HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-30 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 ON THE AGENDA LOCATED ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE.
Monday, November 30, 2020
Special Meeting
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available on
the City’s website 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
Study Session 6:00-7:30 PM
1.Study Session on Community and Economic Recovery Strategies andEngagement
Special Orders of the Day 7:30-7:45 PM
2.Selection of Applicants to Interview for the Historic Resources
Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission
REVISED
Public
Comment
Public
Comment
Presentation
2 November 30, 2020
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE AGENDA LOCATED ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Oral Communications 7:45-8:15 PM
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of
Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Minutes Approval 8:15-8:20 PM
3.Approval of Action Minutes for the November 09, 2020 City Council
Meeting
Consent Calendar 8:20-8:25 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
4.Approval of a Three-year Contract With Downtown Streets, Inc. for a
Total Amount Not-to-Exceed $323,244 for Maintenance Services for
the City's Five Downtown Parking Garages, Downtown Sidewalks and
Alleys; and Provide Outreach Case Management Services to the
Downtown Core With the Intent of Linking Homeless Individuals to
Community and Housing Services
5.Approval of a Funding Agreement With the Palo Alto Transportation
Management Association (TMA) to Provide $350,000 in Fiscal Year (FY)
2021; and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendments to
Determine Funding Subject to Council Appropriation in FY 2022 and
FY 2023 to Reduce Single-occupancy Vehicle Trips to Palo Alto
6.Adoption of the Amended Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Citizen Participation Plan
7.Adoption of a Pension Funding Policy
8.Adoption of a Resolution Vacating a Public Utility Easement at 1201
Parkinson Avenue
9.Approval of the Tri-cities Consortium Records Management System
Software Agreement With Sun Ridge Systems Inc. for $621,248, and a
Term Ending Five Years From the Date of Project Implementation to
Establish a New Records Management System for the Police
Departments of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos
City Manager Comments 8:25-8:35 PM
9A.City Council Endorsement of the Letter Expressing Concerns and
Objection to the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Measure B
Funding Proposal
Q & A
Q & A
Q & A
Q& A
MEMO
Public
Comment
3 November 30, 2020
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE AGENDA LOCATED ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE.
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
8:35-9:30 PM
10.Consideration of Follow-up Recommendations by the City Council Ad
Hoc Committee on Boards, Commissions and Committees (BCCs),
Including Adopting a Handbook and BCC Applications
9:30-10:30 PM
11.PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of a Director's Interpretation Made Pursuant
to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.01.025 and Related to Seismic
Rehabilitation. The Project is Exempt From the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With CEQA Guidelines
15061(b)(3)
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.
Public
Comment
Public
Comment
Presentation
MEMO
4 November 30, 2020
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE AGENDA LOCATED ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE.
Additional Information
Information Reports
Connecting Palo Alto Rail Grade Separation: Report on the Virtual Town Hall
Downtown Streets Team Response to City Request for Information on
Harassment Allegations
Standing Committee Meetings
Finance Committee Meeting December 1, 2020
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Public Letters to the City Council
Set 1- Nov. 23, 2020
Set 2- Nov. 30, 2020
5 November 30, 2020
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE AGENDA LOCATED ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE.
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 (ID # 11790)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 11/30/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Study Session on Community and Economic Recovery
Strategies
Title: Study Session on Community and Economic Recovery Strategies and
Engagement
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council receive presentations from invited panelists covering
regional economic trends, retail activity and sales tax trends, and work from home economics;
discuss the City of Palo Alto’s Community and Economic Recovery efforts, preliminary
framework for the City’s Community and Economic Recovery Strategy and priority City
activities, and options for community engagement.
Executive Summary
The COVID-19 pandemic, the efforts to contain its spread, and attempts at mitigating its impact
continue to have a significant impact on our lives at every level. Many aspects of the
community’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as County-Level guidance on which
activities are allowable through the State’s tiered system, are beyond the City’s control. The
economic impact of the pandemic has similarly impacted the City’s ability to maintain basic
services. However, as the City shifts from managing through the pandemic, to reimagining and
rebuilding our community response and ultimately to recovery, it will be important to take
advantage of opportunities as they arise while remaining flexible as the State and County
restrictions continue to evolve from more restrictive to less restrictive levels.
The purpose of the study session is to continue the City Council’s discussion on community and
economic recovery as a step in what is proposed to be an iterative process. This item
specifically works to assist the Council in reviewing major economic forces and trends and begin
to obtain feedback on next steps. Strategies for the City Council’s consideration include
beginning discussions on potential next steps to develop a Community and Economic Recovery
Strategy as well as prioritization of potential projects either currently underway or initiated to
support this effort. City Council input will guide staff work ahead as these efforts are further
developed.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
To support the Council’s discussion, staff has engaged a panel of economists including Jerry
Nickelsburg from UCLA Anderson Forecast, Thomas Adams and Fran Mancia from
AvenuInsights (the City’s sales tax consultant), and Professor Nicholas Bloom from Stanford
University. Each panelist will discuss different elements of the COVID-19 Pandemic and the
recessionary economy that has followed. The panelists and their work may help inform and
provide context as the Council considers preliminary focus areas to guide next steps.
The report reviews four main preliminary focus areas that could form elements of the City’s
Community and Economic Recovery strategy. These focus areas that staff is seeking City Council
input include: managing through the pandemic, community welfare and wellbeing, focused
business support, and City priority initiatives. Each of these focus areas would consist of a set of
projects or programs that would be prioritized and managed as elements of the City’s recovery
strategy. In addition, the report outlines possible options for the Council to consider with
regards to community and stakeholder engagement, and related work including timeframes to
work within.
Recognizing the broad range of issues involved, it is possible that the Council may wish to divide
this discussion over multiple meetings. This could focus the November 30 discussion on the
panel of experts discussed below, and continue discussion of potential Community and
Economic Recovery focus areas and engagement concepts to December 7. As this begins with a
study session and iterative, Council may also choose to provide initial input and continue
further discussion into the new year.
In order for the City Council to have information regarding the specific trends the City is facing
in its three largest revenues, Property Tax, Sales Tax, and Transient Occupancy Tax, additional
information is provided in Attachment A. As a result of the economic characteristics of revenue
generation in Palo Alto, the City has been more significantly impacted than neighboring
jurisdictions and California as a whole. California, in turn, continues to lag economically
compared to the nation.
• Property Taxes revenues have historically seen annual growth of on average 6 percent. Although
not on the decline, trends currently indicate a delay in timing and therefore are expected to
remain flat through FY 2022 as that year will be a reflection of activity in 2020, where the
average and median home prices currently reflect a slight downward trend and the expected CPI
will remain below the two percent maximum.
• Sales Tax receipts have seen significant declines as the City’s revenue base is dependent on
many high-end goods and dining options at regional destinations such as Stanford Shopping
Center. The City saw greater decline in four categories than declines seen in the region and
statewide. These significant declines were partially offset by business to business sales, the one
sector that outpaced other areas with a small 1 percent growth.
• Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) continues to be the most significantly impacted, though
revenues have improved slightly from the activity seen in April and May 2020. Currently
receipts are tracking approximately 80 percent below pre-COVID-19 levels. As a region where
business and other non-leisure travel is a driving impact, it is expected that until the virus is
City of Palo Alto Page 3
under control and both domestic and international travel resumes, the City will continue to
experience significantly reduced TOT. There is reason for optimism here with the continued
rapid progression in vaccines as well as the expected opening of new hotels in Palo alto in the
coming months.
As the Council considers the elements of this report, the following specific discussion topics
would assist staff with ongoing work and guidance on next steps:
• Observations based on the issues and trends identified by the panel discussion, and conclusions
regarding Palo Alto’s opportunities for action;
• Preliminary Community and Economic Recovery Strategy focus areas and priority projects;
• Potential Council engagement structure and community and stakeholder engagement options;
and,
• The timeframe to finalize Community and Economic Recovery strategy projects and focus areas
and undertaking the effort involved.
Background
The City’s FY 2021 Adopted Budget reflected a reduction in General Fund revenues of $34.6
million, and directly relate to the nearly $40 million estimated reduction in revenues
anticipated due to financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and economic challenges. The
Adopted Budget projected a nearly 40-50 percent reduction in major revenue categories such
as Transient Occupancy Taxes and Sales Taxes, bringing the FY 2021 General Fund revenues to
$197 million, from the $232 million projected in the FY 2020 Adopted Budget. In order to
account for this, the City Council spent much of May 2020 and June 2020 working to rebalance
the FY 2021 budget, reducing services and cutting costs. This resulted in a balanced budget with
expenses of $197 million, down from $230.8 million in the prior adopted budget, a nearly 15
percent reduction. This reduction was made possible by a significant reduction in funding for
capital investment while freezing 76.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing resources across the
City (65 FTE in the General Fund) dropping authorized staffing levels from 1,035 to 958 FTE. In
addition, 26.2 FTE in part-time/hourly positions were also frozen, approximately 25 percent of a
total of 106.3 FTE. This resulted in reduced service capacities in all areas, ranging from police,
fire, and code enforcement to community services and libraries, public works, transportation,
and utilities, as well as the administrative services needed to support these functions.
On October 19, 2020, the City Council reviewed and discussed the preliminary Q1 FY 2021
financial status report. This update provided a snapshot in time, with some revenues expected
to continue to do significantly worse than originally projected, while others were trending
above expected levels. With the information available at the time and uncertainty to continue
as a result of the pandemic, no action was taken as staff continued monitoring the months of
experiences in this new shelter in place environment. At the time, staff shared a series of
upcoming Council actions on the budget, long range financial forecast and further development
of a community and economic recovery planned over upcoming months.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Subsequently, on November 9, 2020 (staff report #11702), the City Council reviewed
community and economic recovery strategies, such as ‘Uplift Local,’ and other business support
activities and testing. Council also discussed options designed to help bolster the local
economy, such as expanding the definition of retail, temporarily altering parking requirements,
and continuing closures of portions of California and University Avenues to vehicles.
Since that time, and in response to the significant impact this pandemic has placed on all
communities, including Palo Alto, staff began discussion of a more comprehensive Community
and Economic Recovery framework. The November 30 study session is a continuation of the
City Council’s discussions on community and economic recovery, with a look at major economic
forces and trends.
Discussion
Recognizing that services continue to be modified to assist in mitigating the spread of the virus,
the reduced revenues, if prolonged, will continue to impede service levels. Without a recovery
of the City’s revenue base, it will be unable to provide the same level of services to the
community. In order to assist in revenue generation, a vibrant and active business climate with
residents and visitors alike frequenting the restaurants, shops, and activities that assist in those
activities is needed. As outlined in October, staff would return to the City Council to begin
engagement and feedback on further development of the strategy of themes and focus of staff
work ahead. Staff indicated that work on Community and Economic Recovery would include
three main elements:
a. Assemble and facilitate discussion of major economic forces and trends
b. Develop analytical tools to evaluate fiscal scenarios
c. Identify potential City actions to support and accelerate (where possible) local community and
economic recovery
This study session will address the first element and discuss major economic forces and trends
and begin to address the second and third elements. As a component of the City Council’s
ongoing work related to Community and Economic Recovery in the wake of the COVID-19
pandemic, the City has empaneled experts in various areas of specialization. They will discuss
emerging trends that can lead to potential strategies for the current environment and the
future as we anticipate what lasting effects will continue once the virus is under control. This
panel will make brief presentations on different topics and will then be available for questions
and answers with the City Council for the remainder of the scheduled study session.
In addition, this report begins to lay out strategies for the City Council’s consideration. Most
significantly, this report outlines possible next steps of developing a Community and Economic
Recovery Strategy and engagement as well as potential prioritization of projects either
currently underway or that could be initiated to support this effort. Recognizing the broad
range of issues involved, it is possible that the Council may wish to divide this discussion over
multiple meetings. This could focus the November 30 discussion on the panel of experts
discussed below and continue discussion of potential Community and Economic Recovery focus
areas and engagement concepts to December 7. As this begins with a study session and
City of Palo Alto Page 5
iterative, Council may also choose to provide initial input and continue further discussion into
the new year.
This report includes information to assist in all these discussions and is organized as follows:
1) Listing of panelists and their respective topic areas later in this report.
2) A framework for Council and community feedback, building on recovery plans developed by
others to inform the City of Palo Alto’s efforts. This includes both recovery strategy framework
as well as engagement.
3) Attachment A: In order to continue to assist in the second element of analysis, staff has
included supplementary information related to the City’s major tax revenues in three categories
(Sales Tax, Property Tax, and Transient Occupancy Tax).
4) Attachment B: Examples of Other Recovery Plans: San Francisco, San Jose, and Stanford
Invited Panelists for November 30 Study Session
Jerry Nickelsburg from UCLA Anderson Forecast, Thomas Adams and Fran Mancia from
AvenuInsights (the City’s sales tax consultant), and Professor Nicholas Bloom from Stanford
University will each be available to discuss different elements of the COVID-19 Pandemic and
the recessionary economy that has followed.
Jerry Nickelsburg has worked for UCLA Anderson School of Management and the UCLA
Anderson Forecast since 2006 and has served as the faculty director of the Forecast since 2017.
He earned his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Minnesota, specializing in monetary
economics and econometrics. Nickelsburg plays a key role in the economic modeling and
forecasting of the national, California and regional economic forecasts. He researches labor
economics, industrial organization, statistics and international monetary economics, focusing
on the development of new data and the application of economic theory and statistical
methods to sector-specific policy issues. His current research encompasses transportation and
environmental economics, and the relationships between highly skilled persons and their
demand for social insurance. A more detailed biography can be found here.
Representatives from AvenuInsights, the City’s Sales Tax consultant, will be available to discuss
current trends in Sales Tax Collection. Thomas Adams, Client Success Manager, and Fran
Mancia, Vice-President of Government Relations will be available for questions from the City
Council following their presentation of not only trends in Palo Alto but also neighboring and
comparable jurisdictions as well as the state. The third quarter of 2020 (July through
September) Sales Tax data is not yet available, staff and the consultants will be using data
through June 2020 and certain trends that are emerging. As Q3 data becomes available, it will
be reported to City Council, consistent with the City’s standard practice. Additional information
about the City’s Sales Tax collection trends is included later in this report.
Professor Nicholas (Nick) Bloom is the William Eberle Professor of Economics at Stanford
University, a Senior Fellow of SIEPR, and the Co-Director of the Productivity, Innovation and
Entrepreneurship program at the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research focuses
on management practices and uncertainty. He previously worked at the UK Treasury and
City of Palo Alto Page 6
McKinsey & Company. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the
recipient of the Alfred Sloan Fellowship, the Bernacer Prize, the European Investment Bank
Prize, the Frisch Medal, the Kauffman Medal and a National Science Foundation Career Award.
He has a BA from Cambridge, an MPhil from Oxford, and a PhD from University College London.
His research on Working from Home (WFH)1 during and following the pandemic is highly
relevant to Palo Alto.
Staff anticipates that the study session discussion on November 30 will inform future discussion
and deliverables from the City and shape the economic and community recovery work that will
take place throughout 2021. This is the next step in a significant effort.
Preliminary Community and Economic Recovery Focus Areas
The City of Palo Alto is not alone in taking a careful look at what recovery can mean.
Attachment A shares summaries of other Bay Area institutions that are responding with
strategies to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. In Palo Alto, staff continues to manage
through the pandemic, including evolving with the rolling back to more restrictive State and
County protocols. However, the City is now reaching the stage where it may be possible to
assess how to rebuild for better outcomes and be prepared to adapt as economic trends
improve, while we continue to manage through the uncertainty of today.
The City remains nimble in the current environment where change and uncertainty continues
to dominate. Continued focus will be needed to maintain services modified due to the shelter
in place orders and restrictions in place, while continuing to innovate with the reduced
resources available in the short term and quickly adapt as economic conditions change. The City
will necessarily rely on revenue generation to meet service expectations as we move out of this
recessionary period.
In order to provide a clear yet comprehensive description of the major activities required to
support community and economic recovery, staff has attempted to identify a set of “focus
areas.” This is an important step for two reasons. First, establishing focus areas enables
communication and building consensus around where the City’s priorities and activities should
be placed. Second, establishing focus areas is also critical to enabling the City to set goals,
make progress and demonstrate achievement with limited resources and with established
timeframes.
Staff has developed an initial set of priority areas for the purpose of discussion. These priority
areas reflect the work done by other Bay Area institutions, while recognizing the unique
characteristics and need in Palo Alto as well as the City’s ability to have positive impacts in the
midst of the global forces at hand. Based on these considerations, the following four focus
areas and potential elements have been identified:
1 https://siepr.stanford.edu/research/publications/how-working-home-works-out
City of Palo Alto Page 7
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
Manage through the Pandemic
First and foremost, the City, its community, and the world must continue to focus on managing
through this pandemic, working to slow the spread of the virus and ensure safety of all.
Without management of the virus, no recovery will be possible, and part of the framework is to
continue to focus on this critical work. Activities to support this management could include
existing and new activities, such as but not limited to:
• Continuing high-volume public communications on the COVID-19 pandemic and related
community support and public safety response
• Facilitating COVID-19 virus testing and contact tracing; support vaccine distribution efforts
• Providing technical support for workplace environment upgrades (such as air quality
management and safety protocols to minimize COVID-19 risks)
• Supporting the repurpose of existing spaces, such as parking spaces, garages and public spaces,
for community and commercial activities
These support activities will ensure that businesses and community members alike reduce
COVID-19 transmission and feel confident as they resume or expand, and participate in,
commercial activities. As the situation continues to evolve, especially with respect to
vaccinations and potential therapeutics, the City will do what it can to promote access to and
information about them.
Community Welfare and Wellbeing
The community welfare and wellbeing focus area will continue to support and enhance services
to the Palo Alto residents and frontline workers. Activities to support this focus area could
include existing and new activities such as but not limited to:
• Support and promote childcare programs
• Provide school-aged youth programs
• Promote adult and senior wellness programs
• Promote expansion of bicycling and pedestrian citywide and beyond especially focusing on
connections to neighboring communities
City of Palo Alto Page 8
PRELIMINARY
Focused Business Support
The focused business support focus area will continue and promote activities that assist in
generation of revenues that support the delivery of services to the community. There are both
near and long-term potential ideas here as the City work to both assist businesses in managing
through the pandemic while also keeping an eye towards support once the virus is under
greater control. Inevitably there is much reliance on Federal, state, and regional stimulus
efforts. Depending on the continuation of these such as rent abatement, business loans/grants,
and the like, the nature and composition of our business community will continue to change as
the length and severity of the constrained shelter in place orders extends. Activities to support
current business activities and future needs could include existing and new activities such as
but not limited to:
• Continue and promote Uplift Local initiative and other retail supportive strategies
• Pursue California Avenue Garage parking program adjustments such as parking in-lieu
• support the City sustainability goals such as expansion of electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure.
Different business sectors may benefit from tailored approaches so that their needs are better
met as business activities recover through the near-term.
City Priority Initiatives
The City Priority Initiatives focus area will build upon the current major initiatives and priorities
as identified by the City Council and continue to position the City proactively to support the
community as vaccines and treatments advance and containment of the virus begins to take
shape. Activities to focus staff efforts include supporting the City Council priorities (housing,
mobility, sustainability) and the reopening of services in the future include existing and new
activities such as but not limited to:
• Expand community engagement on fiber to the home (FTTH) and related sustainability/climate
action plan implementation
• Support experiences at the Downtown and California Avenue car free streets including work on
a redesign of the University Avenue experience
• Completion of Caltrain grade separation community planning and work of the Expanded
Community Advisory Panel (XCAP), moving into detailed design to maintain regional funding
• Housing workplan as outlined in the City Council 2020 priorities
• Development of remote work models for delivery of City services where appropriate
Creative thinking about these and other initiatives, as well as needed policy changes and
adaptations to work considering COVID outcomes, will be highlighted to create broader
opportunities.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Preliminary Next Steps, City Council Engagement Structure and Community and Stakeholder
Engagement Options
A critical next step of defining and developing a Community and Economic Recovery Strategy is
to obtain the City Council’s feedback on these concepts and work to define a Council
engagement structure and further develop engagement strategies for the community and
stakeholders. The City of Palo Alto has conducted outreach to the local business community,
facilitating frequent check-ins with merchants located in the commercial cores and
incorporating that feedback into ongoing practices. The City has also engaged the community in
several ongoing ways including specific Council discussions on recovery efforts for public
comment, monthly check-in meetings open to all, and online surveys through the pandemic.
The City has several options for continuing, or bolstering, stakeholder engagement through the
next phases of recovery. These options are discussed briefly below and listed with the more
resource intensive and focus first. Regardless of which methods are pursued, the City will strive
to ensure that the engagement is clearly explained and that participants understand how their
participation can help shape the City’s actions. Additionally, some of the options could be
combined to further enhance engagement.
Possible Council Engagement Structures:
Blue Ribbon Committee – A Community and Economic Recovery Blue Ribbon Committee would
likely be the most time-intensive engagement on an ongoing basis of any of the options
discussed here. The range and potential impact of issues involved, however, may well justify
this level of effort particularly should extensive stakeholder engagement be involved. The City
Council has appointed blue ribbon committee for engagements of similar complexity, including
the relatively recent Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee (IBRC). If the City Council chose to
pursue this option, Staff would work with the City Council on the composition of the committee
and the expected deliverables and timeframe for their work.
Committee of a Whole – The Council may consider having all of the elements of a Community
and Economic Recovery Strategy return to the City Council. A similar approach to how the
Council developed and approved the FY 2020-2021 Adopted Budget and previously rail grade
separations, all related items of the potential strategy could return to the Council at regular
meetings or special meetings.
Ad Hoc Committee of the Council – The City Council has had numerous ad hoc committees
throughout 2020, including business support as well as four ad hocs focused on Race and Equity
work. The City Council could choose to appoint another ad hoc committee to work with staff
and guide the ongoing work related to Community and Economic Recovery and report back to
the City Council on a regular basis. Should a Blue Ribbon Committee be pursued, the Council
may wish to designate an ad hoc committee to work with that group.
Other Approaches: The Council could decide to refer some aspects of the strategy development
to Council Committee or to a Boards, Commission and Committee for further discussion and
community input.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Community Engagement Options:
Specific Stakeholder Roundtable Discussions- Staff could develop a series of roundtable
discussions with sector specific stakeholders. This type of engagement could be like how staff
began the City’s engagement with local businesses in May of 2020, where two Council liaisons
participated on behalf of the Council and could be expanded to other sectors.
Virtual Neighborhood Meetings – The City could convene a series of virtual neighborhood
meetings to engage residents on Community and Economic recovery. These could either be set
up specifically for this purpose or could try to tap into existing meetings that may be taking
place. Neighborhood meetings could be an opportunity for the City to discuss potential plans
for recovery and seek feedback in real-time from various neighborhoods. These meetings could
take place before City Council takes action on Community and Economic Recovery to inform
potential options or could take place after action on Community and Economic Recovery to
iterate on the implementation of City Council direction.
Online Townhall Meeting – Similar to the idea of a virtual neighborhood meeting, another
option could be the convening of an online townhall meeting that would be a much larger
audience in a single event. This would likely be a purpose-specific event meant to discuss
Community and Economic Recovery and would need to be structured to align with the size of
the anticipated audience. Similar to the neighborhood meetings, it could be positioned to
either further inform potential Council action, or to iterate on the implementation of policy
direction from the City Council.
Staff is seeking City Council feedback on these potential initiatives and priorities and
stakeholder engagement structures so that we can incorporate the City Council’s feedback and
further develop the engagement plan and timeline. As Council engages and considers this
topic, feedback on the cadence and forum for these conversations to continue will be
important. A number of fiscal reports are scheduled for the City Council’s review, in early 2021,
that will assist in continuing the conversation on recovery, fiscal sustainability and long-range
planning. As noted on October 19, 2020, the following items will be returning to the City
Council over the next several months:
Dec 2020/Jan 2021:
• FY 2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report & Year-End Budget Adjustments
• FY 2021 1st Quarter Financial Report
• FY 2022-2031 Long Range Financial Report
• Status check-in FY 2021 Adopted Budget City Council Referrals
February 2021:
• FY 2021 Mid-Year Budget Review and Preliminary 2nd Quarter Financial Status
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Resource Impact
These efforts will require the allocation of resources to accomplish, however, many are
currently underway and it is expected that through a reprioritization of current projects and
work, staff will approach this through reallocated staff resources. In certain areas consultant
services may be necessary to bolster expertise and support these programs.
Environmental Review
This is not a project under Section 21065 for purposes of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Additional Information Related to Sales Tax, Property Tax, and Transient
Occupancy Tax in the City of Palo Atlo
• Attachment B: Examples of Other Recovery Plans
ATTACHMENT A
Additional Information Related to Sales Tax, Property Tax, and Transient Occupancy Tax in
the City of Palo Alto
Attachment A - 1
Additional information related to the City’s Sales Tax, Property Tax, and Transient Occupancy Tax is
included below for reference.
Sales Tax:
The effective sales tax rate in Palo Alto is 9.0%. Of this, the City of Palo Alto
gets 1%, County programs get 1.75%, and the State and other programs
get the remaining 6.25%. This means that if you were to buy something
for $100 in Palo Alto, and then the 9% Sales Tax rate were applied, the City
of Palo would receive only $1 of the $9 in taxes collected.
The City of Palo Alto is somewhat unique in its Sales Tax mix. The main five
business activity categories in Palo Alto are General Retail, Food Products, Transportation, Construction,
and Business to Business. However, that General Retail category is heavily driven by what could be
considered “luxury” stores, such as Hermes, Louis Vuitton, Shreve & Co., Tiffany & Company, and other
upscale stores such as Apple, Nordstrom, and Nieman Marcus. Many of these institutions can be found at
the Stanford shopping mall. Food Products includes restaurants, which previously contributed at a fairly
robust amount to the City’s sales tax revenues. Ironically, in most recessions retail and restaurants are the
categories most resilient to downturns. Their vulnerability in the current economic climate reflects the
constraints of regulations and consumer behavior as we strive to contain the spread of the virus.
Below is a table that shows for the City of Palo Alto the allocation of sales tax collection by business
activity, one for second quarter 2019 (Q2 2019) activities (April – June 2019) and one for second quarter
2020 (Q2 2020) activities (April – June 2020) as well as annual (reflects a benchmark year). Palo Alto’s
declines in four of the categories from Q2 2019 to Q2 2020 and the declines seen have generally been
greater than both the greater bay area and statewide across California. Business to Business was the
exception and very slightly increased from Q2 2019 to Q2 2020. Percentage changes from Q2 2019 to Q2
2020 for General Retail, Food Products, Transportation, Business to Business and Construction, as well as
declines from the County Pool, are seen in Table 1 below for Palo Alto, the San Francisco Bay Area, and
the state of California.
Table 1. Percentage Changes by Category from 2019Q2 to 2020Q2 and Annual
Palo
Alto
County of Santa Clara
State of
California
ATTACHMENT A
Additional Information Related to Sales Tax, Property Tax, and Transient Occupancy Tax in
the City of Palo Alto
Attachment A - 2
Another relatively unique aspect of the City of Palo Alto’s sales tax is that the majority of the City’s sales
tax (~59%) comes from just the top 25 Sales Tax Producers, and ~75% comes from the top 100 Sales Tax
Producers. The top 25 Sales Tax Producers range across a variety of categories, and are listed below in
alphabetical order:
• Anderson Honda
• Apple Stores
• Audi Palo Alto
• Bon Appetit Management Company
• Hermes
• Houzz Shop
• HP Enterprise Services
• Integrated Archive Systems
• Louis Vuitton
• Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital
• Macy’s Department Store
• Magnussen’s Toyota of Palo Alto
• Neiman Marcus Department Store
• Nordstrom Department Store
• Richemont
• Shell Service Stations
• Shreve & Co.
• Space Systems Loral
• Stanford Outpatient Clinic Pharmacy
• Tesla
• Tesla Lease Trust
• Tiffany & Company
• Urban Outfitters
• Varian Medical Systems
• Volvo Cars Palo Alto
As seen in the list above, General Retail makes up about half of the top 25 with twelve (12), while
Transportation has six (6), Business to Business has five (5), and Food Products has one (1), while Health
and Government also has one (1).
Most receipts from use tax and some transactions where the “place of sale” are difficult to track are placed
in a county or state allocation pool and distributed back to local jurisdictions on a pro rata basis. Under
the pool concept, the tax is first coded to the county of use and then distributed to each jurisdiction in
that county on a pro rata share of taxable sales each quarter. For example, an agency generating 15% of
the county’s total taxable sales receives 15% of the pool. The County pool has increasingly been an area
of significance as brick and mortar sales / growth continue to be outpaced by online transactions which
are generally allocated to the state or county pool. In Palo Alto, the County pool constitutes just shy of
20 percent of sales tax revenues collected. Below is a table articulating what percentage of the County
pool Palo Alto receives based on the pro rata share articulated above. Notably in the second quarter and
third quarter of 2020, Palo Alto’s share of the County pool has declined from historically 6 percent – 7
percent down to approximately 5 percent. Therefore, any shift to increased online or pooled activities has
been partially or could be fully offset by a reduction in Palo Alto’s share.
ATTACHMENT A
Additional Information Related to Sales Tax, Property Tax, and Transient Occupancy Tax in
the City of Palo Alto
Attachment A - 3
Finally, it should be worth noting that the second quarter of 2020 likely represents the trough of the
pandemic recession and it is hoped that it is not representative of a new paradigm. The City has on
November 20, 2020 received the cash receipts for the third quarter of 2020 (Q3 2020) which reflect
receipts of $6.5 million, a 24 percent reduction, quarter over quarter from Q3 2019. This reflect some
positive activity compare to Q2 2020 which reflected a nearly 38 percent decline. However, as recently
as Monday, November 16th, Santa Clara County rolled back into the more restrictive purple tier. Efforts to
contain COVID-19 are paramount to public health, and will have corresponding impacts on revenue
streams likes sales tax as certain economic activities remain limited and constrained by regulations.
Although data from the third quarter of 2020 is not yet available as of the issuance of this report, staff
does anticipate that AvenuInsights may be able to discuss it on a very preliminary basis on November 30.
Property Tax:
Property Taxes are the largest revenue generator for the City of Palo Alto with estimated receipts of $52.0
million in FY 2021 Adopted Budget. All taxable real and personal property is subject to a basic rate of one
ATTACHMENT A
Additional Information Related to Sales Tax, Property Tax, and Transient Occupancy Tax in
the City of Palo Alto
Attachment A - 4
(1) percent of assessed value collected by local
jurisdictions and school districts for general
purposes. The largest portion of this is generated
by secured taxes and the remainder by
unsecured and airplane taxes. Property tax
assessments typically lag from economic impacts
due to the assessment cycle and taxable year. For
example, FY 2021 revenues are reflective of
activities in calendar year 2019 and FY 2022
revenues will be reflective of activities in this
calendar year 2020. This is why the FY 2021
Adopted Budget assumes growth of 6.9 percent.
Of the one percent property tax that is assessed
on the property owner, the City of Palo alto only
received 9.4 percent, or 9.4 cents for every dollar a property owner pays to the County. The majority of
the tax dollar, or 56.6 percent goes to the school district, community colleges, and county school services.
These allocations do vary by City, for example within Santa Clara County Cities, the City of Milpitas receives
16.23 percent or 16.23 cents on each dollar, the City of Mountain View receives 15.76 percent, and San
Jose receives 13.25 percent. Some jurisdictions to received less than Palo Alto such as Saratoga receives
6.08 percent, and Cupertino receives 6.6 percent.
There were two main propositions related to property tax on the November 2020 ballot in California. Prop
15, also called ‘Split-Roll’, which would have changed how Commercial property taxes are assessed was
narrowly defeated. Proposition 19 narrowly passed, with 51.1% replaces five exemptions related to
property transfers and reassessments with new rules that allow a transfer of a tax base from an old home
to a new home, and, if the owner buys a more a expensive home, the difference in market value between
the old and new home would be added to the tax base as well. There has been considerable difficulty
forecasting the financial impacts from the passage of Proposition 19, and it will be important to monitor
both the quantity and value of transactions in the wake of its passage.
Palo Alto
Unified,
45.03%
Santa Clara County
General, 15.93%Education Revenue
Augmentation Fund
(ERAF), 13.91%
Palo Alto General
Fund, 9.43%
Foothill-DeAnza
Community College, 7.20%
County School Services,
3.80%SCVWD, 2.20%
Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, 1.76%Mountain View-Los Altos
Union High, 0.21%Other, 0.55%
ATTACHMENT A
Additional Information Related to Sales Tax, Property Tax, and Transient Occupancy Tax in
the City of Palo Alto
Attachment A - 5
The current FY 2021 assessed value growth of 7.7 percent or $3.06 billion in additional assessed value. Of
this growth, $1.7 billion, or 56 percent of the growth in values was in residential uses. This table identified
the growth in taxable
value from FY 2020 to FY
2021. This is above the
Santa Clara County City
average and median of
6.9 percent for this
period. Drivers for
growth in assessed
values continue to
include the change in
value due to a 2.0% CPI
growth application. The
transfer of ownership of
property, reassessing
those properties to the current market value, and new construction in nonresidential and residential
categories. Important to note is also the quantity of parcels, approximately 20,000 of which 19,000 are
residential (95 percent). However, the percent of the total assessed value of residential is 67.9 percent
of the total for the City. Top ten taxpayers based on net values for lien year 2021 include but are not
limited to Stanford university, Google LLC., VM Ware, Space Systems Loral Land LLC., and various realty
companies such as Hohbach.
Transfer of ownership continues to be a significant driver of growth and the below table articulates some
of those drivers and trends. At a macro level, it can be seen that the number of sales has been on the
decline even pre pandemic, and the growth in value, or the difference between the assessed value before
the sale and the assessed value after the sale has also continued to decline. Through July 2020, the City
of Palo Alto was one of three cities in Santa Clara County who’s median sales price decreased (from $2.8
million to $2.7 million).
ATTACHMENT A
Additional Information Related to Sales Tax, Property Tax, and Transient Occupancy Tax in
the City of Palo Alto
Attachment A - 6
Another important element of the City’s Property Tax is the potential for Proposition 8 reduction requests
on the commercial parcels, whereby a landlord can request that their assessed value be revised downward
to align with current market trends. This reassessment would only be temporary, but it is both more likely
that the assessments would be revised downward on vacant properties and the likelihood of a downward
revision increases the longer a particular property remains vacant. As the City council considers land-use
decisions, secondary impacts such as property tax implications, should be a part of the consideration. Palo
Alto currently has approximately 1.4 percent of all parcels adjusted for Proposition 8, however, during the
prior great recession, say over 12 percent of all parcels adjusted for Proposition 8.
In thinking through the types of properties that may be impacted by potential Proposition 8 adjustments
in the future, some considerations of
Transient Occupancy Tax:
Travel, as an economic sector, has been adversely impacted throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The City
of Palo Alto is uniquely situated in the market for hotels; few conventions are held in Palo Alto and it is
not generally considered a ‘leisure’ destination. In the past, these have been more than offset by steady
business travel and travel associated with Stanford University. Although conventions have largely shifted
to virtual formats, destinations that are “driveable” for leisure, such as Santa Cruz and Napa, have seen
modest recoveries as travel restrictions lifted somewhat. With the regression to the purple tier in those
counties, it is not anticipated that those recoveries will persist since they are linked directly to the ability,
and willingness, to travel.
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
140.00%
160.00%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 (thru
7/31/20)
Transfer of Ownership (Secured)
Single Family Residential Sales Total Sales % Change in AV SFR % Change in AV
ATTACHMENT A
Additional Information Related to Sales Tax, Property Tax, and Transient Occupancy Tax in
the City of Palo Alto
Attachment A - 7
The pressure on hotels will persist in the immediate term, driven by efforts to contain COVID-19.
According to CBRE, demand for hotel rooms nationally was down by 36.8% year-over-year from Q3 2019
to Q3 2020, and national hotel occupancy declined a corresponding 37.9% year-over-year. San Francisco
saw a significant 84.1% loss in Revenue Per Available Room (RevPAR), the third greatest decline in the
continental U.S. behind only Boston (85%) and New York (87.9%). San Jose saw a loss slightly greater than
70% from Q3 2019 to Q3 2020.
Partly because of Palo Alto’s uniquely upscale retail mix, described above in the Sales Tax section of this
report, Palo Alto previously attracted international business travelers. The drops seen in the City of Palo
Alto’s Transient Occupancy Tax revenues align with the 80% decline in business and visitor travel to the
area. The following figure shows the decline in inbound international spending and shows the negative
impact on hotel demand in U.S. gateway cities.
ATTACHMENT A
Additional Information Related to Sales Tax, Property Tax, and Transient Occupancy Tax in
the City of Palo Alto
Attachment A - 8
Although the precipitous drop seen above is unlikely to immediately rebound, preliminary indicators
suggest that as a vaccine facilitates a recovery and reopening, hospitality could be recovering over a
relatively short time frame. CBRE anticipates recovering through FY 2022, FY 2023, and FY 2024 before
returning to the trend line.
ATTACHMENT B
Examples of Other Recovery Plans: San Francisco, San Jose, and Stanford Medicine
Attachment B - 1
At its meeting on October 19, the City Council received excerpts from the recovery strategies developed
for San Francisco and San Jose/Silicon Valley. These reports are summarized below, in order to provide a
context of work already completed by major nearby communities. In addition, Stanford Medicine recently
released recommendations for communities to emerge from the pandemic, and this resource is also
summarized below.
The City of San Francisco created a COVID-19 Economic Recovery Task Force, the City of San Jose convened
a Silicon Valley Recovery Roundtable, and Stanford created their Recover, Restore, and Re-Open (R3)
Framework. Outcomes from each of these groups and plans are detailed below followed by a discussion
of how the City of Palo Alto’s ongoing approach could be shaped.
San Francisco’s Economic Recovery Task Force organized their ongoing work into eight categories, which
are detailed below. Their full report can be found online1:
1. Local Economic Stimulus: explore policies and investments that encourage economic development and activity
in San Francisco, such as funding public infrastructure projects, streamlining permitting processes, advocacy for
state and federal resources, and more
2. Job Connections: facilitate and improve connections to jobs and explore programs that hire local workers
3. Promote Safe Reopening: provide clear and accessible information to businesses and workers on reopening
requirements and provide tools and strategies to keep workers, customers, and residents safe
4. Preserve Operations and Lessen Regulatory Burdens: create flexibility for businesses to operate and consider
reducing or eliminating regulatory burdens
5. Pursue Economic Justice: narrow the wealth gap and bridge the digital divide for low-income residents and
communities of color
6. Invest in Housing: incentivize the construction of affordable housing, an immediate and longterm need
7. Meet the Basic Needs of the Vulnerable: ensure San Franciscans have access to food, shelter, mental health,
and other services
8. Imagine and Build Stronger Neighborhoods: activate and draw upon San Francisco’s unique neighborhood and
cultural assets.
San Jose’s Silicon Valley Round Table distilled their recommendations into six priorities, which are shown
below. Their full report can be found online2:
1. Strengthen financial stability for individuals and businesses: Provide immediate financial assistance to address
urgent needs exacerbated by COVID-19, and create equitable access to banking services, particularly for people
of color, undocumented individuals, small businesses, and startups.
2. Drive job creation and support displaced workers to promote economic recovery: Foster an inclusive economic
recovery by facilitating job creation, particularly for low-income displaced workers and people of color. Support
the recovery of small businesses and startups, who are the primary force behind job creation in our region.
3. Galvanize housing preservation, protection, and production: Break through on the housing crisis in the short-
term to stabilize vulnerable populations through preservation and protection. Longer-term, produce more
1 https://www.onesanfrancisco.org/sites/default/files/inline-
files/EconomicRecoveryTaskForceReport_10.08.20.pdf
2 https://media.bizj.us/view/img/11844413/svrr-report-final-pdf.pdf
ATTACHMENT B
Examples of Other Recovery Plans: San Francisco, San Jose, and Stanford Medicine
Attachment B - 2
housing, with a particular focus on low-income, very low-income, and extremely low-income individuals and
households, including the homeless.
4. Reimagine neighborhood districts: Rethink how important commercial, work, and community spaces are built,
structured, and connected. Reinvest in our small businesses to spur growth and revive the vibrancy of places
that are anchors of our community.
5. Create next-generation transportation: Demonstrate leadership in mobility by building integrated solutions and
investing in location-based housing to improve transportation equity and regional access to jobs. Prioritize
transformational and strategic investments that include new and legacy platforms, complete streets efforts that
facilitate safe carbonless travel, and innovative transportation technology and behavior change programs.
6. Expand digital inclusion for individuals and businesses: Bridge the digital divide and build resilience for future
resurgences by equipping individuals and small businesses with stronger digital tools and better connectivity.
Parallel to efforts by San Francisco and San Jose, Stanford Medicine has also assembled a framework
organized around the idea of Recovering, Restoring, and Re-Opening (R3). This framework was intended
to inform how different communities and groups could approach recovering from the impacts of COVID-
19. More information about the framework can be found online3. Stanford’s framework provides three
main components: Containing and Controlling COVID-19, Safeguarding and Supporting Your Community,
and Adapting and Thriving in the “New Normal”.
• Containing and Controlling COVID-19 includes elements like expanded testing strategies, building an integrated
public health surveillance system, assessing plans to conduct contact tracing at scale, and ensuring adherence
to public health safety measures.
• Safeguarding and Supporting Your Community includes protecting vulnerable populations and promoting health
equity, preparing health systems and hospitals for future surges, establishing protocols to tighten controls
rapidly in response to new outbreaks, and promoting alignment and coordination with other government
authorities and employers.
• Adapting and Thriving in the New Normal includes initiating strategic and operational planning for the “now”,
“near” and “far”, addressing mental health and well-being across the life span, developing frameworks to
reimagine physically distanced lifestyles, and digitally transforming the ambulatory environment.
3 https://med.stanford.edu/covidrecovery/about.html
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
November 30, 2020
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Selection of Applicants to Interview for the Historic Resources Board
and the Planning and Transportation Commission
Recommendation • Direct Staff to schedule interviews with all selected applicants for scheduled vacancies on the Planning and Transportation Commission.
• The City has not received enough applications to fill all expiring positions on the Historic Resources Board. Staff recommends continuing the recruitment for positions on the Historic Resources Board until additional applications are received. Members with expiring positions will continue to serve until appointments are made. Or • Interview the current Historic Resources Board candidates and continue the recruitment for the additional open position. Discussion A total of 12 applications have been submitted during the extended recruitment period for the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). Staff is requesting the City Council select the candidates to be interviewed for: • Four positions on the Historic Resources Board, with terms ending December 15, 2023. • Two positions on the Planning and Transportation Commission, with terms ending December 15, 2024.
A date for interviews will be scheduled as soon as possible and is to be determined based on the availability of the City Council. Copies of all applications are attached to this staff report.
Background On November 2, 2020, the Council directed Staff to extend the recruitment for the Historic Resources Board and Planning and Transportation Commission for an additional two weeks with a deadline of Tuesday, November 17, 2020. The City Clerk’s Office advertised this recruitment on the City’s website, social media, and inclusion in the weekly Council Packet GovDelivery e-mail notifications. During the last several recruitments, Council has elected to interview all applicants for respective Boards and Commissions.
Applicants Historic Resources Board (Four positions with terms ending December 15, 2023)
Page 2
1. Martin Bernstein (Incumbent)
2. Michael Makinen (Incumbent)
3. Margaret Wimmer (Incumbent)
Planning and Transportation Commission (Two positions with terms ending December 14, 2024)
1. Kelsey Banes
2. Doug Burns
3. Alon Carmeli
4. Rebecca Eisenberg
5. Kathy Jordan
6. Ed Lauing (Incumbent)
7. Kevin Ma
8. Jessica Resmini
9. Doria Summa (Incumbent)
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: HRB and PTC Applications- Fall 2020 (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 3
Boards and Commission Applications
Fall 2020 Recruitment
Historic Resources Board & Planning and Transportation Commission
Historic Resources Board:
1. Martin Bernstein (Incumbent)
2. Michael Makinen (Incumbent)
3. Margaret Wimmer (Incumbent)
Planning and Transportation Commission:
1. Kelsey Banes
2. Doug Burns
3. Alon Carmeli
4. Rebecca Eisenberg
5. Kathy Jordan
6. Ed Lauing (Incumbent)
7. Kevin Ma
8. Jessica Resmini
9. Doria Summa (Incumbent)
Employment
3UHVHQW RU /DVW (PSOR\HU
2FFXSDWLRQ
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: FKDUDFWHUV
1. What is it about the Historic Resources Board that is compatible with your experience and of
specific interest to you, and why? FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
+LVWRULF 5HVRXUFHV %RDUG
Martin Bernstein Architect
Architect
Palo Alto Historic Resources Board, past-Chair.
Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, past-Chair.
Palo Alto Professorville Design Guidelines Committee, past-Chair.
Los Altos Hills Historical Society, past-President.
Volunteer and Counselor to Cesar Chavez Academy Middle School, East
Palo Alto, for architectural studies.
Membership on the HRB provides an opportunity to discuss with the
community the cultural value of historic preservation.
The quality of being a fair judge when balancing the concerns of
historic preservation, the needs of contemporary life styles and
property rights is an important attribute of a Board member.
The focus of my practice is individual private residences and
community buildings such as corporate venues, meeting centers,
restaurants and other structures designed to meet particular
institutional requirements. My architectural signature bears
influence for the rich classical traditions of Italy and from
Florence in particular. I am also well versed in contemporary and
modern styles to meet the demands of each new project.
I have remodeled and added on to many historic structures in Palo
AltoA and the Bay Area
Martin Bernstein
2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you
and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can
view an archiveG YLGHR IURP WKH 0LGSHQ 0HGLD &HQWHU:/,1. FKDUDFWHUV
3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Historic Resources Board achieve,
and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
+LVWRULF 5HVRXUFHV %RDUG
A predominant street-facing character defining feature of an
existing historic residence was proposed by the applicant to be
demolished. The Board moved and approved that this feature be
retained. This decision was deemed to be consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Structures.
I would like the HRB to be an approachable educational resource
for the community. I suggest scheduling a joint City Council-HRB
meeting to publicly discuss the preservation principles that help
guide the recommendations made by the HRB.
Martin Bernstein
4. Please identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good historic architecture,
and explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If you attach
samples, Staff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the interviews. FKDUDFWHUV
5. Historic Resources Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have
experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these
documents is not required for selection. FKDUDFWHUV
3DOR $OWR &RPSUHKHQVLYH 3ODQ /DQG 8VH (OHPHQW /,1.
3DOR $OWR 0XQLFLSDO &RGH &KDSWHU /,1.
6HFUHWDU\ RI WKH ,QWHULRUV 6WDQGDUGV IRU 3UHVHUYLQJ 5HKDELOLWDWLQJ 5HVWRULQJ DQG 5HFRQVWUXFWLQJ +LVWRULF
%XLOGLQJV /,1.
&DOLIRUQLD (QYLURQPHQWDO 4XDOLW\ $FW /,1.
3DJH
+LVWRULF 5HVRXUFHV %RDUG
I have extensive experience with the listed documents.
755 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto. New second floor addition to a
National Register Eligible residence. Project conforms with the
Standards.
334 Kingsley Ave., Palo Alto. New one story addition to a Category
2 residence in the Professorville National Historic District.
Project conforms with the Standards.
Martin Bernstein
Employment
3UHVHQW RU /DVW (PSOR\HU
2FFXSDWLRQ
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: FKDUDFWHUV
1. What is it about the Historic Resources Board that is compatible with your experience and of
specific interest to you, and why? FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
+LVWRULF 5HVRXUFHV %RDUG
Self Employed
Residential Designer
Junior League Mid Peninsula Member 1994 - 1998
Cantor Art Center "Next Gen" Volunteer 2001-2003
Volunteered for the California Preservation Foundation Conference in
2018 when the conference was held in Palo Alto
I am a residential designer with the majority of projects in the City
of Palo Alto.
I have done several projects on residences in the Professorville
District as well as on the City Historic Inventory.
I have had projects where I needed to present to the HRB, so
understand what it is like to be an applicant.
Margaret Wimmer
2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you
and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can
view an archiveG YLGHR IURP WKH 0LGSHQ 0HGLD &HQWHU:/,1. FKDUDFWHUV
3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Historic Resources Board achieve,
and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
+LVWRULF 5HVRXUFHV %RDUG
I find all of the projects interesting, and the residential
projects the most interesting.
I would like to continue to offer sound advice and share my
experience and knowledge as much as I can to the board, applicants
and participating public.
I think the board has a positive impact on all projects, which I
think is the greatest achievement that the board can realize.
We have been discussing the meaning of categories 1-4 and how to
better express their significance.
I have been wanting to develop an HRB Binder for new members to
understand the way the meetings are formatted to help with general
understanding of the HRB process, which was a real learning curve
for me and I assume most new members.
Margaret Wimmer
4. Please identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good historic architecture,
and explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If you attach
samples, Staff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the interviews. FKDUDFWHUV
5. Historic Resources Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have
experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these
documents is not required for selection. FKDUDFWHUV
3DOR $OWR &RPSUHKHQVLYH 3ODQ /DQG 8VH (OHPHQW /,1.
3DOR $OWR 0XQLFLSDO &RGH &KDSWHU /,1.
6HFUHWDU\ RI WKH ,QWHULRUV 6WDQGDUGV IRU 3UHVHUYLQJ 5HKDELOLWDWLQJ 5HVWRULQJ DQG 5HFRQVWUXFWLQJ +LVWRULF
%XLOGLQJV /,1.
&DOLIRUQLD (QYLURQPHQWDO 4XDOLW\ $FW /,1.
3DJH
+LVWRULF 5HVRXUFHV %RDUG
As a current board member, I have experience will all of these
documents.
The Post office on Hamilton Ave by Birdge Clark.
The President Hotel
The University Art Building
The Downing House
The Squire House
These are all good examples in Palo Alto.
Margaret Wimmer
Employment
3UHVHQW RU /DVW (PSOR\HU
2FFXSDWLRQ
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteerLQJ RU ZLWK civic organizations:
FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ
YIMBY Action
Regional Executive Director
Community Groups:
Peninsula for Everyone, co-founder
Palo Alto Forward, board member
Voices for Public Transit Coalition
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
Silicon Valley Bike Coalition
350 SV
Sunrise Movement Silicon Valley
Community Service:
Current: Santa Clara County Unhoused Task Force
Previous: Support group leader, Peer advisor
Community Conference Planning:
Continuing education conference on the implications of California's cannabis policy changes on
healthcare practice (Palo Alto)
Homelessness and Mental Health Summit (Columbia, MO)
International Summit on Transdisciplinary Approaches to Violence Prevention (Blacksburg, VA)
Kelsey Banes
1.What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your
experience and of specific interest to you, and why? FKDUDFWHUV
2.Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest
to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting
you can view an archiveG YLGHR IURP WKH 0LGSHQ 0HGLD &HQWHU: /,1. FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ
The July discussion regarding Plan Bay Area 2050 and the State 6th Cycle Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) Process was of particular interest given my desire to end homelessness
and meet our community's housing needs. The upcoming RHNA cycle will be substantially
different then previous RHNA cycles. First, in terms of sheer scale, our targets are likely to much
higher than in previous cycles. But there will be additional challenges, including planning to
affirmatively further Fair Housing, identifying sites specifically for affordable housing, and
additional accountability mechanisms. This process is certain to be challenging and
anxiety-inducing, as we will be tasked with considering many new sites for housing. However, the
process is also a huge opportunity to plan for a future that is more inclusive and sustainable.
My interest in housing policy was piqued as a result of my clinical work serving unhoused
individuals and observing the difficulty of obtaining housing close to treatment and jobs programs
on the mid-Peninsula. The evictions at the Hotel President, which coincided with the planned
demolition of my rental home, brought me to City Hall for the first time. In the subsequent years, I
have dedicated myself to housing and transportation advocacy, first as a part-time volunteer and
now as full-time advocate.
I recognize that the role of a Commissioner is substantially different than the role of an advocate. I
believe my professional skills make me well-suited to shift between these roles and fulfill the
Commissioner role skillfully.
As a psychologist, I am trained in listening, effective communication, and have extensive
experience working collaboratively with people whose world views are incongruous with mine. I
am well-practiced in being respectful, kind, and empathic, even when I may disagree.
Furthermore, I am passionate about evidence-based decision making and skilled in critically
evaluating studies and consideries strengths and weaknesses of various research methodologies.
I am professionally and personally committed to many of Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan goals,
including increasing the supply of diverse housing options, reducing dependence on cars,
protecting our natural environment, and fostering community.
Kelsey Banes
3.If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation
Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? FKDUDFWHUV
4.Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If
\RX KDYH H[SHULHQFH ZLWK DQ\ RI WKHVH GRFXPHQWV SOHDVH GHVFULEH WKDW H[SHULHQFH ([SHULHQFH
ZLWK WKHVH GRFXPHQWV LV QRW UHTXLUHG IRU VHOHFWLRQ FKDUDFWHUV
3DOR $OWR &RPSUHKHQVLYH 3ODQ /,1.
=RQLQJ &RGH /,1.
&LW\ &KDUWHU /,1.
&DOLIRUQLD (QYLURQPHQWDO 4XDOLW\ $FW /,1.
(O &DPLQR 5HDO 'HVLJQ *XLGHOLQHV /,1.
(O &DPLQR 5HDO 0DVWHU 3ODQ 6WXG\/,1.
$UHD 3ODQV VXFK DV WKH 6RXWK RI )RUHVW $YHQXH 62)$ , DQG ,, 3ODQV /,1.
%D\ODQGV 0DVWHU 3ODQ /,1.
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ
For housing, I think would like to see the PTC work toward goals to produce more homes at all
income levels, including deeply affordable and supportive housing, while at the same time
preserving existing affordable and low-cost housing. This goal is vital to ensuring the health and
safety of all community members, as housing is foundational to human and community wellness.
We can accomplish our production goals--without displacement--by enacting tenant-protecting
demolition controls and changing zoning regulations to enable more transit-oriented development
in our downtowns, create new neighborhoods in underutilized commercial areas, and give
homeowners flexibility to create small multi-family options throughout the city. On the
transportation side, I would like to see the PTC work toward reducing VMT and encouraging mode
shifting away from cars. Caltrain electrification and increased transit service is important to this
goal regionally. Locally, I think improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is extremely
important, especially now. One of the few upsides of the COVID crisis has been a cycling boom. In
order to capitalize on this phenomenon, I would love to see Palo Alto act quickly to implement the
Bike/Pen Plan to ensure safety and encourage active forms of transportation.
Kelsey Banes
Employment
3UHVHQW RU /DVW (PSOR\HU
2FFXSDWLRQ
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteerLQJ RU ZLWK civic organizations:
FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ
member of BPA association
member of BPA pathways Committee
member of PAN
Doug Burns
1.What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your
experience and of specific interest to you, and why? FKDUDFWHUV
2.Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest
to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting
you can view an archiveG YLGHR IURP WKH 0LGSHQ 0HGLD &HQWHU:/,1. FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ
Very interested in the grade separation project and have attended
many community and XCAP meetings.
Born and raised in Palo Alto. I take a lot of pride in my
community and would like to help shape its future. Also worked in
Palo Alto for many years.
Doug Burns
3.If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation
Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? FKDUDFWHUV
4.Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If
\RX KDYH H[SHULHQFH ZLWK DQ\ RI WKHVH GRFXPHQWV SOHDVH GHVFULEH WKDW H[SHULHQFH ([SHULHQFH
ZLWK WKHVH GRFXPHQWV LV QRW UHTXLUHG IRU VHOHFWLRQ FKDUDFWHUV
3DOR $OWR &RPSUHKHQVLYH 3ODQ /,1.
=RQLQJ &RGH /,1.
&LW\ &KDUWHU /,1.
&DOLIRUQLD (QYLURQPHQWDO 4XDOLW\ $FW /,1.
(O &DPLQR 5HDO 'HVLJQ *XLGHOLQHV /,1.
(O &DPLQR 5HDO 0DVWHU 3ODQ 6WXG\/,1.
$UHD 3ODQV VXFK DV WKH 6RXWK RI )RUHVW $YHQXH 62)$ , DQG ,, 3ODQV /,1.
%D\ODQGV 0DVWHU 3ODQ /,1.
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ
Moderate growth and keeping the character of the community.
Improved bike/pedestrian pathways.
Doug Burns
__
__
__
__
__
__
Personal Information (Note: The PTC regularly meets the second and last Wednesdays of the month at 6 PM
Name:
Address:
Cell Phone:
Home / Office Phone:
E-mail:
Are you a Palo Alto Resident? Yes No
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who
are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? Yes No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? Yes No
California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of
their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700).
Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director
of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to:
1)engage in business with the City;
2)provide products or services for City projects; or
3)be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
Yes No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commission?
Community Group
Email from City Clerk
Palo Alto Weekly
Daily Post
City Website
Flyer
Other: _ _
List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional
registration: (621 characters)
Page 1
Planning & Transportation Commission
Planning and Transportation Commission
Yes No
Please email all completed applications to Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org or City.Clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org City Clerk's Office: 650-329-2571
550 Rhodes Drive
Alon Carmeli
650-619-7004
none
alonc7@gmail.com
LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/alon-carmeli-a19243/
Employment
High-tech industry - 1983 until 2016 in chip design, networking, security,
wireless, video games, and 3D Computer vision
Real estate
Athena, Founding partner, condominium development, Israel 2005 until 2020
Greenpoint Real Estate, managing director, multifamily residential properties
investment and redevelopment, SV - 2011 present
Education
Undergraduate, Computer engineering, Technion, Israel - 1986
Graduate,MBA, Carnegie Mellon University 1991
Passion for architecture, interior design, and art
Alon Carmeli
Employment
Present or Last Employer:
Occupation:
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteering or with civic organizations: (1311
characters)
Page 2
Planning & Transportation Commission
None so far.
Alon Carmeli
1.What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your
experience and of specific interest to you, and why? (1449 characters)
2.Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest
to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting
you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: LINK (1311 characters)
Page 3
Planning & Transportation Commission
I would like to bring up for discussion a major traffic
congestion problem between Alma to El Camino on Embarcadero road
surrounding Town and County and Palo Alto high school. From the
location before the bridge to El Camino there are 3 traffic
lights, 2 road entrances and 1 pedestrian crossroad, making it a
nightmare to drive at certain times of the day. A better traffic
and road design can alleviate the problem.
It combines my education, current real estate involvement, and my
passion in better appreciation for short and long-term needs for
city of Palo Altos residents
Alon Carmeli
3.If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation
Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this?(1587 characters)
4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experiencewith these documents is not required for selection. (1380 characters)
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK
Zoning Code LINK
City Charter LINK
California Environmental Quality Act LINK
El Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK
El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK
Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK
Baylands Master Plan LINK
Page 4
Planning & Transportation Commission
Start working on plans beyond 2030 master plan.
Major impacts because of climate change, COVID-19, booming high
tech industry, and new technologies create opportunities to
transform Palo Alto beyond 2030.
I do not have experience, but am interested in influencing SOFA
II plans, and Baylands
Alon Carmeli
Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website
California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the
home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first
obtaining the written permission of that individual.” This consent form will not be redacted and will be
attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website.
The full code can be read here: LINK
Read the code, and check only ONE option below:
I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and
Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code
Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo
Alto City Clerk.
OR
I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address
from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am
providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact
information instead.
Address:
Cell Phone:
Home / Office Phone:
E-mail:
Page 5
Planning & Transportation Commission
Signature: (Please type or sign)_______________________________________________ Date: _____________ 11/17/2020
Alon Carmeli
Alon Carmeli
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
PersonalInformation 1RWH 7KH37&UHJXODUO\PHHWVWKHVHFRQGDQGODVW:HGQHVGD\VRIWKHPRQWKDW30
1DPH
$GGUHVV
&HOO3KRQH
+RPH 2IILFH3KRQH
(PDLO
$UH\RXD3DOR$OWR5HVLGHQW"Yes No
'R\RXKDYHDQ\UHODWLYHVRUPHPEHUVRI\RXUKRXVHKROGZKRDUHHPSOR\HGE\WKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWRZKR
DUHFXUUHQWO\VHUYLQJRQWKH&LW\&RXQFLORUZKRDUH&RPPLVVLRQHUVRU%RDUG0HPEHUV"Yes No
$UH\RXDYDLODEOHDQGFRPPLWWHGWRFRPSOHWHWKHWHUPDSSOLHGIRU"Yes No
&DOLIRUQLDVWDWHODZUHTXLUHVDSSRLQWHGERDUGDQGFRPPLVVLRQPHPEHUVWRILOHDGHWDLOHGGLVFORVXUHRI
WKHLUILQDQFLDOLQWHUHVWV)DLU3ROLWLFDO3UDFWLFHV&RPPLVVLRQ&RQIOLFWRI,QWHUHVW )RUP
'R\RXRU\RXUVSRXVHKDYHDQLQYHVWPHQWLQRUGR\RXRU\RXUVSRXVHVHUYHDVDQRIILFHURUGLUHFWRU
RIDFRPSDQ\GRLQJEXVLQHVVLQ3DOR$OWRZKLFK\RXEHOLHYHLVOLNHO\WR
HQJDJHLQEXVLQHVVZLWKWKH&LW\
SURYLGHSURGXFWVRUVHUYLFHVIRU&LW\SURMHFWV RU
EHDIIHFWHGE\GHFLVLRQVRIWKHERDUGRUFRPPLVVLRQ\RXDUHDSSO\LQJIRU"
([FOXGLQJ\RXUSULQFLSDOUHVLGHQFHGR\RXRU\RXUVSRXVHRZQUHDOSURSHUW\LQ3DOR$OWR"
Yes No
How did you Oearn about the vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commission?
