration of construction 10% 7 7 3 K Order of magnitude of (City) cost 15% 6 5 1 Total 100% City of Palo Alto Page 7 Resource Impact No resource impacts at this time though changes to alternatives for study could possibly result in a savings with the AECOM contract. Attachments: • Attachment A-Citywide Tunnel-N Portal Launch Pit PRELIMINARY FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 100.00’ 49.00’ ~ 40.00’ 4 4 . 0 0 ’ 85.00’ CALTRAIN ROW ~ 45.00’ ALMA STREET ~ 40.00’ 2 2 . 0 0 ’ 1 1 . 0 0 ’ 2 2 . 0 0 ’ 1 7 . 0 0 ’ 5.00’5.00’5.00’5.00’ 1 5. 5 0’ R 1 5. 5 0’ R 1.50’1.50’ TYPICAL SECTION NORTH PORTAL LAUNCH PIT (LOOKING NORTH) TORTOR EXIST GROUND EXIST CALTRAIN TRACKS SHOOFLY TUNNEL AXIS TORTOR February 07, 2019 City of Palo Alto (ID # 10239) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2019 National Police Week Title: Proclamation Recognizing May 12-18, 2019 as National Police Week, and May 15, 2019 as National Peace Officers’ Memorial Day From: City Manager Lead Department: Police Attachments: • Attachment A: Proclamation Recognizing National Police Week and National Peace Officers' Memorial Day Proclamation National Police Week, May 12-18, 2019 and National Peace Officers’ Memorial Day, May 15, 2019 WHEREAS, the Congress and President of the United States have designated May 15, 2019 as National Peace Officers’ Memorial Day, and the week in which it falls as Police Week; and WHEREAS, the members of the Palo Alto Police Department play an essential role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of its citizens; and WHEREAS, it is important that all citizens know and understand the problems, duties and responsibilities of their police department, and that members of our police department recognize their duty to serve the people by safeguarding life and property, by protecting them against violence or disorder, and by protecting the innocent against deception and the weak against oppression or intimidation; and WHEREAS, the Palo Alto Police Department has grown to be a modern and progressive law enforcement agency which unceasingly provides a vital public service. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Eric Filseth, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim the week of May 12-18, 2019, as Police Week with appropriate ceremonies in which all of our people may join in honoring police officers, past and present, who by their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities have rendered a dedicated service to their communities and, in doing so, have established for themselves an enviable and enduring reputation for preserving the rights and security of all citizens. I further call upon all citizens of Palo Alto to observe Wednesday, May 15, 2019, as Peace Officers’ Memorial Day in honor of those peace officers who, through their courageous deeds, have lost their lives or have become disabled in the performance of duty. Presented: May 13, 2019 ______________________________ Eric Filseth Mayor