Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-05-22 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council 1 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. May 22, 2017 Special Meeting Community Meeting Room 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 11 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Study Session 1.Joint Study Session With the Palo Alto Youth Council 2.Joint Study Session With the Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 7:00-7:10 PM Oral Communications 7:10-7:25 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 7:25-7:30 PM 3.Approval of Action Minutes for the May 8, 2017 Council Meeting AT THIS TIME COUNCIL WILL MOVE TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:00-6:00 PM 6:00-7:00 PM REVISED 2 May 22, 2017 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Consent Calendar 7:30-7:35 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 4.Preliminary Approval of the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) 2017-2018 Annual Report; Adoption of a Resolution Declaring an Intention to Levy an Assessment Against Businesses Within the BID for Fiscal Year 2018 and Setting a Time and Place for a Public Hearing on June 12, 2017 at 6:00 PM or Thereafter, in the City Council Chambers 5.Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Professional Services Contract Number C15157200 With Walker Parking Consultants for the Design of a Downtown Automated Parking Guidance System Extending the Contract Term Through June 30, 2018 6.Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (General Storm and Surface Water Drainage) to Implement the Storm Water Management Fee Approved by Palo Alto Property Owners via Mail Ballot Election on April 11, 2017 Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:35-9:15 PM 7.Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 8.Comprehensive Plan Update: Review of the Draft Business & Economics Element Recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee (CONTINUED FROM MAY 15, 2017) 9:15-10:30 PM 3 May 22, 2017 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Sp. Policy & Services Committee May 23, 2017 Sp. Rail Committee May 24, 2017 Sp. Finance Cancellation May 25, 2017 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Responses to Questions From City Council Following the October 4, 2016 Joint Study Session With the Library Advisory Commission Proclamation Honoring Emergency Medical Services Week, May 21-27, 2017 City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Digest Summary Third Quarter Sales (July – September 2016) Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly Performance Report for the Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2017 Public Letters to Council Set 1 Set 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7827) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/22/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Study Session with Youth Council Title: Joint Study Session with the Palo Alto Youth Council From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services CITY OF PALO ALTO Joint Study Session with the Palo Alto Youth Council May 22, 2017 Potential Topics for Discussion: 1. Introduction to the Palo Alto Youth Council (PAYC) Officers 2. Accomplishments for the year 3. Other topics 4. Looking Forward to 2018 5. Council Comments and Questions City of Palo Alto (ID # 8115) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/22/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Parks and Recreation Commission Study Session Title: Study Session With the Parks and Recreation Commission From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Below are the potential topics of discussion for the joint study session with the Parks and Recreation Commission. 1) 2016-17 Accomplishments 2) 2017-2018 Priorities 3) Other items CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 15, 2017 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the May 1, 2017 Council Meeting Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: 05-01-17 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 16 Special Meeting May 1, 2017 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:08 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Absent: Special Orders of the Day 1. Proclamation Recognizing Progress on Byxbee Park. Study Session 2. Prescreening of a Proposed Hotel Development at 3200 El Camino Real and Proposed Modification or Elimination of the 50'-0" Special Setback Along Hansen Way. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Minutes Approval 3. Approval of Action Minutes for the April 11 and 17, 2017 Council Meetings. MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to approve the Action Minutes for the April 11 and 17, 2017 Council Meetings. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Consent Calendar MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-10. 4. Approval of Seven Separate Contract Amendments With; Forsys Inc., Sierra Infosys, Inc., HPC Heck & Partner Consulting, Inc. dba: HPC DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 16 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/1/17 America, Techlink Systems, Inc., Quintel-MC, Inc., DGN Technologies, Inc., and Khalid Salman Mohammed for SAP Professional Services in a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $350,000 Annually for all Seven Contracts. 5. Approval of Supplement Number 1 to Amended and Restated Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) Joint Powers Agreement to add the City of Shasta Lake as a NCPA Member. 6. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute a Master License Agreement for use of City-Controlled Space on Utility Poles and Streetlight Poles and in Conduits With Astound Broadband, LLC, DBA Wave for a Combined Initial and Potential Extension Term of 20 Years. 7. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C16158064 With BKF Engineers for a Time Extension From March 27, 2017 to September 27, 2018 for the Embarcadero Road Corridor Improvements Project (CIP PL-15001). 8. Resolution 9677 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Decommissioning the Storm Drain Oversight Committee on May 31, 2017 and Establishing a New Storm Water Management Oversight Committee.” 9. Ordinance 5411 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.11 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Reauthorize Public, Education, and Government (PEG) Access Fees That Will Apply to AT&T as it Provides Service Under its State Video Franchise (FIRST READING: April 17, 2017 PASSED 9-0).” 10. Approval of a Contract With BiblioCommons Incorporated for BiblioCommons Service Platform for the Palo Alto City Library for a First Year Cost Not-to-Exceed $173,220, and Full Contract to Last not More Than Three Years (2017-2020) for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $323,764 and Approval of a Budget Amendment in the Technology Fund. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Action Items At this time Council heard Agenda Item Numbers 11 and 12 concurrently. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 16 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/1/17 11. Comprehensive Plan Update: City Council Review and Direction Regarding the Revised Draft Transportation Element. 12. Comprehensive Plan Update: City Council Review and Direction Regarding the Revised Draft Land Use and Community Design Element. MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to direct Staff to include in the final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update: 1. Transportation Infrastructure Investments: A. Improvements within existing rights-of-way that provide for traffic calming or relatively small increases in roadway capacity by adding turn lanes or making other intersection adjustments; and B. Full grade separations for automobiles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at Caltrain crossings; and C. Retrofit/improvements to existing grade separated Caltrain crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists at California Avenue and University Avenue; and D. Construction of new pedestrian and bicycle grade separated crossings of Caltrain in South Palo Alto and in North Palo Alto; and E. Pedestrian and bicycle improvements derived from the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan as amended over time; and F. The United States Route 101/Adobe Creek bicycle and pedestrian bridge; and G. El Camino Real intersection and pedestrian safety/streetscape improvements; and H. Downtown mobility and safety improvements; and I. Geng Road extension to Laura Lane; and J. Middlefield Road corridor improvements. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 16 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/1/17 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part G, “including existing and potential underpasses.” MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to direct Staff to include in the final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update: 1. Transportation Infrastructure Investments: A. Improvements within existing rights-of-way that provide for traffic calming or relatively small increases in roadway capacity by adding turn lanes or making other intersection adjustments; and B. Full grade separations for automobiles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at Caltrain crossings; and C. Retrofit/improvements to existing grade separated Caltrain crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists at California Avenue and University Avenue; and D. Construction of new pedestrian and bicycle grade separated crossings of Caltrain in South Palo Alto and in North Palo Alto; and E. Pedestrian and bicycle improvements derived from the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan as amended over time; and F. The United States Route 101/Adobe Creek bicycle and pedestrian bridge; and G. El Camino Real intersection and pedestrian safety/streetscape improvements including existing and potential underpasses; and H. Downtown mobility and safety improvements; and I. Geng Road extension to Laura Lane; and J. Middlefield Road corridor improvements. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 16 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/1/17 MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to direct Staff to include in the final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update: 2. Transportation Infrastructure Assumptions: A. Elements of the County’s Expressway Plan 2040 in or near Palo Alto, including a bicycle/pedestrian trail between Interstate 280 and Foothill Expressway intersection improvements along Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road between Porter Drive and Hansen Way and at El Camino Real, reconfiguration of the interchange at Interstate 280/Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road, and an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)/signal system Countywide; and B. United States Route 101 southbound improvements from San Antonio Road and Rengstorff Avenue; and C. Caltrain modernization including electrification; and D. Bus rapid transit in mixed flow lanes on El Camino Real using curbside boarding platforms and queue jumping; and E. Improved circulation in the Palo Alto Transit Center, including direct access to El Camino Real for transit vehicles. AMENDMENT: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to add to the Motion Part A, “widening Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road with High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and” after “near Palo Alto, including.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part A, “separated” before “bicycle/pedestrian trail.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion “add to the Roadway and Intersection Improvements Sub-section, ‘the City will review these proposals as provided for in the regional collaboration policies contained in this Element” after “under the jurisdiction of the City.’” (New Part F) AMENDMENT PASSED: 9-0 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 16 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/1/17 MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to direct Staff to include in the final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update: 2. Transportation Infrastructure Assumptions: A. Elements of the County’s Expressway Plan 2040 in or near Palo Alto, including widening Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road with High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and a separated bicycle/pedestrian trail between Interstate 280 and Foothill Expressway intersection improvements along Oregon-Page Mill between Porter Drive and Hansen Way and at El Camino Real, reconfiguration of the interchange at Interstate 280/Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road, and an ITS/signal system Countywide; and B. United States Route 101 southbound improvements from San Antonio Road and Rengstorff Ave.; and C. Caltrain modernization including electrification; and D. Bus rapid transit in mixed flow lanes on El Camino Real using curbside boarding platforms and queue jumping; and E. Improved circulation in the Palo Alto Transit Center, including direct access to El Camino Real for transit vehicles; and F. Add to the Roadway and Intersection Improvements Sub- section, “the City will review these proposals as provided for in the regional collaboration policies contained in this Element” after “under the jurisdiction of the City.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to direct Staff to include in the final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update: 3. Other Transportation Element Revisions: A. Reducing reliance on single occupant vehicles through Transportation Demand Management (TDM), expansion of the shuttle program, bicycle & pedestrian improvements, and other means; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 16 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/1/17 B. Effective first mile/last mile solutions; and C. Continuing to work to address traffic congestion; and D. Enhancing connectivity; and E. Addressing neighborhood impacts; and F. Managing parking demand and evaluating changing parking needs over time; and G. Prioritizing pedestrian and cyclist safety; and H. Meeting the needs of transit dependent communities; and I. Preparing for technological and societal changes that will affect transportation and parking demand; and J. Prioritizing Caltrain grade separations and regional cooperation. AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to replace in the Motion Part E, “addressing” with “prioritize avoidance of.” AMENDMENT RESTATED: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to add to the Motion, “review the Policies and Programs under Goal T-4 with the objective of prioritizing avoidance of neighborhood impacts instead of mitigating impacts.” AMENDMENT FAILED: 3-6 DuBois, Holman, Kou yes INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “remove from Program T1.24.1, ‘that new development projects must pay to the City.’” (New Part K) INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “replace in Program T2.3.1, “adopt” with “explore.” (New Part L) AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to add to the Motion, “add to Program T5.1.2, ‘multi-family housing’ after ‘requirements for’ and after ‘encourage new.’” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 8 of 16 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/1/17 AMENDMENT RESTATED: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to add to the Motion, “add a new program T5.1.5, ‘consider reducing parking requirements for multi-family uses as a way to encourage new multi-family housing and the use of alternative modes.’” INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add at the end of the Amendment, “where reduction in parking would not impact the neighborhood.” AMENDMENT AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to add to the Motion, “add a new program T5.1.5, ‘consider reducing parking requirements for multi-family uses as a way to encourage new multi-family housing and the use of alternative modes where reduction in parking would not impact the neighborhood.’” AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to replace in the Amendment, “multi-family” with “affordable.” AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to add to the Motion, “add a new program T5.1.5, ‘consider reducing parking requirements for multi-family uses as a way to encourage new multi-family housing and the use of alternative modes where reduction in parking would not impact the neighborhood.’” (New Part M) AMENDMENT AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-3 Filseth, Holman, Kou no AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “remove from Policy T-5.11, ‘of nearby businesses.’” AMENDMENT RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “add to Policy T-5.11, ‘and uses’ after ‘of nearby businesses.’” (New Part N) DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 9 of 16 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/1/17 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “add to Program T5.11.1, ‘and local businesses and other stakeholders’ after ‘and neighborhood groups.’” (New Part O) INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “add to Policy T-5.6, ‘and explore mechanized parking’ after ‘structured parking.’” (New Part P) INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “add a Policy in support of autonomous vehicle development and deployment.” (New Part Q) AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “remove from Policy T-1.24, ‘when other sources are unavailable, continue to fund improvements, operations and maintenance through the general fund.’” AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “add to Policy T-2.4, ‘while maintaining the ability to customize to the Palo Alto context’ after ‘roads in Palo Alto.’” (New Part R) AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the Motion, “add to Program T5.12.3, ‘while avoiding removing needed automobile parking.’” AMENDMENT FAILED: 3-6 DuBois, Holman, Kou yes AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the Motion, “add to Policy T-1.14, ‘prevent shuttles from using collector and local streets.’” AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “replace Program T1.2.2 Bullet 3 with, ‘establish a mechanism to monitor the success of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures.’” AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 10 of 16 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/1/17 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “replace in Policy T-1.24, ‘evaluate transportation funding measures’ with ‘pursue transportation funding opportunities.’” (New Part S) INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “add to Policy T-5.6, ‘on’ after ‘including.’” (New Part T) AMENDMENT: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to add to the Motion, “add to Policy T-5.11, ‘work to’ before ‘protect.’” AMENDMENT RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to add to the Motion, “add to Policy T-5.11, ‘recognizing that fully addressing some existing intrusions may take time’ after ‘and uses.’” (New Part U) AMENDMENT PASSED: 9-0 MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to direct Staff to include in the final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update: 3. Other Transportation Element Revisions: A. Reducing reliance on single occupant vehicles through Transportation Demand Management (TDM), expansion of the shuttle program, bicycle & pedestrian improvements, and other means; and B. Effective first mile/last mile solutions; and C. Continuing to work to address traffic congestion; and D. Enhancing connectivity; and E. Addressing neighborhood impacts; and F. Managing parking demand and evaluating changing parking needs over time; and G. Prioritizing pedestrian and cyclist safety; and H. Meeting the needs of transit dependent communities; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 11 of 16 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/1/17 I. Preparing for technological and societal changes that will affect transportation and parking demand; and J. Prioritizing Caltrain grade separations and regional cooperation; and K. Remove from Program T1.24.1, “that new development projects must pay to the City;” and L. Replace in Program T2.3.1, “adopt” with “explore;” and M. Add a new program T5.1.5, “consider reducing parking requirements for multi-family uses as a way to encourage new multi-family housing and the use of alternative modes where reduction in parking would not impact the neighborhood;” and N. Add to Policy T-5.11, “and uses” after “of nearby businesses;” and O. Add to Program T5.11.1, “and local businesses and other stakeholders” after “and neighborhood groups;” and P. Add to Policy T-5.6, “and explore mechanized parking” after “structured parking;” and Q. Add a Policy in support of autonomous vehicle development and deployment; and R. Add to Policy T-2.4, “while maintaining the ability to customize to the Palo Alto context” after “roads in Palo Alto;” and S. Replace in Policy T-1.24 , “evaluate transportation funding measures” with “pursue transportation funding opportunities;” and T. Add to Policy T-5.6, “on” after “including;” and U. Add to Policy T-5.11, “recognizing that fully addressing some existing intrusions may take time” after “and uses.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 Council took a break from 9:24 P.M. to 9:33 P.M. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 12 of 16 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/1/17 MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to direct Staff to include in the final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update: Land Use & Community Design Revisions. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to add to the Motion, “remove Program L1.9.2.” (New Part A) AMENDMENT PASSED: 6-3 DuBois, Holman, Kou no AMENDMENT: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to add to the Motion, “add a new Program L2.4.7, ‘explore increasing multi- family housing density near jobs and transit.’” INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Amendment, “jobs and transit” with “multimodal transit centers.” INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Amendment, “mechanisms for” after “explore.” AMENDMENT RESTATED: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to add to the Motion, “add a new Program L2.4.7, ‘explore mechanisms for increasing multi-family housing density near multimodal transit centers.’” (New Part B) AMENDMENT AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-4 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou no INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “add to Policy L2.9, ‘and explore opportunities to expand retail opportunities.’” (New Part C) INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “remove from Program L3.5.1, ‘Land use issues. Evaluate the City’s policy of excluding basements from the gross floor area and maximum floor area ratio limits in the zoning ordinance. Consider zoning revisions, including greater setbacks, to limit basement size and increase basement setbacks from adjacent properties.’” (New Part D) AMENDMENT: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to add to the Motion, “remove from Program 4.1.1, ‘and consider whether these limits should be applied in other Centers. Develop incentives for local small businesses where warranted.’” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 13 of 16 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/1/17 INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove from the Amendment, “develop incentives for local small businesses where warranted.” AMENDMENT AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to add to the Motion, “remove from Program 4.1.1, ‘and consider whether these limits should be applied in other Centers.’” (New Part E) AMENDMENT AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 AMENDMENT: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to add to the Motion, “add a new Program 4.7.2, ‘explore adding additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for retail at Stanford Shopping Center.” (New Part F) AMENDMENT PASSED: 8-1 Kou no AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to add to the Motion, “to clarify that software development is allowed Downtown.” (New Part G) AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member XX to replace in the Amendment, “Downtown” with “Palo Alto.” AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF SECOND AMENDMENT PASSED: 6-3 Filseth, Holman, Kou no AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to add to the Motion, “nascent startups should be able to start in houses.” AMENDMENT FAILED: 3-6 Fine, Tanaka, Wolbach yes INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “replace in Policy L-1.3, ‘promote infill development in the urban service are that is’ with ‘infill development in the urban service area should be.’” (New Part H) AMENDMENT: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to add to the Motion, “restore in Policy L-1.3, ‘avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale.’” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 14 of 16 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/1/17 INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Amendment, “land uses” with “projects.” AMENDMENT AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to add to the Motion, “restore in Policy L-1.3, ‘avoid projects that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale.’” AMENDMENT AS AMENDED FAILED: 4-5 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou yes INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “add to Program L-1.3.1, ‘as appropriate’ after ‘remove these barriers.’” (New Part I) INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “replace in Program L9.6.1, ‘citywide average’ with ‘citywide standard.” (New Part J) AMENDMENT: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to add to the Motion, “move the Policy regarding assessment of school impacts associated with legislative actions from the Community Services Element to the Land Use and Community Design Element.” AMENDMENT RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “return to Council with additional information pertaining to moving the Policy regarding assessment of school impacts associated with legislative actions from the Community Services Element to the Land Use and Community Design Element.” (New Part K) AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “replace in Program L6.7.1, ‘implement’ with ‘explore.’” AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “add to Program L2.4.2, ‘and no reduction of retail square footage results’ after ‘retail is maintained.’” (New Part L) AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to add to the Motion, “remove Program L4.4.1.” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 15 of 16 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/1/17 AMENDMENT FAILED: 3-6 DuBois, Holman, Kou yes INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “explore and potentially support new, creative and innovative retail in Palo Alto.” (New Part M) AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “restore references to historic preservation.” AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “add a Policy, ‘infrastructure goals should be accomplished prior to development that would rely on that infrastructure to be sustainable.’” AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “remove Policy L-7.2.” AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “replace in Policy L-6.3, ‘require’ with ‘encourage.’” (New Part N) MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to direct Staff to include in the final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update: 4. Land Use & Community Design Revisions. A. Remove Program L1.9.2; and B. Add a new Program L2.4.7, “explore mechanisms for increasing multi-family housing density near multimodal transit centers;” and C. Add to Policy L2.9, “and explore opportunities to expand retail opportunities;” and D. Remove from Program L3.5.1, “Land use issues. Evaluate the City’s policy of excluding basements from the gross floor area and maximum floor area ratio limits in the zoning ordinance. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 16 of 16 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/1/17 Consider zoning revisions, including greater setbacks, to limit basement size and increase basement setbacks from adjacent properties;” and E. Remove from Program 4.1.1, “and consider whether these limits should be applied in other Centers;” and F. Add a new Program 4.7.2, “explore adding additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for retail at Stanford Shopping Center;” and G. To clarify that software development is allowed Downtown; and H. Replace in Policy L-1.3, “promote infill development in the urban service are that is” with “infill development in the urban service area should be;” and I. Add to Program L-1.3.1, “as appropriate” after “remove these barriers;” and J. Replace in Program L9.6.1, “citywide average” with “citywide standard;” and K. Return to Council with additional information pertaining to moving the Policy regarding assessment of school impacts associated with legislative actions from the Community Services Element to the Land Use and Community Design Element; and L. Add to Program L2.4.2, “and no reduction of retail square footage results” after “retail is maintained;” and M. Explore and potentially support new, creative and innovative retail in Palo Alto; and N. Replace in Policy L-6.3, “require” with “encourage.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-1 Kou no Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements None. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:43 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 8114) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/22/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District Reauthorization Title: Preliminary Approval of the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) 2017-2018 Annual Report; Adoption of a Resolution Declaring an Intention to Levy an Assessment Against Businesses Within the BID for Fiscal Year 2018 and Setting a Time and Place for a Public Hearing on June 12, at 6:00 PM or Thereafter, in the City Council Chambers From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council: 1. Preliminarily approve the Business Improvement District (BID) Advisory Board’s 2017-2018 Annual Report (Attachment A) and; 2. Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessments in the Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2018 (Attachment B), setting a date and time for the public hearing on the levy of the proposed assessments for June 12, 2017, at 6:00 PM, or as soon thereafter, in the City Council Chambers. Executive Summary This City Council action includes a preliminary approval of the BID Board’s annual report, and sets a time and place for a public hearing for the staff presentation, and to determine any objections to the assessments. Since the BID inception in 2004, a number of activities consistent with State BID law have been accomplished by the Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association (PADBPA), the entity with which the City contracts to provide services to the nearly 800 businesses assessed in the Downtown. These include addressing the three main issues facing downtown businesses: cleanliness, safety, and attractiveness, as well as participation in City capital improvement project such as utility infrastructure, parking, mobility, transportation, and other matters affecting downtown businesses. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Assessments for BID businesses are based on the size, type and location of the business. Assessments range from $50 for individually owned professional businesses to $500 annually for financial institutions. The PADBPA has monthly open meetings governed by the Ralph M. Brown Act which any business or individual can attend. Background The Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) was established by the City Council in 2004 pursuant to the California Parking and Business Improvement Area Law to maintain economic vitality and physical maintenance of the Palo Alto Downtown business district. The Council appointed the Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association (PADBPA), a non-profit corporation, as the Advisory Board for the BID. PADBPA (acting through its independent Board of Directors) advises the Council on the method and basis for levy of assessments in the BID and the expenditure of revenues derived from the assessments. Pursuant to BID law, the Advisory Board must annually submit to the Council a report that proposes a budget for the upcoming Fiscal Year for the BID. The report must: 1) propose any boundary changes in the BID; 2) list the improvements and activities to be provided in the Fiscal Year; 3) estimate the cost to provide the improvements and activities; 4) set forth the method and basis for levy of assessments; 5) identify surplus or deficit revenues carried over from the prior Fiscal Year; and 6) identify amounts of contributions from sources other than assessments. The Council needs to: 1) review the report and preliminarily approve it as proposed or as changed by the Council; 2) adopt a resolution of intention to levy the assessments for the upcoming Fiscal Year; and 3) set a date and time for the public hearing on the levy of assessments in the BID. Absent a majority protest at the public hearing on June 12, 2017, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council may adopt a resolution confirming the report for Fiscal Year 2018 as filed or as modified by the Council. The adoption of the resolution constitutes the levying of the BID assessments for Fiscal Year 2018. On June 6, 2016, City Council directed staff to: 1. Review mechanisms for modifying the Fee Structure to require larger companies to pay a larger portion of the district costs; and 2. Review mechanisms for modifying the contract with the Downtown Business and Professional Association so that activities are not construed to include lobbying; and 3. Investigating other structures for the Business Improvement District (BID) that may provide a more efficient use of the funds that minimizes staff and administrative overhead and focuses more on direct services; and 4. Evaluate the boundaries of the BID to align with other Downtown boundaries. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Since that time, limited action has been taken due to the vacancies in the City Manager’s Office as well as competing pressures from other City Council priority projects. On November 22, 2016 the City received a letter from PADBPA regarding Council’s direction (Attachment C). City staff and the Advisory Board began to address No. 2 and No. 3 during Fiscal Year 2017. The attached proposed budget for the Palo Alto Downtown BID for Fiscal Year 2018 begins to address the more efficient use of the funds. City staff will reevaluate City Council recommendations No. 1 and No. 4 during Fiscal Year 2018, upon full staffing of the City Manager’s Office, and return to City Council with recommendations. Discussion The Advisory Board has prepared a report for the Council’s consideration which includes the proposed budget for the Palo Alto Downtown BID for Fiscal Year 2018. As required by BID law, the report has been filed with the City Clerk and contains a list of the improvements, activities, and associated costs proposed in the BID for Fiscal Year 2018. The Advisory Board has recommended no change in the BID boundaries or the method and basis for levying assessments. A map of the BID and the proposed assessment schedule is attached. The proposed assessments in the BID for Fiscal Year 2018 are the same as the assessments in Fiscal Year 2017. The budget report for Fiscal Year 2018 was reviewed and approved by the Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association board in May 2017. As per the agreement that the City and PADBPA have entered, the City has certain responsibilities as it pertains to the invoicing and collection of BID revenues. Specifically the City creates and sends invoices, and manages payment collections for the first 60 days. PADBPA is then responsible for collections after the 60 days. The City contracts with an outside firm, MuniServices, to handle all aspects of the City’s responsibilities to the BID in terms of invoicing, billing, and collections. If Council moves forward with the assessment for 2018, staff will continue to employ MuniServices as the administering agent. Resource Impact Adoption of the proposed BID budget does not impact City revenue. BID assessments are restricted for use exclusively by the BID. It is anticipated that a healthy BID will encourage vitality in the retail community and consequently result in additional sales tax revenue for the City. Staff time from the City Manager’s Office is expended annually to provide oversight to the BID, administer the contract with MuniServices, liaise with stakeholders and prepare the annual reauthorization. The cost and collection of BID assessments, including those past 60 days is borne by the BID assessment revenues. The Attorney's Office will continue to provide legal oversight to the BID during the annual reauthorization process. During Fiscal Year 2018, staff will return to Council with resource impacts with regards to Council direction from June 6, 2016. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Attachments: Attachment A - Annual Report Attachment B - Resolution Declaring Intention to Levy BID FY18 Introduction This report from the Advisory Board of the Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association (“PAd”) was prepared for City Council to review for the annual reauthorization of the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District (“BID”) pursuant to Section 36533 of the Parking and Business Improvement Law of 1989 (Section 36500 and following of the California Streets and Highways code) (the “Law”). This report is for the proposed fiscal year for the BID commencing July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018. (“Fiscal Year 2017-18”). As required by the Law, this report contains the following information: I. Any proposed changes in BID boundaries and benefit zones within the BID; II. The improvements and activities to be provided for Fiscal Year 2017-18; III. An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements and the activities for Fiscal Year 2017- 18; IV. The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for Fiscal Year 2017-18. V. The amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year. VI. The amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to the Law. Submitted by Brad Ehikian, Chair, and Russ Cohen, Executive Director on behalf of the Advisory Board (“Advisory Board”) of the Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association (“PAd”). The Advisory Board approved this report on May 10, 2017. Received on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Palo Alto on May 11, 2017. Background: On June 6, 2016, in approving the Fiscal Year 2017 reauthorization the City Council requested that City staff and PAd address the following: 1. Review mechanisms for modifying the Fee Structure to require larger companies to pay a larger portion of the district costs; and 2. Review mechanisms for modifying the contract with the Downtown Business and Professional Association so that activities are not construed to include lobbying; and 3. Investigating other structures for the Business Improvement District (BID) that may provide a more efficient use of the funds that minimizes staff and administrative overhead and focuses more on direct services; and 4. Evaluate the boundaries of the BID to align with other Downtown boundaries. In response PAd issued a letter to City staff on November 22, 2016 and convened a taskforce that has worked to define appropriate and inappropriate uses of District funds, including the Association's work as a liaison between businesses and City departments, advocacy on behalf of member businesses, and lobbying. The taskforce has also reviewed the assessment structure and district boundaries but limited action has been taken due to the vacancies in the City Manager’s Office. City staff and PAd began to address City Council motions No. 2 and No. 3 during Fiscal Year 2017. The attached proposed budget for the Palo Alto Downtown BID for Fiscal Year 2018 begins to address the more efficient use of the funds. The Association in partnership with City staff will continue to address City Council recommendations No. 1 and No. 4 during Fiscal Year 2018. Section I: BID boundaries and Benefit Zones There have been no changes in the BID boundaries or benefit zones within the BID and no changes are proposed. The current boundaries are depicted on the map below. The area of the BID is referred to as “Downtown.” 934- 9 4 4 927 932 233 281 933 - 9 3 7 943 327 1001 942 469 475 744 459 832 801 A P T 1 - 5 427-453 920912 362 370 900 838 846 471 459 835 - 8 5 5 460 815 840836 834 845 400 803 928930 931933 835 - 8 3 7 831- 8 3 3 451453 802800 810 - 8 1 6 818 - 8 2 0 828 - 8 3 0 817- 8 1 9 823 - 8 2 5 567-569 559563 536 526 100 1 101 1 - 540 483 904 912 468 918 926 537 965-971505-507 519-521 939-945 931-935 923-925518-520 539541543 515-517 809811 420 1001 1011 1010 376 370 980960 990 34 354 326 426 4 1000 448 944 471 483948952 959947925 915 933 935 425-443 451449 463-465 936-940 458 460 440 428426 527-533 543 551 510520 558-560 903 825 837 581 575940934 813-823 501-509 511-519 521-529 531-539 541-547 556 596 904 926 561-567 569 845 580 574 566 991- 997 136 610 116-122 150 535529525 542516140 102 116124 163 145 566556 167 528 643635 635 645- 685 660- 666 620 180 164 158156 624628632636 640644 617621 151-165 171-195 203 642640636 200 151 115 125 135 514 101 440 444 436432 427 425 117119 630616 208 228220 240-248 575 530- 534536540 552 177 156 201209215225 595 229231 611-623 180 508500 625-631 170 172-174 542544 538-542 552548546 541-547 230-238 734 723 721 702- 730220-244 744 701 731 755757 771 200 160 728-732 762-776740-746 250 275 270 255741 265 724 730 651 221-225227 668 707 205 201203451449 209 219 221 233235450460470 442444 400 420 430 411 425 429 185 165 181 412 250 420 245 171-169 441- 445 435-439 346344 333335 342 344 431 460 450 235530 220 220 B 222 240 514278 274270 250 545 540 251485255 271 281 300310301 581 259-267 533535537 261267 518-526 532- 536 520-526 530-536 271 281 252 270 240-248202-216 228226234238 244242 210- 216 228- 234 223-229 209215 247-259 240 232230 311-317 251 344 326 340 337339 323317 400 420 332330 314 353 355 367 305 347 265272-278 418 319 321- 341 328 330 300- 310 431401 366 436 426 #1-7 369 335 319 390 301 315 375 307-311 325330 332 1&2330 1-3 324 326316 318 373-377 416- 424 361 338 340 560 345 321325 315 529 285 555 650636 628 1-12 628 A-E 385 365 375380 345 664 325650-654 661635300 690 675 555541-549533 535-539 318-324326 352 425 439-441 435429425 415-419 405403453 461 383460 502 510 526 520 540 499 467 459 439 425 555 400 436-452 456 379 370-374376380-382 384-396 550-552 364 360 431 440-444 423 499 475 421-423 431-433 432428 460-476 450 635 446 430 400 745 720706 385744734 724-730 720712704 360 351 315737 332 300 653-681 683685 512 501619 609605 518 482486496 610 630 455 400 651-687 543-545 532534 542544 550 552 554556 558560562564 635-6 643-6 470 313 334 333 325326 342 303301 229 336 308 310 312 316 318 311 331 315 319 317 321 335 228220 356-360 347-367 351 357 369-379360 258-296 350 210 204 302- 316 379310 320 328 332 340 437 412 311 A-B 404 313 325 327 333 407 401385 411 452 378-390 360 - 1A - 1C360 - 2A - 2C360 - 3A - 3C360 - 4A - 4C360 - 5A - 5C360 - 6A 344-348 418420 482 328 456 321 325 330204218 236 240 250-252 477 475 467 457 453249235225221 201 60 275 505-509 239-243209-213 210-214 513-519 460 474472228- 230 535 558 201 1612 20 209 215 223 231 521 80 239-245 530-540 544-554 212- 216 218-222 333 335-337 351 457451 465463 489-499360 530 480 420 430 480 463 451443437411405 419405401 441 480-498 347 351 355 359 525 430 473 332- 342 425415 400 570568 556 550 543 327321315305 343 515 525 551 555 328 309-311 518-528 536-540 552-554 558-562 573 A-E 591-599 557-571 330-332 318-320 406-418 417 542548568 524 550 500-528 578 564 550 546 540 530 531-535 541 505 525 537 555 565 571530 619-6 520 440-446 579 567 523610 600 555 581 420-438 437 566 224 228 A-F 244 579 575 565 559 251 355 A-J 335329604 576 566 345-347 243245 25725920921922723502 505 610-616 727 678 676 674672 642 636-638 567 555 711 701705 725 525 759 730718 734 738-740 760 746-750 701 721-7 600 827 835 899 850 530 609 759 7517537737-62611 601 600 1013 10041000 1006 1001 623 137 145 700 780 790 744 111700 753100 825805 33 51 75 63 841 44 675 49 41 711 799 703 100 101 139654 625 160 1001 1005 1009 1010 1004 930 975945929931 948 181 940 960 145900 955 999875 853 925 81 855 901-907 909 87 98 917 921 925 735 849 707 847 842828 820248 230-232 212 825 829833 839 800 812818 882 165831 801 815 809801 841 791153 718 774 761 795745 201 209 834836 845 895 926 190 934 942 948 203 209 219 225 929200 240 904 910 926 270 935 904 909909A 217 222 148 171 421 130 312 318 324 317 301 186 192 323 329 151 325 329 334 131 129 355301 235 258 212 163 115 291247 210 201 207 64 202 235 251249 252 247 244250 177220 261 251-257 205245 231225213205 70 2206 234240 183 251 270 241-247 215- 237 210-216 219 235 62 202 245 54 52 50 203 215 221 313-317318 220- 224 238 542-550 531-539 532 759 223-239 905 911-917907 188190 251- 293 202206208 210 212 216 220 1008 275 539 201 400 27 168 865857 302 324 340 795 848 918 903903A 408412 440 483A - F 435 751 735 745 532 210 727 733 335 328 330 345 214 350 800 806 441 441A 230302306308312316 301 303 305 307 309 325 251 807 821 829 801 818-824 420 424 430 832A 832 842A 842 852A 852 862A 862 872A 872 351A 351 355A 355 359A 359 363A 363 367A 367 425 911 943 951 918 936 940 944 271 253 241 301 319 919A919 935 949 928 936 940-946 353 264 367 361 310 1005 1010 423425413 - 419 457-467 469-471473-481 454 729 A-D 733-743 734-740 724-732 936 824-828 920 949 943941 715 95 445 324 328 545 590 425447 827 565585595 904 315 507 561 706 536 200 100 280-290 150 158164 276 516 698 161 159 157777 132 127 180 528 120 247 372 524 548550 538 152 345 336 515 658 227 27 29 539 115 135 321 558 #200-202 558 #C & D 965 140 350 808 915 461 435433 945 1012 421 727 A-C 218 255 206 739 260 840 650 642 351 451 551 375 530 643 415 12 700 802 99 89 87 901 560564568572576580584588592594 906908 910912914 916918920 922924 548 423 668 901 305 -313 423 405 352354 611 320322 346 323 471 484 528 426 264 430 1001 508 756 -760 940 930 544546 515 7 745 7 549 211213 151 160 257 433-457 482 330 349 401 539 440 691 755 67 312 202 651 443445 447 716 218 398 998 262 335 218 640-646506 327 469 303 401 403 254 401 91 40 101 819 301 725 595 705 541 Quarry Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Medical Foundation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Encina Avenue El Camino Real Urban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Ch a n n i n g A v e n u e Alma Street El Camino Real Mitchell Lane Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21 High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Everett Avenue Waverley Street Cowper Street Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Lane A West L L La Addison Avenue Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue La Lane 39 Lane 56 Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Addison Avenue Scott Street Webster Street Cowper Street Addison Avenue Channing Avenue Ramona Street Paulsen Ln Lane 15 E Lane 20 W Lane 20 E University Avenue CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Palo Road ay Pear Lane Lane 12 W Lane 5 E Everett Avenue Homer Avenue Emerson Street talm Dr iv e Alma Street Lytton Avenue This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Zone A (Ground Floor) - Zone B (Upper Floors) abc Zone B 0' 500' Downtown Palo AltoBusiness ImprovementDistrictArea Map CITY O F PALO A L TO INC OR P ORATE D C ALIFORN I A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f AP RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2012 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2012-04-30 16:57:54CPA BID (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\rrivera.mdb) Overview: Today’s Downtown Palo Alto is a far different place than it was when the organization was founded in 2004. The downtown is now a dynamic, youthful, entrepreneurial neighborhood that boasts clean and safe walkable streets, a well balanced confluence of small, medium and large businesses and an almost even balance of independently owned retail and restaurants operating along side national chains. It is a globally recognized mecca for innovating the social and the technical. Without hyperbole, it is not only a valuable asset to the City of Palo Alto; it has become a valuable asset for the rest of the country if not the world. At a glance, there are approximately 88 restaurants and 72 retail establishments. 13 national chain restaurants or franchises exist amongst 75 privately owned restaurants. Amongst retail, there are approximately 21 national retailers and 51 independently owned stores. * It is the second largest generator of sales tax revenue for the City of Palo Alto. Strategic partnerships, execution and outcomes Real estate investments in the past decade have drawn the spotlight to the area and paved the way for growth. While some nearby cities have emulated Downtown Palo Alto’s live/work/play environment, this growth has not surprisingly resulted in a variety of challenges. To maximize our efforts to address those new and ongoing challenges we brought together partners to facilitate dialogue and develop programs between business, government and non-profits that have resulted in positive outcomes. In no particular order: • Collaborated with City of Palo Alto Public Works Division and the Public Arts Commission on the systematic replacement of downtown benches to both enhance the esthetics of downtown and inhibit loitering. A combination of a more utilitarian bench design along with a small variety of artful benches have been installed but unless outside funding is secured these “art” benches will be removed, replaced with standard benches. • Collaborated with Zero Waste and the Pubic Arts Division to identify replacement trash receptacles that inhibit illegal and unsavory reclaiming of refuse and update the decades old current receptacles. Additonally, a solar powered, compacting trash can will be installed as a pilot program. • Major member outreach efforts promoting American Express’s “Shop Small” annual event helping to promote locally owned retail in downtown Palo Alto including the development of social, web and print campaign. • Designed and managed the downtown Lamppost banner program which provided Holiday, Spring and Summer banners and now has compiled a library of banner designs that can be used in years to come. New brand building designs are in development that promote downtown as the special place it is, as this annual report is being prepared and should be installed in Spring of 2017. • Developed, managed and promoted the 6 week long Summer concert series, “Music On the Plaza” including the development and design of social media, web and print efforts as well as raising the $40K in sponsorships needed to execute the series. This year we have partnered with the City of Palo Alto regarding sound engineering and staging. We are also moiving the series to Lytton Plaza and closing a small section of Emerson to accommodate staging in order to accommodate partipants. • Partnered with the Friends of Lytton Plaza and the City of Palo Alto to add umbrellas, foliage, public art and banners to the plaza to enliven and soften the hardscape of the plaza. • Partnered with restaurant group and the California Restaurant Association regarding the possible devlopment of “service fees” as a partial remedy for the rise in operating costs due to impending rise in minimum wage and other rising costs. • Met with the Palo Alto Police Department leaders as well as leaders of the Downtown Streets Team to discuss homeless and panhandling issues. As a result, parking garage issues have decreased dramatically and outreach efforts have increased to individuals throughout downtown. • Worked with Santa Clara County Small Business Administration to educate restaurants about the county’s new health inspection regulations and placard program. • Participated in the development of the Public Arts Commission Downtown Public Art master Plan. • Engaged in annual new board member recruitment and nomination process including the development and execution of election materials. • Built upon the downtown brand and welcomed new business to Downtown Palo Alto with the presentation for the “Downtown Crown” at grand openings. • Provided administrative oversight of the Palo Alto Downtown Parking Assessment District subcommittee. • Worked with MuniServices LLC to provide invoicing, database management, reporting and collections. • Updated database with businesses that may or may not be registered through the City’s Business Registry process. Section III. Budget for 2017-18 The total funds available for activities for this fiscal year are estimated to be $164,024. The budget for providing the activities is set forth as follows: BID 2017/18 Budget INCOME Total Non-Assessment Sources Assessments $130,000 Allowance for Uncollectible Assessments ($25,000) Other Revenue $29,000 $29,000 Fiscal Year 2017 Surplus Carryover $5,024 TOTAL INCOME $164,024 EXPENSES Operating Expenses Staff Salaries Executive Director Salary $74,600 Payroll taxes and expense $17,260 Office Supplies & Expenses $150 Internet/Website/ Phone Maintenance $1000 Reauthorization Advertising $2,650 Audit-Tax Returns $5,700 Legal $1,000 $1,000 Insurance - Liability $2,300 Nominating $1,500 Invoicing $8,500 Contingencies $3000 Subtotal -- Operating Expenses $118,460 $1,000 Programs, Marketing and Events Banners $8,000 Location Specific Banners $1264 Summer Concert Series $28,000 $28,000 Events $1200 Outreach & Communication $1000 Downtown Streets Team $5000 District Opportunity Reserve $1000 Subtotal --Programs, Marketing & Events $45,564 $29,000 TOTAL EXPENSES $164,024 Section IV: Method and Basis of Levying the Assessment Cost Benefit Analysis / Bid Assessments The method and basis of levying the assessment is provided in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for Fiscal Year 2017-18 and is not changed from the FY 2016-17 assessment. There have been no changes made to the Cost-Benefit Analysis or to the BID Assessments since they were approved by City Council on February 2, 2004. The method of calculation used to determine the cost and benefit to each business located in the BID is described below. The BID assessments are based on three criteria: the type of business, the location of the business and the size of the business. It has been consistently demonstrated that the typical BID program places a higher priority on activities such as commercial marketing. As a result, the retail and restaurant establishments in the BID are assessed more than service and professional businesses in the district. While service-oriented businesses benefit from a BID less than retailers and restaurateurs, they benefit more than professional businesses such as medical, dental, architectural, consultant and legal offices with their minimal advertising and promotion needs. For these reasons, various business types are assessed according to the benefit that they receive from the BID, as follows: Ø Retail and Restaurant 100% of base amount Ø Service 75% of base amount Ø Professional 50% of base amount Exceptions to this rule include financial institutions that are traditionally charged a flat rate regardless of location or size and lodging businesses that are typically charged by total rooms. The location of a business also determines the degree of benefit that accrues to that business. Centrally located businesses tend to benefit more, as do businesses located on the ground floor. For this reason, A and B benefit zones have been identified for the BID. In Palo Alto, Zone A benefit businesses are assessed 100% of the base benefit assessment while Zone B businesses are assessed 75%. A third criterion is used in the BID to determine benefit. This criterion, the size of the business, takes into consideration the number of full time employees employed by the business. Please refer to Attachment 1 for a more complete understanding of the application of these three variables to establish BID benefit. Attachment 2 is the BID assessment for each business located within the BID boundaries. Applying the criteria identified in Attachment 1, a summary of the assessment that applies to each business by size, type and location is outlined. In addition to the Cost-Benefit Analysis, the assessments include the following criteria: Ø An exemption for “single person professional businesses” that have 25% or fewer full time equivalent (“FTE”), including the business owner. This covers employees who work less than 10 hours a week (based on a 40 hour work week; an FTE equals approximately 2000 hours annually) Ø An assessment specifically for “single person businesses” that have 26% FTE to 1 FTE in the professional business category of the BID (An FTE equals approximately 2000 hours annually) Ø The tiering of other professional businesses by size based (according to benefit) on the “single person business” criteria This outline provides information by which a business can determine its annual assessment based on objective criteria. Except where otherwise defined, all terms shall have the meanings identified below: Definitions of Business Types in the Downtown Business Improvement District Retailers and Restaurants: Businesses that buy or resell goods such as clothing stores, shoe stores, office supplies as well as businesses that sell prepared food and drink. Service Businesses: Businesses that sell services such as beauty or barber shops, repair shops, most automotive businesses, dry cleaners, art and dance studios, printing firms, film processing companies, travel agencies, entertainment businesses such as theatres, etc. Hotel and Lodging: These include businesses that have as their main business the lodging of customers. This is restricted to residential businesses that provide lodging services to customers for less than 30 days. Professional Businesses: Businesses that require advanced and/or specialized licenses or academic degrees such as architects, engineers, attorneys, chiropractors, dentists, doctors, accountants, optometrists, realtors, insurance brokers, venture capital firms, consultants, advertising and marketing professionals and mortgage brokers and similar professions. Financial Institutions: Includes banking, savings and loan institutions and credit unions. Additional clarification on business definitions will be defined according to Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Advisory Board recommends that the following businesses be exempt from the BID assessment: Ø New businesses established in the BID area following the annual assessment for the year in which they locate in the BID area Ø Non-profit organizations Ø Newspapers Ø “Single person professional businesses” that have 25% or less FTE, including the business owner The Assessment calculated shall be paid to the City no later 30 days after receipt of the invoice with the amount of the annual assessment sent by the City. A second notice will be mailed as a reminder to businesses that have not remitted payment by that date. Late payment will be subject to a 10% late fee. Section V: Revenue Surplus or Deficit The Assessment calculated shall be paid to the City no later 30 days after receipt of the invoice with the amount of the annual assessment sent by the City. A second notice will be mailed as a reminder to businesses that have not remitted payment by that date. Late payment will be subject to a 10% late fee. Section V: Revenue Surplus or Deficit Based on the revenue balance on 3/27/17 of $48,003.93, the PAd expects a surplus carryover of $5024.93. Expected expenses for the remainder of FY 17-18 are as follows: Current Revenue Balance $48.003.93 Expected expenses for remaining FYE 6/30/2017 Staff Salaries $36,300 Payroll Taxes $3,023 Banners $8,000 Downtown Streets Team $3,750 Rent $4,050 Workers Comp $753 Audit & Tax Return $6,900 District Opportunity Reserve $0 Nominating/elections $1500 Invoicing $8500 Office Expense $200 Internet maintenance $0 Reauthorization advertising $1370 Contingencies $1000 Outreach & Communication $300 Total Expected Expense $42,979.00 Expected Carryover $5024.93 Section VI: Non-assessment Income: It is estimated that $28,000.00 will be raised in fundraising, and sponsor support. Additionally, we anticipate in kind contribution towards expenses for fiscal year 2017-18. Projected Income for Fiscal Year 2017-18 Legal (donation) $1,000 Banners $0 Summer Concert Series $28,000 Events $0 Total $29,000 Section VI: PAd Board of Directors by Business Type Retailers and Restaurants Georgie Gleim, Gleim the Jeweler Alex Giovanotto, Joya Travis Nichols, Keen Garage Susan Graf, Susan Graf Mistie Cohen, Oren’s Hummus Hospitality Barbara Gross, Garden Court Hotel Financial Institutions Patricia Behoumonde, Boston Private Bank & Trust Company Katie Seedman, Presidio Private Bank and Trust Professional Organizations Brad Ehikian, Premier Properties Patty McGuigan, Cornish & Carey Commercial Mila Zelkha, Palintir Non Profit Organizations Zia MacWilliams, Downtown Street Team Phil Carter, Palo Alto Farmer’s Market COMMUNITY PARTNERS Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Judy Kleinberg, President & CEO Downtown Streets Team Eileen Richardson, Executive Director City Of Palo Alto Greg Tanaka, Palo Alto City Council Liaison Khashayar “Cash” Alaee, Senior Analyst, City Manager’s Office ATTACHMENT 1 A General Statement Regarding Cost-Benefit Analysis For BID Businesses Using The Traditional Three Criteria Formula Criteria 1) Type of Business: Statement Concerning Cost-Benefit Formula For BID Businesses Regarding Type Of Business: In a review of 200 California Business Improvement Districts, it is consistently demonstrated that the typical BID Program places a higher priority on Commercial Marketing Programs than on Civic Beautification and Commercial Recruitment Programs. With that trend in mind, retail and restaurant businesses, with their emphasis on, and need for, commercial marketing, are traditionally assessed more than less marketing-sensitive service-oriented or professional-oriented businesses. However, while service-oriented businesses benefit from a BID less than retailers and restaurateurs, they benefit more, (from commercial marketing programs), than professional businesses such as medical, dental and legal offices with their minimal advertising and promotion needs. Therefore, set forth below, is an example of how various business types might be considered regarding the computation of the annual benefit assessment. • Retail and Restaurant: 100% of base amount • Service: 75% of base amount • Professional: 50% of base amount Exceptions to this rule include financial institutions that are traditionally charged a flat rate regardless of location or size and lodging businesses that are typically charged by total rooms. Lodging businesses are assessed based on the total number of rooms because it is a more equitable manner of determining size. Many lodging businesses have many part time employees, but revenues are based on the room occupancies of the hotel, not the goods sold or serviced provided by employees. Criteria 2) Location of Business: Statement Concerning Cost-Benefit Formula For BID Businesses Regarding Location of Business: It has also been consistently demonstrated that the more centrally located businesses tend to benefit from BID activities and services to a greater degree than businesses located toward the periphery of the proposed BID boundaries. Events and activities tend to originate in the central core of the Downtown area and spread benefit to the outer areas with diminishing energy and impact, much like the ripple effect of a stone tossed into a body of calm water. Furthermore, ground floor businesses tend to benefit to a greater degree than businesses located in upper floors. Therefore, in some cases, a new BID's annual benefit assessment formula also takes these street level criteria into account. As mentioned above, special events, fairs, festivals and other activities tend to take place within, or along, the Main Street core rather than in the areas at the periphery of the Downtown core. Additionally, BID-sponsored seasonal decorations, public art projects, street banners and street furniture tend to be located within the immediate core area. Therefore, businesses located within the most central area of the proposed BID are considered to be within "Zone A" which should be considered the primary benefit zone. There is typically a "secondary zone" or "Zone B" within most proposed BID areas. This area receives less benefit than Zone A and should be assessed accordingly. An example of how different zones might be treated regarding the computation of the annual benefit assessment is as follows. • Zone A: 100% of base benefit assessment • Zone B: 75% of base benefit assessment In the case of Downtown Palo Alto, it is recommended that all Zone A upper floor businesses, as well as any other businesses located at the periphery of the proposed BID, be considered as Zone B businesses. Please refer to the map in Attachment I. Criteria 3) Size of Business: Statement Concerning Cost-Benefit Formula For BID Businesses Regarding Size of Business: In approximately 50% of newly established BIDs, a third assessment criterion is used. This criterion involves the size of each individual business that is based upon the businesses’ total number of full-time employees. Full-time employees are those working a total of 2,000 hours per year. Part-time employees are grouped into full-time job positions, i.e., two half-time employees total one full-time. Fractions are rounded down to the nearest whole number with no less than one person as a minimum for business. An example of how various business sizes might be treated regarding the computation of the annual benefit assessment is as follows: Retail/Restaurants Service Businesses Small 50% of base amount Under 6 FTE* Under 4 FTE Medium 75% of base amount 6 to under 11 FTE 4 to under 7 FTE Large 100% of base amount 11 or more FTE 7 or more FTE * FTE = full time employees Additionally, an exemption was established for “single person professional businesses” that have 25% or less FTE, including the business owner. This covers employees who work less 10 hours a week (based on a 40 hour work week) Since “single person businesses” that have 26% FTE to 1 FTE in the professional business category of the BID benefit the very least from the assessment, their assessments have been tiered by size based (according to benefit) on the new “single person business” criteria. ATTACHMENT 2 Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District Annual BID Assessments ZONE A ZONE B (75% of Zone A amount) Restaurants & Retailers Under 6 FTE (50% of base amount) $225 $170 6 to under 11 FTE (75% of base amount) $340 $260 11 or more FTE (100% of base amount) $450 $340 Service Businesses Under 4 FTE (50% of base amount) $170 $130 4 to under 7 FTE (75% of base amount) $260 $200 Over 7 FTE (100% of base amount) $340 $260 Professional Businesses 25% or fewer FTE, including owner (0% of base amount) Exempt Exempt 26% FTE to under 1 FTE (25% of base amount) $60 $50 2 to 4 FTE (50% of base amount) $110 $90 5 to 9 FTE (75% of base amount) $170 $130 10+ FTE (100% of base amount) $225 $170 Lodging Businesses Up to 20 rooms (50% of base amount) $2258 $170 21 to 40 rooms (75% of base amount) $340 $260 41+ rooms (100% of base amount) $450 $340 Financial Institutions $500 $500 Note 1: For retail, restaurant, service, and professional businesses, size will be determined by number of employees either full-time or equivalent (FTE) made up of multiples of part-time employees. A full FTE equals approximately 2000 hours annually. Lodging facilities will be charged by number of rooms available and financial institutions will be charged a flat fee. Note 2: Second floor (and higher) businesses located within Zone A will be assessed the same as similar street-level businesses located within Zone B. Note 3: Assessment amounts are rounded to the nearest ten dollars. The minimum assessment will be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esolution No. _______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Its Intention to Levy an Assessment Against Businesses Within the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2018 and Setting a Time and Place for June 12, 2017 at 6:00 PM or Thereafter, in the Council Chambers R E C I T A L S The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby DECLARES as follows: SECTION 1. The Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (the "Law"), California Streets and Highways Code Sections 36500 et seq., authorizes the City Council to levy an assessment against businesses within a parking and business improvement area which is in addition to any assessments, fees, charges, or taxes imposed in the City. SECTION 2. Pursuant to the Law, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4819 establishing the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District (the "District") in the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 3. The City Council, by Resolution No. 8416, appointed the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association, a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, to serve as the Advisory Board for the District (the "Advisory Board"). SECTION 4. In accordance with Section 36533 of the law, the Advisory Board prepared and filed with the City Clerk a report entitled "Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District, Annual Report 2017-2018" (the "Report”). The City Council hereby preliminarily approves the report. SECTION 5. The boundaries of the District are within the City limits of the City of Palo Alto (the "City") and encompass the greater downtown area of the City, generally extending from El Camino Real to the East, Webster Street to the West, Lytton Avenue to the North and Addison Avenue to the South (east of Emerson Street, the boundaries extend only to Forest Avenue to the South). Reference is hereby made to the map of the District attached hereto in the Report and incorporated herein by reference for a complete description of the boundaries of the District. SECTION 6. The City Council hereby declares its intention, in addition to any assessments, fees, charges or taxes imposed by the City, to levy and collect an assessment against businesses within the District for fiscal year 2018 (July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018). Such assessment is not proposed to increase from the assessment levied and collected for the prior fiscal year. The method and basis of levying the assessment is set forth in the Report attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference. 2 SECTION 7. The types of improvements to be funded by the levy of an assessment against businesses within the District are the acquisition, construction, installation or maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or more. The types of activities to be funded by the levy of an assessment against businesses within the District are the promotion of public events which benefit businesses in the area and which take place on or in public places within the District; the furnishing of music in any public place in the District; and activities which benefit businesses located and operating in the District. SECTION 8. New businesses established in the District after the beginning of any fiscal year shall be exempt from the levy of the assessment for that fiscal year. In addition, non-profit organizations, newspapers and professional "single-person businesses," defined as those businesses which have 25% or less full time equivalent employees, including the business owner, shall be exempt from the assessment. SECTION 9. The City Council hereby fixes the time and place for a public hearing on the proposed levy of an assessment against businesses within the District for fiscal year 2016 as follows: TIME: 6:00 p.m. or soon thereafter DATE: Monday, June 12, 2017 PLACE: City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 At the public hearing, the testimony of all interested persons regarding the levy of an assessment against businesses within the District for fiscal year 2018 shall be heard. A protest may be made orally or in writing by any interested person. Any protest pertaining to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceedings must be in writing and shall clearly set forth the irregularity or defect to which the objection is made. Every written protest must be filed with the City Clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. The City Council may waive any irregularity in the form or content of any written protest and at the public hearing may correct minor defects in the proceedings. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest must contain a description of the business in which the person subscribing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business and, if a person subscribing is not shown on the official records of the City as the owner of the business, the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the 3 person subscribing is the owner of the business. A written protest which does not comply with the requirements set forth in this paragraph will not be counted in determining a majority protest (as defined below). If, at the conclusion of the public hearing, written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the District which will pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than 50 percent (i.e., there is a majority protest), no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment, as contained in this resolution of intention, shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the City Council. If the majority protest is only against the furnishing of a specified type or types of improvement or activity within the District, those types of improvements or activities shall be eliminated. SECTION 10. For a full and detailed description of the improvements and activities to be provided for fiscal year 2018, the boundaries of the District and the proposed assessments to be levied against the businesses within the District for fiscal year 2017, reference is hereby made to the Report of the Advisory Board. The Report is on file with the City Clerk and open to public inspection. SECTION 11. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide notice of the public hearing in accordance with law. // // // // // // // // // 4 SECTION 12. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: May 22, 2017 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto (ID # 8064) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/22/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Contract Amendment with Walker Parking Consultants for Design of Automated Parking Guidance System Title: Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Professional Services Contract Number C15157200 With Walker Parking Consultants for the Design of a Downtown Automated Parking Guidance System Extending the Contract Term Through June 30, 2018 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve Amendment Number Three to Professional Services Contract C15157200 (Attachment A) with WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS/ENGINEERS INC for design of a Downtown Automated Parking Guidance System to extend the term of the contract to June 30, 2018. Background and Discussion The City engaged Walker Parking Consultants to plan and design a Downtown Automated Parking Guidance System that would provide real-time occupancy information regarding parking availability. In 2016, City Council directed Staff to continue advancing the Single-space Detection APGS with Individual Indicator Lights alternative. This system will provide the highest level of customer service, and track occupancy by space using ceiling mounted detection sensors in conjunction with LED lights mounted above each space that indicate type of space (available, occupied, permit, public, handicapped, valet, etc.). The single-space approach is adaptive, enabling the allocation of the space to be changed manually or automatically, to best utilize the available parking. This system is the most accurate, and does not require additional manual counts to maintain accuracy. This type of system is currently installed at the Westfield Valley Fair mall in San José. Costs for the aforementioned systems vary based on the level of accuracy and information. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Installation costs for the single-space system were estimated in 2016 to be $2.0 million for the Downtown garages. These costs reflect the estimates to retrofit existing garages for this equipment. Operations and maintenance costs are typically captured in the warranty for the system. For any system selected, hardwire connections to the City’s Downtown fiber network would be the preferred option for data transmission and internet connectivity. Staff has confirmed with the Utilities Department that these connections can be made by a third-party and leased on an ongoing basis, as is currently done for Downtown businesses. Estimates for these connections and to retrofit the existing Downtown garages for this equipment are included in the planning-level cost estimate. The next phase of this project will include evaluation of infrastructure and system requirements to integrate with the recommendations of the Downtown Parking Management Study, and will provide a more detailed Opinion of Probable Cost. This project was not completed within the initial schedule because the there was a gap in staffing for this project. New City staff joined the team in March of 2017. Policy Implications The implementation of parking technology is consistent with the Council’s comprehensive parking and transportation strategy. The program is also consistent with the following comprehensive plan policies: • Goal T-8: Attractive, convenient public and private parking facilities • Policy T-45: Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts to address long-range needs. Resource Impact This contract amendment does not increase expenditures, it only extends the contract term. Timeline Final design for the Downtown Automated Parking Guidance System is estimated to be complete within six months. Implementation is currently budgeted in FY19. Environmental Review The proposed project does not have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts and the project does not require review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Attachments: Attachment A: C15157200 Amendment No 3 Walker Contract (PDF) Page 1 of 1 Revision April 28, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONTRACT NO. C15157200 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS/ENGINEERS, INC. This Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. C15157200 (“Contract”) is entered into July 1, 2017, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS/ENGINEERS, INC., a Michigan corporation, located at 2121 Hudson Avenue, Kalamazoo Michigan, 49008 ("CONSULTANT"). R E C I T A L S A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of new static and dynamic parking way-finding signage. B. CITY intends to extend the term to June 30, 2018. C. The parties wish to amend the Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 2 TERM is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2018 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED AS TO FORM: WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS/ENGINEERS, INC. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4D815E51-41B2-4F2D-AE9D-A6658544654D David Koski Vice President City of Palo Alto (ID # 8125) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/22/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Adopt Resolution to Revise Storm Drain Rate Schedule D-1 Title: Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utility Rate Schedule D -1 (General Storm and Surface Water Drainage) to Implement the Storm Water Management Fee Approved By Palo Alto Property Owners via Mail Ballot Election on April 11, 2017 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution amending the Storm Drain Rate Schedule D-1 (Attachment A) to implement the new Storm Water Management Fee approved by Palo Alto property owners via mail ballot election on April 11, 2017. Background On April 17, 2017, Council certified the results of the mail ballot election in which Palo Alto property owners approved a new Storm Water Management Fee to replace the City’s existing Storm Drain Fee (Attachment B). The Storm Drain Fee fee was $13.03 per equivalent residential unit, and the new Storm Water Management Fee will be $13.65. The existing Storm Drain Fee expires on June 1, 2017, and the new Fee will become effective on the same date. Discussion To implement the voter-approved changes, Council must approve the attached Resolution (Attachment A) and Rate Schedule D-1 – General Storm and Surface Water Drainage (Attachment C). Besides updating the Fee amount, Staff has updated the name of the fee from Storm Drain Fee to Stormwater Management Fee, consistent with the results of the ballot measure. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Resource Impact The staff resources necessary to implement the new Fee are not significant. The Fee increase will generate additional revenue of $315,000 annually to fund captial improvement projects and continue stormwater protection programs that keep infrastructure clean and at peak performance, as recommended by the Strorm Drain Blue Ribbon Committee. Policy Implications The adoption of the the new Fee is consistent with the placement on the Fee on the ballot by Council and the property owner vote. Environmental Review The adoption of this change to the Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (General Storm and Surface Water Drainage) for the purpose of meeting operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution amending the Storm Drain Rate Schedule D-1 Attachment B: RESO 9673 Reso Certifying the Storm Drain Election Attachment C: Rate Schedule D-1 effective 6-1-2017 Not Yet Approved 170508 jb 6053953 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (General Storm and Surface Water Drainage) to Increase the City’s Storm Water Management Fee by 62 Cents Per Month Per Equivalent Residential Unit R E C I T A L S A. On August 29, 2016, by its adoption of Resolution No. 9624, the City Council (i) proposed a new Storm Water Management Fee (the “Proposed Fee”) to replace the City’s existing Storm Drainage Fee and (ii) approved the City’s “Procedures for the Conduct of Protest Hearing and Mail Ballot Election in Connection with Proposed Storm Water Management Fee” (the “Procedures”) to govern proceedings for the consideration of the Proposed Fee. B. On October 24, 2016, following a properly noticed protest hearing at which it was determined that a majority protest against the Proposed Fee did not exist, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9635, calling a mail ballot election for Tuesday, April 11, 2017 (the “Election”) to submit the Proposed Fee to property owners. C. The Election was conducted as directed by the City Council, and on April 17, 2017, by its adoption of Resolution 9673, the Council declared and certified that the Proposed Fee was approved by the property owners in the Election. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (General Storm and Surface Water Drainage) is hereby amended to read in accordance with sheet D-1-1, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective June 1, 2017. SECTION 2. The Council finds as follows: a.Revenues derived from the Fee approved by this resolution do not exceed the funds required to provide storm and surface water drainage service. b.Revenues derived from the Fee approved by this resolution shall not be used for any purpose other than providing storm and surface water drainage service, and the purposes set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto. Attachment A Not Yet Approved 170508 jb 6053953 c. The amount of the Fee imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of providing the storm and surface water drainage service attributable to the parcel. SECTION 3. The Council finds that modification and approval of this change to the Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (General Storm and Surface Water Drainage) for the purpose of meeting operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After reviewing the staff report and both related reports and their attachments (ID #7285, ID # 7143) presented to Council regarding the Storm Water Management Fee, the Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ _____________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Public Works _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 17, 2017The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Adoption of a Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Results of the Mail Ballot Election in Connection with the City’s proposed Storm water management fee Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached Resolution declaring and certifying the results of the Storm Water Management Fee mail ballot election. Recommendation Staff is requesting that Council declare and certify the results of the Storm Water Management Fee mail ballot election which was held on Tuesday, April 11, 2017. Background The Palo Alto City Council established the Storm Drainage Fund and an associated Storm Drainage Fee in 1989 as an independent means to fund municipal storm drain capital improvements, maintenance, and storm water quality protection programs. The fee was last authorized in a 2005 property owner election, and most of the current fee will sunset in June 2017. On August 29, 2016, Council adopted Resolution No. 9624 proposing a new Storm Water Management Fee to replace the City’s existing Storm Drainage Fee, and approving the City’s procedures to conduct a Protest Hearing and Mail Ballot Election in connection with the proposed Storm Water Management Fee (the Procedures). On October 24, 2016, after a protest hearing at which it was determined that a majority protest against the proposed Fee did not exist, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9635 (the Election Resolution), calling a mail ballot election for Tuesday, April 11, 2017 to submit the proposed Fee to property owners, directing that the election be conducted pursuant to the Procedures, and directing staff to conduct the election. The election was conducted as directed by the City Council, and the City Clerk has tabulated the ballots cast in the Election. The results of the Election are as follows: a.Total Ballots Returned and Not Withdrawn: __8257__. b.Votes In Favor: _5161____. c.Votes Opposed: __2931___. ITEM NUMBER 9 Attachment B Page 2 Environmental Review Council’s adoption of a resolution declaring the results of a mail ballot election is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), because these actions do not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The Council’s review and adoption of a funding mechanism for storm water management projects is not a project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), because a “project” does not include the creation of government funding mechanisms which do not involve commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant environmental impact. Thus, no environmental analysis is required at this time. Future CEQA review will occur based on the selection of storm drain capital improvement projects that may be funded by the proposed storm water management fees. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: RESO Palo Alto Storms Election Results Pass (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk 1 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Results of the Mail Ballot Election in Connection with the City’s Proposed Storm Water Management Fee R E C I T A L S A. On August 29, 2016, by its adoption of its Resolution No. 9624, the City Council (i) proposed a new Storm Water Management Fee (the “Proposed Fee”) to replace the City’s existing Storm Drainage Fee and (ii) approved the City’s “Procedures for the Conduct of Protest Hearing and Mail Ballot Election in Connection with Proposed Storm Water Management Fee” (the “Procedures”) to govern proceedings for the consideration of the Proposed Fee. B. A complete description of the Proposed Fee is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. C. On October 24, 2016, following a properly noticed protest hearing at which it was determined that a majority protest against the Proposed Fee did not exist, the City Council adopted its Resolution No. 9635 (the “Election Resolution”). D. The Election Resolution (i) called a mail ballot election for Tuesday, April 11, 2017 (the “Election”) to submit the Proposed Fee to property owners; (ii) directed that the Election be conducted pursuant to the Procedures; and (iii) directed staff to conduct the Election. E. The Election was conducted as directed by the City Council, and the City Clerk has tabulated the ballots cast in the Election. F. The City Council desires to declare the results of the Election. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council declares and certifies that the results of the Election are as follows: a. Total Ballots Returned and Not Withdrawn: 8,257. b. Votes In Favor: 5,161. c. Votes Opposed: 2,931. SECTION 2. The City Council declares that the Proposed Fee has been approved by the property owners in the Election. 2 SECTION 3. The City Council may, by future action, levy the Proposed Fee at any rate that does not exceed the rate set forth in Exhibit “A” as adjusted by the inflation adjustment set forth in Exhibit “A”. SECTION 4. The Council finds that this resolution, declaring the results of a mail ballot election is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), because these actions do not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The Council’s review and adoption of a funding mechanism for storm water management projects is not a project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), because a “project” does not include the creation of government funding mechanisms which do not involve commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant environmental impact. Thus, no environmental analysis is required at this time. Future CEQA review will occur based on the selection of storm drain capital improvement projects that may be funded by the proposed storm water management fees. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: __________, 2017 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Public Works ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services 3 EXHIBIT “A” DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FEE A. Overview The proposed Storm Water Management Fee would have two components: A Base Component A Projects and Infrastructure Component B. Proposed Rates (Effective June 1, 2017) The Proposed Rate for the Storm Water Management Fee effective June 1, 2017 is: $13.65 per ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit) per month. This is comprised of: Base Component of $7.48 per ERU per month; and Projects and Infrastructure Component of $6.17 per ERU per month C. Inflation Adjustment In order to offset the effects of inflation on labor and material costs, the maximum rate for the Storm Water Management Fee (and each component of the Storm Water Management Fee) will be increased annually each July 1 (beginning July 1, 2018), by the lesser of (i) the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index [CPI] for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose CSMA, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics during the prior calendar year or (ii) 6%. The City Council would have the authority to set the rate for the Storm Water Management Fee (and each component of the Storm Water Management Fee) at any rate that is less than or equal to the inflation adjusted maximum rate. D. Duration 1) Base Component The Base Component would be charged monthly, beginning June 1, 2017, until terminated by the City Council. 4 2) Projects and Infrastructure Component The Projects and Infrastructure Component would be charged monthly, beginning June 1, 2017. Unless further extended by the voters, the Projects and Infrastructure Component would no longer be charged beginning June 1, 2032. E. Method of Collection and Calculated The Storm Water Management Fee would be collected and calculated in the manner set forth in City of Palo Alto Utilities Rule and Regulation No. 25, subject to the exemptions set forth in this Section E. As a general rule, ERU's are assigned to each parcel subject to the fee on the following basis: Single-Family Residential Parcels: Lot Size ERU's <6,000 sq. ft. 0.8 ERU 6,000 - 11,000 sq. ft. 1.0 ERU >11,000 sq. ft. 1.4 ERU All Other Improved Parcels: Number of ERU = Impervious Area (Sq. Ft.) / 2,500 Assigned ERU's are rounded to the nearest one-tenth of an ERU. Unimproved parcels are not subject to the Storm Water Management Fee, and the fee will not be charged for developed parcels that (i) have their own maintained storm drainage facility or facilities, and which do not utilize City facilities or (ii) make no substantial contribution of storm or surface water to the City's storm drainage facilities. For a more complete description of the manner of collection and calculation of the Storm Water Management Fee, reference is made City of Palo Alto Utilities Rule and Regulation No. 25. F. Use of Funds Proceeds of the Storm Water Management Fee would be available to the City exclusively to pay for: (A) Improving the quality of storm and surface water; (B) The operation, maintenance, improvement and replacement of existing City storm drainage facilities; and (C) The operation, maintenance, and replacement of future such facilities. 5 Permissible uses would include, but not be limited to, Green Storm Water Infrastructure programs (including financial incentives to property owners) intended to reduce the quantity of storm water entering the City's public storm water system or to improve the quality of storm water before it enters that system through measures including, but not limited to, rain gardens, rain barrels/cisterns, green roofs, tree wells, bioretention/infiltration basins and planters, and permeable pavement. G. Oversight provision for proposed fee increase The City Council would appoint an oversight committee to monitor and review expenditures for all storm water funding elements, including, but not limited to, Green Storm Water Infrastructure projects, storm water Capital Improvement Program projects, and Incentive Project funding and ensure that the money raised from the increased storm water management fee is spent in accordance with this resolution. The Committee would be empowered to consider and recommend consolidation of Green Storm Water Infrastructure and Incentive Project funding for particular projects. The City Council may choose to retain the members of the existing Council-appointed Storm Drain Oversight Committee to perform this oversight function. The oversight committee would report its findings to the City Council at least annually. H. Pay-as-you-go funding of capital improvements The storm drain capital improvements to be funded through the proposed Storm Water Management Fee would be paid for on a pay-as-you-go basis, without debt financing. 170417 jb 6053948 1 Resolution No. 9673 Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Results of the Mail Ballot Election Management Fee R E C I T A L S A. On August 29, 2016, by its adoption of its Resolution No. 9624, the City Council (i) existing Storm Drainage Fee and B. A complete descri which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. C. On October 24, 2016, following a properly noticed protest hearing at which it was determined that a majority protest against the Proposed Fee did not exist, the City Council adopted its Resolution No. 9635 . D. The Election Resolution (i) called a mail ballot election for Tuesday, April 11, 2017 to submit the Proposed Fee to property owners; (ii) directed that the Election be conducted pursuant to the Procedures; and (iii) directed staff to conduct the Election. E. The Election was conducted as directed by the City Council, and the City Clerk has tabulated the ballots cast in the Election. F. The City Council desires to declare the results of the Election. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council HEREBY resolves as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council declares and certifies that the results of the Election are as follows: a. Total Ballots Returned and Not Withdrawn: 8,257. b. Votes In Favor: 5,161. c. Votes Opposed: 2,931. SECTION 2. The City Council declares that the Proposed Fee has been approved by the property owners in the Election. DocuSign Envelope ID: E3D306D8-BB1C-44A1-878F-0C7D65C7BCDE 170417 jb 6053948 2 SECTION 3. The City Council may, by future action, levy the Proposed Fee at any rate as adjusted by the inflation adjustment set . // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // DocuSign Envelope ID: E3D306D8-BB1C-44A1-878F-0C7D65C7BCDE 170417 jb 6053948 3 SECTION 4. The Council finds that this resolution, declaring the results of a mail ballot election is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), because these actions do not have the potential for causing a mechanism for storm water management projects is not a project under CEQA Guidelines of government funding mechanisms which do not involve commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant environmental impact. Thus, no environmental analysis is required at this time. Future CEQA review will occur based on the selection of storm drain capital improvement projects that may be funded by the proposed storm water management fees. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: April 17, 2017 AYES: DUBOIS, FILSETH, FINE, HOLMAN, KNISS, KOU, SCHARFF, TANAKA, WOLBACH NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager Director of Public Works Director of Administrative Services DocuSign Envelope ID: E3D306D8-BB1C-44A1-878F-0C7D65C7BCDE 170417 jb 6053948 4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FEE A. Overview The proposed Storm Water Management Fee would have two components: A Base Component A Projects and Infrastructure Component B. Proposed Rates (Effective June 1, 2017) The Proposed Rate for the Storm Water Management Fee effective June 1, 2017 is: $13.65 per ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit) per month. This is comprised of: Base Component of $7.48 per ERU per month; and Projects and Infrastructure Component of $6.17 per ERU per month C. Inflation Adjustment In order to offset the effects of inflation on labor and material costs, the maximum rate for the Storm Water Management Fee (and each component of the Storm Water Management Fee) will be increased annually each July 1 (beginning July 1, 2018), by the lesser of (i) the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index [CPI] for the San FranciscoOaklandSan Jose CSMA, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics during the prior calendar year or (ii) 6%. The City Council would have the authority to set the rate for the Storm Water Management Fee (and each component of the Storm Water Management Fee) at any rate that is less than or equal to the inflation adjusted maximum rate. D. Duration 1) Base Component The Base Component would be charged monthly, beginning June 1, 2017, until terminated by the City Council. DocuSign Envelope ID: E3D306D8-BB1C-44A1-878F-0C7D65C7BCDE 170417 jb 6053948 5 2) Projects and Infrastructure Component The Projects and Infrastructure Component would be charged monthly, beginning June 1, 2017. Unless further extended by the voters, the Projects and Infrastructure Component would no longer be charged beginning June 1, 2032. E. Method of Collection and Calculated The Storm Water Management Fee would be collected and calculated in the manner set forth in City of Palo Alto Utilities Rule and Regulation No. 25, subject to the exemptions set forth in this Section E. As a general rule, ERU's are assigned to each parcel subject to the fee on the following basis: SingleFamily Residential Parcels: Lot Size ERU's <6,000 sq. ft. 0.8 ERU 6,000 11,000 sq. ft. 1.0 ERU >11,000 sq. ft. 1.4 ERU All Other Improved Parcels: Number of ERU = Impervious Area (Sq. Ft.) / 2,500 Assigned ERU's are rounded to the nearest onetenth of an ERU. Unimproved parcels are not subject to the Storm Water Management Fee, and the fee will not be charged for developed parcels that (i) have their own maintained storm drainage facility or facilities, and which do not utilize City facilities or (ii) make no substantial contribution of storm or surface water to the City's storm drainage facilities. For a more complete description of the manner of collection and calculation of the Storm Water Management Fee, reference is made City of Palo Alto Utilities Rule and Regulation No. 25. F. Use of Funds Proceeds of the Storm Water Management Fee would be available to the City exclusively to pay for: (A) Improving the quality of storm and surface water; (B) The operation, maintenance, improvement and replacement of existing City storm drainage facilities; and (C) The operation, maintenance, and replacement of future such facilities. DocuSign Envelope ID: E3D306D8-BB1C-44A1-878F-0C7D65C7BCDE 170417 jb 6053948 6 Permissible uses would include, but not be limited to, Green Storm Water Infrastructure programs (including financial incentives to property owners) intended to reduce the quantity of storm water entering the City's public storm water system or to improve the quality of storm water before it enters that system through measures including, but not limited to, rain gardens, rain barrels/cisterns, green roofs, tree wells, bioretention/infiltration basins and planters, and permeable pavement. G. Oversight provision for proposed fee increase The City Council would appoint an oversight committee to monitor and review expenditures for all storm water funding elements, including, but not limited to, Green Storm Water Infrastructure projects, storm water Capital Improvement Program projects, and Incentive Project funding and ensure that the money raised from the increased storm water management fee is spent in accordance with this resolution. The Committee would be empowered to consider and recommend consolidation of Green Storm Water Infrastructure and Incentive Project funding for particular projects. The City Council may choose to retain the members of the existing Councilappointed Storm Drain Oversight Committee to perform this oversight function. The oversight committee would report its findings to the City Council at least annually. H. Payasyougo funding of capital improvements The storm drain capital improvements to be funded through the proposed Storm Water Management Fee would be paid for on a payasyougo basis, without debt financing. DocuSign Envelope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ssued by the City Council Effective 6-1-2017 Supersedes Sheet No.D-1-1 dated 7-1-2016 Sheet No.D-1-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to all storm and surface water drainage service, excepting only those users and to the extent that they are constitutionally exempt under the Constitution of the State of California or who are determined to be exempt pursuant to Rule and Regulation 25. B. TERRITORY: Inside the incorporated limits of the city of Palo Alto and land owned or leased by the city. C. RATES: Per Month: Stormwater Management Fee per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) ........................................$13.65 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. An Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) is the basic unit for computation of stormwater managemetn fees for residential and non-residential customers. All single-family residential properties shall be billed the number of ERUs specified in the following table, based on an analysis of the relationship between impervious area and lot size for Palo Alto properties. RESIDENTIAL RATES (Single-Family Residential Properties PARCEL SIZE (sq.ft.) ERU <6,000 sq.ft. 0.8 ERU 6,000 - 11,000 sq.ft. 1.0 ERU >11,000 sq.ft. 1.4 ERU All other properties will have ERU's computed to the nearest 1/10 ERU using the following formula: No. of ERU = Impervious Area (Sq. Ft.) 2,500 Sq. Ft. 2. For more details on the storm drainage fee, refer to Utilities Rule and Regulation 25. {End} City of Palo Alto (ID # 7662) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/22/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Title: Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council review and provide feedback on the Draft Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan. Executive Summary This staff report includes an update on the development of the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan including a review of the Draft Master Plan. Access to parks, open space and recreation opportunities are invaluable to a healthy city, providing health, social connection, environmental stewardship, and even economic benefits. A city that invests in its parks and recreation facilities and programs ensures its assets keep pace with a changing population and community needs and also invests in the quality of life of its residents. The existing network of Palo Alto’s parks, recreation facilities and programs provide an array of opportunities for residents and visitors to connect with nature, improve their physical and mental health, make social connections and advance their personal growth. As we look to the future Palo Alto will need to respond to a growing population, shift in demographics, new best practices, and aging facilities and infrastructure. To meet this need, the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) was developed to provide guidance, direction and a prioritization process for future renovations and capital improvements, as well as recreation programming, environmental enhancements and efficient and sustainable maintenance. The Master Plan presents the vision for Palo Alto’s parks, trails, natural open spaces and recreation system (both facilities and programs) for the next 20 years. Through a framework of goals, policies and programs, the Master Plan identifies the needs and opportunities for maintaining, enhancing and expanding the system, as identified through a rigorous data collection and community engagement effort. Implementation of the Master Plan will provide benefits to the Palo Alto community in a many ways - from building social connections to City of Palo Alto Page 2 strengthening the overall well-being of the community; the needs and opportunities identified in the Master Plan will contribute to improving the physical, social, emotional and mental health of both residents and visitors and will provide a forum for fostering a culture of connectedness. The Master Plan was developed using a three phase process. The first phase included a comprehensive inventory and analysis of all Palo Alto parks, trails, developed natural open space areas (picnic areas, parking lots) and recreational facilities and programs. This phase also included an analysis of current and forecasted demographic and recreation trends. A proactive community engagement process that included a broad range of activities was used to identify community and stakeholder needs, interests and preferences for system enhancements. The second phase used the data and information gathered in Phase One, and with oversight by the Parks and Recreation Commission, six goals were developed followed by a series of policies and programs. It is not expected that all of the programs in the Master Plan will be completed in a twenty year horizon, instead the Master Plan offers an aspirational suite of programs and projects that will help achieve the goals. This phase concluded with the development of the final Master Plan chapter titled Implementation. This chapter includes a process for prioritization, a summary of high priority projects and programs, potential funding options and a process for evaluating future projects. The third and final phase included drafting of the Master Plan document itself and stakeholder review. The Draft Master Plan has been reviewed by the community, stakeholder group and Parks and Recreation Commission who unanimously endorsed the draft plan in December 2016, and it is now being presented to Council for feedback. It is expected that staff will return to Council and recommend that Council adopt a final Master Plan in June 2017. This report provides an update and review of draft master plan report (Attachment A), including development of the final chapter on implementation; changes made since the September 6, 2016 Council Study Session a summary of community outreach efforts; and Parks and Recreation Commission review. Background The City of Palo Alto has 32 parks and four open space preserves covering approximately 4,165 acres of land, including Foothills Park, Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, Esther Clark Park, and the Baylands Nature Preserve. A Capital Improvement Project for a Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan was adopted by Council for the 2013 fiscal year. The purpose of this effort is to provide the necessary analysis and review of Palo Alto’s parks and recreation system for the preparation of a long-range (20-year) Master Plan. Though the Master Plan addresses trails and natural open space, the intent is not to provide specific guidance on how to manage and maintain the City’s trails and open space preserves. Existing plans such as the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Trail Management Plan (2001) and the City of Palo Alto Page 3 Foothills Park Trail Maintenance Plan (2002) provide trail management guidance. There are also current and planned capital projects to develop comprehensive conservation plans for the Baylands Nature Preserve (fiscal year 2017); and for Foothills Park, Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, and Esther Clark Park (fiscal year 2019), which will provide specific guidance on vegetation and habitat management, wildlife management, and wildlife-appropriate public access. This Master Plan will focus on the developed areas within the City’s natural open space areas, such as parking lots, picnic areas and facilities, and provide recommendations on how they can best be enhanced using sustainable best practices. When adopted, the Master Plan will provide the City with clear guidance regarding future capital improvement projects and program enhancements aimed at meeting current and future demands on the City’s parks and recreation facilities, recreation programming, the natural environment and facility maintenance. The Master Plan includes an implementation guide for the near, mid, and long-term as well as funding strategies. The Master Plan process consisted of three phases: City of Palo Alto Page 4 Phase One: Specific Site and Program Analysis and Community Engagement The “project team” comprised of City staff and the consultant firm MIG, along with significant review and input from the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), gathered and analyzed data collected from Palo Alto’s current parks and recreation system and the community. The Phase One analysis included a physical inventory of parks and recreation assets, extensive community outreach to identify community and stakeholder needs, interests and preferences for system enhancements, and a review of projected community demographics and recreation trends. This culminated in a list of potential needs and opportunities for the overall parks and recreation system and is compiled in a “Data and Needs Summary Matrix”, which can be found on the project website at www.paloaltoparksplan.org. To develop a vision for the City’s parks, trails, open space and recreation system, the following eight principles were developed and provide the foundation for the Master Plan. The Principles reflect the outcome of the analysis and feedback received during the community engagement process. The Principles, which are defined in Chapter 4 of the Draft Master Plan, are: Playful, Healthy, Sustainable, Inclusive, Accessible, Flexible, Balanced and Nature. Phase Two: Developing and Prioritizing Project and Program Opportunities At the beginning of Phase Two, the results of the data analysis and community input were compiled into 12 areas of focus that identify the major themes and key components that will guide policy and program recommendations. These areas of focus were developed as part of the on-line community survey as a means of allowing the community to provide input on the types of projects and programs that should be prioritized. The areas of focus, presented as “key findings” in the Draft Master Plan are: • Distributing park and recreation activities and experiences across the city • Improving the accessibility of the full range of park and recreation opportunities • Exploring new types of programs, classes, events and activities for all ages and abilities • Improving and enhancing community center and recreation spaces across the community • Enhancing capacity and quality of sports fields • Increasing the variety of things to do in existing parks • Enhancing comfort and making parks more welcoming • Increasing health and wellness opportunities in parks and programs • Integrating nature into Palo Alto parks • Improving spaces and increased options for off-leash dogs • Expanding the system • Offering more of the existing programs, classes and events The project team, working with the PRC, consolidated these areas of focus into five master plan goals. One additional goal was added to represent the standards for operating existing and future parks, recreation, and open space systems. The goals will provide overall direction for long term improvements to the parks and recreation system, while balancing the broad range of interests of Palo Alto’s diverse community with the natural environment. The goals provide City of Palo Alto Page 5 an organizational structure for the policies and programs of the Master Plan and are introduced in Chapter 4. Following the goals are policies and programs. The policies, like the goals, were developed from the analysis in phase one and draws on community input, park and program analysis, staff input and PRC feedback. The programs provide specific actions toward achieving the goals and policies and represent potential enhancements and expansions for the parks and recreation system including recreation programming. Programs include specific capital improvements, programs and services, as well as studies to gather needed data to give direction on capital improvements, programs and services where there is insufficient data. Phase two concluded with development of a prioritization process that involves applying a set of criteria that will guide future implementation. A list of high priority projects and programs was also developed and is presented in Chapter 5 of the Draft Master Plan. This list was developed with feedback from the PRC, community, stakeholders and City staff and represents what we know today are high priority needs and/or opportunities. Further details on development of the implementation chapter is included in the Discussion section of this staff report. Phase Three: Drafting of the Master Plan, Review and Adoption The final phase includes a review of the Draft Master Plan by the Community, Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), and City Council then ultimately adoption of a Final Master Plan. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review is underway and will be completed prior to City Council adoption of the Master Plan. Discussion The draft Master Plan was previously reviewed by Council at a Council Study Session on September 6, 2016. All comments were considered and provided guidance in preparing this draft of the Master Plan. Several policies and programs were modified in response to comments and feedback received. Council comments that resulted in changes are summarized below. Council comment (Includes original text) Revision to Master Plan (Includes revised text) Program 1.B.6: Should include “or other recreational opportunities” in addition to usable park space, essentially in mixed-use developments. 1.B.6 Create usable park space on top of utilities, parking or other infrastructure uses. (Examples: Anaheim Utility Park, UC Berkeley Underhill Parking Structure, Portland’s Director Park, Stanford University Wilbur Field Garage). Policy 1.B.6 has been revised: 1.B.6 Create usable park space, or other recreational opportunities, on top of utilities, parking or other infrastructure uses. (Examples: Anaheim Utility Park, UC Berkeley Underhill Parking Structure, Portland’s Director Park, Stanford University Wilbur Field Garage). Program 1.B.12: What would we lose by dedicating Program 1.B.12 has been revised: City of Palo Alto Page 6 these locations as parkland? There is loss of flexibility that comes with parkland dedication. 1.B.12 Identify and dedicate (as parkland) City- controlled spaces serving, or capable of serving, park-like or recreational uses (e.g., Winter Lodge, Gamble Gardens, Rinconada Community Gardens, GreenWaste Facility at the former PASCO site, former Los Altos Sewage Treatment Plan, Kingsley Island.) 1.B.12 Identify and dedicate (as parkland) City- controlled spaces serving, or capable of serving, park-like or recreational uses, where appropriate (e.g., Winter Lodge, Gamble Gardens, Rinconada Community Gardens, GreenWaste Facility at the former PASCO site, former Los Altos Sewage Treatment Plan, Kingsley Island). Program 4.A.1: Remove “prioritize” from this program. 4.A.1: Prioritize development of Comprehensive Conservation Plans for the Baylands Preserve, Foothills Park, Esther Clark Park and Pearson- Arastradero to identify strategies to balance ecosystem preservation, passive recreation, and environmental education. Policy 4.A.1 has been revised: 4.A.1 Develop comprehensive conservation plans for Baylands Preserve, Foothills Park, Esther Clark Park, and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve to identify strategies to balance ecosystem preservation, passive recreation, and environmental education. There is a need for a high school team recreation league like intramurals, particularly soccer and basketball. The following program was added to the Master Plan: 5.B.9 Explore addition of intramural sports for middle and high school students through a partnership with Palo Alto Unified School District. There needs to be opportunities for youth to be involved in outdoor unstructured play and informal unorganized sports such as “pick up” games. The following program was added to the Master Plan: 5.B.10 Provide opportunities for “pickup” or non- league sports activities at City parks and recreation facilities. Policy 5.C Parks on parking decks and rooftops should not be dedicated parkland because that space may need to be altered in the future. There may be a need for another category of “park-like functions.” 5.C Expand the overall parks and recreation system through repurposing public land, partnering with other organizations for shared land, incorporating public park spaces on parking decks and rooftops, if appropriate, and other creative means to help address shortages of available land. Policy 5.C has been revised: 5.C Expand the overall parks and recreation system through repurposing public land, partnering with other organizations for shared land, incorporating public park spaces on parking decks and rooftops, if appropriate, and other creative means to help address shortages of available land. A new program was added: 5.C.1 Explore a process to utilize and reserve select public and private lands for “parklike” functions that allows for more flexibility than formal park dedication. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Program 6.C.2 should not include the requirement that more than 50% of participants be Palo Alto residents. 6.C.2: Use of parks for locally focused events, where more than 50% of participants are expected to be Palo Alto residents and that allow registration by the general public (e.g., events such as, races, obstacle course events, triathlons, etc.) may be considered by staff if consistent with this Master Plan. Program 6.C.2 has been revised: 6.C.2 Exclusive use of parks for locally focused events that allow registration by the general public (e.g., races, obstacle course events, triathlons, etc.) may be considered by staff if consistent with this Master Plan. Since the September 6th Council meeting, the final chapter has been developed to guide implementation of the Master Plan moving forward. The Implementation chapter includes a prioritization process that will be used to create and update an annual action plan concurrent with the City’s annual budget process. The prioritization process involves evaluating the benefit of proposed projects and programs to the community by applying the following set of criteria: fill existing gaps; respond to growth; address community preferences; maximize public resources; and realize multiple benefits. The implementation chapter also includes a list of high priority projects and programs, which was developed with feedback from the PRC, community, stakeholders and City staff. The list represents what we know today are high priority needs and/or opportunities. The programs and projects have been arranged from high to low urgency with the projects divided into two groups: 1) large scale projects that will require more study and a long-term planning and funding strategy and 2) those projects that can be initiated immediately, usually of smaller scale and lower funding requirements or shift in staff priorities. The priority projects and programs have been further developed to include a description, level of planning effort needed, estimated capital cost and annual operating cost, time frame and urgency for each project or program. Some of the projects and programs can be completed with minimal investment and in the near term while others, like large scale capital projects will require efforts over the life of the plan as well as funding source. The Implementation Chapter also includes existing and potential funding sources for capital projects and recreation programs and services. The draft Master Plan was made available for public review on the project web site from November 10, 2016 through December 9, 2016. The website included specific questions related to which of the Master Plan principles and goals are most important to the respondent and should guide the City’s implementation of the Master Plan. Respondents were asked to select three principles and three goals. The next set of questions asked the reader to rate what aspect of the Master Plan should the City focus its efforts toward implementation. The choices included “programs, classes or activities” versus “physical improvements or new facilities”, and “major upgrades and new facilities” versus “smaller improvements throughout the system.” The intent of the specific questions was to reaffirm what we had learned in the community engagement phase of the master planning effort and guide staff into the implementation City of Palo Alto Page 8 phase. An additional open-ended question allowed respondents to provide additional comments or feedback on the Draft Master Plan. A total of 75 respondents answered the specific questions with 96% of respondents being Palo Alto residents. A memo summarizing responses received on the specific questions and comments from the open-ended question is included as Attachment B. The Parks and Recreation Commission and the PRC’s Master Plan Ad Hoc committee played an important and integral role throughout the Master Planning process, deliberating on direction, reviewing drafts and attending community meetings. Most recently, on December 14, 2016 the PRC voted unanimously to “accept the Draft Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan as the embodiment of the programs and policies that are tentatively recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission.” The PRC could not accept the Draft Master Plan in its entirety without a completed environmental review. Attachment C provides the minutes from the December 14th PRC meeting. Next Steps A CEQA review of the Master Plan is underway to confirm the recommended policies and programs identified in the plan will not have a signficant impact on the enviornment or community. The public comment period for the CEQA document began in early May and a public hearing, as required per CEQA is planned for May 23, 2017. Staff plans to return to Council in late June 2017 to request adoption of the finalized master plan report and CEQA document. Timeline May to early June, 2017: Community review May 23, 2017: Public meeting/hearing June 2017: Council considers adoption of the Master Plan and CEQA Resource Impact Funding for this study and planning process is in Capital Improvement Program project PE- 13003: Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan, which was adopted by Council in Fiscal Year 2013. The objective of this plan is to assess the long-term needs and opportunities for development and improvement of existing parks, open space areas, regional trails and recreation facilities; the acquisition of new park land or expansion of existing park land to meet the on-going needs of the community; meeting the strategic maintenance needs of existing facilities in a cost- effective manner; the prioritization of recommended improvement and acquisition projects; and to provide funding strategies (public and private) for the improvements and acquisitions suggested by the report. The intent of this planning is to utilize limited Capital Improvement Funds and other resources wisely and effectively, and to leverage these resources with grants or private funding whenever possible. The Master Plan makes recommendations that call for new investments in the future including the development of a strategic funding plan to City of Palo Alto Page 9 successfully implement the recommendations. The recommended projects and programs that are included in the Master Plan should be considered potential future projects, and the level and extent of improvements and expansion will be dependent on the availability of resources and the ongoing evaluation of the City’s needs and interests across all departments. Council has made the infrastructure management plan the priority for citywide infrastructure needs and the projects in the Master Plan would need to be aligned with the infrastructure management plan. Policy Implications The proposed Master Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policy C-26 of the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22 that encourages new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. Environmental Review The Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreaion Master Plan is considered a Project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and requires review pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA guidelines. (Public Resources Code section 15262.) An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and has been made available for public review. The Master Plan recommendations may result in future capital improvement projects and environmental review will be conducted in compliance with CEQA for any future projects. Attachments A: Draft Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Report – March 2017 B: Summary of community review comments C: Minutes from December 14, 2017 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission Attachments: PaloAlto_MasterPlan_DRAFT_032017 Att B Palo Alto Master Plan Comments Summary 120216 Att C 12-14-16 PRC Minutes PB PALOALTO MASTER PLAN MARCH 2017 DRAFT PARKS TRAILS NATURAL OPEN SPACE & RECREATION 2 2 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation MASTER PLAN i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO This project was a joint effort of the Community Services and Public Works Departments of the City of Palo Alto. The core team included the following staff members: Rob de Geus, Director of Community Services Kristen O’Kane, Assistant Director of Community Services Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks & Golf Division Manager Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer The Parks and Recreation Commission advised staff throughout the planning process: Jim Cowie Anne Warner Cribbs Jennifer Hetterly Abbie Knopper Ed Lauing David Moss Keith Reckdahl Past Members: Stacy Ashlund Dierdre Crommie Pat Markevitch CONSULTANT TEAM MIG, INC. PALO ALTO COMMUNITY Special thanks to the dedicated Palo Alto residents and community members who contributed their time, energy and ideas to this effort, particularly the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group. ii Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation MASTER PLAN iiiii Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation MASTER PLAN CONTENTS MASTER PLAN Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................................v Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 2. Elements of Palo Alto’s Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation System ...........9 Chapter 3. Analysis & Assessment ....... ............................................................................................................. 23 Chapter 4. Our Future: Principles, Goals, Policies, Programs & Projects ................................................49 Chapter 5. Implementation .....................................................................................................................................79 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................................117 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................... 119 Photo Credits ............................................................................................................................................................. 123 APPENDICES A. Parks & Recreation Facilities Inventory .......................................................................................................A-1 B. Geographic Analysis ............................................................................................................................................B-1 C. Community Engagement...................................................................................................................................C-1 D. Existing Capital & Operations Funding Sources .......................................................................................D-1 FIGURES Figure 1: Planning Process .........................................................................................................................................4 Figure 2: Existing Public Parks and Natural Open Space Map ....................................................................14 Figure 3: Program Areas by Number of Participants .....................................................................................20 Figure 4: Projected Growth in Palo Alto’s Senior Population ......................................................................28 Figure 5: Palo Alto Race and Ethnicity..................................................................................................................29 Figure 6: Park Walksheds Map ...............................................................................................................................32 Figure 7: Prioritization Challenge Results ..........................................................................................................39 Figure 8: Park Search Areas Map ..........................................................................................................................42 Figure 9: Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes Map .............................................................................................44 Figure 10: Natural Systems Map ...........................................................................................................................46 iv Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation MASTER PLAN TABLES Table 1: Palo Alto Parks and Natural Open Spaces Inventory ....................................................................13 Table 2: Palo Alto Facility Inventory ......................................................................................................................16 Table 3: City of Palo Alto Projected Population.................................................................................................26 Table 4: City of Palo Alto Key Age Groups...........................................................................................................27 Table 5: Funding Applicability ................................................................................................................................105 Table 6: Existing Indicators ....................................................................................................................................113 Table 7: Recommended Indicators .....................................................................................................................115 v Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To build on and continue the legacy of its strong parks system, the City of Palo Alto developed the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) to guide ongoing investment in one of the community’s most treasured assets. The Master Plan presents the vision for the future of Palo Alto’s parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system, based on guiding principles, goals and concepts developed through a rigorous analysis of the existing system and a robust community engagement process. It builds on this framework with a set of policies, projects and programs and recommendations for future renovations and capital improvements. It also includes guidance on how to prioritize future recreation, programming, environmental and maintenance investments to meet our community’s changing needs and evolving demands for the next 20 years. Planning Process The Master Plan process consisted of three phases: • Phase I: Community Engagement, Specific Site Analysis and Program Analysis. This phase included development of a comprehensive inventory and analysis of all Palo Alto parks, trails, developed natural open space areas (picnic areas, parking lots) and recreational facilities and programs; analysis of current and forecasted demographic and recreation trends; and analysis of community recreation needs. It also included identification of community and stakeholder needs, interests and preferences for system enhancements using a proactive community engagement process with a broad range of activities. • Phase II: Developing and Prioritizing Project and Program Opportunities. During this phase, Palo Alto developed goals, policies and programs; identified capital projects, needed renovations and other improvements; and prioritized actions into short, medium and long-term implementation timelines using what was learned in Phase 1. The Palo Alto community provided feedback on priorities and programs through several activities. • Phase III: Master Plan Drafting, Review and Adoption. In Phase 3, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), City Council and Palo Alto community reviewed and refined the draft Master Plan, and Council adopted it. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viv Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Community engagement opportunities were infused throughout the planning process. Engagement methods included a wide variety of tools and activities, offered within a range of formats, time frames and levels of interaction, to engage with Palo Alto’s diverse community members in ways that were comfortable and convenient for them. Opportunities The input from the community, combined with analysis of the many aspects of the park system, generated a wide range of opportunities. In the overall context of limited land, three properties in Palo Alto represent unique opportunities, as they are already owned by the City and are not yet designated for a specific use : • Cubberley Community Center: The City owns 8 of the 35 acres of this former high school campus and has managed leases within the buildings with a number of community organizations and businesses while also scheduling the gym and field space. The City and the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) have agreed to jointly master plan the redevelopment of the site by 2020. • Foothills Park Expansion: The City acquired 7.7 acres of land adjacent to Foothills Park and has dedicated it as an expansion of the park. The expansion is cut off from the developed portion of the park by the existing maintenance facility. Discussion of the future of this site is pending the results of the Buckeye Creek hydrology study, which will be completed in summer 2017. • Baylands Athletic Center Expansion: As a result of the redesign of the Palo Alto Golf Course, 10.5 acres of land was added to the adjacent Baylands Athletic Center site for future recreation opportunities. In addition, three concept maps illustrate high-value opportunities to further create a multi-layered system of parklands and connections that serves both people and natural systems. The maps can also serve as tools for supporting decisions on individual policies, programs and projects. MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT METHODS • A project webpage • Public information updates through a variety of online and print communication channels • A series of face-to-face “intercept surveys” at popular locations and community events • A variety of interactive community workshops • A series of online surveys • Interviews with City staff and community experts to better inform topics that emerged from community engagement • Consultations with the Parks and Recreation Commision (PRC) and other appointed commissions • City Council updates and study sessions vii Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Park Search Areas Expand the System This map identifies areas of Palo Alto where residents lack access to parks and natural open spaces within ¼ mile of their homes. These “park search areas,” labeled A through E for planning purposes, will help Palo Alto focus future park additions in neighborhoods with the greatest need: for example, those with the highest density and/or largest population. Meanwhile, this map shows the importance of public access to school grounds that fall within park search areas (noted in purple), which have the potential to be maintained and expanded. e San Francisquito Creek Matadero C ree k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarder o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charles t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features Park Search Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Search Areas Priority School Sites A Park Search Area B: Lowest population and lowest population density Park Search Area D: Highest population Park Search Area E: Highest population density A B C D E AddisonElementary School AddisonElementary School DuveneckElementary School DuveneckElementary School El Carmelo Elementary School El Carmelo Elementary School Ohlone Elementary Ohlone Elementary Jordan Middle School Jordan Middle School Palo Verde Elementary School Palo Verde Elementary School e San Francisquito Creek Matadero Cree k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarder o R d Mid d l e fi e l d R d Alm a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Alm a S t Charles t o n R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaceand Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features Park Search Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Search Areas Priority School Sites A Park Search Area B: Lowest population and lowest population density Park Search Area D: Highest population Park Search Area E: Highest population density A B C D E AddisonElementary School AddisonElementary School DuveneckElementary School DuveneckElementary School El Carmelo Elementary School El Carmelo Elementary School Ohlone Elementary Ohlone Elementary Jordan Middle School Jordan Middle School Palo Verde Elementary School Palo Verde Elementary School e S an Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarder o R d Mid d l e fi e l d R d Alm a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Alm a S t Charlesto n R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaceand Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features Park Search Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Search Areas Priority School Sites A Park Search Area B: Lowest population and lowest population density Park Search Area D: Highest population Park Search Area E: Highest population density A B C D E AddisonElementary School AddisonElementary School DuveneckElementary School DuveneckElementary School El Carmelo Elementary School El Carmelo Elementary School Ohlone Elementary Ohlone Elementary Jordan Middle School Jordan Middle School Palo Verde Elementary School Palo Verde Elementary School viiivii Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Connect the System A selection of Palo Alto’s existing and planned bikeways and pedestrian routes can be leveraged to improve park and recreation access. This map illustrates this potential network of trails and enhanced roadways that connect neighborhoods to local and regional parks, recreation facilities and natural open spaces. These routes are part of the City’s adopted Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan and related work on Safe Routes to School. Recommended enhanced routes, labeled 1 through 3 for planning purposes, provide main north to south travel corridors between Palo Alto’s parks and into neighboring communities. Regional trails like the Bay to Ridge and San Francisco Bay trails provide similar travel corridors from Foothills Park and Arastradero Preserve in the southwest to the Baylands Preserve and other shoreline parks and natural open spaces to the northeast. Recommended park connectors complete the network by linking the remaining park sites. Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Enhanced Bikeway Features Recommended Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes Regional Trails (Bay to Ridge Trails, San Francisco Bay Trail) Recommended Park Connectors 1 Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet 2 2 1 1 3 3 e San Francisquito Creek Matadero C ree k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarder o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charles t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaceand Recreation Master Plan Enhanced Bikeway Features Recommended Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes Regional Trails (Bay to Ridge Trails, San Francisco Bay Trail) Recommended Park Connectors 1 Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet 2 2 1 1 3 3e San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarder o R d Mid d l e fi e l d R d Alm a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Alm a S t Charles t o n R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaceand Recreation Master Plan Enhanced Bikeway Features Recommended Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes Regional Trails (Bay to Ridge Trails, San Francisco Bay Trail) Recommended Park Connectors 1 Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet 2 2 1 1 3 3 e San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarder o R d Mid d l e fi e l d R d Alm a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Alm a S t Charlesto n R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Park Connections ix Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Connect Natural Systems This map illustrates how the same corridors recommended for bike and pedestrian enhancements can also provide connectivity for natural systems. Landscape design features such as increased urban forest canopy, native species plantings and stormwater bioswales can create safe paths of travel and provide habitat value for local wildlife. Creek and riparian enhancements, supported by these “pollinator pathways,” would improve water quality and habitat connections between regionally significant habitats in the hills and in the bay. New street and park trees would benefit areas that currently have low tree canopy coverage, highlighted in tan. Pollinator Pathways Community Gardens Wetland Habitat Riparian Connected Parks Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Mean Projected High Water -3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA) Creeks and Channels Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) Natural System Features City Park City Natural Open Spaces Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Water Bodies Urban Canopy Target Areas Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in the Bayland Preserve:Western burrowing owlCalifornia seabliteNorthern coastal salt marsh Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in San Francisquito Creek:SteelheadCalifornia red legged frogWestern pond turtleShowy rancheria cloverValley oak woodland Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve:Western pond turtleSerpentine bunchgrassIndian Valley bush-mallow Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park:Western LeatherwoodValley oak woodland Regional Habitat Connection Concept e San Francisquito Creek Matadero C ree k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charles t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Pollinator Pathways Community Gardens Wetland Habitat Riparian Connected Parks Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Mean Projected High Water -3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA) Creeks and Channels Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) Natural System Features City Park City Natural Open Spaces Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Water Bodies Urban Canopy Target Areas Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in the Bayland Preserve:Western burrowing owlCalifornia seabliteNorthern coastal salt marsh Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in San Francisquito Creek:SteelheadCalifornia red legged frogWestern pond turtleShowy rancheria cloverValley oak woodland Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve:Western pond turtleSerpentine bunchgrassIndian Valley bush-mallow Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park:Western LeatherwoodValley oak woodland Regional Habitat Connection Concept e San Francisquito Creek Matadero Cree k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Orego n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarde r o R d Mid d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charlesto n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Pollinator Pathways Community Gardens Wetland Habitat Riparian Connected Parks Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Mean Projected High Water -3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA) Creeks and Channels Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) Natural System Features City Park City Natural Open Spaces Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Water Bodies Urban Canopy Target Areas Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo AltoParks, Trails, Natural Open Spaceand Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in the Bayland Preserve:Western burrowing owlCalifornia seabliteNorthern coastal salt marsh Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in San Francisquito Creek:SteelheadCalifornia red legged frogWestern pond turtleShowy rancheria cloverValley oak woodland Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve:Western pond turtleSerpentine bunchgrassIndian Valley bush-mallow Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park:Western LeatherwoodValley oak woodland Regional Habitat Connection Concept e S an Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo AltoAtherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Orego n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarde r o R d Mid d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charlest o n R d El Camino R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Natural Systems xix Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Principles, Goals and Policies Through the Master Plan process, the Palo Alto community defined a future for parks, trails, natural open spaces and recreation. Distilled community input and themes from the analysis process led to the principles, goals and system-wide concepts that describe the community’s long-term vision for the future system. Principles The eight principles represent the collective direction provided by hundreds of participants from across the city as well as many local stakeholder groups. Building on our assets, our vision for the continuing evolution of the park system is encapsulated in the following eight principles: • Playful: Inspires imagination and joy. • Healthy: Supports the physical and mental health and well- being of individuals as well as the connectedness and cohesion of the community. • Sustainable: Stewards natural, economic and social resources for a system that endures for the long term. • Inclusive: Responsive to the entire Palo Alto community: all ages, abilities, languages, cultures and levels of income. • Accessible: Easy for people of all abilities to use year-round and access by all modes of travel. • Flexible: Supports multiple uses across time with adaptable spaces that can accommodate traditional, emerging and future uses. • Balanced: Is not dominated by any one type of experience or place and includes both historic elements and cutting-edge features, highly manicured and more organic spaces, and self- directed and programmed activities. • Nature: Incorporates native species and habitat corridors, and creates opportunities to learn about and interact with nature. PLAYFUL HEALTHY SUSTAINABLE INCLUSIVE ACCESSIBLE FLEXIBLE BALANCED NATURE xi Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Goals Six goals state the community’s desired outcomes and provide an organizational structure for the policies, programs and projects that form the recommendations of the Master Plan. • Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible, inclusive and distributed equitably across Palo Alto. • Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing system of parks, recreation and open space facilities and services. • Create environments that encourage regular active and passive activities to support health, wellness and social connections. • Preserve and integrate nature, natural systems and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto. • Develop innovative programs, services and strategies for expanding the system. • Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and qualitative measures. Policies The principles and goals will be realized through the policies described in Chapter 4 of the Master Plan. These policies and programs are organized within the framework of the six goals, with implementing policies and programs following each goal. Implementation Over the next twenty years, the implementation of the projects and programs recommended in the Master Plan will include an annual process initiated by City staff with guidance and leadership from the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council. Palo Alto’s dedicated community advocates and partner organizations will also play an important role in ensuring the proposed programs and projects align with the needs of the community. Projects and programs were prioritized and will continue to be evaluated by five criteria: • Fill existing gaps: Bring recreation opportunities (parkland, facilities, programs) to areas of the City and to users where gaps were identified. The goals reflect the community’s desired outcomes, examples of these outcomes are shown above. xiixi Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Respond to growth: Add features or programs and/or modify or expand components of the system to prepare for and address increasing demand. • Address community preferences: Target the highest priority types of projects and programs identified through citywide outreach. • Maximize public resources: Create the most benefit for each dollar of capital and operating expenditure possible. • Realize multiple benefits: Advance the principles of this Master Plan as well as the goals, projects and directions of other adopted City efforts. High-Priority Projects and Programs There are thirty-four projects and programs that we know today are high priorities, based on feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission, City Council, stakeholders, the broader community and City staff. These priorities are organized by projects and programs in order of urgency. Urgency was determined by the availability compared to the need, the time sensitivity or potential for missed opportunities and is discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of this plan. Major projects needing further study and strategic funding • Enhance existing sports fields • Plan, design and construct 10.5-acre site in Baylands for park uses • Plan, design and redevelop Cubberley Community Center • Plan, design and construct a new public gymnasium • Improve the Rinconada Pool Facility • Incorporate 7.7-acre site into Foothills Park • Acquire new parkland in high-need areas • Improve golf course facility Examples of the types of programs and projects that can be implemented by the dedicated community of Palo Alto. xiii Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Projects ready in the short term • Develop conservation plans for open space preserves • Develop new dog parks in underrepresented areas • Construct new restrooms in parks • Incorporate sustainable practices in the maintenance and management of parks, open space and recreation facilities • Exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements in parks • Improve trail connections and access • Develop adult fitness areas in parks • Integrate nature into urban parks • Develop new community gardens in underserved areas • Enhance seating areas in parks • Create wayfinding signage of safe routes to parks Programs • Establish and grow partnerships and identify and cultivate potenial park and recreation donors • Collaborate with school district to increase access to playgrounds, gyms and other school facilities • Expand recruitment and training of coaches and instructors • Expand aquatics programs • Expand programs for seniors • Expand non-academic programs for teens Some projects need further study and funding, wheras others are ready in the short-term based on feedback from the community. xivxiii Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Provide intramural sports program for middle and high school students • Invest in staff training to enhance therapeutic and inclusive program development • Increase the variety of activities available in parks • Encourage unstructured play at parks and community centers • Connect youth, teens and families with nature • Expand programs related to health and wellness • Pilot temporary/pop-up programming in parks • Expand community-focused special events • Offer cultural enrichment programs Master Plan Progress Tracking Existing measures, from the Citizen Centric Report and the annual citizen satisfaction survey, provide a large selection of indicators for any part of the parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system. Additional recommended indicators include new measures of satisfaction, performance and funding. Further progress tracking will include reports on specific actions or projects that have been initiated or completed that contribute to the achievement of the programs, policies and goals. This annual progress report will also update funding status. Examples of desired programs based on feedback from the community. CHAPTER1 PURPOSE AND INTENT It has been fifty years since Palo Alto has taken a comprehensive look at the community’s needs for parklands, natural open space, trails and recreation. Past planning shaped our community’s present day parks and recreation offerings and led to the creation of the Baylands Athletic Center, expansion of athletic fields throughout the City and an expansion of Greer Park. Our predecessors established standards for parks within one-half mile of every residential development, and for neighborhood and district park acreage to be added as the community grew. Today Palo Alto residents, employees and visitors value and enjoy the City’s high-quality system of parks, recreation programs, trails and natural open INTRODUCTION 2 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation INTRODUCTION EVOLVE THE SYSTEM TO SERVE A LARGER AND MORE DIVERSE SET OF COMMUNITY NEEDS 32 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation INTRODUCTION space. To build on and continue the legacy of a strong parks system, the City developed this Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) to guide ongoing investment in one of the community’s most treasured assets. Over the last five decades, the City has completed a series of planning efforts that affect parks and recreation; implemented capital improvement projects to maintain and renovate City facilities; and applied development impact fees for parks, community centers and libraries. In recent years, several major projects have been completed, including the all-new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and the Magical Bridge Playground, both of which opened in 2015 to community acclaim. Today, Palo Alto has the opportunity to evolve the system to serve a larger and more diverse set of community needs and tackle challenges to maintain the high standard of living enjoyed by residents. A particular focus will be finding and creating additional spaces for parks and recreation to achieve the goals of the City’s recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and bring parks and recreation activities within walking distance of all residents. The park system of the 21st century calls for holistic guidance for managing, improving and expanding park and recreation facilities to keep programs, services and facilities relevant to present and future populations; appropriately balance recreation and natural open space conservation; and identify funding to meet these challenges. For this reason, Palo Alto prioritized the development of this Master Plan. The Master Plan presents the vision for the future of Palo Alto’s parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system, based on guiding principles, goals and concepts developed through a rigorous analysis of the existing system and a robust community engagement process. It builds on this foundation with a set of policies, projects, programs. It also includes guidance on how to prioritize future recreation, programming, environmental and maintenance investment to meet our community’s changing needs and evolving demands for the next 20 years. 4 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation INTRODUCTION Planning Process Overview The planning process to develop the Master Plan consisted of three phases, as shown in Figure 1. • Phase I: Community Engagement, Specific Site Analysis and Program Analysis: This phase included two parallel tracks that informed one another: the Community Engagement and Stakeholder Engagement track and the Technical Assessment and Analysis track. While community engagement continued through all three phases, the bulk of the proactive engagement process occurred in this phase, drawing input from the public and a broad range of stakeholders to identify community needs, interests and preferences for system enhancements. The Technical Assessment and Analysis track included a comprehensive inventory and analysis of all Palo Alto parks, trails, natural open space and recreational facilities and programs; an analysis of current and forecasted demographic and recreation trends; and an analysis of community recreation needs. • Phase II: Developing and Prioritizing Project and Program Opportunities: The two tracks of Phase 1 merged in Phase 2 with the preparation of principles, goals and areas of focus, and the evaluation of project and program opportunities with prioritization into implementation timelines of short (5-year), medium (10-year) and long- term (20-year) ranges. FIGURE 1: PLANNING PROCESS 54 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation INTRODUCTION • Phase III: Master Plan Drafting, Review and Adoption: The Master Plan document was designed and prepared for review by the public, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and City Council. A concurrent environmental review led to adoption of the plan. The process was led by the project team, consisting of City and consultant staff. The PRC was involved throughout the process, serving as strategic advisors and participating in-depth in reviewing the assessment and analysis tasks. Community Engagement The Master Plan was designed to be community and data driven, to ensure that Palo Alto’s parks and recreation system reflects the vision and supports the needs of our residents and visitors over the next twenty years. A robust, layered outreach strategy was implemented through each step of the planning process. Engagement methods included a wide variety of tools and activities, offered within a range of formats, time frames and levels of interaction, to engage with Palo Alto’s diverse community members in ways that were comfortable and convenient for them. Master Plan community engagement methods, described in Chapter 3 and Appendix C, included: • A project webpage • Public information updates through a variety of online and print communication channels • A community stakeholder advisory group • A series of face-to-face “intercept surveys” at popular locations and community events • A variety of interactive community workshops • A series of online surveys • Interviews with City staff and community experts to better inform topics that emerged from community engagement • Consultations with the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and other appointed commissions • City Council updates and study sessions COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT GOALS • Increase community awareness of the project • Inform the community about the challenges and opportunities of the project • Provide easy access to project information and opportunities for participation • Offer a range of communication and engagement tools to match interests and preferences • Ensure the final Master Plan reflects community priorities, preferences and values • Get community buy-in to support plan adoption and its short-, mid- and long- term implementation 6 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation INTRODUCTION The process and findings for each of the community engagement activities are detailed in summary reports on the City website. The summary of the key findings from the community engagement are included in Chapter 3 and Appendix C of this plan. Specific Site and Program Analysis The project team completed a detailed analysis of all aspects of the system to inform the Master Plan. The multi-layered approach to analysis, the interconnection between the community engagement and the analysis tasks (each feeding into the other) and the coordination with related concurrent planning efforts ensured that this Master Plan is based on sound information and the best available data. LAYERS OF ANALYSIS The layers of assessment and analysis included: • Physical inventory of parks, preserves and facilities • Recreation program inventory and analysis • Geographic analysis • Demographics and recreation trends analysis • Planning environment summary • Sustainability review TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT To assist in referencing and using the large amount of data developed during the process, tabbed binders were created for each member of the PRC and project team with all of the completed documents, numbered for quick reference. An outline of the deliverables for the Master Plan process became the table of contents for the binder. To facilitate broader distribution of the data binders (and reduce paper use), the project team developed a “digital binder,” available on the City website, which consists of a table of contents with hotlinks to each section. This working reference is the Technical Supplement, carrying forward the detail of these working documents. 76 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation INTRODUCTION Developing and Prioritizing Project and Program Opportunities As major elements of the the Community and Stakeholder Engagement processes and the Technical Assessment and Analysis were completed, the PRC and the project team began a detailed review of the accumulated data as it related to each element of the Master Plan, tying these two tracks of the Master Plan process together in preparation for the critical step of developing and prioritizing projects. The process for review, designed by the project team with the input of the PRC, resulted in a detailed reference matrix (with supporting documentation) identifying needs and opportunities. This matrix served as the basis for developing, evaluating and refining the projects and programs contained in this Master Plan. The matrix process allowed the PRC to review the large number of possibilities against the extensive data available in a streamlined, more accessible way. The matrix served as a key reference point to assess and validate elements of the Master Plan as they were developed. The complete matrix can be downloaded from the City website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/. Through this process, the principles and goals were derived. Master Plan Drafting, Review and Adoption The final phase in the Master Plan process involved the drafting of this plan document and formal review by the staff, PRC, stakeholders, the public and City Council. The project team worked to draft the policy and program and project recommendations. These were refined with the input of the staff who manage construction, operations and maintenance of the system, as well as the input of the PRC and Council. This work formed the basis for the final chapters of this plan and set a recommended path forward. The draft plan was presented for review at the PRC as well as a community workshop with an online comment tool to collect specific feedback. To pave the way for implementation, the project team initiated an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) process to advance the necessary California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation. Following the public comment period, the plan was presented for adoption by Palo Alto’s City Council. CHAPTER2 ELEMENTS OF PALO ALTO’S PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACE & RECREATION SYSTEM FROM ITS EARLIEST YEARS, THE COMMUNITY OF PALO ALTO HAS INVESTED IN THE SYSTEM OF PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION, LEAVING A LEGACY OF UNIQUE AND HIGHLY VALUED LANDS AND FACILITIES. Philanthropic donations, unique partnerships and forward-thinking acquisitions have positioned the system at the forefront of community identity. The level of investment has created a complex system that provides many different recreation opportunities, as well as important natural functions and habitat for wildlife. To facilitate the analysis and understanding of Palo Alto’s resources, the project team defined three elements that make up the citywide system of parks, natural open space, trails and recreation facilities and programs. These three elements were 10 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS THE LANDSCAPE OF PARKS, OPEN SPACES AND TRAIL CONNECTIONS PROVIDE THE SPACE WHERE RECREATION FACILITIES, NATURAL HABITAT AND PROGRAMS TAKE PLACE. 1110 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS broken down further into constituent “components” to provide a reference framework for system analysis, community engagement and development of Master Plan recommendations. Each of the elements is described below, providing a view of the system today and highlighting key features. Parks, Trails and Natural Open Space The landscape of parks, open spaces and trail connections provides the space where recreation facilities, natural habitat and programs take place. Most of Palo Alto’s park sites are set in an urban context, within neighborhoods connected by city streets. However, the largest portion of the land in the system is held in natural open space preserves. An expanding network of trails and bikeways supplements the sidewalks and streets that connect these assets. The analysis related to this element includes the proximity of parklands and recreation activities; opportunities to experience and protect natural habitats; trail connections; and the comfort and accessibility of the sites. The System Today Palo Alto maintains 174 acres of urban distributed throughout the city as well as over 4,000 acres in natural open space preserves. Table 1 lists the Palo Alto parks and natural open spaces. The majority of the parks in Palo Alto are neighborhood parks, primarily designed to support the everyday activities of local residents. Several parks also feature unique facilities such as community gardens and dog parks. There are several parks that draw visitors from across the city and from neighboring communities. These parks typically have a higher concentration of facilities, including high-quality sports fields. Some of these parks are designed for a specific use and do not serve immediate neighbors (e.g., Baylands Athletic Center, El Camino Park and Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields), while others, like Greer, Mitchell and Rinconada Parks, also function as neighborhood parks. City parks are diverse in size and amenities, but many are older and/or have aging facilities. Palo Alto parks are highly developed with maintained landscapes across their entire acreage. Native species and less manicured landscapes are ELEMENTS OF THE PALO ALTO SYSTEM • Parks, Trails and Open Space • Recreation Facilities • Recreation Programs 12 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS generally not present. Due to the era when they were built, many parks are not flexible enough to allow different uses to be layered in. Rather, they provide a collection of spaces designed for a single activity. With design interventions, many existing parks have the potential to support more use and activity. There are four natural open space preserves: Baylands Nature Preserve (which includes Byxbee Park), Esther Clark Preserve, Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. These sites are large, are rich in native species of plants and animal habitat and have extensive internal trail systems. With the exception of Esther Clark Preserve, the preserves also have recreational and interpretive facilities. Palo Alto Open Space has 43.2 miles of trail. The Baylands Nature Preserve trail system is approximately 15 miles long and Pearson- Arastradero Preserve trail system is approximately 10.3 miles long. The existing trail system is largely within parklands, but several segments of designated or off-street trails connect parks and other community destinations. Most significant among these are the Bay to Ridge and San Francisco Bay regional trails. The public trail system is further enhanced by privately owned trails with public access, such as the recently completed Stanford Perimeter Trail. Palo Alto’s parks, trails and natural open spaces are also home to much of the urban forest. The lands and connections that make up this element of the system are important to the goals of the City’s Urban Forest Master Plan. The Existing Public Parks and Natural Open Space map (Figure 2) depicts all City-owned (or controlled) park sites and natural open space. Palo Alto Unified School District sites are also acknowledged on this map due to the longstanding partnership and their importance as park-like places. A detailed inventory of these sites can be found in Appendix A, and a complete set of site maps can be found in the Technical Supplement. PALO ALTO PARK ACREAGE Urban Parks: 174 Natural Open Space Preserves: 4,030 NATURAL OPEN SPACE PRESERVES Baylands Nature Preserve (including Byxbee Park) Esther Clark Preserve Foothills Park Pearson-Arastradero Preserve 1312 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS Park or Natural Open Space Ownership Acres Baylands Athletic Center City of Palo Alto 6 Bol Park City of Palo Alto 13.8 Boulware Park City of Palo Alto 1.5 Bowden Park City of Palo Alto 2 Bowling Green Park City of Palo Alto 1.9 (Juana) Briones Park City of Palo Alto 4.1 Cameron Park City of Palo Alto 1.1 Cogswell Plaza City of Palo Alto 0.5 El Camino Park Stanford*12.2 Eleanor Pardee Park City of Palo Alto 9.6 El Palo Alto Park City of Palo Alto 0.5 Greer Park City of Palo Alto 22 Heritage Park City of Palo Alto 2.0 Hoover Park City of Palo Alto 4.2 Hopkins Creekside City of Palo Alto 12.4 Johnson Park City of Palo Alto 2.5 Kellogg Park City of Palo Alto 0.2 Lytton Plaza City of Palo Alto 0.2 Mayfield Park City of Palo Alto 1.1 Mitchell Park City of Palo Alto 21.4 Monroe Park City of Palo Alto 0.6 Peers Park City of Palo Alto 4.7 Ramos Park City of Palo Alto 4.4 Rinconada Park City of Palo Alto 19 Robles Park City of Palo Alto 4.7 Scott Park City of Palo Alto 0.4 Seale Park City of Palo Alto 4.3 Stanford - Palo Alto Playing Fields Stanford*5.9 Terman Park City of Palo Alto/ PAUSD 7.7 Wallis Park City of Palo Alto 0.3 Weisshaar Park City of Palo Alto 1.1 Werry Park City of Palo Alto 1.1 Williams Park City of Palo Alto 0.7 SUBTOTAL CITY PARKS 174 Baylands Nature Preserve (including Byxbee)City of Palo Alto 1,986 Esther Clark Preserve City of Palo Alto 22 Foothills Park City of Palo Alto 1,400 Pearson-Arastradero Preserve City of Palo Alto 622 SUBTOTAL NATURAL OPEN SPACES 4,030 * The two parks owned by Stanford are leased by the City. The El Camino lease expires in 2042 and the Stanford - Palo Alto Playing Fields lease expires in 2056. TABLE 1: PALO ALTO PARKS AND NATURAL OPEN SPACES INVENTORY 14 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS S a n F r a ncisquitoCreek Mat a d e ro C re e k Barron C r e e k Ado b e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M o u n t a i nV i e w M e n l o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o sH i l l s E a s tP a l o A l t o A t h e r t o n S a n M a t e o C o u n t y P o r t o l a V a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayfieldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e f i e l d R d Al m a S t Ara s t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charles t o n Rd El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Figure 8: Existing Public Parks & Natural Open Space Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) FIGURE 2: EXISTING PUBLIC PARKS AND NATURAL OPEN SPACES MAP 1514 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron C r e e k Ado b e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M o u n t a i nV i e w M e n l o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o sH i l l s E a s tP a l o A l t o A t h e r t o n S a n M a t e o C o u n t y P o r t o l a V a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a r a Co u n t y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayfieldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e f i e l d R d Al m a S t Ara s t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Ch arlesto n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Figure 8: Existing Public Parks & Natural Open Space Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) 16 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS Recreation Facilities From community centers to sports fields to community gardens, Palo Alto’s recreation facilities add variety to the experiences pos- sible at each of Palo Alto’s parks and natural open spaces. Twelve types of recreation facilities are found throughout the system. In addition, other specialized recreation facilities such as the skate park at Greer Park, the lawn bowling green at Bowling Green Park, and El Camino Park serve specific recreation needs. The number and type of facilities at each park and preserve are summarized as part of the detailed inventory of the system found in Appendix A. Play Areas The most common, and expected, feature in a Palo Alto park is a play area. Typically play areas include a manufactured playground structure and may or may not include swings or other features. Mitchell Park has particularly unique play experiences that include both a historic Royston-designed “gopher holes” play area and the Magical Bridge Playground, a destination play area designed to be universally accessible for children of all abilities. Basketball and Tennis Courts Courts, primarily for basketball and tennis, are incorporated into many of Palo Alto’s parks. Most of the courts are provided singly or in pairs, with the exception of Mitchell and Rinconada Park, with 7 and 9 tennis courts, respectively. These concentrations of tennis courts provide a higher capacity for play and the potential to host tournaments. Rectangular and Diamond Sports Fields The City owns, manages and maintains dozens of rectangular and diamond sports fields located throughout the City. Rectangular fields accommodate a variety of sports, including soccer and foot- ball. Diamond fields are designed for particular levels of baseball or softball play. Most of the higher-level sports fields are concentrated adjacent to Cubberley Community Center or in field complexes such as the Stanford-Palo Alto Playing Fields and the El Camino Park sports fields. The City also maintains sports fields on several School PALO ALTO RECREATION FACILITIES • Play Areas • Basketball Courts • Tennis Courts • Rectangular Sports Fields • Diamond Sports Fields • Picnic Areas • Off-Leash Dog Areas • Community Gardens • Swimming Pools • Community Centers • Special Purpose Buildings in Parks • Other Indoor Facilities • Golf Course Number of Facilities in Palo Alto Play Areas 29 Basketball Courts 14 Tennis Courts 24 Rectangular Sports Fields 22 Diamond Sports Fields 10 Picnic Areas 39 Pools*2 Dog Parks 3 Community Centers 3 Community Gardens 4 Interpretive Centers 3 *Two pools at the Rinconada Aquatic Center TABLE 2: PALO ALTO FACILITY INVENTORY 1716 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS District sites. Some of the sports fields have lighting that allows for extended play in the evening, a feature that increases the playable time on a field but is not appropriate for all locations. In addition to the formally developed sports fields, many parks feature a large multi-purpose turf area that functions as a sports field for league and casual sports activities. Reserved use of fields and tennis courts is governed by the City’s Field Use Policy, which specifies the preference for local youth play and limits private use. Picnic Areas Most of Palo Alto’s parks also include at least one picnic area. Most of these are small clusters of tables intended for first-come-first- served use. Foothills Park, Rinconada Park and Mitchell Park have designated picnic areas that are available for reservation to accom- modate larger gatherings. Off-Leash Dog Areas Three off-leash areas are provided for park users to exercise and socialize dogs. All three sites, Mitchell Park, Hoover Park and Greer Park, are separated and fenced (per City policy) to keep off-leash dogs away from other users and areas of the parks. Community Gardens The City also provides four community gardens, two in parks (at Johnson Park and Eleanor Pardee Park), one adjacent to the Rinconada Library, and one adjacent to the Ventura Community Center. These facilities are separated into plots and assigned (based on an application and permitting process) to individuals for gardening edible and decorative plants. Swimming Pool The Rinconada Pool, located in the park of the same name, is the City’s only public pool facility. This outdoor facility includes a wading pool with spray and waterfall features, a small slide and a zero-depth “beach” area. A second pool features fourteen lanes and two diving boards. These facilities offer recreational swimming, lessons and private pool parties through the spring, summer and late summer and lap swimming year-round. TABLE 2: PALO ALTO FACILITY INVENTORY 18 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS Community Centers, Special Purpose Buildings and Other Indoor Facilities Palo Alto maintains both general and specialized indoor recreation facilities. The two largest facilities are the Cubberley Community Center and the Lucie Stern Center, which offer a wide variety of programs. However, neither was designed or built primarily as a recreation facility or to provide the mix of programs they currently offer. The majority of the Cubberley site is owned by the Palo Alto Unified School District, with the balance owned by the City. This site is home to a wide range of programs, largely run by partner organi- zations. This facility is also home to the only gymnasiums sched- uled by the City. The future of this siteand a future redevelopment of the facilities there for school and community use, is the subject of ongoing collaboration between the City and the School District. The Lucie Stern Center is a historic building, which opened in 1934 and shares a campus with the Junior Museum and Zoo, as well as the Children’s Theatre and is adjacent to Rinconada Park. The formal ballroom and community rooms are ideal for events and meetings of varying sizes and are used for a wide range of indoor recreation activities, such as regularly scheduled fitness and wellness classes. This building is also home to the administration of Community Services and the Recreation Services division. The brand new Mitchell Park Community Center, adjacent to the new Mitchell Park Library, is designed for flexibility with some spe- cialized spaces. The building includes a teen center that faces the park (and the middle school beyond it) and has several large spaces that can be configured into multiple class or meeting rooms. An outdoor courtyard and the large El Palo Alto room host numerous personal, business and community events. Other buildings and major facilities are more specialized, focusing on a narrower range of functions and representing a significant community investment in one area. This includes the Palo Alto Arts Center, which hosts the visual arts programming provided by the City, as well as visitor centers and other interpretive facilities at Palo Alto’s natural open space preserves. 1918 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS Recreation Programs The programming of recreation activities, ranging from sports and fitness to specialized classes, is the most flexible and dynamic element of the system. Many programs can be held in the most basic of meeting rooms or outdoor spaces, making programming the best way to utilize and activate existing facilities and spaces. Palo Alto benefits from a mix of public, non-profit and private recreation program providers, each working in specific segments of the recreation marketplace. In many cases, programming is provided by private providers (often small businesses) within a City of Palo Alto facility, or a City program may be held in a partner facility such as a School District gym. These partnerships create new opportunities to reach new participants and promote Palo Alto as a place to learn, exercise and have fun. PALO ALTO RECREATION PROGRAM AREAS • Adult Aquatics • Adult Fitness • Adult Special Interest Classes • Adult Sports • Day Camps • Middle School Athletics • Open Space/Outdoor Recreation • Youth and Teen Aquatics • Youth and Teen Sports • Youth and Teen Special Interest Classes • Youth and Teen Sports Camps • Special Events • Therapeutic Recreation • Senior Programs 20 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS Recreation Services The Recreation Division of the Community Services Department of- fers more than 1,300 classes, teams or camps across the fourteen program areas. These programs served over 13,000 participants in 2014-15. Over half of this number were youth-and teen-fo- cused swimming programs and day camps. The Recreation Division categorizes its recreation programs into fourteen areas, by age and topic. Sports programs, particularly middle school athletics and adult sports, are operating over capacity, with full teams and waitlists for most offerings. These programs are not easily expanded, as they rely on limited gym and field space. Middle school athletics are further constrained by a lack of coaches. Other Providers The City of Palo Alto also offers programming through other divi- sions of Community Services, including the Art Center, Children’s Theatre and Junior Museum and Zoo, and separate entities, includ- ing the Palo Alto Library. Programs offered by these other divisions serve thousands of additional adults, youth and teens. Many of Day Camps Youth & Teen Sports Camps Adult Fitness Open Space/Outdoor Recreation Adult Special Interest Classes Middle School Athletics Youth & Teen Sports Youth &Teen Aquatics Adult Sports Youth & Teen Special Interest Classes Community Gardens FIGURE 3: PROGRAM AREAS BY NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS 2120 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS these programs have waitlists, partly because of limited space in the specialized buildings associated with these divisions. In addition to the City, the other major providers of recreation pro- gramming in Palo Alto include the Palo Alto Unified School District as well as many private businesses and non-profit organizations who operate in partnership with the City: • Avenidas • Abilities United • Ballet and Dance Studios • Brad Lozares Golf Shop at Palo Alto Golf Course • Community Sports Organizations (Little League, Soccer Club, Lacrosse, Swim Club, etc.) • Master Gardeners and Garden Shops • Martial Arts Studios • Oshman Family Jewish Community Center (JCC) • Palo Alto Family YMCA • Private Childcare Providers • Private Gyms and Fitness Centers • Stanford University • University Club of Palo Alto • Women’s Club of Palo Alto CHAPTER3 ANALYSIS & ASSESSMENT THE MASTER PLAN WAS DEVELOPED THROUGH A COMPREHENSIVE, DATA-DRIVEN AND COMMUNITY-FOCUSED PROCESS AND INCLUDES AN ARRAY OF ASSESSMENT, ANALYSIS AND OUTREACH STRATEGIES. The results of the process provide a detailed understanding of Palo Alto’s current system of parks, trails, natural open space, recreation facilities and recreation programs and services. In addition, the process identifies current and future needs of the community it serves and opportunities for system enhancement. 24 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT RESIDENTS WANT A HIGH-QUALITY, RESILIENT PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM THAT EMBRACES AND PROTECTS THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, ADAPTS TO CHANGING NEEDS AND SERVES A GROWING VARIETY OF INTERESTS. 2524 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT The identified needs and possible opportunities to enhance the parks and recreation system is based on three types of data and analyses: 1) Demographic and Recreation Trends - Quantitative forecasts of previously published data on growth trends in areas such as overall population and growth of key demographic segments. 2) System Analysis - Park, facility and program inventory data including the quantity and location of parks; field, pool and other facility usage program registration; and other similar inventory data. 3) Community Engagement Results - Qualitative data compiled from the input of citizens and stakeholders through a multitude of outreach tools. Ultimately these data sources resulted in the “findings” summarized in this chapter. The findings address the most notable population-based shifts supported by population and demographic growth forecasts that the City will need to accommodate and respond to in the next ten to twenty years. Conclusions drawn from the system analysis identified needs currently not being met or that will not be met in future years and are considered gaps in the system, or “needs” for the City. Community preferences identified in the community engagement and outreach phase identified areas that the City can evaluate and implement to address citizens’ “votes” in various forums provided during this study. These are community “wants” versus demonstrated gaps or needs. The following sections describe the analysis completed and key findings from the process. More detailed versions of the reports and work products summarized here can be found in the Technical Supplement on the City website. Demographic and Recreation Trends The project team evaluated the existing demographic profile of Palo Alto, including population, household characteristics and transportation behavior, to identify patterns and trends that influence recreation needs and preferences. In addition, this analysis evaluated regional and national trends in health, sports, socializing, recreation, family and urban form for their potential to affect the direction of the Master Plan. 26 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT KEY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND TRENDS Population Over the past five years, Palo Alto has grown faster than projected, with an average annual growth rate of 1.3%. The population of Palo Alto in 2015, as estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau, was 66,853. Additionally, the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update (Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016) contemplates housing scenarios that would exceed current total population projections, indicating potential for an even greater rate of growth over the life of this Master Plan. Meeting the demands of Palo Alto’s growing population without compromising the level of service will require significant investment in park and recreation facilities, maintenance and programming. Roughly 60,000 commuters come to Palo Alto to work, along with thousands of Stanford students, resulting in a daytime population well in excess of the City’s resident population. Efforts to better understand the park and recreation use patterns of this sizable group should inform strategic planning around facilities, maintenance and programming. Housing and Income Over half (57.5%) of Palo Alto residents live in single-family detached homes, while over one third (37.9%) live in multifamily units. As Palo Alto expands its housing stock, the City anticipates that the vast majority of new housing will be multi-family units (Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR, 2016). This shift to a housing type that lacks the private open space typical of a single family home will create an increasing need for publicly accessible outdoor space and recreation opportunities. Median household income in Palo Alto grew by 73% between 1990 and 2012, to $118,936 per household. However, housing costs have also increased dramatically. The median home sales price in Palo Alto in 2013 was more than two and a half times that of the county median price, and rental prices in 2014 were more than double county-wide fair market rental prices (Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR, 2016). Palo Alto’s high median income conceals the economic challenges faced by many residents spending an increasing amount on housing. Recreation is a crucial quality of life asset, and people with less disposable income rely more heavily on public recreation facilities. Planning for parks and recreation should reflect the unique local economic conditions in Palo Alto and not rely heavily on statewide or regional data to determine income- based trends or demand. Low Projection (City of Palo Alto Scenario 1) High Projection (Association of Bay Area Governments) Population 2014 66,800 66,800 Population 2030 72,285 77,100 Percent Change 8%15% TABLE 3: CITY OF PALO ALTO PROJECTED POPULATION Source: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR 2726 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Transportation The city has a significant share of commuters who travel by bike (11%) and has seen a sizable increase in student ridership, with approximately 40% of high school students and many elementary and middle school students bicycling to school. Palo Alto can support and expand this popular mode choice by providing safe routes to parks and recreation facilities. In addition to providing safe bike routes, users should be encouraged to use alternative modes of transportation, such as the Palo Alto free shuttle, to parks and recreation faclities. Demographic Groups National and regional recreation trends emphasize an outdoor lifestyle, physical and mental health, diverse options for older adults at multiple stages of life, universal design and access for people of all abilities and a movement to connect children with nature. These trends point to several specific segments within the population that require special consideration in this plan. While the average age of residents is increasing, the city has a sizable population of children under 18 years of age. Seniors and children represent the largest growth segments in Palo Alto since 1980 and stand at 17% and 23%, respectively, of the City’s total population. These age groups are, anecdotally, high users of parks and recreation facilities and services in Palo Alto and are the most likely to access facilities by walking or biking. Youth and Teens Palo Alto’s under 18 population has grown steadily over the past 25 years, representing the City’s fastest growing age segment (totaling 15,019 in 2010). However, PAUSD projects a downward trend in school enrollment beginning in year 2020. Currently, PAUSD assumptions about future new housing types and volume differ from those used in the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update analysis, leading to inconsistent projections regarding the future size of Palo Alto’s school-aged population. Once the updated Comprehensive Plan is completed it will be important to coordinate assumptions about housing growth and student generation rates in order to plan appropriately to serve this large segment of the population. Efforts have grown in recent years to build stronger community connections for area teens. Innovative programs such as Maker Space and Think Fund teen grants (previously Bryant Street Garage Fund) are gaining popularity. Additional programs such as The Drop TABLE 4: CITY OF PALO ALTO KEY AGE GROUPS Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 5-Year American Community Survey Age Percent Total Population 64,234 Persons under 5 years 5.1% Persons under 18 years 23.3% Persons 65 years and over 16.9% 28 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT teen center and LEAP (Learning Enrichment After School Program) are also well attended. Additional teen programs are needed to better tailor offerings to attract broader teen participation consistent with the goals of Project Safety Net. Seniors The senior population is large and rapidly increasing. One-half of all Palo Alto residents are expected to be age 55 or above by 2030. In 2000, it was projected that the senior population for Palo Alto and surrounding cities will double between 2000 and 2020 and will continue to grow until 2040 (Source: Avenidas), as illustrated in Figure 4. As more seniors choose to “age in place,” programming and services must evolve to address new demands. Special Needs Though the majority of Palo Alto residents with disabilities are 65 or older (2,842 people), our community is also home to an unusually high number of special needs students (1,100 students in PAUSD as of September 2014). These two growing population segments call for expanded inclusion efforts related to facilities, services and programming. Ethnicity and Culture Figure 5 illustrates U.S. Census data showing Palo Alto’s cultural and ethnic diversity is steadily expanding. In the past decade, the City’s Asian population alone grew by 10 percentage points. Of all FIGURE 4: PROJECTED GROWTH IN PALO ALTO’S SENIOR POPULATION Source: Avenidas PROJECT SAFETY NET “Project Safety Net is a collaborative community network held together by a common interest of fostering youth well- being in Palo Alto. Our mission is to develop and implement a community-based mental health plan that includes education, prevention and intervention strategies that together provide a “safety net” for youth in Palo Alto, and defines our community’s teen suicide prevention efforts.” 2928 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Palo Altans, 31% are foreign-born and 38% speak a language other than English at home. PAUSD data reveals that the City’s minority population is young, with a higher rate of Hispanic/Latinos and Asians in the school system (11% Hispanic/Latino and 39% Asian) than in the general population of Palo Alto. Sensitivity and attention to the needs of this growing and significant segment of the population will require expanded outreach, partnership with PAUSD and targeted efforts at inclusion. System Analysis The analysis of the system began with a site visit to each park, facility and preserve to document and evaluate existing conditions to develop an accurate and in-depth foundation of baseline information. The observations recorded during these visits are compiled within a set of existing conditions maps. These maps include the history, a summary of features and a description of opportunities and constraints for each site. Each map also incorporates site-specific public input gathered through the community engagement process. For the full set of existing conditions maps, see the Technical Supplement on the City website. Geographic Analysis A geographic analysis of the parks, trails and natural open space system evaluated walkability and accessibility. A Geographic FIGURE 5: PALO ALTO RACE AND ETHNICITY 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% White Black or African American American Indian and AlaskaNative Asian Native Hawaiian/ Other PacificIslander Two or More Races Hispanic or Latino 2000 2010 2014 30 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Information Systems (GIS) model of the surrounding streets, sidewalks, trails and pathways was constructed using ESRI Network Analyst software to identify “walksheds” or catchment areas for each park, reflecting the way people move through the city. The analysis used ¼ and ½ mile travel distances, reflecting research on the distance a typical person can walk in five and ten minutes, respectively. This analysis refined the understanding of the ½ mile distance often cited as walking distance and aligned with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The project team also factored in physical barriers that impede access, incorporating feedback from the public engagement process about specific streets and intersections people report as being difficult to cross. Figure 6, on page 32, shows the ¼ and ½ mile walksheds for all parks in Palo Alto. Many communities also analyze park systems using a function- based parks classification scheme (neighborhood parks, community parks, regional parks). However, the parks in Palo Alto serve multiple and often overlapping functions. Community feedback indicated that people in Palo Alto are looking for the park system to deliver five categories of activities on a widely accessible basis, regardless of how the park is classified functionally. The analysis assessed the community’s access to each of these activities by defining criteria for each category and applying the criteria to the geographic analysis model. The five categories of activity and their analysis criteria are summarized below. • Relax and Enjoy Outdoors. Palo Altans place a high value on parks that provide a quiet and calm place to relax and enjoy the outdoors. While most Palo Alto parks support this activity, some parks experience noise from highway/ road traffic or from heavy sports use. Comments made by the public on the online interactive map (and confirmed by site visits) also identified parks without quiet areas. • Play for Children. Children and youth were regularly cited as one of the most important audiences for the park system. Parks containing a playground, play area or unique play feature (sculpture, nature play, etc.) best support this audience. • Throw a Ball. This activity encompasses kicking, hitting and throwing balls and other objects such as Frisbees, 3130 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT including both self-directed and league-based play. Parks containing open turf areas, sports fields, or courts best support this activity. • Exercise and Fitness. Health and wellness have been shown to be important to Palo Alto residents in this and other planning processes. Parks with perimeter or looped paths support both walking and running, which are the top recreation activities both in Palo Alto and in the country. Palo Alto’s Rinconada Pool also provides an exercise option for swimmers. • Gathering. The Palo Alto park system is an important provider of space for family, friends and the larger community to gather for picnics, social events and group activities. Formal picnic areas, shelters and features such as amphitheaters facilitate this activity. GEOGRAPHIC NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES The spatial analysis revealed the following: • Most Palo Alto residents have access to a city park within a ¼ to ½ mile. Gaps exist north of the Oregon Expressway near Highway 101 and along Sand Hill Road near commercial and institutional land uses. Adding additional parks or park-like lands can improve park accessibility for residents in these areas. Fewer neighborhoods have activity access to all five identified activities within a ½ mile. • Parks that offer exercise and fitness opportunities are more common south of the Oregon Expressway. The addition of exercise opportunities to north Palo Alto parks should be considered. • Dog parks are all located south of the Oregon Expressway. Since dog owners prefer to use dog parks near their residences, adding dog parks to north Palo Alto parks will improve residents’ dog exercise opportunities. • Community gardens are currently located entirely north of Oregon Expressway The addition of community gardens in south Palo Alto can improve garden access for those residents. 32 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT San F r a ncisquitoCreek Mat a d e ro C r e e k Barro n C r e e k Ado b e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M o unt a i nV i e w M enl o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o s Hill s E a s tP a l o A l t o A t her t o n S a n M a t e o C o unt y P o rto l aV a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a r a C o unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Ara s t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charle s t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San ta C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Walksheds 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) FIGURE 6: PARK WALKSHEDS MAP 3332 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barro n C r e e k Ado b e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M o unt a i nV i e w Menl o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o s Hill s E a s tP a l o A l t o A ther t o n S a n M a t e o C ount y P orto l aV a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a r a C ount y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Ara s t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charleston R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Walksheds 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) 34 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT • Palo Alto does not have a public gym, and the City’s only public pool is located north of Oregon Expressway. The addition of a public pool or improving access to other public or private pools should be explored to provide more access during peak times. Additional geographic analysis evaluated access to experiences, natural open space and recreation facilities that were identified as highly desired by the community during the intercept surveys. These include: • The experience and preservation of nature; • Improved ease of access to natural open space preserves (e.g., bike routes and shuttles); • Community gardening; • Recreation with dogs; and • Gymnasiums and swimming pools. Recreation Program Analysis To evaluate the capacity of Palo Alto’s facilities and programs to meet demand, the data on reservations, minimum participation, program registrations and waitlists was analyzed along with observations collected from staff and consultants. A crucial performance indicator in recreation programming is enrollment at or above minimum participation, which is the minimum number of participants needed to achieve the cost recovery goals of each class. These goals are set according to the City’s cost recovery policy and the individual class budget. This, along with classes indicated as full or with waitlists, provided insight into the capacity and demand for categories and specific types of programs. RECREATION PROGRAM OPPORTUNITIES • The highest participation in City programs is in sports (adult and youth), aquatics (youth and teen) and day camps. Continued demand for these program areas is anticipated, and program offerings should respond to this demand. • The current policy of “everyone plays” is widely supported for middle school athletics. Since limited gym and field space makes it difficult to expand these programs, the City and PAUSD should consider additional facilities or improved scheduling to maximize student involvement 3534 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT in these popular programs. Furthermore, a shortage of instructors and coaches exacerbates the difficulty of expanding these programs. Recruitment, training and increased pay should be considered to improve the supply of qualified instructors and coaches. • Demand for some classes and programs varies greatly by time of day. The program scheduling should attempt to provide additional classes during the most popular times. • A limited number of gymnasiums available to the public and the lack of a City-owned gym complicate the expansion of most sports programs. Increasing sports facilities, sharing of facilities and adjusting facility scheduling should be investigated. • Academic support programs offered to youth and teens are typically operating under capacity. Improved marketing and updated offerings should be considered to increase the popularity of these programs, or resources should be shifted to other types of teen programming. • Programs offered by the Art Center, the Junior Museum and Zoo and the Children’s Theatre serve thousands of additional adults, youth and teens. Many of these programs have waitlists, partly because of limited space in the specialized buildings associated with these divisions. Adjusting the scheduling of current facilities and developing access to other facilities (such as PAUSD) may increase the number of people that can be served by these popular programs. Community Engagement Results A variety of community engagement efforts, conducted at several stages in the process, collected input from hundreds of residents and stakeholders. The input of community members and stakeholders guided decisions about where to focus assessment efforts. Resident and stakeholder input highlighted the need to look at walkability and park access, as well as access to highly desired experiences, such as play for children. In addition, the analysis examined equitable distribution and need for specific facilities, such as restrooms, dog parks and community gardens, as a result of the 36 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT community interest in these features. Community feedback largely confirms conclusions drawn from the demographic trends analysis. The following section describes the key topics and themes that emerged from the Master Plan community engagement process. KEY COMMUNITY TOPICS AND THEMES The following topics and themes were referenced multiple times by the community, City staff, partners and decision makers. The key themes were critical in shaping the overall analysis of the system and provided direction for the development of the Master Plan principles, goals, policies and recommended actions. • Respondents value, support and appreciate their park system. They recognize that it is a high-quality system. • Respondents believe that strategic enhancements and improvements are needed to better meet evolving needs and trends, adapt to growth and changing demographics and continue to provide world-class experiences to residents. • Limited land availability and high cost is seen as the major limiting factor to pursuing new park opportunities. • Providing accessible and safe active transportation (walking, biking, etc.) routes to natural open space, community centers and parks is a high priority. • Enhancing physical and mental well-being is a critical function of parks for Palo Altans. Loop trails, bicycle and pedestrian paths to parks and places to relax are top priorities, along with exercise equipment or additional classes. • Protection of nature is very important to residents. There is widespread support for the continued protection, enhancement and restoration of open spaces and wildlife habitat. • Residents want to feel connected to nature in their urban parks. There is interest in adding nature play elements and wildlife habitats to more traditional park settings. • There is widespread interest in bringing community gardens, dog parks and aquatic facilities to new areas of the city to improve access to these amenities for all neighborhoods. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THEMES • Walkability and Access to Parks and Preserves • Activity Access: ºPlay for Children ºExercise and Fitness ºThrow a Ball ºGathering ºRelax and Enjoy the Outdoors • Experience Nature • Preservation of Nature • Trail Connections • Availability of Restrooms • Site Amenities and Experience • Universal Accessibility 3736 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT • Residents strongly support improved and additional restrooms in parks. In addition, there is a clear preference for features and amenities that support comfort, convenience and longer stays at parks, including water fountains and places to sit. • The Palo Alto community strongly supports universal design and access, and there is interest in adding inclusive play elements to more parks. • Current policies that prioritize the availability of facilities for Palo Alto residents are widely supported and stakeholders generally agree that providing services to local residents is a higher priority than providing regional attractions. • Residents would like to see enhancements to parks throughout the City, including more types of play experiences and environments. There is also support for smaller, more locally focused events and programs (e.g., movies in the park) that are held in different parks throughout the City. • The community strongly supports the kinds of local and regional partnerships (particularly with the School District) that expand recreation opportunities and services for youth, teens and residents of all ages and abilities. Needs and Opportunities Summary Review of the data from the Technical Assessment and Analysis and the Community and Stakeholder Engagement tied these two tracks of the Master Plan process together in preparation for Developing and Prioritizing Projects. As described in Chapter 1, this process produced a detailed reference matrix (with supporting documentation) identifying needs and opportunities across the system. The Data and Opportunities Summary Matrix included in the technical supplement synthesizes findings from both the Technical Assessment and Analysis and the Community and Stakeholder Engagement tracks across nine topics: • Current service/inventory • Level of control 38 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT • Geographic analysis • Capacity/bookings • Perception of quality • Expressed need • Demographic trends • Barriers to participation • Projected demand The final step of the process was to summarize opportunities to enhance Palo Alto’s system through the addition, distribution or modification of a particular element and component. These actions were prioritized to develop the Master Plan’s final recommendations, based on the constraints posed by limited land, staff, funding and other resources in the community. Key Findings The review of the matrix identified groupings of opportunities that had emerged from the many analysis and community input activities. The opportunities were crafted into a set of twelve Areas of Focus, which represent a major development step toward goals for the master plan. The Areas of Focus are: • Distributing park and recreation activities and experiences across the city • Improving the accessibility of the full range of park and recreation opportunities • Exploring new types of programs, classes, events and activities for all ages and abilities • Improving and enhancing community center and recreation spaces across the community • Enhancing capacity and quality of sports fields • Increasing the variety of things to do in existing parks • Enhancing comfort and making parks more welcoming • Increasing health and wellness opportunities in parks and programs 3938 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT • Integrating nature into Palo Alto parks • Improving spaces and increasing options for off-leash dogs • Expanding the system • Offering more of the existing programs, classes and events The community prioritization challenge, a combination of online survey and in-person workshop, reviewed the community’s opinions of these areas. Participants were asked to allocate a $10 budget across each of the areas of focus, with the amounts allocated indicating the priority they place on a particular area. The analysis of the results reflects the strong interest heard throughout the process for community center space improvements, integrating nature more thoroughly in the park system and making parks more welcoming. A relatively smaller number of participants placed a very high priority (and resulting larger budget allocation) on improving options for off-leash dogs. These results of the community prioritization challenge provided additional insight into the community’s opinions about the future of Palo Alto’s parks and recreation. The full summary is available in the technical supplement. Figure 7 shows a sample survey question result. Full results are available in the technical supplement. FIGURE 7: PRIORITIZATION CHALLENGE RESULTS 40 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Opportunities for the System Three concept maps (Figures 8-10) illustrate opportunities to further create a multi-layered system of parklands and connections that serves both people and natural systems. The maps can also serve as tools for supporting decisions on individual policies, programs and projects. EXPAND THE SYSTEM Figure 8 identifies areas of Palo Alto where residents lack access to parks and natural open spaces within ¼ mile of their homes. These “park search areas,” labeled A through E for planning purposes, will help the City focus future park additions in neighborhoods with the greatest need: for example, those with the highest density and/or largest population. Meanwhile, public access to school grounds that fall within park search areas (noted in purple) should be maintained and expanded to better support neighborhood park uses and enhance their natural open space value. Other City- owned properties (noted in brown) may represent future park opportunities, but nearly all of these lands fall outside of the park search areas. CONNECT THE SYSTEM A selection of Palo Alto’s existing and planned bikeways and pedestrian routes can be leveraged to improve park and recreation access. Figure 9 illustrates this potential network of trails and enhanced roadways that connect neighborhoods to local and regional parks, recreation facilities and natural open spaces. These routes are part of the City’s adopted Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Recommended enhanced routes, labeled 1 through 3 for planning purposes, provide main north to south travel corridors between Palo Alto’s parks and into neighboring communities. Regional trails like the Bay to Ridge and San Francisco Bay trails provide similar travel corridors from Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve in the southwest to the Baylands Nature Preserve and other shoreline parks and natural open spaces to the northeast. Recommended park connectors complete the network by linking the remaining park sites. CONNECT NATURAL SYSTEMS Figure 10 illustrates how the same corridors recommended for bike and pedestrian enhancements can also provide connectivity 4140 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT for natural systems. Landscape design features such as increased urban forest canopy, native species plantings and stormwater bioswales can create safe paths of travel and provide habitat value for local wildlife. Creek and riparian enhancements, supported by these “pollinator pathways,” would improve water quality and habitat connections between regionally significant habitats in the hills and in the bay. New street and park trees would benefit areas that currently have low tree canopy coverage, highlighted in tan. UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY SITES In the overall context of limited land, three properties in Palo Alto represent unique opportunities, as they are already owned by the City and are not yet designated for a specific use. These three sites each have unique opportunities for park development, but also constraints. The status of each is summarized below: • Cubberley Community Center: The City owns 8 of the 35 acres of this former high school campus and has managed leases within the buildings with a number of community organizations and businesses while also scheduling the gym and field space. The City and the Palo Alto Unified School District have agreed to jointly master plan the redevelopment of the site by 2020. • Foothills Park Expansion: The City acquired 7.7 acres of land adjacent to Foothills Park and has dedicated it as an expansion of the park. The expansion is cut off from the developed portion of the park by the existing maintenance facility. Discussion of the future of this site is pending the results of the Buckeye Creek hydrology study, which will be completed in summer 2017. • Baylands Athletic Center Expansion: As a result of the redesign of the Palo Alto Golf Course, 10.5 acres of land was added to the adjacent Baylands Athletic Center site for future recreation opportunities. Considerations for developing this site include its relative isolation from residences (and access through a complicated and heavily impacted roadway exchange), its proximity to adjacent park sites, site limitations due to wetlands and its location below the mean projected high water line after 3 feet of sea level rise, which could influence the type of recreation opportunities at the site. 42 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT e S a n Francisquito Creek Matad e r o C r e e k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford Mountain View Menlo Park Los Altos Los Altos Hills East Palo Alto Atherton San Mateo County Portola Valley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarde r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charle s t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features Park Search Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Search Areas Priority School Sites A Park Search Area B: Lowest population and lowest population density Park Search Area D: Highest population Park Search Area E: Highest population density A B C D E AddisonElementary School AddisonElementary School DuveneckElementary School DuveneckElementary School El Carmelo Elementary School El Carmelo Elementary School Ohlone Elementary Ohlone Elementary Jordan Middle School Jordan Middle School Palo Verde Elementary School Palo Verde Elementary School FIGURE 8: PARK SEARCH AREAS MAP 4342 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT e San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford Mountain View Menlo Park Los Altos Los Altos Hills East Palo Alto Atherton San Mateo County Portola Valley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarde r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charle s t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features Park Search Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Search Areas Priority School Sites A Park Search Area B: Lowest population and lowest population density Park Search Area D: Highest population Park Search Area E: Highest population density A B C D E AddisonElementary School AddisonElementary School DuveneckElementary School DuveneckElementary School El Carmelo Elementary School El Carmelo Elementary School Ohlone Elementary Ohlone Elementary Jordan Middle School Jordan Middle School Palo Verde Elementary School Palo Verde Elementary School 44 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Enhanced Bikeway Features Recommended Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes Regional Trails (Bay to Ridge Trails, San Francisco Bay Trail) Recommended Park Connectors 1 Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet 2 2 1 1 3 3 e S a n F rancisquito Creek Matader o C r e e k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford Mountain View Menlo Park Los Altos Los Altos Hills East Palo Alto Atherton San Mateo County Portola Valley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarde r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charle s t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e FIGURE 9: BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN ROUTES MAP 4544 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Enhanced Bikeway Features Recommended Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes Regional Trails (Bay to Ridge Trails, San Francisco Bay Trail) Recommended Park Connectors 1 Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet 2 2 1 1 3 3 e San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford Mountain View Menlo Park Los Altos Los Altos Hills East Palo Alto Atherton San Mateo County Portola Valley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarde r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charle s t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e 46 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Pollinator Pathways Community Gardens Wetland Habitat Riparian Connected Parks Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Mean Projected High Water - 3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA) Creeks and Channels Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) Natural System Features City Park City Natural Open Spaces Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Water Bodies Urban Canopy Target Areas Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in the Bayland Preserve: Western burrowing owlCalifornia seabliteNorthern coastal salt marsh Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in San Francisquito Creek: SteelheadCalifornia red legged frogWestern pond turtleShowy rancheria clover Valley oak woodland Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve:Western pond turtle Serpentine bunchgrass Indian Valley bush-mallow Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park: Western Leatherwood Valley oak woodland Regional Habitat Connection Concept e S a n F rancisquito Creek Matader o C r e e k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford Mountain View Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills East Palo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charles t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e FIGURE 10: NATURAL SYSTEMS MAP 4746 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Pollinator Pathways Community Gardens Wetland Habitat Riparian Connected Parks Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Mean Projected High Water - 3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA) Creeks and Channels Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) Natural System Features City Park City Natural Open Spaces Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Water Bodies Urban Canopy Target Areas Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in the Bayland Preserve: Western burrowing owlCalifornia seabliteNorthern coastal salt marsh Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in San Francisquito Creek: SteelheadCalifornia red legged frogWestern pond turtleShowy rancheria clover Valley oak woodland Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve:Western pond turtle Serpentine bunchgrass Indian Valley bush-mallow Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park: Western Leatherwood Valley oak woodland Regional Habitat Connection Concept e San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford Mountain View Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills East Palo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charles t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e CHAPTER 4 THROUGH THE MASTER PLAN PROCESS, THE PALO ALTO COMMUNITY HAS DEFINED A FUTURE FOR PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION. Distilled community input and themes from the analysis process result in principles, goals and system-wide concepts that describe the community’s long-term vision for the future system. The principles and goals will be realized through the recommended programs described in this chapter. The recommendations were developed through an assessment of community input and an analysis of needs and opportunities. These recommendations reflect both changing needs and evolving demands for parks, trails, natural open space and recreation. They are organized within the framework of the eight principles and six goals, with policies and programs following each goal. OUR FUTURE: PRINCIPLES, GOALS,POLICIES, PROGRAMS & PROJECTS 50 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS A MULTI-LAYERED SYSTEM OF PARKLANDS AND CONNECTIONS THAT SERVE BOTH PEOPLE AND NATURAL SYSTEMS. 