HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-24 City Council Agenda PacketCity 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, August 24, 2020
Special Meeting
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.
****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY***
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833
Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20,
issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting
will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The
meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube at
https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and Midpen Media Center at
https://midpenmedia.org. Members of the public who wish to participate by
computer or phone can find the instructions at the end of this agenda. To
ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest calling in or connecting
online 15 minutes before the item you wish to speak on.
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.
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their
remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
Call to Order
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Oral Communications 5:00-5:30 PM
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of
Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Minutes Approval 5:30-5:35 PM
1.Approval of Action Minutes for the August 10, 2020 City Council
Meeting
REVISED
2 August 24, 2020
Consent Calendar 5:35-5:40 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
2.Approval of Contract Number C21179389 With Teichert Construction in
the Amount of $1,904,325 for the Page Mill Road Safety
Improvements Project (HSIPL-5100(029), Capital Improvement
Program Street Maintenance Project (PE-86070)
3.SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 Adjusting Parking
Requirements to Facilitate EVSE Installation, Compliance With
Accessibility Laws, Parking Substitutions, and Parking Lot Re-striping
and Maintenance. Environmental Assessment: This Project is Exempt
From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance
With CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, 15302, 15303, and 15061(b)(3)
(FIRST READING: August 10, 2020 PASSED: 7-0)
City Manager Comments
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
5:40-6:30 PM
3A. Staff and Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend the City Council
Adopt a Resolution Amending the City’s Electric Supply Portfolio
Carbon Neutral Plan and Electric Utility Reserves Management
Practices (Continued from August 17, 2020)
6:30-8:30 PM4.Recommendation to Accept the Human Relations Commission Report
on Their Review of 8 Can’t Wait Policies in Relation to Current Palo Alto
Police Department (PAPD) Policies, and Direction to the City Manager
Regarding Revisions to Police Policies
8:30-10:00 PM
5.Update and Potential Direction on City of Palo Alto's Race and Equity
Work
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.
Presentation
Presentation
Presentation
Public Comment
Public Comment
Public Comment
MEMO
3 August 24, 2020
Additional Information
Informational Report
Informational Report Regarding Race and Equity Data Transmitted
to the City Council Ad Hoc Committees
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Public Letters to Council
August 24, 2020 Set 1
August 31, 2020 Set 1
4 August 24, 2020
Public Comment Instructions
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference
meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted
through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on
the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the
following instructions carefully.
A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in-
browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a
current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+,
Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be
disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer.
B. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We
request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible
online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak.
C. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise
hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn.
Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.
D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your
comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted
through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download
the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or
Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the
instructions B-E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number
listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on
your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to
provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You
will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit
your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
August 24, 2020
The Honorable City Council
Attention: Finance Committee
Palo Alto, California
Approval of Action Minutes for the August 10, 2020 City Council
Meeting
Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: 08-10-20 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 6
Special Meeting
August 10, 2020
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in Virtual
Teleconference at 5:03 P.M.
Participating Remotely: Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka
Absent:
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
MOTION: Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to move
Agenda Item Number 8, “PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2353 Webster
Street [18PLN00339]:…” to be heard before Agenda Item Number 7.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Consent Calendar
Council Member Kou registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 5.
Council Member Tanaka registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 2.
MOTION: Vice Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to
approve Agenda Item Numbers 1-5.
1. Resolution 9910 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Establishing Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Secured and Unsecured Property
Tax Levy for the City of Palo Alto’s General Obligation Bond
Indebtedness (Measure N).”
2. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager or Designee to Execute
a Blanket Purchase Order With the Okonite Company for Underground
Cable for the Utility's Electric Underground System in an Annual Amount
of $350,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $1,750,000 Over the
Next Five Years.
3. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute Necessary
Agreements Subordinating the City's Interests in the Palo Alto Gardens
Multiple Family Residential Property at 648 San Antonio Road to
Facilitate Refinancing of the Affordable Housing Development.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 6
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 08/10/2020
4. Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Accept the
Status Updates of the Parking Funds Audit.
5. QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2585 E Bayshore Road: Approval of the Planning and
Development Services Director's Determination to Authorize a Waiver
From the Retail Preservation Ordinance. Environmental Assessment:
Exempt in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 1, 3, 4: 7-0
MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2: 6-1 Tanaka no
MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5: 6-1 Kou no
Action Items
5A. Selection of Applicants to Interview for one Position on the Human
Relations Commission and two Positions on the Public Art Commission
(Continued From August 3, 2020).
MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Council Member
Kniss to schedule interviews with the following candidates:
A. Human Relations Commission:
i. Nilofer Chollampat
ii. Sunita de Tourreil
iii. Sofia Fojas
iv. Curt Kinsky
v. David Villaseca Morales
vi. Paula Rugg
vii. Lestina Trainor
B. Public Art Commission:
i. Marilyn Gottlieb-Robert
ii. Hsinya Shen (Incumbent)
iii. Harriet Stern
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 6
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 08/10/2020
iv. Nia Taylor (Incumbent)
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Vice
Mayor DuBois to interview all applicants for the Human Relations Commission
and Public Art Commission.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 2-5 Cormack, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Tanaka
no
MOTION PASSED: 5-1 Kou no
5B. Update and Discussion on Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint and the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Process; and Direction to Staff to
Prepare Comment Letters on These Regional Efforts (Continued From
August 3, 2020).
MOTION: Vice Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to
direct Staff to:
A. Incorporate the new concepts from the Council alternate letter into
their comment letter to ABAG’s/MTC’s Housing Methodology
Committee, with some stronger wording and asking that there is an
evaluation of a new scenario that focuses on job spread through the
Bay Area and recognizes cities efforts to limit job growth;
B. Return to Council with some scenario planning based on anticipated
allocations; and
C. Return to Council with strategic options for us to influence RHNA
allocations and respond effectively throughout the process.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council
Member Cormack to:
A. Direct Staff to continuing work on two regional planning efforts, which
are Plan Bay Area 2050 and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) process, and return to Council with scenarios in anticipation of
preparing the new Housing Element; and
B. Direct Staff to submit a comment letter to ABAG/MTC’s Housing
Methodology Committee reflecting City Council initial comments
regarding the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) methodology
options that are under consideration.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 4-3 DuBois, Filseth, Kou no
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 4 of 6
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 08/10/2020
Council took a break at 7:46 P.M. and returned at 8:00 P.M.
6. Accept an Update on the Summer Streets Program; Adopt Resolution
9911 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Resolution Number 9909 to Extend the Temporary Street
Closures of California Avenue, University Avenue and Adjacent
Downtown Blocks to December 31, 2020; Extend the University Avenue
Closure to High Street; Extend the Expiration Date of Resolution Number
9909 Including the Temporary Parklet Program to September 7, 2021;
and Clarify Allowed Activities.”
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Mayor Fine to adopt a
Resolution Amending Resolution Number 9909 to:
A. Extend the temporary street closures of California Avenue, University
Avenue and other downtown blocks to December 31, 2020;
B. Extend the temporary street closure of University Avenue to include the
block between Emerson Street and High Street;
C. Extend the expiration date of Resolution Number 9909, including the
duration of the temporary Parklet Program to September 7, 2021; and
D. Allow activities in addition to outdoor dining and retail to occur on
temporarily closed streets.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to return with options for a COVID
percentage surcharge for local businesses (New Part E); and direct Staff to
return with a retail support plan focused on vacancies, expanded permitted
uses, and currently existing retail (New Part F).
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to consider
options for utility relief.” (New Part G).
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to amend Motion, Part G to state, “direct Staff to
return to Council with options for utility relief for closed retail businesses.”
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded
by Mayor Fine to adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution Number 9909 to:
A. Extend the temporary street closures of California Avenue, University
Avenue and other downtown blocks to December 31, 2020;
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 5 of 6
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 08/10/2020
B. Extend the temporary street closure of University Avenue to include the
block between Emerson Street and High Street;
C. Extend the expiration date of Resolution Number 9909, including the
duration of the temporary Parklet Program to September 7, 2021;
D. Allow activities in addition to outdoor dining and retail to occur on
temporarily closed streets;
E. Direct Staff to return with options for a COVID percentage surcharge for
local businesses;
F. Direct Staff to return with a retail support plan focused on vacancies,
expanded permitted uses, and currently existing retail; and
G. Direct Staff to return to Council with options for utility relief for closed
retail businesses.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0
Council took a break at 10:24 P.M. and returned at 10:31 P.M.
MOTION: Vice Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to
continue Agenda Item Number 8, “PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2353
Webster Street [18PLN00339]: Appeal of Director’s Approval...” to August 17,
2020.
MOTION PASSED: 5-2 Cormack, Fine no
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 Adjusting Parking
Requirements to Facilitate EVSE Installation, Compliance With
Accessibility Laws, Parking Substitutions, and Parking Lot Re-striping
and Maintenance. Environmental Assessment: This Project is Exempt
From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance
With CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, 15302, 15303, and 15061(b)(3).
Public Hearing opened and closed without public comment at 10:46 P.M.
MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Council Member
Filseth to adopt an Ordinance amending Title 18 (Zoning Code) Chapters
18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) and 18.54 (Parking Facility Design
Standards) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC).
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 6 of 6
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 08/10/2020
8. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2353 Webster Street
[18PLN00339]: Appeal of Director’s Approval of an Individual Review
Application to Demolish an Existing One-story 1,593 Square Foot (SF)
Home and Construct a Two-story Home (Approximately 2,935 SF) With
a Basement and an Attached Garage. Zoning District: Single-family
Residential (R-1).
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
None.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 P.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11429)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/24/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Contract for Page Mill Road Safety Improvements Project
Title: Approval of Contract Number C21179389 With Teichert Construction in
the Amount of $1,904,325 for the Page Mill Road Safety Improvements
Project (HSIPL-5100(029), Capital Improvement Program Street Maintenance
Project (PE-86070)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1.Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached
construction contract with Teichert Construction (Attachment A) in an amount not to
exceed $1,904,325 for the Page Mill Road Safety Improvements Project (HSIPL
5100(029), Street Maintenance Capital Improvement Program Project (PE-86070); and
2.Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more
change orders to the contract with Teichert Construction for related, additional but
unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not
exceed $190,433.
Background
Public Works Engineering Services Division (PWE) manages construction contracts for concrete
repair, preventive maintenance, resurfacing, and reconstruction of various City streets annually.
In more recent years, additional Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects are being built
through the annual resurfacing contracts due to the complexity of construction and benefit of
being included in a larger project.
All City of Palo Alto streets are surveyed biennially by PWE staff and rated by a computerized
pavement maintenance management system, and by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission’s pavement analysis program.
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Discussion
Project Description
Staff recommends approval of this street resurfacing contract with Teichert Construction
andimplementation this fiscal year as part of an enhanced program to maintain and improve
the condition of Palo Alto’s streets. The $1,904,325 expenditure for this contract includes
repaving 6.7 lane miles of Page Mill Road south of Altamont Road with pavement condition
index (PCI) scores averaging 57. This will help maintain and improve the City’s PCI beyond its
average of 83, and address many streets whose PCI falls below the City’s minimum goal of 60.
The scope of work also includes installing of approximately 600 lineal feet of guardrail system,
applying 52,200 square feet of high friction surface treatment, and installing new signage
and striping. These improvements are intended to improve safety along the corridor of this
road.
Grant Award
On December 2016, the City was awarded $946,170 through the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 8 to improve the curve super elevations (cross-slopes)
and install new guardrails along steep turns along this corridor. The project will also
resurface the road with a high friction surface treatment. In January 2018, PWE issued a
design task order to BKF Engineers to investigate and evaluate the safety feature
improvements for this corridor. BKF Engineers provided several improvements options and
worked with PWE and the Office of Transportation to finalize the design. The final design
was approved through Caltrans’ Plans, Specifications and Estimate process. On April 16, 2020,
Caltrans issued the E76 authorization to proceed with construction. Page Mill Road
resurfacing limits are shown in Attachment B. The final project elements composing the
safety improvements, such as new guardrails and high friction pavement, cost less than the
original estimate in the grant proposal. The federal grant will only pay for specified safety
improvements, and no other project elements are eligible. Therefore, the adjusted
reimbursement amount from Caltrans is $646,170, approximately $300,000 less than the
original grant award.
Bid Process
On June 22, 2020, the City issued an invitation for bids (IFB) for the Page Mill Road
Safety Improvements Project, posted at City Hall and sent to builder’s exchange and
contractors through the City’s eProcurement system. The bidding period was 26 calendar
days. Bids were received from five contractors on Friday, July 17, 2020 as listed on the
attached Bid Summary (Attachment C).
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Bid Name/Number Page Mill Road Safety Improvements Project IFB #179389
Proposed Length of Project 120 calendar days
Number of Bid Packages
Downloaded by Builder’s
Exchanges
6
Number of Bid Packages
Downloaded by Contractors 13
Total Days to Respond to Bid 26
Pre-Bid Meeting? No
Number of Bids Received: 5
Bid Price Range $1,904,325 to $2,425,140
Staff has reviewed the bids submitted and recommends the bid of $1,904,325 submitted by
Teichert Construction be accepted, and Teichert Construction be declared the lowest
responsible bidder. The low bid is 10 percent lower than the engineer’s estimate of $2,120,758.
Staff reviewed other similar projects performed by the lowest responsible bidder, Teichert
Construction, and did not find any significant concerns with their previous work. Staff also
checked with the Contractor's State License Board and confirmed the contractor has an active
license on file.
This contract is on the City’s construction contract template, which permits the City to
terminate without cause/for convenience by providing written notice to the contractor. In the
event the City finds itself facing a challenging budget situation, and it is determined that City
resources need to be refocused elsewhere, the City can terminate for convenience. Other
options include termination due to non-appropriation of funds or amending the contract to
reduce the cost, for example, by reducing the scope of work.
Resource Impact
Funding for the Page Mill Road Safety Improvements Project HSIPL 5100(029) is available in the
Fiscal Year 2021 Street Maintenance Capital Improvement Program Project (PE-86070). This
project is funded in part by the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 8 in the
amount of $646,170. This revenue was estimated to be received and programmed in FY 2020;
however, since the project is now being awarded in FY 2021, the revenue reappropriated from
FY 2020 to FY 2021 will be adjusted as part of the final FY 2020 year-end clean-up. Since the
reimbursement grant amount is anticipated to be $300,000 less than the original grant amount,
staff will also adjust the expenditure funding re-appropriation accordingly by $300,000 less for
the Street Maintenance Capital Improvement Program project (PE-86070), with no impact to
the Infrastructure Reserve.
Policy Implications
This project is in conformance with the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan and does not
represent any changes to existing City policies.
Summary of Bid Process
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Stakeholder Engagement
All street work has been coordinated with the City’s Utilities Department and Office of
Transportation to minimize the cutting of newly resurfaced streets. Extensive public outreach
will be conducted before and during the construction phase to keep the community informed
throughout the process, including flyers sent to adjacent residences and businesses and notices
posted online on Nextdoor and the City’s website.
Environmental Review
Street resurfacing projects are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) under Section 15301c of the CEQA Guidelines as repair, maintenance and/or minor
alteration of the existing facilities and no further environmental review is necessary.
Attachments:
•A - Contract C21179389
•B - Project Map
•C - Bid Summary
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. C21179389
City of Palo Alto
PAGE MILL ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
CI TY OF
PALO
ALTO
Attachment A
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS…………………………………….…………..6
1.1 Recitals…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6
1.2 Definitions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6
SECTION 2 THE PROJECT………………………………………………………………………………………………………...6
SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS………………………………………………………………………………..7
3.1 List of Documents…………………………………………………………………………………………….........7
3.2 Order of Precedence……………………………………………………………………………………………......7
SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY…………………………………………………………………………………………..7
4.1 Contractor's Duties…………………………………………………………………………………………………..8
SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM……………………………………………………………………………………………………..8
5.1 Contractor's Co-operation………………………………………………………………………………………..8
SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION…………………………………………………………………………………….......8
6.1 Time Is of Essence…………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
6.2 Commencement of Work…………………………………………………………………………………………8
6.3 Contract Time…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8
6.4 Liquidated Damages…………………………………………………………………………………………………8
6.4.1 Other Remedies……………………………………………………………………………………………………..9
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time………………………………………………………………………………….9
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR……………………………………………………………………….9
7.1 Contract Sum……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9
7.2 Full Compensation……………………………………………………………………………………………………9
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE……………………………………………………………………………………………..9
8.1 Standard of Care…………………………………………………………………………………..…………………9
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION…………………………………………………………………………………………..…10
9.1 Hold Harmless……………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
9.2 Survival…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10
SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION……..………………………………………………………………………………10
10.1 Municipal Code Requirement…………….………………………………..……………………………….10
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.…………………………………………………………………………………10
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
11.1 Evidence of Coverage…………………………………………………………………………………………..10
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS…………………………………………………………….…11
12.1 Assignment………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11
12.2 Assignment by Law.………………………………………………………………………………………………11
SECTION 13 NOTICES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11
13.1 Method of Notice …………………………………………………………………………………………………11
13.2 Notice Recipents ………………………………………………………………………………………………….11
13.3 Change of Address……………………………………………………………………………………………….12
SECTION 14 DEFAULT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...12
14.1 Notice of Default………………………………………………………………………………………………….12
14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default…………………………………………………………………………………12
SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES…………………………………………………………………………..13
15.1 Remedies Upon Default……………………………………………………………………………………….13
15.1.1 Delete Certain Services…………………………………………………………………………………….13
15.1.2 Perform and Withhold……………………………………………………………………………………..13
15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract…………………………………………………………………13
15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default………………………………………………13
15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond………………………………………………………………………….13
15.1.6 Additional Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………….13
15.2 Delays by Sureties……………………………………………………………………………………………….13
15.3 Damages to City…………………………………………………………………………………………………..14
15.3.1 For Contractor's Default…………………………………………………………………………………..14
15.3.2 Compensation for Losses…………………………………………………………………………………14
15.4 Suspension by City……………………………………………………………………………………………….14
15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience……………………………………………………………………………..14
15.4.2 Suspension for Cause………………………………………………………………………………………..14
15.5 Termination Without Cause…………………………………………………………………………………14
15.5.1 Compensation………………………………………………………………………………………………….15
15.5.2 Subcontractors………………………………………………………………………………………………..15
15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination………………………………………………………………...15
SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES……………………………………………………………16
16.1 Contractor’s Remedies……………………………………..………………………………..………………….16
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
16.1.1 For Work Stoppage……………………………………………………………………………………………16
16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment…………………………………………………………………………………….16
16.2 Damages to Contractor………………………………………………………………………………………..16
SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS………………………………………………………………………………….…16
17.1 Financial Management and City Access………………………………………………………………..16
17.2 Compliance with City Requests…………………………………………………………………………….17
SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES……………………………………………………………………………………..17
18.1 Status of Parties……………………………………………………………………………………………………17
SECTION 19 NUISANCE……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…17
19.1 Nuisance Prohibited……………………………………………………………………………………………..17
SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES…………………………………………………………………………………….17
20.1 Payment of Fees…………………………………………………………………………………………………..17
SECTION 21 WAIVER…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17
21.1 Waiver………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17
SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS……………………………….18
22.1 Governing Law…………………………………………………………………………………………………….18
22.2 Compliance with Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………18
22.2.1 Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance…………….………………………………………………….18
SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT……………………………………………………………………………………18
23.1 Integration………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18
SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………..18
24.1 Survival of Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………………18
SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES………………………………………………………………………………………….18
SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION……………………………………………………………………………………….19
26.1 Appropriation………………………………………………………………………………………………………19
SECTION 27 AUTHORITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………….19
27.1 Representation of Parties…………………………………………………………………………………….19
SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS………………………………………………………………………………………………..19
28.1 Multiple Counterparts………………………………………………………………………………………….19
SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………19
29.1 Severability………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19
SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES …………………………………………………..19
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
30.1 Amendments of Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………..19
SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION………………………………………………….….19
31.1 Workers Compensation…………………………………………………………………………………….19
SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS………………………………..…20
32.1 General Notice to Contractor…………………………………………………………………………….20
32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a)…………………………………………………………………………….20
32.3 DIR Registration Required…………………………………………………………………………………20
32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices…………………………………………………………………………………20
32.5 Payroll Records…………………………………………………………………………………………………20
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on August 17, 2020 (“Execution Date”) by and between the
CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and Teichert Construction
("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following:
R E C I T A L S:
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of
California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the
State of California and the Charter of City.
B. Contractor is a Corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California,
Contractor’s License Number 201696 and Department of Industrial Relations Registration Number
1000003381. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of California and has the
background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set forth in this Construction
Contract.
C. On June 22, 2020, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Palo Alto Various
Streets Resurfacing (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a Bid.
D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other
services as identified in the Contract Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS.
1.1 Recitals.
All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
1.2 Definitions.
Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the General
Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and in the General
Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail.
SECTION 2 THE PROJECT.
The Project is the Page Mill Road Safety Improvements Project, located at various locations, Palo Alto, CA.
("Project").
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
3.1 List of Documents.
The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist of
the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
1) Change Orders
2) Field Orders
3) Contract
4) Bidding Addenda
5) Special Provisions
6) General Conditions
7) Project Plans and Drawings
8) Technical Specifications
9) Instructions to Bidders
10) Invitation for Bids
11) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Declaration
12) Reports listed in the Contract Documents
13) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version at
time of Bid)
14) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards (most current
version at time of Bid)
15) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements
16) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations
17) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre-
Qualification Checklist (if applicable)
18) Performance and Payment Bonds
3.2 Order of Precedence.
For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the
provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in
the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence,
the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the
best interests of the City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of a conflict between and among
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
the provisions of the Contract Documents, in which a provision is, or provisions are, required by Federal,
State or Local law or regulation, the City shall apply the rules of preemption to determine which provision
or provisions control.
SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY.
4.1 Contractor’s Duties
Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract
Documents, all of which are fully incorporated herein. Contractor shall provide, furnish, and supply all things
necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including, but not limited
to, provision of all necessary labor, materials, equipment, transportation, and utilities, unless otherwise
specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor also agrees to use its best efforts to complete the Work in
a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards required by the
Contract Documents.
SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM.
5.1 Contractor’s Co-operation.
In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide
professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Contract requires
that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of
the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project.
SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION.
6.1 Time Is of Essence.
Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents.
6.2 Commencement of Work.
Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed.
6.3 Contract Time.
Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be completed
not later than .
within One hundred twenty calendar days (120) after the commencement date specified
in City’s Notice to Proceed.
By executing this Construction Contract, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early
completion.
6.4 Liquidated Damages.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of
the entire Work within the Contract Time, including any approved extensions thereto, City may assess
liquidated damages on a daily basis for each day of Unexcused Delay in achieving Substantial Completion,
based on the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per day, or as otherwise specified in the Special
Provisions. Liquidated damages may also be separately assessed for failure to meet milestones specified
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
elsewhere in the Contract Documents, regardless of impact on the time for achieving Substantial
Completion. The assessment of liquidated damages is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable
estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. The City is entitled
to setoff the amount of liquidated damages assessed against any payments otherwise due to Contractor,
including, but not limited to, setoff against release of retention. If the total amount of liquidated damages
assessed exceeds the amount of unreleased retention, City is entitled to recover the balance from
Contractor or its sureties. Occupancy or use of the Project in whole or in part prior to Substantial
Completion, shall not operate as a waiver of City’s right to assess liquidated damages.
6.4.1 Other Remedies. City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may
have where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial
Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time.
The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and memorialized in a
Change Order approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract
Documents the Contract Sum of One Million Nine Hundred Four Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Five
Dollars ($1,904,325.00).
[This amount includes the Base Bid and Additive Alternates .]
7.2 Full Compensation.
The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor
and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all Losses
arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or
obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City, all
risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of
the Work, except as expressly provided herein. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders
approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.
8.1 Standard of Care.
Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised
personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a
manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in
providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.
9.1 Hold Harmless.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its City
Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter
individually referred to as an “Indemnitee” and collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal
counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses (including,
without limitation, attorney fees, expert witness fees, paralegal fees, and fees and costs of litigation or
arbitration) (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature arising out of or in connection with the acts or omissions
of Contractor, its employees, Subcontractors, representatives, or agents, in performing the Work or its
failure to comply with any of its obligations under the Contract, except such Liability caused by the active
negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs
City incurs to enforce this provision. Except as provided in Section 9.2 below, nothing in the Contract
Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against
City or any other Indemnitee.
Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9201, City shall timely notify Contractor upon receipt of
any third-party claim relating to the Contract.
9.2 Survival.
The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION.
10.1 Municipal Code Requirement.
As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of this
Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender,
age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial
status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands the
provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements
and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining
to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.
11.1 Evidence of coverage.
Within ten (10) business days following issuance of the Notice of Award, Contractor shall provide City with
evidence that it has obtained insurance and shall submit Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all
requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.
12.1 Assignment.
City is entering into this Construction Contract in reliance upon the stated experience and qualifications of
the Contractor and its Subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign,
hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation
of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or transfer
without said consent shall be null and void, and shall be deemed a substantial breach of contract and grounds
for default in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy available to the City.
12.2 Assignment by Law.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of
Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor
is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the control of Contractor,
shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent
(50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.
SECTION 13 NOTICES.
13.1 Method of Notice.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in
writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following:
(i) On the date delivered if delivered personally;
(ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and
addressed as hereinafter provided;
(iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission;
(iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or
(v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail.
13.2 Notice to Recipients.
All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Change Order Requests and Claims) from
Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be
addressed to City at:
To City: City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Copy to: City of Palo Alto
Public Works Administration
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Young Tran
AND
[Include Construction Manager, If Applicable.]
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Engineering
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn:
In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the
following:
Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, California 94303
All Claims shall be sent by registered mail or certified mail with return receipt requested.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:
…………..
13.3 Change of Address.
In advance of any change of address, Contractor shall notify City of the change of address in writing. Each
party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which
notice shall be provided.
SECTION 14 DEFAULT.
14.1 Notice of Default.
In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any
of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract
Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of
notices in the Construction Contract, with a copy to Contractor’s performance bond surety.
14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.
Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the
Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt
of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will
commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and
will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in
no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
15.1 Remedies Upon Default.
If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in
Section 14, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation,
the following:
15.1.1 Delete Certain Services. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete
certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
15.1.2 Perform and Withhold. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage
others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by
Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to
itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. City may, without terminating the Construction
Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this
Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion,
appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract
Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work.