&RPPXQLW\*URXS
(PDLOIURP&LW\&OHUN
3DOR$OWR:HHNO\
'DLO\3RVW
&LW\:HEVLWH
)O\HU
2WKHU BB
List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional
registration: FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ
3ODQQLQJDQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ
<HV1R
3OHDVHHPDLODOOFRPSOHWHGDSSOLFDWLRQVWR-HVVLFD%UHWWOH#&LW\RI3DOR$OWRRUJRU&LW\&OHUN#&LW\RI3DOR$OWRRUJ&LW\&OHUN
V2IILFH
2345 Waverley St., Palo Alto, CA 94301
Rebecca Eisenberg
415-235-8078
rebecca@winwithrebecca.com
Palo Alto City Council Meeting where you voted on this.
JD, Harvard Law School, 1993. Editor, Harvard Law Review.
BA, Stanford, Psychology/Decision Science, 1990, Phi Beta Kappa.
Member of California Bar and Federal Bar, CD Calif. sworn in Dec 1993.
30 years of legal experience, including:
- Senior Counsel, PayPal (IPO, Secondary Offering, Merger w/eBay)
- General Counsel, Trulia (1st atty, IPO prep)
- GC, Flip Video/Pure Digital (Merger w/Cisco)
- GC, Reddit (Spin-off, Re-corp, Re-capitalization)
Experience/expertise in:
- Land use transactions
- Budget oversight
- Municipal Finance
- Secured transactions
- Tax law & policy
- Contract negotiation
- Ethics
Rebecca Eisenberg
Employment
3UHVHQWRU/DVW(PSOR\HU
2FFXSDWLRQ
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteerLQJRUZLWK civic organizations:
FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ
Private Client Legal Services, Boutique Law Firm
Negotiate high-value transactions for execs/entrepreneurs
I spent most of 2020 running for City Council. Although I did not
win, I am proud that I received almost 8000 votes -- and spent
only approx $7000. I believe that money has no place in politics,
so tried to live those values.
My solid results reflect the time & energy I put into meeting with
Palo Alto residents & small business owners, to hear their
perspectives & understand their concerns. Rather than hobnob with
wealthy donors, I went door to door, ringing doorbells and
standing back 6 feet to meet the residents. It was a privilege
each time a resident took time to meet me and share their views.
Running for office was a humbling experience, and it also
reinforced the great impact that our local government officials
and their appointed volunteers have on the day to day lives of
people in our community.
When I visited 801 Alma St., I heard the challenges that many
residents face in meeting their subsidized rents. When I spoke
with small businesses on University and California Ave, I heard
the frustration of seeing their landlords receive pandemic relief
funds that did not trickle down to them. When I spoke with seniors
at Channing House, I heard their appeals for affordable housing to
live near their grandkids.
We must do better for our community. I want to serve that worthy
goal.
Rebecca Eisenberg
1.What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your
experience and of specific interest to you, and why? FKDUDFWHUV
2.Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest
to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting
you can view an archiveGYLGHRIURPWKH0LGSHQ0HGLD&HQWHU:/,1. FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ
I continue to be concerned about special treatment afforded Castilleja.
According to public records on Palo Alto's website, Castilleja has been in
violation of its Conditional Use Permit virtually each year since the CUP
was granted in 2000.
In 2013, the City of Palo Alto sent a notice to Castilleja that Castilleja
needed to comply with its CUP, or else Castilleja's CUP would be revoked and
Castilleja would leave its 6+ acres on 55 RH-1 lots in Old Palo Alto. In a
letter from Nanci Kauffman, Castilleja promised that it would fully comply
by 2018, or else Castilleja would submit to CUP Revocation Hearings. Ms.
Kauffman also promised not to apply for an amended CUP until and unless
Castilleja complied with its 2000 CUP.
Nonetheless, currently the City Council is nearing approval of an amended
CUP, even though Castilleja never complied with its 2000 CUP. Also,
Castilleja never was charged its full Muni Code penalties of
$500/violation/day.
This perceived special treatment of Castilleja has harmed our community.
Given RHNA requirements, we need all residential land to be used for
residential purposes or risk state intrusion under SB35. If Castilleja were
to move to a commercially zoned site, it would not need a CUP.
Our City must enforce its own laws for our community's best interest.
Land is a limited resource, and due to its particular scarcity in Palo
Alto, it is extraordinarily valuable. Hence, decisions our City makes
regarding land use can carry the financial of a NASDAC IPO. Plus, what we
decide today impacts generations to come. The responsibility is heady.
I have watched the Planning Commission make decisions that I believe may
have been based on incomplete information. For example, some may have
approved a housing development without knowing the size of the homes.
Other times, they appeared to be unduly influenced by expensive attorneys
representing wealthy applicants. Fancy attorneys do not impress me, as I
myself am an expensive fancy lawyer and have outperformed the best of
them.
What I fear the City Council does not recognize is that when it appoints
attorneys who represent commercial developers for a living to the PTC,
those attorneys often have conflicts of interest. These land use lawyers
are bound by ethical rules always to act in the best interest of their
clients, which may limit their independence to approve and recommend
measures that may disadvantage their client base. For example, they may
not be wholly free to approve fees and taxes if those measures could
impact clients.
Palo Alto deserves Planning Commissioners whose sole duty is to represent
the best interest of our community. I pledge to do that, entirely free of
conflict. I will stand up for residents and small businesses.
Rebecca Eisenberg
3.If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation
Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? FKDUDFWHUV
4.Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If
\RXKDYHH[SHULHQFHZLWKDQ\RIWKHVHGRFXPHQWVSOHDVHGHVFULEHWKDWH[SHULHQFH([SHULHQFH
ZLWKWKHVHGRFXPHQWVLVQRWUHTXLUHGIRUVHOHFWLRQ FKDUDFWHUV
3DOR$OWR&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ/,1.
=RQLQJ&RGH/,1.
&LW\&KDUWHU/,1.
&DOLIRUQLD(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\$FW/,1.
(O&DPLQR5HDO'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHV/,1.
(O&DPLQR5HDO0DVWHU3ODQ6WXG\/,1.
$UHD3ODQVVXFKDVWKH6RXWKRI)RUHVW$YHQXH 62)$ ,DQG,,3ODQV/,1.
%D\ODQGV0DVWHU3ODQ/,1.
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ
First, I would fill a representation gap by serving as the only renter on an official city
Commission that regularly makes decisions that impact renters. Additionally, not only do I rent
my family home in Palo Alto, but also my husband and I are landlords. In order to afford our
rent in Old Palo Alto, we rent out the home we bought in 2003 in San Francisco. As both a tenant
and landlord, my perspective is both valuable and missing on the Commission.
Second, in terms of goals, I seek to provide the best, most informed, and least biased advice to
the City Council on matters regarding planning and transportation. I have skin in the game in
that I live here and my husband and I chose to raise our children here, but that skin does not
comprise conflict of interest, because neither my husband (also an attorney) nor I make a living
serving commercial developers, homeowners, or any other interest that regularly comes before the
Commission. If such a conflict, or a potentially perceived conflict were to arise, I will
disclose any/all potential conflicts, and recuse myself when appropriate, erring on the side of
recusal in the best interest of the community.
As you know, I have applied for the Planning Commission in the past. The most recent time I
applied, instead of interviewing during my assigned 15 minutes, I spent the time drawing
attention to a problematic perceived conflict of interest on the Commission. I believe that
conflicts of interest erode trust, so exposing it was important for the community's interest.
This time I will interview instead. Thank you.
Having just run for City Council, I often was asked for my opinion on matters
that relate to these documents and plans. To do my best work, I carefully read
through most of these docs and plans. As an attorney for 3 decades, I am
skilled at reading codes and plans.
I also recognize, as a veteran negotiator, that every document is subject to
multiple interpretations, and the job of an attorney is to interpret source
material in most favorable light to my client. In this case, my client is the
City.
I urge the City Council to consider that when it appoints lawyers who
represent commercial developers for a living, it appoints not just those
individuals, but also the professional biases that these lawyers are ethically
bound to carry with them when they analyze any and all documents. It is
virtually impossible to expect a lawyer who is ethically bound to represent a
party who negotiates against a city, then to prioritize the interest of the
city over that of their client. This ethical bind harms our community.
I do NOT represent commercial developers, nor do I represent ANY special
interest that comes before the Planning Commission. That means I no longer
represent homeowners in their appeals (although both my husband and I have
done so in the past), nor do I represent any other interested party.
My whole undivided ethical obligation is for the community.
Rebecca Eisenberg
Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website
&DOLIRUQLD*RYHUQPHQW&RGH6HFWLRQVWDWHVLQSDUW³1RVWDWHRUORFDODJHQF\VKDOOSRVWWKH
KRPH DGGUHVV RU WHOHSKRQH QXPEHU RI DQ\ HOHFWHG RU DSSRLQWHG RIILFLDO RQ WKH ,QWHUQHW ZLWKRXW ILUVW
REWDLQLQJWKHZULWWHQSHUPLVVLRQRIWKDWLQGLYLGXDO´This consent form will not be redacted and will be
attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website.
7KHIXOOFRGHFDQEHUHDGKHUH /,1.
5HDGWKHFRGHDQGFKHFNRQO\21(RSWLRQEHORZ
,JLYHSHUPLVVLRQIRUWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWRWRSRVWWRWKH&LW\¶VZHEVLWHWKHDWWDFKHG%RDUGDQG
&RPPLVVLRQ$SSOLFDWLRQLQWDFW ,KDYHUHDGDQGXQGHUVWDQGP\ULJKWVXQGHU*RYHUQPHQW&RGH
6HFWLRQ ,PD\UHYRNHWKLVSHUPLVVLRQDWDQ\WLPHE\SURYLGLQJZULWWHQQRWLFHWRWKH3DOR
$OWR&LW\&OHUN
25
,UHTXHVWWKDWWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWRUHGDFWP\KRPHDGGUHVVSKRQHQXPEHUVDQGHPDLODGGUHVV
IURPWKHDWWDFKHG%RDUGDQG&RPPLVVLRQ$SSOLFDWLRQSULRUWRSRVWLQJWRWKH&LW\¶VZHEVLWH ,DP
SURYLGLQJWKHIROORZLQJDOWHUQDWHLQIRUPDWLRQDQGUHTXHVWWKDWWKH\XVHWKHIROORZLQJFRQWDFW
LQIRUPDWLRQLQVWHDG
$GGUHVV
&HOO3KRQH
+RPH 2IILFH3KRQH
(PDLO
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ
6LJQDWXUH 3OHDVHW\SHRUVLJQ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB'DWH BBBBBBBBBBBBB11/17/2020
Rebecca Eisenberg
Rebecca Eisenberg
Employment
3UHVHQW RU /DVW (PSOR\HU
2FFXSDWLRQ
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteerLQJ RU ZLWK civic organizations:
FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ
Equity Search Partners
Executive Recruiter
Community Service
Before joining my first commission in 2010, I was very active in
local community service including:
President of Palo Alto Babe Ruth regional baseball (5 years)
and Palo Alto Little League Manager (6 years).
Board member and Finance Chair of Urban Ministry of Palo Alto
– addressing hunger and homelessness; co-leader of merger with
InnVision for broader scope and financial sustainability, and also
served on that board after merger. (3 years)
Board member and VP on executive committee at Congregation
Beth Am, with special focus on social action for housing and
hunger on the Peninsula. (5 years)
Ed Lauing
1.What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your
experience and of specific interest to you, and why? FKDUDFWHUV
2.Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest
to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting
you can view an archiveG YLGHR IURP WKH 0LGSHQ 0HGLD &HQWHU:/,1. FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ
This week Council reviewed and approved a new housing project on
788 San Antonio for 100+ units including 15% inclusionary units.
PTC previously worked this comprehensive and complex issue and
recommended it to coucil. In some ways I feel this is the
culminaton of what PTC, staff,and Council have worked on together
for my four years on PTC. We finally found a way with the HIP to
incentivize housing projects! Morever, this proposal essentially
"creates more land" for housing by allowing it in the CS zone for
the first time. This has massive positive implications for more
new housing in the CS zone. It is a breakthrough for the city.
I was adamant in the debate that this action needs to be coupled
with a study by the city of the San Antonio transportation
corridor. Housing and transportation are always always linked.
With agressive housing growth,there will be a collatoral impact on
an already congested corridor.
I am concluding my 11th consecutive year on PA commisions. (Chair
4 times). I have worked effectively with colleagues and staff
over this period to get productive outcomes for our citizens. On
PTC I am sometimes considered a "swing" vote. That simply points
to the fact that I am not idealogical on issues. Each has to be
evaluated based on the problem to be solved and an outcome that
will work for the community in the context of the municipal code
and state law.
I am thoroughly up to speed on all the issues our city faces and
that PTC considers. I am also very familiar with the city process
for decision-making.
I love serving my community.
Ed Lauing
3.If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation
Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? FKDUDFWHUV
4.Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If
\RX KDYH H[SHULHQFH ZLWK DQ\ RI WKHVH GRFXPHQWV SOHDVH GHVFULEH WKDW H[SHULHQFH ([SHULHQFH
ZLWK WKHVH GRFXPHQWV LV QRW UHTXLUHG IRU VHOHFWLRQ FKDUDFWHUV
3DOR $OWR &RPSUHKHQVLYH 3ODQ /,1.
=RQLQJ &RGH /,1.
&LW\ &KDUWHU /,1.
&DOLIRUQLD (QYLURQPHQWDO 4XDOLW\ $FW /,1.
(O &DPLQR 5HDO 'HVLJQ *XLGHOLQHV /,1.
(O &DPLQR 5HDO 0DVWHU 3ODQ 6WXG\/,1.
$UHD 3ODQV VXFK DV WKH 6RXWK RI )RUHVW $YHQXH 62)$ , DQG ,, 3ODQV /,1.
%D\ODQGV 0DVWHU 3ODQ /,1.
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ
1. Help council find creative ways to finance and build truly affordable
housing to attract a diverse population. We need new sources of funding
beyond tax credits and multi-use buildings dominated by office space to make
the project financially viable.
We should analyze the feasibility of each housing segment - from BMR to market
rate - and create a plan to meet housing priorities as determined in the
city’s Comprehensive Plan, by regional allocations, and by Council.
But the #1 priority should be the construction of much more truly affordable
(BMR)housing. This is critical for creating more diversity in our community.
2. Work regionally on improving our local transportation system on the
peninsula for last mile connectivity and to reduce SOV trips. Part of the
execution plan should be to re-start and expand our own shuttle program.
Even in the pandemic, planning for this should start now!
I have experience with all of the above.
Ed Lauing
x
x
x
x
Employment
3UHVHQW RU /DVW (PSOR\HU
2FFXSDWLRQ
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteerLQJ RU ZLWK civic organizations:
FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ
Rubrik
Software Engineer
Mitchell Park library volunteer, worked on STEAM programs with children, tech assistance for the
nontechnical. Was going to assist on VR efforts until the pandemic hit.
Los Altos library volunteer (started since PACL was a bit slow on the volunteer uptake). Assisted
with general library assistance before shifting to ESL tutoring.
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto member, recently assisted with Pro-Cons presentations
Sierra Club - Loma Prieta member. Monitor local Climate Action Plans and land use developments
all over the Peninsula.
Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto member, assisting with the Green Sanctuary
Committee and assisting with A/V work.
Block Preparedness Coordinator in Ventura.
Also volunteer(ed) at Stanford Health, Foothill Observatory, Stanford’s Code-in-Place program,
Code for San Jose, Rapid Response Network, SURJ.
1.What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your
experience and of specific interest to you, and why? FKDUDFWHUV
2.Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest
to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting
you can view an archiveG YLGHR IURP WKH 0LGSHQ 0HGLD &HQWHU:/,1. FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ
There was a recent study session regarding the renter community in Palo Alto. As a renter, I
believe the city still has much to do to assist the community, especially when taking the Hotel
President history into account. The study session pointed out that 37.48% of our renter population
are cost-burdened, and given the patchwork of tenant protections and the current financial crisis,
that number is bound to go higher or people are unfortunately leaving this community. We should
be planning for a city that allows people to be less stressed about keeping their homes.
There was also a recent discussion of SB 743 and its shifting of the CEQA transportation metric
from Level of Service to Vehicle Miles Traveled. We need to address our system that leads people
to drive long-distances, creating environmental impacts. As such, our planning should be
prioritizing transit, whether it be focusing on our Caltrain stations as core transit hubs or creating a
bus transit network that can reduce traffic and encourage connectivity throughout the city. This,
along with better plans on bikeable, walkable infrastructure, should also assist in reducing our
internal traffic concerns; this will require better communication with PABAC among others.
The Planning and Transportation Commission does the important work of guiding what the city
should look like under the Comprehensive Plan; to retain the unique things that make up Palo Alto
but also open towards new ideas and change. For housing, we should be creating communities that
allow for a full diversity of neighbors, from the service workers that commute from long distances
to the children who would like to stay in their hometown. For transportation, we should be
creating a community that moves beyond the car-centric paradigm and instead towards a walkable,
bikable one with robust transit to allow people to get where they need to be.
PTC also has a strong environmental component, given that how people live and work have major
environmental impacts. Reducing the amount people drive and allowing the land to better house
people will bring the greenhouse gas emission reductions demanded by our own 80x30 goal, if the
desire to never see another murky-brown or bright-red sky is not enough. My work with the Sierra
Club has been to further progress in the fight for environmental improvements here, as well see
with the SCAP.
3.If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation
Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? FKDUDFWHUV
4.Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If
\RX KDYH H[SHULHQFH ZLWK DQ\ RI WKHVH GRFXPHQWV SOHDVH GHVFULEH WKDW H[SHULHQFH ([SHULHQFH
ZLWK WKHVH GRFXPHQWV LV QRW UHTXLUHG IRU VHOHFWLRQ FKDUDFWHUV
3DOR $OWR &RPSUHKHQVLYH 3ODQ /,1.
=RQLQJ &RGH /,1.
&LW\ &KDUWHU /,1.
&DOLIRUQLD (QYLURQPHQWDO 4XDOLW\ $FW /,1.
(O &DPLQR 5HDO 'HVLJQ *XLGHOLQHV /,1.
(O &DPLQR 5HDO 0DVWHU 3ODQ 6WXG\/,1.
$UHD 3ODQV VXFK DV WKH 6RXWK RI )RUHVW $YHQXH 62)$ , DQG ,, 3ODQV /,1.
%D\ODQGV 0DVWHU 3ODQ /,1.
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ
I would like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve greater public outreach to
hear all voices within the community. This can be done by focusing outreach efforts like meetings
or mailing lists to communities that are not heard very often in this space, such as renters, youth,
and disadvantaged communities. Note that this outreach is not solely towards them but should add
on our current communication efforts. Perhaps this can be tied with assistance from the Center for
Deliberative Democracy in order to produce a solution acceptable to many.
I am familiar with the City Charter, the Comprehensive Plan, and CEQA, but I will further put in
the work to digest and research all of these documents. As a former college teaching assistant, I
would like to also boil down these documents to be able to provide others with an accessible way
to understand these important documents.
Employment
3UHVHQW RU /DVW (PSOR\HU
2FFXSDWLRQ
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteerLQJ RU ZLWK civic organizations:
FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ
ADU COLLECTIVE - RESMINI ARCHITECTS, INC
ARCHITECT
Relevant community volunteer activities:
Serving on the ADU task force working with local homeowners, architects, and city staff to
implement the State ADU Guidelines.
Pro-Bono Design and Archtiectural services. I have provided extensive pro-bono work for
Palo Alto Little League on the Middlefield Ballpark redesign.
Chair of the Coastside Design Review Committee in San Mateo County. This appointment
includes ensuring new development is compatible with coastal communities. In this role, I
was able to help many proposals successfully navigate the process while finding common
ground with the surrounding community.
Guest lecturer at University of California Davis, I taught about the fundamentals of
Architecture as it applies to socially responsible and sustainable design. As a board member
of the Cuesta La Honda Guild, I helped make critical decisions and policies regarding the
water district, recreational facilities and roads for hundreds of homes.
Serving as CVC Chair and other local school positions. In our local schools including Ohlone
Elementary School & JLS I have held roles such as CVC-Co Chair, member of our Parent
Leadership Team and PiE representative. As a Co-Chair of the Core Values Committee at
Ohlone Elementary School, our primary focus is facilitating and fostering common goals
between parents and staff.
1.What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your
experience and of specific interest to you, and why? FKDUDFWHUV
2.Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest
to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting
you can view an archiveG YLGHR IURP WKH 0LGSHQ 0HGLD &HQWHU: /,1. FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ
As an Architect, I have in depth experience working with zoning regulations, building codes,
city departments and managing many complex projects, but I feel my greatest compatible
assets to the PTC would be my keen ability to listen, empathize, facilitate a team, speak
candidly and explore every option in order to find common ground.
On a personal level, our family roots go back to the 1960’s and my personal experience as a
resident, parent, renter, landlord and small business owner give me many perspectives to
draw from when considering Palo Alto's future. As a result, I feel deeply connected to Palo
Alto and my specific interest in PTC is helping shape a future for my children here as those
that have gone before us.
A couple issues that interest me before the Commission are Below Market Rate Housing,
2nd Unit Dwellings, and the status of the Comprehensive Plan. Given the space, number of
people, and the mission of Palo Alto, we are pushing the boundaries in every way.
Responsible growth will take a mindset of cooperative synergy where the whole is greater
than the sum of its parts.
Affordable housing issues are interesting to me because they are key to preserving a vibrant,
youthful and diverse community, where young families come to live, work, and invest in our
public education system.
The Comprehensive Plan interests me because it’s critical to have defined goals and
priorities to examine daily decisions through a greater lens.
Employment
3UHVHQW RU /DVW (PSOR\HU
2FFXSDWLRQ
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteerLQJ RU ZLWK civic organizations:
FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ
Haiku Tunnel LLC
Producer
Served on:
College Terrace Traffic Calming Committee
College Terrace Residential Parking Program Committee
College Terrace Residents' Association (CTRA) including
President
Development Center Customer Advisory Group (DCAG)
Comprehensive Plan Update Committee
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Committee
Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission (2016 -
present)
Doria Summa
1.What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your
experience and of specific interest to you, and why? FKDUDFWHUV
2.Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest
to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting
you can view an archiveG YLGHR IURP WKH 0LGSHQ 0HGLD &HQWHU:/,1. FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ
Recently, the PTC held a study session on renter protection.
Because nearly half of Palo Alto residents are renters, I feel
strongly that renter needs need to be considered explicitly in our
city planning. This is an important topic and I look forward to
future City Council discussions on the matter.
I have served on the Planning and Transportation Commission for
more than three years. As a commissioner, I have attended every
meeting but one, taken my time to familiarize myself with the
issues and with the details of Palo Alto's zoning laws and
related regulations. I feel strongly that the job of
commissioner is not to express or impose one's personal opinions
about the merits of particular projects, but to advise the City
Council on the extent to which projects are in accordance with
the rules and regulations established by the City of Palo Alto.
During my tenure on the PTC I have done this faithfully and
fairly. This is an important role in Palo Alto and I would like
to continue to serve in this capacity.
Doria Summa
3.If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation
Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? FKDUDFWHUV
4.Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If
\RX KDYH H[SHULHQFH ZLWK DQ\ RI WKHVH GRFXPHQWV SOHDVH GHVFULEH WKDW H[SHULHQFH ([SHULHQFH
ZLWK WKHVH GRFXPHQWV LV QRW UHTXLUHG IRU VHOHFWLRQ FKDUDFWHUV
3DOR $OWR &RPSUHKHQVLYH 3ODQ /,1.
=RQLQJ &RGH /,1.
&LW\ &KDUWHU /,1.
&DOLIRUQLD (QYLURQPHQWDO 4XDOLW\ $FW /,1.
(O &DPLQR 5HDO 'HVLJQ *XLGHOLQHV /,1.
(O &DPLQR 5HDO 0DVWHU 3ODQ 6WXG\/,1.
$UHD 3ODQV VXFK DV WKH 6RXWK RI )RUHVW $YHQXH 62)$ , DQG ,, 3ODQV /,1.
%D\ODQGV 0DVWHU 3ODQ /,1.
3DJH
3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ
Palo Alto is a great place for people to live, work and raise
their families - a goal for the PTC should be to ensure that
planning decisions are consistent with our laws and regulations
and maintain the high quality of life that we enjoy. I feel that
the best way to accomplish this is to ensure that projects are
planned in a way that is consistent with our zoning rules and
regulations.
I have broad experience with all of these documents.
Doria Summa
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
November 30, 2020
The Honorable City Council
Attention: Finance Committee
Palo Alto, California
Approval of Action Minutes for the November 09, 2020 City Council
Meeting
Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: 11-09-20 DRAFT Action Minutes (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 5
Special Meeting
November 09, 2020
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in Virtual
Teleconference at 5:01 P.M.
Participating Remotely: Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka
Absent:
Special Orders of the Day
1. Resolution 9921 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Expressing Appreciation to Jon Hospitalier Upon his Retirement.”
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member
Cormack to adopt the Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Jon Hospitalier
Upon his Retirement.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Closed Session
1A. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY- EXISTING LITIGATION
Subject: NAACP, et al. v. City of Palo Alto, United States District Court,
Northern District of California, Case No. 5:20-cv-07251-EJD (Foothills
Park)
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1).
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member
Cormack to go into Closed Session.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Council went into Closed Session at 5:25 P.M.
Council returned from Closed Session at 6:14 P.M.
Mayor Fine announced no reportable action.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 5
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/09/2020
Minutes Approval
2. Approval of Action Minutes for the October 26, 2020 City Council
Meeting.
MOTION: Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to
approve the Action Minutes for the October 26, 2020 City Council Meeting.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Consent Calendar
MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Council Member
Kniss to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-10.
3. Approval of a Memorandum of Agreement Between the San Francisco
Bay Restoration Authority and the US Army Corps of Engineers to Utilize
Resources of the Bay Restoration Regulatory Integration Team (BRRIT)
for Pre-permit Application Review and Permit Processing for the Palo
Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project at no Cost to the City.
4. Approval of Contract Number C21179815 With Daleo, Inc. in the Amount
of $6,417,876 for Gas Main Replacement Project 23 (GS-13001) in the
Evergreen, Ventura, College Terrace, Research Park, Greer Tract,
Midtown, and Charleston Terrace Neighborhoods; and Authorization for
the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Change Orders Not-
to-Exceed $641,788, for a Total Not-toExceed Amount of $7,059,644.
5. Approval of a Traffic Calming Pilot Project and Related Improvements in
the Crescent Park Neighborhood.
6. Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number S15153692 With
Woodard & Curran as Successor-in-Interest to RMC Water &
Environment for Long Range Facilities Plan Program Management
Services at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, and to Extend the
Contract Term Through December 31, 2022.
7. Approval of a $500,000 Net Zero Budget Amendment in the General
Fund for the Planning & Development Services Department’s Cost
Recovery Program for Private Development Studies.
8. Approval of Contract Number C21178949 With Avenidas, Inc. for the
Provision of Comprehensive Services to Older Adults for Five-years in
an Amount Not-to-Exceed $2,626,165.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 5
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/09/2020
9. Approval of Contract Number C21178948 With Palo Alto Community
Child Care for Five-years for Management of the City’s Child Care
Subsidy Program in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $2,660,556.
10. Policy and Services Committee Recommends Council Accept the
Proposed 2020 National Community Survey and Process.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Action Items
11. Discussion and Potential Direction on Community and Economic
Recovery Strategies Including Uplift Local Holiday Promotions, Business
Support Activities, and Testing; and A) Expanding the Definition of Retail
and Retail-like to Allow More Diverse Retail Activities; B) Temporarily or
Permanently Altering Parking Requirements for a Change of Use; C)
Temporarily Suspending the Retail Preservation Ordinance in Some
Areas of Palo Alto; and D) Continuing Closures of Portions of California
and University Avenues to Vehicular Traffic.
Council took a break at 7:40 P.M. and returned at 7:52 P.M.
MOTION: Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to
extend the closures of portions of California Avenue and University Avenue to
vehicular traffic until March 31, 2021.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to extend the closure until May 31, 2021.
MOTION AS AMENDED: Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member
Cormack to extend the closures of portions of California Avenue and University
Avenue to vehicular traffic until May 31, 2021.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-1 DuBois no
MOTION: Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to direct
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission to quickly propose
changes to enable Diverse Retail Uses in more Retail Sites, including:
A. Food, Medical, and Educational uses citywide; and
B. Financial and Professional Office uses in core commercial areas.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, Part A, “or by district”.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 4 of 5
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/09/2020
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to combine Motion Parts A and B to read,
“…educational, financial and professional office uses citywide or by district.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “…and to evaluate ways the
City can curate a strong retail mix.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “…quickly evaluate and
propose changes…”.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “Direct Staff to return to
Council with minor adjustments to the definition of what qualifies as a retail
use and adjust the thresholds for retail CUP uses in order to promote retail
activity and decrease vacancies.” (New Part B)
MOTION AS AMENDED: Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member
Kniss to:
A. Direct Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission to
quickly evaluate and propose changes to enable Diverse Retail Uses in
more retail sites, including food, medical, educational, financial and
professional office uses citywide or by district, and evaluate ways the
City can curate a strong retail mix; and
B. Direct Staff to return to Council with minor adjustments to the
definition of what qualifies as a retail use and adjust the thresholds for
retail CUP uses in order to promote retail activity and decrease
vacancies.
MOTION SPLIT FOR PURPOSE OF VOTING
MOTION AS AMENDED PART A PASSED: 7-0
MOTION AS AMENDED PART B PASSED: 4-3 DuBois, Filseth, Kou no
Council took a break at 10:12 P.M. and returned at 10:21 P.M.
MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Mayor Fine to direct
the Planning and Transportation Commission to review the geography of the
Retail Preservation Ordinance in Palo Alto.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 5 of 5
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/09/2020
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to change the Motion to state, “…Commission to
evaluate and propose the geography…”.
MOTION AS AMENDED: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Mayor
Fine to direct the Planning and Transportation Commission to evaluate and
propose the geography of the Retail Preservation Ordinance in Palo Alto.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-1 Kou no
12. Direction to Modify the California Avenue Parking Policy to Expand
Eligibility for City Garage Parking Permits, Modify the Evergreen Park
Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program to Reduce
Employee Parking in the RPP District, and Develop a Parking In-Lieu
Program for the California Avenue Business District (Continued From
October 26, 2020).
MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member
Kniss to continue this item to a date uncertain.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
13. Update and Discussion on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) Process and Direction to Staff Regarding the City's Response to
the Proposed RHNA Methodology, Including Preparation of a Formal
Comment Letter. (THIS ITEM WILL BE CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER
16, 2020)
14. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL / LEGISLATIVE. 788 San Antonio
Road [19PLN-00079]: The City Council Will Consider: 1) Adoption of a
Resolution Certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Making
CEQA Findings Including a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and
Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; 2) Adoption of a
Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan; 3) Adoption of a Zoning
Ordinance: a) Expanding the Housing Incentive Program to San Antonio
Road, and b) Amending Definition of Gross Floor Area and Amending
Retail Preservation for Housing; 4) Approval of a Tentative Map for a
Condominium Subdivision; 5) Approval of a Variance to a Special
Setback; and 6) Approval of Major Architectural Review for 102 Dwelling
Units, a 1,800 Square Foot Commercial Space and two Basement Levels
of Parking. (STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO
NOVEMBER 16, 2020)
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:38 A.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11487)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/30/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Contract Approval for Downtown Cleaning Services
Title: Approval of a Three-Year Contract with Downtown Streets, Inc., For a
Total Amount Not to Exceed $323,244 for Maintenance Services for the City's
Five Downtown Parking Garages, Downtown Sidewalks and Alleys, and
Provide Outreach Case Management Services to the Downtown Core with
the Intent of Linking Homeless Individuals to Community and Housing
Services
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute Contract No. C21179861 with Downtown Streets Team, Inc., to provide cleaning
services and homeless case management services in the Downtown Business District, for a term
of three years and a total amount not to exceed $323,244.
Background
The Public Works Department’s Public Services Division is responsible for maintaining a safe
and clean Downtown Business District. The Downtown Streets Team, Inc. (DST), was founded by
the Palo Alto Business Improvement District (BID) to reduce panhandling, provide re-entry skills
to the homeless, and provide cleaning services to downtown. DST team members service the
Downtown Business District by reducing trash from full garbage containers, providing litter
removal for sidewalks, alleyways, and garages, reporting vehicles and/or activities of concern to
the proper authorities, and providing peer-to-peer outreach.
Discussion
Staff recommends Council approve a three-year contract with Downtown Streets Team, Inc., to
allow for the continuation of downtown cleaning services from November 30, 2020 through
November 29, 2023 (Attachment A). The City has partnered with DST since 2006 and as a result,
homelessness-related issues have decreased due to the presence of DST participants in the
garages. In 2010 discussions with downtown stakeholders, which included BID and Palo Alto
Downtown Professional and Business Association, a combination of services that would raise
City of Palo Alto Page 2
the standards of cleanliness in the area was requested. The enhanced services included
reducing trash from overflowing garbage receptacles, reporting graffiti and vandalism, litter
removal in the alleyways and in the five parking structures (S & L, R, J, Q and Civic Center), and
providing a roving patrol every 30 minutes for homeless individuals, vehicles and/or activities of
concern, and safety hazards. The litter control provided by DST also assists the City in avoiding
storm water compliance related issues in the Downtown area.
In addition to providing cleaning services, DST strives to reduce homelessness by encouraging
participants to take an active role in their recovery, model positive behavior, and create long-
term solutions for their peers. Participants can work with a case manager to obtain housing
and other life support credits. Each participant is evaluated on his/her individual performance
and recognized for their accomplishments. The skills learned through this program can be used
to seek further employment.
The City has contracted with DST since 2006 and since DST continues to be the only vendor that
uses a peer-to-peer model to provide outreach to homeless individuals while also providing
cleaning services, this contract met the requirements for a sole source exemption from
solicitation based on Municipal Code section 2.30.360(d). Staff recognizes, however, that the
use of a sole source exemption can raise other questions regarding organizational stability and
internal controls. As such, staff will refer this relationship to the City’s new independent
auditor for consideration of an appropriately-scoped audit.
This contract is on the City’s general services 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
The annual cost of this contract has decreased from $136,872 to $107,748 from the previous
contract with Downtown Streets Team, Inc., after Community Services Department removed
services provided for Lytton Plaza, Old Community Garden, Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields,
and Cogswell Plaza, which are now provided by another vendor (with a traditional business
model). Funding for this contract is available in the Fiscal Year 2021 University Avenue Parking
District Fund. The annual budget for the subsequent contract years is shown in the table
below, with funding for each subsequent year to be addressed and recommended to Council
during the Fiscal Year 2022 and 2023 budget development processes.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Table1: Annual and Total Not-to-Exceed Contract Costs
Year Total Not to Exceed Amount
University Avenue Parking Permit Fund - FY21
$107,748
University Avenue Parking Permit Fund - FY22
(Subject to annual appropriation of funds) $107,748
University Avenue Parking Permit Fund - FY23
(Subject to annual appropriation of funds) $107,748
Total for three years $323,244
Stakeholder Engagement
Staff discusses the Downtown Streets Team’s work during monthly Palo Alto Downtown
Professional and Business Association meetings. The group supports a continued partnership
between the City and Downtown Streets Team.
Environmental Review
The recommended action is CEQA-exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility of a significant effect on the environment.
Attachments:
• Attachment A - General Services Contract No. C21179861 with Downtown Streets Team
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 1 Rev. March 29, 2018
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C21179861
GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on the 30th day of November, 2020 by and
between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”),
and DOWNTOWN STREETS TEAM, INC., a California public benefit non-profit corporation,
located at 1671 The Alameda, Suite 306, San Jose, CA 95126, Telephone Number: (650)
305-1174 (“CONTRACTOR”). In consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
1.SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall provide or furnish the services (the “Services”)
described in the Scope of Services, attached at Exhibit A.
2.EXHIBITS. The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this
Agreement:
“A” - Scope of Services
“B” - Schedule of Performance
“C” – Schedule of Fees
“D” - Insurance Requirements
CONTRACT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL INDICATED EXHIBITS ARE ATTACHED.
3.TERM.
The term of this Agreement is from November 30, 2020 to November 29, 2023
inclusive, subject to the provisions of Sections R and W of the General Terms and
Conditions.
4.SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. CONTRACTOR shall complete the Services within
the term of this Agreement in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon
the circumstances and direction communicated to CONTRACTOR, and if
applicable, in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Schedule of
Performance, attached at Exhibit B. Time is of the essence in this Agreement.
5.COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM. CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees
to accept as not-to-exceed compensation for the full performance of the Services
and reimbursable expenses, if any:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4322568C-D7E8-4F5B-9E4B-8A118D81A2F8
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 2 Rev. March 29, 2018
The total maximum lump sum compensation of dollars ($ );
OR
The sum of dollars ($ ) per hour, not to exceed a total
maximum compensation amount of dollars ($ ); OR
A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth at Exhibit
C, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of Three Hundred
Twenty-Three Thousand, Two Hundred and Forty-Four dollars
($323,244.00).
CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not to exceed
the total maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services
performed by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a total exceeding
the maximum amount of compensation set forth above for performance of the
Services shall be at no cost to CITY.
CITY has set aside the sum of dollars ($ ) for Additional
Services. CONTRACTOR shall provide Additional Services only by
advanced, written authorization from the City Manager or designee.
CONTRACTOR, at the CITY’s request, shall submit a detailed written
proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of
effort, and CONTRACTOR’s proposed maximum compensation, including
reimbursable expense, for such services. Compensation shall be based on
the hourly rates set forth above or in Exhibit C (whichever is applicable), or
if such rates are not applicable, a negotiated lump sum. CITY shall not
authorize and CONTRACTOR shall not perform any Additional Services for
which payment would exceed the amount set forth above for Additional
Services. Payment for Additional Services is subject to all requirements and
restrictions in this Agreement.
6.COMPENSATION DURING ADDITIONAL TERMS.
CONTRACTOR’S compensation rates for each additional term shall be the
same as the original term; OR
CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be adjusted effective on the
commencement of each Additional Term. The lump sum compensation
amount, hourly rates, or fees, whichever is applicable as set forth in section
5 above, shall be adjusted by a percentage equal to the change in the
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the
San Francisco-Oakland- San Jose area, published by the United States
Department of Labor Statistics (CPI) which is published most immediately
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4322568C-D7E8-4F5B-9E4B-8A118D81A2F8
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 3 Rev. March 29, 2018
preceding the commencement of the applicable Additional Term, which
shall be compared with the CPI published most immediately preceding the
commencement date of the then expiring term. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, in no event shall CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates be
increased by an amount exceeding five percent of the rates effective
during the immediately preceding term. Any adjustment to
CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be reflected in a written
amendment to this Agreement.
7.CLAIMS PROCEDURE FOR “9204 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS”. For purposes of
this Section 7, a “9204 Public Works Project” means the erection, construction,
alteration, repair, or improvement of any public structure, building, road, or
other public improvement of any kind. Public Contract Code Section 9204
mandates certain claims procedures for Public Works Projects, which are set
forth in “Appendix __ Claims for Public Contract Code Section 9204 Public Works
Projects”.
This project is a 9204 Public Works Project and is required to comply with
the claims procedures set forth in Appendix __, attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
OR
This project is not a 9204 Public Works Project.
8.INVOICING. Contractor shall send all invoices to CITY, Attention: Project Manager.
The Project Manager is: Kaela White, Dept.: Public Works, Telephone: (650) 496-
5945. Invoices shall be submitted in arrears for Services performed. Invoices shall
not be submitted more frequently than monthly. Invoices shall provide a detailed
statement of Services performed during the invoice period and are subject to
verification by CITY. CITY shall pay the undisputed amount of invoices within 30
days of receipt.
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. ACCEPTANCE. CONTRACTOR accepts and agrees to all terms and conditions of
this Agreement. This Agreement includes and is limited to the terms and
conditions set forth in sections 1 through 8 above, these general terms and
conditions and the attached exhibits.
B. QUALIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it has the expertise
and qualifications to complete the services described in Section 1 of this
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4322568C-D7E8-4F5B-9E4B-8A118D81A2F8
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 4 Rev. March 29, 2018
Agreement, entitled “SERVICES,” and that every individual charged with the
performance of the services under this Agreement has sufficient skill and
experience and is duly licensed or certified, to the extent such licensing or
certification is required by law, to perform the Services. CITY expressly relies on
CONTRACTOR’s representations regarding its skills, knowledge, and certifications.
CONTRACTOR shall perform all work in accordance with generally accepted
business practices and performance standards of the industry, including all
federal, state, and local operation and safety regulations.
C. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in the
performance of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR and any person employed by
CONTRACTOR shall at all times be considered an independent CONTRACTOR and
not an agent or employee of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for
employing or engaging all persons necessary to complete the work required under
this Agreement.
D. SUBCONTRACTORS. CONTRACTOR may not use subcontractors to perform any
Services under this Agreement unless CONTRACTOR obtains prior written consent
of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for directing the work of
approved subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors.
E. TAXES AND CHARGES. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for payment of all taxes,
fees, contributions or charges applicable to the conduct of CONTRACTOR’s
business.
F. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall in the performance of the Services
comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations,
and orders.
G. PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE. CONTRACTOR shall comply with all
requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum
Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee
otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at 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.
H. DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole
expense, repair in kind, or as the City Manager or designee shall direct, any
damage to public or private property that occurs in connection with
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4322568C-D7E8-4F5B-9E4B-8A118D81A2F8
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 5 Rev. March 29, 2018
CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services. CITY may decline to approve and
may withhold payment in whole or in part to such extent as may be necessary to
protect CITY from loss because of defective work not remedied or other damage
to the CITY occurring in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the
Services. CITY shall submit written documentation in support of such withholding
upon CONTRACTOR’s request. When the grounds described above are removed,
payment shall be made for amounts withheld because of them.
I. WARRANTIES. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all services provided under
this Agreement shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner in
accordance with generally accepted business practices and performance
standards of the industry and the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR
expressly warrants that all materials, goods and equipment provided by
CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall be fit for the particular purpose
intended, shall be free from defects, and shall conform to the requirements of this
Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to promptly replace or correct any material or
service not in compliance with these warranties, including incomplete, inaccurate,
or defective material or service, at no further cost to CITY. The warranties set
forth in this section shall be in effect for a period of one year from completion of
the Services and shall survive the completion of the Services or termination of this
Agreement.
J. MONITORING OF SERVICES. CITY may monitor the Services performed under this
Agreement to determine whether CONTRACTOR’s work is completed in a
satisfactory manner and complies with the provisions of this Agreement.
K. CITY’S PROPERTY. Any reports, information, data or other material (including
copyright interests) developed, collected, assembled, prepared, or caused to be
prepared under this Agreement will become the property of CITY without
restriction or limitation upon their use and will not be made available to any
individual or organization by CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors, if any, without
the prior written approval of the City Manager.
L. AUDITS. CONTRACTOR agrees to permit CITY and its authorized representatives
to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three
(3) years from the date of final payment, CONTRACTOR’s records pertaining to
matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain accurate
books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for
at least three (3) following the terms of this Agreement.
M. NO IMPLIED WAIVER. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial
acceptance by CITY shall operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights
under this Agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4322568C-D7E8-4F5B-9E4B-8A118D81A2F8
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 6 Rev. March 29, 2018
N. INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost, shall purchase and maintain in full
force during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described at
Exhibit D. Insurance must be provided by companies with a Best’s Key Rating of A-
:VII or higher and which are otherwise acceptable to CITY’s Risk Manager. The Risk
Manager must approve deductibles and self-insured retentions. In addition, all
policies, endorsements, certificates and/or binders are subject to approval by the
Risk Manager as to form and content. CONTRACTOR shall obtain a policy
endorsement naming the City of Palo Alto as an additional insured under any
general liability or automobile policy. CONTRACTOR shall obtain an endorsement
stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or
materially reduced in coverage or limits until after providing 30 days prior written
notice of the cancellation or modification to the Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall
provide certificates of such policies or other evidence of coverage satisfactory to
the Risk Manager, together with the required endorsements and evidence of
payment of premiums, to CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement
and shall throughout the term of this Agreement provide current certificates
evidencing the required insurance coverages and endorsements to the Risk
Manager. CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors as insured under its
policies or shall obtain and provide to CITY separate certificates and endorsements
for each subcontractor that meet all the requirements of this section. The
procuring of such required policies of insurance shall not operate to limit
CONTRACTOR’s liability or obligation to indemnify CITY under this Agreement.
O. HOLD HARMLESS. To the fullest extent permitted by law and without limitation
by the provisions of section N relating to insurance, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify,
defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and
agents from and against any and all demands, claims, injuries, losses, or liabilities
of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any
other loss and including without limitation all damages, penalties, fines and
judgments, associated investigation and administrative expenses and defense
costs, including, but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees, courts costs and
costs of alternative dispute resolution), arising out of, or resulting in any way from
or in connection with the performance of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR’s
obligations under this Section apply regardless of whether or not a liability is
caused or contributed to by any negligent (passive or active) act or omission of
CITY, except that CONTRACTOR shall not be obligated to indemnify for liability
arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY. The acceptance of
the Services by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification.
The provisions of this Section survive the completion of the Services or
termination of this Agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4322568C-D7E8-4F5B-9E4B-8A118D81A2F8
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 7 Rev. March 29, 2018
P. NON-DISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510,
CONTRACTOR certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color,
gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation,
housing status, 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 agrees to meet all
requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
Q. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement,
certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of Califor-
nia which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers'
compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of
that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable,
before commencing and during the performance of the Services.
R. TERMINATION. The City Manager may terminate this Agreement without cause
by giving ten (10) days’ prior written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR. If
CONTRACTOR fails to perform any of its material obligations under this
Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, the City Manager
may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice of termination.
Upon receipt of such notice of termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately
discontinue performance. CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR for services satisfactorily
performed up to the effective date of termination. If the termination is for cause,
CITY may deduct from such payment the amount of actual damage, if any,
sustained by CITY due to CONTRACTOR’s failure to perform its material obligations
under this Agreement. Upon termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately deliver
to the City Manager any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings,
computations, and other material or products, whether or not completed,
prepared by CONTRACTOR or given to CONTRACTOR, in connection with this
Agreement. Such materials shall become the property of CITY.
S. ASSIGNMENTS/CHANGES. This Agreement binds the parties and their successors
and assigns to all covenants of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be
assigned or transferred without the prior written consent of CITY. No
amendments, changes or variations of any kind are authorized without the written
consent of CITY.
T. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In accepting this Agreement, CONTRACTOR covenants
that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or
indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with
the performance of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4322568C-D7E8-4F5B-9E4B-8A118D81A2F8
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 8 Rev. March 29, 2018
performance of this Agreement, it will not employ any person having such an
interest. CONTRACTOR certifies that no CITY officer, employee, or authorized
representative has any financial interest in the business of CONTRACTOR and that
no person associated with CONTRACTOR has any interest, direct or indirect, which
could conflict with the faithful performance of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR
agrees to advise CITY if any conflict arises.
U. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed and interpreted by the laws
of the State of California.
V. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including all exhibits, represents the entire
agreement between the parties with respect to the services that may be the
subject of this Agreement. Any variance in the exhibits does not affect the validity
of the Agreement and the Agreement itself controls over any conflicting provisions
in the exhibits. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, representations,
statements, negotiations and undertakings whether oral or written.
W. NON-APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the
Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement
will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event
that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of
the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This Section
shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term,
condition, or provision of this Agreement.
X. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE
REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR shall comply with CITY’s Environmentally
Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Division,
which are incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time.
CONTRACTOR shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal
requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include
first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or
composting waste. In particular, CONTRACTOR shall comply with the following
zero waste requirements:
•All printed materials provided by CONTRACTOR to CITY generated from a
personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals,
quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-
sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content
paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any
submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a
minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with
vegetable based inks.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4322568C-D7E8-4F5B-9E4B-8A118D81A2F8
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 9 Rev. March 29, 2018
•Goods purchased by Contractor on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in
accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including, but not
limited to, Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products
and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s
office.
•Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONTRACTOR, at no
additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONTRACTOR shall provide
documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets
are not being disposed.
Y. AUTHORITY. The individual(s) executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties
represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on
behalf of their respective legal entities.
Z. PREVAILING WAGES
This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. CONTRACTOR is not required to
pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in
accordance with SB 7, if the Agreement is not a public works contract, if
Agreement does not include a public works construction project of more than
$25,000, or the Agreement does not include a public works alteration, demolition,
repair, or maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) project of more than
$15,000.
OR
Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter
3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and
Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section
1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained
the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and
overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker
needed to execute the Agreement for this Project from the Director of the
Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained
at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide
a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay
the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with
the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776,
1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages.
AA. DIR REGISTRATION. In regard to any public work construction, alteration,
demolition, repair or maintenance work, CITY will not accept a bid proposal from
or enter into this Agreement with CONTRACTOR without proof that
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4322568C-D7E8-4F5B-9E4B-8A118D81A2F8
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 10 Rev. March 29, 2018
CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California
Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to
limited exceptions. City requires CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to
comply with the requirements of SB 854.
CITY provides notice to CONTRACTOR of the requirements of California Labor
Code section 1771.1(a), which reads:
“A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid
proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract
Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined
in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work
pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an
unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of
the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public
Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work
pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the Agreement is awarded.”
CITY gives notice to CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors that
CONTRACTOR is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or
regulation and CONTRACTOR is subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring and
enforcement by DIR.
CITY requires CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to comply with the
requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including:
Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security
number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day
and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice,
worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, CONTRACTOR and its
listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project.
The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and
made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of
CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors, respectively.
At the request of CITY, acting by its project manager, 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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4322568C-D7E8-4F5B-9E4B-8A118D81A2F8
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 11 Rev. March 29, 2018
[For state- and federally-funded projects] CITY requests CONTRACTOR
and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records to the
project manager at the end of each week during the Project.
If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within
the 10-day period, then CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors shall be
subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or
portion thereof, for each worker, and CITY shall withhold the sum total of
penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to CONTRACTOR.
Inform the project manager of the location of CONTRACTOR’s and its listed
subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the
commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager
within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records.
BB. CONTRACT TERMS. All unchecked boxes do not apply to this Agreement. In the
case of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto
or CONTRACTOR’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the case of
any conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONTRACTOR’s proposal, the
exhibits shall control.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this Agreement on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO DOWNTOWN STREETS TEAM, INC
______________________________ By________________________________________ City Manager or Designee Name _____________________________________
Title_______________________________________
Approved as to form:
__________________________ City Attorney or Designee
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4322568C-D7E8-4F5B-9E4B-8A118D81A2F8
CEO
Eileen Richardson
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 12 Rev. March 29, 2018
EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.SERVICES
Task 1 – Street Cleaning Services CONTRACTOR shall perform Street Cleaning Services, which includes cleaning of the City’s five parking garages (Bryant/Lytton Garage; High/Alma South Garage; High/Alma
North Garage; Webster/Cowper Garage; and the Civic Center Garage), sidewalks, and alleyways in the Downtown Palo Alto area. These services shall be performed according to the attached schedule (Exhibit B) and shall be performed at a minimum by a two-person crew. The level of service provided shall include, but not be limited to, picking up litter,
reducing trash from overflowing trash receptacles along University Avenue, reporting
suspicious persons and/or vehicles to the proper authorities, reporting safety hazards such as raised sidewalks and lights that are out, and reporting cases of vandalism and graffiti. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for providing all training, labor and equipment required to perform the tasks as specified in the contract, including the appropriate training and
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) required for the collection of syringes (sharps). The CITY will provide sharp waste containers and dispose of those containers once filled. It is the responsibility of the CONTRACTOR to inform the Project Manager when sharp waste containers are full and need to be replaced and disposed. CONTRACTOR shall also, through the use of their employees, encourage other homeless individuals to explore other options,
and to explain all of the services that are available to homeless individuals. CONTRACTOR shall send teams daily to Palo Alto City Hall to conduct outreach, pick up trash, and ensure that no individuals are violating Palo Alto City Policy 4-07/MGR – Conduct in City Facilities.
The Downtown Streets Team (DST) Project Manager shall also attend quarterly meetings with the City’s Project Manager. CONTRACTOR shall provide a monthly report to Project Manager that reports data on the following:
•Number of homeless individuals found in the garages,
•Total number of interactions with homeless individuals,
•Number of follow ups with homeless individuals,
•Number of homeless individuals who report that they do not want to engage in
any services offered,
•And other pertinent information that conveys the barriers that homelessindividuals face in accessing, following up with and obtaining needed services.
The DST Project Manager shall also attend monthly meetings with the Palo Alto Downtown
Business and Professional Association (PADBPA) to act as a liaison between the business owners who have a vested interest in the services being provided, city staff who manage the contract, and the Downtown Streets Team who run the program. The DST Project Manager shall make a brief presentation at the monthly PADBPA meetings to relay what efforts have
been undertaken since the last meeting.
CONTRACTOR shall be compliant to all State and County regulations related to COVID-19, such as wearing a mask and performing social distancing.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4322568C-D7E8-4F5B-9E4B-8A118D81A2F8
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 13 Rev. March 29, 2018
EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONTRACTOR shall not perform services in cases of inclement weather (as determined by City staff and the Downtown Streets Team Project Manager) or during observed City holidays. The schedule and tasks can be modified during the term of the contract based on operational needs through a written mutual agreement between the CITY and the CONTRACTOR.
DAY TIME ACTIVITIES Monday 7-9 AM 9 AM 9-11 AM 11-11:15 AM 11:15 AM -12:30 PM 12:30-1:30 PM 1:30 PM 1:30-2 PM 2-3 PM 3-3:15 PM 3:15-5:15 PM 5:15 PM
Garage cleaning and outreach Shift change box Alleyways (Downtown North and South) Break at box and shift change University Ave Downtown South/City Hall Shift changes at box Downtown North Garage cleaning and outreach Break Garage cleaning and outreach Dismissal at box
Tuesday 7-9 AM 9 AM 9-11 AM 11-11:15 AM 11:15 AM -12:30 PM 12:30-1:30 PM 1:30 PM 1:30-2 PM 2-3 PM 3-3:15 PM 3:15-5:15 PM 5:15 PM
Garage cleaning and outreach Shift change box Alleyways (Downtown North and South) Break at box and shift change University Ave Downtown South/City Hall Shift changes at box Downtown North Garage cleaning and outreach Break Garage cleaning and outreach Dismissal at box
Wednesday 7-9 AM 9 AM 9-11 AM 11-11:15 AM 11:15 AM -12:30 PM 12:30-1:30 PM 1:30 PM 1:30-2 PM 2-3 PM 3-3:15 PM 3:15-5:15 PM 5:15 PM
Garage cleaning and outreach Shift change box Alleyways (Downtown North and South) Break at box and shift change University Ave Downtown South/City Hall Shift changes at box Downtown North Garage cleaning and outreach Break Garage cleaning and outreach Dismissal at box
Thursday 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9 AM
Garage cleaning and outreach Downtown South/City Hall and Alleyways Shift changes at box Team 1 Team 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4322568C-D7E8-4F5B-9E4B-8A118D81A2F8
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 14 Rev. March 29, 2018
9-10 AM
10-10:15 AM 10:15-11:15 AM
11:30 AM
Downtown North and Alleyways University Ave
Break at box
Downtown North and Alleyways University Ave
Dismissal at box
Friday 7-9 AM 9 AM 9:30-11 AM 11-11:15 AM 11:15 AM -12:30 PM 12:30-1 PM 1 PM 1-2 PM 2-3 PM 3-3:15 PM 3:15-5:15 PM 5:15 PM
Garage cleaning and outreach Break at box and shift change Alleyways (Downtown North and South) Break at box and shift change University Ave Downtown South/City Hall Break Downtown North Garage cleaning and outreach Break Garage cleaning and outreach Dismissal at box
Saturday 7-8 AM 8 AM 8-9 AM 9-11:30 AM 11:30 AM -12:30 PM 12:30-12:45 PM 12:45-2 PM 2 PM
Garage cleaning and outreach Break at box Downtown South/City Hall University Ave Downtown North Break Garage cleaning and outreach Dismissal at box
Sunday 7-8 AM 8 AM 8-9 AM 9-11:30 AM 11:30 AM-12:30 PM 12:30-12:45 PM 12:45-2 PM 2 PM
Garage cleaning and outreach Break at box Downtown South/City Hall University Ave Downtown North Break Garage cleaning and outreach Dismissal at box
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4322568C-D7E8-4F5B-9E4B-8A118D81A2F8
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 15 Rev. March 29, 2018
EXHIBIT C SCHEDULE OF FEES
CONTRACTOR shall perform the tasks as described and budgeted below. CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for the Services including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed the amounts set forth in Sections 5 and 6 of the Agreement. Any services provided or hours worked for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to CITY.
CONTRACTOR shall provide monthly detailed invoices that identify the tasks that were completed. Examples of such requests are as the following:
•Quantify the amount of trash that is being removed weekly.
•Quantity of syringes (sharps) that are removed.
•Dates and locations that were serviced (if above schedule is altered).
•Number of individuals that are on site each week.
DESCRIPTION OF TASK NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION PER TASK
Task 1 $8,979.00 per month (Street Cleaning Services)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4322568C-D7E8-4F5B-9E4B-8A118D81A2F8
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 16 Rev. March 29, 2018
EXHIBIT D INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW:
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS
EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION
YES EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY
YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY
BODILY INJURY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED.
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED
BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON
- EACH
OCCURRENCE
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTYDAMAGE,COMBINED
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, NO INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE AT THE FOLLOWING URL: https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=25569
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4322568C-D7E8-4F5B-9E4B-8A118D81A2F8
City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 17 Rev. March 29, 2018
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
B. CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASONOTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALLPROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THEEFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
2. THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST
A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OFCANCELLATION.
Vendors are required to file their evidence of insurance and any other related notices with the City of Palo Alto at the following URL:
https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=25569
OR
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/asd/planet_bids_how_to.asp
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4322568C-D7E8-4F5B-9E4B-8A118D81A2F8
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11493)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/30/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: TMA Funding Agreement
Title: Approval of a Funding Agreement With the Palo Alto Transportation
Management Association to Provide $350,000 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 and
Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendments to Determine Funding
Subject to Council Appropriation in FY 2022 and FY 2023 to Reduce Single-
occupancy Vehicle Trips to Palo Alto
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Transportation Department
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute the attached three-year Funding Agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Palo
Alto and the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA), providing $350,000 in
funding for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) for transportation demand management services on the
same terms as the prior funding agreement, but extending the geographic area for the use of
City funds to include the California Avenue Business District in addition to Downtown. Staff also
recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to execute amendments to this
Agreement to incorporate any funding appropriated by Council for future fiscal years.
Executive Summary
On May 26, 2020, as part of the annual budget process, Council approved $453,000 in FY21
funding for the TMA and allowed the TMA to use City funds in the California Avenue area for its
programs to reduce single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips to and from Palo Alto. Due to reduced
demand for TMA services caused by the ongoing pandemic, the TMA is requesting $350,000 for
FY21 (See Attachment B). Compared to the FY 2020 funding amount, the new $350,000 request
reflects a 53% reduction from the prior annual allocation of $750,000. The proposed Funding
Agreement (Attachment A) reflects the reduction and allows funding to be provided in the next
two fiscal years subject to Council appropriations.
Background
Following direction from the City Council in 2013, staff worked to develop transportation
demand management (TDM) strategies to encourage alternatives to solo driving as part of a
multi-faceted effort to address traffic and parking concerns in the downtown area and the city
City of Palo Alto Page 2
at-large. The development of a TMA for Palo Alto was a key component of this approach, which
the City initially funded through a $499,880 contract with consultants Moore Iacofano
Goltsman, Inc.1 After the TMA was formed in January 2016, this contract continued to fund the
sub-consultant services of the TMA’s part-time executive director. The TMA hired permanent
part-time staff in April 2018.