5150 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Principles Building on our assets, our vision for the continuing evolution of the park system is encapsulated in the following eight principles: • Playful: Inspires imagination and joy. • Healthy: Supports the physical and mental health and well-being of individuals as well as the connectedness and cohesion of the community. • Sustainable: Stewards natural, economic and social resources for a system that endures for the long term. • Inclusive: Responsive to the entire Palo Alto community: all ages, abilities, languages, cultures and levels of income. • Accessible: Easy for people of all abilities to use year- round and to get to by all modes of travel. • Flexible: Supports multiple uses across time with adaptable spaces that can accommodate traditional, emerging and future uses. • Balanced: Is not dominated by any one type of experience or place and includes both historic elements and cutting-edge features, highly manicured and more organic spaces and self-directed and programmed activities. • Nature: Incorporates native species and habitat corridors, and creates opportunities to learn about and interact with nature. Together, these principles provide the foundation for the Master Plan. Master Plan Goals The input from the community, including all twelve areas of focus, form the long-term direction for the City’s park and recreation system. The following six goals state the outcomes and provide an organizational structure for the policies, programs and projects that form the recommendations of this plan: 1. Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible, inclusive and distributed equitably across Palo Alto. 52 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 2. Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing system of parks, recreation and open space facilities and services. 3. Create environments that encourage regular active and passive activities to support health, wellness and social connections. 4. Preserve and integrate nature, natural systems and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto. 5. Develop innovative programs, services and strategies for expanding the system. 6. Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and qualitative measures. Recommended Programs The goals, policies and programs are intended to be a guide for decision making. Choices will need to be made annually through the City budget process, recognizing that the City has limited resources, multiple priorities and competing resource needs. The goals, polices and programs that follow represent a path to a preferred future. It is aspirational, while also tangible, providing a specific menu of potential investment and resource allocation opportunities for the parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system. Chapter 5 provides tools and recommendations on how the community and City can effectively evaluate options and make sound and reliable choices to improve the parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system. Each goal is numbered, and under each goal a list of related policies is provided. The policies are numbered according to goal and ordered by letter for easy reference (1.A, 1.B, 1.C, 2.A, 2.B, etc.). Most policies are followed by a list of programs, which have complementary numbering (1.A.1, 1.A.2, 2.A.1, etc.). The numbering is for reference only. Prioritization is covered in Chapter 5. 5352 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Goal 1: Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible, affordable, inclusive and distributed equitably across Palo Alto. Policy 1.A Emphasize equity and affordability in the provision of programs and services and the facilitation of partnerships, to create recreation opportunities that: • Advance skills, build community and improve the quality of life among participants, especially Palo Alto youth, teens and seniors; and • Are available at a wide range of facilities, at an increased number of locations that are well distributed throughout the City. PROGRAMS 1.A.1 Periodically evaluate the use and effectiveness of the Fee Reduction Program for low-income and disabled residents. 1.A.2 Develop free or low-cost teen programs that develop life skills and developmental assets, such as leadership, community service and health. 1.A.3 Develop a teen advisory committee to provide feedback on newly proposed parks, recreation and open space projects and programs. 1.A.4 Partner with local recreation providers to relocate existing programs or offer new programs in Palo Alto parks. 1.A.5 Recruit or develop programs for additional and alternative sports that can take place in existing parks and make use of existing outdoor recreation facilities. Examples include cross country running, track and field, rugby and pickleball. 1.A.6 Expand offerings of preserves’ interpretive facilities to area schools through curriculum packages (backpacks, crates, etc.) that can be brought into the field or the classroom. 1.A.7 Evaluate the geographic distribution of program offerings and make adjustments to equally offer programs throughout the City. e San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcardero R d Mid d l e fi e l d R d Alm a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Alm a S t Charlesto n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features Park Search Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Search Areas Priority School Sites A Park Search Area B: Lowest population and lowest population density Park Search Area D: Highest population Park Search Area E: Highest population density A B C D E AddisonElementary School AddisonElementary School DuveneckElementary School DuveneckElementary School El Carmelo Elementary School El Carmelo Elementary School Ohlone Elementary Ohlone Elementary Jordan Middle School Jordan Middle School Palo Verde Elementary School Palo Verde Elementary School Map showing geographic distribution of program offerings 54 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 1.B Expand parkland inventory using the National Recreation and Park Association standard as a guide (see sidebar) for park development in Palo Alto’s Urban Service Area. New parkland should be added to meet and maintain the standard of 4 acres/1,000 residents. Parkland should expand with population, be well distributed across the community and be of sufficient size to meet the varied needs of neighborhoods and the broader community. Maximum service area should be 1/2 mile. PROGRAMS 1.B.1 Develop design standards for privately owned public open spaces that clearly set the expectation for public access, recreation activities and natural elements. . 1.B.2 Establish a system in the City’s real estate office that identifies land being sold and reviews it for park potential, prioritizing review of land within park search areas. (See Figure 8: Park Search Areas Map). 1.B.3 Review all City-owned land and easements (starting in park search areas) for potential parkland development or connection locations. (See Figure 8: Park Search Areas Map and Figure 9: Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes Map). 1.B.4 Examine City-owned rights-of-way (for example, streets, which make up the biggest portion of publicly owned land) to identify temporary or permanent areas for improvements that connect or add recreation activity space. (Examples: California Ave., Indianapolis Cultural Trail, parklets). 1.B.5 Identify and approach community organizations and institutions that own land in park search areas to create long-term agreements and improvements for public park space. (Examples: Friendship Sportsplex in Charlotte, N.C., New Riverside Park in Boston.) 1.B.6 Create usable park space, or other recreational opportunities, on top of utilities, parking or other infrastructure uses. (Examples: Anaheim Utility Park, UC Berkeley Underhill Parking Structure, Portland’s Director Park, Stanford University Wilbur Field Garage.) Privately-Owned Public Open Spaces are built and managed by private entities and are required to allow public access. PARKLAND STANDARDS The Palo Alto Comprehensive plan references (Policy C-28) National Recreation and Park Association standards: • Two acres of neighborhood parkland should be provided for each 1,000 people; and • Two acres of district parkland should be provided for each 1,000 people. 5554 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 1.B.7 Monitor properties adjacent to parks that are smaller than the minimum recommended size for potential acquisition to expand existing parks. 1.B.8 Increase collections through revised or alternative park impact fee structures that are sufficient to expand inventory. Develop a system to reserve funds for parkland acquisition and proactively pursue strategic opportunities for expansion. 1.B.9 Acquire and develop a new neighborhood park in each park search area, starting with the most underserved areas and targeting a central and well-connected location to maximize access. 1.B.10 Develop a creek walk along Matadero Creek that links parks and creates open space and a habitat corridor. 1.B.11 Incorporate other underutilized City-owned outdoor spaces for park and recreational programming. 1.B.12 Identify and dedicate (as parkland) City-controlled spaces serving, or capable of serving, park-like or recreational uses, where appropriate (e.g., Winter Lodge, Gamble Gardens, Rinconada Community Gardens, GreenWaste Facility at the former PASCO site, former Los Altos Sewage Treatment Plan, Kingsley Island). Policy 1.C Ensure the maximum distance between residents’ homes and the nearest public park or preserve is 1/2 mile, 1/4 mile preferred, that is evaluated using a walkshed methodology based on how people travel. PROGRAMS 1.C.1 Maintain the City’s digital map developed during this Master Plan process, updating for new activities and access points. 1.C.2 Establish a review step in the Planning and Community Environment Department for any major redevelopment or the purchase/sale of any City land in the park search areas. Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Enhanced Bikeway Features Recommended Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes Regional Trails (Bay to Ridge Trails, San Francisco Bay Trail) Recommended Park Connectors 1 Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet 2 2 1 1 3 3 e San Francisquito Creek Matade ro Cr eek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarde r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charlest o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Inventory of well-distributed parkland 56 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 1.D Adopt the wayfinding signage used at Rinconada Park as the standard for Palo Alto parks and provide standardized directory signs for all large parks, preserves and athletic field complexes. PROGRAMS 1.D.1 Create and implement a signage and wayfinding program that conveys the park system identity, incorporates art, connects bike paths to parks and enhances the experience of park visitors. 1.D.2 Install directional signs at parks that include the walking time to the next nearest park or parks. Policy 1.E Apply universal design principles as the preferred guidance for design solutions in parks, striving to exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. PROGRAMS 1.E.1 Create a process to address adaptive program requests for individuals with cognitive, sensory and physical disabilities (to be coordinated with upcoming ADA Transition Plan). 1.E.2 Adopt a standard of universal park design for accessibility and/or upgrade play areas and picnic facilities to meet or exceed the standard. 1.E.3 Upgrade open space trails to be more universally accessible where environmentally appropriate. Policy 1.F Maintain a Field and Tennis Court Brokering and Use Policy as well as the Gymnasium Use Policy (as well as any subsequent updates) to guide the allocation of these recreation facilities with a preference for youth and Palo Alto residents. PROGRAMS 1.F.1 Periodically review the existing Field and Tennis Court Brokering and Use Policy and Gymnasium Policy and update as needed. Magical Bridge Playground: Universally accessible children’s park facilities 5756 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 1.F.2 Develop an annual field usage statistics report, including the number of prime timeslots that were unused due to field condition/resting and the number of requests for field space that were unfilled due to lack of capacity. Policy 1.G Encourage walking and biking as a way of getting to and from parks, supporting implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. PROGRAMS 1.G.1 Select parks as destinations along routes for “Ciclovia” or “Sunday Streets” type events where streets are closed to traffic and opened up for citizens of all ages to interact with each other through exercise, entertainment and fun. 1.G.2 Provide bike parking for cyclists as a standard feature at parks, open spaces, preserves and community centers. 1.G.3 Provide, identify and mark “Safe Routes to Parks” from locations such as schools, shopping centers, libraries, after-school programs, community centers and residential neighborhoods. 1.G.4 Educate residents about the city’s Bike Boulevards – streets prioritized for bicycles – to promote greater use, and plan new Bike Boulevard projects that connect parks, open spaces and recreation facilities. 1.G.5 Identify gaps in the walking and cycling network to improve access to parks, open spaces, preserves and community centers, including sidewalk repairs, easements, trail improvements/repair and improved pedestrian visibility. 1.G.6 Collaborate with school communities to enhance routes to schools, especially where they pass through parks. 1.G.7 Develop a regular bicycle and walking tour of Palo Alto parks and preserves as a new recreation program. Develop online materials for self-guided tours. 1.G.8 Improve trail connections to neighboring communities (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Stanford University, Portola Valley, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, East Palo Alto, etc.) 58 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 1.H Incorporate cultural diversity in projects and programs to encourage and enhance citizen participation. PROGRAMS 1.H.1 Conduct a survey at least every two years of cultural groups to identify gaps, barriers to access, preferred design and awareness in recreation programming. 1.H.2 Provide multi-cultural and multi-lingual recreation programs, signage and educational information. 1.H.3 Encourage and provide opportunities for civic engagement by directly connecting with cultural groups. Policy 1.I Increase stewardship and volunteerism by creating and promoting opportunities for youth and adults to participate in parks, recreation, open space events, projects and programs. PROGRAMS 1.I.1 Create a robust volunteer recruitment and management program. 1.I.2 Continue to offer volunteer habitat and landscape improvement projects and support partnership organizations that offer volunteer programs in Parks and Open Space areas. Volunteers assisting with maintenance of a natural area 5958 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Goal 2: Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing system of parks, recreation and open space facilities and services. Policy 2.A Sustain the community’s investment in parks and recreation facilities. PROGRAMS 2.A.1 Collaborate with Palo Alto Unified School District to develop and implement a vision and master plan for the future of the Cubberley Community Center. 2.A.2 Continue to program and prioritize projects for existing facilities as identified in the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission report, and plan the upkeep of new facilities as they come on line, recognizing their expected lifespan and revising based on real-world experience. 2.A.3 Research best practices to design park and recreational facilities that can be maintained with existing or lower budgets. 2.A.4 Encourage residents to organize and participate in park maintenance and cleanup events to foster a sense of ownership, establish social connections and reduce maintenance costs. 2.A.5 Develop a proactive Asset Management Program to maintain existing park and recreation infrastructure. 2.A.6 Provide additional lighting to enhance park safety and expand park use to dusk while minimizing impacts to wildlife. 2.A.7 Find ways to mitigate conflicts between different trail user groups, particularly in the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, where bicyclists, equestrians and hikers share trails. 60 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 2.B Provide opportunities for creative expression in park and recreation facilities and programs. PROGRAMS 2.B.1 Incorporate artists and art into youth recreation programming, particularly day camps, utilizing the expertise of the Arts and Sciences Division. 2.B.2 Create outdoor studios and program spaces for creating art in parks (coordinated with the Public Art Master Plan). 2.B.3 Encourage the community to participate in more expressive projects led by the department, such as community mural projects in facilities, pop-up open mics or chalk art programs in parks. 2.B.4 Continue to provide “maker” space to Palo Alto teens to encourage creative thinking and expression. Policy 2.C Design and maintain high-quality natural and synthetic turf fields to support maximum use in parks by multiple local organized sports and casual users with areas large enough for practice or play. PROGRAMS 2.C.1 Conduct an athletic field condition and maintenance assessment of the City’s natural turf fields, and upgrade fields at select parks to high-quality natural turf standards including irrigation system upgrades, drainage improvements, etc. The field assessment report should include analysis and recommendations regarding the soil profile, agronomy, irrigation systems, field slope, drainage, field-use demand and maintenance. 2.C.2 Actively monitor and track industry developments and the latest reputable scientific studies regarding synthetic turf to understand the environmental and human safety impacts of our existing synthetic turf fields. 2.C.3 Assess the type of turf (new synthetic turf product or natural turf) that should be used when replacing an existing synthetic turf field that is due for replacement. Natural and sythetic turf fields 6160 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 2.C.4 Stripe synthetic turf fields for multiple sports to maximize use. Whenever possible, synthetic turf playing fields should have lights in order to maximize use of the field. 2.C.5 Collaborate with Palo Alto Unified School District to develop and implement a design and maintenance plan for high-quality natural and synthetic turf fields. Policy 2.D Actively pursue adding dedicated, fenced dog parks in multiple neighborhoods, equitably distributed between north and south Palo Alto. The size of the dog parks will vary but should strive to be at least 1/4 acres. Dog parks should not be placed in open space preserves. PROGRAMS 2.D.1 The City will evaluate and select at least six* dedicated, fenced dog parks, equitably distributed across north and south Palo Alto, from the following list of potential locations: • Eleanor Pardee Park (North, .41 Acres) • Bowden Park (North, .37 Acres) • Greer Park (Improve existing) (South, .87 Acres) • Peers Park (North, .73 Acres) • Hoover Park (Improve existing) (South, 1 Acre) • Robles Park (South, .47 Acres) • Mitchell Park (Expand existing) (South, 1.2 Acres) • Kingsley Island Park (North, .27 Acres) • Werry Park (North, .31 Acres) • Juana Briones Park (South, .47 Acres) • Heritage Park (North, .27 Acres) 2.D.2 Develop rules and regulations specific to dog parks focusing on safety and limits of use. *It is acknowledged that Hoover and Greer’s current dog parks are inadequate in terms of size, and they should not be counted in their current configuration toward the minimum of six dog parks recommended in this program. Dedicated dog park spaces 62 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 2.E The City will actively pursue adding park restrooms in parks that are approximately 2 acres or larger, have amenities that encourage visitors to stay in the park, have a high level of use and have no nearby restrooms. PROGRAMS 2.E.1 Develop a restroom standard, in collaboration with the Architectural Review Board, for neighborhood parks. 2.E.2 The City will actively pursue adding park restrooms at the following potential locations: • Bol Park • Bowden Park • Eleanor Pardee Park • Johnson Park • Ramos Park • Robles Park • Terman Park Policy 2.F Develop additional community gardens focusing on underrepresented areas of the City and provide community engagement opportunities around gardens. Policy 2.G At least every five years, quantitatively evaluate demand and capacity of major recreation facilities including pools, gyms, tennis courts and teen centers with appropriate attention to geographical distribution in the city. Adjust plans as appropriate to accommodate significant demographic or demand changes. Community gardens 6362 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Goal 3: Create environments that encourage active and passive activities to support health, wellness and social connections. Policy 3.A Implement the Healthy City/Healthy Community resolution with the community’s involvement. PROGRAMS 3.A.1 Convene and lead a Healthy City/Healthy Community stakeholder work group consisting of other agencies, nonprofit organizations and citizens that supports building a healthy community. 3.A.2 Develop an annual plan that supports implementation of the resolution. 3.A.3 Achieve designation as an Age-Friendly Community. 3.A.4 Add drop-in programs (free or BOOST!) focused on physical and mental health in settings that are near home/work and maximize the health benefits of being outside and surrounded by nature. 3.A.5 Connect walking paths within and between parks to create loop options of varying length that encourage walking and jogging. 3.A.6 Enhance seating areas to take advantage of quiet spaces or to create opportunities for social interaction. 3.A.7 Promote and enforce the ban on smoking in Palo Alto’s parks through a marketing campaign and signage program. 3.A.8 Upgrade or add drinking fountains with water bottle filling and water for dogs. 3.A.9 Develop adult fitness areas in parks including exercise areas for the exclusive use of older adults (seniors). Policy 3.B Incorporate art into park design and recreation programming (consistent with the Public Art Master Plan). HEALTHY CITY / HEALTHY COMMUNITY In 2015, the City Council adopted a resolution recognizing its role and responsibility to promote and support a Healthy City/ Healthy Community. Four areas of action are identified in this resolution: • Healthy Culture • Healthy Environment • Healthy Food Access • Healthy Workplace Bicycling and walking path promoting outdoor fitness 64 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS PROGRAMS 3.B.1 Promote temporary public art installations in local parks. 3.B.2 Promote interactive public art features that also serve as play features (i.e. climbable sculptural elements integrated into the natural environment that invite touch and exploration). 3.B.3 Update park design policies to incorporate artistic elements consistent with the Public Art Master Plan. 3.B.4 Commission artwork that interprets local history, events and significant individuals or represents City core values of sustainability, youth well-being, health and innovation. 3.B.5 Bring in performance-based work, social practice, temporary art and community art. 3.B.6 Explore suitable art for preserves and natural areas. 3.B.7 Incorporate public art in the earliest stages of the design of parks and facilities that may utilize wind direction, sunlight and ambient sound (coordinated with the Public Art Master Plan). 3.B.8 Install permanent and temporary installations and exhibits in well-trafficked parks and plazas, following the guidance of the Public Art Master Plan. 3.B.9 Integrate functional public art into play areas, seatwalls and other built features in parks across the system. 3.B.10 Integrate art and nature into bike lanes, routes and paths as appropriate. Policy 3.C Require that proposed privately owned public spaces that are provided through the Parkland Dedication Ordinance meet Palo Alto design guidelines and standards for publicly owned parks, allow public access, and be designed to support recreation, incorporate natural ecosystem elements and comply with the policies of the Urban Forest Master Plan. PROGRAMS 3.C.1 Develop and apply clear expectations and definitions of public access (hours, rules) for privately owned public spaces. Public art in Palo Alto 6564 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Goal 4: Protect natural habitat and integrate nature, natural ecosystems and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto. Policy 4.A In natural open space, ensure activities, projects and programs are compatible with the protection of nature. PROGRAMS 4.A.1 Develop comprehensive conservation plans for Baylands Preserve, Foothills Park, Esther Clark Park and Pearson- Arastradero Preserve to identify strategies to balance ecosystem preservation, passive recreation and environmental education. 4.A.2 Continue to work with partner organizations to remove invasive weeds and plant native plants and trees in riparian and natural open space areas. 4.A.3 Update the Arastradero Preserve Trail Management Plan (March 2001) and the Foothills Park Trail Maintenance Plan (January 2002), and incorporate into in the Foothills Park, Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and Esther Clark Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan Project. Policy 4.B Connect people to nature and the outdoors through education and recreation programming. PROGRAMS 4.B.1 Expand access to nature through elements and interpretive features that explore ecological processes, historical context, adjacent waterways and specific plant/ animal species that can be encountered onsite and have elements tailored to be of interest to youth as well as multiple ages, cultures and abilities. 4.B.2 Update or rebuild interpretive centers with modern interactive exhibits. 4.B.3 Improve and increase access to creeks for learning and stewardship experiences by designing access points that minimize impact on the waterway. Natural open space 66 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 4.B.4 Expand programs such as Foothills camps to connect youth with parks year-round. 4.B.5 Partner with boys/girls scouting organizations for outdoor education programs and/or the Junior Rangers program. 4.B.6 Expand and increase events that educate and promote native plants, species and wildlife. 4.B.7 Provide shade for play areas, using shade trees as the preferred solution. 4.B.8 Update and improve the Toyon Trail Interpretive Guide to make it more engaging and educational. 4.B.9 Develop a Trail Interpretive Guide for Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and the Baylands Nature Preserve. Policy 4.C Connect natural areas, open space, creeks and vegetated areas in parks and on public land to create wildlife, bird, pollinator and habitat corridors by planting with native oaks and other species that support pollinators or provide high habitat values. PROGRAMS 4.C.1 Develop a map that identifies locations for habitat corridors, including the appropriate plant palette for each corridor. 4.C.2 Work with local environmental groups to grow native plant species and utilize their network of volunteers to install and maintain planted areas. 4.C.3 Establish low-impact buffer zones with native plant species along creeks to enhance habitat value. Nature education programming 6766 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 4.D Promote, expand and protect habitat and natural areas in parks and open space. PROGRAMS 4.D.1 Identify and pursue strategies and opportunities to expand native trees and planting areas in urban parks. 4.D.2 Integrate and implement the Urban Forest Master Plan Policies and Programs as applicable to parkland in Palo Alto. 4.D.3 Update the preferred plant palette and approved tree species list. 4.D.4 Collaborate with habitat restoration organizations such as Save the Bay, Canopy and Grassroots Ecology (Acterra). 4.D.5 Replace low-use turf areas with native shrubs and grasses, incorporating educational elements about native habitats. 4.D.6 Support regional efforts that focus on enhancing and protecting significant natural resources. 4.D.7 Utilizing volunteers, expand programs to remove invasive species and to plant native vegetation in open space, parks and creek corridors. 4.D.8 Collaborate with regional partners to control the spread of invasive species and plant pathogens. 68 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Goal 5: Develop innovative programs, services and strategies for expanding the park and recreation system. Policy 5.A Identify and pursue strategies to activate underused parks and recreation facilities PROGRAMS 5.A.1 Implement short-term placemaking improvements (flexible, small scale interventions such as seating, art, programming or planters that have minimal capital cost) to attract users and experiment with potential longer-term options. 5.A.2 Emphasize flexibility and layering uses (allowing for different uses at different times of day, week, etc.) in parks over installing fixed-use equipment and single-use facilities. 5.A.3 Expand day camp program opportunities, utilizing all preserves and more local park sites and additional topic areas, to meet excess demand. 5.A.4 Leverage social media and develop marketing materials to encourage “pop-up” recreational activities in rotating parks. 5.A.5 Create small (10-12 people) and medium-sized (20-25 people) group picnic areas that can be used for both picnics and programming. 5.A.6 Assess high-demand park features and identify those that can be added or relocated to low-use parks. Policy 5.B Support innovation in recreation programming and park features and amenities. PROGRAMS 5.B.1 Review program data based on clearly communicated objectives for reach, impact, attendance and financial performance. 5.B.2 Retire, end or refresh programs that require staff, facility and financial resources but do not achieve program objectives, thereby freeing up resources for new programs. Examples of placemaking improvements 6968 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 5.B.3 Actively develop a small number of pilot programs each year to test new ideas, locations and target audiences. 5.B.4 Build on partnership with Avenidas to expand intergenerational programming as well as additional older adult programming. 5.B.5 Expand BOOST!, the pay-per-use exercise class system to cover fees for any drop-in classes or facility use (lap swim, drop-in gym time, new programs in parks). 5.B.6 Set a goal of 10% new program offerings each season; new programs should be offered based on needs assessment, industry trends and/or class evaluation data. 5.B.7 Create a robust marketing and outreach program to highlight new and innovative programs to community. 5.B.8 Develop short-term recreation access strategies (such as temporary use agreements for vacant or park-like property) and seek long-term or permanent park and recreation space in each park search area. Actively recruit property and facility owners to participate in the development of the short- and long-term strategies. 5.B.9 Explore addition of intramural sports for middle and high school students through a partnership with Palo Alto Unified School District. 5.B.10 Provide opportunities for “pickup” or non-league sports activities at City parks and recreation facilities. Policy 5.C Expand the overall parks and recreation system through repurposing public land, partnering with other organizations for shared land, incorporating public park spaces on parking decks and rooftops, if appropriate and using other creative means to help address shortages of available land. PROGRAMS 5.C.1 Explore a process to utilize and reserve select public and private lands for “park-like” functions that allows for more flexibility than formal park dedication. Underhill Parking Garage at UC Berkeley includes a full size soccer field built over a 1,000 space, four-level parking facility 70 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 5.D Explore alternative uses for newly acquired parkland to optimize for long-term community benefit. PROGRAMS 5.D.1 Determine optimal usage for Foothill Park’s 7.7 acres of parkland. 5.D.2 Evaluate optimal usage, including open space, for 10.5- acre land bank created by golf course reconstruction. 5.D.3 Evaluate feasible uses for the south end of El Camino Park. Policy 5.E Explore and experiment with parklets and other temporary park spaces for both long- and short-term uses. Policy 5.F Enhance partnerships and collaborations with Palo Alto Unified School District and Stanford University to support access and joint use of facilities, where appropriate, for effective delivery of services and programs. PROGRAMS 5.F.1 Partner with PAUSD to open middle and high school recreation facilities for community use (basketball, badminton, indoor soccer, swimming pools, tennis courts) during the evening, weekend and summer hours. 5.F.2 Develop a steering committee that consists of key officials from the City, PAUSD and Stanford to explore partnership agreements and connect facility managers and programmers. 5.F.3 Increase access to PAUSD public schools (outside of school hours) to increase the availability of recreation activity spaces. Target school sites that are within or adjacent to “park search areas.” PARKLET: An inexpensive infrastructure investment that creates a public gathering space or small park from on-street parking spaces. Parklet on Noriega Street in San Francisco 7170 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 5.F.4 Explore partnerships with Stanford to create or increase access to athletic facilities and other recreational facilities for Palo Alto residents. 5.F.5 Develop a common reservation system for community access to shared facilities. Policy 5.G Pursue other/private funding sources for recreation programming, capital improvement projects and facility maintenance. PROGRAMS 5.G.1 Encourage foundations to assist with soliciting sponsorships and grants. 5.G.2 Create a more formalized annual or one-time sponsorship program that provides the donor with marketing and promotional opportunities. 5.G.3 Contract or add job responsibilities for managing fundraising and developing donors for the park system to pursue funding opportunities and sponsorships. 5.G.4 Engage non-profit friends groups to seek donor funding, including foundation grants, corporate giving and small and major philanthropic gifts by individuals, for priority projects and programs. Policy 5.H Partner with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and other land conservation groups to expand access to open space through new acquisitions and improved connections. Fitness program 72 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Goal 6: Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and qualitative measures. Policy 6.A At least every five years actively review demographic trends and interests of the City population by segment for critical drivers of facility usage including schoolchildren, teens, seniors and ethnic groups, and adjust programs and plans accordingly. PROGRAMS 6.A.1 Create pilot recreation programs to test the public’s interest in new types of classes, events and activities utilizing an evaluation process. 6.A.2 Initiate a community-wide focus group on an annual basis to provide feedback on programs, facilities and long-term roadmaps. 6.A.3 Create a streamlined and effective quarterly survey system that solicits feedback from customers, including program participants, facility renters and the general community. Policy 6.B Continue to implement the Cost Recovery Policy for recreation programs, refining the cost and fees using the most current information available. PROGRAMS 6.B.1 Periodically benchmark the City’s Cost Recovery Policy against other cities’ cost recovery models. 6.B.2 Invest in and market city facilities to increase revenue for cost recovery. Policy 6.C Limit the exclusive use of Palo Alto parks (booking an entire park site) for events by outside organizations that are closed to the general public. 7372 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS PROGRAMS 6.C.1 No exclusive use of parks by private parties is permitted on peak days (e.g., weekends, holidays) or peak times (e.g., evening hours on weekdays, 10 am – 6 pm on weekends) as defined by Community Services staff unless approved in advance by the Director of Community Services. Exclusive use of certain sites and facilities within parks, such as reservable spaces like picnic areas, is generally permitted during peak days and times. 6.C.2 Exclusive use of parks for locally focused events that allow registration by the general public (e.g., races, obstacle course events, triathlons, etc.) may be considered by staff if consistent with this Master Plan. 6.C.3 Private events that are closed to the general public (e.g., corporate events, private weddings) and are intended to use an entire park (rather than a reservable space in excess of capacities as defined in the Special Event Permit procedures) may only be considered outside of peak days and times as defined by Community Services staff. These events should recover 100% of all associated costs, including wear and tear on public parks and facilities. 6.C.4 Events that allow public access are permitted, in accordance with Special Event Permit procedures. Policy 6.D Periodically review and update existing guidance for development, operations and maintenance of Palo Alto’s parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system based on the best practices in the industry and this Master Plan, including: • Park Rules and Regulations; • Open Space Policy & Procedure Handbook; • City of Palo Alto Landscape Standards; • City of Palo Alto design guidelines and standards; and • Tree Technical Manual. Solar installation 74 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 6.E Incorporate sustainable best practices in the maintenance, management and development of open space, parks and recreation facilities where consistent with ecological best practices. PROGRAMS 6.E.1 Increase energy efficiency in Palo Alto parks, including allocating funding to retrofit facilities for energy efficiency with increased insulation, green or reflective roofs and low-emissive window glass where applicable. 6.E.2 Conduct energy audits for all facilities, establish an energy baseline for operations, benchmark energy performance against comparable facilities and implement energy tracking and management systems for all park facilities and operations. 6.E.3 Select Energy Star and equivalent energy-efficient products for park equipment purchases. 6.E.4 Expand the collection and use of solar power (parking lots, roofs) and other renewable energy sources at parks and facilities (e.g. pools). 6.E.5 Provide convenient and well-marked compost and recycling receptacles throughout the park system, in recreation facilities and at special events. 6.E.6 Ensure that trash, recycling and compost receptacles have covers to prevent wildlife access to human food sources. 6.E.7 Review purchasing policies and improve employee education to reduce overall consumption of materials throughout the system. 6.E.8 Procure environmentally preferable products (as required by the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policy) as the “default” purchasing option. 6.E.9 Initiate composting of green waste within the park system. 6.E.10 Work with Public Works to replace the vehicle fleet with electric vehicles whenever practical. 6.E.11 Install electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at park facilities with parking lots. Palo Alto park maintenance 7574 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 6.E.12 Enforce a “No Idle” program with vehicles and other gas- powered equipment. 6.E.13 Conduct water audits for all parks and recreation facilities and park operations. 6.E.14 Install high-efficiency urinals, toilets, sinks and showers in all facilities. 6.E.15 Extend recycled water use to more park sites. 6.E.16 Explore water capture opportunities in parks for irrigation and recycling. 6.E.17 Ensure any irrigation systems on public landscapes are run by a smart controller and/or sensors and that staff are trained in programming them. 6.E.18 Link all park facilities to a centralized irrigation management system to maximize water use efficiency. 6.E.19 Promote urban greening by integrating storm water design into planting beds, reducing irrigation and providing interpretive information about park contributions to city water quality. 6.E.20 Train City maintenance staff and include specific standards and expectations in maintenance contracts for the care of low-water, naturalized landscapes, natural play environments and other new types of features in the system. 6.E.21 Ensure project designs for new facilities and retrofits will be consistent with sustainable design principles and practices. This includes evaluating all projects for opportunities to implement green stormwater infrastructure such as bioswales, stormwater planters, rain gardens, permeable pavers and porous concrete and asphalt. 6.E.22 Identify locations and develop swales, detention basins and rain gardens to retain and treat storm water. Example of urban greening/green infrastructure 76 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 6.F Strengthen the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy as written. While some parks may be managed as “pesticide free” on a demonstration basis, IPM should continue to be Palo Alto’s approach, grounded in the best available science on pest prevention and management. PROGRAMS 6.F.1 Periodically review and update the IPM policy based on best available data and technology. Policy 6.G Strategically reduce maintenance requirements at parks, open spaces, natural preserves and community centers while maintaining Palo Alto’s high quality standards. PROGRAMS 6.G.1 Locate garbage and recycling receptacles in a single location that is easily accessible by maintenance staff and vehicles. 6.G.2 Explore high capacity, compacting and smart garbage and recycling receptacles that can reduce the frequency of regular collection. 6.G.3 Select standardized furnishing palettes for durability, vandal-resistance and ease of repair. Policy 6.H Coordinate with and/or use other relevant City plans to ensure consistency, including: • Baylands Master Plan; • Urban Forest Master Plan; • Urban Water Master Plan; • Long-term electric acquisition plan (LEAP); • Water Reclamation Master Plan; Accessible garbage and recycling receptacles 7776 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS • Recycled Water Project; • Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan; • Comprehensive Plan; • Public Art Master Plan; and • Others adopted in the future. Policy 6.I Continue to engage other relevant City departments and divisions in planning, design and programming, drawing on the unique and specialized skills and perspectives of: • City Manager’s Office; • The Palo Alto Art Center; • Library, including Children’s Library; • Junior Museum and Zoo; • Children’s Theatre; • Public Art; • Transportation; • Urban Forestry; • Planning; • Public Works; and • Palo Alto Youth and Teen Leadership. Policy 6.J Participate in and support implementation of regional plans related to parks, recreation, natural open space and trails, such as: • 2014 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Vision; • Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan; and • Land Use near Streams in Santa Clara County. CHAPTER5 IMPLEMENTATION OVER THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS MASTER PLAN WILL INCLUDE AN ANNUAL REVIEW PROCESS INITIATED BY CITY STAFF WITH GUIDANCE AND LEADERSHIP FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (PRC) AND CITY COUNCIL. Palo Alto’s dedicated community advocates and partner organizations will also play an important role in ensuring the proposed programs and projects align with the needs of the community. Many projects, such as large capital projects, will require long-term strategic thinking and development of funding strategies. Strategic planning for these long-term, high-capital projects will occur concurrently with the annual review process. The annual review process described in this chapter involves implementing projects and programs described in Chapter 4 through an annual cycle of reviewing, planning, implementing and reporting. These programs have undergone review by the public, staff, PRC and City Council during the development of this Master Plan. Although the tools in this chapter are designed to work with Palo Alto’s existing budget and capital improvement plan processes, there may be instances where a strategic action or proposal does not fit into the normal budget process. In these cases, it will be necessary for a separate PRC and City Council review and approval process. 80 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION CREATE ENVIRONMENTS THAT ENCOURAGE REGULAR ACTIVE AND PASSIVE ACTIVITIES 8180 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION The focus of discussion in this chapter includes: • A prioritization process to create and update the annual action plan; • An evaluation process to consider new projects or programs proposed in the future; and • A methodology for measuring the effective and efficient implementation of the Master Plan. Prioritization This plan is intentionally ambitious, to reflect the high standards of the Palo Alto community. Not all of these projects will move forward immediately, and the City needs to have a method of prioritization. This process of prioritization is designed to inform the projects that move forward first and to help guide implementation throughout the life of the Master Plan. Prioritization Process The prioritization process applies a set of criteria drawn from the extensive community input during the master planning process. These criteria are applicable to the entire range of projects and programs and reflect both the Master Plan principles and goals. When considering the priority of projects and programs and the order in which they are implemented, the following set of criteria will be used as a guide to identify the benefit to the community and parks system in relation to other projects and programs. Proposed projects and programs will be ranked using a range of low, medium and high on how well the programs meet the criteria. These criteria will not provide a numerical score but will inform staff, the PRC and the Council how a particular program could serve community needs. Projects and programs will be evaluated against criteria to identify the benefit to the overall system in relation to other programs. Staff, PRC, and ultimately the City Council will determine the final order of implementation as part of the established Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and operating budget process. The criteria are defined below: • Fill existing gaps: Bring recreation opportunities (parkland, facilities, programs) to areas of the City and to users where gaps were identified. • Respond to growth: Add features or programs and/or modify or expand components of the system to prepare 82 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION for and address increasing demand. • Address community preferences: Target the highest priority types of projects and programs identified through citywide outreach. • Maximize public resources: Create the most benefit for each dollar of capital and operating expenditure possible. • Realize multiple benefits: Advance the principles of this Master Plan as well as the goals, projects and directions of other adopted City efforts. HIGH-PRIORITY PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS There are some programs and projects that we know today are high-priority needs and/or opportunities. The list below reflects those priorities as identified in the Master Planning process. The priorities were developed with feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission, community, stakeholders and City staff and priorities include a summary of planning effort, capital cost (funding), annual operating cost, time frame and urgency for each. The programs and projects have been arranged from high to low urgency with the projects divided into two groups: 1) large-scale projects that will require more study and a long-term planning and funding strategy and 2) those projects that can be initiated immediately, usually of smaller scale and lower funding requirements. While all the projects and programs that appear on this list are considered a priority, completion of large-scale capital projects will require efforts over the life of the plan, with several steps beginning in the near term and continuing through planning, design and ultimately construction. Projects (High to Low Urgency per group) Major projects needing further study and strategic funding • Enhance existing sports fields • Plan, design and construct 10.5-acre site in Baylands for park uses • Plan, design and redevelop Cubberley Community Center • Plan, design and construct a new public gymnasium • Improve the Rinconada Pool Facility • Incorporate 7.7-acre site into Foothills Park • Acquire new parkland in high-need areas • Improve golf course facility 8382 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Projects ready in the short term • Develop conservation plans for open space preserves • Develop new dog parks in underrepresented areas • Construct new restrooms in parks • Incorporate sustainable practices in the maintenance and management of parks, open space and recreation facilities • Exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements in parks • Improve trail connections and access • Develop adult fitness areas in parks • Integrate nature into urban parks • Develop new community gardens in underserved areas • Enhance seating areas in parks • Create wayfinding signage of safe routes to parks Programs • Establish and grow partnerships and identify and cultivate potential park and recreation donors • Collaborate with School District to increase access to playgrounds, gyms and other school facilities • Expand recruitment and training of coaches and instructors • Expand aquatics programs • Expand programs for seniors • Expand non-academic programs for teens • Provide intramural sports program for middle and high school students • Invest in staff training to enhance therapeutic and inclusive program development • Increase the variety of activities available in parks • Encourage unstructured play at parks and community centers • Connect youth, teens and families with nature • Expand programs related to health and wellness • Pilot temporary/pop-up programming in parks 84 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION • Expand community-focused special events • Offer cultural enrichment programs IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS Each priority program or project is described and evaluated based on the following five factors: 1. PLANNING EFFORT represents the amount of time, effort and cost associated with planning the project and could include community outreach, budget and resource allocation, environmental review and PRC and Council approval. 2. CAPITAL COST provides an indication of the magnitude of capital cost to implement the project, shown by dollar signs as follows: • $ (<$250,000) • $$ ($250,000 to $1,000,000) • $$$ ($1,000,000 to $5,000,000) • $$$$ (>$5,000,000) 3. ANNUAL OPERATING COST estimates the added annual operating cost once the project is in place, also indicated by dollar signs as follows: • $ (<$5,000) • $$ ($5,000 to $25,000) • $$$ ($25,000 to $75,000) • $$$$ (>$75,000) 4. TIME FRAME indicates whether project activity will occur in the near, mid, or long term. All the following projects identified as priorities will require attention in the near term, although some are major projects and will not be completed for years. Some projects can be both planned and constructed in the same year, while others will take years longer to complete. Additionally, some projects will require different actions throughout the life of the project. This Master Plan looks at three time frames for implementation. All of the high-priority projects identified will require attention in the near term. Some projects can be initiated and completed within a single time frame. However, 8584 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION many will be ongoing or will require different actions across multiple time frames. Actions related to identified priorities will be integrated into City planning within the structure of each time frame described below. • Near-Term (0-5 years): The City’s CIP includes capital projects planned for a five-year period. As each year’s projects are completed, the annual budgeting process includes the addition of another year on the rolling five- year CIP. New projects identified in the Master Plan will be proposed through the annual CIP process. Programs can be implemented sooner, as funding is available. • Mid-Term (6-10 years): In the mid-term, more of the new ideas generated in this plan will be cycled into the CIP process, and preliminary work will advance the larger capital projects. New programs will be established enough to evaluate, and new ideas can continue to be added. • Long-Term (11-20 years): The long-term timeline includes projects that require significant up-front work and planning, represent long-term, ongoing investments or demand extraordinary funding strategies. Several projects may not be completed until this time frame; however, all will have been initiated and incorporated into the planning structure in a previous time frame. 5. URGENCY indicates the level of need. All projects within this Master Plan have a demonstrated need, but the level of urgency varies based on the availability of a particular amenity or program as compared to the demand. Urgency can also be a consideration of time sensitivity. For example, if a project will influence or guide future operations, such as development of open space conservation plans, that project would have a high level of urgency. A project could also be considered high urgency if failure to act results in a missed opportunity, such as purchase of an available open parcel that could be dedicated as parkland. PROJECT AND PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS The following pages provide information about proposed programs and projects and assign the appropriate criteria for prioritization to each of the programs and projects. The graphic on the left indicates the ranges of each factor that will be seen in this section. PLANNING EFFORT Low to High CAPITAL COST $ to $$$$ OPERATING COST $ to $$$$ TIME FRAME Near, Mid, or Long URGENCY Low, Medium, or High 86 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT High CAPITAL COST $$$ OPERATING COST $$$ TIME FRAME Near (Study and Planning) Near to Long (Construction) URGENCY High Enhance existing sport fields With current high demand, heavy wear and potential future growth, improving and maintaining the City’s large open play fields with limited resources (water & maintenance budget) requires a clear plan to maintain quality and longevity. The following steps are recommended for Enhancing Existing Sport Fields: • Hire a sport field turf consultant, review and analyze the existing City sport fields and make recommendations on how to improve and maintain them to increase quality and use. (Near Term) • Develop an ongoing capital fund project that focuses on enhancing the fields consistent with the field analysis study. (Near to Long Term) FUNDING OPTIONS • Capital improvement funds • Outreach to sport field users and interested parties for private donations Major projects that need further study and strategic funding (Arranged from High to Low Urgency) 8786 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Plan, design and construct 10.5-acre site in Baylands for park uses The development of the 10.5-acre Baylands site will require a long- term planning and funding effort. Because Palo Alto is a built-out city with limited areas to expand the park system, the planning of the project should take into account the location of the site in the Baylands and should start in the near term to establish the site design and cost to complete this large project. The planning effort will focus on the design of the site with direct community input. Staff will strategize options for phasing and funding the project in the near term and establishing a schedule for implementation. Some of the possible concepts for the use of this site that came from the public outreach include athletic fields and native habitat. The following steps are recommended for the development of the 10.5-acre site: • Hire a consultant to study the location and provide a recommendation how to use the site for both athletic use and native habitat use. (Near Term) • Establish a phasing plan for the project for implementation. • Implement the recommendations of the study. FUNDING OPTIONS • Capital improvement funds • Outreach to sport field users and interested parties for private donations • Native habitat and restoration grants PLANNING EFFORT High CAPITAL COST $$$$ OPERATING COST $$ TIME FRAME Near (Planning and Design) Near to Mid (Construction) URGENCY High 88 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT High CAPITAL COST $$ to $$$$ OPERATING COST $$ to $$$$ TIME FRAME Near (Planning and Design) Mid to Long (Construction) URGENCY High (Planning and Design) Medium to High (Developing) Plan, design and redevelop Cubberley Community Center Cubberley Community Center currently sits on a 35-acre site, of which 8 acres are owned by the City and the remaining 27 acres are owned by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). The City leases the PAUSD’s 27 acres and operates the community center on the combined 35-acre site. The City and PAUSD have committed to jointly develop a plan for the future of the entire Cubberley Community Center site that represents the administrative, educational and community needs of the School District and the City. Planning and design of the site will require an assessment of the current and projected future needs of the community with respect to education and recreation. Information and data gathered as part of this Master Planning effort and the Citizens Advisory Committee process will help to inform the needs assessment for Cubberley. Future renovations will provide increased and enhanced services to the community. The following steps are recommended to support the future implementation of this project: • Formalize an agreement between the City and School District will for future development and renovation of the site. (Near Term) • Prepare a comprehensive master planning study for the site, including a needs assessment. (Near Term) • Develop a funding strategy for implementation of the Master Plan. (Near Term) • Develop a long-range implementation plan. (Near to Mid Term) • Implement the master plan. (Mid to Long Term) FUNDING OPTIONS • Capital improvement funds • Outreach to the general community for private donations • Consider the passing of a bond • Grants 8988 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT High CAPITAL COST $$$$ OPERATING COST $$$$ TIME FRAME Mid (Planning and Design) Long (Construction) URGENCY Medium (Planning and Design) Medium (Developing) Plan, design and construct a new gymnasium Currently the City of Palo Alto has no gymnasiums of its own. A gymnasium at the Cubberley Community Center is the main gym utilized by the City, but is owned by Palo Alto Unified School District and operated by the City through a lease agreement. The middle school gyms are used for middle school athletic programs, while the Lucie Stern Community Center and Mitchell Park Community Center are utilized for a variety of physical and social activities. As of means of responding to growth and to maintain, expand and provide future programming, at least one multi-purpose gymnasium is recognized as a community need. The following steps are recommended in the future renovation and development of this site: • Consider a gymnasium as part of the planning effort for the Cubberley Community Center and determine if it is compatible with the development direction of the site or if another separate location should be considered. (Near Term) • Develop a funding strategy for implementation of a new gymnasium, or multiple gyms in one building if funding allows. (Near Term) • Plan and design. (Near to Mid Term) • Construct gymnasium project. (Mid to Long Term) FUNDING OPTIONS • Capital improvement funds • Park impact fees • Outreach to the general community for private donations • Consider the passing of a bond • Grants 90 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT High CAPITAL COST $$$$ OPERATING COST $$$$ TIME FRAME Mid (Planning and Design) Long (Construction) URGENCY Medium (Planning and Design) Medium (Developing) Improve the Rinconada Park pool facility The pool facility at Rinconada Park is the only City-owned pool facility. During its operational season the pool is in high demand from the community and local swim groups. To meet growing demand, a programming policy to open the pool for a longer season and extended times is being explored. Along with increased demand comes the needs for pool facility improvements. The existing lap pool is undersized to meet demand in both overall size and swimming length, falling a few feet short of a regulation pool length. The existing locker room and restroom facilities are small and lack separate areas for children, families and adults. Appropriate pool facility improvements were identified in the Rinconada Master Plan. They include: • Expanding and reconfiguring the existing lap pool, • Fully remodeling the existing locker room and restroom building, • Adding a much-needed community room for meetings and training, and • Expanding the deck area around the pool for seating. The following steps are recommended in the future renovation and development of this site: • Develop a funding strategy for implementation of a full pool remodel. (Near Term) • Plan and design. (Near to Mid Term) • Remodel Rinconada Pool. (Mid to Long Term) FUNDING OPTIONS • Capital improvement funds • Park impact fees • Outreach to the general community for private donations 9190 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Incorporate the 7.7-acre site into Foothills Park The development of the 7.7-acre site at Foothills Park will require a long-range planning and funding effort. The planning of the project should start in the near term to develop the site design and identify funding to complete this large project. The planning effort will focus on the design of the site with direct community input. As a precursor to the project, a hydrological study of Buckeye Creek will be completed (September 2017) to understand how the solutions to the Creek’s erosion problem frame the possible uses for the 7.7-acres. Staff will research options for funding the project in the near term and establish a schedule for implementation. Public recommendations for possible uses of the site ranged from restoring the site to developing it for some form of recreation. The following steps are recommended for the future renovation and development of this site: • Hire a consultant to recommend options and pricing for restoring the 7.7-acre site. (Near Term) • Establish a phasing plan for the project for implementation. (Near Term) • Develop a funding strategy. (Near Term) • Implement the recommendations of the study. (Near to Long Term) FUNDING OPTIONS • Capital improvement funds • Park impact fees • Outreach to the general community for private donations • Grants PLANNING EFFORT Medium to High CAPITAL COST $$$ to $$$$ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near (Planning and Design) Near to Mid (Construction) URGENCY High (Opening Area to Public) Low (Developing) 92 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Acquire new parkland in high-need areas Expand parkland inventory in Palo Alto’s Urban Service Area where gaps exist geographically as illustrated in the Park Search Areas System Concept Map (Figure 8). While this is a long-term effort, there are short-term strategies and actions needed to achieve results. Based on the goal, policy and program described in Chapter Four 1.B.1-12, some near-term actions include review of all City-owned land and easements (starting in park search areas) for potential parkland development or connection locations, and evaluation of City-owned or controlled spaces serving, or capable of serving, park-like or recreational uses for potential dedication as parkland. The following additional steps are recommended for acquiring new parkland: • Develop and implement a strategy to build up funding sufficient for future parkland acquisitions. • Review all City-owned property in the high-needs areas for parkland potential. • Develop a process to review and pursue potential properties available for acquisition or long-term lease for park purposes. • Review options to increase development fees to facilitate future acquisitions. • Identify undeveloped properties in high-needs areas and pursue purchasing or long-term lease agreements with the owner. • Develop a process to accept private donations and bequests of money for parkland. The following steps are recommended to gain community access to additional parkland through partnerships: • Collaborate with the School District to make school grounds open space available for use by the surrounding communities during non-school hours. • Contribute to planning, funding and maintaining the construction of park elements on school grounds in collaboration with the School District to ensure community access and provide needed park amenities to high-needs areas. PLANNING EFFORT High CAPITAL COST $$$$ OPERATING COST $$ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY High (Funding Strategy)Medium (Implementation) 9392 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT High CAPITAL COST $$$ OPERATING COST $$$ TIME FRAME Mid (Planning and Design) Long (Construction) URGENCY Medium (Planning and Design) Medium (Developing) Golf course facility improvements The pro shop, clubhouse and parking lot facilities were not included in the scope of work of the newly renovated golf course. Each of these facilities needs improvements to maintain the viability of the overall golf course facility. Improvements would include a full remodel of the existing clubhouse and pro shop building with an expansion of a larger multi-purpose room that could be used for community and private events. Reconfiguration of the large asphalt parking lot to create a better entry statement when arriving to the golf course facility is also necessary. The following steps are recommended for improvement of the golf course facility: • Hire a golf course consultant to review and analyze the existing facilities and make recommendations on how to improve quality and overall use, along with an operating cost study that reviews potential improvement options for generating revenue. (Near Term) • Establish a phasing plan for the project for implementation. • Implement the recommendations of the analysis and study. FUNDING OPTIONS • Capital improvement funds • Outreach to the general community for private donations FUNDING OPTIONS • Capital improvement funds • Park impact fees • Outreach to the general community for private donations • Consider the passing of a bond • Grants 94 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT Medium CAPITAL COST $$ OPERATING COST $ to $$ TIME FRAME Near to Mid URGENCY High PLANNING EFFORT Medium CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Mid URGENCY High Develop conservation plans for open space preserves Comprehensive conservation plans are necessary to develop guiding principles and best management practices for holistic management of Palo Alto’s open space preserves and to balance ecosystem protection, environmental education and passive recreational uses. Conservation plans will be completed for the Baylands, Foothills Park, Pearson-Arastradero, and Esther Clark Preserves and will provide City staff, the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council with clear direction on how to manage Palo Alto’s open space preserves using an ecosystem-based model that considers both conservation and recreation goals. Develop new dog parks in underrepresented areas There are currently three dog parks in Palo Alto, all of which are located south of Oregon Expressway. The lack of dog parks on the north side of the City, together with the prevalence of people allowing dogs to run off-leash outside of designated dog parks in parks and on school property, underscores the need for more off-leash dog parks in the near term. Locations for dog parks have been strategically selected at certain parks and planning efforts are underway. Existing park features such as native trees, public art and playground equipment as well as community feedback all will be considered when planning for the construction of a dog park. The addition of dog parks will be phased and is proposed to occur in the near- and mid-term. Projects ready in the short term (Arranged from High to Low Urgency) PLANNING EFFORT Medium CAPITAL COST $$ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Mid URGENCY High Construct new restrooms in parks Through this planning process, the community generally came to a consensus that restrooms make sense in parks with amenities that draw people, especially children and seniors, and encourage them stay at the park for a span of time. Though there have been varying opinions regarding specific sites, additional review will be conducted to site restrooms and identify security measures such as automatic locking mechanisms and lighting, addressing some of the concerns related to restrooms. 