15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default. City shall have the right to terminate
this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any
default as required by Section 14. City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default
shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified
for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor
by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein.
15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. City may, with or without terminating the Construction
Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the
Performance Bond.
15.1.6 Additional Provisions. All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract
are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity.
Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City’s
authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to terminate the Construction
Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material.
City’s determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so
as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract,
shall be binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall
prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract
Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all
liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City.
15.2 Delays by Sureties.
Time being of the essence in the performance of the Work, if Contractor’s surety fails to arrange for
completion of the Work in accordance with the Performance Bond, within seven (7) calendar days from the
date of the notice of termination, Contractor’s surety shall be deemed to have waived its right to complete
the Work under the Contract, and City may immediately make arrangements for the completion of the Work
through use of its own forces, by hiring a replacement contractor, or by any other means that City determines
advisable under the circumstances. Contractor and its surety shall be jointly and severally liable for any
additional cost incurred by City to complete the Work following termination. In addition, City shall have the
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
right to use any materials, supplies, and equipment belonging to Contractor and located at the Worksite for
the purposes of completing the remaining Work.
15.3 Damages to City.
15.3.1 For Contractor's Default. City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity
in the event of Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents.
15.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default
under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to deduct the cost of such Losses from monies
otherwise payable to Contractor. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount payable,
Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City.
15.4 Suspension by City
15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience. City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause,
order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such
period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be
specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor
shall, at City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs
allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the
Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the
Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor
shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments
of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension
Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work.
15.4.2 Suspension for Cause. In addition to all other remedies available to City, if Contractor fails
to perform or correct work in accordance with the Contract Documents, City may immediately order
the Work, or any portion thereof, suspended until the cause for the suspension has been eliminated
to City’s satisfaction. Contractor shall not be entitled to an increase in Contract Time or Contract
Price for a suspension occasioned by Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents.
City’s right to suspend the Work shall not give rise to a duty to suspend the Work, and City’s failure
to suspend the Work shall not constitute a defense to Contractor’s failure to comply with the
requirements of the Contract Documents.
15.5 Termination Without Cause.
City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole
upon written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply
with the notice and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs to close out and demobilize. The
compensation allowed under this Paragraph 15.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation
for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not
limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct,
indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause. Termination pursuant
to this provision does not relieve Contractor or its sureties from any of their obligations for Losses arising
from or related to the Work performed by Contractor.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
15.5.1 Compensation. Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of
a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 15.5.1, City shall
pay the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work :
.1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the
Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to
Contractor.
.2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors:
(i) Demobilizing and
(ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project (including, without
limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a
period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination.
.3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site
which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.
.4 Profit Allowance. An allowance for profit calculated as four percent (4%) of the sum of
the above items, provided Contractor can prove a likelihood that it would have made a profit if the
Construction Contract had not been terminated.
15.5.2 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase
orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are
consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against
Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section.
15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination.
Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice
directs otherwise, do the following:
(i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice;
(ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities,
except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not
discontinued;
(iii) Provide to City a description in writing, no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the
notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are
outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes,
payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of the
subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or
modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine
necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to
terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract;
(iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms
reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof,
that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and
(v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already
in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit
thereto.
Upon termination, whether for cause or for convenience, the provisions of the Contract Documents
remain in effect as to any Claim, indemnity obligation, warranties, guarantees, submittals of as-built
drawings, instructions, or manuals, or other such rights and obligations arising prior to the
termination date.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
16.1 Contractor’s Remedies.
Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following:
16.1.1 For Work Stoppage. The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act
or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any
Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having
jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making
material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s
issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience.
16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment. If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within
ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction
Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the
Construction Contract.
16.2 Damages to Contractor.
In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in
Paragraph 15.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation
and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of
anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental
damages, of any kind.
SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
17.1 Financial Management and City Access.
Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper
financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and
copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence,
instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data
relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later
of (i) Final Payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer
period as may be required by law.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
17.2 Compliance with City Requests.
Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 17 shall be a condition precedent
to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right
to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to
provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 17.1 for inspection or copying
by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent
jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony.
SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES.
18.1 Status of parties.
Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’ of
the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or its
respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth.
SECTION 19 NUISANCE.
19.1 Nuisance Prohibited.
Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in
connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract.
SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES.
20.1 Payment of Fees.
Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall
provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government
jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses
for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation shall
be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City inspectors or conditions set forth
in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies.
SECTION 21 WAIVER.
21.1 Waiver.
A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition
contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS.
22.1 Governing Law.
This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of
California, and venue shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara, and no other
place.
22.2 Compliance with Laws.
Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal and California laws and city laws, including, without
limitation, ordinances and resolutions, in the performance of work under this Construction Contract.
22.2.1 Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance. Contractor shall comply with all requirements of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from
time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who
performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the
City, Contractor shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto
Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City
of Palo Alto. In addition, Contractor shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage
Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060.
SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
23.1 Integration.
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all
prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended
only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.
24.1 Survival of Provisions.
The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction
Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment obligations,
and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect after Final
Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract.
SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES.
This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the
performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7, if the public works contract does
not include a project of $25,000 or less, when the project is for construction work, or the contract does not
include a project of $15,000 or less, when the project is for alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance
(collectively, ‘improvement’) work.
Or
Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California
Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to
the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the
general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 19 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the
Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the
Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates
to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a
minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections
1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages.
SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION.
26.1 Appropriations.
This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto
Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for
this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a
conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 27 AUTHORITY.
27.1 Representation of Parties.
The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and
authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS
28.1 Multiple Counterparts.
This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties,
constitute a single binding agreement.
SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY.
29.1 Severability.
In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity,
legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.
SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES.
30.1 Amendments to Laws.
With respect to any amendments to any statutes or regulations referenced in these Contract Documents,
the reference is deemed to be the version in effect on the date that the Contract was awarded by City,
unless otherwise required by law.
SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION.
31.1 Workers Compensation.
Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows:
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 20 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
“I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be
insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the
Work on this Contract.”
SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS.
32.1 General Notice to Contractor.
City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854.
32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a)
City provides notice to Contractor of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.1(a), which
reads:
“A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the
requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for
public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work
pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid
that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of
the Public Contract Code, provided the contactor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section
1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.”
32.3 DIR Registration Required.
City will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Construction Contract with Contractor without
proof that Contractor and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial
Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions.
32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices.
City gives notice to Contractor and its listed subcontractors that Contractor is required to post all job site
notices prescribed by law or regulation and Contractor is subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring and
enforcement by DIR.
32.5 Payroll Records.
City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section
1776, including:
(i) Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security
number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day
and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice,
worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, Contractor and its listed
subcontractors, in connection with the Project.
(ii) The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified
and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office
of Contractor and its listed subcontractors, respectively.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 21 Rev. March 17, 2017
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
(iii) At the request of City, acting by its project manager, Contractor and its listed
subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection
or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt
of City’s request.
City requests Contractor and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified
payroll records to the project manager at the end of each week during the
Project.
(iv) If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within
the 10-day period, then Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall be subject
to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion
thereof, for each worker, and City shall withhold the sum total of penalties from
the progress payment(s) then due and payable to Contractor. This provision
supplements the provisions of Section 15 hereof.
(v) Inform the project manager of the location of contractor’s and its listed
subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the
commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager
within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the
date and year first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________
Purchasing Manager
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
City Attorney or designee
APPROVED:
____________________________
Public Works Director
CONTRACTOR
Officer 1
By:___________________________
Name:________________________
Title:__________________________
Date: _________________________
Officer 2
By:____________________________
Name:_________________________
Title:___________________________
Date:____________________________
1/l ,-!
en ;,o;
z l'1
PROJECT BEGIN
LOS TRANCOS OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PARKING LOT
;o 0
tts � � �
�
PROJECT END
CITY OF PALO ALTO
HSIP 2016 PROJECT MAP IPAGE MILL ROAD
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
SHEET No. I OF'
!APPROVED
2 SHEETS
20 ----t
LAND SURVEYOR 7 ENGINEER
P.L.S. #R.< #;.E
y I 8 I DRAWN JH
CHECKED
DATE
(lf™'
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Project Mop
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
HOLLY BOYD
P.LS. EXP.
SCALE: NTS
"7'-...:.:=..:._ PALO ALTO
FIRE STATION
8
--
Attachment B
ATTACHMENT C
FY2020 STREETS RESURFACING PROJECT
BID SUMMARY
UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST
1 AC Overlay w/15% RAP: 6,587 TON $ 125.00 823,312.50$ $ 148.00 974,802.00$ $ 160.00 1,053,840.00$ $ 160.00 1,053,840.00$ $ 120.00 790,380.00$ $ 134.00 882,591.00$
2 AC Milling: 495,268 SF $ 0.60 297,160.80$ $ 0.65 321,924.20$ $ 0.25 123,817.00$ $ 1.30 643,848.40$ $ 0.35 173,343.80$ $ 0.60 297,160.80$
3 Crack Sealing: 30,000 LF $ 0.60 18,000.00$ $ 2.70 81,000.00$ $ 2.50 75,000.00$ $ 1.00 30,000.00$ $ 2.00 60,000.00$ $ 2.30 69,000.00$
4 Electrical Utility Box Adjustments: 6 EA $ 700.00 4,200.00$ $ 1,000.00 6,000.00$ $ 2,000.00 12,000.00$ $ 2,000.00 12,000.00$ $ 3,500.00 21,000.00$ $ 1,400.00 8,400.00$
5 Storm Drain Mainhole Cover Adjustment: 6 EA $ 1,000.00 6,000.00$ $ 1,200.00 7,200.00$ $ 2,000.00 12,000.00$ $ 2,000.00 12,000.00$ $ 1,750.00 10,500.00$ $ 1,400.00 8,400.00$
6 Inert recycling:6,587 TON $ 15.00 98,797.50$ $ 4.00 26,346.00$ $ 22.00 144,903.00$ $ 1.00 6,586.50$ $ 30.00 197,595.00$ $ 1.00 6,586.50$
7 Caltrans Detail 22:18,515 LF $ 2.50 46,287.50$ $ 1.60 29,624.00$ $ 1.40 25,921.00$ $ 1.70 31,475.50$ $ 1.60 29,624.00$ $ 1.60 29,624.00$
8 6" White Thermoplastic Edge Stripe: 34,390 LF $ 2.00 68,780.00$ $ 0.80 27,512.00$ $ 0.70 24,073.00$ $ 1.00 34,390.00$ $ 0.80 27,512.00$ $ 0.80 27,512.00$
9 Traffic Control:1 LS $150,000.00 150,000.00$ $200,000.00 200,000.00$ $320,645.00 320,645.00$ $176,000.00 176,000.00$ $ 80,000.00 80,000.00$ $152,400.70 152,400.70$
10 Notifications:1 LS $ 10,000.00 10,000.00$ $ 15,000.00 15,000.00$ $ 7,000.00 7,000.00$ $ 25,000.00 25,000.00$ $ 30,000.00 30,000.00$ $ 3,500.00 3,500.00$
11 HSIP Improvements per Appendix C:1 LS $598,220.00 598,220.00$ $416,000.00 416,000.00$ $400,000.00 400,000.00$ $400,000.00 400,000.00$ $655,010.20 655,010.20$ $419,150.00 419,150.00$
2,120,758.30$ 2,105,408.20$ 2,199,199.00$ 2,425,140.40$ 2,074,965.00$ 1,904,325.00$
BID ITEM DESCRIPTION APPROX.
QTY UNIT ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE DeSilva Gates Interstate Grading & Paving Goodfellows Bros. Teichert Construction
Base Bid Total (Items 001 through 36)
O'Grady Paving, Inc.
under over over under
BASE BID OVER/UNDER -1%4%
under
14%-2%-10%
Attachment C
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
August 24, 2020
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 Adjusting Parking
Requirements to Facilitate EVSE Installation, Compliance With
Accessibility Laws, Parking Substitutions, and Parking Lot Re-striping
and Maintenance. Environmental Assessment: This Project is Exempt
From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance
With CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, 15302, 15303, and 15061(b)(3)
(FIRST READING: August 10, 2020 PASSED: 7-0)
This ordinance was first heard by the City Council on August 10, 2020,
where it passed 7-0 with no changes. It is now before the City Council for
the second reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: Ordinance (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
DRAFT
1
20200609_ay_16_0160026
Ordinance No. ____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.52
(Parking and Loading Requirements) and Chapter 18.54 (Parking Facility Design)
of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Facilitate EVSE
Installation, Compliance with Accessibility Requirements, Parking Substitutions,
and Associated Parking Adjustments
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On October 12, 2019, the Governor approved AB 1100, which requires local
authorities to count as a standard automobile parking space any parking space
served by electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) or designated for future EVSE.
AB 1100 further requires cities to count as two standard automobile parking spaces
any accessible parking space with an access aisle served by EVSE or designated for
future EVSE.
B. The City of Palo Alto promotes the use of Electric Vehicles. In 2017, one in three
new vehicles purchased in Palo Alto was electric ‐ the highest adoption rate in the
country.
C. It can be especially difficult for existing parking facilities to install new EVSE, as both
the EVSE and require electric utility equipment require additional spaces compared
to standard automobile parking.
D. Existing parking facilities also face difficulty installing accessible parking spaces in
compliance with state and federal law. Successful implementation often requires
the loss of one or more existing parking spaces.
E. Numerous other City priorities, including expansion of bicycle infrastructure,
facilitation of waste management, and improvement of substandard parking stalls
may be hampered by strict application of existing parking standards.
F. The City Council desires to update the parking requirements in Title 18 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code to facilitate installation of EVSE and accessible parking spaces,
improve flexibility for existing parking facilities, and make associated code changes.
//
//
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
DRAFT
2
20200609_ay_16_0160026
SECTION 2. Section 18.52.020 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading
Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended as follows:
18.52.020 Definitions
For purposes of this chapter:
(a) "Accessible"
"Accessible" means the ability to be used by persons with disabilities as defined in the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
(b) "Construction of Floor Area"
"Construction of floor area" means the construction or building of "floor area" except
for new floor area added to an existing, restored, or partially reconstructed building to
meet the minimum requirements of federal, state or local laws relating to fire
prevention and safety, handicapped access, and building and seismic safety;
(c) "Design Approval"
"Design approval" means approval pursuant to Sections 18.76.020 and 18.77.070 by the
director of planning and community environment (the "director") upon
recommendation of the architectural review board.
(d) “Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE)”
“Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE)” is defined to be consistent with the
California Electrical Code and applies to any level or capacity of supply equipment
installed specifically for transferring energy between the premises wiring and electric
vehicles.
(e) “Motorcycle Parking”
“Motorcycle Parking” means a parking space designed for any motor vehicle designed to
travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. This includes mopeds
and motor scooters.
(d)(f) "Parking Assessment Areas"
"Parking assessment areas" means either:
(1) The "downtown parking assessment area," which is that certain area of the
city delineated on the map of the University Avenue parking assessment district
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
DRAFT
3
20200609_ay_16_0160026
entitled Proposed Boundaries of University Avenue Off‐Street Parking Project No.
75‐63 Assessment District, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of
California, dated October 30, 1978, and on file with the city clerk; or
(2) The "California Avenue area parking assessment district," which is that
certain area of the city delineated on the map of the California Avenue area
parking assessment district entitled Proposed Boundaries, California Avenue Area
Parking Maintenance District, dated December 16, 1976, and on file with the city
clerk;
(e)(g) "Shared (Joint Use) Parking"
"Shared (joint use) parking" means parking intended to accommodate multiple uses,
whether residential or non‐residential or both, and to minimize the number of parking
spaces needed by allowing some spaces to be used for different uses at different times
of the day or night.
(h) Definitions for other parking‐related terms can be found in Section 18.04.030(a)
(Definitions), including "Parking as a principal use," "Parking facility," and "Parking
space."
SECTION 3. Section 18.52.030 (Basic Parking Regulations) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and
Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to amend subsection (c) as
follows:
18.52.030 Basic Parking Regulations
[. . .]
(c) Non‐Conformance Due to Parking Requirements
No use of land lawfully existing on July 20, 1978 is nonconforming solely because of the
lack of off‐street parking, loading, or bicycle facilities prescribed in this chapter;
provided, that facilities being used for off‐street parking on July 20, 1978, shall not be
reduced in capacity to less than the number of spaces prescribed in this chapter or
altered in design or function to less than the minimum standards prescribed in this
chapter except for the allowed reductions in parking and the modifications to existing
facilities allowed pursuant to Sections 18.52.045 and 18.52.050.
[. . .]
//
//
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
DRAFT
4
20200609_ay_16_0160026
SECTION 4. Subsection (b) of Section 18.52.040 (Off‐Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility
Requirements) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is
hereby amended as follows:
18.52.040 Off‐Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility Requirements
[. . .]
(b) Calculation of Required Parking
Off‐street parking, loading and bicycle facility requirements established by subsection
(a) shall be applied as follows:
(1) Where the application of the schedule results in a fractional requirement, a
fraction of 0.5 or greater shall be resolved to the next higher whole number.
(2) For purposes of this chapter, gross floor area shall not include enclosed or
covered areas used for off‐street parking or loading, or bicycle facilities.
(3) Where uses or activities subject to differing requirements are located in the
same structure or on the same site, or are intended to be served by a common
facility, the total requirement shall be the sum of the requirements for each use
or activity computed separately, except as adjusted by the director under the
provisions of Table 1 or Section 18.52.050. The director, when issuing a permit(s)
for multiple uses on a site, may restrict the hours of operation or place other
conditions on the multiple uses so that parking needs do not overlap and may
then modify the total parking requirement to be based on the most intense
combination of uses at any one time.
(4) Where requirements are established on the basis of seats or person
capacity, the building regulations provisions applicable at the time of
determination shall be used to define capacity.
(5) Where residential use is conducted together with or accessory to other
permitted uses, applicable residential requirements shall apply in addition to
other nonresidential requirements, except as provided by Sections 18.52.050
and 18.52.080.
(6) In addition to t The parking requirements outlined in Tables 1 and 2 are
inclusive of parking spaces that fulfill accessibility requirements set forth, parking
for handicapped persons shall be provided pursuant to the requirements of
Section 18.54.030 (Accessible Parking) and consistent with criteria outlined in
Title 16 (Building Code) of the Municipal Code in compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA).
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
DRAFT
5
20200609_ay_16_0160026
(7) A parking space served by EVSE or a parking space designated for future
installation of EVSE (EV Ready) shall count as one standard automobile parking
space for purposes of the parking requirements outlined in Tables 1 and 2.
(8) A van‐accessible parking space or accessible parking space with an adjacent
accessible path of travel shall count as at least two standard automobile parking
spaces for purposes of the parking requirements outlined in Tables 1 and 2,
inclusive of van‐accessible parking spaces served by EVSE or designated as EV
Ready.
(9) Motorcycle parking shall not count towards the vehicle parking
requirements outlined in Tables 1 and 2.
[. . .]
SECTION 5. Section 18.52.045 (Minor Adjustments to Existing Parking Facilities) of Chapter
18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby added as follows:
18.52.045 Minor Adjustments to Existing Parking Facilities
The following minor adjustments may be made to existing parking facilities that are
intended to remain in substantially the same form after restriping.
(a) Accessibility and EVSE‐related equipment. For sites with existing development, the
number on‐site parking spaces may be reduced to the minimum extent necessary to: (1)
achieve state or federally mandated accessibility requirements or (2) permit installation
of electrical utility equipment required for EVSE. A maximum of 10% of the existing
automobile parking stalls, or one stall, whichever is greater, may be removed pursuant
to this section. The loss of a parking space is not permitted to accommodate EVSE itself.
To the extent reasonably feasible, electrical equipment required for EVSE shall be placed
in a location that minimizes visibility from the public right of way.
(b) Substitution of bicycle parking. For sites with existing development, where
additional bicycle parking facilities cannot reasonably be located outside of the parking
facility area, existing automobile parking stalls may be substituted with long‐ or short‐
term bicycle parking facilities. The maximum number of substitutions shall be two
existing automobile parking spaces, or 10% of the existing automobile parking stalls,
whichever is greater. A minimum of four long‐term or eight short‐term bicycle parking
spaces is required per automobile parking space. The bicycle parking spaces are to be
located in the same physical location as the automobile spaces they are replacing, which
shall be near primary entries of the building on‐site or in locations that meet best
practices for bicycle parking facilities.
//
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
DRAFT
6
20200609_ay_16_0160026
SECTION 6. Table 4 (Allowable Parking Adjustments) of Section 18.52.050 (Adjustments by the
Director) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby
amended as follows:
18.52.050 Adjustments by the Director
[. . .]
Table 4
Allowable Parking Adjustments
Purpose of
Adjustment
Amount of Adjustment Maximum
Reduction 2
On‐Site
Employee
Amenities
Square footage of commercial or industrial uses
to be used for an on‐site cafeteria, recreational
facility, and/or day care facility, to be provided to
employees or their children and not open to the
general public, may be exempted from the
parking requirements.
100% of
requirement for
on‐site
employee
amenities
Joint Use
(Shared)
Parking
Facilities
For any site or sites with multiple uses where the
application of this chapter requires a total of or
more than ten (10) spaces, the total number of
spaces otherwise required by application of Table
1 may be reduced when the joint facility will
serve all existing, proposed, and potential uses as
effectively and conveniently as would separate
parking facilities for each use or site. In making
such a determination, the director shall consider
a parking analysis using criteria developed by the
Urban Land Institute (ULI) or similar methodology
to estimate the shared parking characteristics of
the proposed land uses. The analysis shall employ
the city's parking ratios as the basis for the
calculation of the base parking requirement and
for the determination of parking requirements
for individual land uses. The director may also
require submittal and approval of a TDM
program 1 to further assure parking reductions
are achieved.
20% of total
spaces required
for the site
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
DRAFT
7
20200609_ay_16_0160026
100%
Affordable
Housing (4)
Based on maximum anticipated demand;
applicant may request up to a 100% reduction in
parking.
Affordable
Housing Units
and Single
Room
Occupancy
(SRO) Units (3)
The total number of spaces required may be
reduced for affordable housing and single room
occupancy (SRO) units, commensurate with the
reduced parking demand created by the housing
facility, including for visitors and accessory
facilities. The reduction shall consider proximity
to transit and support services and the director
may require traffic demand management
measures1 in conjunction with any approval.
a. 40% for
Extremely
Low Income
and SRO
Units
b. 30% for Very
Low Income
Units
c. 20% for Low
Income Units
Housing Near
Transit
Facilities
The total number of spaces required may be
reduced for housing located within a designated
Pedestrian/Transit Oriented area or elsewhere in
immediate proximity to public transportation
facilities serving a significant portion of residents,
employees, or customers, when such reduction
will be commensurate with the reduced parking
demand created by the housing facility, including
for visitors and accessory facilities, and subject to
submittal and approval of a TDM program.1
20% of the total
spaces required
for the site.
Transportation
and Parking
Alternatives
Where effective alternatives to automobile
access are provided, other than those listed
above, parking requirements may be reduced to
an extent commensurate with the permanence,
effectiveness, and the demonstrated reduction of
off‐street parking demand effectuated by such
alternative programs. Examples of such programs
may include, but are not limited to,
transportation demand management (TDM)
programs, or innovative parking pricing or design
solutions.1 (note: landscape reserve requirement
is deleted).
20% of the total
spaces required
for the site
Combined
Parking
Adjustments
Parking reductions may be granted for any
combination of the above circumstances as
prescribed by this chapter, subject to limitations
on the combined total reduction allowed.
a. 30%
reduction of the
total parking
demand
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
DRAFT
8
20200609_ay_16_0160026
otherwise
required
b. 40%
reduction for
affordable
housing projects
Modification
to Off‐Street
Loading
Requirements
The director may modify the quantity or
dimensions of off‐street loading requirements for
non‐residential development based on existing or
proposed site conditions; availability of
alternative means to address loading and
unloading activity; and, upon finding that: 1) the
off‐street loading requirement may conflict with
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to
site design planning, circulation and access, or
urban design principles; and 2) the use of shared
on‐street loading would not conflict with
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to
site design planning, circulation and access or
urban design principles; maximum reduction in
one loading space.
One loading
space may be
waived
Restriping
Existing
Parking
Facilities
Existing parking facilities may be restriped in
accordance with applicable provisions of the
municipal code. The Director may approve a
reduction in the number of required on‐site
parking spaces to achieve the City’s waste
management objectives, make improvements to
on‐site circulation that would reduce or eliminate
a hazard, or bring substandard parking stalls into
compliance with current design requirements.
This provision applies only to sites with existing
structures and existing parking facilities that are
intended to remain in substantially the same
form after re‐striping of the facility.
10% of the total
spaces required
for the site, or 2
spaces,
whichever is
greater.
(1) See Section 18.52.050(d) below regarding requirements for TDM
programs.
(2) No parking reductions may be granted that would result in provision of
less than ten (10) parking spaces on site, except for 100% affordable
housing projects.
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
DRAFT
9
20200609_ay_16_0160026
(3) No parking reductions may be granted for projects that are entitled to
the reduced parking standards in Table 1 of Section 18.52.040 for senior
housing.
(4) Applies to 100% affordable housing projects and the residential
component of 100% affordable housing mixed‐use projects. “100%
affordable housing” as used herein means a multiple‐family housing
project consisting entirely of affordable units, as defined in Section
16.65.020 of this code, available only to households with income levels at
or below 120% of the area median income, as defined in Chapter 16.65,
except for a building manager’s unit.
[. . .]
SECTION 7. Section 18.52.080 (Adjustments to Parking Assessment Area Requirements by the
Director) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby
amended as follows:
18.52.080 Adjustments to Parking Assessment Area Requirements by the Director
Automobile parking requirements prescribed in this chapter may be adjusted by the
director for properties within parking assessment areas in the following instances and in
accord with the prescribed limitations where, in his/her opinion, such adjustment will be
in accord with purposes of this chapter and will not create undue impact on existing or
potential uses adjoining the site or in the general vicinity. Adjustments shall be made in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.78. The decision of the Director
regarding parking adjustments may be appealed as set forth in Chapter 18.78 (Appeals)
(a) Tandem Parking
Tandem parking (a multiple parking configuration locating one stall behind another)
may be allowed where in the judgment of the director the parking will serve all
proposed uses conveniently. The director shall require such covenants and guarantees
as deemed necessary to ensure use and maintenance of such parking facilities.