In June 2016, Council authorized the City Manager to formalize the provision of additional City
funding for TMA programs by executing a funding agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the
Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF), and the Palo Alto TMA.2 Because the TMA was not
yet an approved Section 501(c)(3) organization (its application was pending with the Internal
Revenue Service), the TMA operated as a program of SVCF. SVCF held and administered a fund
restricted to specific charitable purposes and had legal discretion and control over the
restricted account. When the TMA received its formal 501(c)(3) status, SVCF ceased to be the
organization’s program sponsor and to act as the TMA’s fiscal agent.
The 2016 funding agreement approved by Council provided $100,000 to the TMA for programs
to reduce single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) commute trips to and from downtown Palo Alto.
Under a subsequent amendment, the City provided an additional $100,000 to support the
TMA’s work in 2017. The City Council adopted a FY18 budget that included $480,000 for the
Palo Alto TMA to continue to support its efforts to reduce SOV commute trips using a variety of
strategies. An amended and restated agreement signed in 2017 incorporated this approved
funding, extended the agreement’s term, and set forth the parties’ obligations over the
remaining years. This 2017 funding agreement delegated authority to the City Manager to
amend the agreement to add funding if the Council chose to budget additional funds for future
fiscal years and to remove the SVCF as a party once the TMA received IRS section 501(c)(3)
nonprofit status and no longer required SCVF to act as the TMA’s fiscal agent. In December
2018, the agreement was amended to incorporate additional funds allocated for FY19 and to
reflect the fact that the SVCF no longer serves as the financial agent for the TMA now that the
TMA is a non-profit.
In April 2019, the Council Finance Committee received a presentation from the TMA and
provided feedback on the TMA Strategic Plan.3 On May 15, 2019, the Finance Committee
recommended an increase in employee parking permit rates to provide the TMA additional
funding of up to $180,000, for a total of $660,000 annually. On June 17, 2019, the Council
voted to increase the FY20 budget recommendation by $90,000 from the University Avenue
Parking Permit Fund for a total amount of $750,000. In July 2019, the agreement was amended
to reflect the Council’s appropriation of $750,000 for FY20. That agreement expired on June
30, 2020.
1 Report #4766: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43344
2 Report #6823: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52687
3 Report #10198: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70194,
Presentation: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=63435.61&BlobID=70664
City of Palo Alto Page 3
An informational report transmitted to Council on May 26, 2020, included the 2019 TMA
Annual Report, comprising commute program data, results and analysis of the Fall 2019
Downtown Commute Survey, and a summary of the 2020 Strategic Business Plan4. These
reports are required under the TMA’s funding agreement with the City. In the past year, the
TMA has used City funds to purchase transit passes for low-income workers, supporting their
use of transit, and to subsidize other programs such as carpooling and ride-share aimed at
increasing all downtown commuters’ use of alternative modes of transportation.
The 2019 annual report also shares the outcomes of a privately-funded $100,000 pilot program
that demonstrated the demand for the TMA’s programs in the California Avenue Business
District from March to October 2019. The successful program ran for eight months,
encompassed 20 businesses, and quickly surpassed its goal of distributing 50 transit passes per
month during its second month. The TMA Strategic Plan summary discusses growth areas for
the organization including expansion to the California Avenue Business District pending City
funding availability.
In May 2020, the Council considered its annual budget during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this
context which also aligned with a lower funding request by the TMA in May, the Council voted
to appropriate a reduced funding level of $453,000 for the TMA in FY21 and approved the use
of City funds for the TMA’s programs in the California Avenue Business District as well as the
Downtown.5 That funding will be provided under the new proposed funding agreement but has
now been reduced further based on a November 2020 TMA request.
Discussion
This proposed funding agreement reflects the newly reduced budget request by the TMA for
FY21 and would allow future amendments for additional funds if appropriated by Council. The
agreement incorporates the provisions of the prior funding agreement, with a change to allow
the use of City funds in the California Avenue Business District, as already approved by Council.
City funding was previously required to be used only for programs to reduce single-occupancy
vehicle trips to the Downtown area.
A recent letter from the TMA in November of 2020 (Attachment B) further lowered the request
for City financial support to $350,000 based on the TMA’s forecast of demand for its services
during this public health emergency. Due to the shelter-in-place public health order, the last
quarter of the prior fiscal year (April through June 2020) saw an 87% drop in demand for TMA
transit fare subsidies and carpool app subsidies. During this time, VTA, SamTrans, and the AC
Transit Dumbarton Express stopped collecting fares on their services, and the City suspended
parking enforcement in the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts. However, the
first quarter of the fiscal year shows increasing demand for TMA services as fare collection
resumed by VTA on August 1, SamTrans on August 16, and AC Transit on October 19. Since fare
4 Report #11307: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=64175.41&BlobID=76770
5 Report #11376: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76803,
Action Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=48631.05&BlobID=77870
City of Palo Alto Page 4
collection resumed, the TMA has seen demand for its services rise by 50%. October transit
subsidy demand equaled 29% of the pre-pandemic peak.
February brought peak demand for TMA activity in Calendar Year 2020 with 387 cars removed
from Downtown due TMA programs. The TMA estimates that 82 cars were removed from the
Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts during September, and cars removed per
month is growing by 12 cars per month. The direct subsidy cost per car removed remains stable
at $135 per car per month. A new metric, “total monthly expense/cars removed,” illustrates the
impact of fixed costs apportioned over lower demand: $174 for January-March and $343 for
July-September. The higher cost per car removed reflects the fixed costs to run TMA programs
with expanded outreach due to the pandemic and the labor involved in setting up the new
grant-supported bicycle commute program, which is discussed below. Demand for TMA
services are expected to follow the public health orders, for example, more permissive public
health orders allowing additional retail and business activity are likely to see a rise in demand
for TMA services. Demand for these programs is also impacted by the City resuming residential
permit and commercial parking restrictions. Due to the fixed costs to run programs, cost per car
removed by TMA programs will decrease with additional demand for TMA services.
The TMA’s program portfolio continues to support essential workers in Palo Alto, and the
organization is adding a bicycle incentive program to support business recovery and reopening
in the Downtown and California Ave Business Districts. The TMA has reached out to all previous
program participants by text or email and has personally engaged with 25 additional businesses
in door-to-door outreach, raising participation rates. Providing free transit passes for low-
income workers in Downtown remains a key program, and this year, the program extends to
the California Avenue Business District on a long-term basis, reaching workers in an area with
demonstrated demand for the program. In addition, those working in the California Avenue
area will be eligible for carpool app subsidies as do those working in the Downtown. Data from
the TMA’s annual transportation mode share survey will help the City understand the commute
impact of the pandemic on these two areas of town.
This year, the TMA will launch a new bicycle commute incentive program for Downtown and
the California Avenue District that will leverage public funds and incentives to local businesses.
With in-kind contributions, the total project budget is $339,000 for software development,
merchant outreach, fintech point-of-sale vendor outreach, and other grant activities. The
program recently received a $100,000 Federal Transportation Research Board Transit IDEA
grant, and approximately $50,000 in city funds will support the first year of the program in the
form of subsidies to new bicycle commuters. Given the potential for bus and train commuters
to shy away from transit upon reopening, the launch of the bike commute program will give
business district employers a physically-distanced option to offer that does not add to local
congestion or impact parking demand.
In addition to the grant-funded bicycle program, the TMA continues to work toward Council’s
desire for the organization to develop more non-City funded programs. To broaden its reach
City of Palo Alto Page 5
and revenue sources, the TMA has met with East Palo Alto and other cities about potential
collaborations on TDM programs.
Policy Implications
The funding agreement between the City and the TMA requires that the TMA strategic plan be
regularly updated. In addition, the transportation demand management (TDM) services
provided by the TMA are consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies and
programs:
Policy T-1.1 Take a comprehensive approach to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by
involving those who live, work and shop in Palo Alto in developing strategies that make it easier
and more convenient not to drive.
Policy T-1.2 Collaborate with Palo Alto employers and business owners to develop, implement
and expand comprehensive programs like the TMA to reduce single-occupant vehicle commute
trips, including through incentives.
Program T1.2.1 Create a long-term education program to change the travel habits of residents,
visitors, shoppers and workers by informing them about transportation alternatives, incentives
and impacts. Work with the PAUSD and with other public and private interests, such as the
Chamber of Commerce and Commuter Wallet partners, to develop and implement this
program.
Program T1.2.4 Evaluate the performance of pilot programs implemented by the Palo Alto
Transportation Management Association and pursue expansion from Downtown to California
Avenue and other areas of the city when appropriate.
Program T1.2.6 Pursue full participation of Palo Alto employers in the TMA.
Policy T-1.13 Encourage services that complement and enhance the transportation options
available to help Palo Alto residents and employees make first/last mile connections and travel
within the city for daily needs without using a single-occupancy vehicle, including shuttle, taxi
and ridesharing services.
Policy T-2.2 As part of the effort to reduce traffic congestion, seek ongoing funding and engage
employers to operate and expand TMAs to address transportation and parking issues as
appropriate in the City’s employment districts.
Program T2.2.1 Work in partnership with the Palo Alto TMA and Stanford University to
aggregate data and realize measurable reductions in single-occupant vehicle commuting to and
from Downtown and in the Stanford Research Park.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Policy T-5.5 Minimize the need for employees to park in and adjacent to commercial centers,
employment districts and schools.
Program T7.1.1 Expand transportation opportunities for transit-dependent riders by supporting
discounts for taxi fares, rideshare services and transit, by coordinating transit systems to be
shared by multiple senior housing developments, by maintaining a database of volunteer
drivers and other transit options.
Resource Impact
Funding for the first year of the proposed agreement with TMA was appropriated in the
University Avenue Parking Fund as part of the FY21 Adopted Operating Budget. Funding for
future fiscal years is subject to City Council approval through the annual budget process.
Timeline
The funding amount for FY21 is anticipated to be paid during FY21. The funding agreement is a
three-year agreement expiring at the end of FY23 (June 30, 2023). Any additional funds to be
paid to TMA for FY22 and FY23 would require Council appropriation and amendment of the
agreement. The City Manager would be authorized to amend the agreement to incorporate any
additional Council appropriated funds.
Stakeholder Engagement
Monthly Palo Alto TMA Board of Directors meetings are open to the public and occur from 9am
to 10:00 am on the third Thursday of the month. Information about board meetings can be
found at the Palo Alto TMA website: https://www.paloaltotma.org/
Environmental Review
The requested action would allow continued funding of programs to reduce single-occupancy
vehicle commute trips to the City’s business districts. It is exempt from review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility of a significant impact on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)).
Attachments:
• Attachment A: PATMA Agreement (Nov 2020) [SIGNED BY TMA]
• Attachment B: PATMA Funding Request Update November 2, 2020
TMA Funding Agreement 2020110201
November 2020 1
FUNDING AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AND THE PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION FOR TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT SERVICES
This Agreement to provide funding for transportation demand management services (this
"Agreement") is made and entered as of November 30, 2020 by and between the City of Palo
Alto, a California chartered municipal corporation (“City”), and the Palo Alto Transportation
Management Association, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“PATMA”), on the
following terms and conditions.
RECITALS
1. Since 2013, the City has been actively engaged in developing Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) strategies to encourage alternatives to solo driving to address Palo Alto’s
growing traffic and parking concerns.
2. The City engaged a consultant group with significant experience designing Bay Area
Transportation Management Associations (TMAs), to assist in forming a TMA, and the result of
that effort was the incorporation of the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association
(PATMA) on January 1, 2016.
3. The City has an interest in the success of the PATMA and made funding available for
technical support during the start-up phase of the organization. In the initial years, the City also
provided funding for an annual survey of Downtown employee commute patterns.
4. In addition to the support of the City, the PATMA has sought and intends to continue
seeking funding from public and private foundations, private businesses, public agencies and
other financial supporters.
5. The mission statement of the PATMA is to reduce single occupancy vehicle (SOV)
trips, traffic congestion and demand for parking by delivering targeted transportation solutions to
the diverse range of employers, employees, visitors, and residents in the Downtown and
California Avenue Business Districts. The PATMA also serves as a one-stop transportation
information resource, and is an active voice in local and regional transportation issues. While the
initial primary focus of the PATMA was the Downtown population whose travel choices have
the highest impacts, the PATMA’s programs and services have now expanded to the California
Avenue Business District and may ultimately extend beyond these constituents.
6. On June 20, 2016, the City entered into an agreement with PATMA and PATMA’s
then-fiscal agent Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) to provide $100,000 in funding
for pilot programs of the PATMA aimed at testing the effectiveness of PATMA incentives and
programs to reduce commuting to Downtown by SOVs. On February 13, 2017, this initial
funding agreement was amended to provide for an additional $200,000 in funding from the City
to PATMA over two years, with half paid in FY 2017 and the balance paid in FY 2018.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DEEC519-7633-4797-B2CC-9A1BC8D452D3
TMA Funding Agreement 2020110201
November 2020 2
7. In September 2017, the City, the PATMA and SVCF entered into an amended and
restated agreement for continued funding and services through Fiscal Year 2020 (ending June 30,
2020), as funds were appropriated by the City Council through the annual budget process. The
agreement was twice amended to reflect additional funding appropriated by the City Council in
the second and third years of the agreement.
8. The PATMA pilot programs have been successful, providing transit passes to 180 -
240 low-income workers per month and encouraging carpool use by other workers, for an
estimated reduction of over 300 vehicles per day, lowering SOV commute trips Downtown to
52% of all trips by any mode of travel.
9. After focusing on the Downtown in the first years of its existence, from March through
October 2019, the PATMA implemented a pilot program in the California Avenue Business
District with $100,000 in private funding. The successful program quickly surpassed its goal of
distributing 50 transit passes per month, demonstrating demand for TMA programs in this area.
10. The City and the PATMA wish to extend the reach of the PATMA and expand its
programs to achieve a greater reduction in SOV commute trips. To this end, the City Council
appropriated additional funds for FY 2021 and allowed expenditure of City funds by the
PATMA in the California Avenue Business District as well as the Downtown.
11. Through this Agreement the City will continue funding the PATMA and the PATMA
will continue the programs that it undertook under the prior funding agreements. The Parties
agree to enter into this Agreement to provide additional funding to support the development and
facilitate the effectiveness of the PATMA, through the expansion of pilot programs to reduce
SOV trips by workers in Palo Alto, and to establish terms and conditions for the use of these
funds.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of
which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into this
Agreement in their entirety.
2. Term and Termination. The term of this Agreement shall be from the Effective Date
through July 1, 2023.
This Agreement may be terminated by the City or the PATMA by providing at least thirty (30)
days’ written notice to the other party. Within three (3) months of termination, the PATMA shall
return to the City any funds paid by the City that remain unexpended as of the date of
termination.
3. City Deposit. The City shall transfer the sum of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars
$350,000 (“City Funds”) to the PATMA for use for the purposes described in this Agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DEEC519-7633-4797-B2CC-9A1BC8D452D3
TMA Funding Agreement 2020110201
November 2020 3
The City shall transfer the City Funds on a quarterly basis for fiscal year 2021 (July 1, 2020 –
June 30, 2021) in equal amounts of Eighty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars $87,500, upon
receipt of an invoice submitted quarterly by PATMA.
City may transfer additional funds for the final two years of the Agreement subject to the
appropriation of funds by the City Council through City’s annual budget process. Should
additional funds be appropriated, the parties will amend this Agreement prior to any transfer of
funds to the PATMA. The City Manager is authorized to execute such an amendment for City.
4. Use of City Funds. The PATMA shall use the City Funds for “pilot projects” intended to
reduce single occupancy vehicle trips by Downtown and California Avenue Business District
workers, as mutually agreed upon by the City Manager and PATMA. Pilot projects may include
purchase and distribution of transit passes, support for carpooling, and other measures to address
first mile and last mile connections. If the PATMA uses City Funds to purchase transit passes to
give away free-of-charge, the free transit passes shall be provided solely to low income workers.
5. Strategic Planning Session, Strategic Plan and Budget. PATMA shall: (a) conduct an
annual strategic planning session producing 3-year goals and objectives and funding
requirements, and prepare an annual budget with projected metrics (cost per mode shift, ROI,
etc.), and (b) annually provide to the City a detailed, updated strategic plan and budget. The
strategic plan may utilize scenarios to illustrate the return on investment associated with different
funding levels. The strategic plan shall identify the projects proposed to be funded with the City
Funds for the City Manager’s review and approval.
6. Reporting Requirement. PATMA shall provide the City with quarterly written reports on the
implementation and effectiveness of pilot programs funded by the City, including quantitative
measures of SOV trip reduction and mode shift achieved, metrics used, cost per employee mode
shift, and how the City Funds were expended. PATMA shall submit the reports at the same time
that PATMA submits the quarterly invoice to the City.
7. Survey. PATMA shall conduct a robust survey of Downtown and California Avenue
Business District employee commute patterns on an annual basis. PATMA shall submit the
survey results and report to the City by December 1st of each year.
8. Public Meeting Requirement. The funding is expressly contingent on PATMA’s agreement
to provide 72 hours written advance notice to the public of all Board of Director meetings and to
allow members of the public to attend all such Board of Director meetings.
9. Work Product. PATMA shall ensure any written document or other work product developed
with funds received through this Agreement is made available to the public to the extent not
otherwise prohibited by law.
10. Audits. PATMA will make available all financial records related to the City Funds and the
use of the City Funds during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years
thereafter. PATMA further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years
after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DEEC519-7633-4797-B2CC-9A1BC8D452D3
TMA Funding Agreement 2020110201
November 2020 4
11. Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the PATMA shall protect, indemnify,
defend and hold harmless CITY and each of CITY’s elected and appointed officials, officers,
employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands,
claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any
other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorney’s fees, experts
fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner
related to performance or nonperformance by the PATMA, its officers, employees, agents or
contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an
Indemnified Party.
Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this section shall be construed to require PATMA to
indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence
or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
12. Insurance. PATMA, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and
effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "A".
PATMA and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an
additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies.
All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s
Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact
insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of PATMA retained to
perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during
the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured
under such policies as required above.
13. Other Provisions:
(a) Business Registry Data. The City may elect to share certain data from its Business Registry
with PATMA for PATMA’s exclusive use in program development and marketing. PATMA
agrees not to share any non-public data with others and will take all necessary steps to ensure the
continued confidentiality of any such non-public data.
(b) Performance Monitoring. The City may implement its own performance monitoring of City
funded programs to determine effectiveness of provided funds.
(c) Additional Use Restrictions. The City Funds will not be used for anything other than project
management and program costs of the agreed-to projects until the funds are expired. Up to thirty
percent (30%) of City Funds provided may be used for administration costs and purposes.
(d) Board Members. The City may request that the PATMA Board be expanded to include
additional members, possibly including residents and additional City representation.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DEEC519-7633-4797-B2CC-9A1BC8D452D3
TMA Funding Agreement 2020110201
November 2020 5
(e) Fundraising. PATMA shall undertake significant efforts to raise funds from sources other
than the City, including but not limited to membership fees, grants and donations, to implement
programs to achieve reductions in SOV commute trips by workers in Palo Alto’s Downtown and
the California Avenue Business District. The Parties expect that, assuming City funding remains
constant over the term of the Agreement (which it may not), the amounts raised from other
funding sources will represent a proportionately greater share of the PATMA’s total funding in
the final two years of this Agreement.
14. Notices.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail,
addressed as follows:
To CITY:
Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Chief Transportation Official
Philip Kamhi
Chief Transportation Official
Office of Transportation
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
To PATMA:
Steve Raney
Executive Director
Palo Alto Transportation Management Association
855 El Camino Real, #13A-200
Palo Alto, CA 94301
15. Authority to Bind. 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.
16. Counterpart Signatures. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which
shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DEEC519-7633-4797-B2CC-9A1BC8D452D3
TMA Funding Agreement 2020110201
November 2020 6
17. Waiver. No delay or omission by either party to exercise any right occurring upon any
noncompliance or default by the other party with respect to any of the terms of this Agreement
shall impair any such right or power or be construed as a waiver thereof. A waiver by either of
the parties of any of the covenants, conditions or agreements to be performed by the other party
shall not be construed to be a waiver of any succeeding breach thereof or of any covenant,
condition or agreement herein contained.
18. Applicable Law. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
19. Venue. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be
vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of
California.
20. Amendments. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
21. Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
[Signatures appear on the following page]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DEEC519-7633-4797-B2CC-9A1BC8D452D3
TMA Funding Agreement 2020110201
November 2020 7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first
written above.
PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION:
________________________________
Brad Ehikian
Chair, Palo Alto TMA
CITY OF PALO ALTO:
_______________________________
Ed Shikada
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney or designee
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DEEC519-7633-4797-B2CC-9A1BC8D452D3
TMA Funding Agreement 2020110201
November 2020 8
EXHIBIT “A” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT
OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW:
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS
EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES YES
WORKER’S COMPENSATION
EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY
STATUTORY
STATUTORY
YES
GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING
PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM
PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL
LIABILITY
BODILY INJURY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE
COMBINED.
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING
ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED
BODILY INJURY
- EACH PERSON
- EACH OCCURRENCE
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY
DAMAGE, COMBINED
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING,
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS,
MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE),
AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE
ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE,
SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT
AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS
SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND
PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN
COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR
CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL.
II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL
INSUREDS”
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS
AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER
INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DEEC519-7633-4797-B2CC-9A1BC8D452D3
TMA Funding Agreement 2020110201
November 2020 9
B. CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL
NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS
ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF
THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON
OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL
PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT
OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10)
DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO:
PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DEEC519-7633-4797-B2CC-9A1BC8D452D3
Palo Alto Transportation Management Association
855 El Camino Real #13A-200, Palo Alto, CA 94301, www.paloaltotma.org
Update regarding TMA request for funding, November 2, 2020
To: Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Manager, City of Palo Alto
From: PATMA Board of Directors
●Brad Ehikian, Premier Properties
●Amit Patel, Westin
●Cal Ave restaurateur Zareen Kahn
●Matthew Weinberg, Amazon/A9
●Philip Kamhi, City of Palo Alto
and PATMA Staff
●Steve Raney
●Kruti Ladani
Dear Ms. Star-Lack:
The TMA is grateful for Council’s May 26 directive to expand to Cal Ave and for the City’s generous FY20
funding of $750,000. The TMA supports the City and local business recovery by supporting essential
workers in the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts. When public health orders allow further
reopening, the TMA hopes to accelerate economic recovery by providing Palo Alto with a competitive hiring
advantage over cities without TMAs, improved employee retention, and expanded programming to support
bicycling in support of adopted S/CAP policies.
Our May 21 $453,000 budget request (a 40% reduction from $750,000) followed the City’s adopted COVID
economic scenario calling for slow growth for July-Dec ‘20 and faster recovery for Jan-July ‘21. Based on
recent demand for TMA services and forecasts of more pessimistic economic scenarios, the TMA Board
has revised our request for FY21 to $350,000 (a 53% reduction from $750,000). Please reflect this amount
in the new funding agreement between the TMA and the City.
We look forward to continuing to support essential workers and local businesses in Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Palo Alto TMA
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11675)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/30/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Adoption of Amended Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Citizen Participation Plan
Title: Adoption of Amended Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Citizen Participation Plan
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Recommendation
Staff and Human Relations Commission (HRC) recommend the City Council adopt the amended
Community Development Block Grant Citizen Participation Plan required for the expenditure of
funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Background
The City of Palo Alto receives funds annually from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) as an entitlement city under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program. As a jurisdiction that receives federal funds from HUD, the City is required to have a Citizen
Participation Plan (CPP). HUD requires CDBG recipient agencies to prepare and implement a CPP
that provides adequate opportunity for citizens to participate in an advisory role in the
planning, implementation and assessment of the CDBG program.
Discussion
Staff is proposing minor amendments to the existing CPP, which was last updated in 2010, to:
provide for an expedited process for the City to allocate emergency CDBG funding, bring the
CPP into compliance with current HUD regulations, and reflect general formatting updates. The
proposed amended CPP and the 2010 CPP are attached for reference, with proposed text
changes noted in the amended document (Attachment A).
Existing 2010 CPP
The 2010 CPP details the public noticing process for the hearings and other opportunities for
stakeholders to review and comment on the planning, implementation and assessment of the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
CDBG program. Additionally, the CPP states the process for public access to meetings including
reasonable requests for accommodations for persons with disabilities and for non-English
speaking residents. The existing CPP is divided into sections covering roles and responsibilities
for City Council, Human Relations Committee, staff, and the public, as well as two process
related sections regarding substantial amendments and residential anti-displacement. Please
review Attachment B for details.
The proposed CPP amendments are in response to the 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act) and federal regulatory changes made in 2016. The urgency
to complete the CPP amendments at this time is driven by the compelling circumstances
related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The new requirements are discussed below and are
reflected in Attachment A.
CARES Act
On March 27, 2020 the United States Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act) to direct funds to state and local governments to prevent
the spread and mitigate the economic impacts of COVID-19.
In order to expedite the use of CDBG funds to prevent and respond to COVID-19, HUD waived
certain regulatory provisions regarding (1) the public comment period and (2) providing
reasonable notice and opportunity to comment. These waivers apply to Consolidated Plan
Amendments. In its guidance, HUD directed jurisdictions to make changes to their CPPs to be
consistent with the waivers to acknowledge the ability to streamline lengthy processes in time
of emergency.
Staff proposes amendments the CPP to allow for reduced noticing and comment periods during
times of declared emergencies to expedite the receipt of emergency related CDBG funding, as
well as to provide virtual meeting access. The authority to amend the CPP to allow these
changes is granted by the CARES Act and by the HUD waivers issued for the COVID-19
pandemic. The proposed amendments to the CPP will streamline the process and continue to
provide access to information.
Public Notice Requirements
The current requirement for noticing for public hearings is 14 days. In the event of a local, state,
and/or national emergency or disaster, the proposed amendment for the public notice period is
five (5) days prior to the first public hearing. This notice period is consistent with HUD’s
provisions.
Public Comment Period
The existing CPP specifies a 30-day and 15-day public comment period depending upon the
related action. The provision of a 30- or 15-day comment period promotes transparency and
City of Palo Alto Page 3
engagement but hinders the City’s ability to respond quickly in times of emergency to meet the
community’s needs.
The current requirements:
• A 30-day public comment period is required prior to final adoption of the draft
Consolidated Plan/draft Annual Action Plans, and draft substantial amendments to
Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan.1
• A 15-day public comment period is required prior to the submission of the Draft
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) to HUD.
As noted previously, HUD wants processes to be expedited during emergency conditions. To
provide for this, the recommended public comment period in the event of a local, state, and/or
national emergency or disaster is five (5) days.
Public Meeting Format
The current provisions in the CPP specify that public hearings shall be in-person events. To
facilitate public engagement during emergency conditions, staff recommends modifying the
CPP to allow virtual meetings. The City (grantee) may meet public hearing requirements with
virtual public hearings if: 1) national/local health authorities recommend social distancing and
limiting public gatherings for public health reasons; and 2) virtual hearings provide reasonable
notification and access for citizens in accordance with the grantee’s certifications, timely
responses from local officials to all citizen questions and issues, and public access to all
questions and responses.
Other Regulatory Updates
The existing CPP was last updated in October 2010. Since that time, there have been some
minor regulatory changes that need to be reflected in the CPP. These changes pertain to high-
speed internet/broadband access and climate change as reflected in the Code of Federal
Register.
The federal regulations require that for consolidated plans submitted on or after January 1,
2018, jurisdictions will encourage outreach from both public and private organizations involved
in bridging the digital divide and providing broadband service; in managing flood prone areas,
public land, or resources; and emergency management agencies (81 Fed. Reg.91011, Dec. 16,
2016).
1 The Consolidated Plan is carried out through Annual Action Plans, which provide a concise summary of the
actions, activities, and the specific federal and non-federal resources that will be used each year to address the
priority needs and specific goals identified by the Consolidated Plan. An amendment to an Annual Action Plan is
considered an amendment to the respective Consolidation Plan.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Human Relations Commission Review
The HRC reviewed the proposed amendments at its regularly scheduled meeting on November
12, 2020 and voted 5-0 to recommend Council adopt the amended Community Development
Block Grant Citizen Participation Plan. The HRC staff report and video link to the meeting is
available on the HRC’s website:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/79119.
Policy Implications
The proposed CPP amendments do not make any substantive changes to the City’s existing
public engagement policies. The amendments will make it easier for the City to act more
expeditiously to allocate CDBG funds during declared emergency conditions.
Stakeholder Engagement
The amended CPP was made available for public review and comment for a 15-day period from
October 30, 2020 to November 16, 2020. As noted above, the HRC also reviewed and discussed
the amended CPP during a public hearing on November 12, 2020.
At the time of this report, staff did not receive any public comments on the proposed CPP.
Environmental Review
The proposed amendment to the CPP does not constitute a “project” under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is therefore exempt from environmental review.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Citizen Participation Plan FY2020 (PDF)
Attachment B: Adopted Citizen Participation Plan FY2010 (PDF)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
Administered by Planning and Development Services
Amended by City Council on November 30, 2020
Citizen Participation Plan – November 2020 DRAFT
1
Highlighted text reflects the proposed amended text
Introduction
Pursuant to the requirements of 24 CFR 91.105, the City of Palo Alto hereby issues the following
plan to provide for and encourage citizens to participate in the development of the City’s
Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, any substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan or
Annual Action Plan, and the Performance reports (CAPER).
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
The City of Palo Alto receives an annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds directly from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The
CDBG program addresses the creation of viable urban communities by providing decent housing,
a suitable living environment and the ability to expand economic opportunities, principally for
persons of low and moderate income.
Consolidated Plan, Action Plan and Performance Report
In order to receive CDBG funding, Title I of the National Affordable Housing Act mandates the
preparation of a strategic five-year Consolidated Plan that identifies priority housing and
community development needs and sets forth a strategy to address those needs. An Action Plan
is prepared annually to identify specific projects to be funded to implement the goals and
objectives identified in the Consolidated Plan. A Comprehensive Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) is prepared at the end of each program year to evaluate and report
on the goals and objectives achieved with the annual grant allocations.
Citizen Participation Objectives
A primary objective of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 is the provision of
adequate opportunities for citizens, non-profit organizations and other interested parties to
review and comment on the planning, implementation and assessment of the CDBG program.
It is the intention of the City of Palo Alto to adopt and follow a detailed Citizen Participation Plan
in order to encourage meaningful citizen involvement, public examination and appraisal of the
process, as well as to enhance program accountability. The Citizen Participation Plan includes the following objectives:
1. To adhere to the provisions of the Community Development Act of 1987, as amended, and
all other federal regulations.
2. To encourage the participation of citizens in the planning, implementation and assessment of the CDBG program, especially those of low and very low income, members of minority groups, residents of areas where funds will be expended, persons with limited English proficiency, the elderly, individuals with disabilities, and other neighborhood, non-profit or civic groups.
Citizen Participation Plan – November 2020 DRAFT
2
Highlighted text reflects the proposed amended text
3. To make information about the CDBG program and process available to the public through
reasonable and timely access to information including publications in local newspapers,
public hearings, public meetings, the City’s website, and the provision of technical assistance.
Citizen Participation Plan
The sections below describe the roles and responsibilities of the City Council, public, staff, and
Human Relations Committee. Additionally, there are process-related clarifications for substantial
amendments, anti-displacement requirements, and state of emergency conditions.
Part I: The City Council
1. The City Council sets policy, priorities, and approves the overall Community Development
Block Grant allocations.
2. The City Council will conduct a minimum of two public hearing per fiscal year for the purpose of obtaining citizens’ views and formulating or responding to proposals and questions. The public hearings will be held at different stages of the program year. The purpose of the public hearing is to address community development and housing needs, development of proposed activities, proposed strategies and actions for affirmatively furthering fair housing, and program performance.
3. All public hearings will be held at times and locations convenient to potential and actual
program beneficiaries, with reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
Generally, public hearings will be held at City Hall in the evenings because the facility is
centrally located, accessible by public transportation, and has disabled access.
4. Translation services will be provided when a significant number of non-English speaking
residents can be reasonably expected to participate, or when a reasonable request for such
an accommodation is made.
5. Actions of the City Council will direct the implementation of CDBG funded projects.
Part II. The General Public
1. The general public is encouraged to participate in the various stages of the CDBG program by
attending and commenting at the noticed public hearings. They are also encouraged to
express their views and comments directly to the CDBG Coordinator in the Planning and
Development Services department.
2. At any time, citizens may submit views concerning Palo Alto’s CDBG program performance to
the HUD Region IX Office at One Sansome Street, Suite 1200, San Francisco, CA 94104.
3. The City’s website (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/) contains either the draft or adopted Consolidated Plan, draft or adopted versions of the Annual Action Plans and Performance
Citizen Participation Plan – November 2020 DRAFT
3
Highlighted text reflects the proposed amended text
Reports, the CDBG annual program timeline, and other pertinent program records,
documents and information. Interested citizens are encouraged to review the material
online, download files, and provide comments or suggestions via letter, or e-mail to the CDBG
Coordinator.
4. Consistent with accessibility and reasonable accommodation requirements, in accordance
with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the regulations at 24 CFR part 8; and
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the regulations at 28 CFR parts 35 and 36, as applicable, upon request, materials and information will be made available in a format accessible to persons with disabilities. 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 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973, may contact City of Palo Alto’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (Voice) or by
emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Public hearings will be held in the Council Chambers or
other accessible locations. Requests for assistance or accommodations should be submitted
as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours in advance of a scheduled meeting, program,
or service.
Part III. City Planning Staff
1. The Planning and Development Services department has the primary responsibility for the
administration and coordination of the CDBG program.
2. The planning process for the CDBG program is conducted on a two-year cycle and is
coordinated with the City’s Human Service Resource Allocation Process. At the beginning of
each fiscal year, staff will provide the general public, public agencies, interested citizens, and
the Human Relations Commission (HRC) with the following information:
(a) The amount of grant funds and program income expected to be made available during
the next fiscal/program year for proposed community development and housing
activities;
(b) The range of activities that may be undertaken, including the estimated amount proposed
to be used for activities that will benefit persons of low and moderate income;
(c) The proposed CDBG activities which will likely result in relocation, and the City’s intent to
minimize the necessity for relocation of persons as a result of assisted activities; and
(d) The types and levels of assistance the City will make available (or require others to make
available) to persons who are eligible for relocation assistance as a result of CDBG assisted
activities.
3. Planning staff will publish a summary of the proposed Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan
in newspaper of local circulation and on the City of Palo Alto’s CDBG webpage. The summary will describe the contents and purpose of the Consolidated Plan and include a list of the locations where copies of the draft Consolidated Plan may be examined, and where it is
Citizen Participation Plan – November 2020 DRAFT
4
Highlighted text reflects the proposed amended text
available on the City’s website. In the summary, the City will make available to residents,
public agencies, and other interested parties information that includes the amount of
assistance the City expects to receive (including grant funds and program income) and the
range of activities that may be undertaken, including the estimated amount that will benefit
persons of low- and moderate-income.
4. A reasonable number of free copies of the Draft Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan will be provided to citizens and groups that request it. Draft copies will be available at the Downtown Library, City Hall/Planning and Development Services, and the Development Center. The draft documents will also be available on the City’s CDBG webpage. Citizens may submit comments on the Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan during a public review period
of no less than 30 days.
5. Planning staff will maintain a mailing list of interested parties, who will be mailed or e-mailed
information regarding public hearings or meetings, the availability of draft plans, substantial
amendments, public comment periods, and other announcements. Members of the City’s
Human Relations Commission will also receive this information.
6. To encourage a wider range of citizen participation during the development of the
Consolidated Plan, the list of interested parties will be extended to include local and regional
institutions and other organizations such as businesses, developers, community and faith-
based organizations, residents of public and assisted housing developments, persons receiving tenant-based rental assistance, the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County, and neighboring jurisdictions. In addition, the City will encourage participation of both public and private organizations, including broadband internet service providers, organizations engaged in narrowing the digital divide (e.g., schools, digital literacy organizations), and agencies whose primary responsibilities include the management of flood prone areas, public land or
water resources, and emergency management agencies (81 Fed. Reg.91011, Dec. 16, 2016).
7. Staff will provide adequate, timely notification of hearings and meetings so that citizens and
other interested parties may attend and comment. Where feasible, a minimum of 14 days
notice will be provided for all public hearings regarding the CDBG Program. When possible,
an ad will be placed in a local newspaper. All meetings and hearings will be noticed on the
City of Palo Alto’s CDBG webpage.
8. Upon completion of the draft Consolidated Annual Performance Reports (CAPER), Planning
staff will publish a notice in a newspaper of general circulation and on the City of Palo Alto’s
CDBG webpage announcing the availability of the draft performance report, the locations where it may be reviewed, and a 15 day period for submitting public comments prior to its submission to HUD. Any comments or views of citizens received in writing or at public meetings in preparing the performance report shall be considered, summarized and attached to the performance report.
9. The Consolidated Plan/Action Plans as adopted, any substantial amendments, the
performance reports and the Citizen Participation Plan will be available to the public on the
Citizen Participation Plan – November 2020 DRAFT
5
Highlighted text reflects the proposed amended text
City’s CDBG webpage, and upon request. Reasonable accommodations will be provided for
requests for materials or information by persons with disabilities.
10. Planning staff will arrange for reasonable and timely access to public records related to the Citizens’ Participation Plan, the Consolidated Plan, the Action Plans, Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER), any amendments thereto, and the City’s use of CDBG funds during the preceding five years. Access to public records will be provided to
citizens, public agencies, and other interested parties upon written or verbal request. An appointment may be required to view records, and a fee may be charged for copies to recover costs. Documents are available for public review in the Planning Division during advertised
working hours.
11. Upon request, staff will provide technical assistance to community groups and groups
representing individuals of low- and moderate-income in developing funding proposals for
assistance under the Consolidated Plan. Staff will endeavor to provide assistance in the form
of general information, relevant demographic or socio-economic data, interpretation of HUD rules and regulations, explanation of City policies and procedures affecting the CDBG program, or advice regarding funding proposals or alternative funding sources for projects which are ineligible under the CDBG program.
12. Planning staff will arrange for information to be presented in a bilingual fashion at public hearings whenever a significant number of non-English speaking residents can be expected
to participate, or when a reasonable request is made for such a service.
13. Where practicable, planning staff will provide a timely, substantive written response to all
written complaints and grievances regarding the CDBG program within 15 working days of
receipt of such complaint or grievance.
14. Planning staff will schedule and notice all required public hearings. Notice of the date, time,
place and agenda of the public hearings will be advertised at least 14 days prior to the hearing
in a newspaper of local circulation and on the City’s CDBG webpage.
Part IV. The Human Relations Commission
1. The City’s Human Relations Commission (HRC) is charged with the discretion to act with
respect to any human relations matter when the HRC finds that any person or group does
not benefit fully from public or private opportunities or resources in the community, or is
unfairly or differently treated due to factors of concern to the Commission.
2. In order to coordinate the City’s Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) with
the CDBG allocation process, the HRC will hold at least one public hearing annually to review
and comment on the proposed CDBG funding allocations.
Part V. Substantial Amendments
1. Prior to the submission of any substantial change in the Consolidated Plan or proposed use
of funds, residents of the community and interested citizens will be notified and provided a
minimum of 30 days to comment on the proposed changes before the amendment is
Citizen Participation Plan – November 2020 DRAFT
6
Highlighted text reflects the proposed amended text
implemented. The City Council will hold noticed public hearings on substantial changes
where interested persons may comment. All views and comments submitted in writing, or
orally at public hearings will be considered in preparing the substantial amendment. A
summary of these comments, and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and
the reasons, therefore, will be attached to the substantial amendment.
2. Substantial amendments are defined as:
(a) A change in the use of CDBG funds from one eligible activity to another;
(b) The implementation of an activity not previously identified in sufficient detail to provide affected citizens an opportunity to submit comments; or
(c) A change in an activity’s program budget which exceeds ten percent of the City’s latest
annual entitlement grant.
Part VI. Anti-Displacement Policy
1. The City of Palo Alto will comply with all federal regulations governing residential anti-
displacement and relocation assistance as they pertain to the CDBG program.
2. It is the City’s policy to avoid, to the greatest extend feasible, the involuntary displacement
of any persons, property or businesses as a result of a federally funded CDBG activity such as
acquisition, demolition or rehabilitation.
3. The City will take all reasonable steps to minimize involuntary displacement as a result of
CDBG activity by approving and designing activities in such a way that displacement is avoided
whenever possible. In extraordinary circumstances where no feasible alternatives to
displacement are available if the City’s community development objectives are to be met, the
City will (or will require others to) properly notice and inform residents or tenants of their
rights and potential eligibility for relocation benefits.
4. When there is no alternative to displacement, relocation benefits will be provided to all eligible persons in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (URA) and the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(b) and 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing the Residential Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan under Section 104(d) of the HUD Act.
Part VII. Citizen Participation Requirements in State of Emergency
The City shall comply with all HUD memorandums and notices that direct citizen participation
requirements in the event of a local, state, or national emergency or disaster. These
requirements shall supersede any conflicting provisions of the Citizen Participation Plan.
Following the HUD standards will allow the City to respond in the most expeditious manner to
secure and access new HUD funding and/or re-allocate existing funding.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
Administered by the Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301 Curtis Williams, Director
Public Review and Comment Period: September 17 – October 18, 2010 Adopted by City Council on October 18, 2010
For Additional Information Contact:
Suzanne Bayley, Interim CDBG Coordinator (650) 329-2428; e-mail: Suzanne.bayly@cityofpaloalto.org Steven Turner, Advanced Planning Manager (650) 329-2108; e-mail: steven.turner@cityofpaloalto.org
1
Introduction
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
The City of Palo Alto receives an annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds directly from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The CDBG program addresses the creation of viable urban communities by providing decent
housing, a suitable living environment and the ability to expand economic opportunities,
principally for persons of low and moderate income.
Consolidated Plan, Action Plan and Performance Report
In order to receive CDBG funding, Title I of the National Affordable Housing Act mandates the
preparation of a strategic five-year Consolidated Plan that identifies priority housing and
community development needs, and sets forth a strategy to address those needs. An Action Plan
is prepared annually to identify specific projects to be funded to implement the goals and
objectives identified in the Consolidated Plan. A Comprehensive Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER) is prepared at the end of each program year to evaluate and report
on the goals and objectives achieved with the annual grant allocations.
Citizen Participation Objectives
A primary objective of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 is the provision
of adequate opportunities for citizens, non-profit organizations and other interested parties to
review and comment on the planning, implementation and assessment of the CDBG program.
It is the intention of the City of Palo Alto to adopt and follow a detailed Citizen Participation
Plan in order to encourage meaningful citizen involvement, public examination and appraisal of
the process, as well as to enhance program accountability. The Citizen Participation Plan will
include the following objectives:
1. To adhere to and comply with the provisions of the Community Development Act of
1987, as amended, and all other federal regulations.
2. To encourage the participation of citizens in the planning, implementation and
assessment of the CDBG program, especially those of low and very low income,
members of minority groups, residents of areas where funds will be expended,
persons with limited English proficiency, the elderly, individuals with disabilities,
and other neighborhood, non-profit or civic groups.
3. To make information about the CDBG program and process available to the public
through reasonable and timely access to information including publications in local
newspapers, public hearings, public meetings, the City’s website, and the provision of
technical assistance.
2
City of Palo Alto Citizen Participation Plan
Part I. The City Council
1. The City Council sets policy, priorities, and approves the overall Community
Development Block Grant allocations.
2. The City Council will hold a minimum of two public hearings per year for the purpose of
obtaining citizens’ views and formulating or responding to proposals and questions. The
public hearings will be held at different stages of the program year so that together they
address community development and housing needs, development of proposed activities
and program performance.
3. At least one public hearing will be held before a draft Consolidated Plan is published for
comment.
4. All public hearings will be held at times and locations convenient to potential and actual
program beneficiaries, with reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
Generally, public hearings will be held at City Hall in the evenings because the facility is
centrally located, accessible by public transportation, and has disabled access.
5. Translation services will be provided when a significant number of non-English speaking
residents can be reasonably expected to participate, or when a reasonable request for such
an accommodation is made.
6. Actions of the City Council will direct the implementation of CDBG funded projects.
Part II. The General Public
1. The general public is encouraged to participate in the various stages of the CDBG
program by attending and commenting at the noticed public hearings. They are also
encouraged to express their views and comments directly to the CDBG Coordinator in
the Planning Division, or receive program information from the Planning Staff, on the 5th
floor of City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301.
2. At any time, citizens may submit views concerning Palo Alto’s performance in the
CDBG program to the HUD Area Office at 600 Harrison Street, San Francisco, CA
94107-1300.
3. The City’s website (cityofpaloalto.org) contains the adopted Consolidated Plan, and
either the approved or draft versions of the Annual Action Plans and Performance
Reports, the CDBG annual program timeline, and other pertinent program records,
documents and information. Interested citizens are encouraged to review the material on
3
line, download files, and provide comments or suggestions via letter, or e-mail to the
CDBG Coordinator.
4. Upon request, materials and information will be made available in a format accessible to
persons with disabilities. 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 Larry
Perlin, ADA Director, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301;
(650) 329-2550 (Voice) or (650) 329-1199 (TDD); or larry.perlin@cityofpaloalto.org.
Public hearings will be held in the Council Chambers or other accessible locations. Sign
language interpreters will be provided upon request with 72 hours advance notice.
Part III. City Planning Staff
1. The Department of Planning and Community Environment has the primary responsibility
for the administration and coordination of the CDBG program.
2. The planning process for the CDBG program is conducted on a two-year cycle, and is
coordinated with the City’s Human Service Resource Allocation Process. At the
beginning of each fiscal year, staff will provide the general public, public agencies,
interested citizens, and the Human Relations Commission (HRC) with the following
information:
a) The amount of grant funds and program income expected to be made available
during the next fiscal/program year for proposed community development and
housing activities;
b) The range of activities that may be undertaken, including the estimated amount
proposed to be used for activities that will benefit persons of low and moderate
income;
c) The proposed CDBG activities which will likely result in relocation, and the
City’s intent to minimize the necessity for relocation of persons as a result of
assisted activities;
d) The types and levels of assistance the City will make available (or require others
to make available) to persons who are eligible for relocation assistance as a result
of CDBG assisted activities.
3. Planning staff will publish a summary of the proposed Consolidated Plan/Annual Action
Plan in the Palo Alto Weekly or other newspaper of local circulation. The summary will
describe the contents and purpose of the Consolidated Plan and include a list of the
locations where copies of the draft Consolidated Plan may be examined, and where it is
available on the City’s website.
4
4. A reasonable number of free copies of the Draft Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan
will be provided to citizens and groups that request it. Draft copies will be available at
the Downtown Library, City Hall Department of Planning and Community Environment
and the City’s Development Center located at 285 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto. The draft
documents will also be available on the City’s website. Citizens may submit comments
on the Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan during a public review period of not less
than 30 days.
5. Planning staff will maintain a mailing list of interested parties, who will be mailed or e-
mailed information regarding public hearings or meetings, the availability of draft plans,
substantial amendments, public comment periods, and other announcements. Members
of the City’s Human Relations Commission will also receive this information.
6. To encourage a wider range of citizen participation during the development of the
Consolidated Plan, the list of interested parties will be extended to include local and
regional institutions and other organizations such as businesses, developers, community
and faith-based organizations, residents of public and assisted housing developments,
persons receiving tenant-based rental assistance, the Housing Authority of Santa Clara
County, and neighboring jurisdictions.
7. Staff will provide adequate, timely notification of hearings and meetings so that citizens
and other interested parties may attend and comment. Where feasible, a minimum of 14
days notice will be provided for all public meetings regarding the CDBG Program.
When possible, an ad will be placed in the Palo Alto Weekly, or other local newspaper.
All meetings and hearings will be noticed on the electronic City Hall Meeting Calendar.
8. Upon completion of the draft Consolidated Annual Performance Reports (CAPER),
Planning staff will publish a notice in the Palo Alto Weekly, or another newspaper of
general circulation, announcing the availability of the draft performance report, the
locations where it may be reviewed, and a 15 day period for submitting public comments
prior to its submission to HUD. Any comments or views of citizens received in writing
or at public meetings in preparing the performance report shall be considered,
summarized and attached to the performance report.
9. The Consolidated Plan/Action Plans as adopted, any substantial amendments, the
performance reports and the Citizen Participation Plan will be available to the public on
the City’s website, and upon request. Reasonable accommodations will be provided for
requests for materials or information by persons with disabilities.
10. Planning staff will arrange for reasonable and timely access to public records related to
the Citizens’ Participation Plan, the Consolidated Plan, the Action Plans, Consolidated
Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER), any amendments thereto, and the
City’s use of CDBG funds during the preceding five years. Access to public records will
be provided to citizens, public agencies, and other interested parties upon written or
verbal request. An appointment may be required to view records, and a fee may be
charged for copies to recover costs. Documents are available for public review in the
5
Planning Division, 5th floor, Civic Center, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301,
during advertised working hours.
11. Upon request, staff will provide technical assistance to community groups and groups
representing individuals of low- and moderate-income in developing funding proposals
for assistance under the Consolidated Plan. Staff will endeavor to provide assistance in
the form of general information, relevant demographic or socio-economic data,
interpretation of HUD rules and regulations, explanation of City policies and procedures
affecting the CDBG program, or advice regarding funding proposals or alternative
funding sources for projects which are ineligible under the CDBG program.
12. Planning staff will arrange for information to be presented in a bilingual fashion at public
hearings whenever a significant number of non-English speaking residents can be
expected to participate, or when a reasonable request is made for such a service.
13. Where practicable, planning staff will provide a timely, substantive written response to
all written complaints and grievances regarding the CDBG program within 15 working
days of receipt of such complaint or grievance.
14. Planning staff will schedule and notice all required public hearings. Notice of the date,
time, place and agenda of the public hearings will be advertised at least 14 days prior to
the hearing in the Palo Alto Weekly, or another newspaper of local circulation.
Part IV. The Human Relations Commission
1. The City’s 7-member Human Relations Commission (HRC) is charged with the
discretion to act with respect to any human relations matter when the Commission finds
that any person or group does not benefit fully from public or private opportunities or
resources in the community, or is unfairly or differently treated due to factors of concern
to the Commission.
2. In order to coordinate the City’s Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP)
with the CDBG allocation process, the HRC will hold at least one public hearing
annually to review and comment on the proposed CDBG funding allocations. Part V. Substantial Amendments
1. Prior to the submission of any substantial change in the Consolidated Plan or proposed
use of funds, interested citizens will be notified and provided a minimum of 30 days to
comment on the proposed changes before the amendment is implemented. The City
Council will hold noticed public hearings on substantial changes where interested persons
may comment. All views and comments submitted in writing, or orally at public hearings
will be considered in preparing the substantial amendment. A summary of these
comments, and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons
therefore, will be attached to the substantial amendment.
6
2. Substantial amendments are defined as:
a) changes in the use of CDBG funds from one eligible activity to another
b) The implementation of an activity not previously identified in sufficient detail to
provide affected citizens an opportunity to submit comments, or
c) A change in an activity’s program budget which exceeds ten percent of the City’s
latest annual entitlement grant.
Part VI. Anti-Displacement Policy
1. The City of Palo Alto will comply with all federal regulations governing residential anti-
displacement and relocation assistance as they pertain to the CDBG program.
2. It is the City’s policy to avoid, to the greatest extend feasible, the involuntary
displacement of any persons, property or businesses as a result of a federally funded
CDBG activity such as acquisition, demolition or rehabilitation.
3. The City will take all reasonable steps to minimize involuntary displacement by
approving and designing activities in such a way that displacement is avoided whenever
possible. In extraordinary circumstances where no feasible alternatives to displacement
are available if the City’s community development objectives are to be met, the City will
(or will require others to ) properly notice and inform residents or tenants of their rights
and potential eligibility for relocation benefits.
4. When there is no alternative to displacement, relocation benefits will be provided to all
eligible persons in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (URA) and the requirements of 24 CFR
570.606(b) and 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing the Residential Anti-displacement and
Relocation Assistance Plan under Section 104(d) of the HUD Act.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11722)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/30/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Adoption of a Pension Funding Policy
Title: Adoption of a Pension Funding Policy
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Pension Funding Policy.
Summary
The formal adoption of the Pension Funding Policy (Attachment A) represents the culmination
of many years of work by the City to proactively address its long-term pension obligations. On
June 16, 2020, the City Council unanimously approved the Pension Funding Policy and this
report reflects the final step in the adoption of the formal policy to ensure the strategies and
goals approved by the City Council are properly memorialized for ongoing City practice.
Background
The City of Palo Alto is highly engaged in discussion and planning efforts to address the costs of
current and forecasted pension benefits, including strategies to pre-fund long-term pension
obligations. These strategies are increasingly important in the context of the City’s overall fiscal
sustainability and to ensure obligations are met on an ongoing basis. In FY 2017, the City
established an irrevocable IRS Section 115 Pension Trust Fund (PARS) and has proactively
contributed more than $30 million above and beyond the required annual payments to CalPERS
to this trust fund.
The City has engaged in extensive conversations about how to address the long-term pension
obligations as detailed in the timeline below, which includes links to the pertinent City
Manager’s Reports. This work culminated in the City Council approval of the draft pension
policy on June 16, 2020.
• 9/2017 Finance Committee, “Review and Discuss CalPERS Pension Annual Valuation
Reports as of June 30, 2016 Including Assumptions, Financial Disclosures and Next
Steps” 8509
• 10/2017 Finance Committee, “Review and Recommend Strategies to Address the City’s
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Pension Liability” 8579
• 12/2017 Finance Committee “FY2019 - FY2028 Long Range Financial Forecast & City
Pension Liabilities” 8676
• 1/2018 City Council, “Approval of the FY 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR) and Approval of Conforming Amendments to FY 2017 Budget in Various Funds;
Acceptance of the FY2019 - FY2028 Long Range Financial Forecast; and Discussion and
Potential Direction Regarding Budgeting for City Pension Liabilities” 8754
• 9/2018 Finance Committee, “Accept CalPERS Pension Annual Valuation Reports as of
June 30, 2017 and Review and Confirm Pension Funding and Reporting Policy
Guidelines” 9604
• 10/2018 City Council, “CalPERS Pension Annual Valuation Reports as of June 30, 2017
and Pension Funding and Reporting Policy Guidelines” 9708
• 10/2018 City Council, “Direct Staff to Amend Budget Assumptions for Pension Benefit
Costs and Complete the Workplans to Address the City Council FY 2019 Adopted Budget
Referral to Identify $4 Million in General Fund Savings” 9740
• 9/2019 Finance Committee, “Accept CalPERS Pension Annual Valuation Reports as of
June 30, 2018” 10641
• 10/2019 Finance Committee, “Review, Discuss, and Recommend Establishment of a
Pension Funding Policy” 10645
• 6/2020 City Council, “Review, Discuss, and Recommend Establishment of a Pension
Funding Policy” 11407
• 10/2020 Finance Committee, “Accept CalPERS Pension Annual Valuation Reports as of
June 30, 2019” 11607
Discussion
The extensive work completed by the City of Palo Alto detailed above has informed the
development of a formal Pension Funding Policy to guide the City’s continued work to
proactively address long-term liabilities. The specific options, elements, and goals to establish
and be included in this policy have been reviewed and discussed with the Finance Committee
(CMR 10645) and the City Council (CMR 11407). Most recently at the June 16, 2020 City Council
meeting, staff provided a draft policy for City Council review and input so that staff could
incorporate those revisions for final City Council adoption in a subsequent item for consent.
However, at that meeting, in a unanimous vote, the City Council approved the draft Pension
Funding Policy outlined in Attachment C of City Manager Report 11407 without revision. That
same policy with no further changes is included in this report as Attachment A, for formal
adoption by the City Council.
This Pension Funding Policy sets the following goals and principles:
Funding Goal and Timeframe: a target of reaching a 90 percent funded status of the CalPERS
determined liability within fifteen years (FY 2036).
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Funding Components:
- ‘pay go’ costs also known as Normal Cost of annual pension costs to be funded with a
discount rate of 6.2%, more conservative than CalPERS rate of 7.0%.
- Discretion to the City Manager to make additional contributions from excess Budget
Stabilization Reserve (BSR) above the City Council approved target BSR level.
Use of Funds:
- City Manager must identify the impacts on the funding goal and timeframe to modify the
transmission of contributions to the PARS Trust Fund.
- Any transmission of funds from PARS to CalPERS will require City Council approval.
Reporting:
- Every three years, staff will consult with an actuary to inform the City Council on the
progress the City has made towards its goal
- Staff will report to the City Council through the annual budget process on the status of the
PARS section 115 pension trust fund, recommended contributions to the PARS fund, and
potential transmission of any funds from PARS to CalPERS for the coming fiscal year
Additional opportunities for proactive contributions will be brought forward for City Council
consideration through various budget processes (Mid-year, Year-end, and other City Manager’s
Reports). Staff will continue to monitor the City’s pension funding position and provide the City
Council with annual CalPERS valuation reports that detail the required annual payment, fund
status, and other plan changes. Currently the City is on pace to meet or exceed the funding
goal of 90% - the Miscellaneous plan is projected to meet in 10 years, and the Safety plan is
projected to meet in 14 years - however, this presumes that assumptions used in the actuarial
analysis are met. For example, it assumes that mortality rates, salary growth, and investment
earnings meet actuarial assumption in the future.
Ultimately, the goal of the Pension Funding Policy is to prevent service delivery crowd-out by
the increased costs of pension obligations. If the City’s efforts to proactively contribute to the
long-term pension obligations would result in service delivery impacts in the short-term, the
City Manager will identify those impacts and recommendations to mitigate them, as
appropriate, through the budget development process.
The Policy will be incorporated into the City’s financial documents and Financial Policy section
of the annual budget, as well as added to the City’s administrative policy manual.
Resource Impact
The adoption of the Pension Funding Policy will result in no immediate resource impact as all
policies are currently woven into the City’s annual financial planning.
Stakeholder Engagement
As discussed in the background section earlier in this document, the conversations surrounding
City of Palo Alto Page 4
the adoption of a Pension Funding Policy have been lengthy and extensive. The various Finance
Committees over multiple years and the City Council have been engaged with the work since
the beginning. In addition, staff has and continues to work with the municipal finanical
community as well as CalPERS on any additional information.
Environmental Review
This is not a project under Section 21065 for purposes of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
• Attachment A: City of Palo Alto Pension Funding Policy
City of Palo Alto - Pension Funding Policy
Determination of an appropriate level for proactive Pension Funding is a policy decision. The
overarching goal of a Pension Funding Policy is to ensure that the City of Palo Alto avoids
service-delivery crowd-out by increasing annual pension costs. This must be balanced against
immediate impacts to service delivery in order to fund proactive contributions.
The City is statutorily required to make the CalPERS Actuarial Determined Contribution (ADC)
on an annual basis. The ADC is made up of two parts, the Normal Cost (NC), which represents
the pay-as-you-go portion of costs, and the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) payment, which
represents the catch-up portion of costs. CalPERS currently calculates both the NC and the UAL
based on a discount rate of 7.0%. CalPERS amortizes any difference between investment
returns and that discount rate as part of its UAL calculation over 20 years. In a year when
CalPERS does not meet its target (loss) the City has to pay more over the next 20 years. In a
year when CalPERS exceeds its target (gain) the City would be able to pay less over the next 20
years. The timeframe of 20 years for amortizing gains and losses is recent; they were amortized
over 30 years through the June 30, 2018 valuation).
Additionally, the City recognizes the importance of ensuring that pension obligations included
in the City’s financial reports, such as the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), are
consistent with CalPERS. Reports such as the CAFR impact the City’s credit rating and thereby
influence areas such as bond financing that the City may seek to obtain.
However, the City also recognizes that CalPERS calculated costs are based on a discount rate,
annual rates of return, and other variables that might not align with actual experience nor
perhaps with expected experience. To address these shortcomings, the City is establishing a
Pension Funding Policy to guide proactive pension contributions.
This policy provides direction to the City regarding a desired funding target in relation to
CalPERS valuations, the timeframe over which to achieve that target, and actions that are
required until the target is met. There are contingencies that provide an additional range of
options if certain circumstances are met and some that require additional actions if other
criteria are satisfied.
Funding Goal and Timeframe: Through this policy, the City’s target is to fund 90% of the
CalPERS determined liability by FY 2036. The City will strive to reach the target of 90% of the
CalPERS determined liability within 15 years. If the City only paid the CalPERS ADC it would take
at least 30 years to reach full funding of the CalPERS determined liability. CalPERS’ 30-year
timeframe to reach full funding is also predicated on every single one of their actuarial
Attachment A
assumptions materializing. Thus, a 15-year timeframe to fund 90% of the CalPERS determined
liability represents a commitment from the City above and beyond the CalPERS ADC.
Funding Components: In order to achieve the target of 90% funding by FY 2036, the City will
calculate what the Normal Cost portion of annual pension costs would be if a discount rate of
6.2% were used instead of the CalPERS rate for the Miscellaneous and Safety Groups across the
organization. This additional cost will be included as part of the City’s standard budget process
and transmitted to the City’s Irrevocable section 115 PARS Pension Trust Fund (PARS Trust Fund
or PARS). Should the City reach its goal of 90% funding before FY 2036, the City Manager will
report the status to the City Council with a recommendation on whether the practice should be
continued, modified, or discontinued. The City Manager must identify the impacts on the
funding goal and timeframe to modify the transmission of the additional contributions to the
PARS Trust Fund.