9594 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST $ to $$ OPERATING COST 0 to $ TIME FRAME Near (Strategic Plan) Ongoing (Implementation) URGENCY High PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST $ to $$$ OPERATING COST $ to $$ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Medium to High Incorporate sustainable practices in the maintenance and management of parks, open space and recreation facilities Staff responsible for the care of Palo Alto’s parks and open space will commit to staying current with sustainable practices. As part of this effort, staff will develop a strategic plan for incorporating sustainable practices for maintenance and management of parks, open space and facilities, including updating current practices. Maintenance staff will consult with the City’s Sustainability Department to discuss how they can help meet the sustainable goals of the Sustainability Master Plan (under development as of the adoption of this Master Plan), and to develop measures for tracking the adoption of sustainable maintenance practices. Exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements in parks The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides regulations that inform and guide the amenities and design of parks and requires an ADA Transition Plan to remove barriers that may prevent people with disabilities from fully enjoying the City’s parks and recreation services. The ADA requirements represent the legal minimum that is required. Feedback from the community during the Master Plan process was supportive that Palo Alto seek, when possible, to exceed ADA minimums and strive for universal accessibility, where people of all abilities can utilize and enjoy parks. During all parks- related capital improvement projects, staff will not only update amenities and design to current ADA standards, but will also seek opportunities to achieve universal access. This will occur in the near term and will be ongoing. 96 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT Medium CAPITAL COST $ to $$$ OPERATING COST $ to $$ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Medium PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Medium to Low PLANNING EFFORT Low to Medium CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Low to High (Depends on drought status) Improve trail connections and access Improving trail connections and access to parks and open space areas was identified as an important priority by the community. Linkages to parks also promote the “Green Necklace” vision for the City and allow regional connections to adjacent cities and open natural areas. Staff will utilize existing capital improvement projects as a platform on which to improve trail connections into parks, access and connections between parks and between multi-modal trails. They will also seek to provide linkages to regional trails and neighboring agency sites. In addition, staff will identify trail connections and improvements that will require new individual capital projects, up to and including purchasing land, and will propose those through the City’s CIP process. Develop adult fitness areas in parks Health and fitness is a priority for the Palo Alto community and an important reason for park use. Palo Alto can help support health and wellness for adults and older adults, a population segment that is growing, by providing outdoor fitness options, especially in close proximity to playgrounds, creating a multi-generational playground. These adult fitness areas can take on a variety of forms: from outdoor workout equipment areas (free weight and cardio machines) to simple open rubber surface areas for open activity (e.g., yoga, meditation, weight and cardiovascular training). These spaces will be designed for both individual use and group gathering and as a means of activating a park, and will be a high-value, simple addition during park renovation projects. Integrate nature into urban parks This project includes converting areas in parks, usually turfgrass that is not used for recreation, into native plantings (e.g. riparian, grassland or oak woodland) or a specific habitat planting (e.g., pollinator, hummingbird or butterfly). This type of project may also include bioswales designed to maintain on-site drainage and create habitat, and may even include aspects of a natural play area. 9796 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Low PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Low Develop new community gardens in underserved areas Community gardens provide a place for healthy outdoor activity, social gathering and community connections. Ultimately, community gardens should be evenly distributed throughout the park system. Staff will look for opportunities to add community gardens when parks are renovated, looking for underutilized turfgrass or planting areas as potential locations for community gardens. In addition, staff will seek to expand the variety of community gardening opportunities, by considering children’s or inclusive garden plots or even entire community gardens. Enhance seating areas in parks Seating is an important part of creating a welcoming park environment and was identified as a priority by community members during the outreach process. When park renovations occur, staff will identify opportunities to enhance seating areas (making them more comfortable and functional) or provide additional seating. Enhancements may include providing more seating, providing additional seating options (e.g., movable seating, artist-designed or embellished benches), and creating enclosures to define the seating area as a low-activity area used for urban retreat. 98 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT Medium to High CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Low Create wayfinding signage showing safe routes to parks Wayfinding signage is a means of connecting and expanding the park system. Wayfinding signage designed to direct the community to designated safe routes between parks will help provide linkages between all of Palo Alto’s open spaces, which will in turn expand the system. The Community Services, Public Works and Transportation departments will work together to establish these safe routes and engage the community for wayfinding and route options. Future infrastructure development of these safe routes may also include the addition of park-like features along the length of the route to further expand the park system. The following steps are recommended for wayfinding signage showing safe routes to parks: • Hire a consultant to put together a proposed signage design, layout and phasing for the project. (Near Term) • Work with City, the community and stakeholders to develop the overall safe routes to parks plan. (Near Term) • Develop a funding strategy for implementation. (Near Term) • Implement the design. (Near to Long Term) FUNDING OPTIONS • Capital improvement funds • Park impact fees • Outreach to the general community for private donations • Grants 9998 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Establish and grow partnerships and identify and cultivate potential park and recreation donors In collaboration with the Friends of Palo Alto Parks and the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation among other partners, Palo Alto will develop a marketing campaign to engage members of the public to volunteer and contribute financially to the improvement and expansion of Palo Alto’s parks, open space and recreation programs and facilities. PLANNING EFFORT Medium CAPITAL COST N/A OPERATING COST $$ TIME FRAME Near URGENCY High Programs Expand recruitment and training of coaches and instructors Palo Alto staff will develop a system and strategies to broaden the recruitment and training of coaches and instructors, including exploring public/private partnerships, to meet the programming demands of the City and to ensure staffing of high-quality, qualified coaches and instructors. PLANNING EFFORT Low to Medium CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $$ TIME FRAME Near to Mid URGENCY High Expand aquatics programs Community feedback has consistently shown that residents want more pool access during the day and into the spring and fall seasons. Both recreational swimming and swim lessons are in high demand, and added pool hours would allow more aquatics programs to occur. City staff will provide expanded programs and explore new aquatic programs, such as water polo and water fitness classes, that would add to the diversity of programming. PLANNING EFFORT Medium CAPITAL COST N/A OPERATING COST $$ TIME FRAME Near URGENCY High 100 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Expand programs for seniors With the population of older adults and seniors in Palo Alto projected to be on the rise, Palo Alto will need to adjust program offerings to meet demand, especially programs tailored to the needs of active seniors. This may include both indoor and outdoor activities. Staff will also coordinate with Avenidas as an important part of the planning effort to ensure that redundancy is minimized and enhancements are based on needs and gaps in the current level of service. Expand non-academic programs for teens Palo Alto will implement recreation programs and services to provide additional opportunities for teens to explore a wide variety of non-academic interests in an accessible, relaxed and fun environment. Examples of current programs include the MakeX maker space, Think Fund Grant program and the counselor-in-training program. Enhancing and expanding these types of programs is important to provide balance in the busy and demanding lives of teens. PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST N/A OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near URGENCY Medium to High PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST N/A OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near URGENCY Medium Collaborate with School District to increase access to playgrounds, gyms and other school facilities City staff will work with PAUSD to increase access to playgrounds, gyms and other school facilities. Staff will concentrate on specific locations in the city with limited park space with the intent of ensuring access to school open areas and playgrounds during non- school hours, and establishing a gym use agreement for additional City programs and activities in school gyms during non-school hours. PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near URGENCY Medium 101100 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Provide intramural sports program for middle and high school students Intramural sports provide the opportunity for children to learn a new sport, develop social skills, practice teamwork and build friendships. They also promote an active and healthy lifestyle. Palo Alto will explore creating an intramural sports program for middle and high school students. Implementation of intramurals will require coordination with PAUSD and would require additional field and gym space. Increase the variety of activities available in parks When renovating parks, Palo Alto staff will explore adding both active and passive spaces and elements to increase the variety of activities that can be experienced in a particular park. Recommended additions to a park should consider the user groups of the parks as well as different age groups. Further engagement of the community should be considered. Examples of potential elements include: outdoor gathering areas, small-scale active spaces (bocce, pickleball courts), and quiet retreat spaces. PLANNING EFFORT Medium CAPITAL COST N/A OPERATING COST $$ TIME FRAME Near to Mid URGENCY Medium PLANNING EFFORT Low to High CAPITAL COST $ to $$ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Low PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Mid URGENCY Medium Invest in staff training to enhance therapeutic and inclusive program development The Palo Alto community highly values accessibility and inclusion. Community Services will expand therapeutic and inclusive programming, including increasing funding for staff training in this area. 102 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Encourage unstructured play at parks and community centers Providing spaces and programs, both indoors and outdoors, where children can play in a less structured format, away from electronic devices, encourages creativity and problem solving and fosters social connections with other youth. Palo Alto will support unstructured play, such as providing space for “pick-up” games, providing sports equipment in parks and gyms, and offering programs with minimal direction and oversight. PLANNING EFFORT Low to Medium CAPITAL COST N/A to $ OPERATING COST $ to $$ TIME FRAME Near to Mid URGENCY Low PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST N/A OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near URGENCY Low PLANNING EFFORT Low to Medium CAPITAL COST N/A OPERATING COST $ to $$ TIME FRAME Near URGENCY Low Connect youth, teens and families with nature Parks and open space preserves provide a direct connection to nature. Connecting people to nature provides benefits to physical, emotional and mental health and encourages preservation and environmental education. Palo Alto will provide more programs that focus on nature or take place in natural settings, and that are geared toward specific age groups and families, enhancing the community’s connection to nature. Expand programs related to health and wellness In recent years, Council has identified healthy city and healthy community as a Council priority. Efforts underway include the Healthy City Healthy Community Initiative, an annual health fair, fitness classes and programs specific to teens. Palo Alto will develop additional programming to encourage a healthy city and community on an annual basis based on community need. 103102 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT Medium CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Low PLANNING EFFORT Medium CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Low Expand community-focused special events Palo Alto will develop a yearly community survey to determine the popularity of current special events and explore possible new events. Staff will use survey results to pilot new events and determine the feasibility of continuing these in the future. Offer cultural enrichment programs Community Services will develop cultural enrichment programs that celebrate the diversity of Palo Alto’s community. This will create opportunities for the community to come together and share their distinct cultural backgrounds. PLANNING EFFORT Low to Medium CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Mid URGENCY Low Pilot temporary/pop-up programming in parks Palo Alto staff will develop a program series that would bring activities to parks. Further review to identify locations for potential pop-up programming sites will be carried out by Community Services staff, who will also schedule and promote pop-up programs. Examples of pop-up programs include: play activities; fitness activities such as yoga or tai chi; nature-oriented programs such as bird watching and park tree walks, or arts-related activities such as painting or music. 104 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Action Plan The complete set of projects and programs identified during the Master Plan process are summarized in a working document called the Action Plan. The Action Plan is maintained separately from this Master Plan document and is designed to adapt and change with the completion of projects, passage of time and shifting funding opportunities. Each project and program is described in terms of location, the relevant element of the system and the plan framework reference (which policy the project or program originates from). The action plan also indicates the anticipated year(s) of implementation and the total estimated costs (capital and operational). Capital costs are broken down between planning/ design and the implementation of the project. Operation costs are further clarified by the staff time required per year of project implementation. The action plan allows a comprehensive look at the projects and programs resulting from this Master Plan. Each year, as the next year is added to the CIP, the Action Plan will feed a new set of projects based on the timelines as they have evolved. Further, new projects will continue to be added to the Action Plan, using the prioritization process described earlier in this chapter.Shown below are examples of action plans ( top: program) (below: projects) 105104 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Funding Today and Tomorrow The City of Palo Alto uses a minimum of seven funding sources for the majority of its capital, operational and recreation program funding: • General Fund • Consumer and Participant Fees (which go to the General Fund) • Parkland Dedication Fees • Development Impact Fees • Public Private Partnerships • Grants • Donations These funding sources are defined and described in Appendix D: Existing Funding Sources. There are limitations (both statutory and in practice) on the use of many of the existing funding sources. Table 5 summarizes EXISTING FUNDING SOURCE CAPITAL OPERATIONAL/ PROGRAMMING GENERAL FUND PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS GRANTS DONATIONS KEY ELIGIBLE LIMITED NOT ELIGIBLE TABLE 5: FUNDING APPLICABILITY 106 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION the existing funding sources by their applicability to capital and operational projects and programs. In addition, Palo Alto’s Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) process established a schedule to “Keep-Up” with the current maintenance needs of City-owned parks, facilities and open space. The Commission also identified maintenance needs that had not been planned and the cost and schedule to “Catch Up.” City Staff has utilized the IBRC process over the past five years to schedule needed maintenance and have greatly reduced the “Catch Up” items. Potential Funding Options Although there are multiple funding sources for capital and operating projects and programs, there remains a gap in funding. While the total capital funding needed for new projects is substantial, the limited options currently available for maintenance, operations and programming funding is a bigger constraint on achieving the Master Plan goals. The potential for a funding method to expand funding for maintenance, operations and programming should be carefully considered as the City explores options to fill the funding gap. EXPAND EXISTING FUNDING OPTIONS One important option is increasing the amount of funding from existing sources. The General Fund could be expanded by increasing revenue generation. • Parkland dedication fees could be reevaluated to ensure the rates are keeping up with land costs. • Development impact fees could be increased through action by the City Council. • Donations and grants could also be expanded with effort by the City. • Public-private partnerships could include allocating staff time, creating a new position focused on expanding these sources, or hiring a consultant experienced with grant writing. • Participation and membership fees could be evaluated to increase cost recovery and to help pay for new and enhanced programs and services. 107106 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION EXAMPLES OF PAST SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIPS Heritage Park In 2007, the Friends of Heritage Park gave the City a donation of $197,572 to contribute toward a capital project to build the Heritage Park Playground. The City contributed $75,000 toward the project. Council approved a limited-term agreement with the Friends of Heritage Park to design, construct and install the playground facilities and other improvements at Heritage Park. Magical Bridge Playground The City partnered with the Friends of the Magical Bridge to design and build Palo Alto’s first “inclusive” playground at Mitchell Park. The City contributed the land and $300,000 to the project for planning and design purposes, while the Friends contributed approximately $3.5 million for construction. A grant was also secured for $80,000 for improvements to the pathways that lead to the playground. The playground opened to the public in April 2015 and is a regional draw, winning several design awards and high praise from the community. Lytton Plaza Renovation The City formed a public-private partnership with the Friends of Lytton Plaza to renovate Lytton Plaza. The Friends donated $750,000 for the renovation of the plaza. The project was completed in December 2009. Acquisition of new park land at the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve The City contributed $1,110,305 along with $2,592,210 in grant money for the acquisition of 13-acre open space Bressler Property from the Peninsula Open Space Trust. In October 2002, the Peninsula Open Space Trust purchased a 13-acre property from the Estate of Jacqueline Bressler with the intent of holding the parcel for open space purposes until the City of Palo Alto could purchase the property. The City acquired the Property and added it to the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve in 2005. Save the Bay Partnership: The City partnered with Save the Bay in 2001 in order to accomplish the shared goal of restoring sensitive wetland habitat at the Baylands Nature Preserve. Annually, Save the Bay contributes hundreds of hours of staff time to organize and lead 108 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION volunteer restoration programs (thirty-five per year on average) in the preserve. Save the Bay has also fully funded the cost to construct a native plant nursery at the Baylands to propagate native plants that volunteers use to restore Baylands habitat. The partnership continues to provide benefit to the sensitive habitat at the Baylands Nature Preserve and to the Palo Alto community members that participate in the volunteer programs. ISSUE BONDS There are two types of bonds relevant to the Master Plan. While the City Council would need to initiate either type of bond, only one method would require a public vote. General obligation bonds are voter-approved bonds with the assessment placed on real property. The money can only be used for capital improvements, not for maintenance or operations. This property tax is levied for a specified period of time (usually 15-20 years). Passage requires a two-thirds majority approval by the voters. Revenue bonds are sold to finance revenue-generating facilities, such as community centers, performing arts centers and in some cases sports complexes. The interest and capital are paid from the revenue produced from the operation of such a facility. The City has to guarantee repayment, meaning that if revenue from the facility does not cover the necessary bond payments, the City will be required to pay from another source. CREATE A SPECIAL DISTRICT There are several types of special districts allowable by California law for recreation purposes. The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 allows any county, city, special district, school district or joint powers authority to establish a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (a “CFD”) to finance public improvements and services. The services and improvements that Mello-Roos CFDs can finance include streets, sewer systems and other basic infrastructure, police protection, fire protection, ambulance services, schools, parks, libraries, museums and other cultural facilities. Formation of a CFD requires a two-thirds vote of residents living within the proposed boundaries. If there are fewer than twelve residents, then the vote is instead conducted of current 109108 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION landowners. The assessment cannot be based on property value; instead it is based on the size of the property or square footage of structures. By law, the CFD is also entitled to recover expenses needed to form the CFD and administer the annual special taxes and bonded debt. The special assessment continues until bonds are paid off and then is typically reduced to a level to maintain the investments. The Landscaping and Lighting Act permits a public agency to assess housing units or land parcels for a variety of city services, including parks. The assessment revenues can be used for parkland acquisition, development and/or maintenance. The agency can choose to use the revenue generated on a pay-as-you-go basis or can sell bonds in order to receive a lump sum amount which is then paid back from the annual revenue generated from the assessment. The pay-as-you-go method provides steady ongoing revenue to fund services. Bonding against revenue provides a larger sum to undertake a bigger project. Establishment of a new assessment district or revision to an existing one requires a simple majority vote of property owners. EXCHANGE OR SELL PROPERTY If the City has an excess piece of property, the City could sell or trade the property to obtain a site more suitable for park use. COMBINING MASTER PLAN PROJECT WITH OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS As the primary part of Palo Alto’s green infrastructure, the parks, natural open space and trails system connects to many other city services. Some projects can be vital parts of other infrastructure projects or be applicable for funding from sources for transportation, stormwater, flood protection and other engineered infrastructure projects. Combining or coupling Master Plan projects with other infrastructure projects can reduce the costs all around, open up new funding streams, provide mitigation and achieve multiple objectives. ESTABLISH AN ENDOWMENT FUND FOR MAINTENANCE Recognizing that operations and maintenance funding is not likely to get any easier to obtain, Palo Alto could fund, or could seek 110 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION philanthropic donations to fund, a endowment for the long-term maintenance of parks, natural open space or recreation facilities. This effort could be started with a smaller, targeted effort to endow the maintenance of a specific type of facility and then grown over time to eventually cover a significant portion of the system maintenance. Evaluating Future Projects As time passes, new ideas will emerge about how to optimize an individual site, add to the system or change the mix of recreation opportunities. The combination of the goals (detailed in Chapter 4) and the prioritization criteria create a framework that can be used to evaluate future proposals for changes to the parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system. Review Process Following a similar process to developing the Master Plan projects and programs, the review process for new ideas includes both staff and PRC review. The review process will follow the steps below. Step 1: Staff, individual or community group proposes a project or program. Step 2: Staff reviews the proposal to determine if the project aligns with the community’s vision as expressed in the Master Plan principles and goals. If a compelling case cannot be made, the process stops here. Step 3: Staff analyzes need using the same categories as in the Needs and Opportunities (see Master Plan Chapter 3): • Current Service/Inventory • Level of Control • Geographic Analysis • Capacity/Bookings • Perception of Quality • Expressed Need • Demographic Trends • Barriers to Access/Participation • Projected Demand 111110 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION In some cases, information may not be readily available for staff to make an adequate evaluation. In these cases, staff may obtain additional data by meeting with the proposer or with local experts, conducting regional or national research or seeking community input. Staff may also recommend conducting a specific technical study. Once adequate information is gathered, staff will complete the analysis of need and document it in a brief report. If PRC review is needed, staff will proceed to Step 4. • Staff makes a recommendation to the PRC. Using the results of the analysis of need (Step 3), staff evaluates the proposal using the prioritization criteria and prepares a staff report to the PRC with a recommendation. Staff may recommend that the PRC add the proposed project or program for further development and eventual addition to the Action Plan. Staff may also recommend against the proposal if the prioritization scoring is low. Low scoring is an indicator that the proposal is not a priority, compared to all opportunities. • The PRC considers the staff’s recommendation at a meeting. The proposer is encouraged to attend and to present the proposal. After consideration at the meeting, the PRC makes a determination and directs staff how to proceed. For proposals recommended for further action, staff can explore the financial and practical considerations and incorporate the proposal into Action Plan and/or the CIP process as applicable. 112 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Progress Reporting Palo Alto annually collects data, both internally and from the community, to measure and track performance, budget and expenditures. These existing measures provide a large selection of data points to draw from when looking at any part of the parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system, including annual trends. Many of the existing indicators are directly related to Master Plan goals, while others indirectly provide valuable insight into the progress of the Master Plan. Palo Alto has a standing practice of reporting on the annual National Citizen Survey1, a citizen satisfaction survey, as well as a performance-based Citizen Centric Report2, both of which provide data on parks and recreation programs and services. A City-wide Performance Report that provides information to City Council, management and the public contains information on spending, staffing, workload and performance results. In addition, there is internal reporting at the department level that informs program and service delivery decisions, budget proposals and policy and procedure changes. Below are the indicators and measures that Palo Alto currently collects, along with additional recommended indicators to effectively monitor and report on Master Plan progress. 1The National Citizen Survey™ is a collaborative effort between the Nation- al Research Center, Inc., (NRC) and the International City/County Manage- ment Association. The NRC uses a statistically valid survey methodology to gather resident opinions across a range of community issues, including the quality of the community and services provided by the local government. 2 The Citizen Centric Report is a summary document highlighting perfor- mance, financial data and an overview of the City’s economic outlook. 113112 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION TABLE 6: EXISTING INDICATORS Indicator Rating Source Goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: • Availability of paths and walking trails • Public places where people want to spend time • Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) • Recreational opportunities 1=Excellent 2=Good 3=Fair 4=Poor 5=Don’t Know National Citizen Survey X X X X In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Palo Alto? • Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services • Visited a neighborhood park or City park 1=2 times a week or more 2=2-4 times a month 3= Once a month or less 4=Not at all National Citizen Survey X X X X Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: • City parks • Recreation programs or classes • Recreation centers or facilities • Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts • Palo Alto open space • Your neighborhood park 1=Excellent 2=Good 3=Fair 4=Poor 5=Don’t Know National Citizen Survey X X X X X X Please rate the quality of Palo Alto’s trees and landscaping for Parks 1=Excellent 2=Good 3=Fair 4=Poor 5=Don’t Know National Citizen Survey X X Suggested improvements to Parks or Recreation Activities and Programs (open-ended question, which may change annually) N/A National Citizen Survey X X X X X X Parks/Land Maintained by Community Services # of acres City of Palo Alto Performance Report X Participants in community garden program # of participants City of Palo Alto Performance Report X 114 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Indicator Rating Source Goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 Visitors at Foothills Park # of visitors City of Palo Alto Performance Report X X X X Community Services volunteer hours in restorative/resource management programs and neighborhood parks # of hours City of Palo Alto Performance Report X X Enrollment in recreation classes and camps: • Summer camps and aquatics • Kids (excluding camps) • Adults • Preschool # of enrolled participants City of Palo Alto Performance Report X X X X X X Participants in teen programs # of participants City of Palo Alto Performance Report X X Amount of General Fund expenditures spent on Community Services Percent of total expenditures Citizen Centric Report X X X X X X TABLE 6: EXISTING INDICATORS (CONTINUED) To track progress on Master Plan implementation, additional specific measurable indicators that relate directly to the goals, policies and programs were identified. These will be applied and reported annually to the PRC, City Council and the community. Additional indicators may be added if a need is identified by staff, the PRC or City Council. Table 7 lists the recommended additional indicators. 116 This page is intentionally left blank 117116 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Glossary GLOSSARY OF TERMS Capital Project: Any physical improvement with a minimal cost of $50,000, a useful life of at least 5-7 years, or that extends the life of an existing asset by at least 5 years. Planning and design are considered a part of a capital project. Creek/Riparian Enhancement: Conceptual enhancement opportunity for all of the creeks passing through Palo Alto. Element: One of three divisions of the plan for analysis purposes: parks, trails and natural open space; recreation facilities; and recreation programs. Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Route: A concept to improve routes identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to create a network of high-quality on- and off-street connections that link parks. These routes are envisioned to have enhanced crossings, street treatments and other improvements beyond the bicycle infrastructure outlined in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Streetscape and plantings are also linked to the idea of Pollinator Pathways. Facility: A built feature in a park or preserve that adds, supports or enhances a recreation activity. Goals: A broad statement of direction describing the desired end state. Goals are qualitative in nature and collectively should achieve the system envisioned by the principles. Mean Projected High Water 3-Foot Sea Level Rise: The line at which water meets the land surface at the mean high water point projected in NOAA models for 3 feet of sea level rise. Natural Open Space Preserve: A category of parkland that is designated to protect and provide access to nature. The four natural open space preserves are: Baylands Preserve (which includes Byxbee Park), Esther Clark Preserve, Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. Park Connector: A conceptual second tier of enhanced bicycle and pedestrian routes that link the major routes to a few isolated sites. Park Search Area: The inverse of the park service areas, highlighting the areas outside of a ½-mile walk from any parkland. These areas are the targets for strategies to add to the park system. 118118 Policy: A values-based framework that provides clear direction and guides an action toward achieving the goal. Policies state what will be done, but not how. Pollinator Pathway: A concept for pathways, utilizing the Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Route network, that feature plantings and tree canopy along the streetscape to enhance habitat connections for birds and insects with multiple benefits, including enhancing pollination. Principles: A fundamental basis that describes a desired state or preferred direction. Collectively, the principles articulate the Palo Alto community’s vision for the future parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system. Recreation Program: A class, league, camp, tour or event that facilitates participating in an activity. Riparian Connected Parks: Sites with a creek (natural or channelized) passing through or adjacent. Universal Design: “The concept of designing all products and the built environment to be aesthetic and usable to the greatest extent possible by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status in life.” - Ronald L. Mace of North Carolina State University, College of Design Urban Canopy Target Area: The lowest canopy coverage neighborhoods in the Urban Forestry Master Plan (0-30% coverage). Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Glossary 119118 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Bibliography 118 Bibliography Documents 1. Association of Bay Area Governments. “Projections and Priorities: 2009. Building Momentum.” 2. Association of Bay Area Governments. “Projections 2013.” 3. City of Palo Alto, Administrative Services Department. “2014-2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.” June 30, 2015. 4. City of Palo Alto City Manager. “Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Foothills Fire Management Plan.” May 18, 2009. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/ documents/15866 5. City of Palo Alto. “Blue Ribbon Infrastructure Advisory Committee Report: Palo Alto’s Infrastructure: Catching Up, Keeping Up, and Moving Ahead.” December 21, 2012. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/ civicax/filebank/documents/29729 6. City of Palo Alto. “Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan.” July 2012. 7. City of Palo Alto. “Bicycle Plan Implementation Projects.” March 17, 2014. https://www. cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/39437. 8. City of Palo Alto. “Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan.” February 2012. http://www.cityofpaloalto. org/civicax/filebank/documents/28774 9. City of Palo Alto. Climate Protection Plan. December 3, 2007. www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/ filebank/documents/9986 10. City of Palo Alto. “Citizen Centric Report for Fiscal Year 2013.” March 17, 2014. 11. City of Palo Alto. “City of Palo Alto Field and Tennis Court Use Policy.” www.cityofpaloalto.org/ civicax/filebank/documents/38719 12. City of Palo Alto. City Council Informational Report. “Downtown Monitoring Report 2010-2011.” March 5, 2012. 13. City of Palo Alto, City Manager’s Office. “Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Foothills Fire Management Plan.” May 18, 2009. 14. City of Palo Alto, Community Service Department. “Adoption of Healthy Cities, Healthy Communities Resolution.” October 26, 2015. 15. City of Palo Alto, Community Services and Public Works Department. “Parks and Recreation Master Plan Staff Report.” October 23, 2012. 16. City of Palo Alto.” Community Services Class Cost Recovery Policy.” Adopted by Council November 26, 2007. 17. City of Palo Alto. “Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR: Biological Resources.” February 5, 2016. 120 18. City of Palo Alto. “Comprehensive Plan Update: Population, Housing, and Employment.” August 29, 2014. 19. City of Palo Alto. “Comprehensive Plan Update: Public Services.” August 29, 2014. 20. City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment. “Tree Technical Manual: Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10.030.” June 2001. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/ filebank/documents/6937. 21. City of Palo Alto Department of Utilities, Utility Marketing Services in cooperation with the Department of Water Resources.“ January 2009. Landscape Standards.” http://www.cityofpaloalto. org/civicax/filebank/documents/18226. 22. City of Palo Alto. “Development Impact Fees for Parks, Community Centers, and Libraries.” October 2001. 23. City of Palo Alto. “Development Impact Fees.” August 17, 2015. 24. City of Palo Alto. “Field and Tennis Court Use Policy.” June 2013. 25. City of Palo Alto, Finance Committee. “Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees.” May 6, 2014. 26. City of Palo Alto. “Fiscal Year 2013 Adopted Capital Budget.” April 30, 2012. 27. City of Palo Alto. “Fiscal Year 2014 Adopted Operating Budget.” August 5, 2013. 28. City of Palo Alto. “The National Citizen Survey.” January 23, 2015. 29. City of Palo Alto. “Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan.” 4th Edition. 2008. 30. City of Palo Alto. “Palo Alto Municipal Code.” www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/ paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca 31. City of Palo Alto. “Performance Report for FY 2013.” March 17, 2014. 32. City of Palo Alto. “Public Art Master Plan.” Revised Draft. April 18, 2016. 33. City of Palo Alto, Public Works Department. “Management Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl, Byxbee Park Hills.” May 2015. 34. City of Palo Alto, Office of the City Auditor. “Study Session: Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report FY 2011.” March 19, 2012. 35. City of Palo Alto Recreation Division: Community Services Division. “Summary of Programs and Services.” Hard copy only. 36. City of Palo Alto Safe Routes to School. “Bicycle Counts.” 2010. 37. City of Palo Alto. “Urban Forest Master Plan.” February 2015. 38. City of Palo Alto Utilities. “Urban Wastewater Management Plan.” June 2011. www.cityofpaloalto. org/civicax/filebank/documents/27107 39. Cubberley Community Center. “Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Report.” May 2013. Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Bibliography 121120 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Bibliography 40. Fehr and Peers. ”Maybell Plan Drawings.” January 28, 2014. http://www.bpapaloalto.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/02/Maybell-drawings-01.30.14.pdf 41. Gallagher, Tim. “Developing Sustainable Park Systems in Oregon.” June 2012 42. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. “Imagine the Future of Open Space 2014 Vision Plan.” http://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/2014_Vision_Plan.pdf 43. National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). “National Citizens Survey: City of Palo Alto 2013.” 2013. 44. Palo Alto Unified School District, prepared by Decision Insight. “Analysis of enrollment projections: Fall 2014.” December 2013. 45. Project Safety Net. “Strategic Plan 2013-2014.” www.psnpaloalto.com/home/psn-strategic-plan/. 46. Stanford University / City of Palo Alto. “The Stanford and Palo Alto Trails Program: Connecting the Bay to the Ridge.” Stanford University / City of Palo Alto Joint Grant Application, September 6, 2012, Santa Clara County Recreation Fund Established by the County / Stanford Trails Agreement. http:// www.sccgov.org/sites/scc/Documents/Recreational%20Projects%20Applications/Stanford%20 and%20Palo%20Alto%20Application_Pt%203%20-%20Stanford%20Perimeter%20Trail.pdf Databases 47. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit: State and County Population Projections by Major Age Groups (2010-2060). December 15, 2014. 48. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit: State and County Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity (2010-2060). December 15, 2014. 49. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit: State and County Population Projections by Total Population every 5 Years (2010-2060). December 15, 2014. 50. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit: State and County Population Projections Median Age by Race/Ethnicity and Gender (2010-2060). December 15, 2014. 51. City of Palo Alto Open Data Portal http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/home 52. City of Palo Alto Recreation Registration System (2014 onward) Websites 53. U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/ jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml 54. U.S. Census Bureau; 2010 Census Summary. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/ community_facts.xhtml 55. City of Palo Alto, CA. “City Sustainability Policy.” http://archive.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/news/ details.asp?NewsID=751&TargetID=59 122 56. City of Palo Alto. Budget Viewer. https://paloalto.opengov.com/transparency#/329/accountType=ex penses&breakdown=3ae92313-04df-42e6-aaf9-6428e2d2c5b5¤tYearAmount=cumulativ e¤tYearPeriod=years&graph=stacked&legendSort=desc&month=6&proration=true&saved_ view=null&selection=F27FD044A63ADC842F2C21EB66DA828B&fiscal_start=earliest&fiscal_ end=latest 57. City of Palo Alto. “Golf Course Reconfiguration Project.” www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/golf/ new/default.asp 58. Safe Routes to School: Palo Alto. http://www.saferoutes.paloaltopta.org/ 59. City of Palo Alto. “News Details: Rinconada Long Range Plan.” www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/ displaynews.asp?NewsID=1917&targetid=109 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Bibliography 123122 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Photo Credits Photo Credits The photos in this document were provided by the City of Palo Alto unless credited below. Page xi TOP: hustace_mig_santeepark_7321, MIG, Inc. MIDDLE: P6240900, Ryan Mottau, MIG, Inc. BOTTOM: Outdoor Fitness Machines, Barry Cawston, http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_ id=3978634 Page xii TOP: 2012billyhustace_0812_7826_darker, MIG, Inc. Page xiv MIDDLE: hustace_0412_anaheimcove_0432, MIG, Inc. BOTTOM: 8_BigBird’s Climbing Nest06, http://www.japanesesearch.com/big-birds-climbing-nest-in- universal-studios-osaka/ Page 11 2011.05.28-027-Snowy-Egret-cedMed.jpg, Citizen Science League. http://csl.dynamicpatterns. com/2011/05/28/nesting-season-at-the-palo-alto-baylands/ Page 54 P1030296.jpg, Advocates for Privately Owned Public Space, The Municipal Art Society of New York, http://apops.mas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/P1030296.jpg Page 58 TOP: 1-2-JCWCEVENT_NaturalAreas, David F. Ashton, http://eastpdxnews.com/general-news-features/ hundreds-of-volunteers-clean-up-johnson-creek/ Page 60 BOTTOM: AA DroughtQ&A2, Andy Alfaro, http://www.modbee.com/news/article22403646.html 124 Page 61 TOP: McAllisterdogpark, San Antonio Parks & Rec, http://www.sanantonio.gov/ParksAndRec/ ParksFacilities/AllParksFacilities/ParksFacilitiesDetails/TabId/3354/ArtMID/14820/ArticleID/2578/ McAllister-Park.aspx?Park=141&Facility= BOTTOM: dog_parkrk, Username: Fidelity http://www.doggoes.com/parks/california/san-mateo- county/foster-city-dog-park-boat-park Page 62 TOP: Community-Garden, MIG, Inc. BOTTOM: 6-East-Palo-Alto-United-States1, 350.org, http://lifeasahuman.com/2010/current-affairs/ social-issues/10-ways-to-celebrate-10-10-10/ Page 63 606wide, Jeff Banowetz, https://rootsrated.com/stories/new-proposed-bike-lanes-could-change-the- way-you-ride-in-chicago Page 64 PA7.jpg, Upper Playground. http://www.upperplayground.com/blogs/news-upperplay- ground/15493048-brilliance-new-interactive-illuminated-sculpture-garden-in-palo-alto Page 66 TOP: Earth Day 045, Dr. Laura Russomano, http://character.org/schools-of-character/promising- practices-overview/promising-practices-award-winners/winners-list/promising-practices-2012/ theunis-dey/ BOTTOM: Julio great horned owl2, MIG, Inc. Page 68 TOP: INSTALLATIONS_c984b34b42fe0469a8f60619532cfdf0, JUSTIN SAGLIO, https://www. bostonglobe.com/arts/theater-art/2014/09/11/interactive-art-piece-swing-time-lights- lawn/4UQQCGiRZ0lPDysO4IYxNK/story.html BOTTOM: The porch, MIG, Inc. Page 69 150dpiUCBUnderhill-1024wx500h.jpg, Watry Design, http://watrydesign.com/projects/uc-berkeley-un- derhill-parking-structure Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Photo Credits 125124 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Page 70 3876 Noriega Street SF Devils-teeth-baking-company, MIG, Inc. Page 73 BOTTOM: Parachute solar flowers, Garfield Clean Energy, http://www.postindependent.com/news/in-solar-energy- rifle-shines-most-brightly/ Page 75 stormwaterplanter_residential, sitephocus.com, https://hpigreen.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/highresdownload_ highpoint-005.jpg Title Page, Appendix B Youth Soccer_RAM, Ryan Mottau, MIG, Inc. APPENDIX A PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY THE FOLLOWING PAGES CONTAIN A COMPLETE INVENTORY OF PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES IN PALO ALTO. A-1 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX A: PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY PALO ALTO PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY Ownership Address/Location La n d ( a c r e s ) Ba s e b a l l F i e l d So f t b a l l F i e l d s So c c e r F i e l d s City Park Baylands Athletic Center City of Palo Alto Geng Road, off Embarcadero 6 1 1 Bol Park City of Palo Alto Laguna between Barron and Matadero 13.8 Boulware Park City of Palo Alto 39 Fernando Avenue 1.5 Bowden Park City of Palo Alto Alma Street at California Avenue 2 Bowling Green Park City of Palo Alto 474 Embarcadero Road 1.9 (Juana) Briones Park City of Palo Alto Arastradero at Clemo Street 4.1 Cameron Park City of Palo Alto 211 Wellesley Street 1.1 Cogswell Plaza City of Palo Alto Lytton Avenue at Bryant Street 0.5 El Camino Park Stanford University*1 El Camino Real 12.19 1 1 Eleanor Pardee Park City of Palo Alto 851 Center Drive 9.6 El Palo Alto Park City of Palo Alto El Camino Real at Alma Street 0.5 Greer Park City of Palo Alto 198 Amarillo Street 22 1 3 5 Heritage Park City of Palo Alto Homer at Waverley 2.01 Hoover Park City of Palo Alto 291 Cowper Street 4.2 1 Hopkins Creekside City of Palo Alto Palo Alto Avenue from Emerson to Marlowe 12.4 Johnson Park City of Palo Alto Everett and Waverley 2.5 Kellogg Park City of Palo Alto Waverly at Embarcadero Road 0.245 Lytton Plaza City of Palo Alto 202 University Avenue 0.2 Mayfield Park City of Palo Alto 23 Wellesley Street 1.1 Mitchell Park City of Palo Alto 6 East Meadow Avenue 21.4 Monroe Park City of Palo Alto Monroe and Miller Avenue 0.55 Peers Park City of Palo Alto 1899 Park Boulevard 4.7 Ramos Park City of Palo Alto 8 East Meadow Avenue 4.4 Rinconada Park City of Palo Alto 777 Embarcadero Road 19 Robles Park City of Palo Alto 4116 Park Boulevard 4.7 1 1 Scott Park City of Palo Alto Scott Street at Channing Avenue 0.4 Seale Park City of Palo Alto 31 Stockton 4.3 Stanford - Palo Alto Playing Fields Stanford University*El Camino at Page Mill Road 5.9 2 Terman Park City of Palo Alto 655 Arastradero Road 7.7 1 2 Wallis Park City of Palo Alto Grant Avenue at Ash Street 0.3 Weisshaar Park City of Palo Alto 2298 Dartmouth Street 1.1 Williams Park (Museum of American Heritage)City of Palo Alto 351 Homer Ave 0.7 Werry Park City of Palo Alto 23 Dartmouth Street 1.1 Subtotal 174.08 4 6 11 * Leased by the City of Palo Alto. The El Camino lease expires in 2042 and the Stanford - Palo Alto Playing Fields lease expires in 2056. A-2A-1 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX A: PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY Yo u t h S o c c e r F i e l d s Fo o t b a l l F i e l d Li g h t s ( f i e l d s ) Qu a l i t y R a t i n g ( f i e l d s ) Te n n i s C o u r t s Ba s k e t b a l l C o u r t s Gy m S p a c e Po o l Pl a y A r e a Pu b l i c A r t / M e m o r i a l Bu i l d i n g Tr a i l Pi c n i c A r e a Re s t r o o m s Ot h e r F a c i l i t i e s Other Facility Description yes A 2 1 2 Concessions stand/maintenance equipment storage; restrooms equipment storage 1 E 1 perimeter trail 2 1 Un-channeled creek 1 2 perimeter trail 2 1 yes perimeter trail 1 1 Bowling green 1 E 1 2 footpath 1 1 E 1 1 1 1 Wireless internet access yes perimeter trail 1 1 1 C 2 yes 1 3 Community gardens, multi-purpose concrete bowl connections B 2 1 yes 3 1 2 Skateboard park (outdated); dog "exercise area" 1 1 1 B 2 1 2 yes perimeter trail 1 1 3 Fenced dog run, handball court, multi-purpose bowl 1 E 1 1 perimeter trail 5 3 Community garden, sand volley ball court, open turf yes 1 Fountain 1 1 Library 1 7 4 yes 2 0.25 miles 6 3 1 Magical Bridge accessible play area, fenced dog run, water feature, handball courts, horseshoe pits, shuffleboard, petanque, multipurpose bowl, fieldhouse, concession stand/kitchen area 1 walking path 1 1 D 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 Field house with restroom 1 E 1 1 T-ball field 1 D 9 2 2 2 1 E 1 2 footpath 2 2 Multi-purpose bowl 1 1 1 1 C 1 1 pathway 3 1 yes A yes 1 1 1 1 Snack shack C 2 4 perimeter trail yes E 2 Museum of American Heritage 1 E 1 1 11 0 3 24 14 0 1 29 8 8 39 13 22 A-3 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX A: PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY PALO ALTO PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY Ownership Address/Location La n d ( a c r e s ) Ba s e b a l l F i e l d So f t b a l l F i e l d s So c c e r F i e l d s City Open Space/Conservation Lands Baylands Preserve (including Byxbee)City of Palo Alto 2775 Embarcadero Road 1,986 Esther Clark Preserve City of Palo Alto Old Trace Road 22 Foothills Park City of Palo Alto 33 Page Mill Road 1,400 Pearson-Arastradero Preserve City of Palo Alto Arastradero Road at Page Mill Road 622 Subtotal 4,030 0 0 0 Other Recreation Facilities in Palo Alto Cubberly Community Center and Fields City of Palo Alto/PAUSD 4 Middlefield Road, T-2 4 3 King Plaza at City Hall City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Lucie Stern Community Center City of Palo Alto 13 5 Middlefield Road Middlefield Ballpark Palo Alto Little League 3672 Middlefield Road Mitchell Park Community Center City of Palo Alto 3800 Middlefield Road Junior Museum and Zoo City of Palo Alto 1451 Middlefield Road Municipal Golf Course City of Palo Alto 1875 Embarcadero Road 181 Ventura Community Center City of Palo Alto 3990 Ventura Court Subtotal 181 0 4 3 Palo Alto Unified School District Facilities Barron Park Elementary School PAUSD 8 Barron Avenue Duveneck Elementary School PAUSD 75 Alester Avenue El Carmelo Elementary School PAUSD Loma Verde Avenue Escondido Elementary School PAUSD 89 Escondido Road Fairmeadow Elementary School PAUSD 5 East Meadow Drive Greendell Early Childhood Education Center PAUSD 412 Middlefield Road Gunn High School PAUSD 78 Arastradero Road 1*1*2* Hoover Elementary School PAUSD 445 E. Charleston Road JLS Middle School PAUSD 48 E. Meadow Drive 3 Jordan Middle School PAUSD 75 N. California Avenue 1 3 Juana Briones Elementary School PAUSD 41 Orme Street Lucille Nixon Elementary School PAUSD Stanford Avenue Ohlone Elementary School PAUSD 95 Amarillo Avenue Palo Verde Elementary School PAUSD 345 Louis Road Palo Alto High School (Paly)PAUSD 5 Embarcadero Road 1*1*2* Terman Middle School PAUSD (joint shared use with City)655 Arastradero Road 2 Ventura Community Center (building only)PAUSD 3990 Ventura Court Walter Hays Elementary School PAUSD 1525 Middlefield Road Subtotal 0 0 1 8 Palo Alto Total 4384.7 4 11 22 “D” Facility “E” Facility Quality Rating Key “A” Facility “B” Facility “C” Facility High-quality turf, possibly with lights and few time restrictions High-quality turf, no nights and few time restrictions Good quality turf, no lights Fair turf quality, no lights, restrictions on use time and close proximity to neighbors Low turf quality, no lights, no bathroom access and time restrictions *Use of HS fields is coordinated by PAUSD A-4A-3 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX A: PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY Yo u t h S o c c e r F i e l d s Fo o t b a l l F i e l d Li g h t s ( f i e l d s ) Qu a l i t y R a t i n g ( f i e l d s ) Te n n i s C o u r t s Ba s k e t b a l l C o u r t s Gy m S p a c e Po o l Pl a y A r e a Pu b l i c A r t / M e m o r i a l Bu i l d i n g Tr a i l Pi c n i c A r e a Re s t r o o m s Ot h e r F a c i l i t i e s Other Facility Description yes 1 15 miles 1 1 2 Nature interpretive center yes 1 15 miles 1 1 3 Campground; large turf area; Boranda Lake dock; nature interpretive center yes 1 10.3 miles 1 Nature interpretive center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 3 5 B 6 yes 1 2 Theater 1 2 Community Theatre and Children's Theatre 2 Snack shack and scoreboard 1 1 Reopening soon after major rennovation 1 1 1 E 1 1 1 0 0 6 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 4 6 1 E 3 1 E 2 1 E 2 1 E 1 E 2 1 E 1*yes C 7 3 1 1 C 3 1 C 6 6 C 6 7 1 E 4 1 E 3 1 E 2 1 E 4 1*yes 7 4 C 5 3 1 1 E 3 13 0 2 26 56 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Fair turf quality, no lights, restrictions on use time and close proximity to neighbors Low turf quality, no lights, no bathroom access and time restrictions APPENDIX B GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS THE MAPPING AND ANALYSIS OF PALO ALTO’S SYSTEM USED GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) DATA ON the parks, streets, trails and recreation facilities to evaluate the system from the perspective of a pedestrian or cyclist. The core of the analysis is described and illustrated in Chapter 3. This appendix includes additional mapping that was completed to illustrate the distribution of components and activities that emerged as important in the planning process. These include: exercise and fitness; gathering; play for children; relax and enjoy the outdoors; throw a ball; recreation with dogs; indoor recreation, and sports courts. Additionally, community input through the Mapita interactive map reported a park quality rating that is visualized in a final map. C-2C-2B-2 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS San F r a ncisquitoCreek Mat a d e ro C r e e k Barro n C r e e k Ado b e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M o unt a i nV i e w M enl o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o sHill s E a s tP a l o A l t o A ther t o n S a n M a t e o C o unt y P o rto l aV a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a r a C o unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charle s t o n Rd El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Parks with Exercise and Fitness Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson- ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-2 B-3 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barro n C r e e k Ado b e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M o unt a i nV i e w Menl o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o sHill s E a s tP a l o A l t o A ther t o n S a n M a t e o C ount y P orto l aV a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a r a C ount y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Cha rlesto n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Parks with Exercise and Fitness Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson- ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-4C-4B-4 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS San F r a ncisquitoCreek Mat ad e ro C r e e k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M o unt a i nV i e w M enl o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o sHill s E a s tP a l o A l t o A ther t o n S a n M a t e o C o unt y P o rto l a V a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a ra C o unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charle s t o n Rd El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Parks with Gathering Spaces Date: October 2016 Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS StanfordUniversity FoothillsPark Pearson- ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan C-4 B-5 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M ount a i nV i e w Menl o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o sHill s E a s tP a l o A l t o A ther t o n S a n M a t e o C ount y P orto l a V a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a r a C ount y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Cha rlesto n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Parks with Gathering Spaces Date: October 2016 Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS StanfordUniversity FoothillsPark Pearson- ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan C-6C-6B-6 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS S an F r a ncisquitoCreek Mat a d e ro C re e k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M ount a i nV i e w M enl o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o sHill s E a s tP a l o A l t o A t her t o n S a n M a t e o C o unt y P o rto l a V a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a ra C o unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charles t o n Rd El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Parks with Play for Children Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson- ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (PrivateTrail with Public Access) C-6 B-7 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M ount a i nV i e w Menl o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o sHill s E a s tP a l o A l t o A ther t o n S a n M a t e o C ount y P orto l a V a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a ra C o unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charleston R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Parks with Play for Children Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson- ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (PrivateTrail with Public Access) C-8C-8B-8 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS S an F r a ncisquito Creek Mat a d e ro C r e ek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M o unt a i n V i e w M enl o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o sHill s E a s tP a l o A l t o A ther t o n S a n M a t e o C o unt y P o rto l a V a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a r a C o unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charles t o n Rd El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Parks with Space to Relax and Enjoy the Outdoors Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-8 B-9 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M ount a i n V i e w Menl o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o sHill s E a s tP a l o A l t o A ther t o n S a n M a t e o C ount y P orto l a V a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a r a C o unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Cha rleston R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Parks with Space to Relax and Enjoy the Outdoors Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-10C-10B-10 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS San F r a ncisquitoCreek Mat a d e ro C r e e k Barro n C r e e k Ado b e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M ount a i nV i e w Menl o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o s Hill s E a s t P a l o A l t o A t her t o n S a n M a t e o C o unt y P orto l aV a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a ra C o unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charle s t o n Rd El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Parks with Space to Throw, Catch, Shoot or Kick a Ball Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-10 B-11 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barro n C r e e k Ado b e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M o unt a i nV i e w Menl o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o s Hill s E a s t P a l o A l t o A ther t o n S a n M a t e o C ount y P orto l aV a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a r a C ount y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charleston R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Parks with Space to Throw, Catch, Shoot or Kick a Ball Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-12B-12 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS San F r a ncisquitoCreek Mat a d e ro C r e e k Barro n C r e e k Ado b e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M o u n t a i nV i e w M e n l o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o s H i l l s E a s tP a l o A l t o A t h e r t o n S a n M a t e o C o u n t y P o r t o l aV a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayfieldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e f i e l d R d Al m a S t Ara s t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charle s t o n Rd El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Parks with Recreation Areas for Dogs Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Dog Recreation Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (PrivateTrail with Public Access) C-12 B-13 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barro n C r e e k Ado b e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M o u n t a i nV i e w M e n l o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o s H i l l s E a s tP a l o A l t o A t h e r t o n S a n M a t e o C o u n t y P o r t o l aV a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayfieldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e f i e l d R d Al m a S t Ara s t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charleston R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Parks with Recreation Areas for Dogs Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Dog Recreation Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (PrivateTrail with Public Access) C-14B-14 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS San F r a ncisquitoCreek Matad e ro C r e e k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M ount a i n V i e w M enl o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o sHill s E a s tP a l o A l t o A ther t o n S a n M a t e o C o unt y P o rto l aV a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a ra C o unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Ara s t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charles t o n Rd El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Parks with Indoor Recreation Facilities Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Community Recreation Centers Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1 Mile or Less Walking Distance Other Community Services Buildings Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-14 B-15 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M o unt a i n V i e w Menl o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o sHill s E a s tP a l o A l t o A ther t o n S a n M a t e o C ount y P orto l aV a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a ra C o unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Ara s t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Cha rleston R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Parks with Indoor Recreation Facilities Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Community Recreation Centers Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1 Mile or Less Walking Distance Other Community Services Buildings Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-16B-16 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS S a n F r a ncisquitoCreek Mat a d e ro C r e e k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M ount a i n V i e w M enl o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o s Hill s E a s t P a l o A l t o A t her t o n S a n M a t e o C o unt y P orto l aV a l l ey S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a r a C ount y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Ara s t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charles t o n Rd El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Parks with Sports Courts Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-16 B-17 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M o unt a i nV i e w Menl o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o sHill s E a s tP a l o A l t o A ther t o n S a n M a t e o C ount y P orto l a V a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a r a Co unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Ara s t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Cha rleston R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Parks with Sports Courts Date: October 2016 Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson- ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-18C-18B-18 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS S a n F ra ncisquito Creek Mat a d e ro C re e k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M o u n t a i nV i e w M e n l o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o s H i l l s E a s t P a l o A l t o A t h e r t o n S a n M a t e o C o u n t y P o r t o l a V a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayfieldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e f i e l d R d Al m a S t Ara s t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charle s t o n Rd El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e 78 4956 71 72 42 80 71 36 62 67 75 61 78 39 73 74 69 76 23 69 74 61 85 73 7468 31 64 65 61 48 76 75 67 82 Palo Alto Airport 5955 Overall Park Quality Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Quality 10 25 50 75 100 City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-18 B-19 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k S t a n f o r d M o u n t a i nV i e w M e n l o P a r k L o s A l t o s L o s A l t o s H i l l s E a s t P a l o A l t o A t h e r t o n S a n M a t e o C o u n t y P o r t o l a V a l l e y S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y S t a n f o r d S a n t a C l a r a Co u n t y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayfieldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e f i e l d R d Al m a S t Ara s t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Cha rlesto n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e 78 4956 7172 42 80 71 36 62 67 75 61 78 39 73 74 69 76 23 69 74 61 85 73 7468 31 64 65 61 48 76 75 67 82 Palo Alto Airport 5955 Overall Park Quality Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Quality 10 25 50 75 100 City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) APPENDIX C COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS COMMITTED TO CREATING A PLAN THAT ALIGNS WITH LOCAL NEEDS, PREFERENCES AND PRIORITIES. Community input was integral to each phase of the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan development. The engagement plan was designed to: increase community awareness of the project; inform the community about the challenges and opportunities of the project; provide easy access to project information and opportunities for participation; offer a range of communication and engagement tools to match interests and preferences; ensure the final Master Plan reflects community priorities, preferences and values; and get community buy-in to support plan adoption and its short-, mid- and long-term implementation. C-2 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Community Engagement Activities To achieve these goals, the Public Engagement Plan laid out a robust, layered outreach strategy that included a variety of engagement tools and activities so Palo Alto residents and other interested community members could participate in a manner convenient and comfortable for them. There were numerous opportunities for participation, with a variety of formats, times and levels of interaction offered as well as both online and face-to-face methods. PROJECT WEBPAGE A Master Plan project webpage, hosted on the City’s website with a project-specific web address (paloaltoparksplan.org), served as the information portal and document library for the planning effort. PUBLIC INFORMATION UPDATES The project team disseminated public information updates through the City’s established mailing lists, newsletters and social media accounts. These updates informed the community about upcoming meetings, online participation opportunities and project status. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AT A GLANCE 200+ Intercept Survey Participants 487 Online Map-Based Survey Participants 65 Community Input Workshop Participants 1,100+ Online Community Survey Participants 16 Follow-up Stakeholder Interviews 736 Community Prioritization Challenge and Workshop Participants 200+ Site Concept Review Comments Project webpage C-2 C-3 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP The Stakeholder Advisory Group provided an informed sounding board for ideas and provided updated information about related efforts and organizations. This group was also asked to help boost participation in other engagement activities by passing along information to existing networks and constituent groups about the Master Plan process. This group consisted of representatives from local advocacy groups, recreation organizations, local employers and landowners, community service providers and others. To respect the time of the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group, the project team designed the process to solicit this group’s input at strategic times during the project. INTERCEPT EVENTS During the summer of 2014, the project team and Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) members conducted six “intercept surveys” to collect input from visitors outdoors at parks, farmers markets and community events. This approach is effective at engaging all age groups, especially families with children, and allows for informal and educational discussions with the public. It also facilitates interaction with people who do not typically attend public meetings, due to schedule conflicts or a lack of awareness. The project team selected intercept times and locations to reach a cross-section of Palo Altans. More than 200 people learned about the park system and the Master Plan effort and informed the planning team about their values and motivations as related to parks, natural open space and recreation. ONLINE MAP-BASED SURVEY During the summer of 2014, the project team hosted an online, interactive, map-based survey using the Mapita application. This tool allows community members to respond to a series of questions and provide geographically tagged comments on specific parks, facilities and transportation routes throughout the City. A total of 487 respondents provided comments on park quality, barriers to access, needs and opportunities. This effort generated a rich data set about how people use the park system, how they travel to the places they go, and what their experience is like, including site-specific data. The images on the next page are example graphics from the map-based survey. C-4 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Site-specific comments on Bol Park from the online map-based survey Routes to respondents’ closest park (darker lines indicate more intensely-used routes) C-4 C-5 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMMUNITY INPUT WORKSHOPS In fall and winter 2014, the project team conducted three interactive public workshops in different areas of Palo Alto, attended by about 65 community members. Participants took part in a visual preference survey about the character and design of parks using real-time keypad polling. This activity, facilitated in small groups, provided opportunities for in-depth discussion of what features participants would like to protect, preserve, improve or add to Palo Alto. The project team collected polling data, recorded group discussion and collected additional input on comment cards. For example, the image below shows the level of participant support (combined from all three workshops) for a landscape with integrated natural plantings. ONLINE COMMUNITY SURVEY Over 1,100 people completed an online survey developed by the project team in close consultation with the PRC. This tool collected data on community priorities and preferences to inform the development of recommendations and actions. The survey was available online and in hard copy, in both English and Spanish, from mid-November to mid-December 2015. Visual preference survey result from a community input workshop C-6 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FOLLOW-UP STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS As the planning process unfolded, the project team identified issues for which additional knowledge from staff and community experts would be beneficial to understanding needs and identifying potential recommendations. Between October 2014 and March 2015, sixteen follow-up stakeholder interviews were conducted to gather additional data and explore issues in depth. The interviewees included City and partner staff, volunteers and community members across a variety of topics: • Community gardening • Aquatics • Cubberley Community Center tenants • Junior Museum and Zoo • Palo Alto Art Center • Children’s Library • Palo Alto Children’s Theatre • Middle school athletics • Palo Alto dog owners • Avenidas • Palo Alto Youth Council • Boost drop-in programming COMMUNITY PRIORITIZATION CHALLENGE AND WORKSHOP To obtain community input on how to prioritize enhancements within areas of focus, the project team implemented an online interactive exercise called the Community Prioritization Challenge from August 28, 2015, to February 15, 2016. A total of 731 respondents provided feedback through this activity. The online exercise was supplemented by an in-person workshop held on February 11, 2016, which was lightly attended (five participants representing different recreation interest groups) but included a rich conversation about priorities. The online exercise was mirrored by a printed display board that listed the twelve areas of focus, on which each participant was asked to place five sticky dots to indicate preferred investments. C-6 C-7 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Community Prioritization Challenge C-8 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SITE CONCEPTS REVIEW The project team reached out to the community at the May Fête on May 7, 2016, to review preliminary site concepts, which are illustrations of how the recommendations of this plan could play out across each park and preserve. The site concepts were presented as bubble diagrams, indicating areas within the site and the general type of improvements recommended. Shortly after this initial event, on May 25, a workshop was held to provide another opportunity to comment on the concepts. Approximately thirty people reviewed the concepts at the workshop. Further comments were received from other City of Palo Alto department staff (including Public Safety and Planning) as well as the Parks and Recreation Commission. To expand the opportunity to comment, the project team created and advertised an online comment form that provided the opportunity to provide site-specific feedback on the concepts. Over 200 comments were received through this form. These concepts have been refined and are presented in Chapter 5 of this plan. PUBLIC COMMENT ON PLAN The project team created an online feedback form to collect comments from the public on the draft Master Plan. As comments were made, they were logged to track the source of the comment, specific feedback or recommended changes for consideration, and aggregated feedback to identify patterns. Comments were discussed with staff and the PRC to determine appropriate action. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (PRC) The planning team engaged the PRC throughout the Master Plan effort, from the initial scope development and consultant selection through every step of the process. This commission’s involvement was critical to understanding the full range of issues in the community and in shaping further community engagement. CITY COUNCIL An important part of the Master Plan process was City Council involvement. Council members represent Palo Alto residents and are the policy and decision-making body of the City. As an initial step, the project team made a presentation to the City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission in a joint study session. This presentation introduced the goals and objectives of the planning process as well as preliminary plans for community engagement and system analysis. As the planning process progressed, City C-8 C-9 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Council was provided updates through periodic reports and two study sessions. Community Engagement Results and Plan Development The planning team identified patterns and trends that cut across all the engagement activities and results, and crafted the Master Plan Principles described in Chapter 4 to articulate a vision for the future. These principles served as the foundation for the Master Plan. The planning team then developed six Master Plan Goals stating desired outcomes and accompanying policies and programs to serve as a guide for City decision making to improve the parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system. For more detailed descriptions of each outreach activity and key findings, please see the Technical Supplement on the City website. APPENDIX D EXISTING CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS FUNDING SOURCES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO USES A VARIETY OF FUNDING SOURCES TO SUPPORT PARK, TRAIL, NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION ACTIVITIES. The following pages summarize these existing sources. D-2 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX D: EXISTING CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS FUNDING SOURCES General Fund The General Fund is the pool of unrestricted tax dollars and other revenues that a city uses to pay for most of the services it provides. General Funds are allocated out in the budgeting process, and dollars for park operations must compete with other city needs for limited resources. Palo Alto uses the General Fund as the primary source for operations and programming and also makes a substantial transfer to the Capital Improvement Program each year. Recreation programs generate revenue from user fees, which flow directly into the General Fund, not into the budget for recreation services. Parkland Dedication Fees A separate fee is charged at the time land is subdivided for additional development. The parkland dedication fee is authorized under the Quimby Act (California Government Code §66477) allowing cities to require developers set aside land, donate conservation easements or pay fees for park improvements. This fee is calculated based on the maximum land requirement allowed under the act, (5 acres per 1,000 persons), the number of dwelling units and the current value of land. This funding source will be relatively insignificant in the future due to the limited opportunity to subdivide land within Palo Alto. In 2016, the parkland dedication fee fund balance is $3,214,370. Development Impact Fees The City of Palo Alto collects impact fees authorized by the Mitigation Fee Act for both new park system expansion and community centers. These fees are collected at the time building permits are issued for new construction and are based on a measurable impact of additional people to the system. The fees are adjusted annually to account for inflation. The current impact fee amounts are listed in Table D-1. The amount of the impact fee is based on two variables: the projected growth of the user population resulting from the development and the cost of planned improvements in response to that growth. In 2014, the City revisited the nexus study and projects that form the basis of all of the development impact fees D-3D-2 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX D: EXISTING CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS FUNDING SOURCES FEES: RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY OVER 3,000 SQUARE FEET MULTI-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY UNDER 900 SQUARE FEET PARKS $11,864 $17,716 $7,766 $3,926 COMMUNITY CENTERS $3,075 $4,605 $2,024 $1,021 TOTAL RELEVANT* IMPACT FEES PER HOME $14,939 $22,321 $9,790 $4,947 charged. This study determined that the fees were adequate for current needs but should be revisited following the completion of this Master Plan. In addition to the ongoing collection of impact fees as development continues, Palo Alto currently has a balance in the impact fee funds. In 2016, the park development impact fee fund balance is $3,946,291 and the community center impact fee fund balance is $5,727,035, although this balance is mostly committed to improvements that are already in the CIP. Table D-1: Current Impact Fees FEES: COMMERCIAL HOTEL/MOTEL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKS $5.038 $2.278 $5.038 $5.038 COMMUNITY CENTERS $0.284 $0.128 $0.284 $0.284 TOTAL RELEVANT* IMPACT FEES PER SQUARE FOOT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION $5.32 $2.41 $5.32 $5.32 *The City also collects development impact fees for Public Safety Facilities, General Government Facilities, Housing, Traffic and Public Art. D-4 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX D: EXISTING CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS FUNDING SOURCES Grants Both private and public agencies offer a variety of grant programs. Most park and recreation grant funds originate with either the Federal or State government and are limited to funding the acquisition, design and construction of parks, facilities and trails. The active list of grant programs regularly changes, as Federal and State budgets expand and contract, and the application schedule and process must be learned and monitored. Further, most grants require that the local agency match a percentage of the funding with local dollars. In addition, private and corporate foundations are granting funding for the construction of facilities and the acquisition of lands that further their missions. Some private grant agencies in the health sector are currently funding pilot programs in some areas of the country to improve health outcomes, but for the most part grants are not a sustainable ongoing source of funding for recreation programming. Palo Alto has had some success with utilizing grant funding to expand successful programs, including those at the Junior Museum and Zoo and the Palo Alto Art Center, beyond the borders of the City. This allows these unique programs to reach a larger audience without costing the taxpayers of Palo Alto additional funds. Public-Private Partnerships The idea of working in close collaboration with a private entity to enhance park and recreation opportunities is gaining in popularity across the country. The basic approach is for a public agency to enter into a working agreement with a private corporation or non-profit entity to help fund, build and/or operate a public facility. Generally, the three primary incentives that a public agency can offer are free land to place a facility (usually a park or other piece of public land), certain tax advantages and access to public facilities. While the public agency may have to give up certain responsibilities or control, it is one way of developing public facilities at a lower cost. Palo Alto has had several high-profile successes, most recently with the Magical Bridge Playground, with a fairly unique model of public-private partnership. In this model, the City allows a partner organization to take on the design and construction D-5D-4 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX D: EXISTING CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS FUNDING SOURCES process, carving out the project site and leasing the property to the partner for the duration of the project. The City remains involved in oversight and technical assistance and takes possession of the project at completion. Putting the partner organization at the front of the effort has resulted in very successful fundraising and a high- quality and relatively lower-cost process. Donations The donations of labor, land or cash by service agencies, private groups or individuals are a popular way to raise money for specific projects. The most effective agencies actively solicit donations both from the general public and through developed relationships with local companies and philanthropists. Friends of the Palo Alto Parks is an established channel for tax-deductible donations that can be directed to specific projects or to park improvements in general. The current level of donations has averaged approximately $15,000 per year. Labor hours contributed by volunteers are another type of donation that benefits the City’s parks and open space preserves. In Palo Alto’s history, there have been significant donations, such as Lucie Stern Center. Funding Gap Palo Alto currently has more options for funding capital projects than it does for funding that can fund the operation, maintenance and programming of the system. The City should sustain a sufficient investment to maintain its existing facilities, amenities and programs. Future funding options should address this gap. To: Peter Jensen, Kristen O’Kane, Rob de Geus, Daren Anderson, Peter Jensen and Elizabeth Ames From: Lauren Schmitt, Ellie Fiore, Ryan Mottau, MIG Re: Online Comment Form Results as of 12/2/16 Date: December 5, 2016 The draft Master Plan has been available for public review since early November. To facilitate public comments, the project team provided an online comment form that includes general feedback questions and opportunities for detailed feedback. The general feedback questions focus on the principles and goals, and the specific feedback allows reviewers to provide detailed comments and feedback. Figure 1: Screen shot of the feedback form 1 ATTACHMENT B Principles and Goals The principles and goals section asks the following questions, which are followed by the results: Through the master plan process, the Palo Alto community has defined a future for parks, trails, natural open spaces and recreation. This future is encapsulated in the eight principles and six goals of this plan. Which of the principles is most important to you and should guide the City's implementation of this plan? (Check your top three principles) Figure 2: Results to Date, Top Three Principles Principle Percent Number of Responses Healthy: Supports the physical and mental health and well-being of individuals as well as the connectedness and cohesion of the community. 52.0%39 Sustainable: Stewards natural, economic and social resources for a system that endures for the long-term.45.3%34 Nature: Incorporates native species and habitat corridors, and creates opportunities to learn about and interact with nature.42.7%32 Inclusive: Responsive to the entire Palo Alto community, all ages, abilities, languages, cultures and levels of income.34.7%26 Flexible: Supports multiple uses across time with adaptable spaces that can accommodate traditional, emerging and future uses. 30.7%23 Playful: Inspires imagination and joy.25.3%19 Balanced: Is not dominated by any one type of experience or place, and includes both historic elements and cutting-edge features, highly manicured and more organic spaces, and self- directed and programmed activities. 24.0%18 Accessible: Easy for people of all abilities to use year-round and to get to by all modes of travel.20.0%15 Draft Master Plan Comments 12/2/16 2 Which of the goals is most important to you and should guide the City's implementation of this plan? (Check your top three goals) Figure 3: Results to Date, Top Three Goals Residency in Palo Alto A question asks whether the commenter lives in Palo Alto. Results show that 96% of respondents report living in Palo Alto. Goals Percent Number of Responses Create environments that encourage regular active and passive activities to support health, wellness and social connections.59.7%43 Preserve and integrate nature, natural systems and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto.52.8%38 Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing system of parks, recreation, and open space facilities and services. 44.4%32 Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible, inclusive, and distributed equitably across Palo Alto.43.1%31 Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and qualitative measures.36.1%26 Develop innovative programs, services and strategies for expanding the system 19.4%14 Draft Master Plan Comments 12/2/16 3 Implementing the Plan Two questions ask for feedback on where to emphasize implementation. Figure 4: Screen shot of implementation questions The instructions for these two questions are the same: Indicate the balance between the choices below by selecting a point on the scale. The tables below show responses to date, with the average of responses shown below each table. 1 2 3 4 5 Programs, classes, or activities 1 7 21 31 15 Physical improvements or new facilities 1.3% 9.3% 28.0% 41.3% 20.0% 1 2 3 4 5 Major upgrades or new facilities 6 11 19 28 11 Smaller improvements throughout the system 8.0% 14.7% 25.3% 37.3% 14.7% AVERAGE 3.69 AVERAGE 3.36 Draft Master Plan Comments 12/2/16 4 Other Comments The comment page also includes a window that invites people to submit other comments and feedback. Summary of comments: • 37 written comments, ranging from general positive remarks to specific concerns • The most commonly mentioned topics were related to connectivity and access to parks (in support of more/better connected parks) • A small number of comments specifically called out supporting more off-leash dog facilities or natural features • Other comments were unique in their topic/focus. The full text of comments received to date is provided below. Do you have any other thoughts you would like to share about the draft plan? I think there should be as many green spaces as possible throughout the city so that they are easily accessible to the entire age range within walking distance Shouldn't we put ALL potential changes in front of the neighbors of each park BEFORE we select and plan those changes? It seems as if the cart is before the horse otherwise. You've probably put a lot of work in already, and what if each neighborhood argues against your draft plan for their park? Yes Every recreation does not have to be in a park. Such things as basketball track running walking table sports can be done on buildings. Pa shud consider acquiring such bldg and converting them to inside gyms. This would save land as open space which is vital to coping with increased density of our city Thank you for your efforts. I enjoy the green space Would love to have more reasons to visit Bayshore Great plan, please prioritize investment to bring it to life. I don't see a lot of planning for the future. Are large parcels of land in the core of the city for parks, pools and playing fields being identified? Are funds being set aside and earmarked for the purchase of large tracts of land and the facilities that will make them usable? If not , why not? I am deeply concerned about any plans to privatize the pool activities. Menlo Park did this and it has resulted in an aquatics program that is dominated by competitive swimming/masters programs to the almost complete exclusion of residents who want to use the facilities regularly but do not want to be forced into a program. Maintaining the lap swim schedules or and adding more hours even if there is an added cost or membership would be much more community friendly. I am not surprised that Menlo Park went the way if a for profit system but Palo Alto is too progressive and community oriented to follow that path. At least I hope! I like the emphasis on access to parks by biking and walking. Thanks for your continued efforts on bikes/pedestrians and parks. I also like the emphasis on planting trees where there is not canopy. Sometimes the whole town feels like a park when we are biking. Draft Master Plan Comments 12/2/16 5 Do you have any other thoughts you would like to share about the draft plan? Multi-use or Shared Paths should be integrated into the Parks and not be part of the transportation infrastructure. Bicycles now speeding on these paths in several parks create dangerous situations for youngsters, people with disabilities, folks walking their pets, and older folks. There MUST BE speed limits established for bicycles, along with signs, and physical changes (rumble strips, for example) to stop bicyclists from speeding, endangering pedestrians, and ruining the outdoor experience of the many folks who use these facilities. I would urge the expansion of park land towards the hills, with dirt trails preserved, not paved. In this era of greater density of housing and constant/ubiquitous traffic, it is essential to Palo Altans' wellbeing and the health of our ecosystems to have open spaces and parks for animals, people, plants to thrive. Please retain all the wonderful parks we have and consider incorporating more parklands into Palo Alto. This will provide infinite value to the health and wellness of our citizens (kids, seniors, families, athletes, walkers, etc.) and will serve as a sustainable model for other thriving, expanding cities. It would be great if many more bike routes could be created to facilities, parks, and other significant places from each neighborhood and elementary/middle/high schools. We need bathrooms in the neighborhood parks!! I attended a meeting at Mitchell Library some time ago on the Master Plan. It seems to me we are spending an inordinate amount of time and money planning and surveying rather than implementing . I support the need for being thorough in planning, but it seems a bit excessive. I think it is time for action. If not now, when? I am disappointed to read the report on Rinconada Pool, suggesting that privatizing the site would improve it. I object to using the lap lanes for private lessons, thereby creating fewer lanes for those of us who use them; it is already very crowded at peak times. Encourage more staff by training and outreach, by raising salaries and opportunities. Do not outsource our valuable resource. I am 73 years old and have used the pool regularly since 1971 when i moved to this neighborhood. I despair of seeing Palo Alto change for the worse. make sure all (large) parks have facilities for visitors. not enough green in Palo Alto-implement green spaces with indigenous plants Please leave Bol Park alone. It is a community park, and we welcome visitors who enjoy its quiet, friendly atmosphere. A lot of these goals and principles are vague and amorphous. Some concrete examples would have helped. Draft Master Plan Comments 12/2/16 6 Do you have any other thoughts you would like to share about the draft plan? We have three creeks running through Palo Alto. They go as straight as possible to the bay, encased in ugly, concrete beds. It would be beautiful if at least a segment of a creek could be diverted, and could run naturally in a park landscape. I really like the recent improvements at Mitchell Park. It is now an inviting, multi-use park, but marked with one eyesore: the fenced-in Adobe Creek, bedded in concrete, cutting through the park, separating vital play areas. I think it should be possible that Adobe Creek is made meandering through part of Mitchell Park, safely contained in a shallow, open flood bed with trees along its run. Of course, a good part of the year renders Adobe Creek dry. But in summer water could be added and recirculated for that short park segment, similar to pools. Mitchell Park would then be park with a creek, not a canal, and kids for sure would enjoy playing in a running water. Providing additional bike friendly corridors and the riparian pathway connecting natural areas are important to me. We need to expand the usage. Palo Alto has lots of land, and nowhere for the citizens to ride off road vehicles or shoot our guns. There are several hundreds of us that spend thousands of dollars a year in other city's just to shoot at their outdoor ranges. We need to be more forward thinking to attract others and to keep our dollars in Palo Alto. I support our parks having native plant/ pollinator patches in each park, with signage to educate our PA citizens as to what they can do in their own gardens to support native wild life. Fewer sports fields, more great playgrounds. Love Magical Bridge. Outdoor gyms? Bring balance to park availability throughout Palo Alto. Triple El has 0 parks (bounded by Embarcadero, Oregon Expressway and Middlefield) compared to a uniform number of parks available to residents of Palo Alto elsewhere. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzfJH1ImxqGMM0pObWgtSEl2ZFU More Dog Parks :-) Overwhelming! But I appreciate the opportunity to comment here and at meetings. Incremental improvements desirable so no major changes to what is working well;ie add May and Sept to swim lessons but don't take away 6 lanes for a wide skill variety of mid-day adult and senior lap swimmers. Need bathrooms in every park. Ensure sports activities do not preclude others from using the parks. Parks should be a quiet refuge, not a sports arena. More dog play areas please! Dog communities throughout the city supported with welcoming LOCAL spaces - especially downtown with high pop density, walking neighborhoods but NO dog parks currently thank you for taking the time to draft a great plan! can we have NON-CAR bike paths/trails on this side of the 101 (i.e., not Badlands only)? Like Mountain View's Stevens Creek Trail! And a dance studio in Lucie Stern Community Center Draft Master Plan Comments 12/2/16 7 Do you have any other thoughts you would like to share about the draft plan? The city's tendency is to build new stuff. But resist that tendency. It's far too easy to overbuild and lose the nature of the place. Some places (e.g., in Foothills Park) should be more-or-less left alone (except for needed maintenance, etc). It is a very comprehensive and well-thought-out process that has resulted in an impressive document whose features will be able to be implemented readily, dependent, of course, on staffing and funding. Better dog parks, especially at Greer! No one uses it so they end up using the fields Draft Master Plan Comments 12/2/16 8 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7863) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/15/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Comp Plan Update - Natural Environment/Safety/Business and Economics Title: Comprehensive Plan Update: Review of the Draft Natural Environment, Safety, and Business & Economics Elements Recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council review and discuss the draft Natural Environment, Safety, and Business & Economics Elements developed by the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), as well as supplemental comments provided by the CAC and provide comments for incorporation into these elements. Executive Summary The Natural Environment Element, Safety Element, and Business & Economics Elements are the fourth, fifth, and sixth elements of the Comprehensive Plan that the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) has forwarded to the City Council for review. May 15 will be the Council’s first opportunity to review these draft elements. The Natural Environment Element is a mandatory element. It addresses: open space, including connectivity, habitat, and public access; the urban forest and the understory; creeks and riparian areas; water resources, including water quality, water supply, drought, and groundwater; air quality; noise, including impacts from construction, aircraft, and rail; energy, including carbon-neutral energy, conservation and efficiency, and grid improvements; and climate change and climate adaptation. The Safety Element is also a mandatory element. It addresses: community safety, including public awareness, emergency management, and volunteer programs; natural hazards, including City of Palo Alto Page 2 earthquakes, fire, and flood; and human-caused threats, including hazardous materials, solid waste, and cybersecurity. The Business & Economics Element is an optional element. It addresses: the City’s overall economy, including fiscal health and business attraction and retention; compatibility and interdependence between businesses, residential neighborhoods, and the environment; the local culture of innovation and support for small businesses; flexibility and predictability for businesses seeking City approvals; and the physical settings of Palo Alto’s retail centers and business employment districts. All of these draft elements are based on the existing Comprehensive Plan, revised to reflect the City Council’s direction regarding vision and goals, as well as input from the Planning and Transportation Commission’s (PTC) proposed revisions and public input. These draft elements are the product of hundreds of hours of work by the full CAC, CAC subcommittees, staff, and consultants. There were 10 meetings of the full CAC and the CAC subcommittees to develop these elements. Council comments and direction will inform revisions that staff will complete prior to the Council’s referral of the Comp Plan to the PTC (tentatively scheduled for June 12). The Council will have another opportunity to review the revised drafts at that time. In addition, the Council will have a final chance to review these elements after the PTC has completed their review (tentatively scheduled for September 2017) when the Council holds its final set of hearings to adopt the Comp Plan Update. Background On December 9, 2015, Council reviewed the existing Natural Environment and Business & Economics Elements of the Comprehensive Plan and the PTC’s proposed revisions in order to provide guidance on the updated elements’ structures, vision statements, and goals. The agenda, staff report and minutes for this discussion can be found at the following links: Agenda: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50021 Staff Report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50016 Action Minutes: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50456 The Council then adopted motions to revise the vision statement and goals of the Natural Environment Element, to propose a vision statement, goals and policy topics for a new Safety Element, and to revise the vision statement and goals of the Business & Economics Element. That motion can be found at the following link: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- City of Palo Alto Page 3 content/uploads/2016/09/B_CouncilMotion_20151209.pdf The Council recommended that a new Natural Environment Element incorporate a new Goal on Climate Change and Climate Adaption, and that a new Safety Element be created by moving Goals on Natural Hazards (Goal N-2), Hazardous Waste (Goal N-6), and Solid Waste (Goal N-7) to a separate Safety Element. The Council also added language to two goals, and revised the vision statement to address traffic congestion. The Council recommended that the new Safety Element address policy topics such as a safe and secure water supply; the protection and respect for civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy; safety from climate impacts; emergency preparation; and protection from outside threats or terrorism; and include the Natural Hazards, Hazardous Waste, and Solid Waste goals that were removed from the existing Natural Environment Element. The CAC created a Natural Environment subcommittee to review the Natural Environment Element. That subcommittee held four meetings in fall 2016. The Sustainability subcommittee also met to suggest ways to strengthen the links between the Natural Environment Element and the S/CAP. The full CAC met to discuss the Natural Environment Element four times from September to December 2016. In addition, The CAC created a Safety subcommittee to review the Safety Element. The Safety subcommittee held two meetings in fall 2016, and the full CAC reviewed the element during its October 18, November 15 and December 13, 2016 meetings. In addition to CAC review and input, the Natural Environment and Safety Elements were circulated to City staff experts from relevant departments, including the Public Works, Utilities, and Community Services Departments, the Office of Sustainability, the Office of Emergency Services, the Palo Alto Police Department, and the Palo Alto Fire Department. Staff experts from many of these departments also attended CAC subcommittee meetings. The CAC held their final review of the Natural Environment and Safety Elements in November 15, 2016 and at their December 13, 2016 meeting, the CAC voted unanimously to refer both draft elements to the City Council for review. While the CAC and subcommittees spent a great deal of time updating these two elements, there was very little controversy among CAC members. There was, in fact, a great deal of consensus at the CAC. For example, there is only one program in these three elements on which the Council is being asked to choose a preferred option. That program is about setbacks along natural streams in the Natural Environment Element. The draft CAC minutes of the December 13th meeting can be found at the following link: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/12-13-16-CAC-Draft- City of Palo Alto Page 4 Transcript.pdf Regarding the Business and Economics Element, the Council recommended adopting the current Goals and organization of the Element, with updates limited to modifications to the wording of: Goal B-2, Diversity: “The City’s business policies, culture of innovation, balanced economic goals and diverse local and regional serving businesses combine to stimulate and support viable commercial, retail and professional service business opportunities.” Goal B-3, Growth: “Policies to moderate the pace of job growth with priority to businesses that provide needed local services and municipal revenues, contribute to economic vitality, and enhance the City’s physical environment.” The Council also directed CAC and staff consider policies and programs that would mitigate impacts of job growth, such as parking, housing and traffic. The CAC created a Business and Economics subcommittee to review the Business and Economics Element. That subcommittee held two meetings held in winter 2017. The CAC reviewed a draft element in February and at their March 21st meeting voted unanimously, with one abstention, to refer the draft element to the City Council for review. Some CAC members suggested changes to policies at the March CAC meeting, and staff incorporated those changes into the attached draft element. CAC minutes from the March 21st meeting can be found at the following link: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/CAC_March- 21_DraftMinutes.pdf Legal Requirements: Natural Environment and Safety In Palo Alto, the existing Natural Environment Element encompasses four of the seven mandatory elements of a general plan (Open Space, Conservation, Noise, and Safety) and once Safety is separated into a separate element, the updated Natural Environment will still encompass three legally required elements of a general plan. Therefore, the Natural Environment Element must respond to clearly-defined statutory requirements, as well as a number of legislative changes in General Plan law over the past fifteen years since the current Comprehensive Plan was adopted. In addition, both the Natural Environment Element and the Safety Element touch on topics, such as the urban forest, climate change, and emergency response that are addressed in recent City plans and regulations, and this update is an important opportunity to ensure clarity and consistency. A list of relevant City efforts, with links, is provided in Attachment G to this staff report. Finally, the Comprehensive Plan Draft EIR recommends a number of mitigation measures that would be accomplished through policies or City of Palo Alto Page 5 programs in the Natural Environment and Safety Elements. Where the EIR identified policies or programs that should be included in the updated Comp Plan to avoid or mitigate impacts, those appear in the attached drafts of the Natural Environment and Safety Elements. State general plan law says that the conservation element must address the “conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, wildlife, and minerals (Gov. Code, § 65302(d)(1). According to Government Code Section 65560, the open space element should cover any parcel or area of land or water that is essentially unimproved and devoted to either 1) the preservation of natural resources; 2) the managed production of resources (in the case of Palo Alto, this is limited to Williamson Act-contracted lands only) ; 3) outdoor recreation; 4) public health and safety (which is also addressed in the Safety Element); 5) support of the mission of military installations (there are none within the Palo Alto SOI); or 6) the protection of any Native American historic, cultural, burial or sacred site. In the Comprehensive Plan, protection of tribal burial and sacred sites are referenced as archeological resources under Goal L-7 of the Land Use Element. Finally, the noise element is a mandatory element described in Government Code Section 65302(f) that covers the issues and sources of noise relevant to the local planning area. The element should utilize the most accurate and up-to-date information available to reflect the noise environment, stationary sources of noise, predicted levels of noise, and the impacts of noise on local residents, and include measures to address existing or foreseeable noise problems. The Safety Element is a required Element under State general plan law. As noted above, the current Comprehensive Plan presents Safety Element content as part of the Natural Environment Element. Based on Council direction, these two Elements have been separated and the CAC has drafted a standalone Safety Element. According to Government Code Section 65302(g), the Safety Element must address protection from seismic hazards, dam failure, landslides and other geologic hazards, flooding, and fires. There are specific requirements to map, and have policies responding to, flood hazard zones, wildfire hazard areas, and sea level rise, as well as other topics related to climate adaptation and resiliency. Legal Requirements: Business & Economics As noted above, the Business & Economics Element is an optional element. There are no statutory requirements for its contents. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Discussion The following is a summary of the overall organization and key issues addressed in each draft element. Natural Environment Element Organization The organization of this Element has changed from the 1998 Comp Plan. Three goals (Natural Hazards, Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste) were moved from this Element to the new Safety Element and Goal N-8 (Climate Change and Adaption) was added. Goal N-4 (Water Resources) now contains all water-related policies, encompassing not only water quality but also water supply, water conservation, water infrastructure, groundwater, and recycled water. The topic of Creeks and Riparian Corridors has been moved from Goal N-2 to Goal N-3 so that the creeks goal (N-3) and water resources goal (N-4) are adjacent. This resulted in Goal N-3 (Urban Forest and Understory) being moved up to Goal N-2. Natural Environment Element Key Issues Overall, the updated Natural Environment Element continues Palo Alto’s tradition of respecting and managing natural resources. Recommended revisions to this Element were intended to update policies and programs to acknowledge past accomplishments and re-focus on current challenges. A major theme the CAC emphasized was taking a holistic approach to protecting and enhancing Palo Alto’s ecology. CAC members noted that local values and City policies will become even more important in the face of potential weakening of federal regulations under the current administration. Public health: CAC members emphasized the importance of acknowledging the role the natural environment plays in public health, including positive effects on physical health by encouraging exercise and helping to filter air and water; supporting mental health by offering visual and physical access to nature; and supporting social health by enabling formal and informal gathering spaces. References to public health were added to several sections of the background text, as well as to the wording of Goal N-1 (Open Space) and Goal N-2 (Urban Forest) and associated policies and programs. Health was already referenced in the existing wording of Goal N-4 (Water Resources), Goal N-5 (Air Quality), and Goal N-6 (Noise). Connected ecosystems: CAC members added the concept of connected ecosystems in the City and recommended that the Comp Plan acknowledge the role of a continuum of connected landscaped and natural areas, from protected open spaces to the most intensively developed parts of town. This concept is consistent with the Draft Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. The updated Natural Environment Element incorporates a new Figure N- 1, Natural Systems, which is taken from the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. It highlights not only individual parks and open space areas, but also “pollinator pathways,” riparian corridors, and tree canopy “target areas” intended to link these natural City of Palo Alto Page 7 areas. Policies that target these connected ecosystems include Policies N-1.3, N-1.5, N-1.6 and N-1.10, concerning open space; and Policies N-3.3 and N-3.4 pertaining to riparian corridors. Green infrastructure: Related to the idea of connected ecosystem corridors, the updated Natural Environment Element reflects an increased awareness of the value of natural areas as “green infrastructure” providing vital services such as capturing and filtering stormwater and cleaning pollutants from the air. New Program N4.12.2 calls for the City to develop a Green Infrastructure Master Plan. Protecting and expanding the urban forest: The CAC recognized that Palo Alto’s urban forest is a vital resource that should be protected and expanded. The City’s Urban Forester, Walter Passmore, participated in reviewing drafts of the Natural Environment Element and attended CAC subcommittee meetings to discuss policies and programs related to the urban forest and to ensure their consistency with the adopted Urban Forest Master Plan. The policies and programs under Goal N-2 represent a robust approach to recognizing the multiple roles the urban forest plays as part of Palo Alto’s green infrastructure network, maintaining tree health during construction projects and times of drought, expanding canopy cover across the City, and continuing to partner with property owners and local organizations to protect trees and plant more. This section also includes new policies and programs intended to support healthy soils and a healthy understory as critical components of overall urban forest health. Excavations: The trend of basement construction and other types of excavations that require dewatering was a significant concern for both CAC members and members of the public who offered comments at CAC meetings. The CAC discussed the issue of dewatering throughout the Comp Plan update process, including the development of policies to mitigate impacts of basement construction in the Land Use and Community Design Element (see Policy L-3.8) and the Safety Element (see Policy S-2.9). Understanding that the Public Works Department and City Council were considering additional dewatering guidelines during the same period that the Natural Environment Element was being drafted, the CAC recommended new Policy N-4.8 and two new programs to reduce residential basement dewatering and other excavation activities and explore construction techniques and monitoring to mitigate the impacts of dewatering. Particulate matter: Since the existing Comp Plan was adopted, regional, State, and federal regulations and new technologies have succeeded in reducing pollution levels for many pollutants of concern. However, concerns about the potential health impacts of pollutants such as particulate matter remain. Because Palo Alto has limited ability to regulate the most common sources of particulates, such as truck and train traffic, air quality will remain a regional issue. Yet the Comp Plan does include policies and programs that continue support for external regulation, as well as Program N5.1.4 to explore adopting new standards to reduce very fine particulate matter. In addition, the CAC supported a new Program, N5.2.2, to consider adopting and enforcing penalties for drivers that idle longer than 3 to 5 minutes. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Overflight noise: Aircraft are one of the principal noise sources in Palo Alto. Of particular concern is noise from over-flights associated with SFO and how those aircraft operations may have changed over time, resulting in changing/worsening noise effects. Similarly, community concern over noise associated with City-operated Palo Alto Airport has increased since the last Comp Plan Update. Goal N-6, Noise, includes a section on Airports and Aircraft to address regulating land uses near the Palo Alto Airport and to direct ongoing participation in regional forums to address negative noise impacts from all airports. S/CAP consistency: The policies and programs in the attached draft element have been crafted to be consistent with current Sustainability and Climate Adaptation Plan (S/CAP) strategies on the following topics: o Solid Waste o Water Resources o Energy o Climate Change and GHG reductions o Climate Adaptation o Resiliency Natural Environment – Policy Options The CAC drafted two options for a stream setback program in this element and staff is seeking Council direction on which option to include. Previous Program N-7 of the Comprehensive Plan recommended the adoption of a 100-foot setback from the top of creek banks that would prohibit buildings, structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas, or ornamental landscaping. This existing program exempts single family property east of Highway 280 and existing development. Since the time of the last Comp Plan Update, the City’s Stream Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code section 18.40.140) has been created and adopted to “preserve riparian resources, protect improvements from damage caused by potential stream flooding and bank erosion, and minimize storm water pollution.” The current ordinance is based on stakeholder input and applies to areas within 50 feet of the top of a stream bank and establishes requirements for construction, planting, lighting, and irrigation within the stream corridor. The CAC considered 2 options for an updated Program N3.3.1, which recommends updating the Stream Protection Ordinance to adopt larger setbacks along natural creeks west of Foothill Expressway because they could not reach consensus on the size of those setbacks. Some members cited the benefits to the habitat value of riparian corridors of adopting 150 foot City of Palo Alto Page 9 setbacks and noted that other communities use 150 foot setbacks. Other CAC members were hesitant about adding additional development restrictions without understanding the potential impacts and benefits, and supported the retention of 100 foot setbacks from the existing Comp Plan. Safety Element Organization As explained above, the Safety Element was created in response to Council direction to move the Natural Hazards, Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste Goals from the 1998 Comp Plan into a stand-alone element. A series of new policy topics were also incorporated into the following goal structure: Goal S-1, Community Safety, expresses the City’s commitment to community preparedness, with policies related to community education, awareness, emergency management and crime deterrence. Goal S-2, Natural Hazards, contains updated policy topics from the existing Natural Environment Element: seismic safety, fires, and flooding. Goal S-3, Human-Caused Threats, combines hazardous and solid waste policies with policies related to other non-natural dangers, including rail crossings and cybersecurity. The December 2015 Council motion directed the inclusion of a policy about a safe and secure water supply in the Safety Element. However, during the review and revision process of this new Element, the CAC reached consensus that water resource-related policies are more appropriate within the context of Goal N-4: Water Resources, of the updated Natural Environment Element. Safety Element Key Issues The Safety Element was drafted in close collaboration with City staff from the Office of Emergency Services, Palo Alto Police Department, Palo Alto Fire Department, and Public Works Department, as well as substantial input by members of the CAC Safety Subcommittee with extensive involvement in local preparedness issues. These efforts contributed to a high degree of consensus among the full CAC on the policies and programs in the attached draft Safety Element. The Safety Element does not include any policy options requiring Council direction. Crime Enforcement and Civil Liberties: An ongoing discussion among CAC members and contributing Palo Alto Police Department Police Department staff concerned the use of police body cameras, and the sensitive boundary between law enforcement and privacy rights. Policy S-1.6 calls for ongoing development of effective law enforcement through new technologies. Flooding: A number of new policies and programs were added to the Flood Hazard and Mitigation section of Goal S-2. These respond to the State requirements noted above, as well as to community concerns about increased flood hazards resulting from climate change and City of Palo Alto Page 10 habitable basements. For example, CAC members worked to develop consensus on a program to provide 100-year flood protection adjacent to San Francisquito Creek while minimizing impacts to surrounding habitat and ecosystems (Program S2.8.4). Similarly, Programs S2.11.1 and S2.11.2 promote 100-year flood protection along San Francisco Bay while preserving and protecting the natural environment. CAC members discussed the wording of Policy S-2.9 regarding habitable basements in flood zones at some length. While original drafts of the policy were to “prevent habitable basements… within the flood hazard zone,” this Council draft uses the words “prohibit habitable basements… within 100-year flood zones of the FEMA-designated Special Flood hazard Area” to be consistent with the wording of Municipal Code Section 16.52, Flood Hazard Regulations. This Municipal Code section is required by Palo Alto’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. Human Caused Threats. During the CAC Element organization process, the committee agreed to integrate Goal N-6: Hazardous Waste, into new Goal S-3, Human Caused Threats. It was agreed that this larger goal would not only serve as a context for policy related to hazardous materials, but other safety concerns as well, including rail infrastructure, solid waste, and cyber threats. Business & Economics Element Key Issues The Business & Economics Element does not include any policy options requiring Council direction. Background Data: The CAC emphasized the importance of data in formulating effective policies and programs for this element and was provided with extensive data in staff reports. A series of updated graphs and charts have been included in the narrative of the Element, in order to provide context for the Element’s updated policies and programs. New data includes charts and statistics related to employment, sales tax revenues, and City revenues and expenses. Relationship between Businesses and Neighborhoods: The CAC observed that the language in the existing 1998 element assumes conflict, or at least competition, between the needs of businesses and the needs of residents. The CAC reframed this relationship as one of mutual interest in constructive solutions to issues such as traffic congestion, housing affordability, and parking supply. New Policy B-2.3 recognizes the shared values and concerns of both businesses and residents, and new Policy B-2.1 acknowledges the benefits of local-serving retail to local residents. Role of the Office of Economic Development (OED): Members of the CAC supported an active City role in supporting local businesses, particularly small businesses, and stressed that staffing and resources will need to be directed to this office to strengthen its role if policies and programs referring to the Department remain. The Office of Economic Development is referenced in Program B1.1.1, Policy B-1.4, and Policy B-5.3. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Fiscal Responsibility: The CAC discussed the connection between a strong local economy and the City’s fiscal health, as well as the need for careful management of City revenues and costs. The attached draft element proposes a new goal, which reads: “Careful management of City revenues and expenditures so that the fiscal health of the City is ensured and services are delivered efficiently and equitably.” The goal is supported by policies B-3.1, B-3.2 and B-3.3 related to fiscal sustainability and city revenue generation. Business Diversity: The CAC discussed the balance between supporting all local businesss, representing a range of sizes and industries, including major employers that represent national or international corporations and focusing City resources on supporting small businesses, particularly retail and service businesses. CAC members acknowledged that different types of businesses offer different benefits and create different impacts on the community. The policies and programs under Goal B-4 seek to support the full spectrum of Palo Alto’s businesses. New polciies and programs have been added to address the unique needs of small businesses, such as Policy B-4.2, Program B4.2.1, Program B4.2.2, and Policy B-4.3. In addition, new Policy B-4.4 recognizes the role of Stanford Research Park as the home of some of the City’s largest employers. Policy Implications & Relationship to Other City Plans The Comprehensive Plan is the City’s “constitution” when it comes to land use and development issues, including transportation and the protection of the environment. The Comprehensive Plan is also meant to support at a general level other, more specific issue- oriented plans such as: the Urban Forest Master Plan; the Parks, Trails, Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan; the Baylands Master Plan; the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; and the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan. Some of these plans have already been adopted, some are still in progress and all are expected to be amended from time to time over the life of this Comp Plan. This draft of the Comp Plan strives to be consistent with the adopted versions of the city’s more specific issue-oriented plans. It is intended that these specific issue-oriented plans and the Comp Plan will continue to be consistent as they are amended over time. Resource Impact The Comprehensive Plan Update has been a time consuming and costly project for the City. Current contracts are sufficient to complete the project provided in accordance with the current schedule, which envisions completion of the CAC process in May and adoption of an updated plan by the end of the year. Timeline/Next Steps Tonight’s hearing allows for City Council review of three draft elements recommended by Comprehensive Plan CAC. A subsequent meeting on June 12 will provide an opportunity for City of Palo Alto Page 12 review of remaining sections of the plan and for a referral of the entire revised Comp Plan to the Planning and Transportation Commission. The City Council will review a full draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update and a Final EIR following receipt of a recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Upcoming events and next steps are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1: Timeline and Next Steps for Council and PTC Date Topics/Action Requested June 5, 2017 CAC resolution of thanks June 12, 2017 Council Review of draft Introductory Materials/Governance and referral to the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) July/Aug/Sep 2017 PTC Review & Recommendation Regarding the draft Comprehensive Plan Update Oct/Nov/Dec 2017 Council Receipt of the PTC’s recommendation and the Final EIR for consideration and action Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, April 2017 Environmental Review A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being prepared; it will respond to comments on the Draft EIR and the Supplement to the Draft EIR and describe the “preferred scenario” based on the Council’s input on March 27, 2017 and May 1, 2017. The Final EIR must be completed and certified before the City Council can take action to approve the Comprehensive Plan Update. Currently, the Final EIR is anticipated to be published in late July 2017 to be available for PTC hearings in August alongside their review of the draft Comprehensive Plan. The Council would then take action on the EIR as part of their final review and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in fall/winter 2017. Attachments: Attachment A: Natural Environment Element Clean (PDF) Attachment B: Natural Environment Element Tracked Changes (PDF) Attachment C: Safety Element Clean (PDF) Attachment D: Safety Element Tracked Changes (PDF) Attachment E: Business and Economics Element Clean (PDF) Attachment F: Business and Economics Element Tracked Changes (PDF) Attachment G: Relevant City Documents (PDF) Attachment H: CAC Comments on Elements (PDF) Attachment I: CAC Minutes 12.13.16 & 03.21.17 (PDF) NATURAL ENVIRONMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-1 This preliminary draft element was prepared by City staff on the basis of input from the CAC and members of the public received from August 2016 through December 2016. The Element was reviewed by the full CAC on December 13, 2016 and presented as a draft to Palo Alto City Council on May 15, 2017. INTRODUCTION The Natural Environment Element addresses the management of open land and natural resources in Palo Alto, as well as responding to environmental risks such as air pollution and climate change. It is one of the broadest elements of the Comprehensive Plan, encompassing three of the seven elements mandated by the State: Open Space, Conservation, and Noise. The text is organized into eight topics, each with a corresponding goal, policies, and programs: Open Space Urban Forest and Understory Creeks and Riparian Areas Water Resources Air Quality Noise Energy Climate Change The Natural Environment Element does not include policies relating to mineral resources because Palo Alto does not contain any mineral deposits of regional significance. VISION: Palo Alto will meet today’s needs without compromising the needs of future generations. Palo Alto will respect and manage natural resources in a way that sustains the natural environment and protects our foothills, baylands, creeks, parks, wildlife and open space legacy. A substantial portion of the City will remain as open space. Even in built-up areas, the network of parks will provide access to nature and an urban forest will provide ecological benefits and a source of beauty for residents. Palo Alto will strive for clean air and clean water. Policies and programs will foster energy and water conservation. Finally, the City will maintain a sustainable water supply for the future, and facilitate the implementation of climate change adaptation strategies. 4 PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 OPEN SPACE Well over a third of Palo Alto’s land area consists of designated Open Space and Public Conservation Land. Although open spaces in City include privately owned land and neighborhood and district parks, the vast majority of Palo Alto’s Open Space and Public Conservation Land consists of parks and preserves devoted to passive use and ecological health. As shown on Map N-1, these spaces are diverse in size and character, ranging from the 2,100 acres of shoreline that comprise the Palo Alto baylands to the 200-acre Los Trancos Open Space Preserve, nestled in the foothills. Each open space area is defined by a combination of resources and habitats that require different approaches to preservation and coordination with outside entities. Map N-2 illustrates the vegetation and habitat types located in Palo Alto. At the same time, these diverse open spaces comprise an integrated natural network supporting Palo Alto’s livability and resiliency, and are an important recreational resource highly valued by the community. The Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Master Plan provides the City with guidance regarding future renovations and capital improvement needs for parks, trails, open space and recreation facilities. The policies and programs in this Element which focus on open space are consistent with the Master Plan and continue to protect individual open spaces from negative physical impacts, while supporting linkages between those spaces that are vital to the natural balance of the City and encouraging responsible public access. URBAN FOREST AND UNDERSTORY Palo Alto’s urban forest, defined as the trees, plants, soil and associated organisms, has long been a source of civic pride—and current research shows that it also offers an array of tangible benefits: improving public health, cleaning the air, absorbing carbon dioxide, reducing stormwater runoff, and supporting animals and pollinators. The Urban Forest Master Plan seeks to foster a sustainable urban forest in Palo Alto by establishing long-term management goals and strategies. Consistent with the Master Plan, the following policy framework maintains Palo Alto’s longstanding commitment to preserving existing trees, replacing damaged trees and expanding the urban forest with resilient, native species. In addition, new policies in following section have been designed to ensure that the urban forest not only endures, but benefits from, future growth. The section seeks to optimize opportunities presented by new development, while minimizing its negative impacts. It is based on a holistic Pollinator Pathways Community Gardens Wetland Habitat Riparian Connected Parks Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Mean Projected High Water - 3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA) Creeks and Channels Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) Natural System Features City Park City Natural Open Spaces Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Water Bodies Ripari Creek Urban Canopy Target Areas Date: October 2016 Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford Santa ClaraCounty Menlo Park Mountain View Cupertino UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in the Bayland Preserve: Western burrowing owl California seablite Northern coastal salt marsh Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in San Francisquito Creek: Steelhead California red legged frog Western pond turtle Showy rancheria clover Valley oak woodland Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve: Western pond turtle Serpentine bunchgrass Indian Valley bush-mallow Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park: Western Leatherwood Valley oak woodland SSantSSaCou ppppppeerppppeevveveenseeeeekke UpUpppUpppStetteeeeeeCrereeeeeee Regional Habitat Connection Concept "e S an Fra ncisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barro n C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford Mountain View Menlo Park Los Altos Los Altos Hills East Palo Alto Atherton San Mateo County Portola Valley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve Baylands Athletic Center Greer Park Bol Park MitchellPark Esther Clark Preserve El Camino Park Terman Park Hoover Park Eleanor Pardee Park Peers Park Seale Park Robles Park Ramos Park Briones Park Cubberley Community Center Johnson Park Bowden Park Stanford- Palo Alto Playing Fields Heritage Park BowlingGreen Park El Palo Alto Park Werry Park Boulware Park Cameron Park Weisshaar Park Monroe Park Rinconada Park Williams Park Cogswell Plaza Lytton Plaza Sarah Wallis Park Hopkins Creekside Park Palo Alto Golf Course Scott Park Mayfield Park Ventura Community Center PearsonArastradero Preserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y el C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e f i e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charle s t o n R d el C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT MAP N-1 NATURAL SYSTEMS Source: MIG, 2016 and City of Palo Alto, 2016 Source: USDA, 2006; ESRI, Tiger Lines, USGS, 2010; City of Palo Alto, NHD, 2013; PlaceWorks 2015. StanfordLands StanfordUniversity Atherton Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos MountainView Sunnyvale SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 EastPalo Alto OregonExpy ElCaminoReal UniversityAve PageMillRd Alma S t E m b a rca de ro Rd Midd l e f i e l d R d SAN F RAN CIS CQUIT O C REEK MAT A D E R O C R EEK B A R RONCREEK ADOBECRE EK STEVENS CREE K ARASTRAD EROCREEK 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles Creek Lakes and Ponds Railroads City Limit Sphere of Influence Wildlife Habitat Relationship Type Annual Grassland Coastal Scrub Chamise Chaparral Redwood Forest Coastal Oak Woodland Valley Oak Woodland Montane Hardwood - Conifer Forest Montane Hardwood Forest Slough Fresh Emergent Wetland Saline Emergent Wetland Valley Foothill Riparian Cropland Urban Forest P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NN A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T MA P N- 2 V E G E T A T I O N A N D H A B I T A T T Y P E S PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-5 approach to Palo Alto’s “green infrastructure” that recognizes that private property owners, outside agencies, non-profits, and the City itself all impact—and are impacted by—the health of the urban forest, from soil to canopy. CREEKS AND RIPARIAN AREAS As illustrated on Map N-3, a series of creeks and streams pass through City as they drain the local foothills into the San Francisco Bay. Adobe, Barron, Matadero, and San Francisquito Creeks, and their tributaries, interface with the land along their banks to form ecosystems known as riparian corridors. The policies and programs recognize the value and diversity of Palo Alto’s creeks. Where the creeks and corridors generally located west of Foothill Expressway are generally still in a natural or mostly undisturbed state, they support diverse plant and animal life, both as permanent homes and as migratory pathways, and offer recreational opportunities to reconnect with nature. Farther downstream, in the flatter, urbanized parts of Palo Alto, some reaches have been heavily engineered over the past decades and now primarily serve a very important role as flood control channels, while others retain some natural characteristics. All creek segments are valuable opportunities for connection within Palo Alto’s ecological and recreational network and merit protection and enhancement. Map N-4 shows areas where development should be set back from creeks to respect and preserve their natural state and ecological value. Partnerships with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other outside organizations will be key to protecting and improving creeks that cross jurisdictional boundaries. In addition, related policies and programs in the Land Use and Community Design Element highlight the importance of creeks in defining the character of the City and some of its neighborhoods. WATER RESOURCES Maintaining the life-sustaining properties of water as a natural resource is a complex challenge. Water is dynamic, contested, and, increasingly, scarce. The topics addressed in the Water Resources section are as wide-ranging as the needs water itself serves. Policies and programs protect the quality and reliability of the City’s long-term water supply, including during periods of drought. Maintaining the quality of the City’s water supply requires protecting both surface water and groundwater from the impacts of past and future development, through requirements for low- impact development and careful regulation of sub-surface dewatering. The City must support the efforts of regulatory bodies, and partner with the multiple jurisdictions through which Palo Alto’s water resources flow. The policies and programs in the Menlo Park |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 OregonExpy ElCaminoReal UniversityAve PageMillRd Alma S t E mb a rca de ro R d Midd l e f i e l d R d San Francisquito Creek Watershed Matadero CreekWatershed Adobe CreekWatershed San FranciscoBay Watershed Barron Creek Watershed Source: Janet M. Sowers, William Lettis & Associates, Inc.,and the San Francisco Estuarty; PlaceWorks, 2015. 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Creeks Underground culverts & storm drains Engineered channels Historical creeks Tidal marsh, circa 1850 Flood control channels Tidal marsh, now water Freshwater marsh, modern Willow groves, circa 1850 City Limit Artificial bodies of water Bay or slough P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N N A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T MA P N- 3 C R E E K S A N D W A T E R S H E D S Foo t h i l l E x p r e s s w a y Mountain View Los Altos Hills Los Altos §¨¦280 Page MillRoad Stanford Lands §¨¦280 MA P N- 4 A R E A W H E R E N A T U R A L C R E E K S E T B A C K A P P L I E S P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N N A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T 0 1 2 Miles Source: ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; City of Palo Alto, 2016; PlaceWorks, 2016. Creeks Area where Natural Creek Setback Applies Single Family Residential Streamside Open Space City Limit Sphere of Influence PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-8 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Water Resources section also ensure that the City’s water and wastewater infrastructure are efficient and effective and guide future improvements to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant and the purple pipe network to reflect the growing role of recycled water. AIR QUALITY Healthy, breathable air is regional resource, and maintaining air quality is a responsibility shared by each of the local jurisdictions that benefit from it. In the San Francisco Bay Area, federal and State air quality regulations are strengthened by additional programs of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Emerging concerns about specific types of air pollutants, such as particulate matter, cannot be addressed by a single city, but Palo Alto is committed to monitoring and understanding these risks and participating in regional solutions. The policies and programs in this section also promote education and lifestyle choices that benefit public health within and outside the City, from adopting low emission alternatives to wood burning stoves to avoiding prolonged automobile idling. NOISE Palo Alto’s bustling urban environment generates noise from traffic, trains, airports, construction, and yard maintenance, among other sources. Existing and future noise contours within Palo Alto are shown on Maps N-5 and N-6, respectively. The Comprehensive Plan addresses these diverse noise sources and provides the policy foundation for much more rigorous requirements established in the City’s Noise Ordinance. The policies and programs in this section regulate the placement of future “sensitive receptors”—homes, schools, medical clinics, and the like—in compatible noise environments, and acknowledge the importance of quiet environments in public open space and conservation areas. This section also guides the analysis and design of proposed new development to avoid creating new noise impacts on existing sensitive receptors. In addition, this section supports the City’s ongoing efforts to coordinate with regional, State, and federal authorities on noise issues of concern to the Palo Alto community, such as overflights into and out of Bay Area airports (e.g., San Francisco International and Palo Alto airport) and the proposed High Speed Rail project. ! ! FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D ALM A S T SEAL E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y EL C A M I N O R E A L QUA R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y PASTEUR D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D Mountain View East Palo Alto Stanford University Menlo Park S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y Los Altos§¨¦280 |ÿ82 £¤101 MI D D L E F I E L D R O A D PAG E M I L L R O A D Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; US Geological Survey Open File Report 06-1037, 2006; PlaceWorks, 2015. 