(b) Percentage of Compact Parking Stalls
For parking facilities exceeding five stalls and with architectural review approval prior to
June 1, 2007, a maximum of fifty percent compact parking stalls may be allowed. For
any project approved subsequent to June 1, 2007, compact parking is not allowed.
(c) Shared Parking Facilities
For any site or sites with multiple uses where joint use of on‐site private or nearby
public parking facilities can occur without conflict, and the use is exempt from parking
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
DRAFT
10
20200609_ay_16_0160026
assessment, the total number of spaces otherwise required by application of the
schedule may be reduced when the joint facility will serve all existing, proposed, and
potential uses as effectively and conveniently as would separate parking facilities for
each use or site. In making such a determination, the director shall consider a parking
analysis using criteria developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) or similar
methodology to estimate the shared parking characteristics of the proposed land uses.
The analysis shall employ the city's parking ratios as the basis for the calculation of the
base parking requirement and for the determination of parking requirements for
individual land uses. The number of parking stalls required for any new development or
addition may be reduced by no more than twenty percent (20%) of the total number of
spaces otherwise required for the site or sites.
(d) Off‐Site Parking
Within parking assessment areas, the director may authorize all or a portion of the
required parking for a use to be located on a site within the parking assessment area or
not more than 500 feet from the boundaries of the parking assessment area, where the
zoning of such site permits parking as a use. The director shall require such covenants
and guarantees as deemed necessary to ensure use and maintenance of such parking
facilities.
(e) Modifications to Off‐Street Loading Requirements
The director may modify the quantity or dimensions of off‐street loading requirements
for non‐residential development based on existing or proposed site conditions;
availability of alternative means to address loading and unloading activity; and, upon
finding that: 1) the off‐street loading requirement may conflict with Comprehensive
Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access, or urban
design principles; maximum reduction is one loading space; and 2) and the use of shared
on‐street loading would not conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related
to site design planning, circulation and access or urban design principles; maximum
reduction in one loading space.
(f) Affordable Housing
For 100 percent affordable housing projects, the director may waive up to 100 percent
of the parking requirement based on maximum anticipated demand. "100% affordable
housing" as used herein means a multiple‐family housing project consisting entirely of
affordable units, as defined in Section 16.65.020 of this code, available only to
households with income levels at or below 120 percent of the area median income, as
defined in Chapter 16.65, except for a building manager's unit.
(g) Adjustments to Existing Parking Facilities
The Director may approve a reduction in existing on‐site parking spaces to achieve the
City’s waste management objectives, make improvements to on‐site circulation that
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
DRAFT
11
20200609_ay_16_0160026
would reduce or eliminate a hazard, or bring substandard parking stalls into compliance
with current design requirements. This provision applies only to sites with existing
structures and existing parking facilities that are intended to remain in substantially the
same form after re‐striping of the facility. A maximum of 10% of the existing automobile
parking stalls, or two stalls, whichever is greater, may be removed pursuant to this
section.
SECTION 8. Section 18.54.020 (Vehicle Parking Facilities) of Chapter 18.54 (Parking Facility
Design Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended as follows:
18.54.020 Vehicle Parking Facilities
(a) Parking Facility Design
Parking facilities shall be designed in accordance with the following regulations:
(1) Requirements for dimensions of parking facilities at, above, and below grade
are contained in this section and in Figures 1‐67 and Tables 3‐6 of
Section 18.54.070.
(2) Stalls and aisles shall be designed such that columns, walls, or other
obstructions do not interfere with normal vehicle parking maneuvers. All
required stall and aisle widths shall be designed to be clear of such obstructions.
(3) The required stall widths shown in Table 3 of Section 18.54.070 shall be
increased by 0.5 foot for any stall located immediately adjacent to a wall,
whether on one or both sides. The director may require that the required stall
widths be increased by 0.5 foot for any stall located immediately adjacent to a
post, where such post limits turning movements into or out of the stall.
(4) For property owners or tenants seeking to install EVSE, the required stall
widths shown in Table 3 of Section 18.54.070 may be reduced by no more than
18 inches below the code required minimum dimensions in order to
accommodate EVSE or associated Electrical Utility equipment. This reduction
may be applied to 10% of the total required parking stalls, or two stalls,
whichever is greater. The Director may approve a reduction in width for a
greater number of stalls through a Director’s Adjustment pursuant to Section
18.52.050.
(4)(5) Dead‐end aisles shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible.
(5)(6) Except for at‐grade parking facilities serving a maximum of two dwelling
units, all parking facilities shall be set back a sufficient distance from the street
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
DRAFT
12
20200609_ay_16_0160026
so that vehicles need not back out into or over a public street (not including an
alley) or sidewalk.
(b) Off‐Street Parking Stalls
(1) Each off‐street parking stall shall consist of a rectangular area not less than
eight and one‐half (8.5) feet wide by seventeen and one‐half (17.5) feet long
(uni‐class stall), or as otherwise prescribed for angled parking by Table 1 Table 3
in Section 18.54.070.
[. . .]
(5) Each off‐street motorcycle parking stall shall consist of a rectangular area
not less than five (5) feet wide by ten (10) feet long, as illustrated in Figure 7 of
Section 18.54.070.
(c) Off‐Street Loading Spaces
[. . .]
(f) Figures and Tables
Figures 1‐67 and Tables 3‐6 are located at the end of this chapter in Section 18.54.070
and depict design requirements for parking stalls, aisles, driveways, accessibility, and
parking lots.
SECTION 9. Figure 7 is added to Section 18.54.070 (Parking Design Tables and Figures) of
Chapter 18.54 (Parking Facility Design Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) as follows:
Figure 7
Motorcycle Parking Dimensions
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
DRAFT
13
20200609_ay_16_0160026
SECTION 10. Section 18.52.070 (Parking Regulations for CD Assessment District) of Chapter
18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby deleted in its entirety
and restated as follows:
18.52.070 Parking Regulations for CD Assessment District
With respect to on‐site and off‐site parking space requirements for nonresidential uses
within an assessment district wherein properties are assessed under a Bond Plan G
financing pursuant to Title 13, the requirements of this Section 18.52.070 shall apply in
the CD Assessment district in lieu of comparable requirements in this Chapter
18.52. Requirements for the size and other design criteria for parking spaces shall
continue to be governed by the provisions of Chapter 18.54.
(a) On‐Site Parking Requirement
Any new development, any addition or enlargement of existing development, or any use
of any floor area that has never been assessed under any Bond Plan G financing
pursuant to Title 13, shall provide one parking space for each 250 gross square feet of
floor area, except as may be exempt from such requirement by the provisions of
subsection (b) of this section. The purpose of this subsection is to regulate the number
of parking spaces required.
(b) Exceptions to On‐Site Parking Requirement
The requirement for on‐site parking provided in subsection (a) of this section shall not
apply in the following circumstances:
(1) The following square footage shall be exempt from the on‐site parking
requirement of subsection (a):
(A) Square footage for handicapped access which does not increase the
usable floor area, as determined by Section 18.18.060(e);
(B) Square footage for at or above grade parking, though such square
footage is included in the FAR calculations in Section 18.18.060(a).
(2) A conversion to commercial use of a historic building in Categories 1 and 2
shall be exempt from the on‐site parking requirement in subsection (a), provided
that the building is fifty feet or less in height and has most recently been in
residential use. Such conversion, in order to be exempt, shall be done in
conjunction with exterior historic rehabilitation approved by the director of
planning and community environment upon the recommendation of the
architectural review board in consultation with the historic resources board.
Such conversion must not eliminate any existing on‐site parking.
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
DRAFT
14
20200609_ay_16_0160026
(3) Vacant parcels shall be exempt from the requirements of subsection (a) of
this section at the time when development occurs as provided herein. Such
development shall be exempt to the extent of 0.3 parking spaces for every one
thousand square feet of site area, provided that such parcels were at some time
assessed for parking under a Bond Plan E financing pursuant to Chapter 13.16 or
were subject to other ad valorem assessments for parking.
(4) No new parking spaces will be required for a site in conjunction with the
development or replacement of the amount of floor area used for nonresidential
use equal to the amount of adjusted square footage for the site shown on the
engineer’s report for fiscal year 1986‐87 for the latest Bond Plan G financing for
parking acquisition or improvements in that certain area of the city delineated
on the map of the University Avenue parking assessment district entitled,
“Proposed Boundaries of University Avenue Off‐Street Parking Project #75‐63
Assessment District, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California,”
dated October 30, 1978, and on file with the city clerk. No exemption from
parking requirements shall be available where a residential use changes to a
nonresidential use, except pursuant to subdivision (b)(2) of this subsection.
(c) Off‐Site Parking
Parking required by this chapter may be provided by off‐site parking, provided that such
off‐site parking is within a reasonable distance of the site using it or, if the site is within
an assessment district, within a reasonable distance of the assessment district boundary
and approved in writing by the director of planning and community environment. The
director shall assure that sufficient covenants and guarantees are provided to ensure
use and maintenance of such parking facilities, including an enforceable agreement that
any development occurring on the site where parking is provided shall not result in a net
reduction of parking spaces provided, considering both the parking previously provided
and the parking required by the proposed use.
(d) In‐Lieu Parking Provisions
In connection with any expansion of the supply of public parking spaces within the CD
commercial downtown district, the city shall allocate a number of spaces for use as “in‐
lieu parking” spaces to allow development to occur on sites which would otherwise be
precluded from development due to parking constraints imposed by this chapter. Off‐
site parking on such sites may be provided by payment of an in‐lieu monetary
contribution to the city to defray the cost of providing such parking. Contributions for
each required parking space shall equal the incremental cost of providing a net new
parking space in an assessment district project plus cost for the administration of the
program, all as determined pursuant to Chapter 16.57 of Title 16 of this code, by the
director, whose decision shall be final. Only sites satisfying one or more of the following
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
DRAFT
15
20200609_ay_16_0160026
criteria, as determined by the director, shall be eligible to participate in the in‐lieu
parking program:
(1) Construction of on‐site parking would necessitate destruction or substantial
demolition of a designated historic structure;
(2) The site area is less than ten thousand square feet and it would not be
physically feasible to provide the required on‐site parking;
(3) The site is greater than ten thousand square feet, but of such an unusual
configuration that it would not be physically feasible to provide the required on‐
site parking;
(4) The site is located in an area where city policy precludes curb cuts or
otherwise prevents use of the site for on‐site parking;
(5) The site has other physical constraints, such as a high groundwater table,
which preclude provision of on‐site parking without extraordinary expense.
Office uses above the ground floor shall not be eligible to participate in the in‐lieu
parking program for one year from the effective date of Ordinance No. 5460, from May
2, 2019 through May 1, 2020.
(e) Underground Parking
Underground parking deeper than two levels below grade shall be prohibited unless a
soils report or engineering analysis demonstrates that regular pumping of subsurface
water will not be required.
(f) Minor Adjustments to Existing Parking Facilities
The following minor adjustments may be made to existing parking facilities that are
intended to remain in substantially the same form after restriping.
(1) Accessibility and EVSE‐related equipment. For sites with existing
development, the number on‐site parking spaces may be reduced to the
minimum extent necessary to: (1) achieve state or federally mandated
accessibility requirements or (2) permit installation of electrical utility equipment
required for EVSE. A maximum of 10% of the existing automobile parking stalls,
or one stall, whichever is greater, may be removed pursuant to this section. The
loss of a parking space is not permitted to accommodate EVSE itself. To the
extent reasonably feasible, electrical equipment required for EVSE shall be
placed in a location that minimizes visibility from the public right of way.
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
DRAFT
16
20200609_ay_16_0160026
(2) Substitution of bicycle parking. For sites with existing development, where
additional bicycle parking facilities cannot reasonably be located outside of the
parking facility area, existing automobile parking stalls may be substituted with
long‐ or short‐term bicycle parking facilities. The maximum number of
substitutions shall be two existing automobile parking spaces, or 10% of the
existing automobile parking stalls, whichever is greater. A minimum of four long‐
term or eight short‐term bicycle parking spaces is required per automobile
parking space. The bicycle parking spaces are to be located in the same physical
location as the automobile spaces they are replacing, which shall be near
primary entries of the building on‐site or in locations that meet best practices for
bicycle parking facilities.
SECTION 11. Section 18.18.090 (Parking and Loading) of Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial
(CD) District) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby deleted in its entirety and restated as follows:
18.18.090 Parking and Loading
The provisions of Chapter 18.52 and 18.54 shall apply within the CD district. In
particular, on‐site and off‐site parking for non‐residential uses within an assessment
district wherein properties are assessed under a Bond Plan G financing pursuant to Title
13 shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.52.070.
SECTION 12. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each
and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or
unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be
subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 13. The City Council determines that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from
environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15311 (Accessory Structures) because it regulates the
construction or modification of parking facilities.
//
//
//
//
//
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
DRAFT
17
20200609_ay_16_0160026
SECTION 14. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty‐first date after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning & Development
Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11556)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/24/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: Climate/Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
Summary Title: Carbon Neutral Plan Updates
Title: Staff and Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend the City Council
Adopt a Resolution Amending the City's Electric Supply Portfolio Carbon
Neutral Plan and Electric Utility Reserves Management Practices (Continued
from August 17, 2020)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the City Council:
1) Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) amending the Carbon Neutral Plan (as shown in Exhibit A
to Attachment A) to:
a. Modify the definition of carbon neutrality to use an hourly carbon emissions
accounting standard;
b. Minimize electric supply portfolio costs by authorizing the exchange of bundled RECs
from the City’s long-term renewable resources (Bucket 1 RECs) for Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS) eligible, unbundled RECs (Bucket 3 RECs),1 to the maximum
extent possible, while maintaining compliance with the state’s RPS regulations (“REC
Exchanges”);
c. For calendar years 2020 through 2024, authorize the purchase of RPS-eligible,
unbundled RECs (Bucket 3 RECs) as needed to neutralize any residual emissions
resulting from the difference between emissions calculated under an annual
accounting and hourly accounting methodology;
2) Direct staff to return to Council in 2022 to review the authorization to minimize electric
supply portfolio costs via REC Exchanges;
1 See Attachment C for a description of different types of RECs.
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
City of Palo Alto Page 2
3) Direct staff to return to Council with a review of the Carbon Neutral Plan by the end of 2024
to evaluate the effectiveness of these policy changes and to modify them if necessary (with
a particular focus on reviewing the use of Bucket 3 RECs to neutralize any residual emissions
resulting from the switch to an hourly emissions accounting methodology); and
4) Create a Cap and Trade Program Reserve in the Electric Fund which will hold revenues from
the sale of carbon allowances freely allocated to the electric utility under the State’s Cap
and Trade Program. (See Attachment B for background information on the State’s Cap and
Trade Program.)
Staff and the UAC recommend that the Council provide the following guidance on the use of
revenues:
Consistent with the City’s Cap and Trade Revenue Use Policy, adopted in January 2015, for Fiscal
Years 2021 and 2022, an amount equivalent to at least one-third of the revenues earned from
the REC Exchanges would be allocated from the City’s Cap and Trade Reserve to local
decarbonization efforts; thereafter the City would prioritize local decarbonization efforts with
these funds. This action, which would require only City Manager approval, will have little to no
impact on rates due to the amendments to the Carbon Neutral Plan described above
(specifically, the REC Exchanges).
Executive Summary
This report is a follow-up to a series of reports to the UAC covering the topics of carbon
emissions accounting and Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) procurement strategy (e.g.,
reports from May 2019, June 2019, August 2019, February 2020, March 2020 and July 2020).
The two topics are not only highly complex and esoteric, but also highly interrelated. Further,
policy decisions related to these two topics can have potentially significant impacts on supply
costs, retail rates, and funding for customer programs. As a result, staff, the UAC, and a number
of community members have had extensive discussions about these topics in an attempt to
arrive at a policy position that balances the City’s sustainability goals with its desire to lower
costs and rates.
The attached amendments to the Electric Supply Portfolio Carbon Neutral Plan will:
1. Change the City’s methodology for accounting for the carbon emissions of its electric
portfolio from an annual methodology to a more accurate hourly methodology. This will
result in a small increase in the cost of the electric portfolio to maintain carbon neutrality
under the hourly standard. However, this cost will be minimized in the near term because
the amendments also allow the use of Bucket 3 RECs through 2024 for any additional
renewable energy purchases needed due to the change in methodology. The policy of using
Bucket 3 RECs for this compliance requirement will be revisited prior to 2024, which is the
timeline for completing an electric portfolio rebalancing analysis in anticipation of the end
of the City’s Western Base Resource contract for Federal hydropower from the Central
Valley Project. This topic is summarized in previous UAC reports and Attachment C.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
2. Allow for REC Exchanges2 to take advantage of the current significant cost difference
between Bucket 1 and Bucket 3 RECs to generate earnings for the City’s electric utility.
These REC Exchanges are authorized going forward without a specific end date, but a review
of the policy is required prior to 2024. The earnings would be used either to offset electric
utility operational costs or they would be reserved for local decarbonization. This topic is
the primary focus of this report.
During the course of the UAC discussions, the Palo Alto community experienced a truly
fundamental shift in everyday life—as well as in the City’s financial outlook—due to the COVID-
19 pandemic. The measures put in place throughout the state to contain the spread of the
novel coronavirus have had a profound negative impact on the City’s General Fund; they have
also led to a reduction in the electric utility’s total sales, which is projected to cause a multi-
million dollar revenue shortfall over the next few years. As a result, at the UAC’s May 2020
discussion of the Utility’s FY 2021 budget, the UAC voted unanimously to pursue maximizing the
total volume of exchanges of in-state (Bucket 1) renewables for out-of-state (Bucket 3)
renewables. In previous discussions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic Commissioners had
expressed an interest in having all of these funds go toward local decarbonization, but given the
economic impacts of the pandemic recognized the value of devoting some portion of these
earnings to help avoid painful cuts to electric utility programs, positions, and capital
investments, minimize retail rate increases. Subsequently, at the July 2020 UAC meeting, the
Commission voted unanimously to recommend the proposal presented in the current report, to
exchange the City’s Bucket 1 renewable resources for Bucket 3 renewables to the maximum
extent permitted under the state’s RPS law, while maintaining carbon neutrality.
Staff and the UAC do not recommend establishing a specific sunset date for the authority for
these maximized renewable energy exchanges; however, they recommend that staff be
directed to return to Council after two years (in 2022) to review the effects of this policy change
and consider whether to extend or modify it. In addition, staff and the UAC recommend re-
evaluating the effectiveness of the change to the City’s carbon accounting methodology before
calendar year 2024—which will be at the time the City considers whether to renew its share of
the Western Base Resource hydroelectric project or rebalance its portfolio.
If the City enables the REC exchanges described above, it has an opportunity to reduce electric
supply costs by over $3 million per year and therefore redirect some additional funding to local
carbon reduction activities (like building electrification) without significantly impacting utility
rates. This action could be undertaken by action of the City Manager under existing Council
authority. At the July 2020 meeting, the UAC expressed a clear preference that the revenue
from these REC exchanges be allocated to local carbon reduction efforts; however, in view of
the budget impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the UAC recommended that for Fiscal Years
2021 and 2022 at least one-third of the revenue from the REC exchanges be devoted to local
decarbonization, with the majority of the funding being used to ameliorate the pandemic
2 The exchange of bundled RECs from the City’s in-state, long-term renewable resources (Bucket 1 RECs) for RPS-
eligible, unbundled RECs (Bucket 3 RECs), which usually come from out of state sources.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
budget impacts on the electric utility, but that local decarbonization be prioritized in future
years.
Discussion
Since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, electricity consumption in Palo Alto has fallen
about 10% from baseline levels; given this reduction in retail sales volumes and the desire to
help the community by holding rates flat, the utility now faces a multi-million-dollar budget gap.
As such, there is broad community interest in three different objectives with respect to the
electric utility: (a) closing the utility’s revenue gap, (b) holding retail rates flat, and (c)
maintaining the City’s commitment to carbon neutral supply resources. Executing exchanges of
the City’s in-state/Bucket 1 renewable energy generation for out-of-state/Bucket 3 renewable
generation is one potential way for the City to efficiently satisfy all three objectives
simultaneously. The focus of the current report is therefore the potential revenue that can be
gained through exchanging the City’s in-state renewable resources (“Bucket 1 RECs”) for out-of-
state renewables (“Bucket 3 RECs” or “unbundled RECs”) and the impacts that such exchanges
would have on the make-up of the City’s electric supply portfolio. Additional background
information about the City’s Carbon Neutral Plan, the differences between hourly and annual
carbon accounting methodologies, and the qualitative differences between California-based
Bucket 1 renewables and out-of-state unbundled RECs (both of which were discussed at length
in the March 2020 UAC report and presentation) can be found in Attachment C.
REC Exchange Revenue Potential
The ability to raise new revenue by exchanging in-state for out-of-state renewable generation is
based on the fact that, due to legislative constraints on the ability to use out-of-state renewable
generation to comply with the state’s RPS requirements, in-state generation carries a large price
premium relative to out-of-state generation. Currently, in-state renewable generation is valued
at about $15 per MWh (in addition to the value of the electrical energy itself), while out-of-state
renewable generation is valued at only $2.75 per MWh. Estimates of the revenue potential of
the proposed REC exchanges is based on these current REC values, the City’s current load
projections (which incorporate a reduction associated with the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic), and the City’s current hydroelectric generation projections. Table 1 below
summarizes the estimated net revenue potential associated with this REC exchange proposal
over the next five fiscal years.
Table 1: Summary of REC Exchange Revenue Potential, FY 2021-2025 ($M)
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
Sales of Bucket 1 RECs
Exceeding Annual Load $0.56 $0.79 $1.78 $2.48 $2.55
Additional Bucket 1 REC Sales $3.41 $2.49 $1.36 $0.95 $0.59
Bucket 3 REC Purchases Cost ($0.63) ($0.46) ($0.25) ($0.17) ($0.11)
Net Revenue Potential $3.34 $2.82 $2.89 $3.25 $3.03
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Note that the figures in the table above assume that the City begins the REC exchanges in
September of FY 2021. It is worth noting that the revenue potential estimates are highly
sensitive to the generation volumes the City receives from its hydro resources, which of course
are highly uncertain. If hydro conditions were above-average for the winter of 2020/2021, the
total REC exchange revenue for the next two fiscal years would be expected to increase from
$6.2 million to $7.7 million, while in below-average hydro conditions the total revenue would
fall to $5.7 million.
Impact of REC Exchanges on Electric Supply Portfolio
Although exchanging in-state RECs for out-of-state RECs would have no real impact on the City’s
total electricity-related carbon emissions (see Attachment C for more discussion on this topic),
the downside of this strategy is that it would have a negative impact on the City’s reported
portfolio make-up and carbon emissions. As noted earlier, the state’s RPS law gives preferential
treatment to in-state renewable resources over out-of-state resources, and the same is true of
how such resources are reported to customers on the annual Power Content Label (PCL). As of
calendar year 2020, the California Energy Commission’s (CEC’s) PCL regulations require that
utilities report their out-of-state (Bucket 3) REC purchases as “unspecified sources of power”
rather than under the appropriate renewable energy technology. Furthermore, beginning with
the 2020 PCL, utilities will be required to report the annual average greenhouse gas emissions
intensity of their electric supply. And again, rather than being treated as carbon-free resources
like other forms of renewable energy, Bucket 3 RECs will be treated as having an emissions
intensity equivalent to generic market power purchases (428 kilograms (kg) of CO2 per MWh,
which is almost 20% greater than the emissions intensity of natural gas generation).
As a result, rather than reporting a supply mix that is over 60% renewable and nearly carbon-
free on average3, under the maximized REC exchange strategy the City will have to report a
portfolio mix that is less than 40% renewable and is responsible for a moderate amount of
carbon emissions. Table 2 displays the Power Content Label, RPS level, and emissions intensity
for the City’s electric supply portfolio in CY 2021 (the only full calendar year covered by the
proposed period of authority for maximizing the REC exchanges).
It will no doubt be a communications challenge to explain to customers that the “unspecified
sources of power” on their PCL actually represent out-of-state renewable resources, and that
while the PCL indicates that their power supply is responsible for about 100 kg of CO2 emissions
per MWh (which is still well below the statewide average emissions intensity of 240 kg CO2 per
MWh) by the City’s accounting it is actually carbon neutral. Still, staff feels that this challenge is
worth it for the sake of the several million dollars of additional revenue that this strategy will
bring in, which can be used to defray the economic impacts of COVID-19 and to fund additional
local carbon reduction.
3 Although the City’s baseline portfolio mix is entirely comprised of renewables and hydroelectric resources, the
CEC’s proposed PCL regulations assign a small emission intensity to all biomass generation such as landfill gas
generation, which currently accounts for about 10% of the City’s supply mix.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Table 2: Power Content Label, RPS Level, and Emissions Intensity for the City’s Electric Supply
Portfolio in CY 2021 (Baseline and Maximized REC Exchanges)
Existing
Portfolio
Maximizing
REC Exchanges
Eligible Renewables 60% 31%
Biomass & Biowaste 12% 7%
Geothermal 0% 0%
Small hydroelectric 1% 1%
Solar 37% 18%
Wind 10% 6%
Coal 0% 0%
Large Hydroelectric 40% 46%
Natural Gas 0% 0%
Nuclear 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unspecified Sources of Power 0% 23%
RPS Level (% of sales) 62% 36%
Emissions Intensity (kg CO2/MWh) 6 102
Use of REC Exchange Revenues
In the August 2019 UAC presentation on this topic, staff presented a list of potential uses of the
revenue from the sale of surplus renewable resources. (As referenced in Table 1 outlines, the
net revenue from these sales could be up to $3.06 million per year, on average, over the FY
2021-2025 time period.) That list of potential uses included:
• Rate reduction
• Decarbonization efforts (e.g., building electrification or electric vehicle charging
infrastructure or incentives)
• Investments in smart grid infrastructure
• A second transmission line connecting the City’s distribution system to the bulk
transmission system
In discussions with the UAC and the community prior to the pandemic, the focus for the use of
this new revenue stream was largely on the first two items: rate reduction and local
decarbonization. Since the beginning of the pandemic the focus of these discussions, for the
near-term, has been on how to avoid deep cuts to the electric utility budget while avoiding rate
increases.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Given the current financial environment caused by the pandemic, staff and the UAC recommend
that the majority of the proceeds from the recommended REC exchanges over the next two
years be devoted to closing the electric utility’s budget gap and avoiding cuts to programs,
staffing levels, or capital investments. However, given the City’s ambitious Sustainability
Implementation Plan goals related to Energy and Electric Vehicles, staff and the UAC
recommend that even in the near-term at least one-third of the REC exchange revenues be
devoted to local decarbonization programs. And after the pandemic’s effects pass, staff and the
UAC recommend that the revenue from the REC exchanges be reallocated, with an even
stronger focus on local carbon reduction efforts.