In addition to the contributions required by this Pension Funding Policy, the City will examine
additional opportunities for proactive contributions to the PARS Trust Fund. Furthermore, the
City Manager will include recommendations on whether funding should be transmitted from
PARS to CalPERS as part of the annual budget process. This may change from year-to-year
depending on the circumstances and level of funding accumulated. Some years may result in
accumulating additional funding in PARS, while others may result in transferring an amount
greater than a single year of additional contributions, calculated through the lower discount
rate, to CalPERS. City Council approval is required for use of accumulated funds in PARS either to
CalPERS as an Additional Discretionary Payment (ADP) or to offset a portion of the standard
ADC.
An additional action that will not require City Council approval is transfer of excess Budget
Stabilization Reserve (BSR) above 18.5% to the PARS Trust Fund. The BSR Policy will be
amended to confer discretion to the City Manager to make this transfer. The BSR Policy
currently confers discretion to the City Manager to transfer excess BSR above 18.5% to the
Infrastructure Reserve. Once amended, the BSR Policy will confer authority to the City Manager
to proactively fund infrastructure and pension obligation needs through transfers to the
Infrastructure Reserve and to the PARS Trust Fund. Additionally, through standard reports to
the City Council (such as Year-End, Mid-Year, or another City Manager’s Report) the City
Manager will include actions for additional contributions from funds other than the General
Fund to maintain alignment with the contributions from the General Fund via excess BSR. City
Council approval is required for these contributions from funds other than the General Fund.
The City will work to proactively monitor its pension funding position through not only its
CalPERS reports but also by continuing to use an outside actuary as a consultant to model
different scenarios. The City will continue to transmit the CalPERS reports on an annual basis.
Attachment A
Once every three years, the City will consult with an outside actuary to provide an update on
the progress the City has made towards reaching a funding goal of 90% of funding of the
CalPERS determined liability by FY2036 and update the City Council. Additional actions may
come out of those reports and discussions with the City Council.
Service Delivery Outcomes: The goal of the Pension Funding Policy is to prevent service
delivery crowd-out by the increased costs of pension obligations. If the City’s efforts to
proactively contribute to the long-term pension obligations would result in service delivery
impacts in the short-term, the City Manager will identify those impacts and recommendations
to mitigate them, as appropriate, through the budget development process.
Fiscal Impacts: If the General Fund’s revenues are projected to decline more than 7.5% year-
over-year, the City Manager will return to the City Council with recommendations addressing
the implications for the City’s proactive funding contributions for the coming year through the
budget development process.
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11728)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/30/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Easement Vacation at 1201 Parkinson Avenue
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Vacating Public Utility Easement at 1201
Parkinson Avenue
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached Resolution Summarily Vacating a 10-foot
wide Public Utilities Easement (PUE) at 1201 Parkinson Avenue, Palo Alto, CA.
Discussion
The owner of the property at 1201 Parkinson Avenue has requested that the City vacate a 10-
foot wide public utility easement (PUE), filed of record in the Office of Recorder of the County
of Santa Clara, on November 22, 1946, in the Book 1407 at page 272. No utilities have ever
been installed by the City in the PUE area, and after review, City staff has determined that the
area would not be used for this purpose. Therefore, this PUE is no longer necessary for any
future public purpose. City Utilities, Public Works, and Planning departments have all reviewed
the proposal to vacate the PUE and concur with the vacation. Therefore, the PUE may be
vacated in accordance with the summary proceeding authorized in Section 8333 of the
California Streets and Highways Code.
Resource Impact
The easement vacation processing fee of $1,811 as set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule of
FY2021 has been paid by the property owner.
Policy Implications
The recommendation does not represent any change to City policies. The Planning Department
has determined that the vacation of this easment is in conformity with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.
Environmental Review
The proposed summary vacation of the public utilities easement is categorically exempt from
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 California
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Code of Regulations Section 15305 as a minor alteration in land use limitations.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Easement - 1201 Parkinson Avenue Vacation Resolution
1
Recorded at no charge in accordance with Streets & Highways Code Section 8325 at the request of and
when recorded return to:
CITY OF PALO ALTO/REAL ESTATE 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. BOX 10250
PALO ALTO, CA 94303 ________________________________________________________________
SPACE ABOVE LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE
A.P. No.: 003-44-037Project No.: CEV Project: Vacation of Easement
1201 Parkinson Avenue
S U M M A R Y V A C A T I O N RESOLUTION NO. _____
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO SUMMARILY VACATING PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS
WHEREAS, Chapter 4 of the Public Streets, Highways and
Service Easements Vacation Law, commencing with Streets and Highways Code section 8330, provides for summary vacation of streets and public service easements; and
WHEREAS, the easement was accepted by the City of Palo
Alto and recorded in the Office of the Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder on November 22, 1946 as Recording No. 433754, in Book 1408, on page 272; and
WHEREAS, 60-feet of this 10-foot wide utilities easement
has never been used and there are no utilities or public improvements located within the 60-feet easement area to be vacated; and
WHEREAS, Section 8333 of the Streets and Highways Code
authorizes the City Council to summarily vacate public service utilities easements when the easement has never been used, which are no longer necessary when the easements have been superseded by relocation, and no other public facilities are located within the easements; and
Attachment A
2
WHEREAS, the City council intends to summarily vacate the Public Service Easement for Utilities as more particularly described herein in Exhibit “A” attached to this resolution and
depicted on the plat map attached as Exhibit “B” to this resolution; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. This vacation is made under the authority of
California Streets and Highways Code Chapter 4 of part 3 of Division 9, commencing at Section 8330 et. seq.
1. The Public Service Easement described herein on Exhibit “A” and depicted on the plat map attached as Exhibit “B” has
never been used; and 2. No public facilities are located within the said Public
Service Easements; and
3. The public convenience and necessity do not require reservation of any portion of these easements; and 4. The Council has considered the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and ratifies the determination of the Planning Department
that the vacation of the public service easement is in conformity with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 2. Based upon the findings made in Section 1 of this Resolution and the provisions of Section 8333 of the
Streets and Highways Code, the City Council does hereby order that the public service easement as shown on the attached map shall be and hereby is summarily vacated. SECTION 3. The City Clerk, acting by and through the
Real Property Manager, is hereby directed to record at the Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder’s Office a certified copy of this
Resolution, including the Map. SECTION 4. The public service easement for utilities
described in Exhibit “A” and depicted in the plat map attached as Exhibit “B” will no longer constitute public service
easements from and after the date of recordation of the documents identified in Section 3 of this Resolution.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the summary vacation of the public service easement is exempt from review under the
California Environmental Act pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 15305 as a minor alteration in land
3
use limitations. INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES: ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
__________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ ______________________________
City Attorney or designee City Manager ______________________________ Director of Administrative Services
PAGE 1 OF 2
EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ABANDONMENT
1201 PARKINSON AVE, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, SITUATE IN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO,
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION, THE LANDS
OF MANGALINDAN AND LYON AS DESCRIBED IN DEED DOCUMENT NUMBER
24494290, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, AS SHOWN ON
EXHIBIT “B” MADE A PART HEREOF, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF PARKINSON AVENUE (60 FEET WIDE) AND THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF
WAY PROPERTY LINE OF WILSON STREET 60 FEET WIDE (NOW ABANDONED PER
1408 O.R. 272);
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG TH PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF PARKINSON AVENUE, NORTH 89°58’00” WEST 20 FEET, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID PROLONGATION NORTH 89°58’00” WEST 10 FEET
TO THE FORMER CENTERLINE OF WILSON STREET (NOW ABANDONED) AND THE
WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS;
THENCE, NORTHERLY ALONG SAID FORMER CENTERLINE AND SAID LANDS,
NORTH 00°01’38” EAST 152.43 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LANDS;
THENCE, LEAVING SAID LINE AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS,
SOUTH 89°57’59” EAST 10.00 FEET;
THENCE, LEAVING SAID LINE, SOUTH 00°01’38” WEST 152.43 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING.
Closure Calculations for Easement Abandonment
North: 5218.9158' East: 10794.5363'
Segment #1 : Line
Course: N89° 58' 00"W Length: 10.00'
North: 5218.9216' East: 10784.5363'
Segment #2 : Line
Course: N00° 01' 38"E Length: 152.43'
North: 5371.3516' East: 10784.6087'
Segment #3 : Line
Course: S89° 57' 59"E Length: 10.00'
North: 5371.3457' East: 10794.6087'
Segment #4 : Line
Course: S00° 01' 38"W Length: 152.43'
North: 5218.9157' East: 10794.5363'
Perimeter: 324.86' Area: 1524.30 Sq. Ft.
Error Closure: 0.0000 Course: S00° 02' 01"W
Error North: -0.00005 East: -0.00000
Precision 1: 324860000.00
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11763)
City Council Staff Report
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/30/2020
Summary Title: Tri-Cities Consortium Records Management System Contract
Title: Approval of the Tri-cities Consortium Records Management System
Software Agreement With Sun Ridge Systems Inc., for $621,248 and a Term
Ending Five Years From the Date of Project Implementation, to Establish a
New Records Management System for the Police Departments of Palo Alto,
Mountain View, and Los Altos
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute
the Tri-Cities Consortium Contract with Sun Ridge Systems, Inc., for a Records Management
System in an amount not to exceed $621,248 for a contract term ending five years from the
date of project implementation.
Background
In 2008, the City Managers of Los Altos, Mountain View, and Palo Alto agreed to a broad
initiative of sharing public safety technology as a method to conserve resources, improve
response times, increase the resiliency and the redundancy of these critical systems, and to
enhance interoperable communications between first responders in the three cities. This
initiative presented the “virtual consolidation” concept and the framework to share public
safety technology and communication systems. In 2013, the Tri-Cities Consortium was formed
by agreement.
The Consortium collaborated to cost-share the purchase of Communications systems,
jointly procured a Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system (through Intergraph
Corporation) and purchased a Records Management System (RMS) through the same vendor.
The RMS portion of the project was not completed by Intergraph due to multiple challenges
over five years of work. In 2019, the Consortium terminated its contract with Intergraph and
the group initiated a search for a new Records Management System vendor.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Discussion
Procurement Process
In July 2019, the City of Los Altos, acting as the Contractual Agent of the Consortium, issued
a Request for Proposals (RFP) for all three cities for a new police RMS system. Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) 2.30.360(j) allows for an exemption from competitive solicitation
requirements for cooperative purchases with one or more other public agencies, provided
that the services are solicited using methods substantially similar to the City’s. The City of Los
Altos has a public procurement procedure consistent with Palo Alto and the
Consortium followed those procedures in the review and selection of an RMS vendor.
The Consortium created a committee consisting of employees at all levels and positions
within the three city police departments. The committee was tasked with identifying
RMS companies, coordinating demonstrations, and conducting site visits to other agencies.
The committee sought vendors with a superior product and excellent reputations, especially in
customer service and support.
In November 2019, in response to the published RFP, five companies submitted proposals. Staff
assessed each proposal via an assessment point rating scale based on system costs, compliance
to interface needs, essential functions as defined in the RFP, completeness of proposal, level of
service, general experience, qualifications, and years of experience. The committee
also assessed the following: financial stability, resources of the proposer, proof of
successful implementation in similar projects, sample timeliness based on prior project
experience, responsiveness the proposer commits to the committee, economic feasibility and
justification of all project costs, and proposer’s willingness and ability to negotiate a contract
acceptable to each city. Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. (Sun Ridge) was the only proposer that passed
all categories and was recommended by the committee as the preferred solution. The cities of
Los Altos, Palo Alto, and Mountain View’s executives and legal counsels have approved the
content of the agreement.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Project Award -Sun Ridge Systems
The Sun Ridge RMS software product provides a broad range of law enforcement functionality
including the management of master records, tracking of accidents, arrests, citations, field
interviews, property and evidence, permits, gang involvement, warrants, case management,
and other key data. The interface will support the full suite of California Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System (CLETS)/National Crime Information Center (NCIC) transactions for
all CLETS data elements and enable data collection, validation, and submission of crime reports
in compliance with forthcoming California Incident-Based Reporting System (CIBRS)
requirements. Sun Ridge will provide an Automated Field-Based Reporting (FBR) software
solution that allows users to quickly and accurately complete reports in either a mobile or a
desktop environment and submit those reports electronically to the RMS via an agency-
specified report approval process. This feature will allow for mostly paperless police
reports and improve staff efficiency with electronic approvals (replacing the current manual
hardcopy approval process). Palo Alto will also be acquiring the ability to collect state-
mandated “Racial and Identify Profiling Act of 2015” (RIPA) data, pursuant to AB 953, through
the purchase of the Sun Ridge Systems Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) license. The CAD
license enables the department to transfer all Communications Center call data into the RMS
system (called a “Calls For Service” module), which improves data reporting capabilities, as
well as access to the Sun Ridge RIPA data collection module.
This project was advanced by the Planning and Transportation Commission as consistent
with the objectives of the 2021-2025 Comprehensive Plan on June 10, 2020, as part of the five-
year Capital Improvement Plan, as a necessary expenditure utilizing monies from the
Technology Fund (see Staff Report #11094). The Comprehensive Plan was included as part
of the Fiscal Year 2021 Capital Budget Adoption in June 2020. The City Council action today
authorizes the City Manager or designee to execute the agreement to purchase the system in
partnership with the other Consortium members.
Project Timeline
Upon approval, the RMS project is expected to be completed by late summer or early fall
2021. As part of the City’s continued work related to race and equity, staff will bring
quarterly RMS implementation updates to the Policy and Services Committee.
RMS Initial Cost
RMS Costs Only-Excludes Stanford University
Community
$1,191,840.00
Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Resource Impact
Palo Alto fees for this project are shared by the Consortium and charged at 35.13 percent of the
total cost. These costs are allocated according to City population statistics from 2018,
as agreed in the Tri-Cities Consortium Memorandum of Understanding. Palo Alto’s full portion
of the Sun Ridge contract, including the first year’s annual maintenance fees, will be
$621,248 which includes the Sun Ridge Systems Calls for Service module (requires a CAD license
fee). The FY 2021 Adopted Capital Budget included the full funding necessary for the
implementation of this project under project TE-21000. Hardware costs will be shared
equally amongst the Consortium agencies and were also included in the total project cost.
Palo Alto’s portion of ongoing support costs are anticipated beginning in FY 2023 at an annual
cost of approximately $76,000. These costs will be incorporated in future budget cycles,
subject to City Council approval. Refer to the chart below for additional fee explanation.
The Tri-Cities Consortium has included a payment schedule, in both the RFP and the attached
Sun Ridge Systems contract. Mountain View is the Fiscal Agent for this project and will submit
invoices to Palo Alto as the project progresses through to completion.
50% Shared 16.67% $ 198,640.00 16.67% $ 198,640.00 16.67% $ 198,640.00
50% Based on
Population 8.454% $ 100,758.15 23.087% $ 275,160.10 18.459% $ 220,001.75
Totals $ 299,398.15 $ 473,800.10 $ 418,641.75
Full Percent 25.12% 39.76% 35.13%
PA Specific $ 202,607.00
MV Specific $ 2,500.00 CFS/RIPA Mod
LA Specific $ 43,107.00
Agency Totals $ 342,505.15 $ 476,300.10 $ 621,248.75
Initial Cost
Annual Support
RMS Support Costs-Excludes Stanford University
Community
$ 153,144.00
Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto
50% Shared 16.67% $ 25,524.01 16.67% $ 25,524.01 16.67% $ 25,524.01
50% Based on
Population 8.454% $ 12,946.79 23.087% $ 35,356.35 18.459% $ 28,268.85
Totals $ 38,470.80 $ 60,880.36 $ 53,792.86
Full Percent 25.12% 39.76% 35.13%
PA Specific CFS $ 22,500.00
Agency Totals $ 38,470.80 $ 60,880.36 $ 76,292.86
Annual Support
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Environmental Review
This is not a project under Section 21065 for purposes of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
•Attachment A: Sun Ridge Systems Inc Software and Services Agreement_final
Page 1 Sun Ridge Contract – V081020 4836-2251-1054v1 ERAMAKRISHNAN\27916001
SUN RIDGE SYSTEMS, INC.
SOFTWARE AND SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Software and Services Agreement (this “Agreement”) is executed in counterparts as
of November _9_, 2020, between Sun Ridge Systems, Inc., a California corporation (“Sun
Ridge”), and the City of Los Altos, a municipal corporation; the City of Mountain View, a California
charter city and municipal corporation; and the City of Palo Alto, a California charter city
(collectively referred to herein as the “City,” or sometimes as the “Cities”), located c/o the City of
Los Altos Police Department at 1 N. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, CA 94022.
Section 1. Agreement. That for and in consideration of payments and agreements
hereinafter mentioned to be made and performed by the City, and under the conditions set forth
in this Agreement, Sun Ridge agrees to provide computer software (“Software”) and services
(“Services”) to the City as described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, attached hereto and incorporated
herein. The Software support and maintenance services to be provided by Sun Ridge as part of
the Services are more specifically described in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein
(“Software Support Services Agreement”).
Section 2. City Project Manager. Sun Ridge shall work under the general direction
of Judy Maloney, Los Altos Police Services Manager (the “City Project Manager”), in fulfilling this
Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing and provisions for giving notices as set forth in Section
13e below, Sun Ridge and the Cities acknowledge and agree that Sun Ridge will communicate
directly with personnel of one or more of the Cities from time to time to address issues that may
be specific to a particular city’s as deemed necessary in connection with the installation and
testing of the Software (“Project-Level Communications”).
Section 3. Scope of Work. The project that is the subject of this Agreement shall
consist of the delivery by Sun Ridge to the City of the Software and Services (the “Project”)
described in Exhibit A.
Section 4. Payment Schedule. In consideration for the Software and Services to be
provided by Sun Ridge under this Agreement, the City agrees to pay Sun Ridge the Total Contract
Amount (“Contract Amount”) given in Exhibit B according to the following schedule (“Payment
Schedule”):
Milestone Amount of Payment
Contract Signing 25% of Contract Amount
Software Installation Complete 25% of Contract Amount
Training Complete 25% of Contract Amount
Final Acceptance 25% of Contract Amount
The City shall not be entitled to withhold or delay payments due to Sun Ridge pursuant to the
above Payment Schedule due to delay in the delivery, installation, or testing of Software items
described in Exhibit A where the delay is the result of action or inaction or breach of this
Agreement by the City, its agents or employees or the action or inaction of a third party which is
not within Sun Ridge's reasonable control. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no payment shall be
due from the City if Sun Ridge has not performed to the City’s reasonable satisfaction or is
otherwise in default hereunder; provided, however, that payment shall be due promptly upon Sun
Ridge’s cure of such default to the City’s reasonable satisfaction.
Section 5. Invoices. Invoices shall be sent to:
Mountain View Police Department
Page 2 Sun Ridge Contract – V081020 4836-2251-1054v1 ERAMAKRISHNAN\27916001
ATTN: Jennifer Copeland, Support Services Manager
1000 Villa Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Upon receipt of the invoice, the City shall verify that the invoice has been properly prepared and
that the conditions of payment have been fulfilled. If the payment conditions have been fulfilled,
the invoice shall be processed and paid by the City within thirty (30) days after the City’s receipt
thereof.
In addition to any other amounts for which City is liable under this Agreement, City agrees to pay
to Sun Ridge a late charge equal to one percent (1%) of the amount due if City fails to pay Sun
Ridge any amount that is due and owing pursuant to this Agreement within sixty (60) days after
City’s receipt of an invoice from Sun Ridge. In addition, any invoiced amounts that are due and
owing under this Agreement which City fails to pay to Sun Ridge within ninety (90) days after
City’s receipt of an invoice from Sun Ridge shall thereafter bear simple interest at the rate of ten
percent (10%) per annum or the highest interest rate allowed by applicable law, whichever is less.
Section 6. Term of Agreement. Unless terminated earlier in accordance with the
provisions of this Agreement or applicable law, the term of this Agreement (“Term”) shall be from
the date shown on the first page of this Agreement through completion of the Project. Completion
of the Project means the installation by Sun Ridge of all of the Software to the City’s reasonable
satisfaction, the completion by Sun Ridge of all training and other Services to the City’s
reasonable satisfaction, and the payment by the City to Sun Ridge of the entire Contract Amount.
The Project schedule is to be separately generated and agreed to between the parties.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, (i) the License described in Section 9 below will remain in effect
until it is terminated pursuant to Section 9, (ii) the obligations set forth in Section 10(a) shall survive
this Agreement, and (iii) the Software Support Services Agreement attached as Exhibit C hereto
shall remain in effect until it is terminated pursuant to its terms.
Section 7. Warranty/Disclaimer of Liability.
a. Sun Ridge warrants that upon delivery the Software substantially
conforms to its Documentation and is free from defects that will materially impair its use. The
City’s sole and exclusive remedy for breach of this warranty will be repair or replacement of the
Software. Sun Ridge will make reasonable efforts to correct errors in the Software but does not
warrant that the Software is error-free or will perform without interruption. The City has relied
solely upon its own investigation and judgment in selecting the Software and not upon any
representations or promises of Sun Ridge except as may be expressly stated in this Agreement.
b. THE FOREGOING WARRANTY IS IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER
WARRANTIES PERTAINING TO THE SOFTWARE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AND SUN RIDGE
SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
c. IN NO EVENT WILL SUN RIDGE BE LIABLE FOR LOST
BUSINESS, DIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, HOWEVER
CAUSED, WHETHER FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY, CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE) ARISING OUT OF THE QUALITY,
CONDITION OR USE OF THE SOFTWARE OR ANY OTHER PART OF THE PRODUCT. IN
NO EVENT WILL SUN RIDGE BE LIABLE FOR ANY AMOUNT WHICH EXCEEDS THE
AMOUNT PAID BY THE CITY FOR THE PRODUCT.
Page 3 Sun Ridge Contract – V081020 4836-2251-1054v1 ERAMAKRISHNAN\27916001
Section 8. Final Acceptance. For thirty (30) days from the beginning of Agency’s
Operational Use of the Software or forty (40) days after the completion of installation and training
by Sun Ridge, whichever comes first (the “Initial Test Period”), the City shall test the system for
defects and anomalies. For purposes of this Agreement, “Operational Use” means the use of the
Software in the course of any one of the Cities’ daily business activities. The City shall thereafter
accept or reject the Software as follows:
a. If, at the end of the Initial Test Period, the City determines that the
Software is performing to the City’s satisfaction, then a notice of final acceptance of the Software
(“Final Acceptance”) and authorization of final payment to Sun Ridge will be processed by the
City. If the City fails to provide written Final Acceptance prior to the termination of the Initial Test
Period, the Software shall nonetheless be deemed accepted by the City unless prior to the
termination of the Initial Test Period the City notifies Sun Ridge in writing of, (i) any remaining
problems with the Software, or (ii) the City’s decision not to accept the Software (in which case
the parties shall proceed as described in Section 8.b.ii below). Upon Final Acceptance or deemed
acceptance of the Software by the City, the parties shall proceed as described in Section 8.b.i
below. However, if during the Initial Test Period it is determined that the Software is not
performing satisfactorily, then the City shall identify problems in writing to Sun Ridge no later than
the last day of the Initial Test Period, and shall work with Sun Ridge for the next forty-five (45)
days to resolve those problems (the “Second Test Period”).
b. At the end of the Second Test Period, one of the following shall
occur as applicable:
i. If the City determines that the Software is performing to its
satisfaction, it shall immediately provide written Final Acceptance of the Software and, upon
receipt of a valid invoice, shall process and pay the Final Acceptance milestone payment. Any
remaining issues with the Software shall be covered as part of the original cost of the system and
handled as maintenance items under the Software Support Services Agreement attached hereto
as Exhibit C.
ii. If the City decides not to accept the Software, then it must
so notify Sun Ridge within five (5) business days of the end of the Second Test Period. This
Agreement shall be terminated (except as to the obligations of Section 10(a) and all other
provisions of this Agreement that expressly survive its termination), as of the date of such notice
and all payments already made by the City to Sun Ridge, less the reasonable cost of project
management, installation, data conversion, and training services provided up to the date of
termination, shall be returned to the City within thirty (30) calendar days, and the City immediately
shall cease to use the Software and erase all copies thereof.
iii. If the City fails to provide written Final Acceptance or to
notify Sun Ridge that it will not accept the Software, then the Software shall be deemed accepted
by the City, and the City shall proceed as described in Section 8.b.i above as if written Final
Acceptance had been given.
Section 9. Software License. Subject to the terms, conditions, limitations and
restrictions set forth in this Agreement, Sun Ridge grants to the City a nonexclusive and non-
transferable license, effective upon the City’s Final Acceptance of the Software pursuant to
Section 8 above, to use the Software in connection with the City’s normal and customary daily
operations substantially as they exist as of the date of commencement of the Term as described
below (the “License”). The City shall acquire no ownership or other rights in or to the Software
except for the License granted hereunder, and title to the Software shall at all times remain with
Sun Ridge.
Page 4 Sun Ridge Contract – V081020 4836-2251-1054v1 ERAMAKRISHNAN\27916001
a. The following additional terms, conditions and limitations apply to
the License:
i. The City may use the Software on all computers in the City’s
possession and control, or in any other agencies’ possession and control if explicitly agreed to in
writing by Sun Ridge;
ii. The City may make a copy of the Software for backup or
modification purposes only in support of the City’s authorized use of the Software hereunder as
Sun Ridge has expressly authorized;
iii. No one using the Software, and no one for whose benefit
the Software is being used, shall sublicense, resell, distribute, market, provide or otherwise make
available the Software or any part or copies thereof to any third party;
iv. The City shall not transfer, use, or export the Software in
violation of any applicable laws, rules, or regulations of any government or governmental agency;
v. The City and its employees and agents shall not cause the
use of the Software to disrupt, disable, or otherwise harm the operations, software, hardware,
equipment, and/or systems of a business, institution, or other entity, including, without limitation,
exposing the business, institution, or other entity to any computer virus, trojan horse, or other
harmful, disruptive, or unauthorized component;
vi. The City shall not embed the Software in any third-party
applications, unless expressly permitted under this Agreement or otherwise authorized in writing
in advance by an authorized officer of Sun Ridge;
vii. The License granted under this Agreement shall apply only
to the object code for the Software. No one using the Software, and no one for whose benefit the
Software is being used, shall have the right to use or have access to the source code for the
Software, and neither the City nor anyone using the Software pursuant to this License will modify,
change, merge, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or prepare derivative
works based upon the Software; and
viii. The City acknowledges that the Software and the
Documentation (as defined below) constitute trade secrets of Sun Ridge. The City agrees to
maintain the confidentiality of the Software and the Documentation, and shall take commercially
reasonable steps to preserve that confidentiality pursuant to Section 12 of this Agreement.
b. The term of the License shall commence upon Final Acceptance or
deemed acceptance of the Software by the City, and shall continue until the License is terminated
as provided below (provided, however, that the City’s use and testing of the Software prior to Final
Acceptance or deemed acceptance of the Software in accordance with this Agreement shall not
constitute unlicensed use of the Software):
i. Sun Ridge may immediately terminate the License in the
event of any failure by the City to comply with the terms or conditions of this Agreement by giving
written notice of such termination to the City. In the event the City has leased the Software from
Sun Ridge, the License will terminate automatically upon termination of the lease. Upon such
termination, the City shall immediately cease further use of the Software and will cause all copies
of the Software to be destroyed or returned to Sun Ridge.
Page 5 Sun Ridge Contract – V081020 4836-2251-1054v1 ERAMAKRISHNAN\27916001
ii. The City may terminate the License at any time by giving
written notice thereof to Sun Ridge and by destroying or returning to Sun Ridge all copies of the
Software. The City acknowledges and agrees that any election by the City to terminate the
License hereunder will not entitle the City to any refund of amounts paid or compensation of any
kind from Sun Ridge.
iii. Upon any termination or expiration of the License, an
authorized representative of the City shall certify in writing to Sun Ridge that all copies of the
Software and the Documentation which were the subject of the License have either been
destroyed or returned to Sun Ridge as required above.
iv. The provisions of Sections 7 and 10 through 13, inclusive,
shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
c. Sun Ridge may, at its option, release updates to or new versions of
the Software. If the City elects to obtain any update or new version of the Software, the use of
such update or new version will be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
d. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, Sun Ridge retains
all intellectual property rights and other rights to the Software, Documentation (as defined below),
and the source code for the Software.
Section 10. Indemnity and Insurance.
a. Sun Ridge agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City
and its officers, directors, shareholders, employees, and agents (the “City Indemnified Parties”)
from any and all claims, demands, liabilities, and costs, including attorney’s fees (“Claims”),
arising out of or relating to (i) any alleged infringement of a third-party’s intellectual property rights,
or (ii) the negligence or willful misconduct of any employee or agent of Sun Ridge occurring during
or as a result of Sun Ridge’s performance of its obligations hereunder; provided, however, that
Sun Ridge shall have no indemnity or other obligations to the City hereunder to the extent any
such Claims arise from or are the result of the negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its
employees, agents or other contractors (but only to the extent of such fault). Nor shall the
foregoing indemnity and hold harmless obligations of Sun Ridge extend to Claims arising out of
the City’s use or inability to use the Software (but only to the extent such Claims arise from such
use or inability to use the Software). This indemnity obligation shall survive the expiration,
cancellation or termination of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City expressly
waives, releases, and agrees that neither Sun Ridge nor Sun Ridge’s officers, directors,
shareholders, employees, agents and affiliates shall have any liability for any individual’s or
entity’s lost business, direct damages, incidental or consequential damages, or any other Claims
arising out of or related to the use or implementation of the Software
b. During the term of this Agreement, Sun Ridge shall comply with the
following insurance requirements:
i. Workers’ Compensation. Sun Ridge shall fully comply with
the terms of the law of California concerning workers’ compensation. Said compliance shall
include, but not be limited to, maintaining in full force and effect one or more policies of insurance
insuring against any liability Sun Ridge may have for workers’ compensation. Said policy shall
also include employer’s liability coverage of $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
ii. General Liability Insurance. Sun Ridge shall obtain at its
sole cost and keep in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement commercial general
liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, and property
Page 6 Sun Ridge Contract – V081020 4836-2251-1054v1 ERAMAKRISHNAN\27916001
damage personal injury; coverage includes products and completed operations. Said insurance
shall provide (1) that the City, its officers, and employees shall be included as additional insureds
under the policy, and (2) that the policy shall operate as primary insurance, and non-contributory.
iii. Automobile Liability Insurance. Sun Ridge shall obtain at its
sole cost and keep in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement business automobile
liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily
injury and property damage. Said insurance shall provide that the policy shall operate as primary
insurance, and shall be non-contributory.
iv. Certificates of Insurance. Sun Ridge shall file with City upon
the execution of this Agreement, certificates of insurance which shall provide that no cancellation,
major change in coverage, expiration, or nonrenewal will be made during the term of this
agreement, without thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the effective date of such
cancellation, or change in coverage.
Section 11. Termination Rights. This Agreement may be terminated as set forth in
Section 8 or 9 or in Section 7 of Exhibit C, as applicable. Upon Termination, each party will return,
delete, or destroy any copies, whether tangible or electronic, of Confidential Information obtained
from the other party pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to any Documentation
and any Confidential Information stored on any equipment that may be returned, and certify to
the other party in writing within five (5) business days of the termination date that it has done so.
Section 12. Confidential Information. “Confidential Information” means any and all
confidential information of a party to this Agreement that is not generally known to or by members
of the public, including but not limited to businesses that compete with such a party, including the
Software source code, the Documentation pertaining thereto, any data or information stored or
managed by the City using the Software, and any other information clearly identified in writing by
either party as a trade secret pursuant to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Civil Code Section 3426,
et seq. Confidential Information shall not include information that is now or becomes part of the
public domain, is required by applicable law (including the California Public Records Act) to be
disclosed, was already known by the receiving party at the time of disclosure, is independently
developed by the receiving party without any use of Confidential Information, or is lawfully
obtained from a third party. “Documentation” means those visually readable materials, developed
by or for Sun Ridge and clearly identified by Sun Ridge to the City in writing as confidential, for
use in connection with the Software, in either written or electronic form.
Each party agrees to protect the other party’s Confidential Information. Confidential Information
will not be used or disclosed except as authorized by the providing party. Confidential Information
will be disclosed to employees of the receiving party only on a “need to know” basis and only after
such employees are informed of the confidential nature of the information and obligated to
maintain confidentiality.
If a party or any party acting on its behalf is required to disclose by order of a court of competent
jurisdiction, administrative agency or governmental body, or by subpoena, summons or other legal
process, or by law (including the California Public Records Act), rule or regulation, or by applicable
regulatory or professional standards to produce Confidential Information, that party shall promptly
(and prior to such disclosure) notify the other party in writing of such demand or requirement
whereupon the parties shall cooperate and take all reasonable acts (without significant cost or
expense to the notifying party) to exhaust the legal avenues available to maintain the
confidentiality of such Confidential Information, unless the party whose Confidential Information
is at issue consents to the production and disclosure of such Confidential Information. In all
events, only that portion of the Confidential Information specifically requested by the tribunal or
person compelling such disclosure shall be provided and no interpretation or analysis of such
Page 7 Sun Ridge Contract – V081020 4836-2251-1054v1 ERAMAKRISHNAN\27916001
data prepared for the purpose of such disclosure shall be disclosed unless approved the party
whose Confidential Information is at issue or required by law. To the extent that the City withholds
any of Sun Ridge’s Confidential Information that is responsive to a request for records pursuant
to the California Public Records Act, unless Sun Ridge specifically authorizes the City in writing
to disclose such Confidential Information, Sun Ridge shall indemnify and defend the City (with
counsel reasonably acceptable to the City) in any action or proceeding to compel disclosure,
including, without limitation, for costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other litigation expenses
reasonably incurred by the City.
Section 13. General Terms.
a. Governing Law. This Agreement will be construed by and enforced
in accordance with the laws of the state of California.
b. Arbitration. If a dispute arises from or related to this Agreement or
the breach of this Agreement and if such dispute cannot be settled through direct discussions,
the parties agree to first endeavor to settle the dispute in an amicable manner by mediation to be
held in Sacramento, California, under the Commercial Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration
Association before resorting to arbitration. Thereafter, any unresolved controversy or claim arising
from or relating to this Agreement, or breach of this Agreement, shall be settled in arbitration to
be held in Sacramento, California. The arbitration will be governed by the Commercial Arbitration
Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and the parties shall be allowed discovery in
accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 94 and 95, as though the arbitration
were a limited civil proceeding, and with all references to the “court” therein construed to refer to
the arbitrator. If Sun Ridge and the City cannot jointly select a single arbitrator to determine the
matter, one arbitrator shall be chosen by each of Sun Ridge and the City (or, if a party fails to
make a choice, by the American Arbitration Association on behalf of such party) and the two
arbitrators so chosen will select one additional arbitrator. The decision of the single arbitrator
jointly selected by Sun Ridge and the City, or, if three arbitrators are selected, the decision of any
two of them will be final and binding on the parties and the judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction may be entered on such decision. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover
reasonable fees and expenses resulting from any arbitration proceeding.
c. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held to be
invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, such finding shall not affect the validity, legality, or enforceability
of the remaining provisions.
d. Assignment. Parties may not transfer, assign, or sublicense this
Agreement, any license hereunder, or any of its rights or duties hereunder to any other person,
site or corporation without the prior written consent of the other party. Any attempted transfer,
assignment, or sublicense made without prior written consent shall be completely void.
e. Notice. Any notice requested or permitted to be given hereunder
shall be sent prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, and shall be deemed to have been
given on the third (3rd) business day after mailing to the other party as follows: to the City Project
Manager at the address indicated in the initial paragraph of this Agreement or to Facsimile No.
(650) 947-2704; to Sun Ridge Systems at P.O. Box 5071, El Dorado Hills, CA 95762, Facsimile
No. (530) 672-2385. Notices may be given by facsimile transmission to such number as may be
specified by the party for such purpose and shall be deemed to have been given when transmitted
to such number with confirmation of a successful transmission. For purposes of this Agreement
(including the attached Support Services Agreement), notices or communications relating to
approvals, disapprovals, Final Acceptance, non-acceptance, termination, and all other types of
notices or communications during or relating to installation, testing and use of the Software (other
than Project-Level Communications), to or from the Cities, or any of them, shall only be given by
Page 8 Sun Ridge Contract – V081020 4836-2251-1054v1 ERAMAKRISHNAN\27916001
or sent to the City Project Manager, and notice or communications given by or sent to the City
Project Manager in the manner set forth herein will constitute notice from or to each of the Cities,
as applicable.
f. Independent Contractors. The parties to this Agreement shall
constitute independent contractors. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as establishing
any employment, partnership, joint venture or similar arrangement between the parties, and no
party has any authority to commit any other party to any obligation to any other person or entity,
unless expressly agreed to in writing signed by such party.
g. Force Majeure. Sun Ridge shall not be responsible for interruption
of, interference with, diminution of, or suspension of any of its products or services, including
performance failure, which are caused by strike, lockout, riot, epidemics, war, government
regulation, fire, flood, natural disaster, acts of God, utility failures, losses or injuries arising directly
or indirectly from criminal acts, negligent acts of others, malfunctions or inadequacies of
equipment or service not directly within the control of Sun Ridge.
h. Authorization/Entire Agreement/Modification. This Agreement will
be effective upon signing by the City and Sun Ridge. This Agreement, including all exhibits
hereto, is the complete and final Agreement of the parties relating to the subject of this Agreement
and it replaces and supersedes any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understandings or
agreements. No alteration or variation to the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made
in writing and signed by the parties hereto.
This Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto, from the date shown on the first
page.
[Signatures on Following Page]
Page 9 Sun Ridge Contract – V081020 4836-2251-1054v1 ERAMAKRISHNAN\27916001
SUN RIDGE SYSTEMS, INC.
By:
__________________________________
Anthony B. Richards
Its: President
City of Palo Alto, a California charter city
By:
__________________________________
Its:
__________________________________
Approved as to form by:
City Attorney
City of Los Altos, a California municipal
corporation
By:
__________________________________
Its:
__________________________________
Approved as to form by:
City Attorney
City of Mountain View, a California charter city
and municipal corporation
By:
__________________________________
Its:
__________________________________
Approved as to form by:
City Attorney
Page 10 Sun Ridge Contract – V081020 4836-2251-1054v1 ERAMAKRISHNAN\27916001
Exhibit A Scope of Work
Section 1 – Software Licenses
The Cities have purchased licenses for the following RIMS software applications:
RIMS Computer Aided Dispatch Software (Palo Alto only)
RIMS Records Management Software
RIMS Mobile Computer Software
RIMS In-Station Mapping Software
RIMS Property Room Bar Coding Software
Citizen RIMS Public Access Software
iRIMS Law Mobile App Software
RIMS Officer Training Management Software
RIMS CA-IBRS Reporting Software
RIMS Collaborate Data Sharing Software
The Cities have purchased licenses for the following RIMS interfaces.
RIMS State (CLETS) Link Software
RIMS e-Citation Link Software
RIMS CopLogic Link Software
RIMS Laserfiche Link Software (Mountain View only)
RIMS Hexagon CAD Link Software
RIMS - Additional CAD Transfer Software (Palo Alto only)
RIMS Crossroads Collision Export Software
RIMS Dataworks Link Software
Section 2 - Project Schedule. Upon execution of the Agreement, Sun Ridge and the Cities shall
define a mutually agreed on project schedule by task. Sun Ridge and the Cities will do their best
to meet task completion dates; however, the schedule is flexible and subject to mutually agreed
to changes.
Section 3 – Hardware. Sun Ridge shall provide three (3) Worth Data Bar Code scanning units.
Section 4 - Installation. Sun Ridge shall instruct Cities IT on how to install the RIMS client (in-
station and mobile) software as well as other RIMS products on Cities provided workstations.
Section 5 – Configuration. Sun Ridge shall provide the following sessions to the Cities’
designated RIMS Administrators:
Initial Setup: Consists of two (2) sessions, not to exceed four (4) hours per session instruction
on the preliminary configuration of RIMS. Initial Setup is conducted over the phone and via
remote access to the Cities’ RIMS via remote access. The Cities will be given specific
assignments to be completed at the conclusion of the sessions.
RIMS Configuration and Setup: Consists of two (2) contiguous days onsite. This session
continues the system setup that was started with the Initial Setup sessions. The RIMS
Administrators will be instructed on how to configure RIMS to most closely meet the desired
operational procedures of the Cities. In some cases, the RIMS Administrators may find that
modifying existing procedures may be desired in order to take full advantage of RIMS
functionality. The RIMS Administrators will additionally be instructed/assisted in setting up the
Page 11 Sun Ridge Contract – V081020 4836-2251-1054v1 ERAMAKRISHNAN\27916001
remaining tables and values needed for the modules the Cities are sharing. Discussions will
include:
Customization of drop-down menu choices for 200+ fields
The Cities’ records management operational decisions
Paper flow vs paperless vs less paper for records
Selection of case format type
Review of data conversion processes and implementation, including reviewing
data and starting data translations if converted data is available at the time the
session is scheduled.
Section 6 - Data Conversion. (Los Altos PD Only). The services listed in the price chart
include converting data only from your existing records management system. Converting any
other data, including data from third party products, is not included. You are responsible for
extracting that data and providing it to us for conversion. Once we receive the extracted data,
we will evaluate it to determine which items may be converted into RIMS. As part of our
standard data conversion, we attempt to convert the following items. In some instances, not
all data may be available or suitable for conversion.
∙ People: Including person name, DOB, contact info, description, ID#’s, officer safety
notifications, log entries for connections to cases, for citations and for field contacts
∙ Arrest: Arrestee, date, time, charges, counts, offense level, disposition, booked/cited
out
∙ Vehicles: License, state, year, color, type, log entries for connections to case and
for field contacts
∙ Cases: Location, date report and data occurred, classification/type, offenses, case
disposition and date of disposition, persons, vehicles, narratives, and supplements
∙ Property in cases: category, article, status, description, brand, model, item #,
property code, locations, value-stolen, recovered, damaged and officer.
∙ Premises: Common place name, address, contact person, contact phone number,
alarm
∙ Streets: (if electronic street file is available), street name, intersections with block
ranges
∙ Officers: Name, ID
∙ Users: Name, ID
CAD and Property Room data will not be converted.
This also includes 2-days of onsite conversion review with a Sun Ridge trainer.
Section 7 - Map Engineering Services. Sun Ridge will provide map engineering services
assuming an ESRI-based map source file.
In-Station Mapping Software. The Cities shall provide the ESRI ArcView maps source data file.
Sun Ridge will load the Cities supplied ESRI-based maps into RIMS. Sun Ridge is NOT
responsible for the accuracy of the Cities’ map source. The Cities are responsible for licensing
cost for ESRI ArcView. The Cities will need one copy of ArcView GIS v10.1 (or later) that can
Page 12 Sun Ridge Contract – V081020 4836-2251-1054v1 ERAMAKRISHNAN\27916001
be used for the first position, and then a copy of ArcGIS 10.1 (or later) Runtime Engine for each
additional in-station unit that will use RIMS Mapping.
Section 8 - Integration. Sun Ridge shall provide RIMS sided interfaces for all third-party software
applications listed above. The Cities must coordinate with third-party vendors to complete and
test each interface.
Section 9 - Training. Sun Ridge is providing a combination of “end user” and “train the trainer”
training all of which shall be conducted on-site at a City provided location(s). Training days are
contiguous, including weekends. Class times are 0800 to no later than 1700. Sun Ridge will
provide a training plan at least 30 days prior to the first training session.
End User Training
Training Description Number of Days Number of Students Max Per Class
CAD Configuration (PAPD only) 1.5 Days (1 session) TBD 5
CAD Navigation (PAPD Only) 1.5 Days (1 session) 1 student/workstation 10
System Admin/Follow-Up 1 Day (1 session) 1 student/workstation 10
System Maintenance Training .5 Day (1 session) 1 student per workstation 10
Train the Trainer
Training Description Number of Days Number of Students Max Per Class
Officers/Field Reporting 3 Days (1 session) 2 students/workstation 20
Records* 1 Day (1 session) 1 student/workstation 10
Property Room* 1 Day (1 session) 1 student/workstation 10
Officer Training Management* 1 Day (1 session) 1 student per workstation 10
Post Go-Live Refresher 3 Days (1 session) TBD TBD
*Must Attend Day 1 of Officer/Field Reporting Training
If the Cities determine that additional training sessions/classes are requested, regardless of
reason, additional costs will apply and the project schedule will be revised accordingly to
accommodate the requested training.
Section 10 - Go Live Support. Four (4) Sun Ridge staff will be on site for Day 1 of Go Live
and three (3) staff onsite the day after Go Live to answer questions and to address any system
problems.
Section 11 - The Cities’ Responsibilities. The Cities are responsible for the following:
- Installation of all remaining client workstations
- Installation of all remaining mobile computers
- Coordinate and schedule resources of the Cities to include IT staff
Page 13 Sun Ridge Contract – V081020 4836-2251-1054v1 ERAMAKRISHNAN\27916001
- Identify RIMS Administrators from each police department
- Provide system and other third-party software including SQL, ERSI Licenses, Windows Server
2019+ (64 bit)
- Provide data communications infrastructure (network, wireless, internet, intranet)
- Coordinate testing of the CLETS Message Switch
- Complete, submit and gain approval of updated DOJ CLETS application
- Contact third party vendors (E911 provider, DOJ and any other necessary third-parties) and
coordinate their schedules and costs they may charge the Cities to provide their portion of
the interface to RIMS.
- Provide Geofile (aka “street file”) source and build-out
- Ensure accuracy of the geofile
- Provide initial map source file
- Ensure accuracy of the map source
- Ensure all user-maintained configuration and data validation tables are completed prior to the
start of training
- Provide training facilities, workstations and ensure access to RIMS training database from the
training location
- Schedule the City staff into requisite classes
- Provide end user training schedule to Sun Ridge
- Provide training facilities, workstations and ensure access to RIMS training database from
the training location
- Purchase a minimum of one (1) DYMO LabelWriter 450 Turbo Label Printer and minimum
one (1) month supply of Dymo Labels # 30256 per City Property Room
- Provide all hardware, with the exception of Property Room bar code scanners. The Cities
represent it has adequate dedicated space on an SQL database server (“Main”) and a
second server (“Communications”) and that these servers meet the minimum requirements
outlined below. Moreover, servers have network connectivity and appropriate security
containing virus protection software and firewalls. The Cities will provide remote access to
Sun Ridge using Sun Ridge’s Bomgar remote access software to allow Sun Ridge to meet
its responsibilities under this Agreement.
Main Server Communications Server
Minimum Recommended Minimum
Intel 2.0 GHZ ≥ i7, Xeon or AMD
equivalent CPU Intel 2.0 GHZ
≥ Windows 2012 Server
+ Windows 2016 Server + ≥ Windows Server 2012+
8 GB Memory 32 GB Memory 16 GB Memory
3 x current system DB
size
3 or more x current
system DB size ≥ 100 GB Disk
≥ Microsoft SQL Server
2012+
Microsoft SQL Server
2019
Page 14 Sun Ridge Contract – V081020 4836-2251-1054v1 ERAMAKRISHNAN\27916001
Monitor Resolution
1920x1080 or greater
Monitor Resolution
1920x1080 or greater
The Cities further represents it has personal computers and mobile in-car computers that meet
the minimum requirements outlined below:
Personal Computer Workstations Mobile In-Car Computers
Minimum Recommended Minimum
Intel 2.0 GHZ ≥ Intel 2.0 GHZ Intel 2.0 GHZ
≥ Windows 7+ Windows 10 ≥ Windows 7+
4 GB Memory 8 GB Memory 8 GB Memory
Any Size Disk Any Size Disk Any Size Disk
1680x1050 monitor
resolution 1920x1080
for dispatchers
1920x1080 monitor
resolution 1280X1024 monitor resolution
Wireless-based modem
≥ 2 USB ports
Internet Access (if using Google
Maps)
Optional
Touch screen
Magnetic Stripe Reader
Microphone for voice recognition
Fingerprint Reader
Page 15 Sun Ridge Contract – V081020 4836-2251-1054v1 ERAMAKRISHNAN\27916001
Exhibit B – Contract Amount
Items Total
RIMS Records Management Software $366,400
RIMS Computer Aided Dispatch (Hexagon Transfer PAPD Only) $150,000
RIMS Mobile Computer Software $120,000
RIMS State Link Software (CLETS) $29,600
RIMS In Station Mapping Software $65,000
RIMS Mobile Mapping Software $0
RIMS Property Room Bar Coding Software $44,800
Citizen RIMS Public Access Software $22,960
iRIMS Law Mobile App Software $51,200
RIMS Officer Training Management Software $12,800
RIMS Collaborate Data Sharing Software $26,000
RIMS e‐Citation Link Software $6,400
RIMS CopLogic Link Software $9,300
RIMS CopLink Link Software $0
RIMS Laserfiche Link Software (MVPD Only) $2,500
RIMS CA‐IBRS Reporting Software $39,000
RIMS Tyler Warrants Link Software $0
RIMS CJIC‐ISE Link Software $0
RIMS Hexagon CAD Link Software $25,000
RIMS ‐ Additional CAD Transfer Software (PAPD Only) $12,000
RIMS Crossroad Collision Export Software $18,000
RIMS Dataworks Link Software $20,000
Installation and Training $$176,377
Installation and Training CAD (PAPD Only) $18,107
Data Conversion – (LAPD RMS Only) $43,107
Bar Code Scanner (3 Units) $5,100
First Year Support $153,144
First Year Support (CAD ‐ PAPD Only) $22,500
Sales Tax (9%) $459
Total Contract Amount $1,440,054
Annual Support – Years 2 – 5* (Per Year) $153,144
Annual Support – Years 2 – 5 (CAD‐ PAPD Only)(Per Year) $ 22,500
*Price would be adjusted if Cities purchase additional modules during this time‐period.
Page 16 Sun Ridge Contract – V081020 4836-2251-1054v1 ERAMAKRISHNAN\27916001
Exhibit C – Support Services Agreement
This is a description of the software support, maintenance, and enhancement services to be
provided by Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. (“SRS”) to the Cities (“Licensee”) as part of a Software
Support Services Agreement (“Agreement”). This Agreement covers all RIMS public safety
software (Software) licensed by the Licensee and is effective at Operational Use.
Under this agreement SRS agrees to provide the following services and products to Licensee:
1. Coverage Hours. SRS will provide a toll free phone number for Licensee to call
whenever a covered problem occurs. Normal service hours will be Monday-Friday, 8AM-
5PM PST, with the exception of common federal holidays (“Holidays”). However, for
instances with the Licensee’s system is complete inoperable due to a SRS software
problem (“critical problems”) preventing basic system operation service will be available
24 hours, 7 days a week, Holidays included.
2. SRS Response to reported problems. SRS agrees to provide service and assistance
as expeditiously as possible as follows:
a. Most problems will be resolved with the initial phone call.
b. For problems that cannot be immediately resolved, SRS will work to resolve the
problem based on the severity of the problem and the urgency reported by
Licensee.
● For critical problems, SRS personnel will work with Licensee until the
situation is resolved.
● For problems that are not critical problems that have a lesser though
continuing impact on operations of Licensee (“non-critical problems”), SRS
will endeavor to provide a solution or work around within 72 hours of the
problem being reported to SRS by the Licensee.
● For problems that are not critical problems and are not non-critical
problems (“minor problems”) SRS may, at its discretion, either issue a near
term "fix release" of the product or include the fix in the next scheduled
product update.
3. Licensee equipment and software responsibilities. Licensee agrees to allow SRS to
remotely connect to Licensee’s system when a problem is reported. SRS uses Bomgar
Remote Support Software for this purpose. Bomgar software provides superior security and
does so over an ordinary internet connection via a Sun Ridge server that hosts a Bomgar
security hardware device.
With Licensee’s permission, SRS will use this connection to examine data files related to
reported problems and to provide updates and corrections when necessary.
4. Provision of software updates. SRS will provide at no additional cost all new enhanced
and updated versions of software licensed to Licensee. This software will be provided
with detailed installation instructions for installation by Licensee. If desired, Licensee may
retain SRS to perform any installation at additional cost to be determined on a per case
basis. Updates are distributed via download from the SRS ftp web site. SRS will not be
obligated to provide service for release versions that are more than two annual release
versions older than the current release.
5. Cost. The cost of the services and software to be provided under this Support Services
Agreement is provided in Exhibit B.
Page 17 Sun Ridge Contract – V081020 4836-2251-1054v1 ERAMAKRISHNAN\27916001
6. Term. The term of the Support Services Agreement shall be one year from Operational
Use payment as set forth in the Agreement, and shall be automatically renewed for
another year (the “renewal term”) upon payment of an invoice.
7. Termination. Licensee may terminate this Agreement with or without cause upon ninety
(90) days written notice to SRS. If terminated, Licensee is entitled to a prorated refund for
the service days not consumed beginning on the last day of the month the written notice
is received by SRS to the end of the remaining term of the Agreement.
8. Limitations. SRS agrees to provide support only for public safety application software
provided by SRS. Other software used by Licensee (word processing, spreadsheet, etc.)
is not included in this Agreement. PC and network operating system software and
Microsoft SQL Server database system software is similarly not included, although SRS
may assist Licensee in isolating problems to this software. Also specifically excluded is
responsibility for administration, support, or maintenance of your server, computer
network, operating systems, or database (Microsoft SQL Server).
Licensee may request that SRS provide support services outside the limitations of this
Support Services Agreement. If SRS agrees to provide any requested additional support
services, which SRS may do or decline to do in its sole discretion, such support services
will be provided at SRS’s then-current hourly labor rate and on such other terms and
conditions as SRS may require.
This Agreement does not include equipment maintenance or assistance in diagnosing
hardware problems including but not limited to PCs, printers, network, scanners and other
computer peripheral devices with the exception that SRS will assist Licensee in
determining whether a problem is RIMS application software in nature.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11825)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/30/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: Grade Separations, Transportation and Traffic
Summary Title: VTA Measure B Funding Comment Letter
Title: City Council Endorsement of the Letter Expressing Concerns and
Objection to the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Measure B Funding
Proposal
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council endorse the letter submitted by Mayor Fine expressing
concern and opposition to the Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA’s) proposed cash
flow limiting the availability of Measure B transportation funds.
Background
Over the past few weeks, VTA staff circulated a proposed 10-year Expenditure Outlook1
that provides a “Base Scenario” with no funding for Local Street & Roads, nor for
railroad grade separations, Caltrain Corridor Capacity, and several other programs are
either partially funded or not funded at all, while providing the bulk of designated
funding to the extension of BART to downtown San Jose. Such a funding scheme
would break faith with cities across Santa Clara County that supported the ballot
measure on the basis of a balanced countywide program. On November 12, Mayor Fine
sent the attached letter to VTA expressing concern and opposition to the proposal.
On November 23, Supervisor Simitian convened a meeting to discuss cities’ response to
this proposal. Nearly all cities were represented, and all expressed significant concerns.
Supervisor Simitian suggested that each city obtain an official position from its city
council, such that this message can be conveyed to the VTA Board of Directors.
1
http://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=3261&MediaPosition=&ID=7503
&CssClass=
City of Palo Alto Page 2
This item is recommended for approval on the City Council’s November 30 consent
calendar, in order to confirm the City of Palo Alto’s position to VTA prior to the
December 3 VTA Board of Directors meeting. At that meeting, the VTA General
Manager is expected to provide the Board with a status report on this issue. No action
is expected at that time, and VTA staff has indicated that the Board may begin detailed
discussions in March. Council endorsement of the Mayor’s letter would confirm the City
Council’s support for clearly and immediately communicating the unacceptability of
VTA’s proposal.
Staff will return to Council for further direction as needed over the coming months.
Environmental Review
Not a project.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Measure B Funding Letter_.docx
CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2100
November 12, 2020
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 North First Street
San Jose, California 95134-1906
Dear Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors,
On behalf of the City of Palo Alto and my colleagues on the City Council, I am writing to express serious
concerns regarding the Measure B agenda item presented this week that if approved would be a major
shift in funding away from investing in local streets and roads and grade separation infrastructure needs
prioritized by your member cities. Specifically, the 2016 Measure B FY2022 to FY2032 10-year
Expenditure Outlook, which provided the ten-year Measure B funding outlook from FY22 to FY32, and
includes a “Base Scenario” with no funding for Local Street & Roads, nor for grade separation. In fact, it
appears that all of the projects that both North County and West Valley cities had supported during the
development of the ballot measure, are removed from the ten-year horizon. This is unacceptable, and I
urge the Board of Directors to prioritize your member cities and projects, particularly ongoing projects
supporting Caltrain grade separations.
Budget Proposal Leaves No Funding for Cities Local Streets and Roads Investment
Local Streets & Roads funding, as defined in Resolution No. 2016.06.17, is “To be returned to cities and
the County on a formula basis”. Thus, Palo Alto and all of your member cities are depending on this
funding in order to continue with planned work. The Base Scenario directs no funding to cities and the
County in the ten years of this scenario. For the City of Palo Alto, which maintains a current Pavement
Condition Index (PCI) of 82, the funding is planned for use on a congestion relief project (Connecting
Palo Alto – Rail Grade Separation). The proposed halt of this program amounts to a $1.27 million per
year hit to the City of Palo Alto, in a time when all cities are faced with severe economic challenges as a
result of the ongoing pandemic.
Budget Proposal Impacts Local Safety and Increases Traffic Congestion
In addition to the Local Streets & Roads funding elimination, funding for Caltrain Grade Separation
projects is also not shown in the ten-year Base Scenario, which indicates elimination of this funding
source to local communities like Palo Alto for the next ten years. This is concerning as Palo Alto nears
the conclusion of a public input process and is working towards moving into the next phase of grade
separation design. These existing at-grade separated locations in Palo Alto are already near or at
capacity during peak hours with significant delays due to the gate downtime. This will only increase with
Caltrain electrification and the expanded service plan. Increased Caltrain service will also pose significant
safety concerns for these at-grade crossings on the railroad corridor. Furthermore, California High
Speed Rail is also planning to use the same corridor and as a result will amplify the safety and traffic
impacts at these grade crossings for our community and surrounding communities.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFFFB5E7-7985-41FA-B853-ED13729B2C56
CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2100
Palo Alto Invested $2.6 M to Date on Grade Separation Alternatives and Set to Move to Design in
Early 2021
The ongoing community planning effort in the City of Palo Alto has spanned several years with a
community panel (the Expanded Community Advisory Panel, or XCAP) which is comprised of members
of the public that have been tasked with providing a report on preferred alternatives to the Palo Alto
City Council. The City, consultant and this panel have reviewed nearly 50 different possible alternatives
for grade separation. It has also included coordination with Caltrain and several community Town Hall
meetings, with the most recent Town Hall having over 1,000 unique visitors. The XCAP is currently
preparing a final report for the City Council, which will lead us into the next phase of preliminary design.
The City has already invested approximately $2.6 million on this project since July of 2017. You can learn
more about this ongoing community process at ConnectingPaloAlto.com.
Member Cities Rely on VTA Funds to Further Grade Separation Projects
Apart from this community-driven process, the funding plan is being coordinated with Mountain View,
and Sunnyvale and together with VTA staff we have been reviewing possible options for sequencing
projects in a timeline so that the projects do not overlap in construction and the funding is shared and
available to support our combined community’s needs. While the three cities seeking this grade
separation funding plan have reviewed several funding scenarios, none of these scenarios involved
postponing construction for the next ten years, and Mountain View was already initiating preliminary
design. As grade separation projects involve long term planning and design efforts, the Measure B
funding is essential to keep these projects moving forward in the north county region to address
significant regional traffic congestion issues. Any delays to this funding will cause significant delays to
these projects and lead to long term traffic and safety impacts in the region.
Funding BART Phase II At the Expense of Member Cities is Unacceptable and Urge Reconsideration
Along with the Local Streets & Roads and the Caltrain Grade Separation programs, Caltrain Corridor
Capacity, the SR 85 Corridor, County Expressways, and Highway Interchanges are all outside of the ten-
year Base Scenario window. The Transit Operations formula program ends its formula funding receipt in
2023. Instead, BART Phase II is fully funded, and although it was estimated at $1.5 billion of program tax
revenues, the proposed scenario has nearly $2 billion programmed for the project. Additionally, VTA
Resolution No. 2016.06.17 caps the BART Phase II funding at a maximum of 25% of program tax
revenues, yet the base scenario has the BART project exceeding this. This 25% cap was an important
component to achieving an agreement among cities to support this measure.
Caltrain electrification will severely impact North and West Valley cities with at-grade crossings.
Removing crucial support for grade separation projects at this time will delay relief from
these impacts for a decade or more. The City of Palo Alto urges you to reconsider this ten-year Base
Scenario outlook, and instead of prioritizing BART Phase II, prioritize your member cities and projects,
particularly ongoing projects supporting Caltrain grade separations.