Mechanism for Allocation of Funds to Local Decarbonization
Currently the electric utility’s renewable energy purchases are funded from two sources:
1) customer sales revenues, and 2) revenues the electric utility receives as a result of its
participation in the State’s Cap and Trade program (see Attachment B for more detail). Table 3
shows the current funding levels from these two sources and how staff and the UAC propose to
change funding levels if the REC Exchange proposal is implemented:
Table 3: Funding Sources for FY 2021 / FY 2022 Renewable Energy Budget ($M)
FY 2021 Budget
without REC
Exchanges
FY 2021
Budget with
REC Exchanges
FY 2022 Budget
without REC
Exchanges
FY 2022
Budget with
REC Exchanges
Cap and Trade Revenue $5.3 $4.2 $5.3 $4.4
Customer Sales Revenue $30.7 $28.4 $30.7 $28.8
Total Renewable Energy
Budget $36.0 $32.7 $36.0 $33.2
REC Exchange Revenue $3.3 $2.8
Cap and Trade Revenue
Reserved for Local
Decarbonization
(33% of REC Surplus Sales
and Exchange earnings)
$1.1 $0.9
Savings to Electric Utility $2.2 $1.9
The revenues received from the REC Exchanges would go into the Electric Supply Reserve,
reducing operating costs. However, staff recommends allocating a portion of the revenues
earned from the City’s participation in the state’s Cap and Trade Program (equal to one-third of
the REC Exchange revenue) to local decarbonization activities, because Cap and Trade Program
revenues are provided to the electric utility explicitly to support carbon reducing activities like
local decarbonization. For ease of accounting and fund tracking, staff recommends the creation
of a Cap and Trade Program Reserve in the Electric Fund which will hold revenues from the sale
of carbon allowances freely allocated by the California Air Resources Board to the City’s electric
City of Palo Alto Page 8
utility. See Attachment D for an updated version of the Electric Utility Reserves Management
Practices reflecting the creation of this reserve.
The Council’s January 2015 policy on the use of these revenues gives the City Manager authority
to allocate these funds among a range of purposes, including local carbon reduction, so no
further Council action would be required except to approve specific local decarbonization
program budgets through the annual budget process. Ultimately, the ability to make a
significant investment in jumpstarting local decarbonization efforts without raising retail rates
by one cent—in fact, while actually helping to lower retail rates—seems like a proposal that
should win broad support.
Policy Alternatives
An alternative compromise approach to the use of the sales revenue from the sales and
exchanges of the City’s renewable energy supplies would be to allocate a fixed amount toward
local decarbonization efforts (e.g., $1 million per year) and the remainder to operational savings
and rate reduction. Additional alternatives to this proposal could include allocating more of the
revenue from this proposal to rate reduction or allocating more to local carbon reduction. Other
alternatives could include establishing an explicit time limit on the authorization for the REC
exchanges.
Next Steps
Immediately upon the approval of the Carbon Neutral Plan amendments, staff will begin to
execute transactions to sell the City’s in-state renewable resources and purchase out-of-state
renewables. In addition, staff will report on the portfolio’s total emissions under both an hourly
and an annual carbon accounting framework in the annual report to the City Council on the
City’s Renewable Procurement Plan, Renewable Portfolio Standard Compliance, and Carbon
Neutral Electric Supplies (expected in Q4 of 2020).
In addition, in the next couple of years staff plans to carry out a broader and longer-term
analysis of potential options for rebalancing the City’s electric supply portfolio. This analysis will
be presented in the context of deciding whether to renew the City’s Western Base Resource
hydro contract after the current one expires at the end of 2024. It will also consider options for
utilizing the City’s share of the California-Oregon Transmission Project, after that resource
reverts to the City’s control at the end of 2023.
Resource Impact
Staff estimates that exchanging the City’s in-state renewable resources (“Bucket 1 RECs”) for
out-of-state renewables (“Bucket 3 RECs”) will generate an average of approximately $3.1
million in additional revenue per year for the next five fiscal years. In addition, staff estimates
that switching to an hourly carbon accounting methodology, using average hourly emissions
intensity factors, and using Bucket 3 RECs to neutralize the residual emissions resulting from
this change, will result in an increase in supply costs of approximately $140,000 in an average
hydrological year. So overall, staff’s and the UAC’s proposal is expected to yield $3.0 million in
City of Palo Alto Page 9
new net revenue per year for the next five years on average. (Staff will review and adjust the
budget when these additional revenues need to be recognized. Currently these are estimates
only and don’t need to be recognized, so a budget adjustment isn’t needed at this time.) Staff
and the UAC recommend allocating at least one-third of these earnings toward local
decarbonization efforts for the next two years, and the remainder to rate reduction. Beyond
the next two years, staff and the UAC recommend allocating the majority of these earnings to
local decarbonization efforts. This approach would yield operational savings that could reduce
future rate increases by approximately 0.7%, or 0.12 cents/kWh, while also providing
substantial funding for local carbon reduction.
Policy Implications
This report satisfies Initiatives #4 and #5 of the EIRP Work Plan. This report is also in line with
the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan goals of continuing to lower the carbon footprint of
the community.
Stakeholder Engagement
The changes proposed in this staff report have been the subject of significant discussion with
the UAC and the public over the past year. In addition to several discussions on this topic at the
UAC during this period, staff has also met with, and incorporated feedback from, several
engaged members of the community.
Environmental Review
The City Council’s amendment of the City’s Carbon Neutral Plan and Electric Utility Reserves
Management Practices does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code
21065 and therefore California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review is not required.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Resolution Amending Carbon Neutral Plan
• Attachment B: Cap and Trade Program Synopsis
• Attachment C: Background Information on Carbon Neutral Plan, Carbon Accounting &
RECs
• Attachment D: Updated Electric Reserve Management Practices
Attachment A
1
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Electric Supply
Portfolio Carbon Neutral Plan and the Electric Utility Reserves Management
Practices
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.In an effort to combat climate change, in December 2007 the City adopted the
Climate Protection Plan, which set aggressive greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emission reduction goals
to be achieved by the year 2020.
C.Further to its GHG emissions reduction goals, in November 2016 the City
adopted a Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (“S/CAP”), and in December 2017 the City
adopted a 2018-2020 Sustainability Implementation Plan (“SIP”).
D.In order to achieve these aggressive GHG emissions reduction goals, in March
2013, through Resolution No. 9322, the City adopted a Carbon Neutral Plan for the electric
supply portfolio, with a goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2013.
E.In the 2013 Carbon Neutral Plan, the City defined carbon neutrality based on an
annual accounting of the City’s load and its carbon neutral electric resources: an electric supply
portfolio that “will demonstrate annual net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, measured at
the Citygate, in accordance with The Climate Registry’s Electric Power Sector protocol for GHG
emissions measurement and reporting.” At the time this definition of carbon neutrality was
adopted, this was the most granular accounting approach feasible (given the lack of hourly grid
emissions data) or necessary (given the small amount of solar capacity installed at that point,
and the resulting emissions profile of grid electricity).
F.Based on this definition of carbon neutrality, the City has achieved its Carbon
Neutral Plan objectives each year starting in 2013, primarily through its long-term contracts for
in-state hydroelectric and Renewable Portfolio Standard (“RPS”) eligible resources, with some
reliance on RPS-eligible unbundled renewable energy certificates (“RECs”) for 2013-2015.
G.Due to limitations on the use of unbundled RECs (“Bucket 3 RECs”) for
compliance with the state’s RPS mandate (only 10% of a utility’s RPS procurement may consist
of Bucket 3 RECs), a significant financial premium currently exists for in-state bundled
renewable energy resources (“Bucket 1 RECs”).
H.As a result of its pursuit of its Carbon Neutral Plan objectives, the City’s electric
supply portfolio currently far exceeds the procurement requirements of the state’s RPS
Attachment A
2
mandate, and all of the City’s current RPS resources are classified as Bucket 1 RECs.
I.Due to the impacts of the county and state stay-at-home orders put in place
since March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City’s electric utility retail sales
volumes (and revenues) have declined approximately 10% from baseline levels, which has put a
strain on the City’s electric utility financial reserves.
J.Through Resolution 9487, adopted in January 2015, the City established a policy
on the use of revenue from the sale of allowances freely allocated to the City’s electric utility
under the state’s Cap and Trade Program (“Cap and Trade Revenue Use Policy”). This policy
authorizes the City Manager or their designee to use these allowances and allocate the
resulting revenue to certain approved types projects or expenditures, in compliance with CARB
regulations.
K.Consistent with the City’s Cap and Trade Revenue Use Policy, for Fiscal Years
2021 and 2022, an amount equivalent to at least one-third of the revenues earned from the
REC Exchanges would be allocated from the City’s Cap and Trade Reserve to local
decarbonization efforts; thereafter the City would prioritize local decarbonization efforts with
these funds.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE, as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council approves the updated Electric Supply Portfolio Carbon
Neutral Plan (attached, with changes shown in redline, as Exhibit A), which modifies the
definition of carbon neutrality to use an hourly carbon emissions accounting standard;
authorizes the exchange of bundled RECs from the City’s long-term renewable resources
(Bucket 1 RECs) for RPS-eligible, unbundled RECs (Bucket 3 RECs), to the maximum extent
possible, while maintaining compliance with the state’s RPS regulations in order to minimize
electric supply portfolio costs (“REC Exchanges”); and authorizes the purchase of RPS-eligible,
unbundled RECs (Bucket 3 RECs) as needed to neutralize any residual emissions resulting from
the difference between emissions calculated under an annual accounting and hourly accounting
methodology for calendar years 2020 through 2024.
SECTION 2. The Council approves the creation of a Cap and Trade Program Reserve in
the Electric Fund which will hold revenues from the sale of carbon allowances freely allocated
to the electric utility under the State’s Cap and Trade Program.
SECTION 3. The Council directs staff to return to Council in 2022 to review the
authorization to minimize electric supply portfolio costs via REC Exchanges.
SECTION 4. The Council directs staff to return to Council by the end of 2024 with a
review of the Carbon Neutral Plan to evaluate the effectiveness of these policy changes and to
Attachment A
3
modify them if necessary (with a particular focus on reviewing the use of Bucket 3 RECs to
neutralize any residual emissions resulting from the switch to an hourly emissions
accounting methodology).
and
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution updating the City’s
Electric Supply Portfolio Carbon Neutral Plan is not subject to California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) review because it is an administrative government activity that will not result in any
direct or indirect physical change to the environment (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
Exhibit to ATTACHMENT A
1
Adopted by City Council on March 4, 2013
Revised by City Council on _______________
City of Palo Alto Utilities
Electric Supply Portfolio Carbon Neutral Plan
1.Carbon Neutral Definition
A carbon neutral electric supply portfolio will demonstrate annual net zero greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, measured at the Citygate1, in accordance with The Climate Registry’s Electric
Power Sector protocol for GHG emissions measurement and reporting. by applying the average
hourly carbon emissions intensity of the electricity on the CAISO grid to the City’s net load for
each hour of the year.
2.Carbon Neutral Plan Objective
Reduce the City of Palo Alto’s overall community GHG emissions by achieving carbon neutrality
for the Electric Supply Portfolio starting in calendar year 2013 within an annual rate impact not
to exceed 0.15 cents per kilowatt-hour (₵/kWh) primarily through the: 1) engagement of
customers to increase energy efficiency; 2) expansion of long-term renewable resource
commitments; 3) promotion of local renewable resources; 4) continued reliance on existing
hydroelectric resources; and 5) meeting short-term balancing requirements and/or neutralizing
residual carbon through the use of short-term purchases of renewable resources and/or
renewable energy certificates (RECs).
3.Resource Strategies
a.Energy Efficiency
i.Continue to pursue energy efficiency strategies as identified in the Council-
approved ten-year Energy Efficiency Plan.
b.Long-term Renewable Resources
i.Continue to pursue the City’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goal to
purchase renewable energy to supply at least 3360% of retail sales by 2015 2030
while ensuring that the retail rate impact of these purchases does not exceed 0.5
₵/kWh.
ii.Continue to pursue local renewable resources through the Palo Alto CLEAN and
PV Partners programs.
iii.Pursue additional RPS-eligible, long-term renewable resources (beyond the RPS
goals) to achieve a target of 100% carbon-free resources based on average year
hydroelectric generation.
1 Citygate is the location of the City’s main meter where the City interconnects to the Pacific Gas and Electric
transmission system. Emissions associated with of the output of the locally sited fossil gas fired combustions units
(COBUG), while not measured at Citygate, will be neutralized.
Exhibit to ATTACHMENT A
2
c.Short-term Renewable Resources and Renewable Energy Certificates
i.Minimize electric supply portfolio costs by exchanging bundled RECs from the
City’s long-term renewable resources (Bucket 1 RECs) for RPS-eligible, unbundled
RECs (Bucket 3 RECs) to the maximum extent possible while maintaining
compliance with the state’s RPS regulations;
i.For calendar years 2013 2020 through 20162024, procure additional short-term
renewables, if the price is comparable to that of an un-bundled REC;
ii.For calendar years 2013 through 2016, procure or RPS-eligible, un-bundled RECs
(Bucket 3 RECs) as needed to achieve carbon neutrality based on actual load and
resources;
iii.Neutralize anthropogenic GHG emissions associated with the City’s purchase of
renewable resources with RPS-eligible unbundled-RECs (Bucket 3 RECs), which
may or may not be RPS-eligible.
d.Banking and Truing Up
i.In the event that there are surplus renewables beyond the City’s load in a
particular year, bank as many RECs as allowable under the TCR EPS protocol from
qualifying renewables from that year to minimize the need for purchasing RECs
in subsequent years.
ii.Neutralize emissions associated with market purchases resulting from deviations
between expected and actual load and renewable and hydroelectric generation
resources with unbundled-RECs, which may or may not be RPS-eligible. For
calendar years 2020 through 2024, neutralize residual emissions that result from
applying an hourly emissions accounting methodology, rather than a net annual
generation methodology, with RPS-eligible unbundled-RECs.
4.Hydroelectric Resources
a.Continue to preserve and advocate for existing carbon-neutral hydroelectric generation
resources that provide approximately 50% of average year resource needs.
b.Plan for and acquire carbon neutral resources assuming average hydroelectric
conditions going forward.
c.Under adverse hydroelectric conditions, procure RPS-eligible unbundled-RECs, which
may or may not be RPS-eligible, to achieve carbon neutrality up to the 0.15 ₵/kWh rate
impact limit and seek Council direction if carbon neutrality cannot be achieved within
the rate impact limit.
d.Under favorable hydroelectric conditions, where carbon neutral resources are expected
to be surplus to needs, even after allowable banking, then pursue selling short-term
renewable energy, or the renewable attributes, associated with one or more carbon-
neutral resources in the portfolio.
5.Financial and Rate Payer Impacts
a.In addition to the RPS annual rate impact limit of 0.5 ₵/kWh, the cost of achieving
carbon neutrality shall not exceed 0.15 ₵/kWh based on an average hydro year.
Exhibit to ATTACHMENT A
3
b.Revenues collected from surplus energy sales related to hydroelectric resources under
favorable conditions (e.g. wet years), will be maintained within reserves to adjust for the
cost of achieving carbon neutrality under adverse hydroelectric years.
c.To the extent available and allowable, revenues from the auction of cap-and-trade
allowances may be used to fund resources acquired to meet the carbon neutrality goals.
6.Reporting and Communication
a.Develop a communication plan for stakeholders to inform them of the City’s efforts
towards achieving a carbon neutral electric supply.
b.Submit an annual, verified report of the carbon content of the electric supply portfolio
to The Climate Registry.
c.b. Provide customers a report of the electric supply portfolio’s carbon content to
supplement the mandated Power Content Label.
d.Inform large commercial and/or corporate customers of the City’s carbon neutral
portfolio and its relevance to their individual corporate sustainability goals.
e.c.
7.Implementation Plan
The tasks that need to be completed in the next two years pending Council approval of the
Carbon Neutral Plan in February 2013 are listed in the table below.
Item Timeframe
1.Modify electric supply portfolio models and Energy Risk
Management Policies, Guidelines and Procedures to account for
Carbon Neutral objectives, balancing, banking of renewable
attributes, reporting and financial impacts.
By April 2013
2.Modify the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) to include
the carbon neutral objective
By June 2013
3.Develop communication plan to inform customers and
stakeholders of Carbon Neutral Plan and efforts.
February to April
2013
4.Based on response to the Fall 2012 request for proposals, seek
approval of new renewable power purchase agreements to meet
the City’s RPS up to approximately 100% of the long-term resource
needs in average hydro years.
December 2012 to
June 2013
5.Determine resource needs for CY 2013 through CY 2016 and
develop plan to acquire short-term renewable resources.
By June 2013
6.Determine long-term renewable purchase volumes for beyond CY
2016 and develop plan to acquire long-term renewable resources.
By September 2013
7.Procure RECs as needed to neutralize carbon emissions based on
actual load and resources for CY 2013.
By May 2014
8.Along with annual Power Content Label, produce and report to
customers the carbon intensity of the electric supply portfolio.
May/June 2014 and
annually thereafter
9.Produce and submit Electric Power Sector (EPS) and Local
Governments Operation Protocol (LGOP) reports to The Climate
July and October
2014 and annually
Exhibit to ATTACHMENT A
4
Registry (TCR) for CY 2013. thereafter
10.Get independent verification of TCR reports and submit audited
reports to TCR.
By December 2014
and annually
thereafter
11.Redesign the PaloAltoGreen program according to Council
direction.
By December 2013
Attachment B
California’s Cap-and-Trade Program Synopsis
The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 32, authorized the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regulations to lower the state’s greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. CARB developed a cap-and-trade program as one
of the strategies to achieve the 2020 goal. Under the cap-and-trade program, an overall limit on
GHG emissions from capped sectors is established and facilities subject to the cap are able to
trade permits (allowances) to emit GHGs.
To do this, entities with emissions are required to hold enough allowances (an allowance being
equivalent to one metric ton of greenhouse gas, or CO2e) to cover its emitted output in a given
year, also called its ‘compliance obligation.’ Entities can purchase allowances at quarterly
auctions held by CARB. The auction has a floor (or reserve) price, which started at $10 per
allowance in 2012 and has increased every calendar year by 5% plus the rate of inflation as
measured by the Consumer Price Index. As of 2020, the Reserve price is at $16.68 per
allowance. Over the last three years, auction prices have settled anywhere between the reserve
price (as it did in the May 2020 auction) to $1.83 more (in the May 2019 auction).
In addition, certain entities and public power agencies, such as Palo Alto, have been distributed
free allowances to reduce the rate shock to customers from the purchase of required
allowances. The City’s Electric utility was required to participate in the cap-and-trade program
starting in 2013 but does not own or operate fossil fuel-based electricity generation covered by
the cap-and-trade regulations. Therefore, the Electric utility does not incur a compliance
obligation annually, but still receives free allowances. (The utility is, however, indirectly
exposed to cap-and-trade allowance costs to the extent that it makes purchases of generic
market power. The generators of this power must pay for allowances to generate and these
costs are then passed on to the buyers of that output.) The quantity of allowances received is
scheduled to decrease over time—Palo Alto’s allowance allocation was 340,533 in 2013 but is
expected to decrease to 110,496 by 2030. As the Electric utility has no compliance obligation, it
cannot retain any allowances for future use but must instead sell them at auction.
The Palo Alto Gas utility, on the other hand, does incur a compliance obligation annually based
on the amount of gas imported and utilized within the City. The Gas utility has been required to
participate in the cap and trade program since 2015, and while it also receives free allowances
every year, the quantity received does not fully cover the utility’s compliance obligation, and
also decreases annually (in 2015 it was based on about 94% of 2011 emissions, but is expected
to drop to about 51% of 2011 emissions by 2030). A portion of the allowances it receives can be
held towards its compliance obligation, but the remainder must be sold at auction. The share
that must be sold increases every year—in 2015, 25% was required to be sold, increasing by 5%
annually, reaching 100% in 2030. And any allowances required to make up its compliance
obligation must be purchased via auction (the electric utility cannot transfer or sell allowances
to the gas utility directly).
Attachment B
Revenues from the auction sale of allowances in each utility must be used exclusively for the
benefit of the ratepayers in that utility. The California Code of Regulations (CCR Title 17,
sections 95892 and 95893) details how entities must use those funds, but in general, these can
be for 1) the support for, construction of, or purchase of eligible renewable generation
resources directly to California (this applies to the electric utility only), 2) the funding of certain
energy efficiency rebates, retrofits, and fuel switching programs, 3) funding for programs with
demonstrated GHG reductions, 4) non-volumetric return to ratepayers, either on or off bill, and
5) certain administrative, outreach and educational costs related to items 1-4 above. The City
Council has also adopted a policy on the use of allowance proceeds (Resolution 9487), with
expressed preference that revenues be used for programs and projects rather than being
returned to ratepayers in the form of a bill rebate. Per the current regulations, the utility must
either spend or rebate the funds received in any given year within 10 years (for example, funds
received in 2020 must be spent by 2030, etc.).
Attachment C
Carbon Neutral Plan Background, Hourly vs. Annual Carbon Accounting Methodologies, In-
State vs. Out-of-State Renewable Energy Credits
Carbon Neutral Plan Background
When Council approved the Carbon Neutral Plan in March 2013 (Staff Report 3550, Resolution
9322), it defined carbon neutrality as a portfolio that “will demonstrate annual net zero
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, measured at the Citygate, in accordance with The Climate
Registry’s Electric Power Sector protocol for GHG emissions measurement and reporting.” In
effect, this means that if the City’s carbon neutral supplies (in megawatt-hours (MWh)) equal or
exceed the City’s total load on an annual basis then the electric supply would be deemed to be
carbon neutral. At the time, this accounting methodology was considered to be the most
accurate accounting methodology that could be achieved—or needed. This was in part because
in 2013 there was very little solar generation connected to the California Independent System
Operator (CAISO) grid, and therefore the grid’s average emissions factors did not vary in the
extreme manner that they do today—for example, as in the emissions rate chart shown in
Figure 1 below, for CAISO emissions on February 12, 2020. But, more practically, CAISO did not
begin to publish hourly grid emissions factor data until 2018, and therefore a more granular
accounting methodology was not feasible at that time.
Figure 1: CAISO Average CO2 Emissions Rates for February 12, 2020
In addition, the 2013 Carbon Neutral Plan (CN Plan) did not contemplate the type of situation
the City finds itself in today, where, on an annual basis, it has an ongoing surplus of carbon
neutral supplies (under normal hydro conditions) relative to its load. The original CN Plan
addressed the City’s strategies for obtaining carbon neutral supplies equal to its annual load
(specifically, it authorized the purchase of unbundled RECs on a short-term basis, with an
Attachment C
ultimate goal of procuring enough long-term renewable supplies to fully satisfy the City’s
annual load).
Hourly vs. Annual Carbon Accounting
At the February 2020 UAC meeting, there was a consensus opinion that hourly accounting
should be used by staff for the evaluation of different supply and demand resources. Staff
strongly supports this position too, believing that an hourly accounting framework is the right
way to think about long-term procurement decisions. (Doing so in a rigorous way will ultimately
require the City to assign a monetary value to carbon emissions—but that topic can be
addressed at a later date.) Staff thinks that hourly grid carbon emissions rates are important to
incorporate into our internal decision-making and reporting in a variety of ways. There is no
immediate cost associated with incorporating hourly accounting into internal decision-making;
doing so simply prepares the City for when energy markets and regulations ultimately shift to a
more granular carbon accounting paradigm.
Adopting hourly carbon accounting instead of annual accounting for measuring the carbon
content of the City’s electric supply portfolio, on the other hand, is likely to have a modest
financial impact.1 The reason for the additional cost associated with this approach is that, in
holding the City’s electric supply portfolio up to a stricter carbon accounting standard, this
approach is likely to show, in an average year, that the City’s portfolio is responsible for a small
amount of “residual” emissions, even though its supplies match its load on an annual basis.2
In order to maintain the carbon neutral status of its electric supply under an hourly accounting
framework, the City would have to purchase additional resources in order to neutralize these
residual emissions. If the City were to adopt the use of hourly accounting for its portfolio
decisions right now, in order to minimize the cost impact associated with adopting an hourly
accounting framework, staff recommends authorizing the purchase of out-of-state renewable
energy (also called “unbundled, Bucket 3 RECs”) on a short-term basis to neutralize these
residual emissions. Based on current market prices for unbundled RECs, staff estimates the cost
associated with neutralizing these residual emissions to be $140,000/year.
1 As described in the February 2020 UAC report, the accounting methodology proposed by staff entails an hourly
comparison of the City’s supplies and load, with each hourly net load/supply value assigned the average hourly
carbon emissions intensity of the CAISO grid to convert it to an hourly emissions total that the City’s electric
portfolio is responsible for. These hourly emissions totals (which can be positive or negative, depending on
whether or not the City’s load exceeds its carbon neutral supplies for that hour) would then be summed across the
hours in a year.
2 These “residual emissions” occur because the City has a heavy concentration of solar resources in its supply
portfolio. Thus, the periods when the City has a surplus of resources relative to its load tend to be in periods when
the grid is relatively clean overall; conversely, the periods when the City typically has supply deficits relative to its load tend to be at times when the grid is dirtier overall. Based on 2018 grid emissions and generation data for the
City’s resources, staff calculated these residual emissions to be approximately 16,000 MT CO2 for the year.
Attachment C
In-state, Bundled Renewable Energy (Bucket 1 RECs) vs. Out-of-state, Unbundled Renewable
Energy (Bucket 3 RECs)
The fundamental difference between bundled renewables (or “Bucket 1 RECs”) and unbundled
(“Bucket 3”) RECs, as the diagram in Figure 1 illustrates, is that with bundled renewables both
the energy and the REC (which represents the environmental value of the energy) are sold
together to the same entity. With unbundled RECs, the energy and the REC are sold separately
to different entities. Practically speaking though, Bucket 1 RECs are almost always produced by
in-state renewable generators, while Bucket 3 RECs are produced by out-of-state renewable
generators. Also, because of limitations placed on the use of Bucket 3 RECs for compliance
purposes in the state’s RPS legislation, and because of strong demand for Bucket 1 resources as
Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs) ramp up their energy purchases, Bucket 1 RECs currently
carry a significant price premium relative to Bucket 3 RECs, in spite of the fact that these two
resources represent equivalent amounts of renewable energy.