Thank you for your consideration of the City of Palo Alto’s views and concerns.
Sincerely,
Adrian Fine
Mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFFFB5E7-7985-41FA-B853-ED13729B2C56
CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2100
CC: Palo Alto City Council
Nuria Fernandez, General Manager, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
VTA Policy Advisory Committee
Mountain View City Council
Sunnyvale City Council
Ed Shikada, City Manager, City of Palo Alto
Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official, City of Palo Alto
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFFFB5E7-7985-41FA-B853-ED13729B2C56
CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2100
TO: HONORABLE COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: PHILIP KAMHI, CHIEF TRANSPORTATION OFFICIAL
DATE: CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 30, 2020
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL ENDORSEMENT OF THE LETTER EXPRESSING CONCERNS AND
OBJECTION TO THE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA) MEASURE B FUNDING
PROPOSAL
Following a meeting that occurred last week with County Supervisor Joe Simitian discussing the
VTA Measure B issue, the attached cover memo and draft resolution opposing the VTA base
scenario was sent out on Wednesday November 25, 2020. This at place memo provides this as
additional information for the Council’s consideration regarding item #9A (ID # 11825).
_______________________ _________________________
Philip Kamhi Ed Shikada
Chief Transportation Official City Manager
9A
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E990468-CD36-4A7F-B51D-9DB1FC4BA24C
Page 1 of 3
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Interested Parties
From: S. Joseph Simitian, Supervisor
Re: VTA 2016 Measure B Funding Proposal/Scenario
Date: November 25, 2020
In 2016, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board of Directors placed before the voters
of Santa Clara County Measure B, a one-half cent sales tax measure operative for 30 years that
would fund nine program categories, with the primary goals to provide meaningful congestion
relief throughout the County and improve road pavement conditions. Measure B was approved by
the voters by over a two-thirds vote.
The nine program categories of transportation projects authorized in Measure B are: Local Streets
and Roads; BART Phase II; Bicycle and Pedestrian; Caltrain Grade Separation; Caltrain Capacity
Improvements; Highway Interchanges; County Expressways; State Route 85 Corridor; and Transit
Operations.
Measure B expressly caps the allocation for BART Phase II at a maximum of 25 percent of
Program Tax Revenues, estimated to be about $1.5 Billion. The $1.5 Billion estimate is based on
the April 2017 total Measure B revenues forecast of $6.3 Billion as stated in Measure B.
This year VTA administration is proposing to establish a 10-year revenue and expenditure outlook
exclusively for the Measure B program to include in its budget process. For Measure B, VTA
administration have indicated that a combination of revenue shortfalls and the need to prioritize
cash spending on the BART Phase II project may require spending deferrals in other Measure B
program categories.
In November 2020, VTA administration began presenting VTA Board of Directors’ advisory
committees with a proposed 2016 Measure B 10-Year Outlook Base Scenario (attached), covering
program allocations for Fiscal Year 2022 to Fiscal Year 2032. Among others, presentations were
made to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC).
S. JOSEPH SIMITIAN
SUPERVISOR, FIFTH DISTRICT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, EAST WING
70 WEST HEDDING STREET, 10TH FLOOR
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110
TEL: (408) 299-5050 or (650) 965-8737 FAX: (408) 280-0418
supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org • www.supervisorsimitian.com
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E990468-CD36-4A7F-B51D-9DB1FC4BA24C
Page 2 of 3
The TAC is comprised of one senior staff member (usually the public works or planning director)
from each of the county's 15 cities, the County of Santa Clara, and various other local government
jurisdictions. The TAC advises the VTA Board on technical aspects of transportation-related
policy issues and initiatives. At its November 10 meeting, and in response to the presentation of
the 2016 Measure B 10-Year Outlook Base Scenario, the TAC formed an Ad Hoc Committee to
work with VTA administration to propose alternate 10-Year Outlook scenarios that balance the
funding for BART Phase II with the needs of the other Measure B programs, to ensure Measure B
continues to provide countywide benefits, and advise the TAC on a preferred scenario to
recommend to the VTA Board of Directors.
The PAC is comprised of representatives from each of the 15 cities and the County of Santa Clara.
The PAC is intended to ensure that all jurisdictions within the county have access to the
development of VTA's policies. At its November 12 meeting, the PAC voted 10-0 to refuse receipt of the informational presentation of the 2016 Measure B 10-Year Outlook Base Scenario.
Both the TAC and PAC reacted negatively to the 2016 Measure B 10-Year Outlook Base Scenario
containing built-in assumptions that result in little to no Measure B funding being available for the
majority of the other Measure B programs during the 10-year period. The six program areas that are currently identified for zero Measure B funding over the ten-year period are Local Streets and Roads, Caltrain Grade Separation, Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements, Highway Interchanges, County Expressways, and State Route 85 Corridor.
These assumptions underlying the Base Scenario include placing the BART Phase II project as the
highest priority for the next ten years, providing it with first call on Measure B revenues, and
proposing minimal bonding to fund BART Phase II.
Prioritizing BART Phase II funding over the next 10 years in a way that eliminates and/or
significantly reduces investments in the other programs creates significant challenges and risks.
These challenges and risks include worsening congestion throughout the entire County, worsening
pavement conditions throughout the entire county; increased costs due to project delay; and
increased delays for long lead-time projects.
The 2016 Measure B 10-Year Outlook Base Scenario programs the BART Phase II project to
receive nearly $2 billion in Program Tax Revenues (presumably in inflation-adjusted year of
expenditure dollars), without providing similar inflation-adjusted funding for other programs, and
notwithstanding the fact that anticipated tax revenues are down (thereby reducing the 25 percent
share).
The 2016 Measure B 10-Year Outlook Base Scenario also includes debt servicing and financing
costs for Fiscal Year 2028 through Fiscal Year 2032 totaling $20 million. These costs are solely
attributable to the BART Phase II project, yet they are presented in a separate line item. This
approach results in the BART Phase II debt servicing financing costs being charged against overall
Program revenues effectively reducing the amount of funding available for the other eight program
categories.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E990468-CD36-4A7F-B51D-9DB1FC4BA24C
Page 3 of 3
It is understood that Measure B is a 30-year program and not all projects can be delivered in the
first 10 to 15 years. However, the Measure B 10-Year Outlook needs to serve the entire County to
the greatest extent possible, including by avoiding or minimizing reductions in the annual formula
programs (Local Streets and Roads, Bicycle/Pedestrian, and Transit Operations) and maintaining
progress for the capital projects in the other programs which are already under way. In short, the
10-Year Outlook cannot be focused on a single project to the exclusion of the other Measure B
programs.
The attached resolution is designed to serve as a vehicle for those who wish to formally oppose
the 2016 Measure B 10-Year Outlook Base Scenario and urge the VTA Board of Directors to reject
the Base Scenario. The resolution also calls on the VTA Board to support a Measure B 10-Year
Outlook that balances the investments among the nine Measure B programs, thereby ensuring
Countywide benefits as promised in the 2016 ballot measure. Finally, the resolution encourages
the VTA Board of Directors to consider options for the BART Phase II project so other Measure
B programs also receive funding during the 10-year period, including approaches such as more
aggressive bonding, borrowing other funds, and/or using other funding sources for BART Phase
II, as well as the possibility of further phasing or slowing the BART Phase II project.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E990468-CD36-4A7F-B51D-9DB1FC4BA24C
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. ___________________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ____________________________ OPPOSING THE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY’S 2016 MEASURE B 10-YEAR OUTLOOK BASE SCENARIO
WHEREAS, in 2016, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board of Directors placed
before the voters of Santa Clara County Measure B, a one-half cent sales tax measure operative
for 30 years that would fund nine program categories, with the primary goals to provide meaningful
congestion relief throughout the County and improve road pavement conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the nine program categories included in 2016 Measure B are: Local Streets and
Roads, BART Phase II, Bicycle/Pedestrian, Caltrain Grade Separation, Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements, Highway Interchanges, County Expressways, State Route 85 Corridor, and Transit
Operations; and, WHEREAS, BART Phase II is just one of the nine programs authorized in the Measure and is
limited to a maximum of 25 percent of the total Measure B revenues; and,
WHEREAS, in November 2020, VTA administration began presenting VTA Board of Directors’
advisory committees with a proposed 2016 Measure B 10-Year Outlook Base Scenario, covering
program allocations for Fiscal Year 2022 to Fiscal Year 2032, that contain built-in assumptions
that are unacceptable to the City of __________; and,
WHEREAS, the built-in assumptions are that the BART Phase II project is the highest priority
for the next ten years, providing it with first call on the Measure B revenues, and that minimal
bonding will be used to fund BART Phase II, which results in little to no Measure B funding being
available for the majority of the other Measure B programs during this 10-year period; and, WHEREAS, under the Base Scenario, the six program areas that are currently identified for zero
Measure B funding over the ten-year period are Local Streets and Roads, Caltrain Grade
Separation, Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements, Highway Interchanges, County
Expressways, and State Route 85 Corridor; and,
WHEREAS, this approach is inconsistent with the promises made to the voters in 2016 because
it will not result in meaningful progress being made for all nine programs over the first fifteen
years of the measure; rather, progress will be deferred on most programs until the second fifteen
years of the measure which violates voters’ and taxpayers’ trust and expectations in approving the
Measure; and,
WHEREAS, in approving Measure B, voters countywide agreed to pay an increased half cent
sales tax for thirty years, thereby instituting one of the highest sales tax rates in the Bay Area and
State, yet under the proposed 2016 Measure B 10-Year Outlook Base Scenario only a small portion
of the County will benefit and the bulk of county taxpayers will be paying increased taxes and see
few significant benefits for a ten-year period; and,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E990468-CD36-4A7F-B51D-9DB1FC4BA24C
Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, eliminating and/or significantly reducing investments in the other programs will
result in worsening congestion throughout the entire County, worsening pavement conditions
throughout the entire county, increased costs due to project delays, and increased delays for long
lead-time projects; and,
WHEREAS, front-loading BART Phase II as proposed in the 2016 Measure B 10-Year Outlook
Base Scenario programs the project to receive nearly $2 billion in tax revenues (presumably in
inflation-adjusted year of expenditure dollars), without providing similar inflation-adjusted
funding for other programs, and not withstanding the fact that anticipated tax revenues are down
(thereby reducing the 25 percent share); and, WHEREAS, it is imperative that the Measure B 10-Year Outlook serve the needs of the entire
county to the greatest extent possible and not be focused on a single project to the exclusion of the
other essential Measure B programs; and,
WHEREAS, the VTA Board of Directors should consider a range of options for the BART Phase
II project so other Measure B programs also receive funding during this 10-year period, including
approaches such as more aggressive bonding, borrowing other funds, and/or using other funding
sources for BART Phase II, as well as the possibility of further phasing or slowing the BART
Phase II project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of ________ opposes the VTA’s
proposed 2016 Measure B 10-Year Outlook Base Scenario and urges the VTA Board of Directors
to reject the proposal/scenario; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of ___________ urges the VTA Board of Directors
to support a Measure B 10-Year Outlook that balances investments among all nine Measure B
programs, including avoiding or minimizing reductions in the annual formula programs (Local
Streets and Roads, Bicycle/Pedestrian, and Transit Operations) and maintaining progress for the
capital projects in the other programs that are already under way during this 10-year period, thereby
ensuring countywide benefits as promised in the 2016 ballot measure.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of _________________, State of California, on
_____________, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E990468-CD36-4A7F-B51D-9DB1FC4BA24C
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 2E990468CD364A7FB51D9DB1FC4BA24C Status: Completed
Subject: Please DocuSign: 2020-11-30_ID # 11825_VTA Measure B_At Places Memo & attachments.pdf
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 6 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Wilson, Sarah
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto , CA 94301
Sarah.Wilson@CityofPaloAlto.org
IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Record Tracking
Status: Original
11/30/2020 11:42:29 AM
Holder: Wilson, Sarah
Sarah.Wilson@CityofPaloAlto.org
Location: DocuSign
Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal
Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Philip Kamhi
Philip.Kamhi@CityofPaloAlto.org
Chief Transportation Official
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Sent: 11/30/2020 11:43:31 AM
Viewed: 11/30/2020 11:46:07 AM
Signed: 11/30/2020 11:46:16 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Ed Shikada
Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org
Ed Shikada, City Manager
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Sent: 11/30/2020 11:46:18 AM
Viewed: 11/30/2020 11:58:48 AM
Signed: 11/30/2020 11:59:22 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 11/30/2020 11:43:31 AM
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Certified Delivered Security Checked 11/30/2020 11:58:48 AM
Signing Complete Security Checked 11/30/2020 11:59:22 AM
Completed Security Checked 11/30/2020 11:59:22 AM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11811)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/30/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Follow-up Considerations Related to Boards, Commissions
and Committees
Title: Consideration of Follow-up Recommendations by the City Council Ad
Hoc on Boards, Commissions and Committees (BCCs) Including Adopting a
Handbook and BCC Applications
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
This report transmits the following attachments on behalf of the Boards, Commissions and
Committees Council Ad Hoc:
Attachment A: City of Palo Alto Boards, Commissions and Committees Handbook
Attachment B: Architectural Review Board Application as template for all Boards and
Commission Applications
These attachments are a follow-up to the City Council discussion on October 19, 2020. For
background and reference, go to the October 19, 2020 Minutes and CMR #11682.
The revisions to the Handbook reflect Council discussion related to the Boards, Commissions
and Committees removal process; interactions with the media; term limits and timing; annual
work plan timing; and public participation efforts. In addition to the revisions reflected in the
attached draft handbook, the Ad Hoc would like the City Council to discuss timing of documents
received for Boards, Commissions, and Committees agenda items to ensure active public
participation.
Revisions to the Boards, Commissions and Committees applications reflect Ad Hoc
recommendations for City Council consideration.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Palo Alto Boards Commissions and Committees
Handbook_REVISED_NOVEMBER 19 2020
• Attachment B: ARB Fillable Application
CITY BOARDS,
COMMISSIONS, AND
COMMITTEES HANDBOOK
| A Reference Guide
•
CITY OF
PALO ALTO
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction
Mandatory Review Requirement 5
About the City 6
City Council 7
II. Appointed Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Information on Appointed Boards, Commissions, and Committees 8
Limit of Terms 8
III. Your Role as a Board, Commission, or Committee Member (BCC)
Role of All Members 17
Role and Responsibilities of the Chair 18
Required Training 19
Role of the Staff Liaison(s) 19
Role of Council Liaison 19
Use of Sub-Committees and Ad Hoc Committees 20
Annual Work Plan and Performance Measures 20
Procedures for Conduct of BCC Meetings 20
Agenda and Order of Business 21
Parliamentary Procedure and Motion to Reconsider 21
Code of Conduct 22
Meeting Management 25
Attendance 26
Late Arrival to Meetings 26
Absences 27
Minutes 27
Addressing the Media and the Public 27
IV. City Policies and Procedures
Swearing In and Oath of Office 28
Form 700 Obligation and Conflict of Interest 28
Ethics Trainings 28
Removal 29
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 4
V. Ralph M. Brown Act
General Overview 30
Meeting Agendas 30
Avoid Unlawful Meetings 30
Public Participation 31
VI. Conclusion ` 32
VII. Exhibit A: Workplan Template 33
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 5
MANDATORY REVIEW REQUIREMENT
The Boards, Commissions, and Committees (BCC) Handbook is a reference guide that applies to
advisory and regulatory bodies. It is intended to provide an overview of basic laws and procedures
during a member's term and to clarify the role and responsibilities of the Board, Commission, and
Committee members in relation to the City Council, City staff and the public.
I , confirm that:
• I was provided with a copy of the BCC Handbook upon my appointment to a Palo Alto Board, Commission,
and Committee.
• I have read the entire Handbook, including any updates as of the signing of this document, reviewing each
section including:
• Requirements to be a member of a Board, Commission, and Committee
• Ethics Training (AB1234)
• Legal (Brown Act, Conflict of Interest, Political Reform Act)
• Role and Responsibilities
• Code of Conduct
• I agree to follow the guidelines and regulations provided in this Handbook, as required by the California
Government Codes (including the Brown Act), Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) regulations, and the
Municipal Code, as well as any other required policies/statutes. In the event there is a conflict between state
or federal law and this Handbook, state or federal law shall govern. In the event there is a conflict between
this Handbook and any procedure adopted by a BCC, this Handbook shall govern.
• I understand that the BCC Handbook is intended as a tool to provide guidance on process and procedures as
well as to draw my attention to the primary rules of serving on a BCC under the guidance of the City Council.
• No legal advice is intended through this Handbook.
• It is my responsibility to re-visit this Handbook through my term to review protocol and regulations, and for
guidance.
• I am invited to consult with the Staff Liaison, City Clerk, and City Attorney any time I have questions or
concerns relating to these guidelines and my service.
Signature Date
I serve on the following BCC .
This page is due to the City Clerk's Department within 60-days of appointment. Ethics training completed on
(date)
Thank you for your attention to this important information and your responsibility as a BCC Member.
I. INTRODUCTION
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 6
ABOUT THE CITY
Palo Alto, known as the “Birthplace of Silicon Valley,” is home to 69,700 residents and nearly doubles during the
day with an influx of employees from major employers. Unique among city organizations, the City of Palo Alto
operates a full array of services including its own gas, electric, water, sewer, refuse and storm drainage provided
at very competitive rates for its customers. The City of Palo Alto offers robust community amenities including 36
parks, 39 playgrounds, five community and youth centers, 41 miles of walking/biking trails and five libraries. The
City also manages a regional airport and provides fire, police and emergency services. Palo Alto is an award-
winning City recognized nationally as innovative and well-managed, one of a small number of California cities
with a AAA bond rating. City services and performance also receive high marks from community members in the
annual community survey conducted by the Polco (formerly National Research Center).
As the global center of technology and innovation, Palo Alto is the corporate headquarters for many world-class
companies and research facilities. Home to Stanford University and a top-ranked public school system, Palo Alto
also features beautiful and historic residential neighborhoods, vibrant shopping and retail districts. Palo Alto has
a highly educated and culturally sophisticated citizenry that is actively engaged in making a difference both
locally and globally.
For the City’s website, go here: www.cityofpaloalto.org
To connect with the City on social media, go here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/connect
To sign up for the City’s digital newsletter, go here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/newslettersignup
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 7
CITY COUNCIL
The City of Palo Alto operates under a Council-Manager type of government. The City Council consists of seven
members and it is the governing body elected directly by the electorate of Palo Alto. Every year, the City Council
Members vote and select a Mayor. As the legislative branch of our local government, the City Council makes final
decisions on all City matters, sets City-wide priorities and policies, and directs the City Manager to implement
these priorities and policies. The City Council adopts ordinances and resolutions as necessary for efficient
governmental operations, approves the budget, and acts as a board of appeals. It appoints the City Manager,
City Attorney, City Auditor and City Clerk, as well as the members of the City's advisory Boards, Commissions,
and Committees (BCCs).
BCCs are primarily responsible for advising and making recommendations to the City Council on City policies and
programs. The City Council then uses the advice and recommendations offered by BCCs to make decisions. In
addition to making policy recommendations, the Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation
Commission, and Historic Resources Board also provide recommendations to the Planning Director or Council on
project applications.
To learn more about the City Council, go here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/council
For the City Council meeting agendas, go here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/councilagendas
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 8
The City of Palo Alto has eight standing Boards, Commissions,
and Committees. The City Council also establishes other Ad
Hoc committees to assist them in their decision-making
process from time to time.
The standing Boards, Commissions and Committees are:
• Architectural Review Board
• Historic Resources Board
• Human Relations Commission
• Parks and Recreation Commission
• Planning and Transportation Commission
• Public Art Commission
• Storm Water Management Oversight Committee
• Utilities Advisory Commission
Other examples of Council appointed groups have included the former Library Advisory Commission, the Citizen
Corps Council, the Youth Commission, the Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP) on rail crossings, and the
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Working Group.
During recruitment periods for BCCs, applicants are encouraged to visit the City website and apply for openings on
various BCCs. The requirements for each BCC can be found in the Municipal Code or Council action creating the
advisory body and will be reflected in the recruitment material – for example, some have a residency
requirement. A physical address must be included on the application and proof of the address provided must be
issued if requested. Once applications are received, the City Council determines which applicants to interview.
The City Council will then vote to appoint members to serve on a BCC during a public City Council meeting. New
appointments for complete terms are made in the Spring. Any needed replacement appointments for partial
terms are made as necessary.
If you need to leave your seat on a BCC before your term is expired, submit your resignation in writing to your
Staff Liaison, with a copy to the City Clerk. Each letter of resignation must be addressed to the City Council.
Each BCC meets according to its established schedule.
LIMITATION ON TERMS
Any person appointed to a board or commission shall be immediately eligible, upon the expiration of
their term or resignation prior to completion of their term if appointed to a different board or
commission, to serve on a different board or commission. All board and commission members are eligible
to serve two successive terms on the same board or commission. No person who has served
two such successive terms shall be eligible for appointment to that same board or
commission for two years following the expiration of the second full term for which the member was
appointed and served. Serving an unexpired term of up to 2 years in length shall not count toward years served
in terms of eligibility.
II. APPOINTED BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 9
APPOINTED BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
The Architectural Review Board reviews and makes recommendations to the Planning Director on design and
related issues for certain new construction, and changes and additions to commercial, industrial and multiple-
family projects, as described in the Municipal Code. The Board's goals and purposes are to:
• Promote orderly and harmonious development of the City
• Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the City
• Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements
• Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas
• Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same
time, are considerate of each other
• To implement and enforce the city’s ordinances pertaining to architecture and design
The Board is composed of five members, at least three of whom are architects, landscape architects, building
designers or other design professionals. Terms are for three years and commence on November 1. See Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 2.21. Residency is not required.
For the ARB webpage, go to https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 10
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
The Historic Resources Board advises the Planning Director and City Council on matters relating to Palo Alto‘s
historic buildings. The responsibilities of the Board include:
• Reviewing and making recommendations to the Architectural Review Board on proposed exterior
changes of commercial and multiple-family buildings on the Historic Building Inventory;
• Reviewing and making recommendations on exterior changes of significant (Categories 1 and 2) single-
family residences on the Historic Building Inventory;
• Researching and making recommendations to the City Council on proposed additions and on
reclassifications of existing buildings on the Inventory; and
• Performing other functions as may be delegated from time to time to the Historic Resources Board by
the City Council.
Terms are for three years and commence on November 1. The Historic Resources Board includes seven
members and the members must have demonstrated interest in and knowledge of history, architecture or
historic preservation. One (1) member is an owner/occupant of a category one or two historic structure, or of a
structure in an historic district; three (3) members are architects, landscape architects, building designers or
other design professionals and at least one (1) member possesses academic education or practical experience in
history or a related field. See PAMC Chapters 2.16, 2.27 and 16.49.
The Historic Resources Board webpage can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/historic/
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 11
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
The Human Relations Commission is charged with studying, fostering community awareness and understanding,
encouraging dispute resolution, and recommending legislation regarding persons or groups who do not benefit
fully from public or private opportunities or resources in the community, or are unfairly or differently treated
due to factors of concern to the Commission. The Commission's responsibilities include:
• Public or private opportunities or resources in the community include, but are not limited to, those
associated with ownership and rental of housing, employment, education and governmental services
and benefits;
• Factors of concern to the Commission including but not limited to, socioeconomic class or status,
physical condition or handicap, married or unmarried state, emotional condition, intellectual ability, age,
sex, sexual preference, race, cultural characteristics, ethnic background, ancestry, citizenship, and
religious, conscientious or philosophical belief;
• The Commission will conduct such studies and undertake such responsibilities as the Council may direct;
and
• The Commission recommends allocation of Federal CDBG funds
The Commission is composed of five members who are not Council Members, officers, or employees of the City,
and who are residents of the City of Palo Alto. Terms are for three years and commence on May 1. See PAMC
Sections 2.16 and 2.22.
The Human Relations Commission webpage can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/hrc
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 12
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
The Parks and Recreation Commission advises the Community Services Director and City Council on matters
pertaining to the activities of the Open Space, Parks and Golf Division and the Recreation Division of the
Community Services Department. The Commission's responsibilities include:
• Advising on planning and policy matters relating to the goals of and the services provided by the Open
Space, Parks and Golf Division, and the Recreation Division;
• Advising on planning and policy matters relating to the construction and renovation of capital facilities;
• Reviewing state legislative proposals that may affect the operation of the two Divisions;
• Receiving community input concerning parks, open space and recreation activities; and
• Updating and advancing the Parks Master plan and related policies and programs.
The Parks and Recreation Commission is composed of seven members who are not Council Members, officers,
or employees of the City, and who are residents of the City of Palo Alto. Terms of Commissioners will be for
three years. See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 2.25.
The Parks and Recreation Commission webpage can be found here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/parks_and_recreation_commission/
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
The Planning & Transportation Commission advises the City Council, Planning Director and Transportation
Director on land use and transportation matters, including the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, transportation
programs, and related matters. The Commission's primary responsibilities include:
• Preparing and making recommendations to the City Council on the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding
development, public facilities and transportation in Palo Alto
• Considering and making recommendations to the City Council on zoning map and zoning ordinance
changes
• Reviewing and making recommendations to the City Council on subdivisions, on appeals on variances
and use permits
• Considering other policies and programs affecting development and land use in Palo Alto for final City
Council action
• Reviewing and making recommendations on individual projects as described in the Municipal Code, and
Open Space development
• Reviewing and making recommendations to the City Council on transportation, parking and other
related mobility issues.
The Commission is composed of seven members who are current residents of the City of Palo Alto and are not
Council Members, officers, or employees of the City. Terms are for four years and commence on November 1.
See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 2.20 for more information.
The Planning and Transportation Commission webpage can be found here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 14
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
The Public Art Commission oversees Palo Alto’s temporary and permanent public art programs. The primary
duties of the Commission are:
• To advise the city in matters pertaining to the quality, quantity, scope, and style of art in public places
• To periodically review the capital improvement program with the staff for inclusion of works of art in
various projects
• To devise methods of selecting and commissioning artists with respect to the design, execution, and
placement of art in public places and to advise staff on the selection and commissioning of artists, and
the amounts to be expended on art in public places
• To advise and assist staff in obtaining financial assistance for art in public places from private, corporate,
and governmental sources
• To review plans for the installation of art in public places and review the inventory of art in public paces
• To act as a liaison between local artists and private property owners desiring to install works of art on
their private property in public view
The Commission, a five-member body appointed by the City Council, meets once a month. Terms are for three
years and commence on May 1. See PAMC Sections 2.16, 2.18, and 2.26. Members are not required to be
residents of Palo Alto and should have some demonstrated connection to art.
The Public Art Commission webpage can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/arts/.
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 15
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
The purpose of the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee is to review proposed storm water
management capital improvements and operating programs to be funded from the Storm Water Management
Fees and to monitor expenditures of the fund. The Storm Water Management Oversight Committee is charged
with reviewing the annual budget and expenditures of the Storm Water Management Fund in order to ensure
that revenue from the Storm Water Management Fee is being budgeted and spent in accordance with the terms
of the storm water management ballot measure approved by a majority of property owners in 2017. The
Committee is responsible for:
• Performing an annual review of the proposed Storm Water Management Fund budget
• Performing an annual review of actual expenditures from the Storm Water Management Fund
• Adopting findings on an annual basis that the proposed budget and actual expenditures of the Storm
Water Management Fund are consistent with the spending plan outlined in the 2017 storm water
management ballot measure
• Reporting findings on an annual basis to the City Council
The Committee is composed of seven members who are selected and appointed by the City Council for a term of
four years. Each Committee member shall be a resident of Palo Alto, an employee of a business located in Palo
Alto or an owner of real property within the City.
The Storm Water Management Oversight Committee webpage can be found here:
https://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/storm_water_management_oversight_committee/
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 16
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) is charged with advising the City Council on: long-range planning and
policy and major program and project matters relating to the electric utility, gas utility, water utility, wastewater
collection utility, fiber optics utility and recycled water matters; acquisition and development of electric, gas and
water resources; joint action projects with other public or private entities which involve electric, gas or water
resources; and environmental implications of electric, gas or water utility projects, and conservation and
demand management. Specifically, the Utilities Advisory Commission advises the Council on:
• Development of the City utilities and the recycled water resources
• Joint action projects with other public or private entities
• The consistency with adopted and approved plans, policies, and programs of any major utility
• Legislative proposals regarding City utilities and the recycled water resources, to which the city is a
party, in which the city has an interest, or by which the city may be affected
• Utility capital improvement programs, operating budgets and related reserves, and rates, and the
recycled water program, budget, and rate
• Environmental aspects and attributes of City utilities and recycled water resources
• Water and energy conservation, energy efficiency, and demand side management
The Utilities Advisory Commission is composed of seven members who shall be appointed by and serve at the
pleasure of the City Council. The term of office of each member shall be three years or until his or her successor
is appointed. Six members of the Commission shall at all times be residents of the City. See Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 2.23 for more information on the Utilities Advisory Commission.
The Utilities Advisory Commission webpage can be found here: https://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/uac/
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 17
ROLE OF ALL MEMBERS
All Board and commission members are responsible for certain duties
and commitments to the City, City Council, and the BCC on which they
serve. Each member must know, understand, accept, and accomplish his
or her delegated responsibilities in order to be effective. General
expectations include:
• Come prepared
• Work collaboratively
• Respect one another, City staff and the public
• Serve the public
• Avoid conflict of interest issues
• Disagree through respectful dialogue
Getting Started
• Take the Oath of Office.
• Complete and sign a Form 700 and turn it in to the City Clerk’s Office.
• Understand the role and responsibilities of the appointed BCC.
• Be informed of its functions and relationship with other BCCs.
• Timely complete Ethics training (AB 1234).
• Attend the orientation scheduled by your Staff Liaison and/or the City Clerk.
• Become familiar with the BCC’s governing rules and regulations.
• Decide with your Staff Liaison on how and when you will receive agenda packets.
• Attend all regular and special meetings. In the event that you cannot attend a meeting, provide timely
notification to the Chair and the Staff Liaison.
During Meetings
• Arrive at meetings on time.
• Be prepared for meetings.
• Review all staff reports, maps, studies, proposals, correspondence, minutes, etc. prior to the meeting.
• Have all reference materials on hand for the meeting.
• Familiarize yourself with conflict of interest regulations and discuss potential conflicts of interest with
the City Attorney’s office prior to the meeting where any matter of potential conflict will arise. Recuse
yourself from any participation in a matter where you have a conflict.
• Consult the City Attorney if you have any questions of a legal nature related to your service as a BCC
member.
• Avoid leaving before the meeting adjourns without prior notice.
• Establish a good working relationship with fellow members, City Council, and staff liaison. Exhibit mutual
respect to fellow members to ensure a positive working environment.
• Become familiar with parliamentary procedures to ensure that meetings proceed in a timely fashion.
• Consider the overall public good when making a decision.
• Talk to the Chair and Staff Liaison about placing items on future agendas.
• If you receive correspondence addressed to the BCC, including email, forward the correspondence to
the Staff Liaison so copies can be distributed to all members and the correspondence can become an
official City record.
IV. YOUR ROLE AS A BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE MEMBER
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 18
• Discourage visible and audible signs of agreement or disagreement from the audience such as applause
or statements from the floor. Such demonstrations can intimidate those with an opposing view and
unintentionally discourage open public discussion of all the issues and points of view.
• Limit your own comments to the issues before the BCC. Avoid the appearance of straying from the
subject or "grandstanding."
• Individual commissioners should avoid giving Staff Liaisons direction or making specific requests outside
of the public meetings.
ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CHAIR
At the beginning of the year, each BCC will select a member to
serve as Chair. The Chair exists to structure productive meetings,
encourage the input of ideas, promote inclusiveness, and
facilitate the overall decision-making process. They do not have
greater power than any other member. The following is a list of
duties and responsibilities of the Chair:
• Ensure that the BCC completes the annual work plan and
reports the results annually to the City Council. The work
plan shall include metrics of community involvement and
participation in meetings and activities.
• Set a positive tone and manage public input to promote civility and decorum.
• Preside at all meetings, submit all motions to vote and in general, do all things ordinarily required of a
Chair such as call or cancel a meeting, coordinate the setting of the agenda with the Staff Liaison,
receive public testimony, ensure compliance with the Brown Act, etc. Move forward committee
priorities and refrain from promoting or setting a personal agenda. Ensures that items not listed on the
agenda are prohibited from being discussed or acted upon pursuant to the Brown Act, unless specific
circumstances apply.
• Act as the spokesperson for the BCC, including as the media’s point of contact for information regarding
BCC activities. Seek advice and involvement of the City’s Public Communications Manager as needed,
through the Staff Liaison.
• Ensure that all members are heard in a fair and safe manner. The Chair is responsible for ensuring the
effectiveness of the group process. Identifies points of agreement among the BCC members in order to
build a consensus.
• Ensures that consideration of items on the agenda moves along without delay and makes sure that
public testimony is received, but not allowed to disrupt the meeting. This includes setting an acceptable
time limit; if necessary.
• Clarifies all ideas as they are discussed, and repeats motions made in a way so all members understand
the motion they will be asked to vote on and ensures that actions are properly moved, seconded, and
voted upon. Always indicate clearly how the vote is taken such as call for the negative vote, saying,
“Those opposed, say No.”
In the absence of the Chair, the Vice Chair shall act as presiding officer and shall have the same
responsibilities.
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 19
REQUIRED TRAINING
Mandatory training shall be provided to all board, commission and committee members by the City through a
collaboration between the Offices of the City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Manager, and will include an
orientation session for new members. Training shall be delivered as deemed necessary by the Council and/or
the City Attorney, City Clerk and City Manager and may include topics germane to a specific board or
commission and/or training generic to all boards and commissions (e.g. ethics training or “how to run a
meeting” for board and commission chairs).
ROLE OF THE STAFF LIAISON(S)
The staff liaison serves as the link between City staff, City Council, and BCC members. The City Manager assigns a
staff liaison to each BCC to provide support, coordination, and guidance. The Staff Liaison makes sure that
required BCC meetings occur and, in conjunction with the Chair, prepares the monthly meeting agendas. The
staff liaison is also responsible for the coordination, distribution, and posting of all committee agendas pursuant
to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Committee members should feel free to contact the staff liaison with questions or
requests for support such as sharing City policy or program information and providing historical context to issue
under review by the BCC. Staff liaisons will provide direction, guidance, and clerical, organizational, and
administrative support to commissions on an as needed basis. The staff liaison also facilitates the transmission
of BCC interests, concerns, and recommendations to the City Manager and City Council.
The staff liaison must be aware and advise the Commission of any potential Brown Act violations; the liaison must
be present and attentive for the duration of the meeting. At the request of the Chair, and with the support of a
majority of the BCC members, the Staff Liaison researches and investigates issues, prepares alternatives and
recommendations for BCC and City Council review, and implements City Council policy decisions.
Other duties include facilitating the transmission of BCC interests, concerns, and recommendations to the City
Manager and/or City Council; maintaining communication with the Chair regarding City Manager and/or City
Council direction or requests; coordinating the annual selection of a Chair and Vice Chair in accordance with the
City Council adopted policies and procedures, supporting annual workplan development, and keeping the City
Clerk apprised of any resignations or other issues affecting the BCC.
During the BCC meeting Staff Liaisons will ensure there is a quorum prior to the Chair calling a Commission
meeting to order and adjourn a Commission meeting in the event there is lack of a quorum 15 minutes after the
start time of a meeting. In addition, the Staff Liaison will not allow the public to address the Commission during
the 15 minutes while waiting for additional members to arrive to form a quorum. Staff may make
announcements during this time; no agenda items shall be discussed among the members present. The Staff
Liaison will advise the Commission to recess or adjourn the meeting if a quorum is not present at any point
during the meeting.
ROLE OF COUNCIL LIAISONS
The City Council relies upon the expertise and recommendations of the BCCs in advising the Council as it sets
City policy. The Council liaison function serves to facilitate and enhance this work. Their principal function is to
provide a wide range of information to the advisory body, such as information about Council discussions,
policies and actions. This helps provide an historical perspective and thereby place the BCC work in
context. However, the BCCs should act independently in formulating recommendations for the City Council to
consider. Therefore, it is inconsistent for liaisons to direct, guide or unduly influence the policy making work of
the City's advisory bodies. Council liaisons have flexibility in discharging their duties. They may serve with or
without attending the meetings of their advisory bodies. Historically, Boards and Commission members have
valued consistent participation by Council liaisons. However, at minimum, they should be available for contacts
with members of advisory bodies, and particularly with the chairs.
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 20
USE OF SUBCOMMITTEES AND AD HOC COMMITTEES
BCCs may consider dividing into subcommittees and/or use ad hoc committees to address certain issues when
appropriate. The City Council prefers the use of Ad Hoc committees which are short term and established for the
BCC to discuss a specific topic or priority. Sub-committees should be used judiciously as it is the wish of the
Council that the entire BCC participate in most agenda topics. Sub-committees work independently and bring a
report and recommendations back to the BCC. The subcommittee and/or the ad hoc committee would be
composed of less than a quorum of the body and set their own schedule. Subcommittee meetings must be
noticed under the Brown Act. Ad hoc committees convene for a single topic and disband when the work on a
single item is finished. Ad hoc committee meetings need not be noticed or open to the public. The Chair usually
makes assignments to subcommittees and ad hoc committees and directs the workflow. BCCs may have both
standing subcommittees and ad hoc committees, though it is recommended that BCCs focus their work through
Ad Hoc committees.
Ad hoc or "temporary" committees are treated differently under the Brown Act. Ad hoc committees are not
subject to the notice and posting requirements of the Brown Act so long as the committee:
• Consists of less than the number of members which would constitute a quorum;
• Has a defined purpose and a time frame to accomplish that purpose; and
• Is advisory such as the committee has not been delegated any decision-making power and will be
returning to the full board on its recommendation.
Establishing Ad Hoc Committees
Members of ad hoc committees designed to be advisory to the board/commission may be appointed by the
chair, on behalf of the entire board, commission, or committee or by an action of the entire BCC, depending
upon the procedures and practices of the BCC. Although, as noted, the ad hoc committee itself is not subject to
the Brown Act if the BCC desires to create an ad hoc committee, the action to create the ad hoc committee
should be done at a publicly noticed meeting under the Brown Act and the item should be placed on an agenda
for that purpose.
ANNUAL WORKPLAN AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Each BCC should prepare an annual work plan for proposal to the Council by second quarter of the calendar
year. The Council will review
the work plans and provide feedback annually at a dedicated City Council meeting. The annual report should
include the results of the prior year’s plan. When applicable, the City Council would like to see metrics of
community involvement and participation in meetings and activities included in the work plan.
Council expects BCCs to work on items in the approved workplan. In addition, Council may refer additional items
to the BCC in response to new developments. BCCs should refrain from expending their time and that of the
staff liaison on items that have not been approved by the City Council. If the BCC would like to add an issue for
review after an annual workplan has been approved the City Council, a prompt request by the BCC
Chair to the City Council is required and the item will then be addressed by the City Council as a whole.
A workplan template can be found later in the handbook, see Exhibit A.
GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCT OF BCC MEETINGS
The Chair should recognize other BCC members in the order in which they raise their hands to speak. The Chair
should provide an opportunity for each member to speak on an item. BCC members should speak when
recognized by the Chair.
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 21
When a member of the public desires to address the BCC, they should fill out a speaker’s card, proceed to the
podium when called, and wait to be recognized before speaking. The Chair should let the public know how long
they are allocated to speak. Speakers should limit their remarks to the issue under discussion. Remarks should
be addressed to the BCC as a body, and not to any individual BCC member, staff member, or other person.
AGENDA AND ORDER OF BUSINESS
The agenda should contain a brief general description of each item
to be considered. Except where provided by law, no discussion or
action will be taken on an item not appearing on the
agenda. The sequence of items in an agenda is generally as
follows:
• Call to Order
• Roll Call
• Approval of Minutes
• Public Comment on items not on the agenda
• Action Items
• Reports of BCC Members, Sub-Committees, and Ad Hoc
Committees
• Brief announcements or Matters of BCC Interest
• Adjournment
All agendas should include language stating that agenda materials may be provided in alternate formats
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
Parliamentary procedures establish a framework for
orderly meetings. They encourage participation,
structure discussion and facilitate decision making.
They permit expression of minority views while
ultimately allowing a majority to fashion an outcome.
The following principles are the foundation of effective parliamentary procedures:
• Fairness, respect and courtesy should be afforded to everyone.
• Do only one thing at a time: one subject at a time and one speaker at a time.
• Business must be conducted. The BCC exists to facilitate action, not obstruct it.
• All BCC members are equal and have equal voting rights.
• The majority decides, but the rights and interest of a minority must be protected.
• Silence gives consent, so if you oppose please speak up.
• Once settled, a question generally may not be reintroduced.
The City Council does not use Robert’s Rules of Parliamentary Procedure, which were created to structure the
meetings of very large formal legislative bodies. The Council has adopted a more streamlined set of procedural
requirements here starting on page 27. BCC members may also find it helpful to review Rosenberg’s Rules of
Order, a simplified set of procedural rules designed for use at the local government level. A tenet of
parliamentary procedure is finality. After vigorous discussion, debate, and a vote, there must
be some closure to the issue. And so, after a vote is taken, the matter generally is deemed resolved. Exceptions
to this general rule include when a proper motion to reconsider is made, or where new developments occur that
warrant further work on an issue.
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 22
CODE OF CONDUCT
This section is intended to describe a code of conduct for Boards, Commission and Committee members and
designed to define the manner in which Council Members and BCC members should treat one another, City
staff, constituents, and others they come into contact with in representing the City of Palo Alto. The City Council
encourages positive and respectful dialogue. Therefore, members shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal
charges, hostile body language, disrespectful language or verbal attacks upon the character of others. It is both
encouraged and expected that the chair of each BCC intercedes when the conduct of another member is rude or
violates code of conduct.
BCC members are important to the City’s decision-making process, act on behalf of the City Council in their
volunteer roles and help shape and further community discussions on complex issues and topics. As such,
disagreement may arise during public meetings as different perspectives are shared and providing different
perspectives to Council is encouraged. A high level of professionalism and civility is expected of all BCC members
throughout their tenure. Disagreement and criticism of policy is fine but personal attacks must be avoided.
It is important that BCC members treat each other and the public with respect, even through disagreement.
Elected and appointed officials are composed of individuals with a wide variety of backgrounds, personalities,
values, opinions, and goals. Despite this diversity, all have chosen to serve in public office in order to preserve
and protect the present and the future of the community. In all cases, this common goal should be
acknowledged even though individuals may "agree to disagree" on contentious issues.
Residents, property owners and businesses of City of Palo Alto are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable
local government. Such a government requires that public officials: be independent, impartial and fair in their
judgment and actions; use their public office for the public good, not for personal gain, and conduct public
deliberations and processes openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility.
Elected and Appointed officials shall honor this personal code of conduct from the time of their election or
appointment to office.
Act in the Public Interest: Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their principal concern,
everyone shall work for the common good of the City of Palo Alto and not for any private or personal interest,
and they will endeavor to treat all persons, claims and transactions in fair and equitable manner.
Comply with the Law: Everyone shall comply with the laws of the nation, the State of California and the City in
the performance of their public duties. These laws include but are not limited to: the United States and
California constitutions; the City of Palo Alto Charter, Municipal Code, City policies and other governing
documents related to conflict of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures, and employer responsibilities
and open processes of government.
Conduct of Members: Everyone shall refrain from abusive conduct and verbal attacks upon the character or
motives of other members of the City Council, boards, commissions, committees, staff or the public.
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 23
No Tolerance for harassment or Microaggressions: The City of Palo Alto is committed to providing an
environment for employees, elected or appointed officials, members of the public, and contractors that
promotes dignity and respect and is free from discrimination and harassment. The City prohibits all forms of
harassment and discrimination based upon protected classifications as defined below. “Protected Classification”
includes race, religion (including religious dress or grooming practice), religious creed, color, sex (includes
gender, gender identity, gender expression, transgender, pregnancy, childbirth, medical conditions related to
pregnancy or childbirth, breastfeeding or medical conditions related to breastfeeding), sexual orientation
(including heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality), ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, citizenship status,
military and veteran status, marital status, family relationship, age, medical condition, genetic characteristics
and/or genetic information, and physical or mental disability.
In addition to prohibiting explicit harassment, the City of Palo Alto strives to provide an inclusive environment.
One method to create an inclusive public space is to help people develop awareness of microaggressions and
remove them from conversation. Microaggressions are comments or actions that subtly and often unconsciously
or unintentionally expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group (such as a racial
minority). The City will provide training to help members develop awareness of and then eliminate
microaggressions.
Any employee, applicant, elected/appointed official, contract worker, intern or volunteer, who believes
he or she has been harassed or retaliated against are encouraged to promptly report the incident and the
individuals involved. BCC members may consult with the Chair, Vice-Chair or staff liaison regarding making a
report.
Respect for Process: Duties shall be performed in accordance with the processes and rules of order established
by the City Council.
Conduct of Public Meetings: BCC members shall inform themselves of public issues, listen attentively to public
discussions before the body, and focus on the business at hand.
Communication: It is the responsibility of BCC members to publicly share substantive information that is relevant
to a matter under consideration that they received from sources outside of the public decision-making
processes.
Disclosure of Corruption: BCC members shall take an oath upon assuming office, pledging to uphold the
constitution and laws of the City, the State and the Federal government. As part of this oath, officials commit to
disclosing to the appropriate authorities and/or to the City Council any behavior or action that may qualify as
corruption, abuse, fraud, bribery or other violations of the law.
Conflict of Interest: To ensure public confidence in City decision making, BCC members shall familiarize
themselves with and comply with state conflict of interest laws.
Gifts and Favors: BCC members shall not take advantage of services or opportunities offered due to their public
office and that are not available to the public in general. They shall refrain from accepting gifts, favors or
promises of future benefits that might compromise their independence, judgment, or action or give the
appearance of being compromised.
Confidential Information: BCC members shall respect and preserve the confidentiality of information provided to
them concerning the confidential matters of the City. They shall neither disclose confidential information
without proper legal authorization nor use such information to advance their financial or private interests.
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 24
Representation of Private Interests: In keeping with their role as stewards of the public trust, BCC members shall
not appear on behalf of the private interests of a third-party before the City Council or any board, commission or
committee or proceeding the City.
Advocacy: It is the role of Commissioners to advise the Council on policies and positions within the domain of
their Commission. To the best of their ability, within the domain of their Commission, BCC members shall
represent the official policies and positions of the City Council. When presenting their personal opinions or
positions, members shall explicitly state that they do not represent the Council or the City.
Improper Influence: BCC members shall refrain from using their position to improperly influence the
deliberations or decisions of City staff, boards, commission or committees.
Policy Role of Members: BCC members shall respect and support the Council-Manager structure of the City of
Palo Alto as provided in the City Charter.
Positive Work Environment: BCC members shall support the maintenance of a positive and constructive
environment for residents, businesses, and City employees.
Compliance and Enforcement: BCC members have the primary responsibility to ensure that ethical standards are
understood and met and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of City government.
This personal code of conduct shall be considered to be a summary of ethical conduct by Palo Alto Boards,
Commissions and Committees. A member can be removed from their BCC position by the City Council if their
conduct fails to meet any of these ethical standards.
For Quasi-Judicial Hearings: Communications with an applicant or any member of the public is strongly
discouraged beginning from the time an application has been submitted and until final decision is reached. If any
communication does occur, it must be fully disclosed.
Conduct in Public Meetings
The following guidelines provide specific examples of conduct that reinforce the principles identified above:
• Use formal titles: Elected and appointed officials should refer to one another formally during public
meetings, such as Mayor, Vice Mayor, Chair, Commissioner, Board member or Councilmember followed
by the individual’s last name.
• Practice civility and decorum in discussions and debate: Difficult questions, tough challenges to a
particular point of view, and criticism of ideas and information are legitimate elements of a free
democracy in action. This does not allow, however, public officials to make belligerent, personal,
impertinent, slanderous, threatening, abusive, or disparaging comments. This includes non-verbal
communications including body language or eye rolling. No shouting or physical actions that could be
construed as threatening will be tolerated. Lack of civility is grounds for dismissal.
• Honor the role of the chair in maintaining order, while respecting each member’s prerogative to
intercede on inappropriate conduct: It is the responsibility of the chair to keep the comments of
members on track during public meetings. Members should honor efforts by the chair to focus
discussion on current agenda items. If there is disagreement about the agenda or the chair’s actions,
those objections should be voiced respectfully and with reason, following procedures outlined in
parliamentary procedure and the suggestion below.
• Avoid personal comments that could offend other members: If a member is personally offended by the
remarks of another member, or feels the remarks may be offensive to others, the offended member
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 25
should communicate their position and seek resolution to the situation raised. The chair will maintain
control of this discussion.
• Demonstrate effective problem-solving approaches: Members have a public stage to show how
individuals with disparate points of view can find common ground and seek a compromise that benefits
the community as a whole.
Outside of official board or commission meetings, individual board and commission members are not
authorized to represent the City or their board or commission unless specifically designated by the Council or
the board or commission to do so for a particular purpose.
Although a board or commission may disagree with the final decision the Council makes, the board or
commission shall not act in any manner contrary to the established policy adopted by the Council.
The Institute for Local Government offers tools and publications to help further a consistent code
of conduct for all Boards, Commissions and Committees. This publication offers tips for civility during public
meetings. Some key recommendations include:
• Ensure everyone gets a chance to share their viewpoint
• Embrace different perspectives
• Avoid debates and interruptions
• Listen
• Be compassionate
Conduct with City Staff
Governance of a city relies on the cooperative efforts of elected officials who set policy, appointed officials who
advise the elected, and City staff who advise, implement and administer the Council’s policies. Therefore, every
effort should be made to be cooperative and show mutual respect for the contributions made by each individual
for the good of the community.
Treat all staff as professionals: Clear, honest communication that respects the abilities, experience, and dignity
of each individual is expected. Unprofessional and/or antagonistic behavior towards staff is not acceptable.
MEETING MANAGEMENT
The City of Palo Alto is committed to conducting efficient, effective, and accessible government operations. The
following material outlines techniques that can be used to ensure that BCC meetings are efficiently run and give
all residents an equal opportunity to address the issues.
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 26
PROCEEDINGS
• It is generally a good idea to turn off cell phones, PDAs or iPads and refrain from texting during meetings
unless there is an emergency.
• Please be aware that any messages sent or received relating to City business, including those posted on
social media, may become a public record and releasable if requested.
• Documents used or shared at Board, Commission and Committee meetings are subject to the Public
Records Act.
• Start the meetings on time. Keep the agenda in mind in order to give each item the appropriate time.
• Announce at the start of a meeting if the order of agenda items is to be rearranged for convenience, for
response to those attending for only certain items, or for better pacing of the agenda.
• Let the Chair run the meeting.
• Be fair, impartial, and respectful of the public, staff, and each other.
• Give your full attention when others speak.
• Encourage public participation in the meeting process.
• Come to each meeting with an open mind.
• Base decisions on public engagement, committee discussion, and meeting dialogue.
• Abstain if you have a conflict of interest or if you believe you may have one and have not yet conferred
with the City Attorney. You may also abstain if you feel you cannot be fair or cannot consider the item
with the public’s interest foremost in mind.
• Value and respect the professional expertise of staff and consultants, while providing independent
critical thinking, expertise, and input. Remember that people may be attending a meeting for the first
time and may be unfamiliar with your procedures. In your discussion, either avoid or explain technical
terms or verbal shorthand.
• Listen to the public’s concerns. Do not engage inside conversations or otherwise be distracted during
public testimony. The opportunity for public testimony is central to the strength of democracy and is
therefore encouraged. Active listening, however, does not mean engaging the public in debate. Your
response is appropriately saved for after the public testimony is closed.
• Sometimes questions can most effectively focus discussion and direct decision-making. For Example:
What is the history behind this item? What are the benefits and drawbacks? What other alternatives
should we consider?
ATTENDANCE
• The City Council expects that members of BCCs will make every effort to attend all scheduled meetings.
• A compilation of attendance will be submitted to the City Council at least annually listing absences for all
commissions/committee members.
• If you miss more than one-third of the BCC meetings during the calendar year, this will be reported to
Council and may result in your removal from the BCC.
• Any member who feels that unique circumstances have led to numerous absences can appeal directly to
the City Council for a waiver of this policy or to obtain a leave of absence.
• While it is expected that members be present at all meetings, the chair and staff liaison should be
notified if a member knows in advance that he/she will be absent.
• When reviewing commissioners for reappointment, attendance at commission meetings will be given
significant consideration.
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 27
LATE ARRIVAL TO MEETINGS
If a member anticipates being late to a meeting, please notify the staff liaison regarding the approximate time of
arrival. Staff will alert the Chair.
ABSENCES
Please refer to the BBC attendance requirements in the section above. It is an expectation as part of your BCC
service to attend all meetings. If you plan to be absent from a meeting, inform your staff liaison prior to the
posting of your committee’s agenda.
MINUTES
The staff liaison will prepare action minutes (except for the Historic Resources Committee, where the secretary
shall do so). Action minutes or summary (sense) minutes are preferred. Verbatim minutes are discouraged. The
minutes serve as the permanent official record of the advisory body. The minutes should reflect the members in
attendance, members who were absent, a description of each agenda item and the action taken by the advisory
body. Titles of motions and resolutions are recorded verbatim. In order to become an official record of activities,
minutes must be approved by the BCC. Minutes are normally approved as soon as reasonably possible.
Amendments or corrections may be made to the minutes in public meetings, with the approval of the BCC.
INTERACTING WITH THE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC
It is important to recognize that as a BCC member your actions and comments are often interpreted to be that of
the entire BCC, the staff, or the City.. The Communications Office is available to assist BCC members in
interactions with the media.
When speaking with the media, observe the following guidelines:
• You must clarify who you represent as the speaker. Are you speaking in your capacity as a BCC Chair or
as a private resident? Keep in mind that a member’s comments to the press or other public comments
are sometimes misinterpreted even though the BCC Chair states that they are speaking for themselves.
• Do not make promises to the public that are binding on the BCC, staff, or the City Council.
• Comments to the media or the public should be factual and accurate. Avoid speculation.
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 28
SWEARING IN AND OATH OF OFFICE
Before taking office, each BCC member must be sworn in by the City Clerk,
by taking the Oath of Office to swear, or affirm, that he or she will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of
the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that he or
she will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of the State of California; that he or she takes
this obligation freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that he or she will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which
he or she is about to enter.
FORM 700 OBLIGATION AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 87103 FINANCIAL INTEREST)
BCC members must file an annual Form 700 by April 1 of each year. In addition, most filers also must file within 30
days of assuming and leaving office. If you have any questions about your Form 700 duty to file, please contact
the City Clerk. Failure to timely file a Form 700 is grounds for dismissal.
ETHICS, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, TRAINING
State and local laws have been adopted to ensure that local decision making is free from certain conflicts of
interest or the possibility of conflicts of interest. The Council has determined that appointed BCC members
should comply with these rules. Beyond the rules, BCC members should conduct themselves to a high ethical
standard, ensuring that all their duties are performed in the public interest.
BCC members must complete two hours of approved ethics training within one year of appointment, and every
two years thereafter. BCC members are responsible for compliance and submitting their certificates of
completion to the City Clerk. The training covers both conflicts of interest law and ethics principles.
There are a number of options for complying with the training requirement:
Self-study materials are available at http://www.ca-ilg.org/ab1234compliance. The materials require that you
read two articles on public service ethics laws and principles, take a self-assessment test, and then submit it to
the Institute for Local Government with a processing fee for each test. The Institute will review your test(s),
provide you the correct answers to the questions and a proof of participation certificate.
The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) offers free online training at
http://localethics.fppc.ca.gov/login.aspx. This option requires you to log onto the FPPC’s website, review various
screens of materials, take periodic tests to assure retention of the information and then print out a certificate.
Failure to recuse can be grounds for dismissal.
V. CITY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 29
REMOVAL
BCC members serve at the pleasure of the Council. Council reserves the right to remove one or more members
of a BCC at any time, for any reason. BCC members understand that they are not entitled to any process in the
event Council removes them from service. Incumbents seeking a reappointment are required to complete and
file an application with the City Clerk by the application deadline.
Board and commission members provide domain knowledge and reflect a diverse range of perspectives in the
community. Removal of appointees shall not be on the basis of political perspectives of the Council or
commissioner. Removal should be based on performance related concerns such as legal or ethical violations, a
pattern of absences, misconduct toward staff, colleagues, or the public, or actions that undermine the public
trust in the commission or the Council.
The City Council may remove a member by a majority vote of the City Council. Three council members can
agendize a removal action item. The removal vote will occur in an open Council session where any member of
the public can speak.
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 30
GENERAL OVERVIEW
The Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code section 54950 et seq., sets
forth certain legal requirements regarding BCCs based on the public’s
right to know how decisions are made. Public agencies, boards,
commissions, and committees exist to aid in the conduct of the
people’s business. With the exception of ad hoc subcommittees, all
City BCC meetings shall be publicly noticed and agendized as required
by the Brown Act. The public shall be permitted to attend and
participate, according to the rules. These transparency procedures
improve promote trust in the public body and foster mutual respect by
serving the public’s right to be heard and considered in the decision-
making process.
The League of California Cities prepared a publication titled Open & Public V: A Guide to the Ralph M. Brown Act
which is an informative guide to the Brown Act, including tips, examples and illustrations. View it for free at:
http://www.cacities.org/openandpublic.
For additional information or to answer questions, BCC members should consult with their staff liaison, and
through the staff liaison the City Attorney, as necessary.
MEETINGS AND AGENDAS
A "meeting" takes place whenever a quorum is present and official business is considered. An agenda for each
regularly scheduled meeting must be posted at least 72-hours in advance. Agendas for special meetings require
24 hours’ notice. The agenda should include a brief description of every item to be considered. Except for very
brief announcements, if an item is not on the agenda, discussion should be deferred to a future meeting when it
can be properly agendized.
AVOIDING UNLAWFUL MEETINGS AND “SERIAL” MEETINGS
BCC members are permitted to socialize in a non-meeting setting but must refrain from discussing any BCC
business. Care should be taken to make sure that if a quorum of a BCC is gathered at a public or private meeting
place, no public business is discussed and that the gathering will not be interpreted as a meeting. Any
conversation that occurs among a majority of the members of a BCC on business that will come before it or is
likely to come before it is improper under the Brown Act no matter the means by which the conversation takes
place - in person communications, phone calls, writings, and electronic correspondence. When using email, be
cognizant that the Brown Act may be violated if a majority of a BCC engages in communication about City
business that is or is likely to come before that BCC. Email correspondence is covered by the Brown Act and BCC
members should be careful not to “reply all” to a communication directed to a BCC. In addition, emails and
phone call records relating to City business may be searchable and releasable pursuant to Public Records Act
requests.
VI RALPH M. BROWN ACT
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 31
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The public has the right to be notified of items on the agenda, to attend meetings of a legislative body, to record
the meeting, to speak before or during consideration of an agenda item, and to see the materials of the
legislative body.
Every agenda must include time for public comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the BCC and not on the
agenda. BCC members generally should not engage in discussion of items raised by the public that are not on
the agenda.
If a Board or Commission member receives materials or information directly from an applicant, he or she shall
notify the Staff Liaison immediately.
Agenda materials released less than 72 hours prior to the meeting must be made available to the public at a
specified location as well as at the BCC meeting. The public must be allowed to speak on every agendized item,
before an action or vote is taken by the BCC.
Accommodations are available so that persons with disabilities can participate in all aspects of a BCC meeting.
Members of the public may make a written request to the staff liaison, including the requestor's name, address,
phone number and brief description of the requested materials, preferred alternative format, auxiliary aid or
service, or other needed accommodation. Advance notice is kindly requested so that arrangements can be
made.
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 32
The City Council thanks you for applying for and accepting a position on one
of the City’s Boards, Commissions, or Committees, and for devoting your
time to help build a great community in Palo Alto through your civic
involvement. Please use this Handbook as a guide as you carry out your
duties as a member of a BCC, and please contact the City Clerk or your staff
liaison if you need any further information, advice, or assistance.
NCLCONCLUSI
VI. CONCLUSION
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 33
BCC WORK PLAN GUIDELINES AND PROCESS
The City Council will vote on BCC work plans annually. Workplans are due in June and should consist of up to
three priorities. The City Council will ask the BCC Chair to present the workplan to the City Council. Workplans
should include if there is an intent to use Ad Hoc committees to assist in the BCC work for the year ahead. After
the workplan is approved, if there is an additional priority the BCC would like added, the BCC chair would make a
prompt request to the Council.
To guide the work of developing the BCC annual workplans, a short checklist is provided below:
• Review purpose of the BCC
• Discuss any City Council priorities for the BCC
• Discuss existing and possible projects, priorities and goals
• Order from high priority to low priority
• Finalize draft work plan for City Council review
• Use approved workplan as a guide to focus BCC work throughout the term of the workplan (one or two
years)
• Present report to the City Council annually and include:
• List of priorities, projects and goals
• Status updates
• If items are not complete, include why and any other additional details to share with the Council
EXHIBIT A
BCC WORKPLAN TEMPLATE
BCC NAME
BCC Purpose:
Approved
Projects,
Priorities, and
Goals
Name of
Project, Priority
or Goal
Benefit, if
Completed
Mandate by
State or Local
law and
approved by
City Council?
Y/N
Policy Update
as Directed by
the City
Council
Y/N
Timeline for
Completion
Resources
needed, i.e.
staff support,
sub committee
established,
etc.
Measure of
Success
Prioritize
projects,
priorities and
goals
Name of
Project, Priority
or Goal
Priority 1:
Urgent
(within six
months)
Priority 2: High
(within the
year)
Priority 3:
Medium
(within 2
years)
Priority 4: Low
(beyond 2
years)
Architectural Review Board
Application
Authority of Board:
The Architectural Review Board oversees the design review of new construction. The
Board provides guidance to any changes in commercial, industrial and multiple-family
projects.
The Board is responsible for:
•Promoting orderly and harmonious development of the City
•Enhancing the desirability of residence or investment in the City
•Encouraging the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements
•Enhancing the living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas
•Promoting environments that maintain balance between aesthetic quality and variety
Please see Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.16 and 2.21, as well as Titles 16
and 18 for more detailed information.
The Architectural Review Board consists of five members. Members must not be
Council Members, officers, or employees of the City. At least three members are to be
architects, landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals. Palo
Alto residency is not required. Terms of Members will be for three years.
The Architectural Review Board typically meets on the first and third Thursdays of each
month at 8:30 AM. In addition, Members may be asked to participate on at least one
sub-committee. Sub-committees may hold additional meetings.
Review the Board and Commission Handbook for information and expectations on serving.
Palo Alto welcomes volunteers, and we appreciate that you are taking the time to
apply. Completion of this application provides valuable information to the City
Council. Please complete the application to the best of your abilities. If you have
any questions or concerns, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 329-2571
or email Jessica.Brettle@cityofpaloalto.org. To receive email notifications of
vacancies, CLICK HERE.
Architectural Review Board
Personal Information – Note: The ARB regularly meets the first and third Thursdays of the month at 8:30 a.m.
Name:
Address:
Cell Phone:
__ Home / __ Office Phone:
E-mail:
Are you a Palo Alto Resident? __ Yes __ No
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who
are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes __ No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? __ Yes __ No
California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure
of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700.
Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director
of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to;
1) engage in business with the City,
2) provide products or services for City projects, or
3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes __ No
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? __ Yes __ No
Page 1
Architectural Review Board
Please email all completed applications to Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org or City.Clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org
City Clerk's Office: 650-329-2571
California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home
address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the
written permission of that individual.” This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the
Application and posted to the City’s website.
The full code can be read HERE.
Read the code, and check only ONE option below:
I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and
Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code
Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo
Alto City Clerk.
OR
I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address
from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website.
I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following
contact information instead:
Address:
Cell Phone:
__ Home / __ Office Phone:
E-mail:
Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: (1311 characters)
Page 2
Architectural Review Board
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board?
__ Community Group
__ Email from the City
__ Palo Alto Weekly
__ Daily Post
__ City Website
__ Flyer
Other: ______________________________________________________________________________
List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: (621 characters)
Employment
Employer:
Occupation:
Current Employer Last Employer
Page 3
Architectural Review Board
2.Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to youand describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can
view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center HERE (1449 characters)
1.What is it about the Architectural Review Board that is compatible with your experience and of
specific interest to you, and why? (1449 characters)
Page 4
Architectural Review Board
4.Please identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good architecture, andexplain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If you attach
samples, Staff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the interviews. (1035 characters)
3.If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve,and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? (1587 characters)
Signature: (Please type or sign) _______________________________________________ Date: _____________
Page 5
Architectural Review Board
5.Architectural Review Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you haveexperience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these
documents is not required for selection. (1173 characters)
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Zoning Code
El Camino Real Design Guidelines
El Camino Real Master Plan Study
Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans
California Environmental Quality Act
Permit Streamline Act
Density Bonus Law
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
6. Please confirm that you have read the Boards and Commissions Handbook: ___Yes ___ No
CITY OF 10
PALO
ALTO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE COUNCIL MEMBERS
BETH MINOR, CITY CLERK
NOVEMBER 30, 2020
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10-Consideration of Follow-up Recommendations by
the City Council Ad Hoc Committee on Boards, Commissions and Committees
(BCCs), Including Adopting a Handbook and BCC Applications
Attached is an updated Architectural Review Board application that is proposed by the Ad Hoc
Committee. Some of the recent corrections include updating the questions, updating specific
verbiage, and general formatting. If Council accepts this application the Clerk's Office will
ensure the other Boards and Commissions applications are aligned with this one.
Additionally, the City is moving to Open Cities to host our web services. Open Cities offers a
web forms program that we can utilize to create the applications online, thereby making it
easier for the public to apply for positions.
Beth Minor
City Clerk
1of1
•Promoting orderly and harmonious development of the City
•Enhancing the desirability of residence or investment in the City
•Encouraging the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements
•Enhancing the living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas
•Promoting environments that maintain balance between aesthetic quality and
variety
Please see Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.16 and 2.21, as well as Titles 16 and
18 for more detailed information.
The Architectural Review Board is composed of five members who are not Council
Members, officers, or employees of the City, at least three of whom shall be architects,
landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals. Palo Alto
residency is not required. Terms of Members will be for three years.
The Architectural Review Board typically meets on the first and third Thursdays of each
month at 8:30 A.M. In addition to regular meetings, Members may be asked
to participate on at least one sub-committee which could hold additional meetings.
Review the Board and Commission Handbook for information and expectations on serving: LINK.
Application to Serve on the
Architectural Review Board
Palo Alto welcomes volunteers, and we appreciate that you are taking the time to
apply. Completion of this application provides valuable information to the City
Council. Please complete the application to the best of your abilities. If you have
any questions or concerns, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 329-2571 or
email Jessica.Brettle@cityofpaloalto.org. To receive email notifications of
vacancies please visit: LINK.
Authority of Board:
The Architectural Review Board is charged with design review of some new
construction, as well as changes and additions to commercial, industrial and multi-
family projects.
The Board is responsible for:
Architectural Review Board Personal Information
Note: The ARB regularly meets the first and third Thursdays of the month at 8:30 A.M.
Name:
Address:
Cell Phone:
__ Home / __ Office Phone:
E-mail:
Are you a Palo Alto Resident? __ Yes __ No
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who
are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes __ No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? __ Yes __ No
California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of
their financial interests (Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700).
Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or
director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to:
1) engage in business with the City,
2) provide products or services for City projects, or
3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes __ No
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? __ Yes __ No
Page 1
Architectural Review Board
Please email all completed applications to Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org or City.Clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org
California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home
address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the
written permission of that individual.” This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the
Application and posted to the City’s website.
The full code can be read here: LINK.
Read the code, and check only ONE option below:
I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and
Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code
Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo
Alto City Clerk.
OR
I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address
from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website.
I am providing the following alternate information and request that the following contact
information be used instead:
Address:
Cell Phone:
__ Home / __ Office Phone:
E-mail:
Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website
Please describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held: (1311 characters)
Page 2
Architectural Review Board
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board? (Select more than one if applicable)
__ Community Group
__ Email from the City
__ Palo Alto Weekly
__ Daily Post
__ City Website
__ Flyer
Other: ______________________________________________________________________________
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and
professional registration: (621 characters)
Employment
Employer:
Occupation:
Current Employer Last Employer
Page 3
Architectural Review Board
2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you
and describe why you are interested in it. (Archived videos available from the Midpen Media Center: LINK.)(1449 characters)
1.Why are you interested in serving on the Architectural Review Board and what experiencewould you bring to the position? (1449 characters)
Page 4
Architectural Review Board
4. Please identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links.
(1035 characters)
3.If you are appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Boardachieve, and how would you help in the process? (1587 characters)
Signature: (Please type or sign) _______________________________________________ Date: _____________
Page 5
Architectural Review Board
5. Architectural Review Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have
experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these
documents is not required for selection, but will help you better understand the work of the board.
(1173 characters)
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (2030)
Zoning Code
El Camino Real Design Guidelines
El Camino Real Master Plan Study (2007)
Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I (2000) and II (2003) Plans
California Environmental Quality Act
Permit Streamling Act
Density Bonus Law
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993)
Experience with other documents listed on this webpage is desirable as well.
6. Please confirm that you have read the Boards and Commissions Handbook: ___Yes ___ No
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11638)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/30/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Appeal of a Director's Interpretation Regarding Seismic
Rehabilitation
Title: Public Hearing on an Appeal of a Director's Interpretation Made
Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.01.025 and Related to
Seismic Rehabilitation. The Project is Exempt From the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With CEQA Guidelines
15061(b)(3)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council hold a public hearing and deny the appeal upholding the
director’s interpretation related to seismic retrofitting.
Executive Summary
This report provides background information in support of the director’s interpretation,
presents the appellant’s arguments for the appeal, and concludes that the City’s public safety
interests justify the director’s action.
Background
The City’s zoning and building codes incentivize downtown area property owners to rehabilitate
seismically vulnerable buildings by offering a floor area bonus of 2,500 square feet (or greater)
in exchange for mitigating the seismic risk. Staff’s original implementation of this program
granted the bonus following the complete removal or demolition of these at-risk buildings.
However, several years ago for an unrelated matter, the City Council directed staff to strictly
interpret the zoning code. This direction followed Council review of a number of development
projects where it disagreed on appeal with some staff interpretations. Accordingly, while
previously allowing for demolition of buildings to receive the floor area bonus, staff
subsequently required owners to retain and rehabilitate the building instead of demolishing it.
The Design Within Reach building on University Avenue is one example of how this code
City of Palo Alto Page 2
provision has more recently been applied.
On December 7, 2015, the City Council amended the zoning code to authorize the director to
make interpretations of the zoning code and established a process to post formal
interpretations on the City’s website.1 No prior determinations have been made in reliance on
this code provision.
The subject director’s interpretation attempts to implement the intent of the code to promote
public health and allows a property owner to receive a floor area bonus when demolition is the
only feasible means to eliminate the seismic risk.
In accordance with the municipal code, this interpretation was posted online2 and as a courtesy
emailed to known interested community members. On July 13, 2020, a timely appeal was filed
by three former Councilmembers (Attachment B).
On September 21, 2020, City Councilmembers Kou, Filseth and Vice Mayor DuBois pulled the
determination from the consent calendar to schedule for the subject public hearing.
Discussion
In the 1980s the City established a seismic hazards identification program that required owners
of buildings constructed before a certain period to submit engineering reports evaluating the
building’s structural systems and present solutions to remedy any deficiencies. There are other
requirements to the program but upgrading the building to meet contemporary seismic
standards was voluntary. The downtown commercial district has an incentive that grants a floor
area bonus of 25% of the existing floor area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater, to
owners that seismically rehabilitate their buildings. This floor area bonus can be used onsite or
sold to a qualifying interested party.
These ordinances were established in recognition of Palo Alto’s proximity to the San Andreas
1 Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.01.025 (Zoning Code Interpretation) sets forth the provision: Whenever in
the opinion of the Planning and Community Environment Director (PCE Director) there is any question regarding
the interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan or the planning and land use provisions of Titles 16, 18 or 21 to any
specific case or situation, the PCE Director shall have the authority to interpret such planning codes. When in the
opinion of the PCE Director a formal written decision is warranted, the Director shall make the written decision
available to the public by posting on the City’s website. The interpretation shall become effective fourteen
consecutive calendar days from the date of posting unless appealed under this section. The interpretation shall
become the standard interpretation for future application of that provision of this Chapter unless changed by the
Council on appeal. In accordance with the provisions of Section 18.77.070(f), any person may appeal the PCE
Director’s written interpretation prior to its effective date. All final written interpretations made under this section
shall be made publicly available on the City’s website. Staff shall prepare a quarterly Information Report to the
Council summarizing all final interpretations made under this section.
2 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/current/pds_director_interpretations.asp
City of Palo Alto Page 3
and Hayward faults and to promote public safety by identifying those buildings that exhibit
structural deficiencies and the extent to which these buildings have the potential for causing
loss of life or injury.
While this program was progressive when adopted and resulted in many buildings being
upgraded, it does not reflect contemporary standards that blend voluntary and mandatory
regulations to improve the safety of the City’s older building inventory. In fact, many buildings
have not been updated, including some of the more vulnerable building typologies, such as
unreinforced masonry buildings.
The City Council has directed staff to update the seismic ordinance and progress has been made
on this endeavor. However, the next steps require additional consultant work. A request for
funding was dropped by staff when City departments needed to make budget reductions in
response to the current downturn in the economy. When funding is available, and staff is able
to secure a consultant, it will take about 12 months of effort before hearings can be scheduled,
but this project is currently unfunded and will likely be delayed several years.
Director’s Interpretation
The subject interpretation attempts to balance the Council’s direction to strictly interpret the
zoning code with the public interest in remediating buildings that are seismically vulnerable and
more susceptible to causing loss of life, injury or property damage within the parameters of an
incentive program designed to encourage owners of such buildings to upgrade and make safer
those buildings.
The code section being interpreted is Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.18.070(a)(2) and is
excerpted below:
A building that is in Seismic Category I, II, or III, and is undergoing seismic
rehabilitation, but is not in Historic Category 1 or 2, shall be allowed to increase
its floor area by 2,500 square feet or 25% of the existing building, whichever is
greater, without having this increase count toward the FAR, subject to the
restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall not be permitted
for buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1
in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts. This bonus area must be fully parked. In
addition to any applicable parking provisions, this bonus may be parked by the
payment of in lieu parking fees under Section 18.18.090.
The formal director’s interpretation is provided in Attachment A. There has been discussion in
the past about the term “rehabilitation” in the context of granting floor area bonuses to
property owners that upgrade seismically vulnerable buildings. Under this provision, City staff
routinely granted the bonus to seismically vulnerable buildings that were demolished and
City of Palo Alto Page 4
replaced with new construction, as that eliminated the identified seismic risk. During a City
Council meeting in 2014/15, one or two Councilmembers commented on staff’s application of
the code to development projects and offered a perspective that demolition was inconsistent
with the plain reading of the code. Since then, projects have been required to retain and
upgrade the seismically vulnerable structure to qualify for the bonus. In 2015, staff sought to
codify this approach in the zoning code, but the matter was deferred by the Planning and
Transportation Commission and not acted upon by the City Council.
While staff generally accepts the notion that rehabilitation is not demolition, the proposed
interpretation bridges the historic application of the code section with a strict reading of the
text to carve out a rare exception in the interest of protecting life and limiting property
damage. The proposed interpretation does not simply return to staff’s previous application of
the code; rather, it would apply only to a very narrow set of circumstances.
The project that precipitated the interpretation is the Mills Florist building at 233 University
Avenue. This project has received Architectural Review Board approval and was designed with
the intent to seismically upgrade portions of the building. The approved project largely retains
the look and character of the existing building and will reuse the existing brick façade on the
new building.3 However, when preparing construction drawings and engaging structural
engineers on the project, the applicant learned of concerns that made it impractical to retain
the existing walls. An engineer’s report found that the existing brick and masonry walls have
low strength and expected dangerous brittle failure – i.e. in any redevelopment scenario, this
wall would need to be rebuilt. Further, to construct the project, existing flooring and roof
diaphragms would need to be removed creating the potential for increased instability and
requiring supplemental bracing and greater excavation to keep the remaining walls in place.
Retaining and strengthening the unreinforced masonry building requires considerably more
effort, results in a less safe construction site, prolongs the time and expense of construction,
and achieves no measurable benefit to the City or the owner. Conversely, allowing for
demolition in this case not only addresses the noted concerns, it improves compliance with
building separation requirements (from the adjoining structure) and once constructed will have
an aesthetic that reflects the character of the existing building by cleaning and reusing the
existing bricks that are visible from University Avenue and Ramana Street.
Moreover, staff is under the impression that the project would not go forward without the
seismic floor area bonus, which would be used to help finance the project. This is a less
favorable outcome as unreinforced masonry buildings are particularly susceptible to collapse
during a seismic event. While staff recognizes this relies on the applicant’s representation as to
the future redevelopment of this property – and that it is the owner’s responsibility for
maintaining a safe building for its occupants and pedestrians – the City’s current seismic
3 The subject property has been evaluated and determined ineligible as an historic resource.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
policies do not compel property owners to upgrade seismically vulnerable buildings. Any such
policy change is several years from completion, if ultimately endorsed by the City Council.
Nevertheless, the engineer’s report and potential outcome of foregoing the necessary
remediation of the seismic risk prompted the director’s action.
The interpretation is anticipated to have limited applicability and only applies in the downtown
area. The interpretation is written to cover Seismic Category I, II, and III buildings, however, it is
the unreinforced masonry buildings, Seismic Category I, that face the greatest challenge for
rehabilitation when adding floor area because of the lack of existing structural systems to
support the building. Due to the risk factors associated with this building typology, it is
appropriate to use the City’s incentive program to aggressively mitigate these buildings. While
it is certainly the case that unreinforced masonry buildings can be strengthened to reduce this
risk, the project referenced above was able to demonstrate to the city’s building official that
there was no practical means to do so in this instance. Documentation provided by the
applicant is included with this report (Attachment C) and was peer reviewed before the building
official concurred with the analysis.
If the interpretation stands after appeal, other requests for demolition would similarly require
an engineer’s report to be prepared by the applicant and peer reviewed. The building official in
consultation with the department director would similarly need to conclude, based on the
supporting documentation that it is not practical to retain and strengthen a building in order to
mitigate a seismic risk and, in the downtown, receive a floor area bonus as an incentive for
abating that risk.
Appeal Statement
The appeal filed by three former Councilmembers is included with this report as Attachment B.
The appellants assert the director’s action is not an interpretation of the code, but rather
establishes new policy through a ministerial process. The appellants argue that a text
amendment is required to implement the director’s interpretation and requires public hearings
before the Planning and Transportation Commission and ultimately to the City Council, which is
the legislative body responsible for establishing policy. The appellant’s also object to the
practicality standard for determining whether rehabilitation is feasible noting it is undefined
and relies on the developer’s assertions as opposed to the plain reading of the code. There is
also a suggestion that the interpretation conflicts with regulations concerning historic
rehabilitations and that the interpretation itself is at odds with comments made by the director
in prior public meetings.
Staff Response
The appellants argue that the subject interpretation improperly establishes new City policy as
opposed to a clarifying interpretation of the existing policy. Staff’s perspective is that the
interpretation applies existing code, prioritizing the City’s interest to promote public safety over
City of Palo Alto Page 6
a narrow reading of the zoning code, which may forestall the removal of seismically vulnerable
buildings.
Accordingly, in this context, the appeal is principally about process. If the interpretation is
viewed as establishing new policy – its application is improper, and a text amendment is the
appropriate course of action. If the interpretation is viewed as a clarification of the intent of
existing code or applies the code to a unique circumstance, then the interpretation is an
acceptable means to address the issue. As noted above, the use of the word rehabilitation in
combination with other City policies inform one’s perspective on the issue.
The City’s comprehensive plan includes a number of policies and programs related to
minimizing the exposure of people and structures to seismic hazards; continuing to provide
incentives for seismic upgrades; and, using the results of the City’s seismic hazards
identification program and inventory to establish priorities and incentives to encourage
structural retrofits. Attachment D includes an excerpt from the City’s comprehensive plan
listing policies and programs related to earthquakes and natural hazards. More information is
also available online detailing the purpose and regulations related to the seismic hazards
identification program4 and process for approving floor area bonus for seismic rehabilitation.5
Beyond the process question, the appellants express concern that the term “infeasibility” is
undefined. Infeasibility is frequently used as a standard without express definition, relying
instead on reasonable, professional judgment. By way of example, documentation reviewed by
the City’s building official for the referenced property at 233 University Avenue is provided in
Attachment C. Included in this material are calculations the building official required to further
analyze the seismic systems and structural integrity of the building. These calculations were
prepared by the owner’s consultant and reviewed by City/contract staff before the building
official reviewed the data and concluded that keeping the building and seismically
strengthening it to support the approved project was infeasible. This example shows the extent
to which staff seeks to retain and strengthen buildings, but upon a finding of infeasibility, would
rather promote the City’s public safety interests and allow for the demolition of an
unreinforced masonry building known to be seismically insufficient to withstand a strong
earthquake. This conclusion stands in contrast to the arguments in the appeal statement that
the interpretation one-dimensionally addresses property owners’ objectives and not the
objectives of the code. Mitigating the seismic risk of buildings is in the City’s interest particularly
in areas with a lot of pedestrians.
4 Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.42
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/title16buildingregulations*/chapter1642seismic
hazardsidentificationp?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca$anc=JD_Chapter16.42
5 Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.18.070(b)
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/title16buildingregulations*/chapter1642seismic
hazardsidentificationp?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca$anc=JD_Chapter16.42
City of Palo Alto Page 7
The appellants also suggest the interpretation undermines the City’s interests in historic
preservation. The examples cited in the appeal statement ignores other City and state
regulations concerning historic resources and by inference exaggerates the limited scope of the
interpretation, which specifically states that all other municipal code requirements are
unchanged by the interpretation. Lastly, with respect to comments made previously by the
director regarding this code section, in 2015 staff did recommend a zoning amendment to
prohibit demolition as a means of qualifying for rehabilitation. This amendment was in
response to prior comments articulated by one or more Councilmembers prior to this time and
attempted to offer clarity as to what constituted rehabilitation. The Planning and
Transportation Commission and later the City Council both deferred making any change to the
municipal code, however.
Unreinforced masonry buildings are particularly vulnerable to partial or total collapse during a
strong seismic event. While the interpretation would permit demolition over seismically
strengthening the building, it does so in rare circumstances and only after preparation of
professional analysis, which is peer reviewed by a licensed structural engineer. Central to the
interpretation is whether demolition is ever an appropriate solution to mitigate a seismic risk
and whether such action is intended to convey a floor area bonus incentive to downtown area
property owners.
Policy Implications
The interpretation itself presents a policy consideration for the City Council and the argument
offered by the appellants is that the interpretation improperly establishes new policy as
opposed to interpets existing policy. If the Council agrees with this conclusion then the appeal
should be upheld. If the intepretation is a proper implementation of PAMC 18.01.025, then the
subsequent consideration for Council is whether demolition should be allowed in certain
circumstances to achieve the City’s public safety goals, which also results in downtown area
property owners receiving a floor area incentive bonus.
Resource Impact
There are no significant fiscal or budegatary impacts associated with the recommendation in
this report.
Timeline
The Council’s action on this appeal is effective immediately.
Stakeholder Engagement
The interpretation was posted online as required by the municipal code and sent to known
interested parties. Notice of the public hearing was posted in the Daily Press and on the City’s
website.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Environmental Review
Council action to deny or uphold the appeal is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Director's Interpretation (Seismic Rehabilitation) (PDF)
Attachment B: Appeal Statement (PDF)
Attachment C: 233 University Seismic Information (PDF)
Attachment D: Comprehensive Plan Natural Hazards Excerpt (PDF)
CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2100
DATE: June 29, 2020
TO: Planning & Development Services Staff and Interested Community Members
FROM: Jonathan Lait, Director
SUBJECT: Director’s Interpretation Related to Seismic Rehabilitation and Floor Area Bonuses
Authority
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.01.025 conveys authority to the Director of Planning and
Development Services to interpret planning and land use provisions of Title 16, 18, and 21. When
warranted, a formal written determination may be prepared and shared with the public by posting on
the City’s website.1 Written decisions shall be effective fourteen days following posting unless appealed
to the City Council in accordance with PAMC 18.77.070.
Director’s Interpretation
A floor area bonus in accordance with PAMC 18.18.070 (a)(2) shall be available to qualifying Seismic
Category I, II or III buildings in instances where seismic rehabilitation is determined infeasible by the
Chief Building Official. The Building Official may require an engineering analysis or other studies
appropriate to validate any claims of infeasibility.
Applicable Code Sections
Chapter 16.42 (Seismic Hazards Identification Program)
Section 18.18.070(a)(2) Available Floor Area Bonuses / Seismic Rehabilitation Bonus
Section 18.18.070(d)(1) Procedure for Granting Floor Area Bonuses
Discussion
Palo Alto is vulnerable to strong or moderate earthquakes due to its proximity to the San Andreas and
Hayward Faults and may experience loss of life or serious injury as a result from damage to or collapse
of buildings (PAMC 16.42.010). City regulations encourage seismic upgrades to particularly vulnerable
buildings, including unreinforced masonry buildings, which pose a significant localized risk. To
incentivize safer buildings, the City offers a floor area bonus up to 25% of the building floor area or 2,500
square feet, whichever is greater, for qualifying seismically rehabilitated buildings.
1 This determination is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/pdsinterpretations
Formal Zoning
Interpretation
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6174EB45-F2CC-479C-AB13-886CB6139690
In the recent past, several buildings in Palo Alto were allowed to be completely demolished as a means
to correct the seismically vulnerable building and received a seismic bonus.2 A closer review of the
municipal code, however, suggests that to qualify for the bonus floor area, the building must be
seismically rehabilitated, or retained and strengthened to contemporary structural standards. This later
interpretation has been the approach followed by staff for the past several years.
Recently, a project applicant demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City’s Chief Building Official that
structurally rehabilitating the building at 233 University Avenue (Mills Florist) was not practical. While
technical rehabilitation compliance could be documented, the effort to do so was determined not
feasible nor safe by an engineering analysis.
In this instance, the plain reading of the municipal code and floor area bonus does not provide sufficient
incentive to encourage seismic strengthening of a building type known to be hazardous to building
occupants and pedestrians. Allowing replacement of the building – new building construction – would
remedy the seismic hazard. Moreover, the project as previously approved, retains the existing exterior
masonry brick (restored and reapplied), which preserves the look and character of the building.
Based on the foregoing and to support overriding public health interests, this interpretation would allow
qualifying buildings (Seismic Category I, II or III), the opportunity to rebuild as new construction upon a
finding by the City’s Chief Building Official that rehabilitation is not practical. All other municipal code
requirements are unaffected or unchanged by this interpretation.
_______________________________
Jonathan Lait, Director
Planning and Development Services
Posted on Website: June 29, 2020
Appeal Deadline: July 13, 2020
2 657 Alma St. (101 Forest Ave.); 901 Alma St.; 431 Florence St.; 820 Ramona St.; 150 University Ave.; 171 University Ave.; 201
University Ave.; 270 University Ave.; 274 University Ave.; 380 University Ave.; and, 416/428 University Ave.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6174EB45-F2CC-479C-AB13-886CB6139690
July 13, 2020
To: Planning Director Jonathan Lait
Mayor Adrian Fine, Vice Mayor Tom DuBois, City Council members
Re: Appeal of the Director’s Interpretation Related to Seismic Rehabilitation and Floor Area Bonuses.
The code establishing bonus square footage and TDRs (Transferrable Development Rights) for
Seismic buildings is clear:
Municipal Code Section 18.18.070 Floor Area Bonuses (a) (2) Seismic
Rehabilitation Bonus:
“A building that is in Seismic Category I, II, or III, and is undergoing
seismic rehabilitation (emphasis added) but is not in Historic
Category 1 or 2, shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 2,500
square feet or 25% of the existing building, whichever is greater…”
The staff, via an “Interpretation”, is proposing to use a ministerial process to establish city policy and
change the code to allow bonus square footage for demolished buildings. This interpretation is
counter to what staff itself writes in the Interpretation: “A closer review of the municipal code,
however, suggests that to qualify for the bonus floor area, the building must be seismically
rehabilitated, or retained and strengthened to contemporary structural standards.” (Emphasis
added). Demolished buildings by definition are not rehabilitated buildings.
Further, the Interpretation suggests replacing a clear and simple zoning law with a completely
undefined process that considers “financial infeasibility” or “impracticality” based on a developer’s
assertion of it being so. With no substantiating evidence, the Interpretation speculates “the plain
reading of the municipal code and floor area bonus does not provide sufficient incentive to
encourage seismic strengthening of a building type known to be hazardous…”. The Interpretation
thereby only addresses owners’ objectives and not the objective of the code: to incentivize the
rehabilitation of hazardous buildings. The code allows for on-site bonus square footage of a
rehabilitated building OR sale of qualified TDRs resulting from the rehabilitation. In other words,
owners’ objective may not be accomplished on site, but they may be otherwise incented to conduct
the seismic rehabilitation via TDR sale/s.
Furthermore, staff’s assertion that the “plain reading’ of the current code does not provide an
adequate incentive for developers or property owners, which is a clear acknowledgement that staff
believes there should be a change in policy and code, but has chosen to use a ministerial tool to
establish policy, thereby bypassing the PTC, City Council and public review.
This interpretation also carries with it an inherent conflict regarding historic buildings that are in need
of seismic retrofit. Will the new “Interpretation” extend to historic rehabilitations and the President’s
Hotel or the Post Office be vulnerable to the wrecker’s ball if an applicant is successful in convincing
the Building Official of some undefined “financial infeasibility” or “impracticality” if a similar
Interpretation determines the fate of such buildings? The PTC, City Council and the public must not
be circumvented by such an Interpretation as they are with the June 29 Interpretation.
The Interpretation includes that bonus square footage has been allowed for several demolished
seismic buildings. This runs counter to the code, counter to staff plain reading of the code, counter to
comments by the Director in the October 28, 2015 Planning Commission minutes and counter to
information in the December 7, 2015 CMR…all indicating that the code and the Council intentions
were that seismic bonus square footage are to be granted only for rehabilitated buildings.
In summary, this proposal is a significant code change and should not be subject to a Director’s
Interpretation, resulting in an expensive appeal process rather than normal and proper public
hearings for zoning code changes.
Submitted by:
Karen Holman, former Mayor, Councilmember
Greg Schmid, former Vice-Mayor, Councilmember
Pat Burt, Former Mayor, Councilmember
“T i m e l y S o l u t i o n s B a s e d O n T i m e l e s s P r i n c i p l e s”
HOHBACH-LEWIN,INC.STRUCTURAL & CIVIL ENGINEERS
E U G E N ES A N F R A N C I S C OP A L O A L T O P A S A D E N A
260 Sheridan Ave, Ste 150 Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 617-5930
PRINCIPALS:
DOUGLAS HOHBACH
DAN LEWIN
JOAQUIM ROBERTS
ANTHONY LEE
VIKKI BOURCIER
SAM SHIOTANI
LES TSO
ASSOCIATE PRINCIPALS:
KEVIN MORTON
STUART LOWE
MICHAEL RESCH
SENIOR ASSOCIATES:
VICKY RUNDORFF
GREG RODRIGUES
EDDIE HUI
MIKE DAVIES
STACY GADDINI
ASSOCIATES:
BRIAN HO
PHYLLIS MAK
MICHAEL MORGAN
MOHAMED IBRAHIM
MOLLY SOUKHASEUM
CE DEPT MANAGER:
BILL HENN
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
P.E.
S.E.
S.E.
June 11, 2020
Revised June 16, 2020
Mills Family, LLC cc: Ken Hayes
c/o Ms. Leslie Mills Hayes Group Architects
PO Box 44
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Project: 233 University Avenue Seismic Evaluation
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Hohbach-Lewin Project No. 12929.2B
Dear Ms. Mills:
As you know, we are structural consultants to Hayes Group Architects for the
reconstruction of your building at 233 University Avenue. The existing building on the
site reportedly dates from the early 1900s, is rectangular, one-story with a partial
mezzanine, a partial basement and with a wood framed roof and floor and perimeter
unreinforced masonry walls. The rear portion of the building is an addition and is
constructed with hollow clay tiles, while the original construction is brick. The footprint of
the building is approximately 4,300 square feet.
You have copied us on communication to Ken Hayes from George Hoyt, the Chief
Building Official of Palo Alto, regarding the building. Mr. Hoyt has requested that we
review the strength of materials testing data and the historical structural analyses for the
building and utilize this information to prepare a detailed analysis, that will include the
calculation of Demand/Capacity ratios in accordance with PAMC 16.42.050 for the two
walls that are proposed to remain, as shown in the most recent Hayes Group Architect’s
documents.
Historical Seismic Information
You have provided us the following historical analyses, listed below in chronological
order:
1935-36 Earthquake Hazard Survey prepared by the City of Palo Alto Board of Public
Work, 233-235 University Avenue excerpt – this document notes that the mortar in the
face brick is very soft and thus the originally provided anchors in the mortar joints
connecting the walls to the roof framing will likely be ineffective. This survey also
contains several useful sections showing the construction at the framing connections to
both the University Avenue and Ramona Street walls.
Per PAMC Chapter 16.42, Seismic Hazards Identification Program, dating from 1986,
the subject building has been identified as subject to an engineering report requirement,
based on the unreinforced masonry walls as well as the vintage and number of
occupants of the building. The required engineering report is intended to determine if the
building has the capability to resist the seismic forces codified in the 1973 Uniform
Building Code without collapse or partial collapse. If the building is not shown to have
E U G E N ES A N F R A N C I S C OP A L O A L T O P A S A D E N A
260 Sheridan Ave, Ste 150 Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 617-5930 Fax (650) 617-5932
this capability, a retrofit solution sufficient to “substantially eliminate a potential collapse
failure” is to be included in the report, described in sufficient detail to allow for a
construction cost estimate to be made. There is no requirement to implement the
retrofit.
The November 29, 1986 letter from Anthony J. Angelo, P.E. to Frank Mills was
apparently written to fulfill this requirement for an engineering report. Mr. Angelo had
visited the subject building and found the bracing of the unreinforced masonry walls to
be seriously deficient and the University Avenue wall to contain no bracing elements,
and stated his professional opinion that “any proposed scheme of reconstruction to meet
the requirements of the Seismic Hazard Reduction Program would involve such
extensive reworking of the existing structural components as to make complete
replacement a more logical course of action.”
In 2004, the Stanford Theatre Gallery Building was constructed adjacent to the subject
property at 227 University Avenue. Apparently, the concrete property line wall of the
previous building at 227 University was constructed utilizing the wall of 233 University as
a backside form, thus when this wall was demolished some portions of the 233
University wall needed to be repaired. Also of interest was the new wall at 227
University was reportedly constructed 4” in board from the property line in order to create
a seismic separation between the buildings. This information was provided in a
December 9, 2004 letter by Meserve Engineering. This letter also provides results for
brick shear tests taken at various locations of this property line wall, which range from a
low of 18 psi to a high of 148 psi, with an average of 73 psi.
As part of the effort to utilize portions of the existing building in a future remodel, testing
of key structural materials in the building was performed a couple of years ago. The May
8, 2018 Structural Investigation report by CEL Consulting Inc., which includes a
Concrete Coring Inspection Report, a Concrete Compression Core Test Report, a
Ground Penetrating Radar Scanning Report to determine reinforcing steel in the
concrete and a Brick In-planar Mortar Strength Shear Report summarizes the test
results. Of particular interest is the brick shear test #3, which tested a portion of the
University Avenue frontage wall and found the net mortar strength to be 20 psi, a very
low value.
The most recent seismic information is contained in a letter to you dated February 25,
2020 from Rick Lennen, P.E. of AKC Engineering, Inc. It provides a recap of the
technical issues that were presented at a meeting you had on 2/13/20 with the City of
Palo Alto. He references the current proposal to substantively build a new building at
233 University but keep two of the unreinforced masonry walls. He makes several
statements addressing the deficiencies of unreinforced masonry buildings in general and
recommends removing all of the existing unreinforced masonry walls.
Seismic Analysis
We have completed a basic seismic assessment of the subject property in its existing
condition based on information obtained from field measurements and testing results
and other info referenced above.
As noted, the building is of archaic construction, utilizing unreinforced masonry walls to
support gravity loads as well as provide lateral resistance. This is no longer permitted by
E U G E N ES A N F R A N C I S C OP A L O A L T O P A S A D E N A
260 Sheridan Ave, Ste 150 Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 617-5930 Fax (650) 617-5932
the California Building code, thus the building needs to be evaluated and any retrofit
designed, per a standard appropriate for existing buildings. Currently the standard of
practice is to utilize ASCE 41-17,Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings.
The seismic performance goal delineated in the PAMC Chapter 16.42 Seismic Hazards
Identification Program, is to resist the seismic forces codified in the 1973 Uniform
Building Code without collapse or partial collapse. A similar performance criterion is
passing a Tier 1 life safety analysis per ASCE 41-13,Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
Existing Buildings when subjected to a BSE-1 earthquake ground motion.We have
analyzed the building per this criterion and this is expected to be deemed equivalent to
the Chapter 16.42 criterion by the Palo Alto Building Department.
We have prepared calculations to determine the mass of the building, the seismic
pseudo-forces that will be induced by a BSE-1 event and the demand-capacity ratios
comparing the in-plane shear strength of the key structural elements in the University
Avenue wall to the seismic demand. These calculations are attached.
Quickly summarizing, even with the most optimistic assumptions regarding the existing
brick mortar properties, the demand-capacity ratio of the piers in the University Avenue
wall is in excess of 10, compared to a maximum allowed value of 3. This indicates that
the building is indeed a potential collapse failure as defined by Chapter 16.42. Thus,
any new construction will need to provide a completely new lateral force resisting
element in the plane of this wall, with the wall being converted to a decorative veneer.
We did not perform calculations for the property line wall, however based on the
approximately 75 foot length of the brick front portion of the wall, we expect that the
front brick portion of the wall will have an acceptable in-plane shear demand-capacity
ratio. The approximately 25 foot length of the hollow clay tile rear portion of the wall
however will have an unacceptable in-plane shear demand capacity ratio and thus is a
definite collapse risk. In addition, the entire wall, including in particular the parapet, is
not currently adequately braced out of plane and is expected to be significantly damaged
in the evaluated seismic event.
Recommendation
In our professional opinion, the most straightforward approach to meet the intent of
PAMC Chapter 16.42 and mitigate the risk of collapse of the subject unreinforced
masonry walls in a seismic event is to demolish them when the balance of the building is
demolished for the proposed new construction. None of the existing masonry walls are
suitable for use as part of the new construction and if retained, will add seismic mass
and irregularity to the building. In addition, the hollow clay tile portion of the wall will
need to be rebuilt in any case, due to its low strength and expected dangerous brittle
failure mode.
In addition, we are concerned about the practicality of retaining these two walls during
the course of construction of the new building, since they will be unstable when the
existing floor and roof diaphragms are removed and will need to be braced by
supplemental bracing. The need to deepen the basement to make it reasonable to
occupy will require the underpinning of the foundations of these walls, again creating a
potential instability that will need to be carefully addressed in the course of construction.
E U G E N ES A N F R A N C I S C OP A L O A L T O P A S A D E N A
260 Sheridan Ave, Ste 150 Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 617-5930 Fax (650) 617-5932
In any case, we recommend that these walls not be maintained in place during
construction, to create a safer construction site and allow construction to be completed
more expeditiously. From our perspective it is difficult to perceive any reason to preserve
the property line wall, due to its concealed location and its potential to make the
renovated building less seismically safe. Also an advantage to demolishing the property
line wall is that a code compliant separation between the new building and the building
at 227 University could be constructed.
We hope that the Palo Alto Building Department finds this letter to be informative.
Please contact me with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Douglas Hohbach, S.E. S3131
Principal
Attachment: 233 University Calculations
HOHBACH-LEWIN INC.
S T R U C T U R A L E N G I N E E R S
260 Sheridan Avenue, Suite 150
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650) 617-5930 Fax:(650) 617-5932
Structural Calculations
For
233 University Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
June 10 2020
Project No: 12929.2F
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
011
012
013
AKC Engineering Inc.
1200 Industrial Road, Suite 13
San Carlos, CA 94070 (650) 591-3050
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
1
Mills Family LLC
P.O. Box 44
Palo Alto, CA 94302
Date: February 25, 2020
Re: 233/235 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Unreinforced Masonry Components
Proj: OSNC2646
Attn: Leslie Mills
This letter provides a recap of the technical issues we presented during our meeting on
2/13/20 at the City of Palo Alto. Any non-technical, permit related or planning issues are
beyond the scope of our comments.
It is proposed that the building at 233/235 University Avenue be fully renovated while
keeping two of the existing unreinforced masonry (URM) walls. One wall is at the front
along the sidewalk and the other is along the adjacent building (movie theatre).
For structural reasons as noted below we recommend removing all of the existing URM
walls.
1. CODE CRITERIA: URM buildings have been deemed unsafe and the Uniform
Code for Building Conservation, 1991 Edition was developed to reduce risk but
not eliminate it: its crucial to understand that it does not provide the level of life
safety provided by current standards. The lesser standards were intended to
balance safety with economics since the State of California took the rare step of
mandating that URM buildings be upgraded even though they were in compliance
when first built.
2. URM AS VENEER: Once the renovation is complete the building will no longer
be URM and the remaining brick walls will act as a very thick veneer. The
repurposed veneer will have much of the same characterizes of the original URM
walls. During an earthquake the URM veneer will try to pull away from the
structural frame. Normally the veneer is secured with mechanical anchors and
bolts. With consideration of the weak mortar, minimum spacing of anchor bolts,
depth of walls, property lines and the adjacent building; it is not possible to
AKC Engineering Inc.
1200 Industrial Road, Suite 13
San Carlos, CA 94070 (650) 591-3050
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
2
adequately secure all of the existing URM veneer and there will be a significant
risk to life safety.
3. STIFFNESS COMPADABILITY: Earthquake forces in a building will go the
stiffest elements but not necessarily the strongest. The URM wall along the
adjacent building is very long and thick and will take most all of the loading
unless isolated from the structure. The paradox is that it needs to be supported by
the new structural system and can’t be fully isolated.
4. STORE FRONT: Having field checked numerous similar buildings over the
years, we expect substandard grouting and very little structural continuity in the
URM of the at the store front. There is no engineering reason to risk the front
URM parapet peeling away from the structural frame and falling on to the
sidewalk along University Avenue.
It is our opinion that there is no technical reason to accept a lesser life safety standard for
any major remodel.
The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are in accordance with the
current standards of structural engineering practice and no warranty is expressed or
implied. We trust this letter provides the information required at this time. If you have
any questions, please call.
Sincerely
AKC Engineering
Rick Lennen, P.E.
Principal
STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION
233 UNIVERSITY
233 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Performed for
Mills Family, LLC
Palo Alto, California
by: CEL Consulting
Anil Nethinsinghe, P.E.
Structural Investigation Manager
May 8th, 2018
Report Number 180430-S CEL Project No. 50-53563-S
Attachments: Coring Inspection Report Compression Test Report Ground Penetrating Radar Scanning Report Brick-Shear Report
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this testing program is to provide the structural condition of existing construction.
2. SCOPE OF TESTING
The scope of the testing program was to perform tests based on the Recommended Testing Scope
dated March 27th, 2018, by Hohbach-Lewin, INC.
1. Sampling and testing of (5) concrete cores for compressive strength and unit weight
testing per ASTM C42 and ASTM C39. The unit weight of samples were calculated by
dividing the saturated-surface-dry weight by the measured volume.
2. Scanning of concrete walls and one column at (2) locations using ground penetrating
radar to determine reinforcing steel layout and orientation.
3. Testing of (4) brick walls to determine the average in-planar mortar strength per IFBC
2012 Section A106.
3. TEST RESULTS
See attached reports for results of testing.
Report #:180430S
Day:IR#:
Reported to .
Material being cored includes:
Cored a total of locations.
Core locations include:
Technicians reviewed core locations with prior to leaving the jobsite.
Samples were returned to the lab for the following tests:
Additional Comments:
Date:
233 University Avenue
5
50-53563-S
Hohback-Lewin, INC
Coring Inspection Report
Please note that additional sample was taken from locations C-2 and C-3 due
to poor consolidation. The original samples were compromised in the
extraction process.
withRichard Cody
Four concrete walls and one column.
Compression Test.
See attached pages titled "Test Locations".
See attached for compression test report, map of core locations, and pictures of cores for additional
information.
Project Name:
Date:
Location:
233 University
CEL Project #:
Thurs and Mon4/26 and 4/30
Signature:
Print Name:
Alex Cuevas
Alex Cuevas, Jose Jacobo
4/26/2018
Project Name:Mix #:Date Prepared:
CEL #:Design Strength:Time Prepared:
Report #:Nom. Agg Size:Date Tested:
Sampled By:Placement Date:Time Tested:
Tested By:Sample Date:Test Age:
Sample
#
Average
Length (in)
Average
Diameter
(in)
Break
Type
1 5.97 3.76 2
2 6.46 3.74 3
3 5.93 3.76 5
4 5.73 3.75 3
5 5.91 3.74 3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Maxim Break Types: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Type 6
2ACI 318 requires the average strength of three cores to be at least 85% of the specified strength and no single
core strength less than 75% of the specified strength.
3Date and time prepared indicates when samples were last in contact with moisture after being wet sawed and
sealed in plastic.
1Testing in accordance with ASTM C42, ASTM C39 and ACI 318.
233 University
50-53563-S
180430S
Jose Jacobo and Alex Cuevas
J. B.
C-4 (Wall)Horizontal 139.0 5.98 0.97 1,410
C-5 (Column)Horizontal 146.5 6.25 0.97 3,650
C-2 (Wall)Horizontal 142.9 6.87 0.99 1,680
C-3 (Wall)Horizontal 137.6 6.20 0.97 1,800
Compression Test Report
C-1 (Wall)Horizontal 140.9 6.20 0.97 3,530
Table #1 - Compression Test Data (ASTM C42)
Core ID Core
Orientation
Calculated
Density
(lb/ft3)
Average
Length
After Cap
(in)
Correction
Factor
Corrected
Compressive
Strength
(psi)
5/2/2018
11:00 AM
5/7/2018
12:00 PM
28+ days
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4/30/2018
Rebar size for S1 location
Location S1: Scan area at roof for rebar spacing and size. Rebar at
12" O.C. E.W. Bar size is #4 round with deformation.
Report #:180430S
Day:IR#:
Reported to .
Tested a total of locations.
Technicians reviewed test locations with
Testing was performed in accordance to:
Bricks were
Additional Comments:
Date:Signature:
Print Name:
Jose Jacobo
J. Jacobo, A. Cuevas, J. Bayless
5/2/2018
4
50-53563-S
Cody Brock Commercial Builders
left in place
Four (4) Test locations on the existing brick walls was performed to
determine the average in-plane mortar strength of
the wall.
withEd Paul
See attached for test result, map of test locations, and/or pictures of test locations for additional
IEBC 2012 Section A106
Ed Paul prior to leaving the jobsite.
for client after testing.
In Situ Masonry Mortar Shear Strength Report
Project Name:
Date:
Location:
233 University
CEL Project #:
Monday4/30/2018
233 University Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Project Name:Test Date:
CEL #:Tested By:
Report #:
Test #
Wall Height
Above Test
(ft)
Estimated
Wall
Thickness
(in)
Collar Joint
Cover (%)
Load at
First
Flaking
(lbs)
Motar
Strength
(psi)
Net Motar
Strength (psi)
1 12.00 N/A 50 8885 135 123
2 11.00 N/A 70 6808 103 92
3 9.00 4.00 0 1912 29 20
4 1.00 12.00 30 963 15 14
Table Test 1Testing in accordance with IEBC 2012 Section A106
Table #1 - In-Place Masonry Testing Result
Bedded Area
(sq in)Location Interior /
Exterior
Level 2- 12' from North Wall (Ramona St) Interior
Roof Level- 5' from South Wall Exterior
233 University
50-53563-S
180430S
4/30/2018
J. Jacobo, A. Cuevas, J. Bayless
In Situ Masonry Mortar Shear
Strength Report
66.0
66.0
Level 1- 4' from East wall (University Ave) Interior 66.0
Level 1- 60' from East wall (University
Ave)Interior 66.0
E U G E N ES A N F R A N C I S C OP A L O A L T O P A S A D E N A
260 Sheridan Ave, Ste 150 Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 617-5930
“T i m e l y S o l u t i o n s B a s e d O n T i m e l e s s P r i n c i p l e s”
HOHBACH-LEWIN,INC.STRUCTURAL & CIVIL ENGINEERS
PRINCIPALS:
DOUGLAS HOHBACH
DAN LEWIN
JOAQUIM ROBERTS
ANTHONY LEE
VIKKI BOURCIER
SAM SHIOTANI
LES TSO
ASSOCIATE PRINCIPALS:
KEVIN MORTON
SENIOR ASSOCIATES:
VICKY RUNDORFF
GREG RODRIGUES
BILL DALEY
STUART LOWE
EDDIE HUI
MICHAEL RESCH
ASSOCIATES:
MIKE DAVIES
STACY GADDINI
BRIAN HO
TJ WU
SENIOR STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERS:
MOHAMED IBRAHIM
CE DEPT MANAGER:
BILL HENN
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
.
S.E.
March 27, 2018
The Hayes Group
Terrence Murphy
2657 Spring Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
Project: 233 University Avenue
Palo Alto, CA
Hohbach-Lewin, Inc. Project No. 12929E
Subject: Recommended Testing Scope
Dear Terrence:
The purpose of this letter is to summarize our recommendations for third party testing of the
existing construction. These recommendations are based on the site visit performed on March
26, 2018 in addition to the review of the preliminary architectural drawings prepared by the Hayes
Group dated July 15, 2017. The information we would like verified includes the following:
Concrete compressive strength of the existing perimeter basement walls. This can likely
be achieved using a Schmidt hammer in lieu of coring.
Thickness of the existing perimeter basement walls
Vertical and horizontal reinforcement size and spacing at the perimeter basement walls.
We recommend this be obtained via radiographic (x-ray) or similar methodology.
Footing width and thickness at the perimeter basement walls. We recommend one
location at each of the 4 perimeter basement walls.
Push test on the existing brick walls to determine the average in-plane mortar strength of
the wall. This would require removing one brick at each testing locations in order to
install the jack. We recommend testing in a minimum of three locations. One location at
the front elevation and one location at each of the side walls.
Please contact me with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Hohbach-Lewin, Inc.
Michael Resch, S.E.
Senior Associate
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SAFETY ELEMENT
150
POWER
Policy S-1.13 Support the development of an independent, redundant power grid with local generation in Palo Alto, in order
to ensure energy resiliency in the event of natural disasters or other threats.
Program S1.13.1 Identify solutions to add an additional power line to Palo Alto to ensure redundancy.
Program S1.13.2 Explore incentives to adopt emerging, residential off-grid capabilities and technologies,
including back-up power sources vital in the event of natural disasters or other threats.
Program S1.13.3 Continue citywide efforts to underground utility wires to limit injury, loss of life and damage
to property in the event of human-made or natural disasters.
Program S1.13.4 Enhance the safety of City-owned natural gas pipeline operations. Work with customers,
public safety officials and industry leaders to ensure the safe delivery of natural gas
throughout the service area. Provide safety information to all residents on City-owned natural
gas distribution pipelines.
Program S1.13.5 Provide off-grid and/or backup power sources for critical City facilities to ensure
uninterrupted power during emergencies and disasters.
NATURAL HAZARDS
GOAL S-2 Protection of life, ecosystems and property from natural hazards and disasters, including
earthquake, landslide, flooding, and fire.
GENERAL SAFETY MEASURES
Policy S-2.1 Incorporate the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation and
Adaptation Plan (LHMP), as periodically adopted by
the City Council and certified by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), into the
Safety Element. In the event of any conflict between
the provisions of the LHMP and any other provision
of the Safety Element, the LHMP shall control.
Policy S-2.2 Focus efforts to reduce exposure to natural hazards in areas of the city identified as vulnerable to the greatest
risks, as shown on the maps in this Element.
Policy S-2.3 Implement public safety improvements, such as access roads and other infrastructure, in a manner that is
sensitive to the environment.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SAFETY ELEMENT
151
EARTHQUAKES AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Policy S-2.4 Expand citizen awareness of seismic and geologic
hazards through public education and
preparedness.
Policy S-2.5 Minimize exposure of people and structures to
geologic hazards, including slope stability,
subsidence and expansive soils, and to seismic
hazards including groundshaking, fault rupture,
liquefaction and landslides.
Program S2.5.1 Periodically review and update
the City’s Seismic Hazard
Ordinance.
Program S2.5.2 Continue to provide incentives for
seismic retrofits of structures
throughout the city, particularly
those building types that would affect the most people in the event of an earthquake.
Policy S-2.6 Promote seismic rehabilitation and renovation of existing buildings, particularly those whose loss would have
the greatest community impacts, using incentives as a way to ensure safe and structurally sound buildings.
Program S2.6.1 Encourage efforts by individual neighborhood or block-level groups to pool resources for
seismic retrofits.
Program S2.6.2 Continue to use a seismic bonus and a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Ordinance for
seismic retrofits for eligible structures in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone.
Program S2.6.3 Evaluate the TDR Ordinance so that transferred development rights may be used for
residential development on the receiver sites.
Program S2.6.4 Study the possibility of revising the TDR program to encourage seismic retrofits.
Program S2.6.5 Explore the use of Community Development Block Grants, Palo Alto Housing Funds and
other sources of funding to support owners of lower income and senior housing to retrofit
seismically-unsafe construction.
Policy S-2.7 Encourage property owners, business owners and the PAUSD to evaluate their vulnerability to earthquake
hazards and take appropriate action to minimize their risk.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SAFETY ELEMENT
152
Program S2.7.1 As part of the construction permitting process for proposed new and redeveloped buildings
in areas of identified hazard shown on Map S-2, require submittal to the City of a geotech-
nical/seismic report that identifies specific risks and appropriate mitigation measures.
Program S2.7.2 Review and update, as appropriate, City code requirements for excavation, grading, filling and
construction to ensure that they conform to currently accepted and adopted State standards.
Program S2.7.3 Utilize the results of Palo Alto’s Seismic Hazards Identification Program and inventory of
potentially seismically vulnerable building types to establish priorities and consider incentives
to encourage structural retrofits.
FLOOD HAZARD AND MITIGATION
Policy S-2.8 Minimize exposure to flood hazards by protecting existing development from flood events and adequately
reviewing proposed development in flood prone areas.
Program S2.8.1 Implement flood mitigation requirements of FEMA in Special Flood Hazard Areas as
illustrated on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
Program S2.8.2 Continue participating in FEMA’s Community Rating System to reduce flood insurance for
local residents and businesses and strive to improve Palo Alto’s rating in order to lower the
cost of flood insurance.
Program S2.8.3 Collaborate with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and the Santa Clara Valley
Water District on environmentally-sensitive efforts to stabilize, restore, maintain and provide
one percent (100-year) flood protection adjacent to San Francisquito Creek.
Program S2.8.4 Work with East Palo Alto, Santa Clara Valley Water District and San Francisquito Creek Joint
Powers Authority on efforts to increase the flows within the San Francisquito Creek possible
solutions include replacing the City-owned Newell Road Bridge and District-owned Pope
Chaucer Street Bridge.
Policy S-2.9 Partner with appropriate agencies to expand flood zones as appropriate due to sea level rise, changes in creek
channels, street flooding or storm drain overload due to increased likelihood of extreme storm events caused by
climate change.
Policy S-2.10 Prohibit new habitable basements in the development of single-family residential properties within 100-year
flood zones of the FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area.
Program S2.10.1 Keep basement restrictions up to date with changing flood hazard zones.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11759)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Information Reports Meeting Date: 11/30/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: Grade Separations
Summary Title: Grade Separation Virtual Town Hall Report
Title: Connecting Palo Alto Rail Grade Separation: Report on Virtual Town
Hall
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Transportation Department
Staff is providing this cover memo to highlight the Virtual Town Hall Summary Report on
Connecting Palo Alto Rail Grade Separation conducted by the Office of Transportation.
Background
As part of the rail grade separation project, the Office of Transportation, with support from the
AECOM consulting team, hosted a virtual Town Hall to seek feedback from the community on
various alternatives under consideration for the grade crossings at Churchill Avenue, Meadow
Drive, and Charleston Road on the Caltrain corridor.
In normal times, the City conducts in-person town halls and community meetings at a specified
location on a specified date and time. However, due to unprecedented COVID restrictions, the
City used virtual tools to perform such community outreach. The virtual Town Hall platform
provided for materials to be interactive and depicted project information geographically on the
map. The virtual Town Hall was accessible conveniently using internet access on computers,
mobile phones, and other electronic devices.
The information on the virtual Town Hall included simulated animation of grade separation,
profiles, layouts, renderings, fact sheets, evaluation matrix, estimated costs, project reports,
etc. These documents were placed strategically for better visualization based on location for
each of the nine alternatives currently in consideration at three grade crossing locations.
Churchill Avenue: Closure with Mitigations (2 options)
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Viaduct
Partial Underpass
Meadow Dr- Charleston Rd: Hybrid
Viaduct
Trench
Underpass
South Palo Alto Tunnel, Passenger and Freight
South Palo Alto Tunnel, Freight at Grade
Data Overview
Outreach to residents for virtual Town Hall was provided through various media including the
City’s website, email notifications to members registered at Connecting Palo Alto, newspaper
article, City’s blog, and various social media sites. Nearly 65% of the respondents were happy or
very happy with the virtual Town Hall experience, while 20% had a fair experience. About 15%
of the respondents were not pleased with the way information was presented.
Two questionnaires were requested from the residents to gauge their preference and feedback
on various alternatives in consideration. The Town Hall questionnaire was focused on their
overall experience and preference of the alternatives. The alternative questionnaire was to
better understand the perspectives of the community on each of the alternatives under
consideration.
Here is the Virtual Town Hall Summary Report which provides detailed feedback and comments
from the community. The virtual Town Hall web site is still running and provides the
information; however, the feedback and comment features were disabled on September 15,
2020.
Following is the summary of Virtual Town Hall facts of interest from the data collected:
Website Location: www.VRPaloAlto.com
Virtual Town Hall Dates: August 19 – September 14, 2020
Number of Unique Visitors: 1,006 *
Total Number of Page Views: 1,902
Live Question & Answer Sessions Held: 2 (August 27 & September 3, 2020)
Feedback Questions on Alternatives: 387
General Feedback Questions: 220
*Analytic data for the website, including the number of visitors, was unavailable from
August 19- 25, 2020 due to a technical issue
Summary
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Based on the community participation and responses received from the virtual Town Hall, staff
considers this community engagement through a virtual platform to be a successful experience.
The availability of the virtual platform for more than three weeks provided the community
flexibility and convenience to review project materials and provide feedback. Through this
virtual platform, the City was able to outreach to more than 1,000* unique visitors with a broad
range of neighborhoods represented. The neighborhood participation was quite diverse and
community response from 85% of the respondents rated fair to very good experience in using
the virtual platform. In-person community meetings generally bring in about 100 to 200
community members, with limited reach beyond neighborhoods adjacent to the crossings.
Comparing data from virtual Town Hall visits with in-person meetings attendance, we believe
that data clearly shows strong participation from our community members and overall a
successful event.
This Virtual Town Hall represents a new approach to community engagement that provided an
innovative platform for presenting complex technical information in a user-friendly and
intuitive manner. The AECOM team’s expertise and collaborative approach in a wide range of
engineering and technology disciplines was crucial to enabling the City and community
members to explore several alternatives and issues of concern related to the grade separation
options. The team’s ability to generate reports and exhibits, renderings, and animations, as well
as present and respond to questions, enabled effective communication on design concepts with
a diverse and engaged community. Their responsiveness, quality of work, and attention to
detail has been invaluable.
The Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP) has also been invaluable to the evaluation and
identification of key community issues to be addressed through this effort. The XCAP has spent
countless hours reviewing and discussing the grade separation alternatives and potential
impacts, and their dedication has substantively improved the material presented through the
virtual Town Hall.
Attachments:
Attachment: Virtual Town Hall Summary Report (PDF)
Virtual Town Hall – Summary
Report
Connecting Palo Alto - Rail Grade Separation Project
City of Palo Alto
October 21, 2020
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 2
Prepared for:
City of Palo Alto Contract No. 18171057
Prepared by:
Eileen Goodwin, Principal
Apex Strategies
M: (408) 309-1426
E: apexstr@pacbell.net
AECOM
300 Lakeside Drive
Suite 400
Oakland
CA 94612
aecom.com
Prepared in association with:
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 3
Table of Contents
1. Town Hall Overview .............................................................................................. 4
2. Q & A Sessions ..................................................................................................... 4
3. Town Hall Feedback ............................................................................................. 5
General Feedback .............................................................................................................................. 5
Alternative Feedback........................................................................................................................... 9
Appendix A – Meeting Notice .........................................................................................11
Appendix B – Feedback, Comments and Questions ..................................................... 13
Appendix C – Individual Alternative Feedback .............................................................. 65
Table of Figures
1. Figure 1. Site Analytics Report, 8/26/2020 - 9/14/2020 ............................................................................... 5
2. Figure 2. How did you hear about the Virtual Town Hall? (select all that apply) ........................................... 6
3. Figure 3. How many feedback responses have been received? ................................................................. 7
4. Figure 4. How would you rate your experience at our Virtual Town Hall for informing and finding desired
details on rail grade separations? (select one) ............................................................................................ 7
5. Figure 5. Has enough analysis been done to decide among the rail grade separation alternatives? ............ 8
6. Figure 6. Which neighborhood do you reside in/represent? (select one) ..................................................... 8
7. Figure 7. Has enough analysis been done to decide among the rail grade separation alternatives? ............ 9
8. Figure 8. Which alternative do you prefer at Churchill Avenue? (select one) ............................................... 9
9. Figure 9. Which alternative do you prefer at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road? (select one) ................ 10
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 4
1. Town Hall Overview
The City of Palo Alto hosted an interactive Virtual Town Hall (https://vrpaloalto.com) between August 19th and
September 14th, 2020. The Connecting Palo Alto Virtual Town Hall was an interactive digital forum with exhibits,
renderings, animations, supporting documentation and feedback tools designed to engage and inform the community
on rail crossing alternatives. This outreach was conducted in advance of the City’s next phase when City Council will
decide on and select rail crossing alternatives for Meadow Drive/Charleston Road and Churchill Avenue.