Figure 2: Bundled (Bucket 1) vs. Unbundled (Bucket 3) RECs Diagram3
If the community prefers to implement an hourly carbon accounting framework using California-
based Bucket 1 renewables in the long-term, staff can optimize the electric portfolio to
minimize costs under this policy. However, the City will not have an easily available opportunity
to rebalance the electric portfolio until 2024. As a result, implementing hourly accounting using
Bucket 1 renewables right now has significant downsides. The principal drawback to this
approach is its cost impact. Due to the aforementioned price premium for Bucket 1 RECs right
now, staff estimates the cost of neutralizing the residual emissions with Bucket 1 RECs to be
about $620,000/year, as shown in Table 1 below, which is $480,000/year greater than the cost
of using Bucket 3 RECs for this purpose. In staff’s view, this represents a significant increase in
costs (and therefore a significant reduction in funds that could be allocated either to local
3 Source: Pinkel, D., and Weinrub, A., “What the Heck is a REC?” October 2013.
http://www.localcleanenergy.org/files/What%20the%20Heck%20is%20a%20REC.pdf
Attachment C
decarbonization efforts or rate reduction) with little to no additional environmental value to
show for it.4 In the short-term, utilizing Bucket 1 renewables to neutralize residual emissions
will not result in the construction of any new renewables, just additional expenditures. Use of
Bucket 3 RECs in the short-term, however, has a minimal rate impact and enables the City to
adopt hourly accounting for its electric portfolio in anticipation of long-term portfolio
rebalancing.
Table 1: Summary Comparison of Carbon Accounting Methodology Options
Option 1:
Annual Accounting
(Sell All Surplus)
Option 2:
Hourly Accounting (with
Bucket 1 Renewables)
Option 3:
Hourly Accounting
(with Bucket 3 RECs)
Surplus Sales
Revenue ($M) $ 2.24 $ 2.24 $ 2.24
Residual Emissions
Abatement Cost ($M) $ - $ 0.62 $ 0.14
Net Revenue ($M) $ 2.24 $ 1.62 $ 2.10
Rate Impact (%)* -1.5% -1.1% -1.4%
RPS Level (%)
(Bucket 1 Only) 45% 50% 45%
Energy Supply Level
(% of Annual Load) 100% 105% 100%
(+5% unbundled RECs)
PCL Emissions
Intensity
(lb CO2/MWh) 9.4 10.4 9.4
Hourly Accounting
Emissions Intensity
(lb CO2/MWh) 42.3 - 42.3
*Notes: “Rate Impact” assumes all net revenue is devoted to rate reduction.
Revenue and cost values are annual averages over the 2020-2030 time period.
Furthermore, committing to the use of Bucket 1 renewables in the near-term to neutralize the
portfolio’s residual emissions under an hourly accounting approach forces the City to incur a
relatively large increase in supply costs to address the emissions impact of procurement
decisions made long ago—at a time when the varying hourly emissions profiles of different
types of resources was not foreseeable. Rather than imposing such a large cost on the City to
account for portfolio decisions made years ago, staff recommends taking hourly emissions
accounting impacts into account for future portfolio decisions, as well as reconsidering the use
4 For a full discussion of the environmental merit of Bucket 3 RECs relative to Bucket 1 renewables, please see
Attachment B of this August 2019 UAC report. In short though, Bucket 3 RECs represent all of the environmental
attributes of the underlying generation, including its emissions profile. And within California there is currently an
over-supply of renewable energy at many times of the year, while neighboring states retain a significant reliance on coal and natural gas generators; as a result, out-of-state renewable generation can be more valuable
environmentally than in-state renewable generation.
Attachment C
of Bucket 1 renewables for neutralizing the portfolio’s residual emissions the next time the City
has an opportunity to significantly rebalance its supply portfolio—which should be around
2024, when the City will make a final decision on whether or not to renew its Western Base
Resource hydro contract. By that time, market conditions and regulations related to Bucket 1
and Bucket 3 RECs may have changed, and the price premium of Bucket 1 renewables relative to
Bucket 3 RECs may be lower than it is today.
In considering the use of Bucket 3 RECs for neutralizing residual emissions, it’s important to
note that the original Carbon Neutral Plan established a goal of obtaining Bucket 1 renewable
supplies equal to the City’s load on an annual basis, and it allowed for the use of Bucket 3 RECs
to address the reduction in carbon neutral generation that occurs in low hydro years. However,
the Plan did not contemplate a scenario where the City has an overall surplus of supplies on an
on-going basis (or where grid emissions rates vary significantly over the course of the year).
Using Bucket 3 RECs for neutralizing residual emissions remains true to that original Carbon
Neutral Plan: the City would still have Bucket 1 renewable supplies equal to its load on an
annual basis. This approach simply augments the original Plan by addressing what to do with
the City’s supplies that exceed its annual load, and how to address the fact that grid emissions
now vary dramatically from hour to hour and season to season.
APPENDIX A: ELECTRIC UTILITY RESERVES MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The following reserves management practices are used when developing the Electric Utility
Financial Plan:
Section 1. Definitions
a)“Financial Planning Period” – The Financial Planning Period is the range of future fiscal
years covered by the Financial Plan. For example, if the Financial Plan delivered in
conjunction with the FY 2015 budget includes projections for FY 2015 to FY 2019,
FY 2015 to FY 2019 would be the Financial Planning Period.
b)“Fund Balance” – As used in these Reserves Management Practices, Fund Balance refers
to the Utility’s Unrestricted Net Assets.
c)“Net Assets” - The Government Accounting Standards Board defines a Utility’s Net
Assets as the difference between its assets and liabilities.
d)“Unrestricted Net Assets” - The portion of the Utility’s Net Assets not invested in capital
assets (net of related debt) or restricted for debt service or other restricted purposes.
Section 2. Supply Fund Reserves
The Electric Supply Fund Balance is reserved for the following purposes:
a)For existing contracts, as described in Section 4 (Reserve for Commitments)
b)For operating budgets reappropriated from previous years, as described in Section 5
(Reserve for Reappropriations)
c)For special projects for the benefit of the Electric Utility ratepayers, as described in
Section 6 (Electric Special Projects Reserve)
d)For year to year balancing of costs associated with the Electric Utility’s hydroelectric
resources, as described in Section 7 (Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve)
e)For rate stabilization, as described in Section 1.d) (Rate Stabilization Reserves)
f)For operating contingencies, as described in Section 12 (Operations Reserves)
g)Any funds not included in the other reserves will be considered Unassigned Reserves
and shall be returned to ratepayers or assigned a specific purpose as described in
Section 13 (Unassigned Reserves).
Section 3. Distribution Fund Reserves
The Electric Distribution Fund Balance is reserved for the following purposes:
a)For existing contracts, as described in Section 4 (Reserves for Commitments)
b)For operating and capital budgets reappropriated from previous years, as described in
Section 5 (Reserves for Reappropriations)
c)As an offset to underground loan receivables, as described in Section 8 (Underground
Loan Reserve)
d)To hold Public Benefit Program funds collected but not yet spent, as described in Section
9 (Public Benefits Reserve)
e)For cash flow management and contingencies related to the Electric Utility’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), as described in Section 10 (CIP Reserve)
f)For rate stabilization, as described in Section 11.d) (Rate Stabilization Reserves)
g)For operating contingencies, as described in Section 12 (Operations Reserves)
Attachment D
h) Any funds not included in the other reserves will be considered Unassigned Reserves
and shall be returned to ratepayers or assigned a specific purpose as described in
Section 14 (Unassigned Reserves).
Section 4. Reserves for Commitments
At the end of each fiscal year the Electric Supply Fund and Electric Distribution Fund
Reserves for Commitments will be set to an amount equal to the total remaining spending
authority for all contracts in force for the Electric Supply Fund and Electric Distribution
Fund, respectively, at that time.
Section 5. Reserves for Reappropriations
At the end of each fiscal year the Electric Supply Fund and Electric Distribution Fund
Reserves for Reappropriations will be set to an amount equal to the amount of all remaining
capital and non-capital budgets that will be reappropriated to the following fiscal year for
each Fund in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.28.090.
Section 6. Electric Special Projects Reserve
The Electric Special Projects Reserve (ESP Reserve) will be managed in accordance with the
policies and timelines set forth in Resolution 9206 (Resolution of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Approving Renaming the Calaveras Reserve to the Electric Special Project Reserve
and Adoption of Electric Special Project Reserve Guidelines). These policies and timelines
are included from Resolution 9206 as amended to refer to the reserves structure set forth
in these Reserves Management Practices:
a) The purpose of the ESP Reserve is to fund projects that benefit electric ratepayers;
b) The ESP Reserve funds must be used for projects of significant impact;
c) Projects proposed for funding must demonstrate a need and value to electric
ratepayers. The projects must have verifiable value and must not be speculative, or
high-risk in nature;
d) Projects proposed for funding must be substantial in size, requiring funding of at least
$1 million;
e) Set a goal to commit funds by the end of FY 2017;
f) Any uncommitted funds remaining at the end of FY 2022 will be transferred to the
Electric Supply Operations Reserve and the ESP Reserve will be closed;
Section 7. Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve
The Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve is used to manage the supply cost impacts
associated with variations in generation from hydroelectric resources. Staff will manage the
Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve as follows:
a) Projected Hydro Output: Near the end of each fiscal year, staff will determine the
actual and expected hydro output for that fiscal year, compare that to the long-term
average annual output level (495,957 MWh as of March 2018), and multiply the
difference by the average of the monthly round-the-clock forward market prices for
each month of the current fiscal year.
b) Changes in Reserves. Staff is authorized to transfer the amount described in Sec.
7(a) from the Operations Reserve to the Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve for
hydro output deviations above long-term average levels, or transfer this amount
from the Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve for hydro
output deviations below long-term average levels.
c) Implementation of HRA. The level of the Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve after
the transfers described above shall be the basis for staff’s determination, with
Council approval, of whether to implement the Hydro Rate Adjuster (Electric Rate E-
HRA) for the following fiscal year.
d) Reserve Guidelines. Staff will manage the Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve
according to the following guideline levels:
Minimum Level $3 million
Target Level $19 million
Maximum Level $35 million
Section 8. Underground Loan Reserve
At the end of each fiscal year, the Underground Loan Reserve will be adjusted by the
principal payments made against outstanding underground loans.
Section 9. Public Benefits Reserve
The Public Benefits Reserve will be increased by the amount of unspent Public Benefits
Revenues remaining at the end of each fiscal year. Expenditure of these funds requires
action by the City Council.
Section 10. CIP Reserve
The CIP Reserve is used to manage cash flow for capital projects and acts as a reserve for
capital contingencies. Staff will manage the CIP Reserve according to the following
practices:
a) The following guideline levels are set forth for the CIP Reserve. These guideline levels
are calculated for each fiscal year of the Financial Planning Period and approved by
Council resolution.
Minimum Level 20% of the maximum CIP Reserve guideline
level
Maximum Level Average annual (12 month)1 CIP budget, for
48 months of budgeted CIP expenses2
b) Changes in Reserves: Staff is authorized to transfer funds between the CIP Reserve and
the Reserve for Commitments when funds are added to or removed from the Reserve
for Commitments as a result of a change in contractual commitments related to CIP
projects. Any other additions to or withdrawals from the CIP reserve require Council
action.
1 Each month is calculated based upon 1/12 of the annual budget. 2 For example, in the Financial Plan for FY 2021, the 48 month period to use to derive the
annual average is FY 2021 through FY 2024. In the FY 2022 Financial Plan, the 48 month period
to use to derive the annual average would be FY 2022 through FY 2025 etc.
c) Minimum Level:
i) If, at the end of any fiscal year, the minimum guideline is not met, staff shall present
a plan to the City Council to replenish the reserve. The plan shall be delivered by the
end of the following fiscal year, and shall, at a minimum, result in the reserve
reaching its minimum level by the end of the next fiscal year. For example, if the CIP
Reserve is below its minimum level at the end of FY 2017, staff must present a plan
by June 30, 2018 to return the reserve to its minimum level by June 30, 2019. In
addition, staff may present, and the Council may adopt, an alternative plan that
takes longer than one year to replenish the reserve, or that does so in a shorter
period of time.
d) Maximum Level: If there are funds in this reserve in excess of the maximum level staff
must propose in the next Financial Plan to transfer these funds to another reserve or
return them to ratepayers in the funds to ratepayers, or designate a specific use of
funds for CIP investments that will be made by the end of the next Financial Planning
period. Staff may also seek City Council to approve holding funds in this reserve in
excess of the maximum level if they are held for a specific future purpose related to the
CIP.
Section 11. Rate Stabilization Reserves
Funds may be added to the Electric Supply or Distribution Fund’s Rate Stabilization Reserves
by action of the City Council and held to manage the trajectory of future year rate increases.
Withdrawal of funds from either Rate Stabilization Reserve requires action by the City
Council. If there are funds in either Rate Stabilization Reserve at the end of any fiscal year,
any subsequent Electric Utility Financial Plan must result in the withdrawal of all funds from
this Reserve by the end of the Financial Planning Period. The Council may approve
exceptions to this requirement, when proposed by staff to provide greater rate stabilization
to customers.
Section 12. Operations Reserves
The Electric Supply Fund and Electric Distribution Fund Operations Reserves are used to
manage normal variations in the costs of providing electric service and as a reserve for
contingencies. Any portion of the Electric Utility’s Fund Balance not included in the reserves
described elsewhere in these Reserve Management Practices will be included in the
appropriate Operations Reserve unless the reserve has reached its maximum level as set
forth in Section 12 (e) below. Staff will manage the Operations Reserves according to the
following practices:
a) The following guideline levels are set forth for the Electric Supply Fund Operations
Reserve. These guideline levels are calculated for each fiscal year of the Financial
Planning Period based on the levels of Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and
commodity expense forecasted for that year in the Financial Plan.
Minimum Level 60 days of Supply Fund O&M and commodity expense
Target Level 90 days of Supply Fund O&M and commodity expense
Maximum Level 120 days of Supply Fund O&M and commodity expense
b) The following guideline levels are set forth for the Electric Distribution Fund Operations
Reserve. These guideline levels are calculated for each fiscal year of the Financial
Planning Period based on the levels of O&M expense forecasted for that year in the
Financial Plan.
Minimum Level 60 days of Distribution Fund O&M expense
Target Level 90 days of Distribution Fund O&M expense
Maximum Level 120 days of Distribution Fund O&M expense
c) Minimum Level: If, at the end of any fiscal year, the funds remaining in the Supply Fund
or Distribution Fund’s Operations Reserve are lower than the minimum level set forth
above, staff shall present a plan to the City Council to replenish the reserve. The plan
shall be delivered within six months of the end of the fiscal year, and shall, at a
minimum, result in the reserve reaching its minimum level by the end of the following
fiscal year. For example, if the Operations Reserve is below its minimum level at the end
of FY 2014, staff must present a plan by December 31, 2014 to return the reserve to its
minimum level by June 30, 2015. In addition, staff may present an alternative plan that
takes longer than one year to replenish the reserve.
d) Target Level: If, at the end of any fiscal year, either Operations Reserve is higher or
lower than the target level, any Financial Plan created for the Electric Utility shall be
designed to return both Operations Reserves to their target levels by the end of the
forecast period.
e) Maximum Level: If, at any time, either Operations Reserve reaches its maximum level,
no funds may be added to this Reserve. Any further increase in that fund’s Fund
Balance shall be automatically included in the Unassigned Reserve described in Section
13, below.
Section 13. Unassigned Reserves
If the Operations Reserve in either the Electric Supply Fund or the Electric Distribution Fund
reaches its maximum level, any further additions to that fund’s Fund Balance will be held in
the Unassigned Reserve. If there are any funds in either Unassigned Reserve at the end of
any fiscal year, the next Financial Plan presented to the City Council must include a plan to
assign them to a specific purpose or return them to the Electric Utility ratepayers by the end
of the first fiscal year of the next Financial Planning Period. For example, if there were
funds in the Unassigned Reserves at the end of FY 2016, and the next Financial Planning
Period is FY 2017 through FY 2021, the Financial Plan shall include a plan to return or assign
the funds in the Unassigned Reserve by the end of FY 2017. Staff may present an
alternative plan that retains these funds or returns them over a longer period of time.
Section 14. Intra-Utility Transfers between Supply and Distribution Funds
Transfers between Electric Distribution Fund Reserves and Electric Supply Fund Reserves are
permitted if consistent with the purposes of the two reserves involved in the transfer. Such
transfers require action by the City Council.
Section 15. Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Reserve
This reserve tracks revenues earned via the sale of Low Carbon Fuel Credits allocated by the
California Air Resources Board to the City, as well as expenses incurred, in accordance with
California’s Low Caron Fuel Standard program. At the end of each fiscal year, the LCFS
Reserve will be adjusted by the net of revenues and expenses associated with California’s
LCFS program.
Section 16. Cap and Trade Program Reserve
This reserve tracks unspent or unallocated revenues from the sale of carbon allowances
freely allocated by the California Air Resources Board to the electric utility, under the State’s
Cap and Trade Program. Funds in this Reserve are managed in accordance with the City’s
Policy on the Use of Freely Allocated Allowances under the State’s Cap and Trade Program
(the Policy), adopted by Council Resolution 9487 in January 2015.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11516)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/24/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: HRC Recommentations on 8 Can't Wait
Title: Recommendation to Accept the Human Relations Commission Report
on Their Review of 8 Can't Wait Policies in Relation to Current Palo Alto
Police Department (PAPD) Policies, and Direction to the City Manager
Regarding Revisions to Police Policies
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council:
1. Accept the Human Relations Commission report on their review of 8 Can’t Wait
policies in relation to current Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) practices, and
2. Review and accept the Palo Alto Police Department response, and direct the City
Manager to revise Use of Force policies to:
a. explicitly prohibit the use of chokeholds and strangleholds;
b. add more comprehensive use of force language with respect to de-escalation;
and
c. revise deadly force application to require officers to evaluate each situation in
consideration of the circumstances in each case and to use other available
resources and techniques when reasonably safe and feasible to do so,
including that an officer must reasonably believe the use of deadly force is
necessary to justify its use.
Background
In response to the death by police of George Floyd and other such tragedies
nationwide, as well as the need for the City as an organization to work more deeply on
issues of police reform, racial inequities, and systemic racism, Council recently adopted
a resolution expressing support of Black Lives Matter (June 8, 2020- #11414 BLM
Movement) and provided feedback on a framework and workplan to address systemic
racism (June 15, 2020 – Council Meeting Minutes). Council approved the following five
areas of focus:
City of Palo Alto Page 2
A. Direct the Human Relations Commission (HRC) to lead the “8 Can’t Wait”
campaign and to produce a report on the Black and Brown history and current
community in Palo Alto, within 60 days;
B. Expand community engagement to include private and public forums, within 30
days;
C. Start Council Ad-Hoc Committees with monthly reports on: police hiring, data
analysis, practices and policies, transparency, and accountability;
D. Direct the Public Art Commission to explore public art honoring diversity, and
work with our community to paint “Black Lives Matter” or a similar message near
City Hall, as soon as possible; and
E. Direct Staff to evaluate which current police functions may be served by other
public safety models.
This staff report details the response by the HRC on the first part of “A” above, a
charge to lead the 8 Can’t Wait campaign. The report on the Black and Brown history
and current community experiences in Palo Alto is currently underway and will be
presented to Council when completed, tentatively in September 2020.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Discussion
The HRC reviewed and discussed the referral from Council at two special and one
regular commission meeting on the following dates: June 30, July 9 and July 22, 2020
(Draft HRC minutes from June 30, July 9, July 22). Their work included the following:
1) Review of the 8 Can’t Wait policies and comparison against current PAPD policy and
the policies of other police departments; 2) Public Forum on Police Reform – 8 Can’t
Wait – with community input and expert panel; 3) Presentation by Assistant Chief
Andrew Binder of the Palo Alto Police Department on PAPD review of 8 Can’t Wait
(Attachment A); and 4) HRC review and discussion of 8 Can’t Wait policies and
formulation of recommendations for Council. Councilmembers Lydia Kou and Greg
Tanaka were present at all three meetings and participated in the review and
discussion.
Below is a summary of the HRC’s 8 Can’t Wait policy recommendations followed by
PAPD staff analysis and response. The HRC also provided a memorandum outlining the
Commission’s decision making process on 8 Can’t Wait policies along with additional
remarks on police reform for Council consideration (Attachment B).
1. Ban Chokeholds and Strangleholds
HRC Motion: The HRC recommends that the language “Chokeholds, strangleholds,
lateral vascular neck restraints, chest compressions, or any other tactics that restrict
blood flow to head or neck” be explicitly prohibited and added to PAPD policy.
PAPD Response: Due to the dynamic, violent and unpredictable nature of physical
encounters, it is impossible to predict or choreograph how a subject is ultimately taken
into custody. During a violent struggle, officers could find themselves on top of a
subject and unintentionally compressing their chest or placing pressure on their neck.
They might end up in this position not because they are deliberately using a technique
intended to restrict air or blood flow, but due to the dynamic nature of being in a
physical fight with an actively resisting subject. Officers must have the ability, as
allowable by law, to use reasonable force to adapt to the ever-changing unpredictability
of violent altercations and take the appropriate actions in carrying out their duties. No
policy can realistically predict every possible situation an officer might encounter or
account for the unintended consequences of an unpredictable, violent encounter.
Consistent with 8 Can’t Wait, and in the spirit of the HRC’s recommendation
to Council, the Department recommends revising policy language to explicitly
prohibit the use of chokeholds and strangleholds. The Department
proactively revised the policy in June 2020 to ban carotid restraints. These
explicit prohibitions will restrict officers from using techniques that deliberately restrict
blood flow to the head or neck area as well as from using techniques that will restrict
air flow to the head while placing pressure on the back or sides of the neck.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
2. Require de-escalation
HRC Motion: The HRC recommends the model use of force language with respect to
de-escalation “prior to using physical, verbal and/or mental, non-deadly and/or deadly
force, all law enforcement officers must use proper de-escalation techniques.” The HRC
also recommends elaboration with a clear explanation of de-escalation tactics modeled
after San Francisco and Mountain View.
PAPD Response: The Department agrees with the HRC’s recommendation
that the use of force language with respect to de-escalation needs to be
more comprehensive and proposes adding to existing policy. Recommended
revisions below to the Department’s use of force language with respect to de-escalation
aligns it with the HRC’s recommendation and brings our policy into compliance with SB
230 prior to its imposed deadline. Proposed changes include language requiring officers
to evaluate the totality of circumstances presented at the time of each situation. When
feasible, officers shall consider and utilize reasonably available alternative/de-escalation
tactics and techniques that may persuade an individual to voluntarily comply or mitigate
the need to use force. Additional changes include clear explanations and guidance for
officer actions related to de-escalation tactics to improve decision making, reduce
situational intensity, and provide opportunities for outcomes with greater voluntary
compliance. Such de-escalation tactics should include self-control, effective
communication that attempts to identify possible reasons why a subject may be
noncompliant or resisting arrest, creating time and distance from a subject, requesting
additional resources, and other alternative options that decrease the likelihood of the
need to use force during an incident and increase the likelihood of voluntary
compliance.
3. Require warning before shooting
HRC Motion: PAPD policy is consistent with 8 Can’t Wait. No change proposed.
4. Requires exhaust all alternatives before shooting
HRC Motion: The HRC recommends that the Council adopt the San Francisco Police
Department policy which states that, It is the policy of the department to use deadly
force only as a last resort when reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or not
feasible to protect the safety of the public and/or police officers.
PAPD Response: Consistent with the requirements of CA Penal Code 835a,
the Department proposes revising its deadly force application policy to
require officers to evaluate each situation in light of the particular
circumstances in each case and to use other available resources and
techniques when reasonably safe and feasible to do so. Furthermore,
recommended changes will qualify that an officer must reasonably believe the use of
City of Palo Alto Page 5
deadly force is necessary to justify its use. While this policy is not the exact verbiage
recommended by the HRC, it strikes the balance between requiring officers to use all
other available resources and techniques prior to using deadly force when reasonably
safe and feasible to do so and only using deadly force when necessary.
5. Duty to Intervene
HRC Motion: PAPD policy is consistent with 8 Can’t Wait. No change proposed.
6. Ban shooting at moving vehicles
HRC Motion: The HRC recommends that shooting at moving vehicles be banned
unless the person poses a deadly threat.
PAPD Response: The Department does not recommend a revision to the
current policy on shooting at moving vehicles. Department policy allows for
shooting at moving vehicles as a last resort and only under two
circumstances in which the vehicle and/or occupant(s) could pose a deadly
threat to officers or others. The first circumstance allows for shooting at a moving
vehicle if deadly force other than the vehicle is directed at the officer or others and the
second circumstance allows for officers to discharge their firearm if the vehicle is being
used as a deadly weapon.
7. Require use of force continuum
HRC Motion: The HRC recommends that we refer this matter to the Council’s Police
Policy Manual, Data, and Hiring Ad Hoc Committee and request that they work with the
HRC and PAPD to explore optimizing use of force options.
[City Attorney’s note: Under the Charter and Municipal Code, Council should direct the
City organization through the City Manager. In addition, Council may choose to refer
appropriate tasks to City commissions.]
PAPD Response: The Department’s force option policy is based on California
Penal Code 835a and the objective reasonableness standard set forth in
Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386). It is also consistent with contemporary
industry best practices. PAPD’s force policies define/limit the types of force and/or
weapons that can be used to respond to specific types of resistance and only allows for
officers to use that amount of force that is reasonably necessary given the facts and
totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer.
Consistent with HRC’s recommendation, the City Council is well underway on a
comprehensive review of policing practices. The Department is committed to examining
City of Palo Alto Page 6
ways to improve the way we articulate and illustrate our existing force options model
and reporting back to the HRC and/or Council.
8. Require comprehensive reporting
HRC Motion: The current PAPD policy complies with 8 Can’t Wait. No change
proposed.
Timeline
The HRC was given a timeline of 60 days to return to Council with their
recomemendations regarding 8 Can’t Wait and a report on the Black and Brown history
and current community (community report) in Palo Alto. As mentioned previously, the
work on the community report is currently underway and will be agendized when
completed, anticipated for Fall 2020.