The virtual meeting was “held” at the virtual El Palo Alto Room, Mitchell Park Community Center facility, similar to the
in-person meetings held at the same facility during the earlier phases of the project and also set-up in a similar way.
The Virtual Town Hall contained a welcome video (https://vimeo.com/449772661) narrated by Ed Shikada, City
Manager, which included a welcoming and introductory remarks regarding the need for the project, previous Council
action, near and long-term schedule as well as funding information.
There was an additional video that was a “tutorial” (https://youtu.be/GxXoxqP95cg) to show virtual meeting attendees
how to navigate around the website, where and how to leave feedback and how to find the background information
and the project alternatives under review. The tutorial stressed the virtual feedback areas, where attendees were
asked to either check a box saying they had enough information about project alternatives or identify missing
information, weigh in on project alternatives and answer demographic questions. Fact sheets on all remaining
alternatives were available in the Virtual Town Hall. A copy of the matrix that identifies project benefits and challenges
aligned with Council-approved criteria, order of magnitude costs and schedules and engineering challenges for each
alternative were made available to virtual attendees.
The Virtual Town Hall included information for six alternatives at Meadow Drive/Charleston Road:
• Meadow-Charleston Hybrid
• Meadow-Charleston Viaduct
• Meadow-Charleston Trench
• Meadow-Charleston Underpass
• South Palo Alto Tunnel Passenger and Freight
• South Palo Alto Tunnel with At-Grade Freight
In addition, information was provided for three alternatives at Churchill Avenue:
• Churchill Viaduct
• Churchill Closure with Mitigations (Option 1 and Option 2)
• Churchill Partial Underpass
Background materials such as the traffic and noise reports and Caltrain information were also easily available in the
virtual room.
In addition to the Virtual Town Hall, two Virtual Town Hall Question and Answer (Q & A) Sessions were held and they
are discussed in Section 2. Appendix A includes a Meeting Notice for all the Town Hall events.
2. Q & A Sessions
Two Virtual Town Hall Q & A Sessions were held: one for Churchill grade separation alternatives on August 27, 2020
at 4:00pm and a session a week later for the Charleston/Meadow alternatives on September 3, 2020 at 4:00pm. The
question and answer sessions were held live on YouTube with a moderator, who read questions from the public
harvested from questions left in the Virtual Town Hall and the Project Team, including City Staff, answered the
questions live during the sessions. Instead of live input from the community during the Q&A sessions, participants
were encouraged to return to the Virtual Town Hall and leave their comments and questions in that online forum.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 5
There was a recording of the questions and answers presented for each session. In addition to the archived YouTube
sessions, the questions and their answers were also posted online in writing for the community to view in the
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section (https://connectingpaloalto.com/faqs/). The questions for each session
are captured separately and categorized in a drop down easy to navigate manner.
The August Q&A Session focused on the Churchill Avenue questions along with general topics that were of concern
or confusion gathered through the website comments. The September Q & A Session held exactly a week later,
focused on answering questions regarding the Meadow Drive/Charleston Road alternatives as well as the previous
general topic questions. Both sessions captured about 30 attendees when they were broadcast live, but had
significantly more viewers via the archived YouTube links (https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto/). The August
Question and Answer Session had over 190 additional views on YouTube and the September Q & A Session had an
additional 115 views on YouTube at the time of writing of this report.
In the first Q&A Session, the questions were general in nature about the need for the Project as well as whether the
School District and Stanford had preferences about the alternatives. In addition, questions related to traffic in the
vicinity of Churchill Avenue, design and placement of the proposed Churchill Avenue undercrossing and the Caltrain
design exception process. Meeting #2 questions related to traffic patterns in the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road
areas, bicycle movements, property impacts and construction methods.
3. Town Hall Feedback
General Feedback
Over 1,000 community members logged into the website during the interactive period. As can be seen in Figure 1,
there were 1,902 page views from August 26th to September 14th. Analytic data for the website between August 19th
through August 25th was unavailable due to a technical issue. However, based on Vimeo Tracking (log of views of
videos/animations), an additional of 61 unique visitors can be deduced during this time period.
Figure 1. Site Analytics Report, 8/26/2020 - 9/14/2020
When queried about how they heard about the Virtual Town Hall, Figure 2 illustrates the responses that were given by
those who chose to respond.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 6
Figure 2. How did you hear about the Virtual Town Hall? (select all that apply)
While over 1,000 community members attended the Virtual Town Hall, a subset of approximately 20% chose to
answer the Town Hall feedback questions as shown in Figure 3. In addition, there were 387 individual comments and
preferences logged on the Alternatives feedback. The feedback and comments received during the Town Hall are
summarized in Appendix B.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 7
Figure 3. How many feedback responses have been received?
Regarding a question related to the website itself and the virtual format, as can be seen in Figure 4, the vast majority
of those responding when asked how helpful the site was to communicate details about the project, chose “good” or
“very good” as their response. Only three respondents chose “very poor.”
Figure 4. How would you rate your experience at our Virtual Town Hall for informing and finding desired details on rail
grade separations? (select one)
The comment pattern seemed to ebb and flow related to promotion and to the various milestones in the process. As
can be seen in Figure 5 there was more activity on the site prior to and around the two Virtual Town Hall Question and
Answer Sessions held on August 27th and September 3rd. In addition, there was an uptick at the very end of the
period presumably related to last chance style communications that were pushed out by the Project Team to
encourage feedback.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 8
Figure 5. Has enough analysis been done to decide among the rail grade separation alternatives?
Representation by neighborhood of those providing feedback is illustrated in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Which neighborhood do you reside in/represent? (select one)
A question that had been asked in the previous community meetings for the project that was also asked at the Virtual
Town Hall was whether enough analysis had been done to decide among the rail separation alternatives. While only a
subset of attendees chose to respond, over 56% indicated that enough study had been completed to move to the
next phase (See Figure 7).
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 9
Figure 7. Has enough analysis been done to decide among the rail grade separation alternatives?
Alternative Feedback
When asked specifically about the three alternatives for Churchill Avenue (Closure with Mitigations, Viaduct, and
Partial Underpass), the respondents replied that the partial underpass was preferred as shown in Figure 8. When
asked about the Churchill Avenue alternatives individually (good, OK/neutral, or bad), Closure with Mitigations, Option
1 was seen by those who chose to respond as a “bad” idea and Option 2 was seen as a “good” idea by a similar
number of respondents. The Viaduct was considered mostly “bad” but with a strong number of “good” and
“OK/neutral” votes. Most considered the Partial Underpass as “ok/neutral” or “bad”. See Appendix C for more details.
Figure 8. Which alternative do you prefer at Churchill Avenue? (select one)
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 10
When asked about the six Meadow Drive and Charleston Road alternatives, respondents seemed to prefer the
Hybrid alternative where the railroad was raised partially and the streets lowered partially, but there was support for
most of the other alternatives as well. The South Palo Alto Tunnel which puts the commuter rail in a tunnel, but keeps
the freight on the surface, had little support compared to the other alternatives. The results are shown in Figure 9.
When asked about the alternatives individually (good, OK/neutral, or bad), the Hybrid as consider equally “good” and
“bad”. Most considered the Underpass and both Tunnel alternatives as “bad” and the Viaduct as “good”. See
Appendix C for more details.
Figure 9. Which alternative do you prefer at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road? (select one)
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 11
Appendix A – Meeting Notice
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 12
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 13
Appendix B – Feedback, Comments and
Questions
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 14
Comment Received
Item
No.
Feedback
Form
Alternative / Topic
*Italics - Generated via
comment content Comment
A001 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
The construction phase would close both streets for most of the duration of construction, estimated
at 3.5-4 years. All traffic, pedestrian, bicycle, automobile, would have to reroute to either San
Antonio or Oregon, and pedestrian and bicycle traffic would have to go even further out of the way.
By comparison, the disruption for the other alternatives would be days, and probably could be
scheduled so that both crossings would not be closed at the same time. This closure makes
implementation of this option completely impractical. The pedestrians and bicycle
implementations impact beyond the drawings here. There is no concrete description showing the
bicicle and pedestrian flow, and especially no description of how additional bicycle crossings
needed to get across the street twice will be implemented, and impact auto flow.
A002 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Looks like the best of the possible options (or closure option 2), as it's faster and doesn't require
closing half of alma for many years. The folks who don't want more traffic on embarcadero will be
against this, but the traffic mitigation plan looks good, and it would be much worse to close down
alma for (at least) 2 years. Plus the cost is much more realistic.
A003 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
A good option. The other options where we spend $200-$400M are insane.
A004 Alternative Churchill Viaduct The cost and duration are just insane. $400M is ridiculous. And this will take forever to build and
cause a terrible experience on Alma for years.
A005 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
$200M is crazy. Plus shutting down Alma for a long time or at least half is a terrible option.
A006 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
The viaduct option would destroy our neighborhood and family home of 40 years . What is the
likelihood that Palo Alto would be able to fund constructing a viaduct? What is the likelihood that
Caltrain would agree to a viaduct at Churchill?
A007 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
The Churchill partial underpass would destroy our neighborhood and family home of 40 years.
What is the likelihood that Palo Alto would be able to fund this option? What is the likelihood that
Caltrain would agree to this option?
A008 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
From a cycling network perspective the underpass for cyclists and pedestrians should be at
Churchill. However, this design features dangerous sharp and blind corners in the tunnel, and a
dangerous crossing of Alma street.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 15
A009 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
The city has a S/CAP policy of 25% bicycle mode share by 2030. To achieve this goal the city
needs a coherent, safe, and low stress bicycle network. From a cycling network perspective the
underpass for cyclists and pedestrians should be at Churchill. This design features a clear line of
sight through the tunnel which increases safety, and eliminates a dangerous crossing of Alma
street.
A010 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
The city has a S/CAP policy of 25% bicycle mode share by 2030. To achieve this goal the city
needs a coherent, safe, and low stress bicycle network. From a cycling network perspective the
underpass for cyclists and pedestrians should be at Churchill and not at Kellogg. This design
features sharp blind corners. This design has the same problems as the Homer tunnel, which is
very difficult to navigate for younger and older riders who are less stable.
A011 Alternative Churchill Viaduct This plan seems to keep intact the status quo for pedestrian, bike, and motorized traffic. Provided
a protected intersection is build at Alma, this could work.
A012 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
This option seems to preserve the existing traffic patterns for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars.
Protected intersections at Alma would be good to reduce the risk of accidents when crossing this
busy street.
A013 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Together with protected intersections on Alma to reduce the risk of accidents, this could be a safe
option that does not alter existing traffic flows for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.
A014 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
This design would preserve existing traffic patterns, while also being affordable. Protected
intersections are recommended to reduce the risk of accidents when crossing Alma.
A015 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
This design would preserve existing traffic patterns, but is very expensive. Protected intersections
are recommended to reduce the risk of accidents when crossing Alma.
A016 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
This design would significantly reduce the capacity of Alma and is very expensive. Protected
intersections are recommended to reduce the risk of accidents when crossing Alma.
A017 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
This design is seriously flawed from a cycling and walking perspective. There are sharp corners
everywhere which are difficult to navigate for younger and older riders, and cargo bikes. In
addition, there is no clear plan for the bicycle flow. The bicycle/pedestrian tunnel is nice, but there
is no clear connection to the existing bicycle infrastructure.
A018 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Option 2 is far better than option 1. It provides a ped/bike crossing of Alma critical for the High
School which could eliminate a light. The additional U shaped pedestrian bridge proposed on
Embarcadero seems wasteful given the existing bridge a hundred feet away.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 16
A019 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Option 2 is far better than option 1. It provides a ped/bike crossing of Alma critical for the High
School which could eliminate a light. The additional U shaped pedestrian bridge proposed on
Embarcadero seems wasteful given the existing bridge a hundred feet away. This option saves
100M relative to the partial underpass.
A020 Alternative Churchill Viaduct The partial underpass provides similar benefits for less money.
A021 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
The Partial Underpass has a problem for those east of Alma as no left turns will be allowed and
doesn't allow cross-traffic under the tracks. For those west of Alma traffic under the tracks will be
allowed.
A022 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Suggest that the bike/pedestrian tunnel be moved back east 15 to 20 feet such that vehicles have
more room when making turns onto Alma and onto Churchill.
A023 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Not good flow for bikes and pedestrians.
A024 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
The Hybrid solution puts up a wall between east and west of Alma and also would be not a good
view for those people west of Alma.
A025 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
I believe that residents living close to the tracks would not like to see this.
A026 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
The underpass for Charleston is excellent. Suggest the rising road to south bound Alma be
eliminated, no need. It just cuts up Alma and costs time. Also Charleston going west suggest that
the square angle to make a right turn to Alma be made into a 8 to 10 foot radius to allow more
turning room. The solution for Meadow should be redone. Make it like the solution for Charleston.
Make sure that all 8 turns are possible.
A027 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
I think it looks low-rent and will get worse over time (e.g., see Charleston overpass). I also worry
about noise from elevated freight trains. The underpass is cheaper than this option and doesn't
suffer from aesthetics and elevated noise.
A028 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
Benefits don't seem worth the additional cost and complexity of this option over Underpass.
A029 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
Appealing in some ways, especially if we could get access to the new green parkway, but just too
expensive.
A030 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
Too much money for our small city.
A031 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
I don't like elevated trains, especially freight trains, but this is the second best option to the
underpass.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 17
A032 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
1. There are less expensive alternatives to facilitate grade separation at Churchill Avenue. 2. The
acquisition of private property to facilitate the Partial Underpass will not meet the standard for
exercising eminent domain. 3. The Partial Underpass requires approval of Caltrain to encroach on
a right-of-way and approval is uncertain. 4. The Kellogg Avenue tunnel creates conflict with
Castilleja School traffic. 5. The widening of Alma is unsafe for pedestrians/cyclists.
A033 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
regarding criterion “minimize disruption”: During the simultaneous closure of both crossings during
construction, bicyclists will be forced to divert to San Antonio Caltrain station or California Ave
tunnel (2.8+ miles apart). What will the Gunn H.S. Walk&Roll map show? Hoover Elem
Walk&Roll Map? regarding criterion “provide clear, safe routes that are separated from vehicles”:
The safety of the path location is exaggerated; having bicyclists on only one side of the
undercrossing is a hazard, particularly since there will be no traffic signal controlling east/west
motor traffic at Alma St; HAWK beacons will be needed at Park & Second for example. Also, the
access to the Charleston Bike/Ped Ramp on the west side of the tracks requires convoluted
movements for bicyclists which would *never* be imposed upon motorists and which are counter to
Comp Plan Policy TY-2.4 The traffic report completely ignores likely increase of motor traffic on
Wilkie Wy, which is a designated bicycle boulevard (mitigation required) in the Plan And Section
drawings: “Ped/Bike Profile from Park Blvd to Emerson St” only depicts one of the Ped/Bike Bridge
elements shown on the “Meadow Dr Profile” and the minimum vertical clearance is not listed for
the one element which is depicted. The minimum vertical clearance of 8’0” listed for the rail bridge
is permissible, but highly suboptimal. in the Plan And Section drawings: “Ped/Bike Profile from
Park Blvd to Wright Pl” does not contain the Ped/Bike Bridge element shown on the “Charleston
Rd Profile” and therefore no minimum vertical clearance is listed for that element. NB: it is very
difficult to evaluate these plans given the inability to zoom in using the display widget and the
inability to download the “Profile & Typical Sections” documents to use local applications.
A034 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Didn't PAUSD say that closing Churchill would be highly disruptive to their operations? Closing
Churchill would be disruptive to them as well as the Southgate neighborhood and everyone going
to/from Stanford.
A035 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Didn't PAUSD say that Closing Churchill would be detrimental to their operations? Also, it will be
detrimental to Southgate and other traffic flow.
A036 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
This is by far the ugliest option that would destroy the residential feel of Palo Alto...a place where
trees and natural beauty are important. This would be a forever blight to Palo Alto.
A037 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
This is the best option by far as it preserves the best traffic flow as well as improves the bike and
pedestrian safety at the intersection. It keeps the connectivity in Palo Alto instead of dividing the
city into two parts.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 18
A038 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Please include/show bicycles crossing using conventional bike lanes.
A039 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
DO NOTHING - KEEP CHURCHILL AS IT IS TODAY. WHY IS THIS NOT AN OPTION? It is too
early now to be deciding on any changes to crossings, due to Greatly Reduced CalTrain ridership,
which has an uncertain future!! ALSO - THERE IS POOR PUBLICITY ON THIS VIRTUAL TOWN
HALL. TOO FEW RESIDENTS KNOW ABOUT IT.
A040 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
This seems like a lot of money to spend on a relatively lightly used street. Holistically, would it be
better to leave this intersection as-is, and spend the money to grade separate El Camino /
Embarcadero, or otherwise improve Embarcadero at Alma?
A041 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
The construction of the bike/ped underpass at Kellogg is really independent of this auto-centric
design. It just needs to be somewhere, and there will still be pedestrian and bicycle access to
cross the tracks at Embarcadero. The new bike/ped crossing should go through a wider analysis
phase. The Churchill crossing needs to be replaced, but Kellogg is probably not the right place.
For example, an ADA compliant crossing at Seale may serve the city better, and take care of
existing crowding at Cal Ave. This seems like a lot of money to spend on this crossing. Would
spending the same money to radically improve Embarcadero at Alma and El Camino give better
benefit to the city? It seems like a lot of Churchill traffic is for car drivers who don't want to be on
Embarcadero. The widening of Alma will make the sidewalks on the North side much worse for
pedestrian or bike use on the sidewalk. Alma is not an expressway. These should be maintained
with at least 3 more feet of sidewalk width or a planting strip. This (and some other plans) just take
this space for the roadway.
A042 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
I really like the upgrade of the crossing for bikes and peds to avoid waiting for Alma traffic. Also,
the low cost saves money for other possible transportation improvements. If the auto traffic is
closed at Churchill crossing the tracks, is it necessary to maintain the auto connection to Alma?
Would this be simplified even more if Churchill was closed to auto traffic on both sides of Alma, so
there would only be traffic for residents of Churchill, and bike/ped traffic to the underpass.
A043 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Saves a lot of money that could be put to use for other transportation improvements. Does not
require compromised railroad grade. Disruptions are moderate, without long periods of
interruption.
A044 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
How much would it cost and who would pay for it?
A045 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Can Embarcadero underpass really take the additional traffic? It seems to be a mess already.
A046 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Seems to be a good compromise. Keep traffic flowing (mostly), not the most expensive option,
allows for bike and pedestrian flow, too.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 19
A047 Alternative Churchill Viaduct I doubt Caltrain will allow this. I am guessing 1% grade limit is based on train's ability to get up the
grade. I think this option will not be able to proceed and it is the most expensive, too.
A048 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Hybrid is best comprimise. Viaduct won't pass 1% grade limit. too much water around and hybrid
avoids constant water issues (water always wins, so better to leave water alone).
A049 Alternative Churchill Viaduct Very expensive, no improvement for bikes and peds.
A050 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
U-shaped bike-ped path is long, awkward to negotiate, will make some users apprehensive of a
possible assailant in hiding. It doesn't relieve morning bike-ped chaos of Paly students.
A051 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Seems like the best combination of function and cost.
A052 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
L-shaped bike-ped underpass is better than U-shape (option 1), but still has a sharp corner,
requires backtracking for users from the south heading to Paly.
A053 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Best and most cost-effective alternative. Doesn't leave nearby residents staring at a gigantic
raised structure.
A054 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
Horrible for people living along the tracks. Have you seen how close their yards would be to this
gigantic structure? Erecting this would be unconscionable.
A055 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Horrible for folks living on the other side of the tracks. Their homes are so close, it would be
unconscionable to erect this gigantic structure above their heads.
A056 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Horrible for folks living on the other side of the tracks. They live so close, it would be
unconscionable to erect this gigantic structure above their heads.
A057 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
slightly better than Option 1
A058 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
better than option1 or option2, but still creates havoc in neighborhoods
A059 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
This is excellent -- keeps traffic flowing and even better than before. quieter since no rail
crossings, horn blowing and electric trains are quieter. If we don't do this, then I would like to see
Churchill crossing left as is.
A060 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
I prefer this alternative, but I think a final decision should not be made until and if the CalTrain
ridership increases again. In the meantime, I think nothing should be done and Churchill should
be kept as it is today. Why is "Do Nothing" not an option?
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 20
A061 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
As stated above, a more complete analysis of the impact on peds and bikes and neighborhood
traffic increases needs to be done before adopting a closure plan. As far as we can tell, no
analysis of Embarcadero traffic (pre-pandemic) was done, only LOS at various intersections. Also,
the PAUSD community and bike community were not fully consulted. Much more work needs to
be done on this plan before adopting any closure options.
A062 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
As stated above, a more complete analysis of the impact on peds and bikes and neighborhood
traffic increases needs to be done before adopting a closure plan. As far as we can tell, no
analysis of Embarcadero traffic (pre-pandemic) was done, only LOS at various intersections. Also,
the PAUSD community and bike community were not fully consulted. Much more work needs to
be done on this plan before adopting any closure options.
A063 Alternative Churchill Viaduct Bikes and peds are not separated at the crossing.
A064 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Analysis needs to be done regarding traffic redirections that impact the bike/ped route north of
Embarcadero. More traffic will flow down the 1100 block of Emerson that runs perpendicular to the
bike/ped path. This already busy yet dangerous school route needs to be redesigned.
A065 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Best alternative is to leave Churchill as is and save taxpayer money. Palo Alto High is right there
and needs to be accessible. No closure proposed for other crossings - why is it necessary at
Churchill? We cannot wall off neighborhoods, especially near our schools, and create more traffic
elsewhere. Why not spend resources getting the lights on Embarcadero to be more efficient for
traffic instead? Reduce wait times there, have lights that respond to traffic and not set in fixed
red/green schedules. This would decrease traffic on Churchill without an expensive construction
project.
A066 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
I strongly object to a total closure at Churchill and Alma.
A067 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
The best alternative for Churchill isn't even listed, it is the NO CLOSURE alternative. Why close
this intersection when there is virtually no train ridership and traffic is down given the paradigm
shift in how we live? This process must be paused until the real data emerges from all of these
dramatic changes in our lives and rational decisions can then be made.
A068 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
The only rational alternative is the NO Closure alternative at Churchill, which isn't even listed. This
is a biased, ridiculously expensive exercise which has zero credibility.
A069 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Please keep Churchill open to car traffic. Embarcadero is already a nightmare. I live on
Embarcadero and have to work from home due to COVID. I suffer from the constant noise and
vibration of traffic already day and night. It makes no sense to close Churchill and send thousands
of more cars next to my bedroom window. Don't turn Embarcadero into a freeway.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 21
A070 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Please keep Churchill open to car traffic. "Optimizing" the signals won't do anything to decrease
the total number of cars that would then have to travel on Embarcadero. Wider turn lanes doesn't
decrease traffic or noise. Embarcadero is already a nightmare. I live on Embarcadero and have to
work from home due to COVID. I suffer from the constant noise and vibration of traffic already day
and night. It makes no sense to close Churchill and send thousands of more cars next to my
bedroom window. Don't turn Embarcadero into a freeway.
A071 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Closing Churchill to cars is fine. Concern that this does not maximize safety and convenience for
pedestrians and bikes. Conflicts between Bikes & Peds may pose danger like Homer Ave crossing
- Bikes & Peds should have more separation. The bike/ped tunnel looks too deep, not daylighted
enough, may smell of urine. Can we raise Alma a couple feet and/or add a skylight in the median
to make it friendly for tunnel users?
A072 Alternative Churchill Viaduct Hideous and loud
A073 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Worst of both worlds - viaduct and trench. Traffic disruptions during construction would be
monumental,
A074 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
I thought the trench option looked insanely expensive then I saw this.
A075 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Too costly and complex to preserve a few car movements, ugly, a very poor 'compromise'.
Pedestrians & Bicyclists were clearly afterthoughts, most of their movements are awkward,
inconvenient, unprotected
A076 Alternative Churchill Viaduct Makes it easy for Peds & Bikes but may cost too much
A077 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
No problem blocking the cars, that part's fine. Peds & Bikes, including the students, must still cross
dangerous Alma. The underpass has such long ramps 1 block north and then 1 block south it's
very inconvenient.
A078 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
Worst of all worlds, not safe for Peds & Bikes, not safe for calls, Alma shrinks to 1 lane each way,
expensive - eliminate this!
A079 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
Cost too high, we have so many other priorities. Delays, risk and complexities of re-routing &
pumping our creeks. Bad aesthetics -- we can't replace the trees. Hurting the neighbors by
eliminating trees from their back yards. Issues with freight trains in the tunnels. Too much cost,
problems, risks, let's do something faster, easier, cheaper
A080 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Best balance overall, great for pedestrians & bikes, cost-effective, good constructability, no risks
with the creeks, pumping, approvals - this is our #1
A081 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Traffic and congestion post-coved are significantly lower. I support doing nothing - but if forced to
choose will pick "partial underpass".
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 22
A082 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
This is the best alternative if we want to keep Churchill open and keep the Palo Alto community
connected.
A083 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Having ped/bike traffic cross Alma St is higher risk to those people. Having two right-angle turns at
the bottom of the incline to pass beneath the train tracks is both awkward and potentially
hazardous (limited sight-lines).
A084 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
In contrast to closureOption1, this allows ped/bikes to more safely travel across Alma/Caltrain. I do
note that the width of the proposed tunnel more closely resembles the California Ave tunnel than
the Homer Ave tunnel, so am somewhat unenthusiastic about this. I also note that Churchill Ave is
*much* closer to Embarcadero than to California Ave, suggesting that a direct bike/ped tunnel
between Seale Ave and Peers Park might be better than the option1 & option2.
A085 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
I do not favor this alternative. That said, I simply wish to echo what I have said elsewhere: a
potential bike/ped tunnel at Kellogg Ave is *much* closer to Embarcadero than to California Ave; a
possible crossing between Seale Ave & Peers Park would be highly advantageous. That is, if you
recommend the Churchill Underpass alternative, please move the bike/ped facility south, rather
than north. Thank you for considering this as an option...
A086 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
way too expensive
A087 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
way too expensive...
A088 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
not quite as expensive as Tunnel alternatives, but still hard to imagine...
A089 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Westbound Churchill traffic is nicely accommodated for access to PAUSD, Paly and vast Stanford
campus. Bike and pedestrian East/West access could be supplemented at Seale in addition to
Kellogg. Castilleja's intended expansion could negatively impact Kellogg access. Ground water
encroachment, adjacent property partial takings can raise cost and increase time to do.
A090 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
The Viaduct for all three "at grade crossings" would offer the advantages of greater "Connecting
Palo Alto" between east and west of the railroad, and the potential use of the space under the
viaduct for bike paths and park areas (e.g., benches).
A091 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
I think that a partial underpass is potentially the most desirable alternative, but this particular
design should be rethought with more time to come up with a better plan. This one has too many
zig-zags for bikes and pedestrians.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 23
A092 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
The underpass option for Meadow and Charleston looks like it eliminates a lot of options to turn
onto and off of Alma. One example: It looks like traffic on Alma (in either direction) that wants to
head southward on Charleston can only go northward, through the roundabout, and then back
southward across Alma. Another example: It looks like nobody on Meadow (in either direction) can
turn eastbound onto Alma. This looks like it will cause a big increase in traffic in the light
neighborhood streets, as drivers cut through "The Circles" or on Park to get between Meadow and
Charleston. I may have made some poor assumptions to get to that conclusion. Are there plans to
handle the increased traffic near Alma, beyond the roundabout on Charleston? My guess is "no",
which makes this my absolute least favorite choice for Meadow and Charleston.
A093 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
I do not see the value of leaving freight trains on the surface. I guess it's because that allows us to
dig smaller bores, so it's cheaper? This feels like a useless half-measure, with all the drawbacks of
constructing new tracks and none of the benefits of removing at-grade crossings.
A094 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
The necessary widening of Alma for nearly 4 blocks between Melville and Lowell eliminates the
existing 10 foot buffer between the northbound traffic lane and the sidewalk. This places the
narrow sidewalk on the curb on a busy street and truck route where vehicles often exceed the
posted 35 mph speed limit. What mitigations are planned to make this 4 block stretch of sidewalk
to safe for pedestrians? Does the plan allow a sidewalk wider than the typical 5 feet? Can the city
reduce the speed limit along this stretch to 25 mph as is the case north of Embarcadero. Is it
possible to reduce the northbound lanes to just 1 lane on this stretch, as is the case on the
Embarcadero overpass on Alma, and thus retain the planting strip buffer between vehicle lanes
and pedestrian sidewalk?
A095 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Lower cost but lacking detail. Oops, did I miss a video?
A096 Alternative Churchill Viaduct This proposal is the most expensive build by a factor of 6, and a visual and aesthetic travesty for
the neighbors and city in general.
A097 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Closures Options 1 and 2 are described on the virtual site in a scattered way (probably due to
consulting costs). If Churchill gets closed and the mitigations are taken seriously, having
pedestrian and bike access under Alma and CalTrain in a straight line is highly desired.
A098 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
None of the options for the Churchill crossing are ideal. But the traffic studies indicate that the
intersection and road improvements included in the mitigations will allow the major east/west
arterials, Oregon Expressway and Embarcadero, to handle the diverted vehicle traffic without
significant impact. None of the other alternatives considered offer any better east/west vehicle
movement across the corridor despite the significantly higher cost they require to build.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 24
A099 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Can we just eliminate the ramp to south Alma for Charleston. I prefer no digging up of Alma. Can
we use the box jacking method for placing an underpass under both the tracks and Alma and not
need to install the shoofly tracks. I suggest an alternative for the Meadow underpass be studied
and make it look like the Charleston underpass.
A100 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
With all of the Palo Alto High bike and pedestrian traffic, needing to cross Alma seems less safe
and also more disruptive to Alma traffic. The lateral bike/ped underpass also seems less optimal
than in alternative 2.
A101 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
I like this alternative best. It is best for the bike and ped commuters, since they will cross the lanes
of the smaller Churchill St. rather than Alma.
A102 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
This seems unnecessary overkill. Much of the auto traffic which crosses from east of the tracks to
west Churchill could cross other places (University, Oregon/Page Mill, Embarcadero).
A103 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Closure will have huge impact on the PAUSD, Southgate and other communities
A104 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Do nothing should be an option, closure has huge impact on the PAUSD, Southgate,
Embarcadero, Oregon and other neighborhoods
A105 Alternative Churchill Viaduct Do nothing is better, but viaduct is acceptable
A106 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
Simply too expensive and the disruption due to construction would be far too long.
A107 Alternative Churchill Viaduct This is the worst of all possible worlds
A108 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
It seems like really disruptive construction and a complex result (complicated and confusing traffic
and bicycle flow) for an intersection that really isn't that important.
A109 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Minimal disruption during construction is a plus. Cost is reasonable but much higher than the
hybrid. The hybrid seems a better approach.
A110 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
Very high cost and long and disruptive construction makes this option a poor choice. The
underpass option has less costs and addresses both Alma and the train.
A111 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
The worst option. Extremely expensive with long and disruptive construction and freight is still at
grade.
A112 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Lower cost makes this more attractive than the viaduct.
A113 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
In addition to dealing with the train, this option mostly eliminates the intersection with Alma for
cars, pedestrians and bicyclists. This may justify the increased costs relative the hybrid which is
the next best solution. Forcing bicyclists and pedestrians to cross the street twice in one direction
is less than desirable. Similarly, drivers will have to get used to the roundabout to make the
common left turn onto westbound Charleston.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 25
A114 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
Tunnel would have ongoing long term cost implications to maintain pumping stations at depth
below water table.
A115 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Closure With Mitigations Option 2 is the safest option for high school students, other pedestrians
and bike riders. It's a safer, more direct connection (than Option 1) to Walter Hays for elementary
school kids in Southgate. It's a safer more direct connection for pedestrians to get to and from
Stanford events like football games. It improves access to El Camino for Southgate residents. It
reduces traffic in Southgate. It's the least disruptive construction project. It's 1/3 the cost of the
next most expensive alternative.
A116 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Lane closures on both Alma and Charleston have impact on neighborhood costs during
construction. Lowering the roadways introduce significant safety challenges to pedestrians and
cyclists during construction. Dirt, noise and vehicle crashes are serious concerns. West side
neighbors are not well protected from train noise.
A117 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
This is the only alternative that would improve "Connecting Palo Alto" by providing the possibility
for adding additional crossings between streets on the east and west sides of the tracks. Also, the
land under the tracks could be used for bike & ped paths and mini-parks. I wish we could rank our
preferred alternatives, and not just mark all as "Good" "OK" or "Bad". The only reason it is not my
first choice is that I feel that people who live on Park Blvd. would be opposed to it on "Aesthetic"
grounds. I live close to the tracks and would not object to this alternative on "Aesthetic" grounds.
A118 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Q: Would it be possible to select Hybrid for Meadow crossing and Underpass for Charleston?
Comment: PROs for Hybrid alternative: 1) all turning movements are permitted. Therefore traffic
not driven into the neighborhood streets. 2) I think there are not very many property acquisitions
compared to the Underpass alternative. CON: Bike and ped traffic not separated from car traffic
(Safety criteria)
A119 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
This is not a good option as it seems to 'disconnect' palo alto rather than connect it as it does not
allow all turning options at the meadow-alma intersection. This leads to increased waste of time
and fuel for neighborhood errands that may need use of a car. Also the bike/ped paths seem
rather convoluted and grade intensive. in addition, there are property acquisitions in this option
which i am not in favor of.
A120 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
PROS: 1) Bike and ped traffic separated from car traffic (Safety criteria) 2) Traffic going straight
across Meadow or Charleston does not have to stop at traffic light. CONS: 1) On Meadow there 2
turning movements not permitted, thereby driving traffic into neighborhood streets. 2) On
Charleston 2 turning movements involve driving down to roundabout on E. Charleston and back to
Alma. This will be confusing for drivers who don't drive in this area frequently. 3) On Charleston
and Meadow there are several property acquisitions. 4) Significantly more costly than the Hybrid
alternative.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 26
A121 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
no construction time line given same with option 1
A122 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
the budget is unrealistic and have huge overruns for money and time. plus were are the pumps to
be placed for the times the underpass floods.
A123 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Would prefer the viaduct alternative to this hybrid alternative. If the tracks are to be raised anyway,
a few more feet won't really make a difference -- specially if it can keep the roads at grade level
making it safer to drive (line of sight), easier to bike and bike, thus keeping Palo Alto a connected
bike/ped friendly city.
A124 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Meadow and Charleston should not be forced to have the same solution. I wanted to see the new
underpass with roundabout option
A125 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Low cost, low property acquisition, better bike and ped. crossing than underpass.
A126 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Fair on cost and aesthetics but good for bike and ped. flow with few property acquisitions.
A127 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Underpass has bad property acquisition impacts, high cost and appears to block E-W crossings at
BOTH intersections during construction which will force all Gunn High bikes to go through Cal Ave.
tunnel or over San Antonio overpass?
A128 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
While low cost and with low property impacts, closure with option 2 is less safe for bike/ped
crossing than option 1.
A129 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
This design is the only one that is friendly for pedestrians and cyclists, which should be the main
modes of transport moving through this area and to PALY.
A130 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
This doesn't interrupt traffic flow and it would be great to have a protected intersection at Alma.
A131 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Cheapest, visually most satisfactory and least disruptive, construction less disruptive, and no
private property acquisition.
A132 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
no trees between Alma and trains is a problem, also it's more expensive than Hybrid.
A133 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Can Caltrian just say no to this option due to the 1.4% grade?
A134 Alternative Churchill Viaduct The Viaduct would leave large sheltered areas that could attract encampments and be a target of
graffiti and other undesirable behavior.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 27
A135 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
No more backups on Alma. But will increase local commute traffic as a result
A136 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
The viaduct option is awful, industrial, ugly, and will completely separate the east and west sides of
the city. Palo Alto already has one big divider: Oregon Expressway carved the city into North and
South. Please don't make this mistake again by building a viaduct and completely siloing South
West Palo Alto.
A137 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
I like this option the best because the train is not much elevated.
A138 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
I like this but the financial cost is too high.
A139 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
I don't understand this one, because we'd pay the huge cost of a tunnel and still have the
inconvenience of an at-grade crossing.
A140 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
I like this one but have concerns about the bike/ped access. Also have concerns about the
roundabout, because of the high volume of cars it must handle.
A141 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
This should by far be the preferred option to maintain the integrity and the connectivity of this city
A142 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
THis is my second option in case the train underground is not an option. The most important thing
is to not affect the road, sidewalks, and bike lanes. If the trench is not an option, this is the best
one remaining since roads, sidewalks, and bike lanes are not affected
A143 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
I do not like this alternative since it changes the slope of the roads
A144 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
This seems to be the WORST option. It isolates neighborhoods, decreases access and
connectivity, and necessitates property acquisition, which I cannot support. It will also funnel more
cars into neighborhood and residential streets, which is unacceptable. There is absolutely no
reason why this option should be considered. Price should be a minimal factor here, since this
decision will affect this city and its neighbors for years and years to come. I implore everyone to
carefully consider the shortcomings of this option and to not take the "cheap" way out.
A145 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
What would the pump station look like and will there by noise?
A146 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
From a property owner on Park Blvd, this hybrid seems to be worse than the Viaduct. Solid wall
instead of seeing through it and much closer to our property.
A147 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
Best alternative. preserves neighbourhood
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 28
A148 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
Next best alternative to tunnel. Preserves neighbourhood aesthetics.
A149 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Bad aesthetics but preferable to hybrid and underpass. Noise is also problematic for residents
along the tracks.
A150 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
The road has to dip under the tracks which causes multiple issues such as problems for bikes and
pedestrians, pooling of rain water and breaking up the neighbourhood feel.
A151 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Bad, Bad, Bad. Bad option all around. Property acquisitions are unfair. Pedestrian and bikes will
have a hard time navigating. Leads to elimination of certain turns onto Alma and hence more traffic
through residential neighborhoods.
A152 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
This alternative puts trains/walls right next to the property owners back fence with significant
prominence of the train -- impeding privacy / positive home ownership
A153 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
I am hearing this is not a viable alternative under consideration; and voting for this alternative is
wasting your vote -- as won't have impact on the viable alternatives selection.
A154 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Though other options are more attractive and minimize disruptions to traffic, the cost-effectiveness
of this option is hard to beat. Longer, straight ramp allows good bike ped transportation. My main
concern here is just how bad traffic congestion could get at Embarcadero/Alma/El Camino.
A155 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
This option seems to "split the baby".
A156 Alternative Churchill Viaduct In a perfect world without budget constraints, i would pick this one. Looks good, minimal impact to
traffic flow. But the cost is huge and 2 years of construction is daunting.
A157 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Seems to be a good compromise option.
A158 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
The tunnel is an investment for many decades to come, the return on the investment in terms of
higher property value and lowered stress on the citizens will repay the higher up front cost over
time, likely not that much time.
A159 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
Not as good as a tunnel, but still preferable to the other alternatives. Makes the city a better place
to be, provides long term improvement in property value (over lesser alternatives).
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 29
A160 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Don't do it. This exists up north, redwood city area. It's horrible! It divides the city beyond just
having tracks - it blocks the visual paths between city halves beyond just movement. It's a tall,
long, ugly, thick wall bisecting the city. Does nothing for noise (beyond the horns).
A161 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Don't do it. It's horrible! Does nothing for noise (beyond the horns). AND, it makes the traffic flow
completely ridiculous. A long term embarrassment, will depress property values for decades to
come. This is something VTA would do, and that is not a complement.
A162 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
Really? Keep both old and new tracks? Keep both the old and add new problems? Nuts. Who
thought of this? Send them to work for VTA.
A163 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Works good - this crossing is more problematic than beneficial, deserves to be closed. But, I don't
live in this neighborhood, so my point of view is as a commuter on Alma.
A164 Alternative Churchill Viaduct Best option if road closure is not an option.
A165 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Elevating the rail to stay within 1% grade forces significant roadway modifications and years long
disruptions. This is inferior to the Viaduct Option in my opinion. Insist on getting 1.4% grade for rail
pushed through. Regarding HSR speed of 110 mpg for diversion: just slow the HSR speed for
viaduct section!
A166 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
Devil in the details. Lift stations. Ultimate lane reductions on Alma. 2% grade for passenger rail.
Forget this idea!
A167 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
References to the Alameda Trench in So. Cal requires massive governmental coordination and
$$$.
A168 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
I prefer alternative 2 with the Churchill closure. It would be terrific to grade separate both the
railroad tracks and Alma for bikes an peds. Why not close Churchill on both sides, so traffic on
Churchill on both sides would be just for local block traffic, and bike/ped traffic going through.
A169 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
I love the complete grade separation for bikes/peds across Alma/Caltrain. I don't think the Churchill
/ Alma intersection needs to be maintained for autos. Why not just close the street at Alma, and
just a narrow lane and parking on the street, plus the underpass. If a traffic signal is needed, for
turns in and out of the neighborhood from Alma, why not use a different street? There are many
equally good choices, and some are a little wider. So keep the bike/ped underpass at Churchill,
and move the cars to Embarcadero and a wider neighborhood street.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 30
A170 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
* Was the cost of property seizure included in the cost estimate for the underpass option. If not
why not. If so, what prices were used for all the full and partial property seizures. What is the
estimated reimbursement for decreased property values due to increased noise and traffic. * What
will be done to better align the underpass option with the Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard project -
especially concerning bike traffic on Park and Wilkie Way? * The underpass option at both
Meadow and Charleston moves existing traffic flow from Alma onto neighborhood streets. This is
unacceptable. For Charleston this is in conflict with the recently completed Charleston/Arastradero
Corridor project which improves safety for pedestrians and cyclists. * Early on in the grade
separation process there was an uproar about property seizures in North Palo Alto, and options
requiring seizure were dropped. The underpass is a recent addition to options for
Meadow/Charleston. Was there a conscious decision to allow new options that have property
seizures in South Palo Alto?
A171 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
Although more expensive, this option will provide safe pedestrian/bicycle flow, safe traffic flow, less
noise, no property acquisition, no need to close Meadow/Charleston for years, fewer surfaces
attracting graffiti
A172 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
the most ridiculous proposal for $1.75B we could have a solution that keep the car, bike and
pedestrian traffic the same. Where is the improvement.
A173 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Eminent domain will cost time & $(law suits). Beyond the taking of personal property why do we
find it acceptable to dig concrete canyons in a residential areas. These canyon are going to take
more time and money than $400 M. As with the tunnel and trench a lot of excavation is required
plus closures of Alma and perhaps shoo-fly rails installed until the rail bridge is installed.
A174 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
Where would Alma traffic go?
A175 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
privacy at backyard
A176 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
access from Park Ave to both Charleston and Meadow will be eliminated
A177 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
Freight trains at night are VERY NOISY. People living near the tracks may have trouble sleeping
though the noise. How often would freight trains run at night?
A178 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
How much would property acquisition cost? How many properties?
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 31
A179 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
This could be Palo Alto's big dig. For $1.8B we can have a never ending construction congestion
with shoo-fly tracks blocking Alma for many years. The freight trains are diesel so their exhaust will
concentrate and have to be vented somewhere by someone’s back yard or venting fans add so the
fumes well come out at the tunnels openings. Then there is water proofing and pumps for drainage
and safety evacuation routs. Then the big truck logistics moving through residential streets for the
excavated spoils and precast concrete tunnel sections. All this with no improvement to pedestrian,
bike or car suface traffic.
A180 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
Clearly the viaduct has high visual impact. However, the fact that it can be built in a much shorter
time period with no taking of homes offsets that. Raising the tracks above grade provides an
opportunity for use of the land at ground level (perhaps even neighborhood serving commercial
space). This alternative has fewer drawbacks than the others; I give great weight to "Construction
Duration & Disruptions".
A181 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Clearly, this is the lowest cost alternative, which does make it attractive; the visual impact is high,
which offsets that advantage. In contrast to the Viaduct, which it resembles in some ways, this
does impact existing homes and it has more impact upon cyclists and pedestrians. It does not
provide any way to use the space beneath the tracks due to the berm (unlike the Viaduct). The
construction disruption & duration is higher than the Viaduct, influencing my rating.
A182 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
This alternative appears to have been designed with disregard to Complete Streets principles
(Comp Plan Policy T-2.4). The movements required of of bicyclists and pedestrians are at times
convoluted and potentially unsafe. The design almost certainly will affect existing bicycle boulevard
traffic on Wilkie Way with no mitigation mentioned. The fact that it involves property takings should
disqualify it--if that was disallowed at Churchill, why would it be considered here?
A183 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Even though the hybrid is a good idea its supporters will have to overcome the no rising of the train
an inch crowd. Raising the train is an aesthetic no-no to many in Palo Alt all though there are some
obvious advantages to raising the tracks. The construction logistics would not be as disruptive as
tunnel or trench. But the surface traffic of foot, bike and car would be close to unchanged. I must
point out that the trains bridge and rams must have sound deadening components designed in
from the start of planning.
A184 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
insure good connection to park/castellija bike route and bike path along PALY
A185 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
I wish a rough timeline for each phase of construction was also included in these videos!
A186 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Any complete closure of Churchill will divert traffic to Embarcadero, which will only exacerbate the
existing traffic problems.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 32
A187 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Any complete closure of Churchill will divert traffic to Embarcadero, which will only exacerbate the
existing traffic problems.
A188 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
I am strongly against closing Churchill, and I think this would be the best was to retain access for
all modes of transport. I am especially concerned about emergency access to Southgate and Paly,
and the ability to head east on Churchill in case of emergency evacuation.
A189 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
While this will involve quite a bit of disruption during construction, it would at least maintain the
ability for traffic to both east and west across Alma case of emergency (and also to alleviate traffic
congestion at Embarcadero & Page Mill). However, in this case I think it would be preferable to do
the bike/ped underpass at Seale rather than Kellogg in order to avoid congestion with Castilleja
school traffic.
A190 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Although not ideal—it will still divert *some* traffic to Embarcadero—this is the best compromise
solution. We retain some through-traffic flow and reign in the cost.
A191 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
I am strongly against closing Churchill because of concerns about emergency access as well as
traffic congestion at Embarcadero & Page Mill. However, if it does come to that, Option 1 would be
preferable to Option 2 because it's less disruptive to both sides of Churchill.
A192 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Any viaduct will be a blight, creating a visual divide to our city.
A193 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
Although a noble idea, the cost is just too prohibitive and cannot be justified.
A194 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
The cost is just too prohibitive and cannot be justified.
A195 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Any raising of the tracks will be a blight, creating a visual divide to our city.
A196 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
Would it be possible to convert part of the shoofly/temporary rail into some form of bike path or
walkway? Would be nice to have an extension of the existing Alma bikeway (Downtown to
Churchill) to Mitchell Park. Unfortunately, this alternative is also relatively expensive and may be
prone to flooding.
A197 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Would be nice if the land under the viaduct could be used for recreation or other uses (perhaps
retail). Also need to ensure seismic and soil stability so as not to accidentally split the area if a big
earthquake occurs.
A198 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
Question of whether Alma traffic is prioritized during road closures, or Charleston/Meadow. Would
like to have multi-use of new structures, perhaps for decorative/art purposes. Unlike the viaduct,
it's a bit harder to create new paths.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 33
A199 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
Will need to see if it's possible to develop anything on the at-grade ROW. Otherwise, this
alternative seems unnecessarily intrusive on Alma and complicated to do.
A200 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
While it may provide redundancy, this alternative seems to be doubling the amount of work needed
to solve a problem only found on the Caltrain side. It doesn't eliminate the noise at night, and it
doesn't otherwise improve anything else from as-is.
A201 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Really changes the traffic flow quite a bit, which may get complicated depending on how property
acquisition goes. Also don't particularly like the 180 bike turn needed to go north on Charleston, as
well as other oddities bikers would need to acclimate to.
A202 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Question of what greenspace is going to exist on the South Churchill segment (e.g. maintenance,
water usage, etc.) What kind of safety measures does the underpass to reduce collisions and
accidents.
A203 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Needs some protocol to prevent right-of-way disputes on north Churchill segment. The 180 turn
required to go back to Alma are not very good to bikers.
A204 Alternative Churchill Viaduct Seems intrusive and a bit hard to integrate the underways of viaducts into viable
pathways/openspace.
A205 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Similar to Option 2, has this weird rise-up for pedestrians/bike riders that requires sharp turns.
A206 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
bike/ped crossing is too narrow, has 2 90 degree turns, not big enough for bicycle to/from school.
"long way around" for cars to get to Paly. Also, why close Churchill at all? Why not leave as is?
A207 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Better than option 1. But still, bike/ped crossing is too narrow, not big enough for bicycle to/from
school. Should separate peds from bikes. "long way around" for cars to get to Paly. Also, why
close Churchill at all? Why not leave as is?
A208 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Leaves churchill open, a good thing i believe. am still concerned about the width of the tunnel to
handle both bikes and peds at the same time. kids are going to ride. peds are going to be angry.
make it wider and separate ped area.
A209 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
Why can't viaduct be built in vegetation area between tracks and alma? eliminate shoefly tracks.
narrow alma during construction. when complete, put vegetation where tracks are now. or put 2
lanes of alma on each side of viaduct and put vegetation on both sides of viaduct.
A210 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
It removes connectivity between east and west and therefore violates the Comprehensive Plan
A211 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
This is too complex a project, touches too much of all possible items, and to what end? Not raising
the tracks is the only + that I see. Charleston, a major x-street has weird flow and Meadow does
not have full flow. I dont see this worth it.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 34
A212 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
It cuts off connectivity between East and West and therefore violates the Comrehensive Plan
A213 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
This does not require shoefly tracks. It does not disrupt flow and either intersection. As long as
there is LOTS of open space under the elevated roadway and appropriately landscaped, then I like
this one. (I need to find a list of costs for each option)
A214 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Considering the options eliminated and those still being considered this partial underpass
maintains some connectivity between East and West. It makes too many compromises to avoid
any property acquisitions. The hybrid option was eliminated too early and before it could be
studied and compared with other options.
A215 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
this is maybe the best of the bad. At least with the viaduct there is open space at ground level. the
hybrid has a stark visual barrier, as well as the construction time/cost for lowering the intersections
A216 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
a nice idea, but i think impractical
A217 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Look is clean and welcoming. Suggest a different style of piers supporting the viaduct, ones that
would allow north-south access for bicycles and pedestrians, such as arc-shaped. Redwood trees
along backyards would grow quickly and provide beautiful screen.
A218 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
This is the best alternative with the least negative impact on the Southgate neighborhood. To close
Churchill would isolate our neighborhood from the rest of Palo Alto, decreasing the value of our
homes, making it more difficult to get to downtown, and making it more difficult for police, fire, and
ambulance services to get to our neighborhood in an emergency.
A219 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Closing Churchill is a terrible idea. To close Churchill would isolate our Southgate neighborhood
from the rest of Palo Alto, decreasing the value of our homes, making it more difficult and time
consuming to get to downtown, and making it more difficult for police, fire, and ambulance services
to get to our neighborhood in an emergency. Today, it takes me 5 minutes to get to the hardware
store on Alma. If Churchill were closed, I would have to go to El Camino to Embarcadero, to
KIngsley, to Alma. I clocked that at 18 minutes. And that's reduced covid traffic and without the
increased congestion due to closing Churchill. Closing Churchill before you determine a solution
for the Palo Alto Ave. crossing makes no sense to me. They probably deserve the same solution.
One solution might be to leave both intersections open but computerize the traffic lights and
coordinate the lights with the trains. Even with a tremendous increase in train traffic, there is still
plenty of time between trains, even during rush hours for Churchill (and Palo Alto Ave) traffic to
cross the tracks, albeit with an occasional longer-than-usual wait. And for non-rush hours, it would
be no worse than rush hour today. Well, even better because of the computerized traffic controls.
The best of the ideas you are considering is the partial underpass.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 35
A220 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
This option doesn't take into account the incredibly bad backup associated with turning left onto
Churchill on NB Alma. This traffic will now be required to turn right onto Kingsley, then left onto
Embarcardero, then get added to the terrible backup of lights at Paly and Town & Country.
Whoever came up with this idea clearly hasn't sat in everyday school and start-of-Stanford-hospital
morning and afternoon traffic.
A221 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
This option also doesn't take into account the incredibly bad backup currently associated with
turning left onto Churchill from NB Alma. This traffic will now be required to turn right onto
Kingsley, then left onto Embarcardero, then get added to the terrible backup of lights at Paly and
Town & Country. Whoever came up with this idea clearly hasn't sat in everyday school and start-
of-Stanford-hospital morning and afternoon traffic.
A222 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
This alternative allows Churchill to keep flowing, which is good, but will amplify the noise of the
trains greatly, which is bad. What about putting up a viaduct that's enclosed, so the noise is held
inside?
A223 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
Closing Churchill is very myopic and will greatly increase traffic flow on alternate roads. And ruin
commute. The alternative of opening roads which are currently blocked off in Southgate area, goes
against all design principles of creating bike pathways and keeping traffic out of neighborhoods.
Please plan for the future and not myopically think of the now. The current proposals are NOT
what the majority want (as can be seen in Southgate survey). Please listen and vote what your
majority population has asked for ...
A224 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
This alternative will drive traffic into other parts of Palo Alto including Professorville. Traffic will
become completely backed up on Embarcadero Rd. as Stanford and Stanford hospital workers try
to get to campus. And Southgate residents will not be able to access Alma St. which is a main
thoroughfare to downtown and South Palo Alto.
A225 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
This alternative will drive traffic into other parts of Palo Alto including Professorville. Traffic will
become completely backed up on Embarcadero Rd. as Stanford and Stanford hospital workers try
to get to campus. And Southgate residents will not be able to access Alma St. which is a main
thoroughfare to downtown and South Palo Alto.
A226 Alternative Churchill Viaduct This is a costly, ugly alternative.
A227 Alternative Churchill Viaduct Any road closures have to be equitable to other neighborhoods.
A228 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
I think people will get used to the look. Good combination of minimal construction and
maintenance impacts with middling cost.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 36
A229 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
I strongly suspect that the likely outcome of closing Churchill is to cleave off Southgate and
Evergreen Park from the core of Palo Alto. They become disconnected sub-scale micro
neighborhoods with no clear association to the rest of the city. Not part of Stanford, not really Palo
Alto ... more realistically, just awkward spaces between El Camino and the train tracks. Yes, there
are tradeoffs to every option -- and I recognize that no perfect option exists. If Churchill closes,
Southgate residents may enjoy less traffic and even less train noise. Unfortunately (and much
more important to our family), we likely give up many of the connections to and associations with
downtown, Professorville, and especially Old Palo Alto that prompted us to move into this cool
neighborhood a decade ago. I foresee a withering and likely blighting of our area, when the city's
objective should have been to build vitality and connectivity.
A230 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Closing churchill would be bad for traffic around the city.
A231 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Closing churchill would be bad for traffic around the city.
A232 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
I am a doctor living in Southgate, and on weekends I am periodically on call for PAMF patients
who get admitted from the ER to El Camino Hospital. On occasions where there is some urgency,
minutes can count. I have compared my present travel route across the Churchill intersection vs
traveling through multiple stoplights on El Camino to Oregon, and closure would cause a
significant delay in my ability to get to the ER as expeditiously as possible. Some supporters of
closure like to refer to the delayed transit time as an 'inconvenience', but it can be much more than
that. For the sake of the entire Palo Alto community, please do not close this very important
intersection.
A233 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
This option is great since we retain the existing benefits of Churchill while also going forward with
this project.
A234 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Closing a main East west through fare affect a lot of people in addition to locking up the residents
of Southgate the mitigation for the two options can not solve the traffic problem.
A235 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Residents of Southgate will be boxed in. It will also make El Camino and Oregon Express lot more
congested.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 37
A236 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
The traffic study shows problems at 2 major intersections associated with closure AND mitigations
(El Camino and Oregon as well as El Camino and Embarcadero), and it only looks out 9 years
(with a projection of 5% growth). Please take a longer-term perspective and model modest
expectations for growth over the next 30-40 years. How do the current mitigations hold up in those
scenarios? Making this choice without considering longer term projections places the entire
community at risk. More cars sitting in traffic on El Camino, Embarcadero, and Oregon would be
very negative from multiple perspectives. If the XCAP chooses this option, it will be a choice
influenced by bias of it's composition (including members who been transparent about having a
narrow view of their role by representing specific streets/blocks) rather than a longer term view
regarding the longevity and quality of life for the entire community. Please do not place our
community at risk by choosing this option without modeling for the long term anticipated growth.
XCAP should have asked for it, but City Council needs to. Palo Alto can do better!
A237 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
There is no perfect alternative, but this one has the most promise in terms of mitigating the issues
of concern in the other alternatives, especially complete closure to vehicular traffic. It can likely be
optimized from an aesthetics standpoint, and of course a goal would be to minimize any property
impacts. Further resource is required to understand how to best mitigate these potential issues,
but that would be money well spent, particularly in light of the long term risks of closure.
A238 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
Although this has not been a popular option (and certainly has impact on properties on Mariposa),
it is also probably the least well understood. Contrary to popular belief, it is felt to be the least noisy
by the noise consultants, which is counterintuitive to almost everyone. As a result, very few people
understand it, and XCAP chose not to highlight that impression of the consultants. Some effective
education around that issue could be helpful if there is more momentum around this alternative at
some point. The second important way to build more support would be to bring forward some
renderings designed help to address concerns many have about aesthetics. If it could be done in
an aesthetically pleasing manner, it has the most potential to provide an integrated solution
including Palo Alto Avenue, and also offers the possibility of an efficient bike transit route through
the center of the city from north to south. To be fair, significant consideration should be given to
the Mariposa Avenue properties which back up to the tracks; there would be some property
impacts; lets treat those neighbors as we would wish to be treated ourselves.
A239 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Just leave it as it is. Stop doing this unnecessary construction.
A240 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
I live on Ventura Avenue and my concerns are for impact of the Ventura neighborhood and my
neighbors who border the tracks. This one seems to work and so does the Viaduct option.
A241 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
The trench is one of two options which meet the needs of all those impacted: commuters and
residents.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 38
A242 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
This is one of two options which maintains the neighborhoods connecting while eliminating
eminent domain.
A243 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
This alternative is the most disruptive for the neighbors and the character of the neighborhoods on
both sides of Alma.
A244 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
The Viaduct is the very best alternative that you have given us for our neighborhood. It doesn't
take away property or have much impact on anything. I hope you can find a way to make trains
less noisy for the properties that border the tracks and please make sure the structures are
earthquake proof.
A245 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
I'm concerned about disrupting the flow of the creeks. I live on Louis in the flood plain and worry
that if pumps fail that we could be causing a serious flood risk.
A246 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
Too costly, too disruptive, too long to construct.
A247 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
This is a nice option, aesthetically pleasing, streamlined. There's an openness to it that I like.
A248 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
This is my second favorite alternative (the viaduct is #1). But this is a fine alternative in its own
right.
A249 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Don't like the end product, the ugliest of the grade separations, reminds me of the Oregon
Expwy/Alma underpass (not a good thing). A very cold, harsh looking design.
A250 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Of the Churchill closure options, option 2, with the bike/ped under both alma and tracks, and being
straight is the best. vs option 1 has awkward/dangerous 180 degree turns and doesn't even cross
Alma. Also, I would recommend option 1 bike/ped under-crossing to be wider, like that shown at
San Antonio, so it is safer for bikes and peds to share the space, even if it means closing Churchill
at Alma in one or both directions. In fact, closing Churchill at Alma into a culdersac with the tunnel
entrance at the end would make the entrance/egress safer than the tunnel emerging into the
middle of a thoroughfare. There are no driveways on Churchill at Alma, the two corner houses
have driveways on Alma.
A251 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
While the end result would be nice, this alternative is too costly and it would be too disruptive while
being built and take too long to build.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 39
A252 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
option 1 is not so good. I rate it "bad" because if you're going to do an underpass for bike peds, do
it right, like option 2: cross both alma and tracks, and don't do these dangerous 180 degree hairpin
turns. Bikes and peds can't see around that corner, bikes will speed down and crash into people
coming around the corner, and it will become a bottleneck and source of complaints forever.