Implementation of any changes as a result of this report, will be dependent on any
process/review that needs to take place by the PAPD, Palo Alto Police Officers
Association, City Attorney and/or other entity.
Resource Impact
Resource impacts are dependent on the actions and direction approved by the City
Council. Most of the recommendations proposed by the HRC are policy changes.
Developing and implementing policy changes would require staff time as would training
staff on these changes. It is possible that additional resources may be needed as well,
including contract funding for specialized trainers.
Policy Implications
Recommended revisions contained in this report may require consultation with other
parties, such as the Palo Alto Police Officers Association and the City Attorney’s Office,
given the potential involvement of legal and contractual obligations. These policy
implications will be investigated after Council consideration on this topic.
Stakeholder Engagement
The HRC discussed 8 Can’t Wait at two special and one regular commission meetings on
the following dates: June 30, July 9 and July 22, 2020. Staff and commissioners
conducted broad outreach through personal contacts, emails, and social media to
inform the public of these meetings. Each of these meetings included an extended
period for public comment on the 8 Can’t Wait policies and police reform which is
recorded in the minutes.
The July 9 meeting also included a presentation by the following panelists followed by a
time of Q & A with the commissioners and council members present.
• Matthew Clair, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Stanford University
City of Palo Alto Page 7
• Robert Jonsen - Chief of Police, Palo Alto
• Kenan Moos - Theblackhub.Org
• David Alan Sklansky - Co-Director of Criminal Justice Center Stanford
• Anand Subramanian – Managing Director at PolicyLink
The meeting minutes linked above in this section provides a summary of this panel
discussion and other public conversations that took place in July as part of HRC’s
implementation of the Council direction to inform and engage the community on these
complex topics.
Attachments:
• ATTACHMENT A - PAPD Review - 8can'twait
• ATTACHMENT B - HRC Response to Council on 8 Can't Wait
1 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT A
DATE: JULY 21, 2020
TO: HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
FROM: CHIEF OF POLICE ROBERT JONSEN
SUBJECT: PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT REVIEW AND #8CANTWAIT
In September 2016, Campaign Zero issued a report which examined the use of force polices of 91 of
America’s 100 largest cities’ police departments. Based on their analysis and findings, Campaign Zero
identified 8 main policies that establish restrictions on police use of force. #8cantwait has incorporated
Campaign Zero’s findings as part of their campaign for police reform. This memorandum incorporates
the 8 policies identified by #8cantwait and an initial Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) review to
inform and further the community dialogue on these complex matters.
In consultation with the City Manager, staff proposes that the HRC discuss and provide feedback to staff
on current PAPD policies and any recommended revisions. Recommended revisions may require
consultation with other parties, such as the Palo Alto Police Officers Association and the City Attorney’s
Office, given the potential involvement of legal and contractual obligations. Staff will then advance HRC
recommendations along with any additional relevant information to the City Council for approval.
8cantwait - Ban Chokeholds and Strangleholds
PAPD Policy 300.3.5: The use of the carotid control hold is not authorized.
Discussion: The use of the carotid restraint as well as chokeholds and strangleholds are not authorized.
This policy was revised on June 9, 2020.
8cantwait - Require De-escalation
PAPD Policy 300.3.1 Conflict Resolution and De-Escalation: Officers should consider, as time and
circumstances reasonably permit, conflict resolution and de-escalation techniques, when responding to
all types of calls for service and when engaging in self-initiated activity.
California SB 230 Use of Deadly Force, Training & Policies: Requires officers to utilize de-escalation
techniques, crisis intervention tactics, and other alternatives to force when feasible. It also requires all
officers to be trained in alternatives to deadly force and de-escalation techniques.
Discussion: PAPD policy requires that officers should consider, as time and circumstances reasonably
permit, conflict resolution and de-escalation techniques when responding to all types of calls for service
and when engaging in self-initiated activity. California law was recently amended by SB 230 to require
officers to utilize de-escalation techniques, crisis intervention tactics, and other alternatives to force
when feasible by January 1, 2021. PAPD is currently in the process of revising its policy language so it is
consistent with this requirement prior to the law’s imposed deadline.
2 | P a g e
8cantwait - Require Warning Before Shooting
PAPD Policy 300.4 Deadly Force Applications states in part: Where feasible, the officer shall, prior to
the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that
deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is
aware of those facts.
California AB 392 Deadly Force: Where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force,
make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force
may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is
aware of those facts.
Discussion: Consistent with AB 392, PAPD policy requires officers, where feasible, to warn that
deadly force may be used.
8cantwait - Requires Exhaust All Alternatives Before Shooting
PAPD Policy 300.4 Deadly Force Applications states in part: Officers should evaluate the use of other
reasonably available resources and techniques when determining whether to use deadly force.
California Penal Code 835(a)(2) Arrest states in part: In determining whether deadly force is necessary,
officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case and shall use
other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible to an objectively reasonable
officer.
Discussion: Requiring officers to “exhaust all other reasonable alternatives” is neither safe nor feasible,
given the rapid speed with which a force encounter may unfold. The California Penal Code requires,
instead, that officers “use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible.”
8cantwait - Duty to Intervene
PAPD Policy 300.2.1 Duty to Intercede: Any officer present and observing another officer using force
that is clearly beyond that which is objectively reasonable under the circumstances shall, when in a
position to do so, intercede to prevent the use of unreasonable force. An officer who observes another
employee use force that clearly exceeds the degree of force permitted by law shall promptly report
these observations to a supervisor.
California SB 230 Use of Deadly Force, Training & Policies: Requires an officer to intercede when
present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is necessary.
Discussion: PAPD Policy and SB 230 require officers to intercede to prevent the use of unreasonable and
unnecessary force by another officer. This policy was revised on June 17, 2020.
8cantwait - Ban Shooting at Moving Vehicles
PAPD Policy 300.4.1 Shooting At or From Moving Vehicles: Shots fired at or from a moving vehicle are
rarely effective. Officers should move out of the path of an approaching vehicle instead of discharging
their firearm at the vehicle or any of its occupants. An officer should only discharge a firearm at a
moving vehicle or its occupants when the officer reasonably believes there are no other reasonable
means available to avert the threat of the vehicle, or if deadly force other than the vehicle is directed at
the officer or others.
3 | P a g e
Discussion: PAPD Policy allows for officers to discharge their firearm at a moving vehicle as a last resort
if deadly force other than the vehicle is directed at the officer or others. PAPD Policy also allows for
officers to discharge their firearm at a moving vehicle if it is being used as a deadly weapon.
8cantwait - Require Use of Force Continuum
PAPD Policy 300.3 Use of Force states in part: Officers shall use only that amount of force that
reasonably appears necessary given the facts and totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by
the officer at the time of the event to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement purpose (Penal Code §
835a).
The reasonableness of force will be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene at
the time of the incident. Any evaluation of reasonableness must allow for the fact that officers are often
forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force that reasonably appears necessary in a
particular situation, with limited information and in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly
evolving.
PAPD Policy 300.4 Deadly Force Applications: Sets forth specific circumstances in which deadly force
can be used.
PAPD Policy 309 Conducted Energy Weapon (Taser): Sets forth specific circumstances in which a taser
can be used. This policy also includes special considerations for characteristics such as age, size, or when
position or activity may result in collateral injury.
California SB 230 Use of Deadly Force, Training & Policies states in part: An officer may only use a level
of force that they reasonably believe is proportional to the seriousness of the suspected offense or the
reasonably perceived level of actual or threatened resistance.
California AB 392 Deadly Force states in part: A peace officer is justified in using deadly force upon
another person only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances,
that such force is necessary.
Discussion: PAPD’s force option policy is based on California Penal Code 835a and the objective
reasonableness standard set forth in Graham v. Connor. It is also consistent with contemporary industry
best practices. PAPD’s force policies define/limit the types of force and/or weapons that can be used to
respond to specific types of resistance. Further, the force continuum model is outdated and has not
been taught in Palo Alto in over a decade. One of its major limitations is that it is unable to provide for
an entire set of circumstances based on the uniqueness of a given situation. PAPD’s policy allows for
officers to use only that amount of force that is reasonably necessary given the facts and totality of the
circumstances known to or perceived by the officer.
8cantwait - Require Comprehensive Reporting
PAPD Policy 300.5 Reporting the Use of Force: Any use of force by a member of this department shall
be documented promptly, completely and accurately in an appropriate report, depending on the nature
of the incident. The officer should articulate the factors perceived and why he/she believed the use of
force was reasonable under the circumstances.
PAPD Policy 309.6 (Taser) Documentation states in part: Unintentional discharges, pointing the device
at a person and laser activation will be documented via CAD and additionally noted in any applicable
police report.
PAPD Policy 344.2.2 Non-Criminal Activity states in part: The following incidents shall be documented
using the appropriate approved report: (a) Anytime an officer points a firearm at any person.
4 | P a g e
California SB 230 Use of Deadly Force, Training & Policies: Requires comprehensive and detailed
requirements for prompt internal reporting and notifications regarding a use of force incident.
Discussion: PAPD Policy and SB 230 require officers to promptly, completely, and accurately document
any use of force, including anytime an officer points a taser or a firearm at a person.
ATTACHMENT B
TO:City Council
FROM:Human Relations Commission
RE:Report on 8 Can’t Wait and Additional Recommendations
___________________________________________________________________
Council referral:
To address police use of force, the City Council, at its June 15th, 2020 meeting ‘directed
the Human Relations Commission (HRC) to lead the “8 Can’t Wait” campaign’.
Objectives:
The HRC in their assignment, sought to confirm codes of behavior, which:
●Comply with the 8 Can’t Wait, tailored to Palo Alto and consistent with current
California legislation
●Reduce excessive use of force in Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD)
operations
●Recognize the challenges for PAPD police officers while protecting the safety of
citizens and maintaining law and order
●End the disproportionate and biased outcomes for people of color
Approach:
The HRC sought public comment, interviews, expert comment, and literature review as
background for their deliberation.
Public comment was received at City Council June 8 and 15 and at HRC July 9th
and July 22nd. Commissioners interviewed PAPD. An expert panel was held July
9th. Panelists were:
●Matthew Clair, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Stanford University
●Robert Jonsen - Chief of Police, Palo Alto
●Kenan Moos - Theblackhub.Org
●David Alan Sklansky - Co-Director of Criminal Justice Center, Stanford University
●Anand Subramanian – Managing Director, PolicyLink
Limitations:
Council expected a report back in 60 days when Council returned from summer break.
The short timeline from Council and the social distancing limited an exhaustive
collection of input from citizens, experts and police officers.
Commissioners focused on assessing the evidence presented by experienced and
expert bodies and recommending direction, which best protects people who live, work,
study, worship, or pass through Palo Alto.
Recommendations:
Through hundreds of hours of research and meetings, these are the HRC’s
recommendations in regards to 8 Can’t Wait and additional findings. One critical point
that the Commissioners would like to make is that this is just a beginning step,
this is not the final step of the work. The HRC is willing to be part of the continuing
process of examining the very complicated elements that we are dealing with.
8 Can’t Wait
1. Ban Chokeholds and Strangleholds
Motion: The HRC recommends that the language “Chokeholds, strangleholds, lateral
vascular neck restraints, chest compressions, or any other tactics that restrict blood flow
to head or neck” be explicitly prohibited and added to PAPD policy.
The HRC motion matches the language in Campaign Zero’s, 8 Can’t Wait Model Use of
Force. The HRC reasoned that as a model city, Palo Alto should put into its policies the
highest possible language. Carotid restraints, which are called out in the model use of
force, are not authorized under PAPD policy and therefore not called out in the motion.
2. Require de-escalation
Motion: The HRC recommends the model use of force language with respect to
de-escalation “prior to using physical, verbal and/or mental, non-deadly and/or deadly
force, all law enforcement officers must use proper de-escalation techniques”. The HRC
also recommends elaboration with a clear explanation of de-escalation tactics modeled
after San Francisco and Mountain View.
The HRC motion begins with the Model Use of Force language. Requiring proper
de-escalation techniques adds a higher standard. The HRC added ‘Verbal and/or
mental” to make the model use of force language more comprehensive. The HRC saw
a need for a robust definition of de-escalation techniques. Including examples from
well-regarded manuals gives clear guidance.
3. Require warning before shooting
Motion: PAPD policy is consistent with 8 Can’t Wait. No change proposed.
4. Requires exhaust all alternatives before shooting
Motion: The HRC recommends that the Council adopt the San Francisco Police
Department policy which states that It is the policy of the department to use deadly force
only as a last resort when reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or not feasible
to protect the safety of the public and/or police officers.
The HRC opted for the language used in the SFPD Policy Manual over the 8 Can’t Wait.
The language recommended struck a balance, expecting all reasonable and feasible
alternatives and giving officers ability to make decisions.
5. Duty to Intervene
Motion: PAPD policy is consistent with 8 Can’t Wait. No change proposed.
Campaign Zero judged that PAPD satisfied this element of 8 Can’t Wait. The HRC was
told that body cameras have improved accountability. A culture and expectations are in
place to protect officers from retaliation.
6. Ban shooting at moving vehicles
Motion: The HRC recommends that shooting at moving vehicles be banned unless the
person poses a deadly threat.
The HRC motion is basically the 8 Can’t Wait. It is not a categorical ban. This
recommendation allows for a driver who poses a deadly threat.
7. Require use of force continuum
Motion: The HRC recommends that we refer this matter to the Council’s Policy Manual
Ad Hoc Committee and request that they work with the HRC and PAPD to explore
optimizing use of force options.
The HRC did not recommend force continuum models as they are decision ladders,
which are considered out-dated. The prescriptive models put officers and citizens at
unacceptable risk and are judged ineffective in California State Law, by the California
Police Chiefs Association and under a Supreme Court decision. On the other hand,
judgement-based policies to limit use of force are shown to be harmful to people of
color. Dedicated time is needed to author an alternative model, which manages
officers’ biases and limits use of force.
8. Require comprehensive reporting
Motion: The current PAPD policy complies with 8 Can’t Wait. No change proposed.
PAPD reporting was considered compliant with 8 Can’t Wait. Furthermore, given new
legislation (AB953), broader and new reporting capabilities are anticipated.
Additional considerations:
Although the HRC was charged only with examining 8 Can’t Wait, it is clear to each
Commissioner that this is only a first step and it is the strong sentiment of the
Commission that there be a commitment to substantial police reform.
Each Commissioner was given an opportunity to add additional remarks. These follow.
Chair Kaloma Smith;
1.Look at policies such as San Francisco’s “CAREN” rules.
2.Discuss what responses require a police officer and which do not (i.e. mental
health calls, traffic calls)
3.Be the model of transparency of what new policies look like.
Vice Chair Valerie Stinger:
1.Prohibit the hiring or lateral transfer of enforcement and correctional officers with
a history of excessive force or misconduct complaints (Police Applicant
Disqualification Policy includes statement, June 25, 2020) Remove barriers to
accountability for misconduct/Support legislation to create a police misconduct
database to certify and decertify officers.
2.Clarify crowd control techniques.
3.Restructure school response officers, traffic control, and emergency response;
particularly, alternatives for mental health or behavioral crisis. Ensure response
teams are trained and suited to handle the situation. Look at model cities and
their programs (Eugene, Oregon Cahoot’s; Denver, Colorado STAR).
4.Prepare a metric to measure the progress against objectives. Be prepared to
assess and revise strategies for change. Officers should be measured on the
level of force used given the level of threat. A breakdown by race should be
shown for each review period, at least annually. The officers and the force
should show decreasing disproportionate and biased outcomes for people of
color.
5.Commit to police reform and authorize responsibility for recommending and
monitoring police reform.
Commissioner Steven Lee:
1.The City Council should identify and reassign responsibilities that can be
transferred out of the PAPD to non-law enforcement professionals who are better
equipped to respond to those specific needs.
2.Reallocate associated PAPD funds and increase more generally funds for
community and social services.
3.Expand Office of Human Services.
4.Double HSRAP Funding for mental health, homeless and other human services.
5.Double Human Services Emerging Needs Fund.
6. Housing. Housing. Housing.
Commissioner Patti Regehr:
1.City Council should redirect funds from the police department into behavioral
mental health emergency response by property trained professionals who can, if
necessary, de escalate a crisis and recommend follow up services.
2.Establish a policy to prosecute officers who engage in excess use of force.
3.Provide disciplinary consequences for failure of an officer to turn on body or
vehicle cameras when interacting with citizens.
4.Include mental health, sensitivity and empathy characteristics in hiring, promotion
and retainment policies for police personnel.
5.Use unarmed personnel for traffic control.
6.Establish or restore adequate funding for vital services that protect and enhance
community health including library, children’s theater and other community
services and work with these agencies to assure that they are doing all they can
to encourage diversity.
7.Include the HRC and other community activists on City Council subcommittees
on transparency and accountability as well as diversity.
8.Either establish a police review board or empower the HRC to review complaints
against the police department. Reviews should be transparent and conducted
outside of the police department.
9.Include HRC and City Council on police personnel review.
10.Require that the Chief of Police participate in HRC meetings on a quarterly basis
or when requested by the HRC.
11.Publicly disclose racial, ethnic, gender and sexual orientation statistics for Palo
Alto Police and all City employees, council members and commission members.
12.Work with the PAUSD to assure that students from the Tinsley Program are fully
integrated into the student community including before and after school events.
13.Police off school campuses as school resource officers.
14.For greater accountability we need to rethink the role of staff when working with
the City Council and Commissions. Staff should be there to provide resources,
serve the needs of elected and appointed officials and not function as
gatekeepers. All staff recommendations based on commission decisions should
be approved by that commission before being submitted to City Council or the
public.
Commissioner Daryl Savage:
1.Increase police training focused on: implicit bias, mental illness, cultural
competency, racism, and responding to age-related individuals. Specifically,
implicit bias training should start ASAP and be mandatory for all officers.
2.Enhance the collection of data on vehicle stops.
3.Review the role of school resource officers.
4.Increase community briefings via public meetings, coffee shop hours, etc.
Addendum I
8 Can’t Wait
1.Ban chokeholds and strangleholds
Allowing officers to choke or strangle civilians results in the unnecessary death or
serious injury of civilians. Both chokeholds and all other neck restraints must be banned
in all cases.
Law enforcement officers shall not use chokeholds, strangleholds, Lateral Vascular
Neck Restraints, Carotid Restraints, chest compressions, or any other tactics that
restrict oxygen or blood flow to the head or neck.
2.Require de-escalation
Require officers to de-escalate situations, where possible, by communicating with
subjects, maintaining distance, and otherwise eliminating the need to use force. Prior to
using physical, non-deadly and/or deadly force, all law enforcement officers must use
proper de-escalation techniques
3.Require warning before shooting
Require officers to give a verbal warning in all situations before using deadly force.
4.Requires exhausting all alternatives before shooting
Require officers to exhaust all other alternatives, including non-force and less lethal
force options, prior to resorting to deadly force.
5.Duty to intervene
Require officers to intervene and stop excessive force used by other officers and report
these incidents immediately to a supervisor.
6.Ban shooting at moving vehicles
Ban officers from shooting at moving vehicles in all cases, which is regarded as a
particularly dangerous and ineffective tactic. While some departments may restrict
shooting at vehicles to particular situations, these loopholes allow for police to continue
killing in situations that are all too common. 62 people were killed by police last year in
these situations. This must be categorically banned.
7.Require use of force continuum
Establish a Force Continuum that restricts the most severe types of force to the most
extreme situations and creates clear policy restrictions on the use of each police
weapon and tactic.
8.Require comprehensive reporting
Require officers to report each time they use force or threaten to use force against
civilians. Comprehensive reporting includes requiring officers to report whenever they
point a firearm at someone, in addition to all other types of force.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11551)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/24/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Update and Potential Direction on City of Palo Alto's Race
and Equity Work
Title: Update and Potential Direction on City of Palo Alto's Race and Equity
Work
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council accept an update on the City’s Race and Equity efforts and
provide possible direction to staff on next steps.
Background
On June 8, 2020, the City Council unanimously passed a resolution affirming that Black Lives
Matter and committed the City to addressing systemic racism and bias. This resolution also
honored the lives of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and many others that have
fallen victim to violence at the hands of authorities. That resolution can be found online as part
of City Manager’s Report (CMR) #11414
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77100.
In addition to the resolution, the City Council also unanimously directed staff to:
a. Return with a framework to review, report on, and improve Palo Alto Police policies and
practices focused on accountability and eliminating any potential incidents of racism or
discrimination;
b. Report on possible improvements to police hiring practices; and
c. Begin a diversity and inclusion initiative throughout the City.
In response to that direction, staff returned to the City Council on June 15, 2020 with a draft
framework to inform Palo Alto’s focus over the short, medium, and long-term. This racial equity
framework was transmitted as Attachment A to CMR #11441, which can be found online here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77273.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Through the discussion on June 15, 2020, the City Council provided direction on the proposed
initial race and equity work plan and included the following elements in their motion:
a. Direct the Human Relations Commission to lead the “8 Can’t Wait” campaign and to
produce a report on the black and brown history and current community in Palo Alto,
within 60 days;
b. Expand community engagement to include private and public forums, within 30 days;
c. Start Council Ad-Hoc committees with monthly reports on: policing hiring, data analysis,
practices and policies, transparency, and accountability;
d. Direct the Public Art Commission to explore public art honoring diversity and work with
our community to paint “Black Lives Matter” or a similar message near City Hall, as soon
as possible; and
e. Direct Staff to evaluate which current police functions may be served by other public
safety models.
Separately on this agenda for August 24, 2020, the City Council will consider the Human
Relations Commission recommendations on the “8 Can’t Wait” campaign.
On June 23, 2020, at the final City Council meeting before its July recess, Mayor Adrian Fine
announced councilmember assignments to four ad hoc committees. The committees were
tasked with convening individually and discussing the respective domains to return to the full
City Council for potential direction, reform, and improvements.
The ad hoc committees and their members are detailed below:
Police Policy Manual, Data, and Hiring – Vice Mayor Tom DuBois and Councilmembers
Alison Cormack and Lydia Kou
Public Safety Alternative Models – Councilmembers Liz Kniss and Greg Tanaka
Police Accountability and Transparency – Vice Mayor Tom DuBois and Councilmember
Eric Filseth
Citywide Diversity and Inclusion – Mayor Adrian Fine and Councilmembers Alison
Cormack and Liz Kniss
Each of these ad hoc committees convened over the summer.
Discussion
Ad hoc Work
Throughout July and August, the ad hoc committees have each convened multiple times and
discussed items of interest with staff. Communication between staff and the ad hoc
committees is ongoing. The information transmitted from staff to the City Council was included
in CMR #11544 (online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78019).
As more information is sent to the ad hoc committees, it will be posted online here:
City of Palo Alto Page 3
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity/council_ad_hoc_committees.asp.
On August 24, 2020 each ad hoc will report out on their work and potential next steps through
a powerpoint presentation. Those updates are included as Attachment A to this report.
The Next Steps from each of the ad hoc committees (as seen in Attachment A) are listed below
for consideration by the full City Council):
Police Policy Manual, Data, and Hiring Ad Hoc
Review best practices and gather thought leader input
o Explore opportunities for external parterships for peer review and data analysis,
such as affiliations with Stanford University’s SPARQ
o Consider data analysis with an outside entity
o Incorporate suggestions from the Human Relations Commission
Convene, analyze and recommend changes
Public Safety Alternative Models Ad Hoc
Conclude preliminary evaluation of Public Safety Alternative Models
Pursue opportunities for “apples to apples” comparisons to other jurisdictions including
collaboration with Stanford University
Accountability and Transparency Ad Hoc
Reviewing the Public Records Request process and information releases from the Police
Department as well as examining the potential to remove redactions from the Police
policy Manual
Reviewing Independent Police Auditor policies and turnaround time
Reviewing the Disciplinary record policy, specifically retention, use for hiring, and
transfers
Examine options for publicly reporting statistical summaries and review the policies for
releasing information about individual cases
*As part of this ad hoc, a request for a legislative update on police reform was made and is
discussed below.
Citywide Diversity and Inclusion Ad Hoc
Further City Council discussion and possible adoption of Mission Statement
Establish ongoing City Council updates, including work with professional organizations
and other jurisdictions
Continue engagement with the community and workforce on race and equity efforts
State Legislative Summary Report
Staff has compiled a list of pending state legislative bills pertaining to police reform. In total,
there are 12 measures that are under consideration, with a majority specifically addressing ‘use
of force’ tactics, policies, and reporting of personnel records. Details about these can be found
City of Palo Alto Page 4
in Attachment C and the City’s state lobbyist will be available for questions and verbal updates
at the August 24th meeting.
Additional Race & Equity Work
In addition to the ongoing work with each of the ad hoc committees, the City also engaged with
this work through other avenues and approaches.
Per City Council direction, the Human Relations Commission met to discuss 8Can’tWait and
discuss how the City of Palo Alto Police Department’s current policies align with Campaign
Zero’s recommendations. That work is more fully discussed in CMR #11516, which is also on the
August 24, 2020 agenda for discussion and direction and can be found online here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78000.
A few highlights of other work are included below. A more detailed timeline and calendar of
events is included in Attachment B; some events may be subject to change. The City of Palo
Alto’s web page for Race and Equity (www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity) will be updated to
reflect the most recent times and event dates.
The Human Relations Commission (HRC) is also soliciting feedback and input from the
community with stories about their families in Palo Alto as well as about experiences
with racism in Palo Alto as part of the #PaloAltoSpeaks campaign. They held a listening
forum on Thursday, August 13, 2020. A few members of the community shared their
experience with the HRC and the public. The campaign is ongoing and people can share
their experiences through different mediums. More information on the campaign can be
found online at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity/share_your_story.asp.
Though ongoing, the HRC is asking for all submissions to be shared by September 7,
2020 so the HRC can share the submissions with the City Council as follow up to the task
assigned by the City Council in June.
The Library Department, in partnership with the Stanford University Bill Lane Center for
the American West and the Friends of the Palo Alto Library, will be hosting a virtual
conversation with Richard Rothstein, the author of “Color of Law: A Forgotten History of
How Our Government Segregated America.” The book “Color of Law” was selected as
the “Palo Alto Reads” book for 2020. More information can be found on this program
can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4961
Staff has also begun extending this list of upcoming activities related to race and equity that can
effectively reinforce continuation and incorporation of equity themes into a calendar for 2021
and beyond. The current City Council discussion can provide additional direction to staff on the
particular focus areas for the City’s overall Race and Equity strategy so that staff can continue
to build the extended work plan for these activities.
Stakeholder Engagement
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Engaging the community at large to provide direction for the City’s Race and Equity strategy has
been a priority throughout this process. The City continues to engage the community through a
series of Race and Equity conversations. Updates on the City’s efforts can be found on the Race
and Equity webpage on the City website (www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity). Attachment
B also provides a summary of communications and engagement efforts to date as referenced
above.
Resource Impact
There is no fiscal impact to report at this time. Significant staffing resources have been
dedicated to this work and future resource impacts are dependent on the actions and direction
approved by the City Council.
Environmental Impact
This is not a project under Section 21065 for purposes of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Race and Equity Ad Hoc Council Updates
Attachment B: Race and Equity Community Engagement Efforts
Attachment C: State Legislative Summary as of August 19, 2020
August 24, 2020 www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity
RACE AND EQUITY
UPDATES
CITY COUNCIL Ad Hoc
Committees
ATTACHMENT A: RACE AND EQUITY UPDATES CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEES
Citywide Diversity and Inclusion Ad Hoc
www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity
Members: Mayor Adrian Fine, Councilmember Alison Cormack,
Councilmember Liz Kniss
ATTACHMENT A: RACE AND EQUITY UPDATES CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEES
www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity
•Purpose: This ad hoc is exploring opportunities to increase equity and inclusion throughout the City, both as
an organization and as a community. Potential areas of focus include training, hiring and internal measures to
increase equity and diversity.
•What has happened so far:
•Exploring options for collaborating with neighboring jurisdictions
•Analyzing resources for diversity and inclusion best practices/lessons learned through professional groups
•Discussed Diversity and Inclusion elements for potential Citywide
•Focus of efforts will be both on City initiatives as well as Community engagement
•Developed draft mission statement for Council consideration, see below:
•The City of Palo Alto is committed to creating a respectful, fair, and professional workplace and city.
We will identify inequities and prejudices, welcome diverse perspectives, and use a collaborative
approach to create an environment that works for everyone.
CURRENT AD HOC STATUS
ATTACHMENT A: RACE AND EQUITY UPDATES CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEES
www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity
•For Council Discussion:
•Review Draft Mission Statement
•Discuss timeline and elements of Citywide Diversity and Inclusion focus areas
•Explore and pursue partnerships with other professional organizations/jurisdictions
•Discuss approaches to include City Boards, Commissions, and Committees in overall
effort
•Next Steps:
•Further City Council discussion and possible adoption of Mission Statement
•Establish ongoing City Council updates, including work with professional organizations
and jurisdictions
•Continue engagement with the community and workforce on race and equity efforts
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION & NEXT STEPS
ATTACHMENT A: RACE AND EQUITY UPDATES CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEES
Police Policy Manual, Data, and Hiring Ad Hoc
www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity
Members: Vice‐Mayor Tom DuBois, Councilmember Alison Cormack,
Councilmember Lydia Kou
ATTACHMENT A: RACE AND EQUITY UPDATES CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEES
www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity
Purpose: This ad hoc is exploring current Police Department approaches including how the
department regularly interacts with the community, and the data collected about these
interactions. It is also looking at current Police Department hiring and promotional processes
and improvements.
Goals
●Suggest updates to specific policies to eliminate/minimize racial bias and deadly force
and to increase de‐escalation
●Suggest changes to hiring and transfer policies
●Suggest points to address in upcoming Labor negotiations
●Suggest additional data to track to inform decision making
CURRENT AD HOC STATUS
ATTACHMENT A: RACE AND EQUITY UPDATES CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEES
www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity
Workplan:
•Review Memo of Agreement, Police Policy Manual, and other information from
Police Department (internal sources)
•Review best practices and gather thought leader input (external sources)
•Convene, analyze, and recommend changes
What has happened so far:
•Review Memo of Agreement, Police Policy Manual, and other information from Police
Department
■Extensively reviewed the Police Policy Manual, learned about current approaches
■Reviewed labor agreements and State law and other requirements related to discipline process,
etc.
■Received information regarding Police contact data requirements and new state legislation
including the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA)
■Discussed status of proposed assembly bills, getting lobbyist update at Council
CURRENT AD HOC STATUS
ATTACHMENT A: RACE AND EQUITY UPDATES CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEES
www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity
Next Steps
•Review best practices and gather thought leader input
• Explore opportunities for external partnerships for peer review and data analysis, such as
affiliations with Stanford University SPARQ
•Consider data analysis with an outside entity
• Incorporate suggestions from the Human Relations Commission
•Convene, analyze and recommend changes
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION & NEXT STEPS
ATTACHMENT A: RACE AND EQUITY UPDATES CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEES
Police Accountability and Transparency Ad Hoc
www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity
Members: Vice‐Mayor Tom DuBois, Councilmember Eric Filseth
ATTACHMENT A: RACE AND EQUITY UPDATES CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEES
www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity
Purpose: This ad hoc is focusing on how information is shared with the community and the
timeliness of information sharing. It is looking at current approaches to review police
incidents and other accountability measures.
Goals
●Suggest updates to specific policies around data transparency and accountability
●Suggest changes to Union contract to increase accountability
●Suggest additional data to track to inform decision making
CURRENT AD HOC STATUS
ATTACHMENT A: RACE AND EQUITY UPDATES CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEES
www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity
Workplan:
•Review existing city policies with appropriate staff:
oReview of data flow from initial dispatch through the life of a request for support/case
oReview of IPA process, public records request process, open data
•Review Best Practices / Thought Leaders
•Ad‐hoc to write up suggested changes
What has happened so far:
oFlow chart of process and data in Use of Force (UOF) and Internal Affairs (IA)/Citizen Complaints
oPalo Alto Police Department created a Community Briefing on Accountability and Transparency
(presented by Acting Captain Reifschneider; link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLu3Lbx2sVE)
oReviewed State legislation that would impact accountability and transparency
CURRENT AD HOC STATUS
ATTACHMENT A: RACE AND EQUITY UPDATES CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEES
www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity
Next Steps:
• Public Records request process
• Policy on default approach to information; removing redactions from policy manual
•IPA policies and turnaround time
• Disciplinary record policy ‐retention, use for hiring, transfers
• Statistical summary public reporting
• Individual case policy
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION & NEXT STEPS
ATTACHMENT A: RACE AND EQUITY UPDATES CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEES
Public Safety Alternative Models Ad Hoc
www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity
Members: Councilmember Greg Tanaka, Councilmember Liz Kniss
ATTACHMENT A: RACE AND EQUITY UPDATES CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEES
www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity
•Purpose: This ad hoc will examine alternative service delivery options for public safety,
including a Council budget related referral regarding fire services and medical response.
•What has happened so far:
•Ad hoc discussed issues, conducted research and review options.
•Councilmembers independently met with Sunnyvale Mayor Larry Klein.
•Engaged with Sunnyvale’s Deputy Chief in a 2‐hour learning session to understand model.
•Staff has researched alternative service options detailed in Data Transmittal #1 and
available at www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity
•Councilmembers were provided the opportunity to participate in ride‐alongs with both
Police and Fire.
CURRENT AD HOC STATUS
ATTACHMENT A: RACE AND EQUITY UPDATES CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEES
www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity
Discussion:
•Unique nature of Palo Alto Palo Alto has its own medical transport service; one of only
a few cities in the state. (Counties are typically responsible for medical transport.)
•Advantages and disadvantages of the Sunnyvale model, including cost considerations.
•Alternative models or services for public safety
•Opportunities to partner with County or others for models such as Psychological
Emergency Response Teams (PERT) or Mobile Crisis Response Team (MCRT)
Next Steps:
•Conclude evaluation of Public Safety Alternative Models
•Pursue opportunities for “apples to apples” comparisons to other jurisdictions including
collaboration with Stanford University
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION & NEXT STEPS
ATTACHMENT A: RACE AND EQUITY UPDATES CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEES
STAY INFORMED
Gain Race and Equity Updates at:
CityofPaloAlto.org/raceandequity
Sign Up for City Updates at:
CityofPaloAlto.org/newslettersignup
Connect with Us on Social Media:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/connect
www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity
ATTACHMENT A: RACE AND EQUITY UPDATES CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEES
ATTACHMENT A: RACE AND EQUITY UPDATES CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEES
Date: 8/20/2020
Race and Equity Community Engagement Efforts
A list of completed and in process community engagement and communications activities on
race and equity can be found below.
Completed
Temporary Black Lives Matter Mural Installation: Sixteen artists were selected to install
a Black Lives Mural on Hamilton Avenue. The temporary installation was completed in
late June and is anticipated to remain in place through September 30, 2020.
Police Community Briefings began on July 1 and are a series of four learning sessions.
YouTube comments are open for the public to comment. Police Department
Introduction: July 1, Use of Force: July 8, Search and Seizure: July 15 and Transparency
and Accountability: July 22
Q and A session with Kaloma Smith, City Manager Ed Shikada, and Chief Jonsen‐
completed on July 2 and available here. The recorded event is available on YouTube
and community comments are still being taken.
8 Can’t Wait Panel Discussion, hosted by the Human Relations Commission –
completed on July 9 and available here.
Chief Robert Jonson – Palo Alto Police Department
David Alan Sklansky ‐ Co‐Director of Criminal Justice Center
Stanford https://law.stanford.edu/directory/david‐alan‐sklansky/
Kenan Moos ‐ Justice Vanguard Foundation theblackhub.org
Matthew Clair – Assistant Professor of Sociology, Stanford University
https://sociology.stanford.edu/people/matthew‐clair
Anand Subramanian ‐ Managing Director, Policy Link https://www.policylink.org/
8 Can't Wait Review with the Human Relations Commission and Public Forum‐ July 22
at 6 p.m. Meeting video here. Review by staff and HRC and public forum took place at
this meeting. Recommendations and input received will be presented to the City Council
during the August 24 study session.
Foothills Park Panel Discussion Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) Meeting– July
28 at 7 p.m. Meeting video here. Panelists included:
Lester Hendrie, retired Foothills Park Supervising Ranger
ATTACHMENT B: RACE AND EQUITY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS
Professor Nicole M. Ardoin, Sykes Family Director of the Emmet Interdisciplinary
Program in Environment and Resources in the School of Earth, Energy, and
Environmental Sciences
Alex Von Feldt, Executive Director, Grassroots Ecology
Roger Smith, Co‐Founder and Director of the Friends of the Palo Alto Parks
Taylor Peterson, Director of Biological Analysis with MIG, Inc.
Human Relations Commission Public Forum on the Current and History of Black and
Brown Community Experiences: August 13. Discussion and public forum sharing
experiences. Go here for the meeting video.
Expanded Communications: Staff is currently working on a series of communications to
engage and inform on race and equity.
o A new website was developed: www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity.
o Items have been made available online through both an initial blog post and an
additional blog post and an email address was created to gain input. The email
address is: raceandequity@cityofpaloalto.org
In Progress
Palo Alto Speaks: In June, the City Council directed “the Human Relations Commission to
return with a report on the Black and Brown history and current community in Palo
Alto.” A new engagement effort Palo Alto Speaks seeks to engage the community and
collect the stories of Black and Brown people in Palo Alto, both past and present. Stories
collected will be combined into a report that the Human Relations Commission (HRC)
will share with the City Council in September/October. We are encouraging the
community to join the City’s race and equity conversation by sharing their story or their
family’s story through written messages, photos, or videos; are all welcome. For more,
go here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/paloaltospeaks
Palo Alto Reads Author Series: The Library is honored to announce its first virtual Palo
Alto Reads event and book selection, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our
Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein. Published in 2017, The Color of
Law tells the history of the design and segregation of American communities along racial
lines. Rothstein focuses on many Bay Area communities, including Palo Alto, which
thwarted efforts back in 1947 to create integrated and working‐classing housing near
Stanford University. This historical book provides great context into exploring today’s
ongoing inequities in housing, education, income and health. From August 15 to
September 15, free copies of The Color of Law will be available at Mitchell Park
and Rinconada Libraries during Sidewalk Service hours. We hope that Palo Alto joins in
this community read and conversation. We will be offering a series of events for all ages
during this time, including a virtual conversation with author Richard Rothstein on
ATTACHMENT B: RACE AND EQUITY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS
Thursday, August 27 at 7 p.m. This author event is sponsored and hosted by The Bill
Lane Center for the American West of Stanford University. Palo Alto Reads is joint
partnership with the City of Palo Alto and its Race & Equity Initiatives. Many thanks to
the City, Stanford University and the Friends of the Palo Alto Library for their support!
Children’s Theater Collaboration: This summer, the Children’s Theatre is also
collaborating with the Breath Project, an initiative led by local Bay Area Artists, including
Children’s Theatre teaching artist Gamal Abdel Chasten, in collaboration with 18
theatres from across the country, to archive works created by artists of color that speak
to our current socio/economic/emotional climate. Children’s Theatre Artistic Director,
Judge Luckey, will lead a national team of TYA (Theatre for Young Audiences) artists to
curate youth submissions to the Breath Project, as well as developing an original digital
performance with Children’s Theatre participants, that will be 8‐minutes‐and‐46‐
seconds in length.
Black Lives Matter Mural Artist Panel Discussion: The Public Art Commission is hosting
panel discussion with the Black Lives Matter Mural artists on September 10, 2020 at
6:00 p.m.
Public Art Commission Race and Equity Programming and Focus: The Public Art
Commission will dedicate their September meeting to a discussion about race and
equity. They are also planning several programmatic works through February.
New Public Art Exhibit Early 2021‐ New Americans Exhibition and Sanctuary Print
Project Residency: This exhibition will feature artists who are new to the United States
and whose experiences as new Americans are reflected in their art practice. The
exhibition will also feature the Sanctuary Print Project, a participatory mobile
printmaking studio which offers printmaking experiences for the public.
Art Center and Junior Museum & Zoo Collaboration: The Art Center and Junior
Museum & Zoo continue their Working Together partnership, which works towards
diversifying the museum field through a pipeline of engagement for youth diverse in
ethnicity and ability levels that include paid teen opportunities, paid undergraduate
internships, and paid graduate fellowships.
Black Index Public Art Exhibit Summer 2021: The artists in The Black Index build upon
the tradition of Black self‐representation as an antidote to colonialist images. Their
translations of photography challenge the medium’s long‐assumed qualities of
objectivity, legibility, and identification: the phenomenological premise of the
photographic index. Using drawing, sculpture, and digital technology to transform the
recorded image, these artists question our reliance on photography as a privileged
source for documentary objectivity and historical understanding. The works included in
the exhibition offer an alternative practice: a Black index. In the hands of these six
artists, the index still serves as a finding aid for information about Black subjects, but it
ATTACHMENT B: RACE AND EQUITY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS
also challenges viewers’ desire for classification and, instead, redirects them toward
alternative information.
Children’s Theater Performances Time TBD: The Friends of the Palo Alto Children’s
Theatre (FOPACT) have commissioned local Bay Area artists, representing under‐served
communities, to create virtual theatrical productions for young audiences. The first of
these theatrical productions, THE LAND OF LOST SOCKS, written and performed by
Gamal Abdel Chasten, was presented via YouTube Live, with a subsequent posting on
YouTube, on Saturday, July 11. In the first weekend, the live production drew more
than 1,000 unique viewers, estimated as an audience of 2,000‐3,000 audience
members. Next Up: The world premiere of a puppet musical, based on the fable THE
MOUSE AND THE LION, written by Carlos Aceves, with music and lyrics by Ron Sheffer.
The Art of Disability Culture exhibition, Winter 2022: Thirty years after the passing of
the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) disability arts organizations, individual artists,
and informal groups or artist collectives are challenging expectations and claiming their
seats at the table, their slots in the gallery, or their time at the microphone. Every artist
or designer featured in this exhibition has one or more visible or invisible disabilities. Far
from presenting a single monolithic point of view, they use a wide range of techniques
and approaches in personal ways to investigate the complex, nuanced and wide range
of experiences and identities that contribute to disability culture.
Ongoing Library Programming: The Library is developing ongoing programming focused
on race and equity.
ATTACHMENT B: RACE AND EQUITY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS
ATTACHMENT C
Date: 8/20/2020
From: City Manager's Office
State Legislative Summary Memo
The following page contain a list of 12 legislative bills currently under consideration by the State
Legislature. The document notes where the bills are in the process and also provides a summary of each
bill as of August 19, 2020.
The City's State lobbyist will be present at the August 24, 2020 City Council meeting to provide additional
context around each bill.
Of note: the Senate Public Safety Committee has concluded all its bill hearings for the year, thus the bills
that were scheduled to be heard in the Committee, and never received a hearing, most likely will not move
forward.
Status Report
Wednesday, August 19, 2020
POLICE REFORM
AB 66 (Gonzalez D) Police: use of force.
Current Text: Amended: 7/21/2020 html pdf
Last Amended: 7/21/2020
Status: 8/17/2020-In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
Location: 8/17/2020-S. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc.Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Calendar:
8/20/2020 Upon adjournment of Session - John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203)
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS SUSPENSE, PORTANTINO, Chair
Summary:
Would prohibit the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents, as defined, by any law
enforcement agency to disperse any assembly, protest, demonstration, or other gathering of persons,
except in compliance with specified standards set by the bill, and would prohibit their use solely due to
a violation of an imposed curfew, verbal threat, or noncompliance with a law enforcement directive. The
bill would prohibit the use of chloroacetophenone tear gas or 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile gas by law
enforcement agencies.
AB 329 (Kamlager D) Victim compensation: use of excessive force by law enforcement.
Current Text: Amended: 7/8/2020 html pdf
Last Amended: 7/8/2020
Status: 7/8/2020-From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee.
Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
Location: 7/8/2020-S. PUB. S.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc.Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary:
Existing law provides for state compensation of victims and derivative victims of specified types of
crimes for specified losses suffered as a result of those crimes. Existing law defines various terms for
purposes of these provisions, including “crime.” This bill revises the definition of “crime” to include the
use of excessive force by a law enforcement officer regardless of whether the law enforcement officer
is arrested or charged with commission of a crime or public offense.
AB 1022 (Holden D) Peace officers: use of force.
Current Text: Amended: 7/30/2020 html pdf
Last Amended: 7/30/2020
Status: 8/17/2020-In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
Location: 8/17/2020-S. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc.Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Calendar:
8/20/2020 Upon adjournment of Session - John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203)
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS SUSPENSE, PORTANTINO, Chair
Summary:
Mandates law enforcement agency policies require officers immediately report potential excessive force,
and to intercede when present and observing an officer using excessive force.
AB 1196 (Gipson D) Peace officers: use of force.
Current Text: Amended: 7/9/2020 html pdf
Last Amended: 7/9/2020
Status: 8/17/2020-In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
Location: 8/17/2020-S. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc.Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Calendar:
8/20/2020 Upon adjournment of Session - John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203)
Page 1/4
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS SUSPENSE, PORTANTINO, Chair
Summary:
Would prohibit a law enforcement agency from authorizing the use of a carotid restraint or a choke
hold, as defined, and techniques or transport methods that involve a substantial risk of positional
asphyxia, as defined.
AB 1299 (Salas D) Peace officers: employment.
Current Text: Amended: 8/6/2020 html pdf
Last Amended: 8/6/2020
Status: 8/13/2020-In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
Location: 8/13/2020-S. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc.Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Calendar:
8/20/2020 Upon adjournment of Session - John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203)
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS SUSPENSE, PORTANTINO, Chair
Summary:
Requires law enforcement agencies to notify POST if an officer leaves the agency with a complaint,
charge, or investigation pending, and requires the department to complete the investigation and notify
the commission of its findings
AB 1314 (McCarty D) Law enforcement use of force settlements and judgements: reporting.
Current Text: Amended: 6/26/2020 html pdf
Last Amended: 6/26/2020
Status: 8/14/2020-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(b)(13). (Last location was S. PUB. S. on
7/2/2020)
Location: 8/14/2020-S. DEAD
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Dead Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc.Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary:
Requires municipalities to annually post on their websites specified information relating to use of force
settlements and judgements, including: Amounts paid, broken down by individual settlement and
judgment; premiums paid for insurance against use of force settlements or judgements; and
information on municipal bonds used to finance such payments.
AB 1506 (McCarty D) Police use of force.
Current Text: Amended: 8/17/2020 html pdf
Last Amended: 8/17/2020
Status: 8/17/2020-Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
Location: 8/12/2020-S. APPR.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc.Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Calendar:
8/19/2020 9 a.m. - John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203) SENATE APPROPRIATIONS, PORTANTINO, Chair
8/20/2020 Upon adjournment of Session - John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203)
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS SUSPENSE, PORTANTINO, Chair
Summary:
Creates a division within the Department of Justice to, upon the request of a law enforcement agency,
review the use-of-force policy of the agency and make recommendations and to conduct an
independent investigation of any officer-involved shooting or other use of force that resulted in the
death of a civilian. Authorizes the Department of Justice to criminally prosecute any officer that,
pursuant to such an investigation, is found to have violated state law.
Attachments:
League's July support letter
AB 1599 (Cunningham R) Peace officers: investigations of misconduct.
Current Text: Amended: 7/8/2020 html pdf
Last Amended: 7/8/2020
Status: 8/13/2020-In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
Location: 8/13/2020-S. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc.Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Calendar:
8/20/2020 Upon adjournment of Session - John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203)
Page 2/4
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS SUSPENSE, PORTANTINO, Chair
Summary:
Requires law enforcement agencies, or an oversight agency, to complete initiated administrative
investigations of officer misconduct related to specified uses of force, sexual assault, and dishonesty
regardless of whether an officer leaves the employment of the agency.
AB 1652 (Wicks D) Law enforcement agency policies: use of force: protests.
Current Text: Amended: 6/29/2020 html pdf
Last Amended: 6/29/2020
Status: 7/2/2020-Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(c). Re-referred to Com.
on PUB. S.
Location: 7/2/2020-S. PUB. S.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc.Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary:
Requires each law enforcement agency to expand the agency’s use of force policy to include clear and
specific guidelines under which officers may use “kettling” or “corralling,” and to prohibit officers from
failing to wear, or intentionally acting to obscure or conceal information on, a badge while on duty. Also
requires each agency’s policy to prohibit law enforcement officers from using force on individuals
engaged in, or members of the press covering, a lawful assembly or protest, and would further require
the policy to require that an officer who is found to have intentionally violated this policy be suspended.
AB 1709 (Weber D) Law enforcement: use of force.
Current Text: Amended: 7/21/2020 html pdf
Last Amended: 7/21/2020
Status: 7/21/2020-From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to
committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
Location: 7/2/2020-S. PUB. S.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc.Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary:
This bill would remove the specification that a peace officer making an arrest need not desist in their
efforts because of resistance or threatened resistance from the person being arrested. The bill would
also require a peace officer to attempt to control an incident through deescalation tactics, as defined, in
an effort to reduce or avoid the need to use force, to render medical aid immediately or as soon as
feasible, and to intervene to stop a violation of law or an excessive use of force by another peace
officer.
Attachments:
League's July opposition letter
SB 731 (Bradford D) Peace Officers: civil rights.
Current Text: Amended: 7/29/2020 html pdf
Last Amended: 7/29/2020
Status: 8/3/2020-August 5 hearing postponed by committee. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to
Assembly Rule 96.
Location: 8/3/2020-A. RLS.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc.Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary:
*This bill is probably not moving forward* Would provide that a threat, intimidation, or coercion under
the Civil Rights Act may be inherent in any interference with a civil right and would describe intentional
acts for these purposes as an act in which the person acted with general intent or a conscious
objective to engage in particular conduct.
SB 776 (Skinner D) Peace officers: release of records.
Current Text: Amended: 8/10/2020 html pdf
Last Amended: 8/10/2020
Status: 8/18/2020-August 18 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.
Location: 8/18/2020-A. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc.Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Calendar:
8/20/2020 Upon Call of the Chair - Assembly Floor ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS SUSPENSE, GONZALEZ,
Chair
Page 3/4
Summary:
Expands categories of police and custodial personnel records subject to disclosure pursuant to the
California Public Records Act, including every incident involving use of force.
Attachments:
League's opposition letter of July 2020
Total Measures: 12
Total Tracking Forms: 12
Page 4/4
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
__8/24/2020__________
[X] Placed Before Meeting
[ ] Received at Meeting
Item #5
City of Palo Alto
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
DATE: August 24, 2020
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL ITEMS ON THE CITY OF PALO ALTO’S RACE AND EQUITY WORK
This memorandum transmits additional information related to Item #5 Race and Equity
Updates and Potential Direction to be heard at City Council on August 24, 2020.
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform Research – This attachment provides
information prepared by Stanford University fellow Joyce Tagal, who has been researching
police reform over the summer. Her efforts overlap and dovetail with the work of the City
Council and the ad hoc committees for race and equity. Details in this attachment include
research findings, which Joyce Tagal presented to a group of mid‐peninsula City Managers on
Friday, August 21.
Attachment 2: California State Legislation Update – This attachment provides the latest
legislative update detailing the status of pending legislation related to policing as of August 24,
2020. The City’s state lobbyist will be present at the meeting to discuss the latest updates.
Attachment 3: Citywide Diversity and Inclusion Calendar of Events – This attachment presents
a preliminary list of activities/events that the City could pursue through June 2021 focused on
race and equity.
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Kiely Nose
Director, Administrative Services
CITY MANAGER:
Ed Shikada
City Manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
Police Reform:
Mid-Peninsula City Manager Summer research
August 21: Final Presentation
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
Key questions and focus areas
June 2020: Scoping questions
● What are effective alternative policing policies,
practices and structures that can be implemented in
the short- to medium-term in our mid-peninsula,
suburban cities?
○What are existing policing structures and
training in each of our local cities? What
decisions drive/drove these existing structures?
○What are the policing structures and training
practices that most affect marginalized
communities in the mid-peninsula cities? What
populations are most impacted by these
policies
○What are best practices of alternative forms of
public safety delivery that might replace current
policing structures? Is there a difference
between policies that work in urban and
suburban cities? What is the efficacy of each
proposed reform?