A253 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
My least favorite alternative. Very costly to build and not very pleasing end result. All the other
alternatives are better than this one.
A254 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
My favorite Churchill alternative. Despite its costs, this is the most aesthetically pleasing and when
completed with have the best traffic flow for vehicles, bikes and pedestrians.
A255 Alternative Churchill Viaduct
I think the Churchill Viaduct could be done without the shoo-fly track, like for Meadow/Charleston,
building the viaduct between the existing tracks and Alma. While the ROW is narrower there, it is
the same or greater than the ROW at Meadow North of the intersection. It appears to be about 15'
from. track centerline to edge of ROW on the Alma Side, and from the drawings it looks like the
Viaducts track centerline to its edge is about 12'. This would reduce construction cost and
disruption. It might require taking a little slice out of Alma, maybe, but even if so, it is a LOT less
disruptive than some of the other options like tunnel with Freight at grade, which requires
permanent narrowing of Alma at the tunnel bypasses. Still, this option is relatively expensive and I
am ok with closing the intersection, possibly OK with the option of trains at grade and Churchill
depressed.
A256 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
I'm okay with this alternative (though it's not my favorite).
A257 Alternative South Palo Alto tuner
with At-Grade Freight
Tunnel with Freight at Grade: BAD: permanent disruption of Alma, disruption of creeks, loss of
trees, absurdly expensive, permanent issue of water drainage. bad bad bad
A258 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Don't like the bike and pedestrian flow of this proposal.
A259 Alternative South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
Tunnel with Freight and passengers: BAD: significant Alma disruption during construction,
disruption of creeks, loss of trees, absurdly expensive, permanent issue of water drainage. bad
bad bad
A260 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
This is the better closure option because of the better traffic flow for pedestrians and bicyclists and
also the much nicer aesthetics compared to the other Churchill closure proposal.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 40
A261 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Underpass at Meadow/Churchill: BAD: BAD for bikes, with wrong-way bike/ped access (for east-
bound both entering and exiting tunnel); BAD for bikes in 2-lane roundabout, very dangerous for
bikes. BAD for homes and yards, with Roundabout taking out two homes and several yards. BAD
disruption of bike flow on Park Blvd which is a main north-south route alternative to Alma and El
Camino Real. As expensive as the Viaduct but with virtually none of the benefits, traffic-flow wise.
Awkard turn movements for cars going through the roundabout instead of just turning left.
A262 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Viaduct is the best alternative for Charleston/Meadow. Minimal construction impacts. Tracks
alignment moved 60' from backyards of properties on Park. Tracks elevated but open underneath,
so it's not so imposing. LEAST vibration impacts. Less noise than current conditions. No loss of
trees. Grounds below tracks can be replanted with trees, not just small shrubs, so better screening
of noise and sights and smells of homes from Alma and tracks.
A263 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Trench
Trench at Meadow/Charleston: BAD: significant Alma disruption during construction, disruption of
creeks, loss of trees, absurdly expensive, permanent issue of water drainage. bad bad bad I
include loss of trees is permanent private property acquisition of the Right of Way under people's
yards. This will be a significant impact to homes, yards, and ecology. Also, the Trench has more
vibration than the Viaduct, because vibration travels on the surface, up the trench wall and across
the ground. VS Viaduct vibration is forced to travel to the pylons or feet or whatever you call them
which support the structure, so if you are closer to the pylon there is more vibration and if you are
between teh pylons there is least vibration. the path of travel even from nearest to the pylons is the
longest path and so it has less vibration than the trench. Also since the viaduct is farther away the
vibrations are furthe reduced. (At grade is the most vibration, berm second most, trench third, and
Viaduct fourth, tunnel least because the vibrations have to go through the ground and is not as
efficiently propagated. but tunnel and trench are too expensive.
A264 Alternative Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 2
Oops, I had a typo in my comments, i said option 1 tunnel should be wider, i meant option 2 tunnel.
fixing: Of the Churchill closure options, option 2, with the bike/ped under both alma and tracks, and
being straight is the best. vs option 1 has awkward/dangerous 180 degree turns and doesn't even
cross Alma. Also, I would recommend option 2 (_TWO_) bike/ped under-crossing to be wider, like
that shown at San Antonio, so it is safer for bikes and peds to share the space, even if it means
closing Churchill at Alma in one or both directions. In fact, closing Churchill at Alma into a cul-de-
sac with the tunnel entrance at the end would make the entrance/egress safer than the tunnel
emerging into the middle of a thoroughfare. There are no driveways on Churchill at Alma, the two
corner houses have driveways on Alma.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 41
A265 Alternative Churchill Partial
Underpass
The Churchill Partial Underpass is an interesting alternative, certainly better than absurdly
expensive tunnel or trench, and seemingly less expensive than Viaduct (though see my comments
on Churchill Viaduct suggesting the non-shoo-fly option). Some comments which I think would
improve this option: 1. Bike Ped tunnel should be at Peers Park instead of at Kellogg, because
there's already bike/ped crossing of Alma and tracks at Embarcadero which is just two blocks
away (and if you're going to Paly you have to go around up to Embarcadero or Churchill anyway,
unless they add an entrance to campus there). Whereas there is a proposal for a bike-ped
crossing of Alma into Peers Park in the City's Bike/Ped plan, this location is almost mid-way
between Cal Ave and Embarcadero, and if constructed well with enough clearance could be a
better crossing with fewer bike/ped conflicts than Cal Ave. Kids coming from the north would cross
at Embarcadero, those from the south at Peers park. 2. Kind of sucks for house on corner of
Mariposa and Churchill, looks like a slice of their side yard is trimmed off, but this does not seem
necessary: There is a wide 16' shoulder on the north side of the auto under-crossing, seems like
this could be made narrower, maybe also narrow the shoulder on the south side, and then you
don't have to encroach on the house's property. This option has partial property acquisitions, while
the Viaduct option has zero property acquisitions.
A266 Alternative Meadow Charleston
Hybrid
While the Meadow/Charleston Hybrid is less expensive than the Viaduct, it is had twice the
construction time (4 years vs 2) than the viaduct, and is more impactful to the residents. While the
raised Viaduct's track is at 5' higher than the raised Hybrid's, the Viaduct is 60' further away from
the properties on Park, and from the perspective drawings we see that the Viaduct train is
perceived to be lower and farther, while the Hybrid is right there in your face. In addition the
Hybrid's wall will transmit more vibration to neighboring Properties than the Viaduct. both because
of its proximity and due to its geometry (see my comments on Viaduct for discussion of Vibration:
Viaduct has the least vibration, Hybrid has the second most vibration. Aesthetically, the Hybrid's
wall is solid block of the view, while in the perspective drawing we see that over the fence the
property owner can see trees below and through the underside of the open Viaduct underside. The
Viaduct structure has an open, airy feel, the Hybrid's wall is a solid imposing block. The difference
in height is only 5'.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 42
E001 Email Meadow Charleston
Underpass
I reviewed your analysis of the Charleston underpass option in your memo dated August 13, 2020
on the subject of "Churchill, Meadow and Charleston Grade Separation Traffic Analysis.” (i.e.
Figures 8A, 8B, and surrounding text and tables).
I would like to point out a probable flaw in the design of the underpass option pertaining to the
traffic circle on Charleston between Mumford and Wright. I realize that Hexagon did not design this
option, but I am wondering whether you took the information I outline below fully into account in
your analysis. I do not raise this issue to scuttle this option — I like this option, but if it is
implemented I want to make sure it is done properly.
Here is the design flaw: For westbound Charleston traffic approaching Alma, the number of cars
that want to turn left or right onto Alma is very likely during peak traffic hours to cause the line of
cars waiting at that traffic light on Alma to back up all the way to the traffic circle. This will in turn
cause all traffic on Charleston in both directions to come to a complete halt, negating the benefit of
running Charleston under the train tracks.
Obviously, you are running a sophisticated simulation of traffic, but simulations can sometimes not
take into account certain conditions, and it can be easy not to notice the omission, especially in a
complex simulation. Also, if you are performing averaging or sampling, those processes can miss
or underweight low-frequency, high-impact situations. It’s easy to imagine situations in which the
cycling of the light on Alma does not allow a blockage of the traffic circle to fully resolve, resulting
in prolonged gridlock that persists across many traffic light cycles.
I would appreciate your reviewing your simulations and analysis to ensure that the situation
described above is properly taken into account. I further suggest that you deliberately induce the
problem in your simulation environment (e.g. by increasing the % of traffic that wants to turn,
reducing the cycle time of the traffic light, and/or increasing distance between cars in the turn lane,
etc.) to see what happens as a diagnostic.
If this is indeed a serious problem with this option, it should be brought to the attention of the City
and the engineers, because it could be fixed if anticipated in advance and properly mitigated.
One solution would be to eliminate the traffic light on Alma so that this option becomes a true
constant flow design. One way to do this would be to
disallow left turns from westbound Charleston onto Alma. (This is reasonable because cars that
want to go in this direction can instead turn left on Middlefield then right on San Antonio.) The right
lane on northbound Alma could then be converted to an exit only lane onto eastbound Charleston.
Restricting the northbound Alma traffic to one lane is reasonable because there will no longer be a
traffic light. This change would create a protected right lane to allow westbound Charleston traffic
to turn right onto Alma without a traffic light.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 43
Another solution would be to install a sophisticated car detection system that looks not only at cars
stopped directly in front of the traffic light, but extends all the way back to the traffic circle and
beyond, to allow an intelligent controller to lengthen the green light on Alma as necessary to
prevent gridlock at the traffic circle.
A second potential issue is that without the traffic light gating eastbound traffic on Charleston
approaching Alma, eastbound traffic will instead pile up behind the light at Middlefield road and
extend all the way back to the traffic circle, which will then have a cascading effect as it blocks
traffic that wants to go northbound on Alma from Charleston. It’s not clear where the perimeter of
your analysis is located, and whether it would catch this impact.
Finally, while it was not part of your assignment, I wish that the City of Palo Alto had also asked
you evaluate the “do nothing” scenario (in terms of modifying the track/roads) with the addition of a
more intelligent traffic control system — whatever is the best system currently available. The
current traffic control algorithm is not very sophisticated, and it is clear that a better system with a
more sophisticated algorithm and more inputs (including visual sensors looking far down Alma and
Charleston in both directions, and knowledge of approaching trains with a much longer time
horizon) could improve traffic flow. By how much, though, would be interesting to know. If you
would care to comment on this possibility based on your knowledge and experience, then perhaps
that would provide some impetus to add that analysis to your contract with the City as a new
addendum.
Thank you for taking the time to read this long email, and thank you for your contribution to this
important discussion.
T001 Townhall
Feedback General No closure at Churchill is necessary. Save taxpayer funds.
T002 Townhall
Feedback General
This feedback widget is hopefully not the only way to respond. I would have expected that I could
virtually put a post-it note on any element of any of the alternatives. The first impression I have is
extremely discouraging.
T003 Townhall
Feedback General
Thank you for continuing progress during this time and I am very impressed with all the effort that
has gone into gathering adequate community feedback!
T004 Townhall
Feedback General when will a decision be made?
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 44
T005 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Partial
Underpass
Either a Churchill viaduct or partial underpass would destroy our neighborhood and family home of
40 years. Negative neighborhood impacts should be more prominently described in the slick
promotional renderings. The yearslong morass of the grade separation project leaves me
disillusioned about the future of Palo Alto.
T006 Townhall
Feedback Traffic
Projects that require shooflys and/or east west road closures and Alma lane reductions during
constructions are not desirable. Community disruption and safety during complex construction
stages have costs to be considered.
T007 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Why is viaduct even an option? It would be an eyesore and increase train noise, not to mention the
potential dangers to nearby homes in case of an earthquake.
The underpass is the only option that would be affordable, separates traffic on Alma, East
Meadow, and Charleston, and keeps the train at grade for noise and aesthetics, and provides a
separated bike and pedestrian underpass.
T008 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Trench
This is a decision for generations. Tax the residents and trench the whole length.
T009 Townhall
Feedback General Yes, I prefer that the City leave Churchill Avenue as it is.
T010 Townhall
Feedback General Yes, doing nothing with Churchill Avenue should be an alternative and that's the alternative I
prefer.
T011 Townhall
Feedback Traffic
We need to discuss the changes to the Embarcadero over crossing at Alma. Are you going to
modify Embarcadero going under Alma when you widen the bridge. The roadway has to be
deepened to accommodate the widened bridge above for proper clearance or just rebuild the
entire structure and then have 2 lanes both ways above and below.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 45
T012 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
1) The City should not invest in any grade separation alternative without first participating in and
awaiting the results of Caltrain's corridor-wide grade separation study. 2) I also feel that forcing a
choice among the existing alternatives in this survey misses the concerns of many affected by
changes at the crossings. Speaking specifically of Churchill, your survey doesn't capture the
widespread sentiment that, above all, Churchill should not be closed. Perhaps a better method
would be to allow participants to rank the options and provide space for comments afterwards. 3)
While CAP and XCAP members have worked hard to understand the implications and technical
constraints on the rail crossing alternatives, the composition of the group does not adequately
represent the perspectives and concerns of residents. Arguably, at least two of the members
(member Cho and member Shen) are hampered in their ability to represent the greater good -- or
even their own neighborhoods -- by the very close proximity of their homes to the crossing and the
resulting direct effects of the alternatives on their property values. It's important to hear their
voices, but it would be better if we also heard the voices of those who have different, perhaps
broader concerns.
T013 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Trench
Trench and tunnel options are unrealistic in every way possible and should be dropped.
T014 Townhall
Feedback General
Why is so much time and money being wasted on options that will never command enough
funding? No-one is going to spend $1Bn so let's not spend any money pretending.
T015 Townhall
Feedback General
The process has FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THE POOR RIDERSHIP NOW EXISTING FOR
CalTrain and THE FUTURE OF THE RIDERSHIP. It is too early now to finalize crossings based
on poorly projected ridership.
T016 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Don’t think you can rule any option out at Churchill, with the exception of closure, without extensive
engineering analysis. Closure is a bad idea. It isolates Southgate from the rest of PA, limits
emergency vehicle access and residential emergency evacuation options. Please don’t let the
train tracks further divide PA
T017 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Why is it assumed that the Churchill Ave. crossing must close? I would vote to keep it open as is.
Has adequate study been done how what rerouting that traffic will impact other neighborhoods?
Have Stanford and PAUSD commented publicly on the proposed closure?
As to crossings at Meadow & Charleston, I support whichever option is most cost effective and
palatable to residents of those neighborhoods.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 46
T018 Townhall
Feedback Multiple Where are the costs and the construction timelines for the various alternatives, including how long
various roads would be closed.This is CRUCIAL information!!
T019 Townhall
Feedback Churchil Viaduct
viaduct makes the most sense and will not have as great an impact in neighboring streets. If not
the viaduct, I would like to have "leave it as is" considered.
T020 Townhall
Feedback Traffic
Why does the TDM work done by AECOM assume that hundreds of millions will be spent on car
infrastructure, but no similar investment might be made to reduce the vehicle intensity of Palo
Alto? Even the "mitigations" scenario is quite light and is focused on just the intersection at
Churchill, rather than applied in a most holistic sense. If Palo Alto invested $500MM to promote
active transportation, as an example, it might end up with much better QoS / LoS than are shown
in these scenarios.
The flawed assumptions of the underlying traffic model are based in a worldview which suggests
that our community should (to a certain extent) significantly promote vehicle access for east/west
movement. This seems like a false choice. Instead, we could emphasize, incent, and create an
environment where much cheaper options (for pedestrians and cyclists) are facilitated. This would
lessen the load on existing separated grade crossings.
Ultimately, my recommendation as a resident is to pursue the lowest cost, least-significant
interventions but to hugely increase the funding required for true transformational change in
transportation in our community. If we are to do anything about climate change, not to mention
equitable access to all in our community, we must accelerate the adoption of transit and non-
private-vehicle modes in our community. We must make it easier for those who do not live here to
commute here, easier for those who live here to live without a car, and easier for those who want
to live here to actually do so. These steps are not without sacrifice: we must give up things that
can be held dear, like the presumption that automobile LoS should be the deciding factor for $1B+
of potential infrastructure allocation.
I do not care if these intersections, however re-graded, receive an "F" LoS score for cars if it
means that more *people* can move through the city, more cleanly and more equitably. This is not
what the current analysis optimizes, but it is what the council must take into consideration if it is to
meet the obligations that it - and the community - have set for ourselves as stewards of both our
neighborhoods, our planet, and our consciences.
If the council *Does* proceed with any of these car-oriented options -- especially the more
expensive ones -- I earnestly hope it will tie these to creative financing options that force people to
pay for the cost of their externalities. If it is critical to residents that they be able to drive huge
vehicles anywhere they want (putting pedestrians and cyclists and kids at risk) then they should be
willing to pay a significant amount to do so, so that the cost oft the negative externalities they
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 47
create can be recaptured and reinvested.
Once modeled, this might prove that no intervention is needed, actually -- $5 tolls to cross the
tracks may reduce those queueing times significantly. Variably price all the rail crossings in order
to balance supply/demand and add a low-income exemption. Put the proceeds in a fund that is
designed to reduce VMT and finally advance the Grand Boulevard project for El Camino. Voila --
problem solved!
T021 Townhall
Feedback General
How have the pandemic's economic/social consequences impacted the city/council's decision-
making process with regard to the rail crossing agenda?
T022 Townhall
Feedback General CalTrain ridership is now low. It seems wise to delay making final decisions until ridership
increases again (if it does).
T023 Townhall
Feedback General
Please break up into two phases, first phase to plan and implement South Palo Alto grade
separation(s). That will leave time to do comprehensive North Palo Alto study that includes Palo
Alto Avenue to Churchill. In general, I prefer streets not be closed as the Comprehensive Plan
specifically calls for, but to preserve and improve a permeable grid-system across town including
the rail. We must NOT move towards a more "expressway" like network that crams more and
faster cars on a few streets that will divide the city, but a more walkable, bike-able grid that is
traffic-calmed and safe city-wide. I do support the idea of more bike/walk rail crossings at Kellogg
and/or Seale. Finally, the cost of any diversion of traffic to Embarcadero should include the cost of
any so-called "mitigation", e.g. the cost of any widening or re-building undercrossings, roads and
intersections. Closing Churchill is definitely not "low cost". Thank you.
T024 Townhall
Feedback General
Why isn't the option of "do nothing" at the Churchill crossing listed here? It is one of the options
and the obvious one to choose, given the paradigm shift to people working at home, drastic
reduction in train commuting and driving. It is senseless to spend money on grade separations,
spend millions, needless construction and noise and destroy the town.
T025 Townhall
Feedback General
Do NOT close Churchill. This "do nothing" option, isn't even listed. This is an example of
incomplete and inaccurate information which has plagued this process throughout. There was
never a robust, data driven approach. For example, the question of the closure of Palo Alto Ave.
was set aside and recommendations and decisions being made now will all be wrong. What a
huge waste of money and destruction of a town. We have experienced a major Phase Change, a
dramatic shift to people working at home, people fleeing the cities to the suburbs, distrust in mass
transit, etc. All of the metrics have changed. The grade separation project needs to be paused in
its entirety until rational decisions can be made based on the the data that emerges from these
changes.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 48
T026 Townhall
Feedback General
(1). "Do Nothing" should be an option given the plummeting Caltrain Ridership. (2). Embarcadero
will be unbearable and dangerous, taking the brunt if Churchill is closed. (3) PALY school kids
safety not been considered at the Embarcadero /Alma intersection
T027 Townhall
Feedback General
CalTrain ridership is now low. It seems wise to delay making final decisions until ridership
increases again (if it does).traffic patterns have changed significantly due to covid - and it seems
traffic will be reduced for the long term - and Caltrans ridership is low and so number of trains will
not increase - so Churchill should have no changes
T028 Townhall
Feedback Churchill Viaduct In viaduct alternative, have you looked at all on putting the viaduct in the middle of Alma?
T029 Townhall
Feedback General
The key is to keep Palo Alto connected. Closing a main thoroughfare in the middle of Palo Alto
breaks up the community and will have long lasting effects.
T030 Townhall
Feedback General
The grade separation issue was thoughtfully investigated between 2010 and 2013, and reported in
2013: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/38025 The city then ignored the
findings in that report. Many years and several million dollars later, the city rediscovered that we
have train tracks running through town and concluded, again, that something should be done.
What a waste of time, money and effort.
I think ranked voting for each option would be more helpful reaching a conclusion than pick just
one option.
I absolutely prefer the tunnel, or the trench. Keep the train out of sight and literally contained in it's
own corridor, with the possibility of a green belt above a tunnel. A brilliant long term option. I
realize that the cost of the tunnel and trench pretty much kills those options, barring the revelation
of a miraculous source of funding.
I think the citizen underpass options at each crossing not only separate road from rail, but also
largely separate Alma auto traffic from auto-bike-ped traffic on Charleston, Meadow and Churchill
much more effectively than the other options. This seems to be the best option to really reduce
traffic congestion on Alma and all cross streets, and provide dedicated pid-bike crossing at Alma.
Also, the underpass keeps the train at ground level, and hopefully reduces noise transmission.
T031 Townhall
Feedback Traffic
I would like more thought to be put into optimizing embarcadero/alma and oregon exp/alma
intersection. Those changes are essential whatever happens at Churchill and Meadow. Pour more
thought, creativity and resources into improving those intersections. Churchill needs to be closed,
and improving those intersections is what needs to be done.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 49
T032 Townhall
Feedback General
I'd like to see other community member's input on alternatives in a digital map so comments are
aligned with specific locations. I'd like to see staff replies to community questions also located on
the map.
T033 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
traffic, bike and pedestrian impact in neighborhoods if Churchill is closed.
T034 Townhall
Feedback General
The partial underpass at Churchill will NOT seamlessly connect east and west sides of Palo Alto:
from Southgate, cars can only turn left or right onto Alma, coming from east, only right turn. Since
access to Alma from El Camino will be easier, it will attract more non-neighborhood traffic, having
serious negative impacts DAILY to Churchill residents, and UNSAFE conditions for Paly students
crossing Churchill to and from Castilleja bike boulevard. High cost for questionable gain, also
taking private property and removing trees on Alma.
Churchill closure with mitigations will be best, and will fix the current unacceptable situation at
Embarcadero/Alma, have a direct bike/ped tunnel option under Alma, no private property taken,
causes minimal inconvenience (<5 mins) for cars going to eastern Palo Alto, does not isolate
Southgate any more than College Terrace or Evergreen Park, cars from east can turn both
directions onto Alma, okay with fire/police depts, 1/3 cost of partial underpass
T035 Townhall
Feedback General
I remain interested in 50-100 year planning and I don't think any of the alternatives support a long-
term vision. Long-term the train should be like a subway, underground and running every 15
minutes or less. I understand Palo Alto cannot undertake tunneling alone, and that this would take
coordination along the whole corridor and large scale funding, but I don't see Palo Alto doing
anything to create this kind of coordination. The more concrete structures we create, the harder it
is to undo any design to accommodate a long term solution in the future.
T036 Townhall
Feedback Traffic While Alma is temporarily changed to two-lanes as needed during construction, traffic will back up
in both directions. Signal timing will need to be adjusted accordingly.
T037 Townhall
Feedback Traffic
We live close to Alma on Santa Rita and worried that additional lights planned as "mitigation" will
be on Alma (at the cloverleafs where Oregon goes under Alma, and at the two ends of the bridge
over Embarcadero) will create additional congestion on Alma as well as the other roads.
T038 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
1) Is the "underpass" option the only one that allows through traffic on Charleston and East
Meadow to cross both the train tracks and Alma without stopping? It seems to me that not having
to stop at Alma would reduce overall traffic congestion far more than any of the other alternatives.
Have any studies been done to evaluate how each alternative would affect traffic congestion? 2)
How does Southbound traffic on Alma turn left onto East Meadow and Charleston? I wasn't clear
from the video. 3) What is the estimated cost of each of the alternatives?
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 50
T039 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Would construction at Churchill occur at the same time as work on Meadow/Charleston? This
needs to be in stages so South Palo Alto residents have a way to cross the tracks somewhere
during the long-term construction. Also, I would like to know how much each alternative would
cost, how long they would take to construct, and how construction would affect the homeowners
immediately next to the tracks. Would the city need to demolish any private property, or
compensate the owners? What is the long-term maintenance for buried services versus permanent
pumps for the creeks? Would underpasses lead to flooding? How would these new crossings
affect the suicide rates in our community? What is the likelihood of tent cities around the
underpasses?
T040 Townhall
Feedback General What do the different options cost? Duration of each project.
T041 Townhall
Feedback Multiple I am strongly against raising the rail tracks up. You are going to spoil all neighborhoods along the
rail tracks. A tunnel would be ideal, but if that doesn't fly, then the trench is the next best option.
T042 Townhall
Feedback General
This process has gone on far too long. There is sufficient information to make a tentative decision
right now. In any case, any decision will be impacted by the fall out from Covid 19. And, the City
Council must bring closure and not continue to let this process further dissolve to a contest
between neighbors and neighborhoods, Make the best decision on the available facts, not
emotions.
T043 Townhall
Feedback General
Question: 1) Is there a way that you could email me my own responses to "Feedback on the
individual Alternatives" and "Feedback on the Town Hall"? 2) If I think of something else I want to
add to feedback, is it possible to add another response from the same Name/Email Address?
COMMENTS on VR Town Hall: 1) Overall the Virtual Town Hall was a very effective way to share
a whole lot of detailed information, and to solicit community feedback on the alternatives. THANK
YOU! 2) When I'm in the middle of writing feedback, I wish there was a way to "Save and Return"
to where I left off. 3) The email notification about the Town Hall was only received two days before
the Churchill Q&A.
COMMENTS on Preferred Alternatives: 1) I think that asking me to select one choice for each
crossing location is too restrictive to be informative on this complex decision. I think it would be
more helpful to be able to supply my 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences-- particularly for the Meadow &
Charleston crossings. 2) I checked the box "YES--Has there has been enough analysis?" for
XCAP and the City Council to decide on which alternatives to proceed on. However, I think more
design work needs to be done on the Churchill Partial Underpass option -- and that should be
taken into account in the decision.
T044 Townhall
Feedback General Minimize disruption and taking of private property is important. Timeline and cost are very
important. Aesthetics matter.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 51
T045 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Viaduct
Two years disruption versus the much longer alternatives that mess with the creeks make the
viaducts a much more desired alternative to me.
T046 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
The following questions deal with the Meadow/Charleston Underpass option
* Have you notified property owners about seizures of their property slated for the
Meadow/Charleston Underpass option? If not why not.
* Currently there is a 17 foot wide buffer (parking strip/planting strip) between the sidewalk and
Alma along Alma from Ely Place to farther north. Will this buffer continue to exist? It is an important
safety feature needed for pedestrians walking along Alma at all times but especially in the winter
when it is dark due to shorter days. This route is well used, for example by students traveling
to/from Gunn, workers traveling to/from the San Antonio caltrain station, access to the three places
of worship along Alma, etc. If this buffer is removed an additional concern is increased noise and
pollution for residents with backyards next to Alma.
* Currently there is a 8 foot wide buffer (parking strip/planting strip) between the sidewalk and
Charleston along Charleston from Alma to farther east. Will this buffer continue to exists? It is an
important safety feature needed for pedestrians walking along Charleston at all times but
especially in the winter when it is dark due to shorter days. If this buffer is removed an additional
concern is increased noise and pollution for residents with front yards/backyards next to
Charleston.
* Currently there is a bike lane along the south side of Charleston from Alma to farther east. Will
this bike lane continue to exist? It is needed for cyclists starting out from a home on the south side
of Charleston and needing to travel east (e.g. to go to Peets or Piazza's or farther east).
* What are the specific plans for traffic detours needed when Meadow and Charleston are closed
for years? Children need to get to/from school
* At one of the XCAP meetings I attended a speaker indicated he "was not a roundabout expert".
Have you hired an expert in roundabouts to make sure this design will accomplish the objectives.
* A diagram in the fact sheet shows a crosswalk at the south east corner of Charleston/Alma.
Please note that crossing will be needed early in the morning or in the evening when it is dark as
well as during daylight hours. Will this crosswalk be protected by a traffic signal? Also in that
diagram it shows a walking path on the overpass right next to the traffic on Alma - that looks
dangerous.
* A diagram in the fact sheet shows crosswalks to the west and to the east of the roundabout.
Please note that crossing will be needed early in the morning or in the evening when it is dark as
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 52
well as during daylight hours. What measures are planned to ensure pedestrians/cyclists can cross
safely?
* Overall I feel that the underpass option discourages walking or biking eastbound or westbound
along Charleston or Meadow. The fact sheet indicates "Pedestrians and cyclists traveling
east/west will have more circuitous routes". I suggest you add that these routes are confusing and
dangerous - especially for children. A 4-5% grade will cause issues for children on bikes. Also
problematic are the ramps - steep with sharp turns.
T047 Townhall
Feedback General How can I get a copy of the survey I submitted previously?
T048 Townhall
Feedback General No.
T049 Townhall
Feedback General
1) Please put emphasis on voice of close by/impacted property owners
2) you need to seriously consider keeping all crossing opens and build pedestrian and bike
underpasses along w improving the timing of traffic lights. This should achieve the benefits stated
in the city council criteria for a much lower cost. You have the option of also eliminating left turns
onto Alma (completely or during peak hours). I urge you to seriously consider this- especially as it
is not clear whether/when Caltrain ridership will return to pre- Covid levels and funding is less
certain
T050 Townhall
Feedback General
It doesn't feel like cyclists and pedestrians have been seriously considered, much less prioritized,
in these designs. Having followed these designs through several iterations, I'm disappointed that
the infrastructure design consultants haven't addressed the detailed, thoughtful feedback that has
been provided via PABAC and XCAP.
And, while I appreciate the effort to communicate the options and information about this project
through a virtual town hall format, I question if this could have been mapped out more clearly and
simply. Considering you'll have constituents of varying tech fluency and levels of knowledge about
this project, the layout feels scattered and time consuming to navigate. I would suggest some user
testing prior to rolling out new formats like this to ensure a smoother experience for all.
T051 Townhall
Feedback Traffic
I would rather have the HSR killed completely than go through all of this. It's important to keep 4
lanes of car traffic on ALMA at the end of this. With all of the traffic calming and bike project being
put in. drivers are getting screwed. Car traffic is not evil.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 53
T052 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Underpass
We live within 100 yards of the Alma/Meadow intersection. The elevated options for
Meadow/Charleston would be an eyesore for generations and divide the community. I cannot think
of another rail location in the Bay Area that is elevated in a residential area. Almost all elevated
trains are in business districts where their impacts are not as negative. I strongly support the
underpass option at Meadow/Charleston
T053 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Underpass
Meadow and Charleston neighborhoods strongly prefer the underpass options to preserve the
integrity of our neighborhood communities. (No viaduct, hybrid or other elevated options)
T054 Townhall
Feedback General
Tooo much analysis leads to paralysis. The cost of funding additional consultants for additional
options, could have been used better to improve neighborhoods. or for staff .
I think to do this right, the city needs to take properties by eminent domain. . Many of the
homeowners will be dead or will have moved before any shovel hits the ground, since it will take
years to get started,
T055 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Thank you very much for putting this informative resource together.
We strongly favor the Hybrid for the Meadow / Charleston proposal, for the following reasons (
referring to the factsheet https://storage.net-
fs.com/hosting/6566581/3/files/file_571F3A7B_4A1C_1626_41B0_ACAE6BD26185.pdf):
- no acquisition of private properties is required (only driveway modifications). IMHO, this should
be the PRIMARY factor in the decision making process. The city council had declared this to be a
number one / top criterion early on in the process.
I must say that the video detailing the Charleston Underpass option construction process does the
city a disservice. With this option for Charleaston / Meadow, at least 3 properties will have to be
taken to accomodate the proposal. NOT A SINGLE COMMENT is made detailing or highlighting
the impacts on these properties in the video. Rather, the video seems to "glance over" the details
that 2 houses will have to be taken for the Charleston roundabout, and that an appartment
complex will have to be taken for the Meadow rightturn. It spends more time discussing the
impacts on trees than on these properties. This is unaccaptable and almost deceptive. I am urging
the city to AT LEAST highlight AND DISCUSS the impact, and not try to "sweep it under the
carpet". The video talks about the impact of the Charleston roundabout construction on the left
side of the roundabout (towards Middlefield). Where no houses have to be taken. NOT A SINGLE
WORD about the RIGHT SIDE, where 2 houses will have to be taken, and a third one (at the
corner of Mumford / Charleston) will get the end of the roundabout in the frontyard which will
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 54
reduce its property value considerably.
- cost: even compared to the underpass, the estimated $190M to $230M are considerably less
than the next cheapest option, the underpass / roundabouts for Charleston / Meadow.
- funding sources: the hybrid would require lower levels of local funding, with a substantial portion
of capital costs covered by Regional, State and Federal sources. Less taxes is better for
everybody.
- no Caltrain right-of-way acquisition expected makes the process easier from an adminstrative
point of view.
- No diversion of regional traffic, which keep the negative impact on the local traffic patterns
minimal - in comparison, the number of accomodations being planned for the underpass option, to
ensure that bicyclists and pedestrians can still go places and cross the traintracks etc., are
beoming a major project in itself. This does not seem to be reasonable given that there is a much
simpler and cheaper solution in form of the hybrid available.
Thank you for your work and consideration,
T056 Townhall
Feedback General
There has been NO information or communication on the impact on the properties situated near
the intersection of Charleston and Alma. We must not move forward until we present a plan to the
home owners.
T057 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
the tunnel doesn’t solve the problem with freight still at grade and the hybrid seems unnecessarily
complicated - I’ve always favored the trench idea - no houses removed - some will lose trees - the
Very best would be a tunnel the whole length of the thing!
T058 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Hybrid drawing Concept Plan does not clearly show Alma st going down then up and then down
and then up at Meadow and Charleston. I prefer Trench for Charleston/Meadow. However,
because of cost, I expect Hybrid to be selected.
T059 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
I understand the difficulty of the tunnel option, but the outcome is SO much better than the other
options. I'm sorry this option continues to be ignored. The very worst option of all is the viaduct,
which would be a continuing eyesore and noise problem for everyone along the route.
T060 Townhall
Feedback Multiple For Charleston Meadow, if a trench is not possible due to financial constraints, the viaduct will be
my second choice. The hybrid and underpass options are unacceptable.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 55
T061 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Are there any considerations of lowering Alma vs. messing with tracks.
Also, why not vote for top 3 ranking; so, if one (e.g., tunnel) gets eliminated; there is an
understanding of best of the rest... My rank would be 1. Tunnel with freight underground; 2.
Trench; 3. Viaduct. Viaduct is way better than hybrid; not up against back fence and doesn't
require lowering of roads.
T062 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
I think you should collect a ranking from citizens. Although I would pick Tunnel as 1st choice, my
understanding that this is actually off the table. My next choice is the Trench. The next would be
Viaduct which I feel is much better than the Hybrid. The Hybrid is too close to the Park Blvd fence
and it is a solid wall. There is only a 5 feet difference and is way more disruptive in building. I
would put the Underpass before the hybrid if people were well compensated for their property.
T063 Townhall
Feedback Churchill Viaduct As a second choice I would pick the Viaduct over the hybrid.
T064 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
I Want the train underground please. If that is not possible, put it on a viaduct so the roads don't
slope up and down like a racetrack. Worst options, please do not consider are the hybrid and
underpass.
T065 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
I mean, in a perfect world I'd like a tunnel but don't believe that it's realistic given the cost, so
picking trench as my preferred option.
Second choice is hybrid, but I'm dubious about the noise figures for this (which concludes that
trench is noisier than hybrid) - I know there are sound mitigations in hybrid for the wheels, but
noise from the upper part of the train (particularly the power pick ups) is significant in other high
speed train studies I've read, and that isn't mitigated at all in the hybrid option - but would be by
trench.
T066 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Why do the projects not include specifics on impacted houses on Charleston and Meadow, this
was completely glossed over in the videos? Enforcing eminent domain without offering a solution
to keep impacted citizens of palo alto in palo alto is shameful big government and in direct
opposition of the councils goals. The budget are grossly understated you cannot put an underpass
at Charleston and Meadow disrupting the residents mobility and quality of life as well as access for
3.5-4 years, which we all know will be much much longer and not include a plan for rehousing
them during construction. Charleston should not be Embarcadero South. Please do not destroy
families and our sense of community and peace by picking the charleston meadow underpass,
please.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 56
T067 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Why is a project that uses eminent domain even part of this proposal, and why are the videos so
ambiguous about exactly how many homes will be impacted? Using Eminent Domain to displace
citizen, and reduce property value of residents of east charleston rd is directly opposed to our city's
reputation as a city of inclusion and tolerance-inclusion must be for the residents of charleston and
east meadow, too-NO Eminent Domain.
The hybrid-$200m less, no property acquisitions, limited disruptions, mainly federal funding-
please be humane, civic minded, compassionate and responsible with your citizen's quality of life,
investments, and right to remain in their homes. The underpass and eminent domain should not be
used to take peoples homes when the city has other options-we are struggling to add housing-this
goes in the wrong direction-just NO
T068 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
The video for charleston-meadow underpass glosses over the property impacts, and does not
accurately show the APARTMENT COMPLEX expected to be claimed on E Meadow at all. Using
EMINENT DOMAIN for property takes when there are other cheaper options is shameful. Palo Alto
has a housing shortage and can not meet state quotas, why force more citizens out of their homes,
communities or reduce property value for the balance of East Charleston/Meadow residence by
creating Embarcadero South wheh the hybrid or trench options exist? One specific goal for this
project was to try and avoid property impacts, please be true to your goal and loyal to the ethics of
this city-community, compassion and inclusion-unnecessary property takes are anti palo alto.
Please do not victimize the citizens who have lived here and grown with palo alto by taking their
properties and investments in the name of progress-this is not progress, it is an assault-the city
has alternatives to eminent domain, please do not endorse any plans that take peoples properties.
T069 Townhall
Feedback
South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
The train is too noise and separates our city. Can we have the TUNNEL option? Thanks,
T070 Townhall
Feedback General
Why is north Palo Alto (Churchill) allowed to close their crossing, while south Palo Alto (Meadow)
is not allowed to close Meadow?
Closing Meadow would provide a great route for students bicycling to JLS, Gunn, Fairmeadow,
and Hoover.
T071 Townhall
Feedback Churchill Viaduct We are strongly opposed to viaduct at either location and feel that this would significantly disrupt
the feel of our community with marginal traffic benefit.
T072 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Viaduct in both places is the most equitable solution and cheaper than trenching or tunneling
solutions. Closing Churchill to vehicular traffic shifts the vehicular traffic to the remaining 6
crossings. This is unfair.
T073 Townhall
Feedback General What is the price of each option? My second choice would be viaduct, but it would be nice to know
the prices.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 57
T074 Townhall
Feedback General great due diligence study and nice virtual town hall setup
T075 Townhall
Feedback General This kind of polling mechanism is helpful but you gotta publicize if it’s going to have any value
T076 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Underpass
I want to say that the reason I am for the Hybrid alternative at Charleston Road and not the
underpass at Charleston road is because the underpass design puts a roundabout on Charleston
Road which I am completely against as it will create more traffic on Charelston, take private
property and completely destroy the whole purpose of the Charleston /Arastradero calming project.
Without the roundabout I would have been for the underpass.
T077 Townhall
Feedback General
The virtual town hall was well done but accessible mainly for people who are computer-savvy.
There should be additional outreach for the affected communities. For example a simple URL to
reach the surveys on the various options would be helpful. Or paper surveys perhaps in the utility
bill. Or phone surveys. For example in the Q+A Session 2, only 13 people had expressed an
opinion on an option - not a statistically significant sample.
T078 Townhall
Feedback General
OK This is my second attempt. I am not terribly interested in the construction phasing videos, but
they were good. I am interested in how bicycles (and pedestrians) will use these grade separations
to get across the corridor. There is not enough information for me to see how well this has been
thought out. I do know that when bikes are moved from one side of the street to another, there are
potentials for conflict. The rail crossings are only one part of the network, and bike routes have to
be integrated. Maybe it is hidden somewhere, but although the changes to Alma St are highlighted,
I was unable to see how the construction, or the ultimate solution, would affect the bike path from
Palo Alto Caltrain to Churchill Ave.
T079 Townhall
Feedback Churchill Viaduct
I was very worried about the Churchill Viaduct since I live very close to embarcadero but it seems
to be the option that has the highest reduction of the vibration caused by the freight trains going
through at night. Is that accurate? If so, I strongly support it as the freight trains will vibrate my
house at times and are very noisy. Please plan on mitigating the train noise and vibration as part of
any and all options.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 58
T080 Townhall
Feedback Traffic
I am concerned that the analysis of the potential mitigation actions for a Churchill Ave. closure has
been insufficient. The traffic study only focused on LOS and did not take into account the affect on
bicycle and pedestrian safety and on adjacent residential streets. The existing and projected traffic
volumes on Embarcadero are not included in the traffic analysis. The amount of community input
from (i) neighborhoods north of Embarcadero, (ii) PAUSD, (iii) Stanford, (iv) Town & Country, and
(v) bicycle advocates has been insufficient. Churchill is closely tied to Embarcadero and the traffic
patterns of Embarcadero and University/ Downtown are closely intertwined. This is a planning
effort that will be felt for the next 50 to 100 years, so it should be done on a more comprehensive
basis. The Embarcadero/ Alma St. bridge is almost 90 years old. Any attempt to widen or slightly
modify this bridge will likely only last a decade or so, if it can be done at all and yet it could cost
$50 million. It would make a lot more sense to make a well-integrated, long-term traffic/ bicycle/
pedestrian plan for North Palo Alto rather than a series of one-off, standalone, short-term fixes.
Palo Alto spent well over a decade preparing a Comprehensive Plan as a guide on long-term
strategic planning. Despite this fact, the Comprehensive Plan is barely discussed and has not
been used to guide the decisions of any body, either the XCAP or the City Council. These major
city planning efforts deserve a more comprehensive approach. Why do we have a Traffic and
Planning Commission if they are not involved in planning efforts such as this?
T081 Townhall
Feedback General Please take a long term view.
T082 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Underpass
I am deeply concerned about the Underpass and the disruptions to the Walnut Grove-
Greenmeadow neighbourhood especially as the result of the roundabout. My concerns also relate
to the use of Charleston and Meadows as crossing points for hundreds of school children . The
Underpass plan will increase vehicular traffic and will severely impact school children during and
after its construction. In my opinion, the Trench option is the best option.
Additionally, I also think that given the fact that nearly all companies are re-evaluating the need for
people to come into work daily (even after the current pandemic passes), we should be
reexamining the need for this project in the first place. Why do we need greater throughput of
Caltrain when the need for mass transit itself declines?
T083 Townhall
Feedback
South Palo Alto Tunnel
Passenger & Freight
Putting the trains into tunnels will minimize sound and improve RR crossing safety by eliminating
RR crossings.
T084 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Do not close Churchill. In a time when we are trying to bring people together, closing Churchill will
do nothing more than create a barrier.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 59
T085 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
* Need better $$ updates for final decisions to be made.
* Need to define temporary closures (time start to finish).
* Goal at end of the day, keep as close to what people have today to protect property values and
quality of life.
T086 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
I am strongly against closing Churchill because of concerns about emergency access to Southgate
& Paly, and also because of resulting congestion at Embarcadero & Page Mill. I think Palo Alto
should work with Caltrain to reevaluate ridership projections. With fewer trains it might not be
necessary to close Churchill all the time -- one could close only during commute times, if at all. The
bike/ped undercrossing in Option 1 could be retained, or one could consider an undercrossing at
Seale. I am against the undercrossing at Kellogg because of conflicts with Castilleja school traffic. I
am also strongly against any potential reopening of Southgate at Peers Park; given the narrow
streets in Southgate and the already heavy bike traffic on Castilleja Ave, adding any more
vehicular traffic through the neighborhood would be very dangerous.
T087 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Churchill Partial Underpass would be more favorable if the bike path didn't just come up in the
middle of a street.
Meadow/Charleston split between Viaduct and Hybrid. Really depends on what kind of parkspace
is available.
T088 Townhall
Feedback General
It seems wise to wait until the number of trains actually increases significantly, which may never
happen for many reasons.
Also, having lived right near one rail crossing and using it daily, one can't help notice how poorly
synchronized the traffic lights are with the trains. Fixing that would be far less expensive and
probably would postpone or eliminate the need for expensive solutions.
T089 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Seriously. How will you realistically deal with the thousands of cars driving through quiet
neighborhoods to circumvent a closed Churchill Avenue? How will you realistically deal with
Embarcadero and Oregon expressway Avenues, which are already totally backed up in normal
times to the freeway each morning, as Palo parents try to bring their students to school? The plan
to close Churchill affects so much more than just Southgate neighborhood. Closure will affect the
entire central area of Palo Alto as people try to figure out how to manage with just one or two
crossings. This doesn't even include the cars already on El Camino. El Camino in later afternoons
and mornings is also backed up. It can sometimes already take 20 mins to just go a couple of
blocks near Palo - to Oregon Expressway. Seriously.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 60
T090 Townhall
Feedback General
I don't believe Caltrain's projections, and the rise of self-driving cars and busses will make rigid
trains that miss the last mile to homes and businesses less important over time. If money were no
object I'd prefer tunnels and trenches, but I don't believe those to be feasible with the economy.
T091 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Comment: The closure times for underpass option at Charleston/Meadow make it a non-starter;
the viaduct has significantly less impact overall on traffic and provides the most traffic options after
completion. For Churchill, the underpass option is likely the best choice since a viaduct doesn't
meet CalTrain's incline requirements.
T092 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
I cannot find information regarding the Embarcadero slip road mitigation. I understand Palo Alto
High School parents are urged to drop off students using the slip road. This action would greatly
impact the safety and traffic congestion at the intersections of High Street, Embarcadero and
Alma. I did not see a grade separation option for trenching or tunneling of Caltrain tracks at
Churchill and Alma. Why not? All the current options will result in sending more cross traffic on
Embarcadero and neighboring streets. I suggest adding an option choice on your survey of Pause
the Churchill project till you have done a thorough traffic study and residents comments from the
Embarcadero corridor and Professorville up to Alma Street. Thank you.
T093 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
Am concerned about the alternatives presented. As for the trenching plans, having permanent
water pumps to handle rains well as ground water problems sounds worrisome. Will noise be a
problem for the neighbors during the rainy season? Power outages need to be taken care of with
back generators with diesel
fuel storage, etc. The viaduct solution has issues with aesthetics as well as noise. Are there sure
shot methods to take care of noise as well as hide the trains from the backyards of neighbors for
privacy reasons ?
The full tunnel approach may be attractive, except for the cost issues. As proposed by city council
candidate Ms. Rebecca Eisenberg, is it possible the land over the tunnel will be the city's and can
in turn be used to generate money that can go towards the extra cost of tunnel boring ?
T094 Townhall
Feedback General
It's important to me to minimize taking of private property as well as keeping traffic flowing at
Churchill. I KNOW it's possible to run quiet trains. The Japanese are doing it, right, but I guess the
freight trains will pretty much trash the rails. How can that be mitigated?
T095 Townhall
Feedback General
I'm very disappointed that despite Southgate residents participating in a survey, the results of
which you've seen. The council decided to vote without adhering to any of our comments. Which I
must say is the majority opinion.
I would encourage the committee to avoid being swayed by parties with a loud voice and instead
listen to the majority. After all you've been elected to represent the majority and not the rabble
rousers.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 61
T096 Townhall
Feedback General
Why not make no change at Churchill and Meadow until we find out how much the Covid crisis is
going to cost us? It is insane to spend such money, if we won't have the money to spend, and not
enough ridership to justify it.
T097 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
We bought our house with the expectation that Churchill would not be closed to access Alma from
Southgate. Closing Churchill would completely change the value of our house to people who use
Alma to commute, like we do.
T098 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Trench
Trench is our second choice. We know that any tunneling is expensive but we believe that
residents are willing to pay for it. Tunneling has long term benefits.
T099 Townhall
Feedback
Meadow Charleston
Trench
Trench is my second choice. Even though digging tunnels are expensive, overall, it's the right
choice to maintain a nice neighborhood. Absolutely despise the viaduct option.
T100 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
As a student, closing Churchill will have devastating effects for us, such as creating unsafe bike
routes, bottlenecks in already crowded mornings, and will make it far more difficult to reach school
on time.
T101 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Closing Churchill will gravely impact our students, our school community along with all the families
living on Embarcadero.
T102 Townhall
Feedback General I strongly urge the city to hit "pause" on the Churchill Avenue crossing solution.
T103 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Closing Churchill is a short-sighted idea. It's one of the main connecting routes for Palo Alto. Its
closure will negatively impact traffic for various neighborhoods and create bottlenecks on already
traffic-burdened Alma and Embarcadero (especially in cases like Stanford football games).
It's seems like a lazy solution to close churchill entirely; work needs to be put in to retain this
important road in our city.
T104 Townhall
Feedback General Churchill is a necessary street for traffic to and from school, whether it be with cars, bikes, or other
methods.
T105 Townhall
Feedback General Many students of Palo Alto High School and Stanford use Churchill and doing a project on it will
just increase traffic near Embarcadero, which makes everyone more stressed and angry.
T106 Townhall
Feedback General Xcap members should not have a conflict of interred this
T107 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Churchill is the primary bike route for students attending Paly. In general, Embarcadero is not very
bike friendly, and funneling more cars and bikes that way does not seem safe.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 62
T108 Townhall
Feedback Traffic will cause traffic congestion
T109 Townhall
Feedback General It will clog the area even more, making it nearly impossible to get to school on times.
T110 Townhall
Feedback General It will cause undue problems for Palo Students.
T111 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Decreasing the number of crossings will increase traffic at other crossings which is not equitable to
other neighborhoods and will also divide the City even more.
T112 Townhall
Feedback General
Not only is this a huge waste of money, cutting off access to Churchill Ave would make traveling
across Palo Alto incredibly inconvenient and inefficient. Expect more blockage at other railroad
intersections that are already crowded. Our taxpayer dollars can clearly be better spent elsewhere.
T113 Townhall
Feedback General This would create unsafe bike routes, impossible for students to bike to school.
T114 Townhall
Feedback General unsafe bike paths
T115 Townhall
Feedback General It will create dangerous bike routes and during the school year, students won’t be able to get to
school. This will cause undue stress on students.
T116 Townhall
Feedback General Do we really expect Caltrain to be in business 2 years from now? Do we expect similar commute
patterns 2 years from now? Why are we still talking about this? Seems like this should be DOA.
T117 Townhall
Feedback Churchill Viaduct Viaduct is the worst option. It will have very negative impact to the quality of living here.
T118 Townhall
Feedback General Biking will be more difficult
T119 Townhall
Feedback General Solution has to be equitable to all impacted neighborhoods.
T120 Townhall
Feedback General Creates more unsafe bike routes for kids to get to school ontime, could cause mental health issues
T121 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Churchill should remain open to reduce traffic
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 63
T122 Townhall
Feedback General
Community involvement and feedback needs to be carefully considered. Unfortunately, XCAP was
not balanced in a way that it could provide a balanced long-term view from the perspective of the
neighborhoods most impacted, nor from perspective of the larger community. But we also realize
that this is the first step in a much longer process, and that the long term impacts of the pandemic
will likely need to be well understood before proceeding with grade separation projects. Once the
process resumes, let's figure out how to move forward in a balanced, collaborative way with the
long-term future of impacted neighborhoods and all of Palo Alto in mind as the top priorities.
T123 Townhall
Feedback Traffic
Has a traffic impact study been done analyzing the effects of ONLY building pedestrian/bike
tunnels to remove all ped/bike surface activity and then adjusting the traffic signals? Once all
ped/bike activity is below grade, there is more time for cars to go straight and to turn in all
directions.
T124 Townhall
Feedback General should we be deciding the alternatives when there is question about Caltrain finances as well as
future ridership?
T125 Townhall
Feedback General There isn’t enough information about why this is being done. This would also cause major traffic in
other areas of Palo Alto that already have enough traffic.
T126 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
I think very short sighted to cut off places to cross. Putting everyone in Embarcadero is a horrible
idea with all those lights. We back up Middlefield during busy hours. Of course 2020 is a different
world
T127 Townhall
Feedback General Costs
T128 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
I don't think the Churchill closure with mitigations is a good idea. It would have a negative effect on
the traffic and congestion in the city. I would rather leave the Churchill intersection as is instead of
closing of the road completely.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 64
T129 Townhall
Feedback Multiple
1) More official feedback needs to be obtained from the Bicycle Advisory Committee. We in the
committee appreciate the outreach that was done but we have not been able to give direct
feedback to the XCAP on the options and listening to one of the XCAP meetings, it was clear
some of the members did not feel the need to get our input, even though bikes are vehicles too,
one key to reducing Green House Gasses, and a significant transportation user base which is
strongly affected by the option chosen, especially if a "bad" option is picked and can't simply be
fixed at the design stage. Bike/Ped impacts need to be one of the driving considerations in picking
an option, not a design tweak on the chosen option.
2) The Noise and Vibration section of the "Summary of Evaluation" is misleading and insufficiently
informative:
A) The noise/vibration impacts are all compared to existing conditions, which obscures big
differences between the options themselves (given the existing noise of diesel engines and
clanging bells and blaring horns, all grade separation options are a big improvement). It would be
better to have two rows for noise/impact: one for comparing to current, the other for comparing to
each other. B) The Noise and Vibration section of the materials is misleading in regards to the
Viaduct. While the Viaduct option is described in the blurb as "There would be significant reduction
to vibration levels" it is rated the same as or worse than all the other options, even though all the
other options have some variation of "There would be a slight reduction to vibration levels". In
talking with the noise and vibration expert, it was clear that the viaduct had the most reduction in
vibration from all the options (see my comments on the Viaduct option for details), but this
information is not conveyed in the summary, even though this is going to be a big benefit for the
people who live closest to the train, on Park Blvd.
T130 Townhall
Feedback
Churchill Closure with
Mitigations, Option 1
Do not close Churchill Ave as it is an important cross-town roadway. If the tunnel is too expensive,
then We prefer the hybrid partially raised, partially lowered option. Extend the bike lane the full
length of Palo Alto as part of this project, please! Thank you for all your work.
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 65
Appendix C – Individual Alternative
Feedback
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 66
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(Churchill Closure with Mitigation –Option 1)
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(Churchill Closure with Mitigation –Option 2)
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 67
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
5
10
15
20
25
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(Churchill Partial Underpass)
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
5
10
15
20
25
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(Churchill Viaduct)
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 68
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(Meadow/Charleston Hybrid)
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
5
10
15
20
25
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(Meadow/Charleston Trench)
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 69
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(Meadow/Charleston Underpass)
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(Meadow/Charleston Viaduct)
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 70
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(South Palo Alto Tunnel -Passenger &
Freight)
Good OK (Neutral)Bad
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
No
.
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
How would you rate this alternative?
(South Palo Alto Tunnel -At-Grade Freight)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11796)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Information Reports Meeting Date: 11/30/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Downtown Streets Team
Title: Downtown Streets Team Response to City Request for Information on
Harassment Allegations
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Recommendation
This is an informational report and no Council action is required.
Background
This report transmits the Downtown Streets Team’s (DST) response to the City Council’s request
for a report on the harassment allegations by former employees of DST against executives at
the firm and covered by local media. On June 15, 2020, the City Council adopted the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) draft 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan and draft
2020-21 Annual Action Plan. The Council also discussed the sexual harassment allegations
against DST and directed staff to request a report on the harassment allegations by the end of
August.1
Staff reached out to DST and received the first of two letters included in Attachment A. After an
initial review, staff communicated to DST that the letter did not appear responsive to the
Council’s request for a report and sought additional information. A second letter was
transmitted to the City by DST, which is also attached. Following receipt of the second letter,
the City’s Human Resources Director engaged the DST’s Director of Human Resources, Chief
Operating Officer, and Board Chair to encourage the agency to submit a more comprehensive
report. The DST maintains it has been responsive to the City Council’s request and transparent
about the harassment allegations. As such, DST’s position is that the attachments are sufficient.
These letters are being transmitted to the City Council for its consideration; no further staff
1 Action Minutes from City Council Meeting:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=48693.29&BlobID=77871
City of Palo Alto Page 2
action is anticipated on this matter.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Correspondence Provided By Downtown Streets Team (PDF)
Downtown Streets, Inc. is a 501 (C)(3) non-profit corporation | Tax ID: 20-5242330 | Streetsteam.org
Headquarters: 1671 The Alameda, Suite 306, San Jose, CA 95126
Downtown Streets Team builds Teams that restore dignity, inspire hope, and provide a pathway to recover from homelessness
September 16, 2020
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am writing to address your request for a response to the allegations made against the
organization.
Downtown Streets Team has always taken all claims seriously. The allegations are the first of its
kind in our history. The Board of Directors proactively hired a top investigatory firm to launch a
comprehensive, independent, and confidential examination of the claims. Their findings were
that most of the claims were completely unfounded, and the others were greatly exaggerated.
Furthermore, a clear and confidential internal reporting process was in place during the time of
the allegations, which was not accessed by the claimants.
The allegations are many years old, and Downtown Streets Team has made many organizational
changes to ensure we are above reproach and that each employee’s experience is a positive
one.
Since then, we have hired a Director of Human Resources with direct access to the Board of
Directors and a Board-level HR governance committee. Furthermore, we’ve signed up as a co-
employer with the top professional services provider in the Country, Insperity. This partnership
comes with increased HR resources and training for each employee and the organization as a
whole. Lastly, we’ve updated our employee handbook with high professional standards and two
avenues to report complaints anonymously.
Our Board and leadership team are confident that these changes will provide more layers that
this type of allegations will not happen again. As an organization, we have improved as we have
grown from two employees to eighty.
As the hometown of Downtown Streets Team, we are incredibly grateful for the City of Palo
Alto’s continued support of our mission, which is more critical than ever. Please reach out if you
have any questions or need anything else from us.
With our deepest thanks,
Elfreda Strydom
Chief Operations Officer – Downtown Streets Team – www.streetsteam.org
(650)504-6565 • elfreda@streetsteam.org
Attachment A Response # 1
Downtown Streets, Inc. is a 501 (C)(3) non-profit corporation | Tax ID: 20-5242330 | Streetsteam.org
Headquarters: 1671 The Alameda, Suite 306, San Jose, CA 95126
Downtown Streets Team builds Teams that restore dignity, inspire hope, and provide a pathway to recover from homelessness
October 15, 2020
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
1.In regard to the investigation conducted by an investigatory firm:
a.What was the scope of the investigation and/or specific charges being
investigated as stated in the investigatory report?
DST retained the services from Law Offices of Amy Oppenheimer to investigate a
complaint DST received from five former female employees with various
concerns stemming from their time at DST.
b.How many interviews were conducted?
1)An online survey was sent to all employees to assess the current work
environment after many changes and updates to the policies, procedures and
practices to address some of the concerns.
2)Twelve individual employee interviews were conducted.
c.How long did the investigation take?
Approximately 11 months.
d.How many hours of work went into the investigation?
Law Offices of Amy Oppenheimer spent 250 hours on the investigation
e.How many pages was the final report?
44 pages
f.What standard was used for the outcome or finding? (This is typically stated in
the written investigatory report.)
The investigator analyzed the facts and determined whether the allegations
were with or without merit under a preordinance of investigation standard.
“Preordinance of the evidence”, for the purpose of this Report, means that the
evidence on one side outweighs, or is more than, the evidence on the other side.
This is a qualitative measure, not a quantitative standard.
2.In addition to the appointment of a Human Resources Officer, what changes have been
implemented (e.g., new or changes to policies, practices or other organizational/systemic
changes)
In addition to appointing a Director of Human Resources, the Board has created an HR
governance committee to oversee all policies and procedures. Furthermore, DST signed
up as a co-employer with the top professional services provider in the Country, Insperity.
This partnership comes with increased HR resources and training for each employee and
Attachment A Response # 2
Downtown Streets Team, Inc. is a 501 (C)(3) non-profit corporation | Tax ID: 20-5242330 |
Streetsteam.org 2
the organization as a whole. We’ve updated our employee handbook with high
professional standards and two avenues to report complaints anonymously.
3.What tangible outcomes have been achieved since the appointment of a Human
Resources Officer and other changes described in #2?
The HR Director has been educating DST management on HR best practices such as the
employment life cycle, evaluating performance, developing employee relationships, and
incorporating different perspectives and views. Lastly, the HR Director has been
responsible for building and managing a new system to recruit, attract, hire, train, and
motivate DST’s employees.
The change in policies and training motivates DST staff to perform at the highest level
possible and maintain an organizational culture of high morale.
With our deepest thanks,
Elfreda Strydom
Chief Operations Officer – Downtown Streets Team – www.streetsteam.org
(650)504-6565 • elfreda@streetsteam.org
Attachment A Response # 2