● Data collection and
standards
● Culture change
● Independent oversight
July 2020: Mid-point Focus areas
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
Three research branches and progress to-date
Literature Review
● Organizational reports
● Academic papers
Interviews
● Stanford faculty
● Community experts
Case studies
● Selected peer cities
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
Key takeaways: Possible short- and long-term actions for cities
5
Data collection
and standards
Culture
change
Independent
oversight
● Analyze 911 and
non-emergency calls
to identify areas of
highest need
Short-
term
Long-
term
● Report data in
standardized format
to national databases
e.g. National Justice
Database (CPE) or the
Uniform Crime
Reporting database
(FBI)
● Identify existing areas of
over-reliance on police
and possible alternative
services
● Consider long-term
collaboration between
cities, esp in areas of
recruitment, training, data
collection and community
engagement
●Diagnose
community-police
sentiment to identify
level of oversight
needed
● Consider increasing
permanent civilian
engagement in
current oversight
model
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
Data collection
and standards
6
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
Areas of data collection fall into 3 broad areas; each achieves
different analytic and transparency goals
● Collect and post
department demographics
(e.g. race, gender) on
website
● Collect and post annual
aggregated data, e.g.
stops and arrests,
use-of-force data
●Comparative analyses
of dept demographics
compared to national
average
Personnel
data
Operations
data
Degree of public transparency
Public
opinion
● Identify Officer
Discretionary Index for
an officer badge number
● Analyze body cam
footage for bias using ML
● Survey and post overall
satisfaction or trust
scores among residents
● Conduct trust and
satisfaction poll of
residents controlled for
race, neighborhood
Aggregate/anonymize
data and post publicly
PD shares data with third
party for analysis e.g.
university, think tank
Sources: 21st Century Policing Taskforce - Final Report; “Everytown PD, City Report”, Center for Policing Equity, 2015.
●Compare dept.
demographics to city,
routes, neighborhoods
served
●Analyze 911 and
non-emergency calls vs
officer-initiated contact to
identify citizen demand,
geographic need
● Conduct satisfaction
survey at community
townhalls e.g. My90
texting service
PD collects and
analyze internally
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
e
s
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
e
s
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
There are a growing number of national or regional
databases which a PD can choose to participate in
● Center for Policing Equity (CPE)’s National Justice Database
○Participation and data are not publicly available
○Provide analyses and recommendations on a city level
● FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) database
○Includes the new National Use-of-Force database
●Police Data Initiative
○Menlo Park and Palo Alto already provide accidents/crashes and traffic
stops/citations data
● Stanford’s Open Policing Project database
○Provides network-level analysis on traffic stop data
○Collects traffic stop data, including race and gender of officer/civilian
8
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
Center for Policing Equity (CPE) provides data
reporting standards for racial bias analyses
● 22 data fields including:
○Pedestrian stop (0,1)
○Vehicle stop (0, 1)
○Incident number
○Date and time of stop
○Location of stop
○Officer: ID, Race, Rank,
DOB, Service years, Gender,
District
○Suspect: ID, Race code,
Race, Gender, DOB
○Stop reason
○Disposition
○Searches and results of
searches
9
Recommended vehicle and
pedestrian stop variables
● 14 data fields including:
○Date Received
○IAD Number
○Incident Type
○Type of force used
○Outcomes (citizen injuries,
officer injuries, arrests)
○Officer Race, Gender, Age,
Rank, Tenure, Badge
number
○Citizen Age, Race, Sex
Recommended Use-of-force
variables
“Everytown PD, City Report”, Center for Policing Equity, 2015.
● Answers 2 questions:
predictors of positive officer
experiences & predictors of
unfair officer behaviors.
●Independent variables:
Procedural justice,
stereotype threat, social
dominance orientation
●Dependent variables: Job
satisfaction, job stress,
compliance, police
identification, community
trust, cynicism, support for
use of force policy etc
CPE-administered Climate
survey
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
Based on data variables from previous slide, the
following analyses are possible
10
Stops and
arrests by
citizen
race/ethnicity
Officer
Discretionary Index
I.e. Whether arrests of
minority citizens
comprise a greater
proportion of
discretionary stops vs
resident-initiated stops
“Everytown PD, City Report”, Center for Policing Equity, 2015.
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
Culture
change
11
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
Research depicts formation of “police culture” is necessary
for solidarity and unity of police officers
Graphic created based on information taken from Chan, Janet. 1996. “Changing Police Culture.” British Journal of
Criminology 36 (1): 109–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a014061.
Formal
pressures and
requirements
Isolation from
broader
community
Police
socialization
process
Police Subculture
● Protective and
supportive
● Shared attitudes
and values
Could result in
“Thin Blue Wall
of Silence”
Reinforcement: Other officers
provide mutual support,
unity, secrecy
Reinforcement: Public scrutiny
and attention considered hostile
(e.g. media attention);
Perception that external
environment is violent
12
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
13
Previous initiatives to change police culture have 5 interlinked
areas of reform that lead to systemic change
Training Data Collection
& Evaluation
Recruitment
Community
EngagementOrganization
Recruitment initiatives to
increase percentage of officers
who identify with served
communities e.g. Black,
Hispanic, women, linguistic
diversity
San Diego, CA: Restructure PD
to focus on beat/community
policing e.g. creating
community engagement posts,
removing levels between beat
police and management
King County, WA: Training for
beat officers on conflict
resolution, mediation, youth
development frameworks;
historical role of law
enforcement in race relations
Oakland, CA: Collect and
evaluate data on a regular basis
to measure progress on selected
indicators e.g trust in law
enforcement, crime metrics,
public safety satisfaction
East Palo Alto, CA: Develop
programs to increase positive
interactions with served
communities, e.g. youth education,
social services referral programs
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
14
Urban and suburban cities are participating in recent
conversations to reimagine public safety
Minneapolis, MN:
● June 2020: City Council unanimously passed a resolution to create a "transformative new
model for cultivating safety" based on holistic, public health measures
○Set up a “Community Safety Work Group” to provide recommendations for the new
public safety model.
Berkeley, CA:
● July 2020: Omnibus legislation to transform public safety in Berkeley
○Hired consultant to assess police calls, responses and research alternative models of
justice
○Create a new Dept. of Transportation to write parking citations, handle traffic violations
New Haven, CT:
● August 2020: City Hall announced pilot launch of Community Crisis Response team that
will respond to dispatch calls related to behavioral health, substance abuse, shelter and
basic living needs.
○Analyzed 2019 call data that showed 11,000 calls could have been responded to by
non-law enforcement, non-medical teams
Cambridge, MA:
●July 2020: Proposal in City Council to divert traffic enforcement to non-armed civilian unit
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
CPE released a roadmap for cities considering new
models of public safety
Steps proposed:
1.Identify services to replace and reduce footprint
of law enforcement
a.Conduct rigorous analysis of public safety
demand
b.Evaluate officer-initiated activity
2.Identify inefficiencies in existing police activity
3. Locate and create “Public Safety Opportunity
Zones” which need more resources
4.Measure public response to changes
5. Respond to violent crime through
a.Focused deterrence
b.Collaborations with community
organizations and leaders
15“Center for Policing Equity Releases Critical Steps for Exploring How Public Safety Resources are Allocated”, Center for
Policing Equity, 2020.
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
Independent
Oversight
16
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
PARC: Three main groups of oversight models depending on
type of review or investigation
17
Review and
Appellate
Models
Investigative
and Quality
Assurance
models
Evaluative and
Performance-
based models
●Review completed internal investigations of citizen
complaints; Recommends (a) to sustain/reverse decision; (b)
if further investigation should be carried out
●Reports to Police Chief
●Cannot make policy recommendations or look for patterns
of police misconduct.
●Allows civilian input
into internal
investigations
●Limited powers; can’t
investigate beyond
individual comments
Role Pros/Cons
●Outside entity that investigates in part or in full any
citizen complaints; may have full disciplinary power or report
recommendations to Police Chief
● Can be made up of civilians, group of lawyers/
investigators, ombudsman, or individual leading IA dept
● In some cases, entity can review PD budget and policies
“Review of National Police Oversight Models”, Police Assessment Resource Center (2005)
● Allows unbiased
investigation
● Oversight usually
restricted to complaint
cases; no broader
policy recommendations
● Usually an auditor that identifies patterns of police
misconduct, systemic failures by reviewing the process of
investigations (instead of one-off cases)
●Compares police performance over time and against
other similarly situated law enforcement agencies.
●Typically does not consult with the community
● Auditors are focused on
systemic change vs.
specific case resolution
● Independent expertise
means less community
input
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
Details on selected examples of police oversight models
18
Review and
Appellate
Models
●Albany, NY: Community Police Review Board
○ Size: 8 members (1 vacancy). 5 members appointed by Common Council, 4 members
appointed by Mayor
○ Role: Reviews and comments on completed complaints of misconduct by Police
Officers; Provides recommendations to Police Chief
○ Budget: $250,000 (2020 adopted)
Evaluative and
Performance-
based models
●Boise, ID: Office of Police Oversight
○Size: 4 staff members incl. 1 attorney (director), 1 analyst, 2 investigators
○ Role: Independent review of police actions, provides policy recommendations,
investigates misconduct; Reports directly to Mayor, City Council
○ Budget: $150,000 (FY2021 proposed)
Investigative
and Quality
Assurance
models
●Palo Alto, CA: Independent Police Auditor
○Size: 2 auditors
○ Receives complaints directly, reviews investigations for objectivity; Provides
recommendations to Police Chief on investigations, dispositions and processes
○ Budget: $75,000 for 3-year contract
●Cambridge, MA: Police Review and Advisory Board
○Size: 5 civilian members (volunteer, not compensated) appointed by City Manager. 2
staff members (1 Exec. Secretary, 1 Investigator appointed as necessary)
○ Investigates complaints of police misconduct, consults with Police Chief in establishing
rules and regulations for Cambridge PD, reviews PD budget with City Council, makes
disciplinary recommendations to Police Chief and City Manager
○Budget: $130,000 (FY2021: Office of Professional Standards + Police Review Board)
Updated data from city websites, based on initial information in “Review of National Police Oversight Models”, Police Assessment Resource Center (2005)
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
PARC: Process for determining best oversight model
begins with correct diagnosis of problem
● Strained but not broken
○E.g. Concerns about police budget
○E.g. Suspicion that police are covering up
misconduct
●Eroded trust, little goodwill
○E.g. Shootings involving victims, usually
people of color
○E.g. Police use-of-force or misconduct
circulated on video
●Deep erosion of trust
○E.g. Pattern of critical incidents that deeply
affect trust levels
○E.g. Community refuses to cooperate with
law-enforcement
19
In
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
m
i
s
t
r
u
s
t
Review and
Appellate Models
Investigative and
Quality
Assurance models
Evaluative and
Performance-
based models
“Review of National Police Oversight Models”, Police Assessment Resource Center (2005)
Diagnose sentiment of police- community
relations:
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
Could be civilian-only, a hired professional, or a hybrid (1/2)
20
Citizen oversight
models
Hybrid oversight
models
Third-party oversight
models
Community Police Task
Force (Aurora, CO)
● Citizen board tasked to
make recommendations
to improve relationships
between residents and
PD; review process of
critical police incidents,
operations, practices and
procedures
● Reports to City Council
● Members elected for
2-year term or until task
force is disbanded
Temporary City Manager’s Review
Board (Stockton, CA)
● Advisory review board to
examine police policies
and practices, incl.
Citizens’ complaints,
police calls for service,
officer-related shootings
and use of force
● Reports to CM
● 25 members including
community leaders,
officials and PD members
Special Prosecutors
(Madison, WI)
● Special prosecutor
appointed to review
officer-involved
incidents, e.g. Marion
County, WI shooting
of Dreasjon Reed
● Allows independent
investigation of law
enforcement involved
shootings and
increases community
faith in outcome
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
Could be civilian-only, a hired professional, or a hybrid (2/2)
21
Citizen oversight
models
Hybrid oversight
models
Third-party oversight
models
Citizen Advisory Panel
(Palo Alto; San Jose, CA)
● Group of citizens
selected by City Council
act as liaisons between
PD and community;
learn and provide
feedback about policies
and procedures
● Reports to Police Chief
● Limited oversight
Permanent Independent auditor (Palo
Alto, CA; San Jose, CA)
● Third party professional
firm (usually a law firm)
appointed to review
police investigations and
report findings.
● Receives citizen
complaints directly
● PA auditor reports to
Police Chief, SJ auditor
reports to Mayor and
City Council
Police Commission (San
Francisco, CA)
● Appointed by City
Council; duties include
reviewing policies and
practices, participating in
important personnel
decisions, overseeing
officer misconduct
investigations, hold
public hearings on
department’s budget
● Police Chief may serve
as non-voting member;
1 councillor may serve
on commission
● Reports to City Council
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
Recap: Key takeaways: Possible short- and long-term actions
for cities
22
Data collection
and standards
Culture
change
Independent
oversight
● Analyze 911 and
non-emergency calls
to identify areas of
highest need
Short-
term
Long-
term
● Report data in
standardized format
to national databases
e.g. National Justice
Database (CPE) or the
Uniform Crime
Reporting database
(FBI)
● Identify existing areas of
over-reliance on police
and possible alternative
services
● Consider long-term
collaboration between
cities, esp in areas of
recruitment, training, data
collection and community
engagement
●Diagnose
community-police
sentiment to identify
level of oversight
needed
● Consider increasing
permanent civilian
engagement in
current oversight
model
Attachment 1: Stanford University Police Reform ResearchDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
1 of 5
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ED SHIKADA, CITY MANAGER
DATE: AUGUST 24, 2020
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5: UPDATE AND POTENTIAL DIRECTION ON CITY OF
PALO ALTO'S RACE AND EQUITY WORK
To supplement the staff report and provide up‐to‐date information on the police reform bills
we are tracking, please find below a status update as of the morning of August 24. The
legislature is in session now, meaning it may act on these bills today. Our Sacramento advocate
can provide a verbal update of any action taken today.
AB 66 (Gonzalez) Police: use of force. Status: Moving forward.
Would prohibit the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents, as defined, by any law
enforcement agency to disperse any assembly, protest, demonstration, or other gathering of
persons, except in compliance with specified standards set by the bill, and would prohibit their
use solely due to a violation of an imposed curfew, verbal threat, or noncompliance with a law
enforcement directive. The bill would prohibit the use of chloroacetophenone tear gas or 2‐
chlorobenzalmalononitrile gas by law enforcement agencies to disperse any assembly, protest,
demonstration, or other gathering of persons.
AB 329 (Kamlager) Victim compensation: use of excessive force by law enforcement. Status:
No amendments or action since July 8. Was not heard in the relevant policy committee. Most
likely, this bill will not move forward.
Existing law provides for the compensation of victims of specified types of crimes by the
California Victim Compensation Board for specified losses suffered as a result of those crimes.
Existing law defines various terms for purposes of these provisions, including “crime”, which
includes any public offense wherever it may take place that would constitute a misdemeanor or
felony.
This bill would revise the definition of “crime” to include the use of excessive force by a law
Attachment 2: California State Legislation UpdateDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
2 of 5
enforcement officer regardless of whether the law enforcement officer is arrested or charged
with commission of a crime or public offense.
AB 1022 (Holden) Peace officers: use of force. Status: Held in committee; not moving forward
Mandates law enforcement agency policies require officers immediately report
potential excessive force, and to intercede when present and observing an officer using excessi
ve force.
AB 1196 (Gipson) Peace officers: use of force. Status: Moving forward.
Would prohibit a law enforcement agency from authorizing the use of a carotid restraint or a
choke hold, as defined, and techniques or transport methods that involve a substantial risk of
positional asphyxia, as defined.
AB 1299 (Salas) Peace officers: employment. Status: Moving forward.
Would require any agency that employs peace officers to notify the Commission on Peace
Officer Standards and Training when a peace officer separates from employment, including
details of any termination or resignation in lieu of termination. This bill would require an agency
to notify the commission if an officer leaves the agency with a complaint, charge, or
investigation pending, and would require the agency to complete the investigation and notify
the commission of its findings.
The bill would require the commission to include this information in an officer’s profile and
make that information available to specified parties including any law enforcement agency that
is conducting a preemployment background investigation of the subject of the profile.
AB 1314 (McCarty) Law enforcement use of force settlements and judgements: reporting.
Status: Dead
Would have required municipalities to annually post on their websites specified information
relating to use of force settlements and judgements, including: Amounts paid, broken down by
individual settlement and judgment; premiums paid for insurance against use of force
settlements or judgements; and information on municipal bonds used to finance such
payments.
Attachment 2: California State Legislation UpdateDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
3 of 5
AB 1506 (McCarty) Police use of force. Status: Moving forward.
Creates a division within the Department of Justice to, upon the request of a law enforcement
agency, review the use‐of‐force policy of the agency and make recommendations and to
conduct an independent investigation of any officer‐involved shooting or other use of force that
resulted in the death of a civilian. Authorizes the Department of Justice to criminally prosecute
any officer that, pursuant to such an investigation, is found to have violated state law.
The bill would also require a state prosecutor to investigate incidents of officer‐involved use of
force resulting in the death of an unarmed civilian, and would require the state prosecutor to
conduct an investigation upon request from a local law enforcement agency, district attorney,
city council, or county or city and county board of supervisors, on an incident involving the use
of force by a peace officer that resulted in the death of a civilian. The bill would authorize the
state prosecutor to prepare a written report and require the state prosecutor to post any
reports made on a public internet website. The bill would authorize the state prosecutor to
seek reimbursement, in full or in part, from the local entity for appropriate costs associated
with the investigation. The League of California Cities (League) supports this bill.
AB 1599 (Cunningham) Peace officers: investigations of misconduct. Status: Held in
committee; not moving forward
Requires law enforcement agencies, or an oversight agency, to complete initiated
administrative investigations of officer misconduct related to specified uses of force, sexual
assault, and dishonesty regardless of whether an officer leaves the employment of the agency.
AB 1652 (Wicks) Law enforcement agency policies: use of force: protests. Status: No
amendments or action since July 2. Was not heard in the relevant policy committee. Most
likely, this bill will not move forward.
Requires each law enforcement agency to expand the agency’s use of force policy to include
clear and specific guidelines under which officers may use “kettling” or “corralling,” and to
prohibit officers from failing to wear, or intentionally acting to obscure or conceal information
on, a badge while on duty. Also requires each agency’s policy to prohibit law enforcement
officers from using force on individuals engaged in, or members of the press covering, a lawful
assembly or protest, and would further require the policy to require that an officer who is
found to have intentionally violated this policy be suspended.
Attachment 2: California State Legislation UpdateDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
4 of 5
AB 1709 (Weber) Law enforcement: use of force. Status: No amendments or action since July
2. Was not heard in the relevant policy committee. Most likely, this bill will not move forward.
Would remove the specification that a peace officer making an arrest need not desist
in their efforts because of resistance or threatened resistance from the person being arrested.
The bill would also require a peace officer to attempt to control an incident through
deescalation tactics, as defined, in an effort to reduce or avoid the need to use force, to render
medical aid immediately or as soon as feasible, and to intervene to stop a violation of law or an
excessive use of force by another peace officer. The League is opposed to this bill.
SB 731 (Bradford) Peace Officers: certification: civil rights. Status: Moving forward
Would, with a specified exception, eliminate certain immunity provisions for public employees
or public entities sued under the act. The bill would also authorize specified persons to bring an
action under the act for the death of a person. Would also disqualify a person from being
employed as a peace officer if that person has been convicted of, or has been adjudicated in an
administrative, military, or civil judicial process as having committed, a violation of certain
specified crimes against public justice, including the falsification of records, bribery, or perjury.
The bill would also make all records related to the revocation of a certificate a peace officer’s
certification public and would require that records of an investigation be retained for 30 years.
SB 776 (Skinner) Peace officers: release of records. Status: Moving forward
This bill would make every incident involving the use of force to make a member of the public
comply with an officer, force that is unreasonable, or excessive force subject to disclosure
under the Public Records Request Act. The bill would require records relating to sustained
findings of unlawful arrests and unlawful searches to be subject to disclosure. The bill would
also require the disclosure of records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was
made, by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency, that a peace officer engaged in
conduct involving prejudice or discrimination on the basis of specified protected classes.
The bill would require the retention of all complaints currently in the possession of a
department or agency and require that records relating to an incident in which an officer
resigned before an investigation is completed to also be subject to release. The bill would
require records subject to disclosure to be provided at the earliest possible time and no later
than 45 days from the date of a request for their disclosure, except as specified. The bill would
Attachment 2: California State Legislation UpdateDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
5 of 5
impose a civil fine not to exceed $1,000 per day for each day beyond 30 days that records
subject to disclosure are not disclosed.
The League is opposed to this bill in it’s excessive in the types of personnel records it makes
subject to disclosure, overly punitive in the imposition of fines when records are not disclosed,
and unnecessarily burdensome in requiring local agencies to indefinitely retain all records.
_______________________ _________________________
Heather Dauler Ed Shikada
Intergovernmental Affairs Officer City Manager
Attachment 2: California State Legislation UpdateDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
Citywide Diversity & Inclusion Initiative
Activities Calendar
June‐July
Black Lives Matter temporary mural installed
Police Department produced four Community Briefings on policing practices
Q&A Video produced with Human Relations Commission (HRC) Chair, City Manager, and Police Chief
HRC convened 8 Can’t Wait Panel Discussion
HRC developed recommendations to City Council on 8 Can’t Wait
Parks & Recreation Commission convened Foothills Park Panel Discussion
August
HRC convened Public Forum on Current and History of Black and Brown Community Experiences
New website and online engagement developed for Race and Equity
Palo Alto Reads Author Series hosts The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated
America author Richard Rothstein.
Palo Alto Reads, Kids, Family Storytimes – community, friendships, acceptance, sharing, inclusivity themes
Palo Alto Reads, Kids – First Chapter Fridays
September
Public Art Commission (PAC) convenes Black Lives Matter artists panel discussion
PAC develops plan for permanent artwork on Race and Equity
Hamilton Avenue Black Lives Matter temporary mural removed
Children’s Theater Collaboration
Public Art New Americans Exhibition and Sanctuary Print Project Residency
Palo Alto Library celebrates Hispanic‐Latino Heritage Month
Palo Alto Reads, ESL Book Club – Stamped: Racism, Anti‐Racisims & You by Jason Reynolds and Ibram X. Kendi
(9/9)
Palo Alto Reads, Book Discussion – The Color of Law
Palo Alto Reads, Stay Woke Book Club: Stamped From the Beginning by Ibram X. Kendi
Palo Alto Reads, Teens – Developing your Ally Skills 101
Palo Alto Reads, Kids, Family Storytimes – community, friendships, acceptance, sharing, inclusivity themes
Palo Alto Reads, Kids – First Chapter Fridays
October
City Council discusses involvement of boards and commissions
City Administration pursues citywide implicit bias training
City Administration conducts demographic analysis of workforce
Palo Alto Reads, ESL Book Club – Stamped: Racism, Anti‐Racisims & You by Jason Reynolds and Ibram X. Kendi
(10/7)
Palo Alto Library continues to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month and Day of the Dead
Attachment 3: Citywide Diversity and Inclusion Calendar of EventsDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
November ‐ December
City Council discusses progress and potential designation of Chief Inclusion Officer
Palo Alto Library celebrates National Native American Heritage Month
Palo Alto Library Celebrates Diwali
Palo Alto Library Storytimes ‐ holidays around the world
Palo Alto Library contest – Kids & Teen Writing Contest theme on equity, inclusion, etc.
January – March (2021)
Youth Community Service/Community Service Department Annual Dr. Matin Luther King, Jr. Day of Service
Event
Palo Alto celebrates Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Black History Month, Lunar New Year, Women’s History Month
and Nowruz (Persian New Year)
City Council discusses race and equity framework progress as part of the Council annual priority‐setting
April – June (2021)
Palo Alto Library celebrates Earth Day, National Poetry Month, Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, National
Library Week, and Pride
Art Center and Junior Museum & Zoo Collaboration
Black Index Public Art Exhibit Summer 2021
Attachment 3: Citywide Diversity and Inclusion Calendar of EventsDocuSign Envelope ID: 5254EA8C-45C7-4953-A871-2A456F8DC5B7
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11544)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 8/24/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Informational Report regarding Race and Equity Data
Title: Informational Report Regarding Race and Equity Data Transmitted to
the City Council Ad Hoc Committees
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
This is an informational report and no City Council action is required. This report
includes information that has been transmitted to the City Council to assist with their
work on race and equity through their ad hoc committee assignments. The ad hoc
committees have met multiple times since they were created in late June 2020.
Background
As part of the City’s ongoing work to address race and equity in Palo Alto, Mayor Adrian
Fine announced four ad hoc committees focused on different aspects of race and equity
on June 23, 2020. These committees included the Police Policy Manual, Data, and
Hiring ad hoc; the Alternative Public Safety Models ad hoc; the Police Accountability and
Transparency ad hoc; and the Citywide Diversity and Inclusion ad hoc. These ad hocs
were the continuation of direction previously provided by the City Council on June 15,
2020, which discussed ad hocs and provided additional direction to the Public Arts
Commission as well as the Human Relations Commission.
More information on these ad hocs, including the Councilmembers on each committee
and the purpose of each ad hoc can be found on the following page:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity/council_ad_hoc_committees.asp.
Discussion
Each ad hoc committee convened through the summer and met with staff to discuss
the elements of their work. As a next step, the full City Council will convene on August
24, 2020 to discuss reports from each ad hoc and consider next steps.
This informational memorandum presents information that was transmitted to the City
Council as a result of the initial staff meetings and work with the various ad hocs. It is
City of Palo Alto Page 2
transmitted here to inform and educate the broader community on these various topics
and elements of the ad hoc work underway.
Race and Equity Data Transmittal #1 can be found online here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=44493.56&BlobID=77
997. It details information that had been requested by the ad hoc committees. The
information is grouped by the ad hoc committee where it best corresponds. However,
it should be noted that many of the items cross-over among different ad hoc
committees. Items that are still forthcoming are noted as “Pending” on the list of
materials.
Race and Equity Data Transmittal #2 can be found online here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=44493.56&BlobID=77
998. It includes two flowcharts; the first flowchart details the process for reviewing use
of force incidents and the second flowchart details the internal affairs/citizen complaint
review process.
These files, as well as the continuing work that staff and these ad hocs develop, are
linked on the Race and Equity webpage for transparency, easy reference, and progress
tracking. New items, such as meetings, study sessions, and discussions, will also
continue to be referenced online for continued stakeholder and community engagement
as the City furthers its race and equity conversations.
Stakeholder Engagement
Presenting this information to the public, parallel to its transmittal to the City Council,
ensures that stakeholders throughout the community remain apprised of the City’s
ongoing work on race and equity. For additional work underway, including community
engagement opportunities related to race and equity, go to
www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity.
Environmental Review
This informational report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).