0 0.5 10.25 Miles N A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T MA P N- 5 E X I S T I N G N O I S E C O N T O U R S !Caltrain Stations Highways Railroads City Limit Sphere of Influence 70 dBA CNEL contour 65 dBA CNEL contour 60 dBA CNEL contour Note: Map includes estimated contributions for CalTrain operations from available information at www.CalTrain.com. Railway noise contours generally overlap roadway noise contours from the adjacent and parallel Alma Street traffic flows. P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NN A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T ! ! FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D ALM A S T SEAL E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y EL C A M I N O R E A L QUA R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y PASTEUR D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D Mountain View East Palo Alto Stanford University Menlo Park S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y Los Altos§¨¦280 |ÿ82 £¤101 MI D D L E F I E L D R O A D PAG E M I L L R O A D Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; US Geological Survey Open File Report 06-1037, 2006; PlaceWorks, 2015. 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Notes: Map includes estimated contributions for CalTrain operations from available information at www.CalTrain.com. Railway noise contours generally overlap roadway noise contours from the adjacent and parallel Alma Street traffic flows. 70 dBA CNEL contour 65 dBA CNEL contour 60 dBA CNEL contour!Caltrain Stations Highways Railroads City Limit Sphere of Influence P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NN A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T MA P N- 6 F U T U R E N O I S E C O N T O U R S PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-11 ENERGY The City of Palo Alto provides electric service through the Utilities Department. As the negative impacts of fossil fuel extraction and consumption escalate, the City is committed to developing a sustainable, carbon-neutral, cost-effective energy supply. This refers to an energy portfolio that decreases the City’s reliance on fossil fuels, thus reducing the release of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, by supporting the production of energy from carbon-free, renewable sources. Achieving these goals requires carefully balancing the benefits and liabilities of diverse energy sources and strategies, educating the public on home- and business-based renewable energy and energy efficiency strategies, and encouraging and incentivizing widespread implementation of those strategies. CLIMATE CHANGE AND CLIMATE ADAPTATION Palo Alto is committed to meaningful action to slow global warming and adapt to changes in the climate that are already underway. The policies and programs under this goal were developed in parallel with the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, or S/CAP, and will support the City’s efforts to achieve the Council-adopted goal of reducing City- and community-based GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. Similarly, a diverse range of adaptive improvements will ensure that the City’s built environment and infrastructure are resilient to climate change related impacts such as sea level rise. GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS OPEN SPACE GOAL N-1 Protect, conserve and enhance Palo Alto’s citywide system of open space, including connected and accessible natural and urban habitats, ecosystems, and natural resources, providing a source of public health, natural beauty and enjoyment for Palo Alto residents. CONNECTIVITY AND ECOLOGY Policy N-1.1 Preserve, protect and enhance public and private open space and ecosystems of Palo Alto from the foothills to the baylands. Respect the role that natural and landscaped areas within the urbanized part of the City play in a resilient ecological continuum, as illustrated on Map N-1. [Previous Policy N-4] [N1] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-12 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Develop Comprehensive Resource Conservation Program N1.1.1 Plans for the Pearson Arastradero Preserve, Esther Clark Preserve, and Foothills Park to steward the protection of local ecosystems. [(NEW PROGRAM)(PTC)] [N2] Promote and support ecosystem protection and Program N1.1.2 environmental education programs in Palo Alto. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N3] Policy N-1.2 Maintain a network of parks and urban forest from the urban center to the foothills and Baylands that provide ecological benefits and access to nature for all residents. [NEW POLICY] [N4] Policy N-1.3 Encourage the management of private open space areas, including agricultural land, golf courses, private residential yards, and other land that provides habitat for wildlife in a manner that protects and enhances habitat and reinforces natural wildlife corridors, consistent with the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan and Urban Forest Master Plan, as periodically amended. [Previous Policy N-1, per PTC] [N5] Work to maintain Williamson Act agricultural Program N1.3.1 preserve contracts within the City. [Previously Program N-5] [N6] Provide information and support programs that Program N1.3.2 encourage residents to enhance their private yards with native plant species and low impact landscaping. [NEW PROGRAM] [N7] Policy N-1.4 Protect special-status species and plant communities, including those listed by State and federal agencies and recognized organizations from the impacts of development and incompatible activities. [Previous Policy N-3] [N8] Periodically review CEQA thresholds of significance Program N1.4.1 regarding special status species to identify changes in listed species recommended by professionally recognized scientific experts. Sources may include the California Natural Diversity Database, as updated in accordance with federally- and State- PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-13 recognized organizations, including the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, as well as the California Native Plant Society and the Audubon Society. [NEW PROGRAM] [N9] Explore the feasibility of expanding the use of Program N1.4.2 overlay tools such as the Site and Design (D) Review Combining District or similar development review and restriction tools to protect special-status species and their habitats from development. [NEW PROGRAM] [N10] Assess opportunities to expand habitats of special –Program N1.4.3 status species within publicly-owned open spaces. [NEW PROGRAM] [N11] Policy N-1.5 Preserve and protect the Bay, marshlands, salt ponds, sloughs, creeks, and other natural water or wetland areas as open space, functioning habitats, and elements of a larger, interconnected wildlife corridor, consistent with the Baylands Master Plan, as periodically amended, which is incorporated here by reference. [Previous Policy N-8, [L189]] [N12] Maintain the value of local wetlands as habitats by Program N1.5.1 ensuring adequate flow from the Bay and minimizing effluent. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N13] Policy N-1.6 Preserve and protect the foothills and hillside areas, recognizing their unique value as natural ecosystems and interconnected wildlife corridors. [NEW POLICY] [N14] Continue to coordinate City review, particularly by Program N1.6.1 Planning, Public Works and Community Services Departments, of projects that might impact the City’s foothills and hillside areas. [NEW PROGRAM] [N15] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-14 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 ACCESS AND RECREATION Policy N-1.7 Carefully manage access and recreational use of environmentally sensitive areas, including the baylands, foothills and riparian corridors, in order to protect habitats and wildlife from the impacts of humans and domesticated animals. [(Previous Program N-3)(PTC)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure PS-7)] [N16] Examine and improve existing management Program N1.7.1 practices including the provision of access to open space for City vehicles and equipment, to ensure that natural resources are protected. [Previous Program N-2] [N17] Protect wildlife in public open space areas by Program N1.7.2 improving litter collection, restricting the use of non-recyclable plastics, prohibiting the feeding of wild and domestic animals in open space, and enforcing dog leash laws. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N18] Provide information about responsible behavior in Program N1.7.3 environmentally-sensitive areas through signage, pamphlets and documents on the City’s website. [NEW PROGRAM] [N19] Review and map existing easements and Program N1.7.4 maintenance roads for potential trails and trail connections. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N20] NATURAL CHARACTER OF THE FOOTHILLS Policy N-1.8 Minimize impacts of any new development on the character of public open space r and the natural ecology of the hillsides. [Previous Policy N-6] [N21] Policy N-1.9 All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area (i.e., above Junipero Serra Boulevard) should visually blend in with its surroundings and minimize impacts to the natural environment. As such, development projects should: Not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-15 Be located away from hilltops. Be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding to reduce conspicuousness minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. Include built forms and landscape forms that mimic the natural topography. Retain existing vegetation as much as possible. Utilize natural materials and earth tone or subdued colors. Include landscaping composed of native species that require little or no irrigation. Include exterior lighting that is low-intensity and shielded from view. Include access roads of a rural rather than urban character. [Previous Policy N-7] [N22] EXPANSION OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Policy N-1.10 Support regional and sub-regional efforts to acquire, develop, operate, and maintain a seamless open space system, including habitat linkages and trail connections extending north-south and east-west from Skyline Ridge to San Francisco Bay. [Previous Policy N-2] [N23] Use City funds and seek additional sources of Program N1.10.1 funding, including State and federal programs, to finance open space acquisition, maintenance or conservation. [Previous Program N-4] [N24] Pursue dedication of undedicated publicly-owned Program N1.10.2 recreation, open space and conservation areas, such as Renzel Wetlands and the Gamble House and Gardens as public parks to preserve the community serving purpose of these areas into the future. [NEW PROGRAM] [N17] [N25] Create mechanisms to monitor, assess and respond Program N1.10.3 quickly to land acquisition opportunities that would expand or connect the City’s system of parks and open spaces, and establish a long-term funding strategy for acquisition that would enable the City to move quickly when opportunities arise. [NEW PROGRAM] [N26] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-16 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Explore ways to dedicate a portion of in-lieu fees Program N1.10.4 towards acquisition of parkland, not just improvements. [[NEW PROGRAM] [N27] Pursue opportunities to create linear parks over the Program N1.10.5 Caltrain tracks in the event the tracks are moved below grade. [NEW PROGRAM moved from Land Use] [L152] Encourage dedication of new land for parks Program N1.10.6 through regulations and incentives for new development and programs to solicit bequests of land within the city. [NEW PROGRAM moved from Land Use] [L151] Policy N-1.11 Work with Stanford University, Santa Clara County, Santa Clara Valley Water District and regional organizations to create multi-use trail connections between urban areas and open space, including creeks and rights-of-way, while ensuring that the natural environment is protected. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N28] Policy N-1.12 Work with Stanford and Santa Clara County to preserve Stanford’s foothill property northeast of Highway 280. Act as an advocate to Santa Clara County to preserve open space links between Stanford, the urban area, and the foothills. [Previous Policy N-5] [N29] URBAN FOREST AND UNDERSTORY GOAL N-2 A thriving urban forest that provides public health, ecological, economic, and aesthetic benefits for Palo Alto. ROLE OF THE URBAN FOREST Policy N-2.1 Use the Urban Forest Master Plan, as periodically amended, to guide City decisions related to all elements of Palo Alto’s urban forest, from its understory habitat to canopy cover. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N30] Periodically update the Urban Forest Master Plan Program N2.1.1 and Tree Protection Ordinance to ensure policies and regulations remain relevant. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N31] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-17 Policy N-2.2 Recognize the importance of the urban forest as a vital part of the City’s green infrastructure network that contributes to public health, resiliency, habitat values, appreciation of natural systems and an attractive visual character which must be protected and enhanced. [NEW POLICY] [N32] Explore ways to prevent and ameliorate damage to Program N2.2.1 trees and tree roots by above and below ground infrastructure and buildings. [NEW PROGRAM] [N33] Policy N-2.3 Enhance the ecological resilience of the urban forest by increasing and diversifying native species in the public right-of-way, protecting the health of soils and understory vegetation, encouraging property owners to do the same, and discouraging the planting of invasive species. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N34] Policy N-2.4 Protect soils in both urban and natural areas as the foundation of a healthy urban forest. Recognize that healthy soils are necessary to filter air and water, sustain plants and animals, and support buildings and infrastructure. [[NEW PROGRAM] [N35] Promote landscape design that optimizes soil Program N2.4.1 volume, porosity, structure and health, as well the location, shape and configuration of soil beds. [NEW PROGRAM] [N36] PROTECTION AND EXPANSION Policy N-2.5 Enhance tree health and the appearance of streets and other public spaces through regular maintenance as well as tree and landscape planting and care of the existing canopy. [(Previous Policy L-70) (Moved from Land Use Element, May 1 Draft] [L166] Policy N-2.6 Improve the overall distribution of Citywide canopy cover, so that neighborhoods in all areas of Palo Alto enjoy the benefits of a healthy urban canopy. [NEW POLICY] [N37] Policy N-2.7 Strive toward the aspirational, long-term goal of achieving a 50 percent tree canopy cover across the City. [NEW POLICY] [N38] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-18 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 , Maintain and irrigate healthy trees in parks, open Program N2.7.1 space, parking lots, and City rights-of-way, while identifying and replacing unhealthy trees in those areas. [Previous Program N-17] [N39] Continue to invest in the care, irrigation and Program N2.7.2 monitoring of street trees during drought conditions. [NEW PROGRAM] [N40] Actively pursue funding for tree planting to increase Program N2.7.3 canopy cover significantly across the city, avoid a net loss of canopy at the neighborhood level, and attain canopy size targets in parks, open space, parking lots, and City rights-of-way. [Previous Program N-18] [N41] Policy N-2.8 Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single-family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. [Previous Policy N-15] [N42] Policy N-2.9 Minimize removal of, and damage to, trees due to construction-related activities such as trenching, excavation, soil compacting, and release of toxins. [NEW POLICY] [N43] Increase awareness, severity and enforcement of Program N2.9.1 penalties for tree damage. [NEW PROGRAM] [N44] Develop a program for using the City’s Urban Program N2.9.2 Forestry Fund to replace trees lost to public improvement and infrastructure projects, with replanting occurring onsite or as close to the original site as is ecologically appropriate. [NEW PROGRAM] [N45] Policy N-2.10 Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, such as native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees approved as part of a development review process and consider strategies for expanding tree protection in Palo Alto. [Previous Policy N-17] [N46] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-19 Continue to require replacement of trees, including Program N2.10.1 street trees lost to new development. [Previous Program N-16] [N47] As part of the update of the Tree and Landscape Program N2.10.2 Technical Manual, consider expanding tree protections to include additional mature trees and provide criteria for making site-specific determinations of trees that should be protected. [NEW PROGRAM] [N48] Consider revisions to the permit process to increase Program N2.10.3 transparency regarding tree removals and expanded opportunities for community members to appeal the removal of trees. [NEW PROGRAM] [N49] Policy N-2.11 Coordinate City review by the Urban Forester, Planning, Utilities, and Public Works Departments, of projects that might impact the urban forest. [Previous Program N-20] [N50] Develop a transparent and publicly accessible street Program N2.11.1 tree removal and replacement schedule. [NEW PROGRAM] [N51] Develop a program to replace unhealthy public Program N2.11.2 trees over time. [NEW PROGRAM] [N52] PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE URBAN FOREST Policy N-2.12 Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto’s urban forest through public education, sensitive regulation and a long-term financial commitment that is adequate to protect this resource. [Previous Policy N-14] [N53] Explore ways to leverage the fact that Palo Alto’s Program N2.12.1 urban forest alleviates climate change by capturing and storing carbon dioxide. [NEW PROGRAM] [N54] Policy N-2.13 Partner and coordinate with organizations and individuals dedicated to the health of Palo Alto’s urban forest.[NEW POLICY, ADAPTED FROM PTC PROGRAM N3.3.7] [N55] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-20 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Work with local nonprofits to establish one or more Program N2.13.1 tree planting programs that are consistent with the UFMP, and rely on locally native, resilient species. Review existing tree planting guidelines to ensure they achieve these objectives. [Previous Program N-19] [N56] Provide on-going education for City staff, residents, Program N2.13.2 and developers regarding landscape, maintenance, and irrigation practices that protect the urban forest and wildlife species. [PTC] [Previous Policy N-16] [N57] Involve tree owners in tree maintenance programs. Program N2.13.3 [NEW PROGRAM (Moved from Land Use Element May 1 Draft)] [L168] Cooperate with the Palo Alto Unified School District, Program N2.13.4 Stanford University, Caltrain, Caltrans, PG&E, and other public and private entities to ensure that their tree planting, tree removal, and maintenance practices are consistent with City guidelines. [NEW PROGRAM] [N58] Policy N-2.14 In order to protect, enhance and augment the urban forest along El Camino Real, Page Mill Road and Oregon Expressway, periodically revisit existing maintenance agreements with Caltrans and the County of Santa Clara. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N59] CREEKS AND RIPARIAN AREAS GOAL N-3 Conservation of both natural and channelized creeks and riparian areas as open space amenities, natural habitat areas, and elements of community design. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-21 Policy N-3.1 All creeks are valuable resources for natural habitats, connectivity, community design, and flood control, and need different conservation and enhancement strategies. Recognize the different characteristics along creeks in Palo Alto, including natural creek segments in the City’s open space and rural areas, primarily west of Foothill Expressway; creek segments in developed areas that retain some natural characteristics; and creek segments that have been channelized. [NEW POLICY] [N60] Policy N-3.2 Prevent the further channelization and degradation of Palo Alto’s creeks. [NEW POLICY] [N61] CREEK SETBACKS Policy N-3.3 Protect the City’s creeks from the impacts of future buildings, structures, impervious surfaces and ornamental landscaping and preserve their function as habitat connectivity corridors by establishing a range of setback requirements that account for existing creek conditions, land use characteristics, property ownership, and flood control potential. [NEW POLICY] [N62] Update the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Program N3.3.1 to adopt a setback along natural creeks in open space and rural areas west of Foothill Expressway that prohibits the siting of buildings and other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas, and ornamental landscaped areas within 100 feet [program option: within 150 feet] of the top of a creek bank. Allow passive or intermittent outdoor activities and pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle pathways along natural creeks where there are adequate setbacks to protect the natural riparian environment. Within the setback area, provide a border of native riparian vegetation at least 25 feet along the creek bank. Updates should reflect that: Single-family property is exempt from the 100- foot [program option: 150-foot] setback. Undeveloped parcels west of Foothill Expressway are not exempt and appropriate PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-22 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 setbacks and creek conservation measures should be established. Existing development within the 100-foot setback will be considered legal and nonconforming. With the 100-foot setback as a goal where feasible, redevelopment of such sites must be designed consistent with basic creek habitat objectives and make a significant net improvement in the condition of the creek.[Previous Program N-7] [N63] Examine the development regulations of the Program N3.3.2 Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance, with stakeholder involvement to establish appropriate setback requirements that reflect the varying natural and channelized conditions along creeks east of Foothill Expressway. [NEW PROGRAM] [N64] For all creeks, update the Stream Corridor Program N3.3.3 Protection Ordinance to minimize impacts on wildlife by: Limiting the development of recreational trails to one side of natural riparian corridors. Requiring careful design of lighting surrounding natural riparian corridors to maximize the distance between nighttime lighting and riparian corridors and direct lighting away from the riparian corridor. [NEW PROGRAM] [N65] MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT Policy N-3.4 Recognize that riparian corridors are valued environmental resources whose integrity provides vital habitat for fish, birds, plants and other wildlife, and carefully monitor and preserve these corridors. [NEW POLICY] [N66] Develop a community creek stewardship program Program N3.4.1 to promote existing creek clean-up days, organize new events, and increase appreciation of riparian corridors. [NEW PROGRAM] [N67] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-23 Policy N-3.5 Preserve the ecological value of creek corridors by preserving native plants and replacing invasive, non-native plants with native plants. [Previous Policy N-12] [N68] Policy N-3.6 Discourage bank instability, erosion, downstream sedimentation, and flooding by minimizing site disturbance and nearby native vegetation removal on or near creeks and by reviewing grading and drainage plans for development near creeks and elsewhere in their watersheds. [Previous Policy N-13] [N69] Review and update the Grading Ordinance to Program N3.6.1 ensure that it adequately protects creeks from the erosion and sedimentation impacts of grading. [Previous Program N-12] [N70] Policy N-3.7 Avoid fencing, piping, and channelization of creeks when flood control and public safety can be achieved through measures that preserve the natural environment and habitat of the creek. [Previous Policy N-9] [N71] Policy N-3.8 Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and other relevant regional and non- governmental agencies to enhance riparian corridors, provide compatible low-impact recreation, and ensure adequate flood control. [Previous Policy N-10] [N72] Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to Program N3.8.1 develop a maintenance, restoration and enhancement program that preserves flood protection while preserving riparian habitat, and identifies specific stretches of corridor to be restored or daylighted, standards to be achieved, and sources of funding. Include provisions for tree and vegetation planting to enhance natural habitat and shade cover. [Previous Program N-10 and N-11, combined] [N73] Participate cooperatively in the San Francisquito Program N3.8.2 Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to achieve increased flood protection, habitat preservation, enhancement and improved recreational PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-24 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 opportunities along San Francisquito Creek. [Previous Program N-9] [N74] WATER RESOURCES GOAL N-4 Water resources and infrastructure that are managed to sustain plant and animal life, support urban activities, and protect public health and safety. WATER SUPPLY AND SAFETY Policy N-4.1 Maintain a safe, clean, and reliable long-term supply of water for Palo Alto. [Previous Policy N-19] [N75] Policy N-4.2 Maintain cost-effective citywide water conservation and efficiency programs for all customers, including low income customers, through education, rebates, assistance programs, and building requirements. [Previous Program N-24] [PTC] [N76] Educate customers on efficient water use (indoor Program N4.2.1 and outdoor), tree care, and landscaping options. [NEW PROGRAM] [N77] Policy N-4.3 Encourage owners of existing residential and commercial property to conserve water by modeling best practices including replacing inefficient plumbing fixtures in buildings, installing drought tolerant landscape and harvesting rainwater. [NEW POLICY] [N78] Policy N-4.4 Manage water supply and water quality to reflect not only human use but also the water needed to sustain plant and animal life. [NEW POLICY] [N79] DROUGHT Policy N-4.5 Support the development a multi-faceted approach to ensure resilient supply and management of water in Palo Alto, during significant periods of drought. [NEW POLICY] [N80] Study the supply and quality of local groundwater Program N4.5.1 aquifers to better understand their utility as natural water storage. [NEW PROGRAM] [N81] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-25 Work with local public agencies to educate Program N4.5.2 residents regarding the public health, fire, and overall quality of life risks associated with long-term drought. [NEW PROGRAM] [N82] Policy N-4.6 Retain and utilize rainwater on site to the extent possible. [NEW POLICY] [PTC] [N83] Encourage residents to use rain barrels or other Program N4.6.1 rainwater reuse systems. [NEW PROGRAM] [N84] GROUNDWATER Policy N-4.7 Ensure regulation of groundwater use to protect it as a natural resource and to preserve it as a potential water supply in the event of water scarcity. [NEW POLICY] [N85] Advocate for Santa Clara Valley Water District to Program N4.7.1 prepare a high-quality groundwater management plan that will address groundwater supply and quality, including, as appropriate: An understanding of subsurface hydrology. Strategies to reduce depletion. Opportunities to recharge groundwater, including through use of recycled water and extracted groundwater. Methods to ensure that uncontaminated, toxin-free groundwater is used in a manner that benefits the community, for example in irrigation of parks, street cleaning, and dust suppression. An approach to metering extracted groundwater. [NEW PROGRAM] [N86] Work with neighboring jurisdictions and regional Program N4.7.2 agencies to protect groundwater. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N87] Support the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Program N4.7.3 the Regional Water Quality Control Board to implement their mandate to protect groundwater PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-26 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 from the adverse impacts of urban uses. [PTC] [Previous Policy N-18] [N88] Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Program N4.7.4 Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to identify and map key groundwater recharge and stormwater management areas for use in land use planning and permitting and the protection of groundwater resources. [Previous Program N-22] [N89] Policy N-4.8 Conserve and maintain subsurface water resources by reducing residential basement dewatering and other excavation activities. [NEW POLICY] [N90] Research and promote new construction Program N4.8.1 techniques and recharge strategies developed to reduce subsurface and surface water impacts and comply with City dewatering policies. [EIR Mitigation Measure HYD-2] [NEW PROGRAM] [N91] Explore appropriate ways to monitor dewatering for Program N4.8.2 all dewatering and excavation projects to encourage maintaining groundwater levels and recharging of the aquifer where needed. [EIR Mitigation Measure HYD-2] [NEW PROGRAM] [N92] WATER QUALITY AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Policy N-4.9 Reduce pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. [Previous Policy N-21] [N93] Monitor and implement practices for reducing Program N4.9.1 water pollution. Examples include state-of-the-art best management practices (BMPs), land use planning approaches, and construction of modern stormwater management facilities. [Previous Program N-27] [N94] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-27 Continue public education programs on water Program N4.9.2 quality issues, including best management practices for residents, businesses, contractors, and City employees. [Previous Program N-28] [N95] Implement swift and rigorous spill response, Program N4.9.3 cleanup, and follow-up investigation procedures to reduce the impacts of toxic spills on the City’s creeks and San Francisco Bay. [Previous Program N-31] [N96] Increase monitoring and enforcement of existing Program N4.9.4 prohibitions on materials and practices known to impact local water quality, such as use of copper, in the design and construction industries. [NEW PROGRAM] [N97] Policy N-4.10 Conduct regular street-sweeping to collect trash and road surface pollutants before they enter stormwater runoff. [Previous Program N-30] [N98] Evaluate neighborhoods where parking controls Program N4.10.1 may hinder street sweeping and recommend any changes that are needed. [NEW PROGRAM] [N99] Policy N-4.11 Promote sustainable low water and pesticide landscaping practices on both public and private property. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N100] Implement the City’s Integrated Pest Management Program N4.11.1 Policy with periodic assessments of pesticide use and use of Best Management Practices to reduce pesticide applications and toxicity, and maximize non-chemical control. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N101] Revise the City’s Tree and Landscape Technical Program N4.11.2 Manual to include stronger requirements for least- toxic practices in the landscape permitting process. [NEW PROGRAM] [N102] Promote the value of toxin-free landscape Program N4.11.3 management, and educate residents about the PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-28 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 impacts of common fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, and pesticides on local water quality. [NEW PROGRAM] [N103] Policy N-4.12 Encourage Low Impact Development (LID) measures to limit the amount of pavement and impervious surface in new development and increase the retention, treatment and infiltration of urban stormwater runoff. Include LID measures in major remodels, public projects and recreation projects where practical. [Previous Policy N-22] [N104] Promote the use of permeable paving materials or Program N4.12.1 other design solutions that allow for natural percolation and site drainage through a Stormwater Rebate Program and other incentives.[Previous Program N-34] [N105] Develop and implement a green stormwater Program N4.12.2 infrastructure plan with the goal to treat and infiltrate stormwater. [NEW PROGRAM] [N106] Mitigate flooding through improved surface Program N4.12.3 permeability or paved areas, and stormwater capture and storage. [EIR Mitigation Measure] [NEW PROGRAM] [N107] Policy N-4.13 Improve storm drainage performance by constructing new system improvements where necessary. [Previous Policy N-24] [N108] Establish a standardized process for evaluating the Program N4.13.1 impacts of development on the storm drainage system, including point source discharge, base flow and peak flow.[Previous Program N-75] [N109] Complete improvements to the storm drainage Program N4.13.2 system consistent with the priorities outlined in the City's 1993 Storm Drainage Master Plan, as amended. . [Previous Program N-36] [N110] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-29 WASTEWATER TREATMENT Policy N-4.14 Reduce the discharge of toxic materials into the City’s sanitary sewer collection system by promoting the use of Best Management Practices and reducing pollutant levels in City wastewater discharges. [Previous Policy N-25] [N111] Work with commercial and industrial dischargers to Program N4.14.1 identify and implement pollution prevention measures and Best Management Practices to eliminate or reduce the discharge of metals and other pollutants of concern. [Previous Program N-35] [N112] Encourage commercial dischargers to consistently Program N4.14.2 go beyond minimum requirements of the Clean Bay Business Program. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N113] Policy N-4.15 Provide, maintain, and operate wastewater treatment facilities, including maintaining adequate capacity at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant located in Palo Alto, to accommodate projected economic and population growth. Ensure that the plant operates in compliance with applicable local, State, and federal clean water, clean air, and health and safety regulatory requirements. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N114] Implement approved recommendations based on Program N4.15.1 the Long-Term Facilities Plan prepared for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N115] Develop a plan to address ongoing operations of Program N4.15.2 the Regional Water Quality Control Plant taking potential sea level rise and growth in surrounding communities into account. [NEW PROGRAM] [N116] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-30 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 RECYCLED WATER Policy N-4.16 Improve source control, treatment, and distribution of recycled water, including reducing the salinity of recycled water, to maximize its use. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N117] Evaluate the expansion of existing recycled water Program N4.16.1 infrastructure to serve a larger area. Develop a plan to install “purple pipe” when streets are opened for other infrastructure work. [NEW PROGRAM] [N118] Evaluate the possibility of using recycled water as Program N4.16.2 an emergency water supply. [NEW PROGRAM] [N119] Investigate ways to reuse non-traditional water Program N4.16.3 sources including recycled, gray, black, and stormwater. [NEW PROGRAM] [N120] Policy N-4.17 Require large new projects to provide systems that can accept recycled water for landscape irrigation and toilet and urinal flushing, consistent with the City’s Recycled Water Ordinance, as amended. [PTC] [Previous Program N-26] [N121] AIR QUALITY GOAL N-5 Clean, healthful air for Palo Alto and the San Francisco Bay Area. Policy N-5.1 Support regional, State, and federal programs that improve air quality in the Bay Area because of its critical importance to a healthy Palo Alto. [(Previous Policy N-26) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1)] [N122] Provide City input on significant proposals for air Program N5.1.1 quality legislation and state implementation plans. [Previous Program N-38] [N123] Support the Bay Area Air Quality Management Program N5.1.2 District (BAAQMD) in its efforts to achieve compliance with existing air quality regulations by continuing to require development applicants to PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-31 comply with BAAQMD construction emissions control measures and health risk assessment requirements. [Previous Program N-39] [N124] Implement BAAQMD recommended standards for Program N5.1.3 the design of buildings near heavily traveled roads, in order to minimize exposure to auto-related emissions. [NEW PROGRAM] [N125] Explore adopting new standards that target the Program N5.1.4 reduction of very fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which is associated with increased impacts on health. [NEW PROGRAM] [N126] Policy N-5.2 Support behavior changes to reduce emissions of particulates from automobiles. [(NEW POLICY)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1)] [N127] Promote understanding of the impacts of extended Program N5.2.1 idling on air quality, for residents, auto-dependent businesses, and schools. [NEW PROGRAM] [N128] Consider adopting and enforcing penalties for Program N5.2.2 drivers that idle for longer than 3-5 minutes. [NEW PROGRAM] [N129] Policy N-5.3 Reduce emissions of particulates from, manufacturing, dry cleaning, construction activity, grading, wood burning, landscape maintenance, including leaf blowers, and other sources. [(Previous Policy N-27) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1)] [N130] Cooperatively work with Santa Clara County and Program N5.3.1 the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to ensure that mining and industrial operations mitigate environmental and health impacts. [NEW PROGRAM] [N131] Monitor particulate emissions at local California Air Program N5.3.2 Resources Board monitoring stations and make the information easily available to citizens. [NEW PROGRAM] [N132] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-32 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Promote understanding of the health impacts of Program N5.3.3 particulate emissions and provide information to residents and businesses about steps they can take to reduce particulate emissions, such as reducing or eliminating wood burning or using low emission alternatives to wood-burning stoves and fireplaces.. [Previous Program N-43] [N133] Explore feasible and cost-effective opportunities to Program N5.3.4 reduce concrete and asphalt use by the City, in parks and other public projects. [NEW PROGRAM] [N134] Policy N-5.4 All potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants should be adequately buffered, or mechanically or otherwise mitigated to avoid odor and toxic impacts that violate relevant human health standards. [Previous Policy N-29] [N135] NOISE GOAL N-6 An environment that minimizes the adverse impacts of noise. INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR AMBIENT NOISE AND PROJECT DESIGN Policy N-6.1 Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the guidelines in Table N-XX to evaluate the compatibility of proposed land uses with existing noise environments when preparing, revising, or reviewing development proposals. Acceptable exterior, interior and ways to discern noise exposure include: The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB. This level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, 60 Ldn is a guideline which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the constraints of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single-family housing developments, and recreational areas in multiple family housing projects). Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-33 60 dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close to the standard as feasible through project design. Interior noise, per the requirements of the State of California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25), must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB in all habitable rooms of all new dwelling units. [N136] Policy N-6.2 Noise exposure(s) can be determined from (a) the noise contour map included in this plan, (b) more detailed noise exposure studies, or (c) on area-specific or project-specific noise measurements, as appropriate. [(Previous Policy N-39)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a)] [N137] Policy N-6.3 Protect the overall community and especially sensitive noise receptors, including schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, senior and child care facilities, and public conservation land from unacceptable noise levels from both existing and future noise sources, including construction noise. [Previous Policy N-43] [N138] Continue working to reduce noise impacts created Program N6.3.1 by events and activities taking place in communities adjoining Palo Alto. [Previous Program N-58] [N139] Evaluate the feasibility of adopting noise criteria in Program N6.3.2 the purchase of new City vehicles and equipment. [Previous Program N-59] [N140] Update the Noise Ordinance, as needed, to provide Program N6.3.3 for clear interpretation of the regulations, to review the appropriateness of existing standards, and to ensure that regulations address contemporary issues. [EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a] [NEW PROGRAM] [N141] Policy N-6.4 Minimize roadway noise through prudent street, flow, and right-of-way design. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N142] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-34 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 NEW PERMANENT NOISE SOURCES Policy N-6.5 Protect residential and residentially-zoned properties from excessive and unnecessary noise from any sources on adjacent commercial or industrial properties. [NEW POLICY] [N143] Policy N-6.6 Apply site planning and architectural design techniques that reduce overall noise pollution and reduce noise impacts on proposed and existing projects within Palo Alto and surrounding communities. [Previous Policy N-40] [N144] Policy N-6.7 While a proposed project is in the development review process, the noise impact of the project on existing residential land uses, public open spaces, and public conservation land should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels and potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. If an area is below the applicable maximum noise guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed. [Previous Policy N-41] [N145] Update noise impact review procedures to address Program N6.7.1 appropriate requirements for analysis and thresholds for impacts on residential land uses and publicly-owned conservation land. [NEW PROGRAM] [N146] Policy N-6.8 The City may require measures to reduce noise impacts of new development on adjacent properties through appropriate means including, but not limited to, the following: Orient buildings to shield noise sensitive outdoor spaces from sources of noise. Construct noise walls when other methods to reduce noise are not practical and when these walls will not shift similar noise impacts to another adjacent property.. Screen and control noise sources such as parking lots, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment, including HVAC equipment. Increase setbacks to serve as a buffer between noise sources and adjacent dwellings. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-35 Whenever possible, retain fences, walls or landscaping that serve as noise buffers while considering design, safety and other impacts. Use soundproofing materials, noise reduction construction techniques, and/or acoustically rated windows/doors. Include auxiliary power sources at loading docks to minimize truck engine idling. Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts. [Previous Policy N-42] [N147] Policy N-6.9 Continue to require applicants for new projects or new mechanical equipment in the Multifamily, Commercial, Manufacturing, or Planned Community districts to submit an acoustical analysis demonstrating compliance with the Noise Ordinance prior to receiving a building permit. [(NEW POLICY) (Comp Plan EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a)] [N148] Policy N-6.10 Continue to regulate noise from leaf blowers and residential power equipment. [NEW POLICY] [N149] Evaluate changes to the Noise Ordinance to further Program N6.10.1 reduce the impacts of noise from leaf blowers and residential power equipment. [Previous Program N-60] [N150] CONSTRUCTION NOISE Policy N-6.11 Continue to prioritize construction noise limits around sensitive receptors, including through limiting construction hours and individual and cumulative noise from construction equipment. [(NEW POLICY)(PTC)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-8)] [N151] For larger development projects that demand Program N6.11.1 intensive construction periods and/or use equipment that could create vibration impacts, such as the Stanford University Medical Center or major grade separation projects, require formal, ongoing monitoring and reporting of noise levels throughout the entire construction process. The monitoring plan should identify hours of operation and could include information on the monitoring PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-36 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 locations, durations and regularity, the instrumentation to be used, and appropriate noise control measures to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. [(NEW PROGRAM)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-8)] [N152] AIRPORTS AND AIRCRAFT Policy N-6.12 Ensure compliance with the airport related land use compatibility standards for community noise environments, shown in Table N-XX, by prohibiting incompatible land use development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of the Palo Alto airport. [NEW POLICY] [EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1b] [N153] Continue working to reduce noise associated with Program N6.12.1 operations of the Palo Alto Airport. Ensure compliance with the land use compatibility standards for community noise environments, shown in Table N-XX, by prohibiting incompatible land use development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of the airport. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N154] Participate in appropriate public forums to ensure Program N6.12.2 that future activities at airports in the region do not negatively affect noise levels in Palo Alto. [Previous Program N-56] [N155] RAIL Policy N-6.13 Minimize noise spillover from rail related activities into adjacent residential or noise-sensitive areas. [NEW POLICY] [N156] Encourage the Peninsula Corridors Joint Powers Program N6.13.1 Board to pursue technologies and grade separations that would reduce or eliminate the need for train horns/whistles in communities served by rail service. [Previous Program N-57] [N157] Evaluate changing at-grade rail crossings so that Program N6.13.2 they qualify as Quiet Zones based on Federal PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-37 Railroad Administration (FRA) rules and guidelines in order to mitigate the effects of train horn noise without adversely affecting safety at railroad crossings. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N158] Participate in future environmental review of the Program N6.13.3 California High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project, planned to utilize existing Caltrain track through Palo Alto, to ensure that it adheres to noise and vibration mitigation measures. [NEW PROGRAM] [N159] Policy N-6.14 Reduce impacts from noise and ground borne vibrations associated with rail operations by requiring that future habitable buildings use necessary design elements such as setbacks, landscaped berms and soundwalls to keep interior noise levels below 45 dBA Ldn and ground-borne vibration levels below 72 VdB. [NEW POLICY] [N160] ENERGY GOAL N-7 A clean, efficient energy supply that makes use of cost- effective renewable resources. Policy N-7.1 Continue to procure carbon neutral energy for both long-term and short-term energy supplies, including renewable and hydroelectric resources, while investing in cost-effective energy efficiency and energy conservation programs. [(Previous Policy N-44)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17)] [N161] Meet customer electricity needs with least total cost Program N7.1.1 resources after careful assessment of environmental cost and benefits. [NEW PROGRAM] [N162] Policy N-7.2 Advance the development of a “smart” energy grid, a diverse energy resource portfolio, and technologically advanced public utilities as a key part of a smart and connected city. (S/CAP Strategy) [NEW POLICY] [N163] Promote the adoption of cost-effective, renewable Program N7.2.1 energy technologies from diverse renewable fuel sources by all customers. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N164] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-38 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Assess the feasibility of using life cycle analysis and Program N7.2.2 total cost of ownership analysis for public and private projects in order to minimize the consumption of energy, the production of greenhouse gases, and costs over the life of the project. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N165] Policy N-7.3 Prioritize the identification and implementation of cost-effective, reliable and feasible energy efficiency and demand reduction opportunities. [Previous Policy N 46] [N166] Policy N-7.4 Maximize the conservation and efficient use of energy in new and existing residences and other buildings in Palo Alto. [(Previous Policy N-47) (PTC Edits)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17)] [N167] Continue timely incorporation of State and federal Program N7.4.1 energy efficiency standards and policies in relevant City codes, regulations, and procedures, and higher local efficiency standards that are cost-effective. [(Previous Program N-66) (PTC Edits) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17)] [N168] Implement cost effective energy efficiency Program N7.4.2 programs for all customers, including low income customers. [NEW PROGRAM] (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17) [N169] Incorporate cost-effective energy conservation Program N7.4.3 measures into construction, maintenance, and City operation and procurement practices.[(Previous Program N-65) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17)] [N170] Implement gas and electric rates that encourage Program N7.4.4 efficient use of resources while meeting State law requirements that rates be based on the cost of service. [Previous Program N-62] [N171] Continue to provide public education programs Program N7.4.5 addressing energy conservation and efficiency. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-39 [(Previous Program N-64)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17)] [N172] Policy N-7.5 Encourage energy efficient lighting that protects dark skies and promotes energy conservation by minimizing light and glare from development while ensuring public health and safety. [NEW POLICY] [N173] Monitor professional and medically-sound research Program N7.5.1 and studies on light-emitting diodes (LEDs). [NEW PROGRAM] [N52] [N174] Policy N-7.6 Support the maximum economic use of solar electric (photovoltaic) and solar thermal energy, both as renewable supply resources for the Electric Utility Portfolio and as alternative forms of local power generation. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N175] Explore changes to building and zoning codes to Program N7.6.1 incorporate solar energy, energy storage, and other energy efficiency measures into major development projects, including City owned projects. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N176] Promote use of the top floors of new and existing Program N7.6.2 structured automobile garages for installation of photovoltaic panels and green roofs. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N177] Promote solar energy in individual private projects. Program N7.6.3 [NEW PROGRAM] [N178] Policy N-7.7 Explore a variety of cost-effective ways to reduce natural gas usage in existing and new buildings in Palo Alto in order to reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions. (S/CAP Strategy NG-GAS-1) [NEW POLICY] [N179] Evaluate the potential for a cost-effective plan for Program N7.7.1 transitioning to a completely carbon-neutral natural gas supply. [(NEW PROGRAM)(PTC)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIl-17)] [N180] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-40 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Explore the transition of existing buildings from gas Program N7.7.2 to electric or solar water and space heating. [NEW PROGRAM] [N181] Policy N-7.8 Support opportunities to maximize energy recovery from organic materials such as food scraps, yard trimmings and residual solids from sewage treatment. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N182] Evaluate energy efficient approaches for the Program N7.8.1 treatment and reuse of organic waste that maximize resource recovery and reduce greenhouse gas generation at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant located in Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Landfill. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N183] CLIMATE CHANGE AND CLIMATE ADAPTATION GOAL N-8 Actively support regional efforts to reduce our contribution to climate change while adapting to the effects of climate change on land uses and city services. Policy N-8.1 Take action to achieve target reductions in greenhouse gas emission levels from City operations and the community activity of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. (S/CAP Strategy) [NEW POLICY] [N184] Participate in cooperative planning with regional Program N8.1.1 and local public agencies, including on the Sustainable Communities Strategy, on issues related to climate change, such as greenhouse gas reduction, water supply reliability, sea level rise, fire protection services, emergency medical services, and emergency response planning. [(NEW PROGRAM)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure GHG-3)] [N185] Pursue or exceed State goals of achieving zero net Program N8.1.2 carbon for residential buildings by 2020 and commercial buildings by 2030, without compromising the urban forest. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N186] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-41 Policy N-8.2 With guidance from the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) and its subsequent updates and other future planning efforts, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from City operations and from the community. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N187] Periodically update the Sustainability and Climate Program N8.2.1 Action Plan (S/CAP) consistent with the update schedule in the approved S/CAP; this update shall include an updated greenhouse gas inventory and updated short, medium, and long-term emissions reduction goals. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N188] Policy N-8.3 Prioritize infrastructure improvements that address adaptation of critical facilities to climate change in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) five-year plan. (S/CAP Strategy) [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N189] Protect the Municipal Services Center, Utility Program N8.3.1 Control Center, and Regional Water Quality Control Plant from the impacts of sea level rise. (S/CAP Strategy) [NEW POLICY] [N190] Policy N-8.4 Continue to work with regional partners to build resiliency policy into City planning and capital projects, especially near the San Francisco Bay shoreline, while protecting the natural environment. (S/CAP Strategy) [NEW POLICY] [N191] Prepare response strategies that address sea level Program N8.4.1 rise, increased flooding, landslides, soil erosion, storm events and other events related to climate change. Include strategies to respond to the impacts of sea level rise on Palo Alto’s levee system. (EIR Mitigation Measure GHG-3) [NEW PROGRAM] [N192] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-42 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-1 This preliminary draft element was prepared by City staff on the basis of input from the CAC and members of the public received from August 2016 through December 2016. The Element was reviewed by the full CAC on December 13, 2016 and presented as a draft to Palo Alto City Council on May 15, 2017. INTRODUCTION The Natural Environment Element addresses the management of open land and natural resources in Palo Alto, as well as responding to environmental risks such as air pollution and climate change. It is one of the broadest elements of the Comprehensive Plan, encompassing three of the seven elements mandated by the State: Open Space, Conservation, and Noise. The text is organized into eight topics, each with a corresponding goal, policies, and programs: Open Space Urban Forest and Understory Creeks and Riparian Areas Water Resources Air Quality Noise Energy Climate Change VISION: Palo Alto will meet today’s needs without compromising the needs of future generations. Palo Alto will respect and manage natural resources in a way that sustains the natural environment and protect sprotects our foothills, baylands, creeks, parks, wildlife and open space legacy. A substantial portion of the City will remain as open space. Even in built-up areas, athe network of parks will provide access to nature and an urban forest will provide ecological benefits and a source of beauty for residents. Palo Alto will strive for cleanerclean air and cleanerclean water. Its Policies and programs will foster energy and water conservation, reduced solid waste generation, and cleanup of contaminated sites.. Finally, the City will be well preparedmaintain a sustainable water supply for natural disasters and will grow andthe future, and facilitate the implementation of climate change in a way that minimizes public exposure to hazards like fire, flood, and earthquakeadaptation strategies. 4 PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 The Natural Environment Element does not include policies relating to mineral resources because Palo Alto does not contain any mineral deposits of regional significance. OPEN SPACE Well over a third of Palo Alto’s land area consists of designated Open Space and Public Conservation Land. Although open spaces in City include privately owned land and neighborhood and district parks, the vast majority of Palo Alto’s Open Space and Public Conservation Land consists of parks and preserves devoted to passive use and ecological health. As shown on Map N-1, these spaces are diverse in size and character, ranging from the 2,100 acres of shoreline that comprise the Palo Alto baylands to the 200-acre Los Trancos Open Space Preserve, nestled in the foothills. Each open space area is defined by a combination of resources and habitats that require different approaches to preservation and coordination with outside entities. Map N-2 illustrates the vegetation and habitat types located in Palo Alto. At the same time, these diverse open spaces comprise an integrated natural network supporting Palo Alto’s livability and resiliency, and are an important recreational resource highly valued by the community. The Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Master Plan provides the City with guidance regarding future renovations and capital improvement needs for parks, trails, open space and recreation facilities. The policies and programs in this Element which focus on open space are consistent with the Master Plan and continue to protect individual open spaces from negative physical impacts, while supporting linkages between those spaces that are vital to the natural balance of the City and encouraging responsible public access. URBAN FOREST AND UNDERSTORY Palo Alto’s urban forest, defined as the trees, plants, soil and associated organisms, has long been a source of civic pride—and current research shows that it also offers an array of tangible benefits: improving public health, cleaning the air, absorbing carbon dioxide, reducing stormwater runoff, and supporting animals and pollinators. The Urban Forest Master Plan seeks to foster a sustainable urban forest in Palo Alto by establishing long-term management goals and strategies. Consistent with the Master Plan, the following policy framework maintains Palo Alto’s longstanding commitment to preserving existing trees, replacing damaged trees and expanding Pollinator Pathways Community Gardens Wetland Habitat Riparian Connected Parks Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Mean Projected High Water - 3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA) Creeks and Channels Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) Natural System Features City Park City Natural Open Spaces Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Water Bodies Ripari Creek Urban Canopy Target Areas Date: October 2016 Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford Santa ClaraCounty Menlo Park Mountain View Cupertino UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in the Bayland Preserve: Western burrowing owl California seablite Northern coastal salt marsh Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in San Francisquito Creek: Steelhead California red legged frog Western pond turtle Showy rancheria clover Valley oak woodland Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve: Western pond turtle Serpentine bunchgrass Indian Valley bush-mallow Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park: Western Leatherwood Valley oak woodland SSantSSaCou ppppppeerppppeevveveenseeeeekke UpUpppUpppStetteeeeeeCrereeeeeee Regional Habitat Connection Concept "e S an Fra ncisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barro n C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford Mountain View Menlo Park Los Altos Los Altos Hills East Palo Alto Atherton San Mateo County Portola Valley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve Baylands Athletic Center Greer Park Bol Park MitchellPark Esther Clark Preserve El Camino Park Terman Park Hoover Park Eleanor Pardee Park Peers Park Seale Park Robles Park Ramos Park Briones Park Cubberley Community Center Johnson Park Bowden Park Stanford- Palo Alto Playing Fields Heritage Park BowlingGreen Park El Palo Alto Park Werry Park Boulware Park Cameron Park Weisshaar Park Monroe Park Rinconada Park Williams Park Cogswell Plaza Lytton Plaza Sarah Wallis Park Hopkins Creekside Park Palo Alto Golf Course Scott Park Mayfield Park Ventura Community Center PearsonArastradero Preserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y el C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e f i e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charle s t o n R d el C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT MAP N-1 NATURAL SYSTEMS Source: MIG, 2016 and City of Palo Alto, 2016 Source: USDA, 2006; ESRI, Tiger Lines, USGS, 2010; City of Palo Alto, NHD, 2013; PlaceWorks 2015. StanfordLands StanfordUniversity Atherton Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos MountainView Sunnyvale SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 EastPalo Alto OregonExpy ElCaminoReal UniversityAve PageMillRd Alma S t E m b a rca de ro Rd Midd l e f i e l d R d SAN F RAN CIS CQUIT O C REEK MAT A D E R O C R EEK B A R RONCREEK ADOBECRE EK STEVENS CREE K ARASTRAD EROCREEK 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles Creek Lakes and Ponds Railroads City Limit Sphere of Influence Wildlife Habitat Relationship Type Annual Grassland Coastal Scrub Chamise Chaparral Redwood Forest Coastal Oak Woodland Valley Oak Woodland Montane Hardwood - Conifer Forest Montane Hardwood Forest Slough Fresh Emergent Wetland Saline Emergent Wetland Valley Foothill Riparian Cropland Urban Forest P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NN A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T MA P N- 2 V E G E T A T I O N A N D H A B I T A T T Y P E S PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-5 the urban forest with resilient, native species. In addition, new policies in following section have been designed to ensure that the urban forest not only endures, but benefits from, future growth. The section seeks to optimize opportunities presented by new development, while minimizing its negative impacts. It is based on a holistic approach to Palo Alto’s “green infrastructure” that recognizes that private property owners, outside agencies, non-profits, and the City itself all impact—and are impacted by—the health of the urban forest, from soil to canopy. CREEKS AND RIPARIAN AREAS As illustrated on Map N-3, a series of creeks and streams pass through City as they drain the local foothills into the San Francisco Bay. Adobe, Barron, Matadero, and San Francisquito Creeks, and their tributaries, interface with the land along their banks to form ecosystems known as riparian corridors. The policies and programs recognize the value and diversity of Palo Alto’s creeks. Where the creeks and corridors generally located west of Foothill Expressway are generally still in a natural or mostly undisturbed state, they support diverse plant and animal life, both as permanent homes and as migratory pathways, and offer recreational opportunities to reconnect with nature. Farther downstream, in the flatter, urbanized parts of Palo Alto, some reaches have been heavily engineered over the past decades and now primarily serve a very important role as flood control channels, while others retain some natural characteristics. All creek segments are valuable opportunities for connection within Palo Alto’s ecological and recreational network and merit protection and enhancement. Map N-4 shows areas where development should be set back from creeks to respect and preserve their natural state and ecological value. Partnerships with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other outside organizations will be key to protecting and improving creeks that cross jurisdictional boundaries. In addition, related policies and programs in the Land Use and Community Design Element highlight the importance of creeks in defining the character of the City and some of its neighborhoods. WATER RESOURCES Maintaining the life-sustaining properties of water as a natural resource is a complex challenge. Water is dynamic, contested, and, increasingly, scarce. The topics addressed in the Water Resources section are as wide-ranging as the needs water itself serves. Policies and programs protect the quality and reliability of the City’s long-term water supply, including during periods of drought. Maintaining the quality of the City’s water supply requires protecting both surface water and groundwater Menlo Park |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 OregonExpy ElCaminoReal UniversityAve PageMillRd Alma S t E mb a rca de ro R d Midd l e f i e l d R d San Francisquito Creek Watershed Matadero CreekWatershed Adobe CreekWatershed San FranciscoBay Watershed Barron Creek Watershed Source: Janet M. Sowers, William Lettis & Associates, Inc.,and the San Francisco Estuarty; PlaceWorks, 2015. 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Creeks Underground culverts & storm drains Engineered channels Historical creeks Tidal marsh, circa 1850 Flood control channels Tidal marsh, now water Freshwater marsh, modern Willow groves, circa 1850 City Limit Artificial bodies of water Bay or slough P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N N A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T MA P N- 3 C R E E K S A N D W A T E R S H E D S Foo t h i l l E x p r e s s w a y Mountain View Los Altos Hills Los Altos §¨¦280 Page MillRoad Stanford Lands §¨¦280 MA P N- 4 A R E A W H E R E N A T U R A L C R E E K S E T B A C K A P P L I E S P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N N A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T 0 1 2 Miles Source: ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; City of Palo Alto, 2016; PlaceWorks, 2016. Creeks Area where Natural Creek Setback Applies Single Family Residential Streamside Open Space City Limit Sphere of Influence PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-8 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 from the impacts of past and future development, through requirements for low- impact development and careful regulation of sub-surface dewatering. The City must support the efforts of regulatory bodies, and partner with the multiple jurisdictions through which Palo Alto’s water resources flow. The policies and programs in the Water Resources section also ensure that the City’s water and wastewater infrastructure are efficient and effective and guide future improvements to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant and the purple pipe network to reflect the growing role of recycled water. AIR QUALITY Healthy, breathable air is regional resource, and maintaining air quality is a responsibility shared by each of the local jurisdictions that benefit from it. In the San Francisco Bay Area, federal and State air quality regulations are strengthened by additional programs of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Emerging concerns about specific types of air pollutants, such as particulate matter, cannot be addressed by a single city, but Palo Alto is committed to monitoring and understanding these risks and participating in regional solutions. The policies and programs in this section also promote education and lifestyle choices that benefit public health within and outside the City, from adopting low emission alternatives to wood burning stoves to avoiding prolonged automobile idling. NOISE Palo Alto’s bustling urban environment generates noise from traffic, trains, airports, construction, and yard maintenance, among other sources. Existing and future noise contours within Palo Alto are shown on Maps N-5 and N-6, respectively. The Comprehensive Plan addresses these diverse noise sources and provides the policy foundation for much more rigorous requirements established in the City’s Noise Ordinance. The policies and programs in this section regulate the placement of future “sensitive receptors”—homes, schools, medical clinics, and the like—in compatible noise environments, and acknowledge the importance of quiet environments in public open space and conservation areas. This section also guides the analysis and design of proposed new development to avoid creating new noise impacts on existing sensitive receptors. In addition, this section supports the City’s ongoing efforts to coordinate with regional, State, and federal authorities on noise issues of concern to the Palo Alto community, such as overflights into and out of Bay ! ! FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D ALM A S T SEAL E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y EL C A M I N O R E A L QUA R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y PASTEUR D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D Mountain View East Palo Alto Stanford University Menlo Park S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y Los Altos§¨¦280 |ÿ82 £¤101 MI D D L E F I E L D R O A D PAG E M I L L R O A D Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; US Geological Survey Open File Report 06-1037, 2006; PlaceWorks, 2015. 0 0.5 10.25 Miles N A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T MA P N- 5 E X I S T I N G N O I S E C O N T O U R S !Caltrain Stations Highways Railroads City Limit Sphere of Influence 70 dBA CNEL contour 65 dBA CNEL contour 60 dBA CNEL contour Note: Map includes estimated contributions for CalTrain operations from available information at www.CalTrain.com. Railway noise contours generally overlap roadway noise contours from the adjacent and parallel Alma Street traffic flows. P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NN A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T ! ! FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D ALM A S T SEAL E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y EL C A M I N O R E A L QUA R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y PASTEUR D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D Mountain View East Palo Alto Stanford University Menlo Park S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y Los Altos§¨¦280 |ÿ82 £¤101 MI D D L E F I E L D R O A D PAG E M I L L R O A D Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; US Geological Survey Open File Report 06-1037, 2006; PlaceWorks, 2015. 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Notes: Map includes estimated contributions for CalTrain operations from available information at www.CalTrain.com. Railway noise contours generally overlap roadway noise contours from the adjacent and parallel Alma Street traffic flows. 70 dBA CNEL contour 65 dBA CNEL contour 60 dBA CNEL contour!Caltrain Stations Highways Railroads City Limit Sphere of Influence P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NN A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T MA P N- 6 F U T U R E N O I S E C O N T O U R S PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-11 Area airports (e.g., San Francisco International and Palo Alto airport) and the proposed High Speed Rail project. ENERGY The City of Palo Alto provides electric service through the Utilities Department. As the negative impacts of fossil fuel extraction and consumption escalate, the City is committed to developing a sustainable, carbon-neutral, cost-effective energy supply. This refers to an energy portfolio that decreases the City’s reliance on fossil fuels, thus reducing the release of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, by supporting the production of energy from carbon-free, renewable sources. Achieving these goals requires carefully balancing the benefits and liabilities of diverse energy sources and strategies, educating the public on home- and business-based renewable energy and energy efficiency strategies, and encouraging and incentivizing widespread implementation of those strategies. CLIMATE CHANGE AND CLIMATE ADAPTATION Palo Alto is committed to meaningful action to slow global warming and adapt to changes in the climate that are already underway. The policies and programs under this goal were developed in parallel with the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, or S/CAP, and will support the City’s efforts to achieve the Council-adopted goal of reducing City- and community-based GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. Similarly, a diverse range of adaptive improvements will ensure that the City’s built environment and infrastructure are resilient to climate change related impacts such as sea level rise. GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS OPEN SPACE GOAL N-1 A Citywide Open Space System that ProtectsProtect, conserve and Conservesenhance Palo Alto’s Natural Resourcescitywide system of open space, including connected and Providesaccessible natural and urban habitats, ecosystems, and natural resources, providing a source of public health, natural beauty and enjoyment for Palo Alto residents. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-12 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 CONNECTIVITY AND ECOLOGY Policy N-1.1 Preserve, protect and enhance public and private open space and ecosystems of Palo Alto from the foothills to the baylands. Respect the role that natural and landscaped areas within the urbanized part of the City play in a resilient ecological continuum, as illustrated on Map N-1. the foothill area as predominantly open space [Previous Policy N-4] [N1] Develop Comprehensive Resource Conservation Program N1.1.1 Plans for the Pearson Arastradero Preserve, Esther Clark Preserve, and Foothills Park to steward the protection of local ecosystems. [(NEW PROGRAM)(PTC)] [N2] Promote and support ecosystem protection and Program N1.1.2 environmental education programs in Palo Alto. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N3] Policy N-1.2 Maintain a network of parks and urban forest from the urban center to the foothills and Baylands that provides ecological benefits and access to nature for all residents. [NEW POLICY] [N4] Policy N-1.3 Manage existing public open space areas and eEncourage the management of private open space areas, including agricultural land, golf courses, private residential yards, and other land that provides habitat for wildlife in a manner that protects and enhances habitat and meets habitat reinforces natural wildlife corridors,protection goals public safety concerns, and low impact recreation needs consistent with the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan and Urban Forest Master Plan, as periodically amended. [Previous Policy N-1, per PTC] [N5] Work to maintain Williamson Act agricultural Program N1.3.1 preserves contracts within the City. [Previously Program N-5] [N6] Provide information and support programs that Program N1.3.2 encourage residents to enhance their private yards with native plant species and low impact landscaping. [NEW PROGRAM] [N7] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-13 Policy N-1.4 Protect special-status sensitive plant species and plant communities, including those listed by State and federal agencies and recognized organizations resources from the impacts of development and incompatible activities. [Previous Policy N-3] [N8] Periodically review CEQA thresholds of significance Program N1.4.1 regarding special status species to identify changes in listed species recommended by professionally recognized scientific experts. Sources may include the California Natural Diversity Database, as updated in accordance with federally- and State- recognized organizations, including the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, as well as the California Native Plant Society and the Audubon Society. [NEW PROGRAM] [N9] Explore the feasibility of expanding the use of Program N1.4.2 overlay tools such as the Site and Design (D) Review Combining District or similar development review and restriction tools to protect special-status species and their habitats from development. [NEW PROGRAM] [N10] Assess opportunities to expand habitats of special –Program N1.4.3 status species within publicly-owned open spaces. [NEW PROGRAM] [N11] Policy N-1.5 Preserve and protect the Bay, marshlands, salt ponds, sloughs, creeks, and other natural water or wetland areas as open space, functioning habitats, and elements of a larger, interconnected wildlife corridor, consistent with the Baylands Master Plan, as periodically amended, which is incorporated here by reference. [Previous Policy N-8, [L189],] [N12] Maintain the value of local wetlands as habitats by Program N1.5.1 ensuring adequate flow from the Bay and minimizing effluent. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N13] Policy N-1.6 Preserve and protect the foothills and hillside areas, recognizing their unique value as natural ecosystems and interconnected wildlife corridors. [NEW POLICY] [N14] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-14 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 Continue to coordinate City review, particularly by Program N1.6.1 Planning, Public Works and Community Services Departments, of projects that might impact the City’s foothills and hillside areas. [NEW PROGRAM] [N15] ACCESS AND RECREATION Policy N-1.7 Carefully manage access and use recreational use Review the need for access controls inof environmentally sensitive areas, including the baylands, foothills and riparian corridors, in order to protect habitats and wildlife from the impacts of humans and domesticated animals. [(Previous Program N-3)(PTC)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure PS-7)] [N16] Examine and improve existing management Program N1.7.1 practices for natural habitat and open space areas, including the provision of access to open space for City vehicles and equipment, to ensure that natural resources are protected. [Previous Program N-2] [N17] Protect wildlife in public open space areas by Program N1.7.2 improving litter collection, restricting the use of non-recyclable plastics, prohibiting the feeding of wild and domestic animals in open space, and enforcing dog leash laws. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N18] Provide information about responsible behavior in Program N1.7.3 environmentally-sensitive areas through signage, pamphlets and documents on the City’s website. [NEW PROGRAM] [N19] Review and map existing easements and Program N1.7.4 maintenance roads for potential trails and trail connections. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N20] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-15 NATURAL CHARACTER OF THE FOOTHILLS Policy N-1.8 Through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space zone district regulations, mMinimize impacts of any new development on views of the hillsides, on the character of public open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. [Previous Policy N-6] [N21] Review and update as needed the Open Space (OS) zoning district regulations to ensure consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies. Previous Program N-1, per PTC] Policy N-1.9 All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area (i.e., above Junipero Serra Boulevard) should be consistent with the following criteria visually blend in with its surroundings and minimize impacts to the natural environment. As such, development projects should: City of Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria The development should Nnot be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view. Development should beBe Llocated away from hilltops. and designed to not extend above the nearest ridge line. Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring properties. Development should be Be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to reduce conspicuousness make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. Include Builtbuilt forms and landscape forms should that mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance. Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Retain eExisting vegetation should be retained as much as possible. Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-16 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading. To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. Buildings should Utilize natural materials and earth tone or subdued colors. Include landscaping should be composed of native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique. Include eExterior lighting should bethat is low-intensity and shielded from view. so it is not directly visible from off-site. Include aAccess roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foot- hills environment.) For development in unincorporated areas, ground coverage should be in general conformance with Palo Alto’s Open Space District regulations. [Previous Policy N-7] [N22] As part of the design review process for proposed development in the Open Space zone district that exceeds 6,500 square feet, require that “story poles” be erected with outlining tape depicting the building’s location, bulk and height to aid in assessing the potential visual impacts of the proposed project. [Previous Program N-6] EXPANSION OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Policy N-1.10 Support regional and sub-regional efforts to acquire, develop, operate, and maintain a seamless open space system, including habitat linkages and trail connections extending north-south and east-west from Skyline Ridge to San Francisco Bay. [Previous Policy N-2] [N23] Use City funds, and sSeek additional sources of Program N1.10.1 funding, including Sstate and federal programs, to finance open space acquisition, maintenance or conservation. and development [Previous Program N-4] [N24] Pursue dedication of undedicated publicly-owned Program N1.10.2 recreation, open space and conservation areas, such as Renzel Wetlands and the Gamble House PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-17 and Gardens as public parks to preserve the community serving purpose of these areas into the future. [NEW PROGRAM] [N17] [N25] Create mechanisms to monitor, assess and respond Program N1.10.3 quickly to land acquisition opportunities that would expand or connect the City’s system of parks and open spaces, and establish a long-term funding strategy for acquisition that would enable the City to move quickly when opportunities arise. [NEW PROGRAM] [N26] Explore ways to dedicate a portion of in-lieu fees Program N1.10.4 towards acquisition of parkland, not just improvements. [[NEW PROGRAM] [N27] Pursue opportunities to create linear parks over the Program N1.10.5 Caltrain tracks in the event the tracks are moved below grade. [NEW PROGRAM moved from Land Use] [L152] Encourage dedication of new Program N1.10.3Program N1.10.6 land for parks through regulations and incentives for new development and programs to solicit bequests of land within the city. [NEW PROGRAM moved from Land Use] [L151] Policy N-1.11 Work with Stanford University, Santa Clara County, Santa Clara Valley Water District and regional organizations to create multi-use trail connections between urban areas and open space, including creeks and rights-of-way, while ensuring that the natural environment is protected. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N28] Policy N-1.12 Work with Stanford and Santa Clara County to pPreserve Stanford’s lower foothill property northeast of Highway 280. predominantly within the City, Act and act as an advocate to Santa Clara County to preserve open space links between Stanford, the urban area, and the foothillsfor the preservation of the open space link between the urban area and the foothills. [Previous Policy N-5] [N29] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-18 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 URBAN FOREST AND UNDERSTORY GOAL N-2 A thriving “urban forest” that provides public health, ecological, economic, and aesthetic benefits for Palo Alto. ROLE OF THE URBAN FOREST Policy N-2.1 Use the Urban Forest Master Plan, as periodically amended, to guide City decisions related to all elements of Palo Alto’s urban forest, from its understory habitat to canopy cover. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N30] Periodically update the Urban Forest Master Plan Program N2.1.1 and Tree Protection Ordinance to ensure policies and regulations remain relevant. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N31] Policy N-2.2 Recognize the importance of the urban forest as a vital part of the City’s green infrastructure network that contributes to public health, resiliency, habitat values, appreciation of natural systems and an attractive visual character which must be protected and enhanced. [NEW POLICY] [N32] Explore ways to prevent and ameliorate damage to Program N2.2.1 trees and tree roots by above and below ground infrastructure and buildings. [NEW PROGRAM] [N33] Policy N-2.3 Enhance the ecological resilience of the urban forest by increasing and diversifying native species in the public right-of-way, protecting the health of soils and understory vegetation, encouraging property owners to do the same, and discouraging the planting of invasive species. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N34] Policy N-2.4 Protect soils in both urban and natural areas as the foundation of a healthy urban forest. Recognize that healthy soils are necessary to filter air and water, sustain plants and animals, and support buildings and infrastructure. [[NEW PROGRAM] [N35] Promote landscape design that optimizes soil Program N2.4.1 volume, porosity, structure and health, as well the location, shape and configuration of soil beds. [NEW PROGRAM] [N36] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-19 PROTECTION AND EXPANSION Policy N-2.5 Enhance tree health and the appearance of streets and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system.through regular maintenance as well as tree and landscape planting and care of the existing canopy. [(Previous Policy L-70) (Moved from Land Use Element, May 1 Draft] [L166] Policy N-2.6 Improve the overall distribution of Citywide canopy cover, so that neighborhoods in all areas of Palo Alto enjoy the benefits of a healthy urban canopy. [NEW POLICY] [N37] Policy N-2.7 Strive toward the aspirational, long-term goal of achieving a 50 percent tree canopy cover across the City. [NEW POLICY] [N38] Develop and implement a plan for maintenance, Program N2.7.1 irrigation, and replacement of Maintain and irrigate healthy trees in parks, open space, parking lots, and City rights-of-way, while identifying and replacing unhealthy trees in those areas. [Previous Program N-17] [N39] Continue to invest in the care, irrigation and Program N2.7.2 monitoring of street trees during drought conditions. [NEW PROGRAM] [N40] Actively pursue funding for tree planting to increase Program N2.7.3 canopy cover significantly across the city, avoid a net loss of canopy at the neighborhood level, and attain canopy size targets in parks, open space, parking lots, and City rights-of-way. [Previous Program N-18] [N41] Policy N-2.8 Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single- family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. [Previous Policy N-15] [N42] Policy N-2.9 Minimize removal of, and damage to, trees due to construction-related activities such as trenching, excavation, soil compacting, and release of toxins. [NEW POLICY] [N43] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-20 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 Increase awareness, severity and enforcement of Program N2.9.1 penalties for tree damage. [NEW PROGRAM] [N44] Develop a program for using the City’s Urban Program N2.9.2 Forestry Fund to replace trees lost to public improvement and infrastructure projects, with replanting occurring onsite or as close to the original site as is ecologically appropriate. [NEW PROGRAM] [N45] Policy N-2.10 Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, heritage trees, including such as native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees approved as part of a development review process and consider strategies for expanding tree protection in Palo Alto. [Previous Policy N-17] [N46] Continue to require replacement of trees, including Program N2.10.1 street trees lost to new development., and establish a program to have replacement trees planted offsite when it is impractical to locate them onsite. [Previous Program N-16] [N47] As part of the update of the Tree and Landscape Program N2.10.2 Technical Manual, consider expanding tree protections to include additional mature trees and provide criteria for making site-specific determinations of trees that should be protected. [NEW PROGRAM] [N48] Consider revisions to the permit process to increase Program N2.10.3 transparency regarding tree removals and expanded opportunities for community members to appeal the removal of trees. [NEW PROGRAM] [N49] Policy N-2.11 Establish procedures to Coordinate City review, particularly by the Urban Forester, Planning, Utilities, and Public Works Departments, of projects that might impact the urban forest. [Previous Program N-20] [N50] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-21 Develop a transparent and publicly accessible street Program N2.11.1 tree removal and replacement schedule. [NEW PROGRAM] [N51] Develop a program to replace unhealthy public Program N2.11.2 trees over time. [NEW PROGRAM] [N52] PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE URBAN FOREST Policy N-2.12 Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto’s urban forest through public education, sensitive regulation and a long-term financial commitment that is adequate to protect this resource. [Previous Policy N-14] [N53] Explore ways to leverage the fact that Palo Alto’s Program N2.12.1 urban forest alleviates climate change by capturing and storing carbon dioxide. [NEW PROGRAM] [N54] Policy N-2.13 Partner and coordinate with organizations and individuals dedicated to the health of Palo Alto’s urban forest.[NEW POLICY, ADPATED ADAPTED FROM PTC PROGRAM N3.3.7] [N55] Work with local nonprofits to establish one or more Program N2.13.1 tree planting programs that are consistent with the UFMP, and rely on locally native, resilient species that seek to achieve the following objectives: a 50 percent tree canopy for streets, parks, and parking lots; the annual tree planting goals recommended by the Tree Task Force and adopted by the City Council. Review existing tree planting guidelines to ensure they achieve these objectives. [Previous Program N-19] [N56] Provide on-going education for City staff, Program N2.13.2 homeowners, residents, and developers regarding landscape ing and , maintenance, and irrigation practices that protect the urban forest and wildlife species. [PTC] [Previous Policy N-16] [N57] Involve tree owners in tree maintenance programs. Program N2.13.3 [NEW PROGRAM (Moved from Land Use Element May 1 Draft)] [L168] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-22 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 Cooperate with the Palo Alto Unified School District, Program N2.13.4 Stanford University, Caltrain, Caltrans, PG&E, and other public and private entities to ensure that their tree planting, tree removal, and maintenance practices are consistent with City guidelines. [NEW PROGRAM] [N58] Work cooperatively with the Palo Alto Unified School District so that their tree planting and maintenance practices are consistent with City guidelines. [Previous Program N-21] Policy N-2.14 In order to protect, enhance and augment the urban forest along El Camino Real, Page Mill Road and Oregon Expressway, periodically revisit existing maintenance agreements with Caltrans and the County of Santa Clara. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N59] Implement the recommendations of the Tree Task Force.[Previous Program N-14] Continue celebration of Arbor Day in Palo Alto.[Previous Program N-15] CREEKS AND RIPARIAN AREAS GOAL N-3 Conservation of both natural and channelized creeks and riparian areas as open space amenities, natural habitat areas, and elements of community design. Policy N-3.1 All creeks are valuable resources for natural habitats, connectivity, community design, and flood control, and need different conservation and enhancement strategies. Recognize the different characteristics along creeks in Palo Alto, including natural creek segments in the City’s open space and rural areas, primarily west of Foothill Expressway; creek segments in developed areas that retain some natural characteristics; and creek segments that have been channelized. [NEW POLICY] [N60] Policy N-3.2 Prevent the further channelization and degradation of Palo Alto’s creeks. [NEW POLICY] [N61] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-23 CREEK SETBACKS Policy N-3.3 Protect the City’s creeks from the impacts of future buildings, structures, impervious surfaces and ornamental landscaping and preserve their function as habitat connectivity corridors by establishing a range of setback requirements that account for existing creek conditions, land use characteristics, property ownership, and flood control potential. [NEW POLICY] [N62] Update the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Program N3.3.1 to Aadopt a setback along natural creeks in open space and rural areas west of Foothill Expressway that prohibits the siting of buildings and other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas, and ornamental landscaped areas within 100 feet [program option: within 150 feet] of the top of a creek bank. Allow passive or intermittent outdoor activities and pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle pathways along natural creeks where there are adequate setbacks to protect the natural riparian environment. Within the setback area, provide a border of native riparian vegetation at least 25 feet along the creek bank. Updates should reflect that: Exceptions to the 100- foot setback are as follows: Single- family property is exempt from the 100-foot [program option: 150-foot] setback. , except that uUndeveloped parcels southwest of Highway 280west of Foothill Expressway are not exempt and A creek ordinance and guidelines will be prepared addressing appropriate setbacks and creek conservation measures should be established. Existing development within the 100-foot setback will be considered legal and nonconforming. With the 100-foot setback as a goal where feasible, redevelopment of such sites must be designed consistent with basic creek habitat objectives and make a significant PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-24 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 net improvement in the condition of the creek.[Previous Program N-7] [N63] Examine the development regulations of the Program N3.3.2 Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance, with stakeholder involvement, to establish appropriate setback requirements that reflect the varying natural and channelized conditions along creeks east of Foothill Expressway. [NEW PROGRAM] [N64] For all creeks, update the Stream Corridor Program N3.3.3 Protection Ordinance to minimize impacts on wildlife by: Limiting the development of recreational trails to one side of natural riparian corridors. Requiring careful design of lighting surrounding natural riparian corridors to maximize the distance between nighttime lighting and riparian corridors and direct lighting away from the riparian corridor. [NEW PROGRAM] [N65] MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT Policy N-3.4 Recognize that riparian corridors are valued environmental resources whose integrity provides vital habitat for fish, birds, plants and other wildlife, and carefully monitor and preserve these corridors. [NEW POLICY] [N66] Preserve the integrity of riparian corridors. [Previous Policy N-11] Develop a community creek stewardship program Program N3.4.1 to promote existing creek clean-up days, organize new events, and increase appreciation of riparian corridors. [NEW PROGRAM] [N67] Policy N-3.5 Preserve the habitat ecological value of creek corridors through theby preservingation of native plants and the replacing ement of invasive, non-native plants with native plants. [Previous Policy N-12] [N68] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-25 Policy N-3.6 Discourage creek bank instability, erosion, downstream sedimentation, and flooding by minimizing site disturbance and nearby native vegetation removal on or near creeks and by carefully reviewing grading and drainage plans for development near creeks and elsewhere in the their watershedscreeks. [Previous Policy N-13] [N69] Review and update the Grading Ordinance to Program N3.6.1 ensure that it adequately protects creeks from the erosion and sedimentation impacts of grading. [Previous Program N-12] [N70] Establish public education programs regarding the conservation of creeks and riparian areas. [Previous Program N-13] Policy N-3.7 Avoid fencing, piping, and channelization of creeks when flood control and public safety can be achieved through measures that preserve the natural environment and habitat of the creek. [Previous Policy N-9] [N71] Policy N-3.8 Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and other relevant regional and non- governmental agencies to enhance riparian corridors, provide compatible low-impact recreation, and ensure adequate flood control by use of low impact restoration strategies. [Previous Policy N-10] [N72] Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to Program N3.8.1 establish guidelines for creek channel develop a comprehensive riparian corridor maintenance, restoration and enhancement program that encourage preservation of preserves flood protection while preserving riparian habitat, and identifies specific stretches of corridor to be restored or daylighted, standards to be achieved, and sources of funding. Include provisions for tree and vegetation planting to enhance natural habitat and shade cover, including vegetation that provides shade to creek bottoms. [Previous Program N-10 and N-11, combined] [N73] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-26 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 Participate cooperatively in a San Francisquito Creek Program N3.8.2 Coordinated Respource Management and Planning Process (CRMP) process with adjacent cities the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to achieve increased flood protection, habitat preservation, enhancement and improved recreational opportunities along San Francisquito Creek. [Previous Program N-9] [N74] Develop and adopt a creek ordinance that establishes new development regulations for properties abutting creeks, establishes an exception process, and provides incentives to achieve maximum creek setbacks, such as reduced front yard setbacks and reduced on-site par king requirements.[Previous Program N-8] WATER RESOURCES GOAL N-4 Water resources and infrastructure that are prudently managed to sustain plant and animal life, support urban activities, and protect public health and safety. WATER SUPPLY AND SAFETY Policy N-4.1 Maintain Secure a safe, clean, and reliable, long-term supply of water for Palo Alto. [Previous Policy N-19] [N75] Policy N-4.2 Maintain cost-effective citywide water conservation and efficiency programs for all customer classes customers, including low income customers, through education, rebates, assistance programs, and building requirements. [Previous Program N-24] [PTC] [N76] Educate customers on efficient water use (indoor Program N4.2.1 and outdoor), tree care, and landscaping options. [NEW PROGRAM] [N77] Where practical, incorporate federal, state, and other agency policies and standards for water efficiency into City codes, regulations, and procedures. [Previous Program N-25] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-27 Policy N-4.3 Encourage owners of existing residential and commercial property to conserve water by modeling best practices including replacing inefficient plumbing fixtures in buildings, installing drought tolerant landscape and harvesting rainwater. [NEW POLICY] [N78] Policy N-4.4 Manage water supply and water quality to reflect not only human use but also the water needed to sustain plant and animal life. [NEW POLICY] [N79] Maximize the conservation and efficient use of water in new and existing residences, businesses and industries.[Previous Policy N-20] DROUGHT Policy N-4.5 Support the development a multi-faceted approach to ensure resilient supply and management of water in Palo Alto, during significant periods of drought. [NEW POLICY] [N80] Study the supply and quality of local groundwater Program N4.5.1 aquifers to better understand their utility as natural water storage. [NEW PROGRAM] [N81] Work with local public agencies to educate Program N4.5.2 residents regarding the public health, fire, and overall quality of life risks associated with long-term drought. [NEW PROGRAM] [N82] Policy N-4.6 Retain and utilize rainwater on site to the extent possible. [NEW POLICY] [PTC] [N83] Encourage residents to use rain barrels or other Program N4.6.1 rainwater reuse systems. [NEW PROGRAM] [N84] GROUNDWATER Policy N-4.7 Ensure regulation of groundwater use to protect it as a natural resource and to preserve it as a potential water supply in the event of water scarcity. [NEW POLICY] [N85] Advocate for Santa Clara Valley Water District to Program N4.7.1 prepare a high-quality groundwater management plan that will address groundwater supply and quality, including, as appropriate: PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-28 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 An understanding of subsurface hydrology. Strategies to reduce depletion. Opportunities to recharge groundwater, including through use of recycled water and extracted groundwater. Methods to ensure that uncontaminated,toxin- free groundwater is used in a manner that benefits the community, for example in irrigation of parks, street cleaning, and dust suppression. An approach to metering extracted groundwater. [NEW PROGRAM] [N86] Work with neighboring jurisdictions and regional Program N4.7.2 agencies to protect groundwater. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N87] Support the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Program N4.7.3 the Regional Water Quality Control Board to implement their mandate to protect Protect Palo Alto’s groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses. [PTC] [Previous Policy N-18] [N88] Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Program N4.7.4 Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to identify and map key groundwater recharge and stormwater management areas for use in land use planning and permitting and the protection of groundwater resources. [Previous Program N-22] [N89] Policy N-4.8 Conserve and maintain subsurface water resources by reducing residential basement dewatering and other excavation activities. [NEW POLICY] [N90] Research and promote new construction Program N4.8.1 techniques and recharge strategies developed to reduce subsurface and surface water impacts and comply with City dewatering policies. [EIR Mitigation Measure HYD-2] [NEW PROGRAM] [N91] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-29 Explore appropriate ways to monitor dewatering for Program N4.8.2 all dewatering and excavation projects to encourage maintaining groundwater levels and recharging of the aquifer where needed. [EIR Mitigation Measure HYD-2] [NEW PROGRAM] [N92] WATER QUALITY AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Policy N-4.9 Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. [Previous Policy N-21] [N93] Work with regulatory agencies, environmental Program N4.9.1 groups, affected businesses, and other stakeholders to Monitor and implement practices identify economically viable Best Management Practices (BMPs) for reducing water pollution. Participate in BMPs pilot studies to identify new pollution control measuresExamples include state-of-the-art best management practices (BMPs), land use planning approaches, and construction of modern stormwater .management facilities. [Previous Program N-27] [N94] Continue public education programs on water Program N4.9.2 quality issues, including Bbest Mmanagement Ppractices (BMPs) for residents, businesses, contractors, and City employees. [Previous Program N-28] [N95] Actively participate in programs such as the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program to improve the quality of stormwater runoff. [Previous Program N-29] Actively work to reduce the amount of metals contained in brake pads, tires, and other automotive parts, thereby reducing urban runoff pollution from metals. Continue Palo Alto’s leadership role in encouraging the re-engineering of vehicles to reduce pollution from metals. [Previous Program N-32] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-30 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 Study the impacts on storm water pollution of architectural copper and consider limiting its use, if warranted.[Previous Program N-33] Evaluate Implement swift and rigorous spill Program N4.9.3 response, cleanup, and follow-up investigation procedures to reduces the impacts of toxic spills on the City’s creeks and San Francisco Bay. [Previous Program N-31] [N96] Increase monitoring and enforcement of existing Program N4.9.4 prohibitions on materials and practices known to impact local water quality, such as use of copper, in the design and construction industries. [NEW PROGRAM] [N97] Policy N-4.10 Conduct regular street-sweeping to collect trash and road surface pollutants before they enter stormwater minimize road surface pollutant runoff. [Previous Program N-30] [N98] Evaluate neighborhoods where parking controls Program N4.10.1 may hinder street sweeping and recommend any changes that are needed. [NEW PROGRAM] [N99] Policy N-4.11 Promote sustainable low water and pesticide landscaping practices on both public and private property. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N100] Implement the City’s Integrated Pest Management Program N4.11.1 Policy with periodic assessments of pesticide use and use of Best Management Practices to reduce pesticide applications and toxicity, and maximize non-chemical control. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N101] Revise the City’s Tree and Landscape Technical Program N4.11.2 Manual to include stronger requirements for least- toxic practices in the landscape permitting process. [NEW PROGRAM] [N102] Promote the value of toxin-free landscape Program N4.11.3 management, and educate residents about the impacts of common fertilizers, herbicides, PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-31 insecticides, and pesticides on local water quality. [NEW PROGRAM] [N103] Policy N-4.12 Encourage Low Impact Development (LID) measures to Llimit the amount of pavement and impervious surface in new development to reduce and increase the retention, treatment and infiltration of urban stormwater runoff into storm drains, creeks and San Francisco Bay. Include LID measures in major remodels, public improvement projects and recreation projects where practical. [Previous Policy N-22] [N104] Evaluate Promote the use of permeable paving Program N4.12.1 materials or other design solutions that allow for natural percolation and site drainage through a Stormwater Rebate Program and other incentives.[Previous Program N-34] [N105] Develop and implement a green stormwater Program N4.12.2 infrastructure plan with the goal to treat and infiltrate stormwater. [NEW PROGRAM] [N106] Mitigate flooding through improved surface Program N4.12.3 permeability or paved areas, and stormwater capture and storage. [EIR Mitigation Measure] [NEW PROGRAM] [N107] Policy N-4.13 Improve storm drainage performance by constructing new system improvements where necessary and replacing undersized or otherwise inadequate lines with larger lines or parallel lines. [Previous Policy N-24] [N108] Establish a standardized process for evaluating the Program N4.13.1 impacts of development on the storm drainage system, including point source discharge, base flow and peak flow.[Previous Program N-75] [N109] Complete improvements to the storm drainage Program N4.13.2 system consistent with the priorities outlined in the City's 1993 Storm Drainage Master Plan, as amended. , provided that an appropriate funding mechanism is identified and approved by the City Council. [Previous Program N-36] [N110] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-32 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 WASTEWATER TREATMENT Policy N-4.14 Reduce the discharge of toxic materials into the City’s sanitary sewer collection system by promoting the use of Best Management Practices and reducingReduce pollutant levels in City wastewater discharges. [Previous Policy N-25] [N111] Work with commercial and industrial dischargers to Program N4.14.1 identify and implement pollution prevention measures and Best Management Practices to eliminate or reduce the discharge of metals and other pollutants of concern recover metals onsite rather than discharging them into the sanitary sewer system. [Previous Program N-35] [N112] Encourage commercial dischargers to consistently Program N4.14.2 go beyond minimum requirements of the Clean Bay Business Program. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N113] Policy N-4.15 Provide, maintain, and operate wastewater treatment facilities, including maintaining adequate capacity at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant located in Palo Alto, to accommodate projected economic and population growth. Ensure that the plant operates in compliance with applicable local, State, and fFederal clean water, clean air, and health and safety regulatory requirements. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N114] Implement approved recommendations based on Program N4.15.1 the Long-Term Facilities Plan prepared for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N115] Develop a plan to address ongoing operations of Program N4.15.2 the Regional Water Quality Control Plant taking potential sea level rise and growth in surrounding communities into account. [NEW PROGRAM] [N116] Reduce the discharge of toxic materials into the City’s sanitary sewer collection system by PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-33 promoting the use of Best Management Practices. [Previous Policy N-23] Monitor wastewater treatment industry practices relating to the use of chlorine to disinfect wastewater.[Previous Program N-37] RECYCLED WATER Policy N-4.16 Improve source control, treatment, and distribution of recycled water, including reducing the salinity of recycled water, to maximize its use. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N117] Evaluate the expansion of existing recycled water Program N4.16.1 infrastructure to serve a larger area. Develop a plan to install “purple pipe” when streets are opened for other infrastructure work. [NEW PROGRAM] [N118] Evaluate the possibility of using recycled water as Program N4.16.2 an emergency water supply. [NEW PROGRAM] [N119] Investigate ways to reuse non-traditional water Program N4.16.3 sources including recycled, gray, black. and stormwater. [NEW PROGRAM] [N120] Policy N-4.17 Promote the use of salt-tolerant native species and Rrequire large new projects to provide separate irrigation systems that can accept Implement incentives for the use of drought-tolerant landscaping and recycled water for landscape irrigation for larger developments and toilet and urinal flushing, consistent with the City’s Recycled Water Ordinance, as amended. [PTC] [Previous Program N-26] [N121] AIR QUALITY GOAL N-5 Clean, healthful air for Palo Alto and the San Francisco Bay Area. Policy N-5.1 Support regional, Sstate, and federal programs that improve air quality in the Bay Area because of its critical importance to a healthy Palo Alto. [(Previous Policy N-26) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1)] [N122] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-34 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 Provide City input on significant proposals for air Program N5.1.1 quality legislation and state implementation plans. [Previous Program N-38] [N123] Assist Support the Bay Area Air Quality Program N5.1.2 Management District (BAAQMD) in its efforts to achieve compliance with existing air quality regulations by continuing to require development applicants to comply with BAAQMD construction emissions control measures, and health risk assessment requirements. [Previous Program N-39] [N124] Implement BAAQMD recommended standards for Program N5.1.3 the design of buildings near heavily traveled roads, in order to minimize exposure to auto-related emissions. [NEW PROGRAM] [N125] Explore adopting new standards that target the Program N5.1.4 reduction of very fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which is associated with increased impacts on health. [NEW PROGRAM] [N126] Expand the use of alternative fuels for City vehicles and establish a program to encourage expanded use of such fuels in private vehicles. To support this program, encourage the development of alternative fuel infrastructure (for instance, electric plug-ins) in parking facilities and other key locations around the City [Previous Program N-40] Support legislative programs that result in the removal of the oldest and dirtiest vehicles on the roadway. [Previous Program N-41] Policy N-5.2 Support behavior changes to reduce emissions of particulates from automobiles. [(NEW POLICY)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1)] [N127] Recommend revisions to proposed projects as needed to reduce air quality impacts, including improvements that reduce single occupant vehicle use. [Previous Program N-45] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-35 Promote understanding of the impacts of extended Program N5.2.1 idling on air quality, for residents, auto-dependent businesses, and schools. [NEW PROGRAM] [N128] Consider adopting and enforcing penalties for Program N5.2.2 drivers that idle for longer than 3-5 minutes. [NEW PROGRAM] [N129] Policy N-5.3 Reduce emissions of particulates from automobiles, manufacturing, dry cleaning, construction activity, grading, wood burningstoves automobiles, landscape maintenance, including leaf blowers, and other sources. [(Previous Policy N-27) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1)] [N130] Cooperatively work with Santa Clara County and Program N5.3.1 the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to ensure that mining and industrial operations mitigate environmental and health impacts. [NEW PROGRAM] [N131] Monitor particulate emissions at local California Air Program N5.3.2 Resources Board monitoring stations and make the information easily available to citizens. [NEW PROGRAM] [N132] Promote understanding of the health impacts of Program N5.3.3 particulate emissions and provide information to residents and businesses about steps they can take to reduce particulate emissions, such as reducing or eliminating wood burning or using low emission alternatives to wood-burning stoves and fireplaces. Develop public information programs to educate the public on Best Management Practices in the use of wood burning appliances, including reduction of wood burning during critical periods of poor air quality. [Previous Program N-43] [N133] Explore feasible and cost-effective opportunities to Program N5.3.4 reduce concrete and asphalt use by the City, in parks and other public projects. [NEW PROGRAM] [N134] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-36 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 Prohibit new indoor wood-burning stoves or fireplaces, and rRequire wood-burning stoves or fireplace inserts to comply with EPA- approved standards. [Previous Program N-42] (Program complete) Develop public information programs to educate the public on Best Management Practices in the use of wood burning appliances, including reduction of wood burning during critical periods of poor air quality. [Previous Program N-44] (Program complete) Encourage developers of new projects in Palo Alto, including City projects, to provide improvements that reduce the necessity of driving alone. [Previous Policy N-28] Policy N-5.4 All potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants should be adequately buffered, or mechanically or otherwise mitigated to avoid odor and toxic impacts that violate relevant human health standards. [Previous Policy N-29] [N135] NOISE GOAL N-6 An environment that minimizes the adverse impacts of noise. INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR AMBIENT NOISE AND PROJECT DESIGN Policy N-6.1 Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the guidelines in Table N-XX to evaluate the compatibility of proposed land uses with existing noise environments when preparing, revising, or reviewing development proposals. Acceptable exterior, interior and ways to discern noise exposure include: Use the guidelines in the table “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment” to determine compatibility The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB. This level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, 60 Ldn is a guideline which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the constraints of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single- family housing developments, and recreational areas in multiple family housing PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-37 projects). Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60 dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close to the standard as feasible through project design. For Iinterior noise, per the requirements of The indoor noise level as required by the State of California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25), must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB in all habitable rooms of all new multiple family dwelling units. This indoor criteria shall also apply to new single family homes in Palo Alto. Policy N-6.2 Noise exposure(s) can be determined from (a) the noise contour map included in this plan, (b) more detailed noise exposure studies, or (c) on area-specific or project-specific noise measurements, as appropriate.based on the noise contour map included in this plan, or more detailed noise measurements, if appropriate [(Previous Policy N- 39)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a)] [N136] Policy N-6.3 Protect the overall community and especially sensitive noise receptors, including schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, and senior and child care facilities, and public conservation land from unacceptable noise levels from both existing and future noise sources, including construction noise.excessive noise [Previous Policy N-43] [N137] Continue to workworking to reduce noise impacts Program N6.3.1 created by events and activities taking place in adjoining communities adjoining Palo Alto. [Previous Program N-58] [N138] Evaluate the feasibility of adopting noise criteria in Program N6.3.2 the purchase of new City vehicles and equipment. [Previous Program N-59] [N139] Update the Noise Ordinance, as needed, to provide Program N6.3.3 for clear interpretation of the regulations, to review the appropriateness of existing standards, and to ensure that regulations address contemporary issues. [EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a] [NEW PROGRAM] [N140] Policy N-6.4 Minimize roadway noise through prudent street, flow, and right-of-way design. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N141] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-38 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 NEW PERMANENT NOISE SOURCES Policy N-6.5 Protect residential and residentially-zoned properties from excessive and unnecessary noise from any sources on adjacent commercial or industrial properties. [NEW POLICY] [N142] Policy N-6.6 Apply site planning and architectural design techniques that reduce overall noise pollution and reduce noise impacts on proposed and existing projects withinEvaluate the potential for noise pollution and ways to reduce noise impacts when reviewing development and activities in Palo Alto and surrounding communities. [Previous Policy N-40] [N143] Policy N-6.7 WhenWhile a proposed project is subject to CEQAin the development review process, the noise impact of the project on existing residential land uses, public open spaces, and public conservation land should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels and potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. If an area is below the applicable maximum noise guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed. A project should be considered to cause a significant degradation of the noise environment if it meets any of the following criteria: The project would cause the average 24 -hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5. 0 dB or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB; The project would cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB;The project would cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB; [Previous Policy N-41] [N144] Update noise impact review procedures to address Program N6.7.1 appropriate requirements for analysis and thresholds for impacts on residential land uses and publicly-owned conservation land. [NEW PROGRAM] [N145] Policy N-6.8 The City may require proposals measures to reduce noise impacts of new development on adjacent properties through appropriate means including, but not limited to, the following: PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-39 Orient buildings to shield noise sensitive outdoor spaces from sources of noise. Construct noise walls when other methods to reduce noise are not practical and when these walls will not shift similar noise impacts to another adjacent property.when compatible with aesthetic concerns. Screen and control noise sources such as parking lots, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment, including HVAC equipment. Increase setbacks to serve as a buffer betweenfor noise sources from and adjacent dwellings. Whenever possible, retain fences, walls or landscaping that serve as noise buffers while considering although design, safety and other impacts must be addressed. Use soundproofing materials, noise reduction construction techniques, and/or acoustically rated windows/doorsand double- glazed windows. Include auxiliary power sources at loading docks to minimize truck engine idling. Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts. [Previous Policy N-42] [N146] Policy N-6.9 Continue to require applicants for new projects or new mechanical equipment in the Multifamily, Commercial, Manufacturing, or Planned Community districts to submit an acoustical analysis demonstrating compliance with the Noise Ordinance prior to receiving a building permit. [(NEW POLICY) (Comp Plan EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a)] [N147] Policy N-6.10 Continue to regulate noise from leaf blowers and residential power equipment. [NEW POLICY] [N148] Update Evaluate changes to the Noise Ordinance to Program N6.10.1 provide for clear interpretation of the regulations, and to review the appropriateness of existing standards further reduce the impacts of noise from leaf blowers and residential power equipment. Strictly enforce the Noise Ordinance. [Previous Program N-60] [N149] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-40 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 Evaluate changes to the Noise Ordinance to reduce the impact of leaf blower noise. [Previous Program N-61] (Program Complete) CONSTRUCTION NOISE Policy N-6.11 Continue to prioritize construction noise limits around sensitive receptors, including through limiting construction hours and individual and cumulative noise from construction equipment. [(NEW POLICY)(PTC)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-8)] [N150] For larger development projects that demand Program N6.11.1 intensive construction periods and/or use equipment that could create vibration impacts, such as the Stanford University Medical Center or major grade separation projects, require formal, ongoing monitoring and reporting of noise levels throughout the entire construction process. The monitoring plan should identify hours of operation and could include information on the monitoring locations, durations and regularity, the instrumentation to be used, and appropriate noise control measures to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. [(NEW PROGRAM)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-8)] [N151] AIRPORTS AND AIRCRAFT Policy N-6.12 Ensure compliance with the airport related land use compatibility standards for community noise environments, shown in Table N-XX, by prohibiting incompatible land use development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of the Palo Alto airport. [NEW POLICY] [N152] [EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1b] Continue working to reduce noise associated with Program N6.12.1 operations of the Palo Alto Airport. Ensure compliance with the land use compatibility standards for community noise environments, shown in Table N-XX, by prohibiting incompatible land use development within the 60 dBA CNEL PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-41 noise contours of the airport. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N153] Participate in appropriate public forums to ensure Program N6.12.2 that future activities at large commercial airports in the region do not negatively affect noise levels in Palo Alto. [Previous Program N-56] [N154] RAIL Policy N-6.13 Minimize noise spillover from rail related activities into adjacent residential or noise-sensitive areas. [NEW POLICY] [N155] Encourage the Peninsula Corridors Joint Powers Program N6.13.1 Board to pursue technologies and grade separations that would reduce or eliminate the need for train horns/whistles in communities served by Caltrain rail service. [Previous Program N- 57] [N156] Evaluate changing at-grade rail crossings so that Program N6.13.2 they qualify as Quiet Zones based on Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rules and guidelines in order to mitigate the effects of train horn noise without adversely affecting safety at railroad crossings. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N157] Participate in future environmental review of the Program N6.13.3 California High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project, planned to utilize existing Caltrain track through Palo Alto, to ensure that it adheres to noise and vibration mitigation measures. [NEW PROGRAM] [N158] Policy N-6.14 Reduce impacts from noise and ground borne vibrations associated with rail operations by requiring that future habitable buildings use necessary design elements such as setbacks, landscaped berms and soundwalls to keep interior noise levels below 45 dBA Ldn and ground-borne vibration levels below 72 VdB. [NEW POLICY] [N159] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-42 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 ENERGY GOAL N-7 A clean, efficient, competitively-priced energy supply that makes use of cost-effective renewable resources. Policy N-7.1 Continue to procure carbon neutral energy for both long-term and short-term energy supplies, including renewable and hydroelectric resources, while investing in cost-effective energy efficiency and energy conservation programs. Maintain Palo Alto’s long-term supply of electricity and natural gas while addressing environmental and economic concerns. [(Previous Policy N-44)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17)] [N160] Meet customer electricity needs with least total cost Program N7.1.1 resources after careful assessment of environmental cost and benefits. [NEW PROGRAM] [N161] Policy N-7.2 Advance the development of a “smart” energy grid, a diverse energy resource portfolio, and technologically advanced public utilities as a key part of a smart and connected city. (S/CAP Strategy) [NEW POLICY] [N162] Promote the adoption of cost-effective, renewable Program N7.2.1 energy technologies from diverse renewable fuel sources by all customers. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N163] Monitor other utilities that successfully use alternative energy sources and seek funding for similar projects that would be appropriate in Palo Alto. [Previous Program N-68] Assess the feasibility of using life cycle analysis and Program N7.2.2 total cost of ownership analysis for public and private projects in order to minimize the consumption of energy, the production of greenhouse gases, and costs over the life of the project. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N164] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-43 Continually evaluate and revise forecasts for electric power demand. Pursue adequate low cost supplies to meet this demand by participating in cost-effective programs offered by Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) or other suppliers and marketers of energy. [Previous Policy N-45] [N170] Policy N-7.3 Retain the ability to purchase supplemental gas and electric power from other potential providers to remain competitive in the marketplace.Prioritize the identification and implementation of cost- effective, reliable and feasible energy efficiency and demand reduction opportunities. [Previous Policy N 46] [N165] Policy N-7.4 Optimize energyMaximize the conservation and efficiency efficient use of energy in new and existing residences, businesses, and industriesand other buildings in Palo Alto. [(Previous Policy N-47) (PTC Edits)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17)] [N166] IncorporateContinue timely incorporation of sState Program N7.4.1 and federal energy efficiency standards and policies in relevant City codes, regulations, and procedures, and higher local efficiency standards that are cost- effective. [(Previous Program N-66) (PTC Edits) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17)] [N167] Implement cost effective energy efficiency Program N7.4.2 programs for all customers, including low income customers. [NEW PROGRAM] (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17) [N168] Incorporate cost-effective energy conservation Program N7.4.3 measures into construction, maintenance, and City operation and procurement practices.[(Previous Program N-65) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17)] [N169] Implement gas and electric rates structures that Program N7.4.4 encourage efficient use of resources energy conservation and while meeting State law requirements that rates be based on the cost of service. are in balance with other rate-making objectives, such as providing competitive rates. Set PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-44 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 rates to achieve a balance between actual service costs, market prices, and the goal of promoting conservation and efficient use. Continue to provide a baseline service rate. [Previous Program N-62] [N170] Encourage continuation of Continue to provide Program N7.4.5 public education programs addressing energy conservation and efficiency. [(Previous Program N- 64)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL- 17)] [N171] Policy N-7.5 Encourage energy efficient lighting that protects dark skies and promotes energy conservation by minimizing light and glare from development while ensuring public health and safety. [NEW POLICY] [N172] Monitor professional and medically-sound research Program N7.5.1 and studies on light-emitting diodes (LEDs). [NEW PROGRAM] [N52] [N173] Policy N-7.6 Support the maximum economic use of solar electric (photovoltaic) and solar thermal energy, both as renewable supply resources for the Electric Utility Portfolio and as alternative forms of local power generation. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N174] Explore changes to building and zoning codes to Program N7.6.1 incorporate solar energy, energy storage, and other energy efficiency measures into major development projects, including City owned projects. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N175] Promote use of the top floors of new and existing Program N7.6.2 structured automobile garages for installation of photovoltaic panels and green roofs. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N176] Promote solar energy in individual private projects. Program N7.6.3 [NEW PROGRAM] [N177] Implement energy efficiency programs.[Previous Program N-63] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-45 Policy N-7.7 Explore a variety of cost-effective ways to reduce natural gas usage in existing and new buildings in Palo Alto in order to reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions. (S/CAP Strategy NG-GAS-1) [NEW POLICY] [N178] Evaluate the potential for a cost-effective plan for Program N7.7.1 transitioning to a completely carbon-neutral natural gas supply. [(NEW PROGRAM)(PTC)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIl-17)] [N179] Explore the transition of existing buildings from gas Program N7.7.2 to electric or solar water and space heating. [NEW PROGRAM] [N180] Policy N-7.8 Support opportunities to maximize energy recovery from organic materials such as food scraps, yard trimmings and residual solids from sewage treatment. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N181] Evaluate energy efficient approaches for the Program N7.8.1 treatment and reuse of organic waste that maximize resource recovery and reduce greenhouse gas generation at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant located in Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Landfill. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N182] Encourage the appropriate use of alternative energy technologies. [Previous Policy N-48] Provide information and advice on the use of alternative energy technologies, including the relative costs and benefits of different types of fuel, to all customers. [Previous Program N-67] CLIMATE CHANGE AND CLIMATE ADAPTATION GOAL N-8 Actively support regional efforts to reduce our contribution to climate change while adapting to the effects of climate change on land uses and city services. Policy N-8.1 Take action to achieve target reductions in greenhouse gas emission levels from City operations and the community activity of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. (S/CAP Strategy) [NEW POLICY] [N183] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-46 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 Participate in cooperative planning with regional Program N8.1.1 and local public agencies, including on the Sustainable Communities Strategy, on issues related to climate change, such as greenhouse gas reduction, water supply reliability, sea level rise, fire protection services, emergency medical services, and emergency response planning. [(NEW PROGRAM)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure GHG-3)] [N184] Pursue or exceed State goals of achieving zero net Program N8.1.2 carbon for residential buildings by 2020 and commercial buildings by 2030, without compromising the urban forest. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N185] Policy N-8.2 With guidance from the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) and its subsequent updates and other future planning efforts, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from City operations and from the community. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N186] Periodically update the Sustainability and Climate Program N8.2.1 Action Plan (S/CAP) consistent with the update schedule in the approved S/CAP; this update shall include an updated greenhouse gas inventory and updated short, medium, and long-term emissions reduction goals. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N187] Policy N-8.3 Prioritize infrastructure improvements that address adaptation of critical facilities to climate change in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) five-year plan. (S/CAP Strategy) [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N188] Protect the Municipal Services Center, Utility Program N8.3.1 Control Center, and Regional Water Quality Control Plant from the impacts of sea level rise. (S/CAP Strategy) [NEW POLICY] [N189] Policy N-8.4 Continue to work with regional partners to build resiliency policy into City planning and capital projects, especially near the San Francisco Bay shoreline, while protecting the natural environment. (S/CAP Strategy) [NEW POLICY] [N190] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-47 Prepare response strategies that address sea level Program N8.4.1 rise, increased flooding, landslides, soil erosion, storm events and other events related to climate change. Include strategies to respond to the impacts of sea level rise on Palo Alto’s levee system. (EIR Mitigation Measure GHG-3) [NEW PROGRAM] [N191] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-48 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 SAFETY SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-1 5 This preliminary draft element was prepared by City staff on the basis of input from the CAC and members of the public received from August 2016 through December 2016. The Element was reviewed by the full CAC in December, 2016 and presented as a draft to Palo Alto City Council on May 15, 2017. INTRODUCTION The Safety Element satisfies the State-mandated requirement for a Safety Element. It addresses larger safety topics that are relevant to all cities, such as community safety and emergency management, and also focuses on a series of hazards, both natural and human-caused, that are important to Palo Alto. The Element addresses the potential risks to residents of and property in Palo Alto from the threat of earthquakes and other geological hazards, floods, and fires, as well as risks associated with hazardous materials and excess solid waste. Just as vital, it establishes a plan for a robust security infrastructure. The text is organized in to three topics, each with a corresponding goal, policies, and programs: Community Safety Natural Hazards Human-Caused Threats VISION: The City of Palo Alto is committed to the day-today safety of its entire residential, business and visitor community. The City will remain aware of all potential risks, fully prepared for emergencies, and will support public awareness, preparation and response. The following policy framework reflects Palo Alto’s longstanding belief that city safety begins internally, with education, awareness and action at the neighborhood level. Such prepared communities strengthen the City’s ability to be vigilant to both natural and human-caused hazards, and ultimately to minimize the impacts of these hazards. Community safety demands balancing a complex series of factors, and Palo Alto will continually develop best practices, coordinate with other organizations, and adopt technological innovations in order to achieve this balance. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-2 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 COMMUNITY SAFETY The potential of different types of hazards in Palo Alto varies greatly. Given this unpredictability, a safe City begins with a solid network of safety-related support, procedures and preparation at the community level. The goal of these policies and programs is to broaden public education and awareness of safe behaviors, and to promote implementation of community safety measures. The policy framework also reflects Palo Alto’s belief that safety can be built into the physical, behavioral and organization fabric of the community, including individual neighborhoods, the urban center and rural areas. In addition to preparation, community safety is defined by effective emergency management practices, adoption of effective regulation and application of innovative technologies by all safety-related City departments. Map S-1 shows the locations of fire and police stations within the city. NATURAL HAZARDS As is the case in every community, residents of Palo Alto are subject to a series of largely unpredictable, but rarely occurring, natural hazards. The very factors that make the City so desirable—its Bayfront position, foothills topography with beautiful creeks, and location at the center of globally significant but geologically active Bay Area—are directly associated with some of these natural risks. The goal of the Natural Hazards policy framework is to establish general safety measures, including adoption of a certified Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and then to minimize the potential for injury, loss of life and property damage resulting from individual hazards. These hazards include seismic events, as shown in Maps S-2, S-3 and S-4; flood events, as shown in Map S-5; and sea level rise, as shown in Map S-6. In the unlikely of event of dam failure, some areas of the City may be subject to inundation; these areas are shown in Map S-7. Finally, wildfire hazards zones are shown in Map S-8. As is evident throughout the Safety Element, policies are based on the City’s belief that risk reduction is best achieved through planning, regulation, technology and education. HUMAN-CAUSED THREATS Just as Palo Alto—a world-class City in a prime location—is subject to natural hazards, the diversity of people, culture, and economic drivers that define Palo Alto comes with its own risks. Like natural hazards, these threats are complex and many result from activities that contribute positively to the Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; PlaceWorks, 2016 ! ! #*#* #* #* #* #* $+ $+^_ FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SEA L E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y PASTEU R D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos Mountain View SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 East Palo Alto Fire Administration Palo Alto Police Station Stanford Police StationFire Station 6 Fire Station 2 Fire Station 1 Fire Station 3 Fire Station 4 Fire Station 5 0 0.5 10.25 Miles ^_Future Public Safety Building #*Fire Stations $+Police Stations !Caltrain Stations Park Railroads Highways Sphere of Influence City Boundary P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 1 F I R E A N D P O L I C E S T A T I O N S #* P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N S A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S - 2 E A R T H Q U A K E S A N D F A U L T S Source: US Geological Survey, 2004; Earthquakes and Faults in the San Francisco Bay Area (1970-2003); Scientific Investigations Map 2848. PALO ALTO Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; US Geological Survey Open File Report 06-1037, 2006; PlaceWorks, 2016. ! ! # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## ## # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SAN A N T O N I O R D EL C A M I N O R E A L LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y CALI F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E RedwoodCity Atherton Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos MountainView SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 EastPalo Alto Stanford University SunnyvalePortolaValley Woodside 0 1 20.5 Miles Liquefaction Susceptibility Level Very High High Moderate Low Very Low Not Mapped Water #Critical Facilities !Caltrain Stations Park/Open Space Railroads Highways Sphere of Influence City Boundary P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 3 L I Q U E F A C T I O N R I S K Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; US Geological Survey Open File Report 06-1037, 2006; PlaceWorks, 2016. # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## ## # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SAN A N T O N I O R D EL C A M I N O R E A L LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y CALI F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E RedwoodCity Atherton Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos MountainView SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 EastPalo Alto Stanford University SunnyvalePortolaValley Woodside 0 1 20.5 Miles Expansive Soil High potential for earthquake-induced landslides High potential for liquefaction High potential for surface rupture along fault #Critical Facilities !Caltrain Stations Sphere of Influence City Boundary Railroads Highways Park/Open Space P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 4 G E O T E C H N I C A L H A Z A R D S traces and potential for eqrthquake-induced landsllides where sloped Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; FEMA, 2015; PlaceWorks, 2016 # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAN D H I L L R D AL M A S T SEA L E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y PASTEU R DR CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos Mountain View SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 East Palo Alto Fire Station 1 0 0.5 10.25 Miles #Critical Facilities Railroads Highways Sphere of Influence City Boundary Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zones A: subject to 100-year flood; no base flood depth determined AE: subject to 100-year flood; base flood depth has been determined AH: subject to shallow flooding; base flood depth has been determined AO: subject to sheet flow, ponding, or shallow flooding; base flood depth has been determined P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 5 1 0 0 - Y E A R F L O O D Z O N E S ( S P E C I A L F L O O D H A Z A R D A R E A S ) No te: The Federal Emerg ency Manag ement Ag ency (FEMA) administers the Natio nal Flo o d Insu rance Pro g ram (NFIP) to make flo o d insu rance available to residents and bu sinesses. FEMA’s Flo o d Insu rance Rate Map (FIRM) identifies tho se p ro p erties that are within the Sp ecial Flo o d Hazard Area (SFHA). Pro p erties in the SFHA are p ro jected to be su bject to flo o ding in the event o f the 1% (100-year) flo o d event and are su bject to the City’s Flo o d Hazard Reg u latio ns (Palo Alto Mu nicip al Co de Chap ter 16.52). SFHAs in Palo Alto are categ o rized into fo u r Zo nes. Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Service Center, 2012; PlaceWorks, 2016. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SEAL E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y PASTEU R D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LI N C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Los Altos MountainView SAN FRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 EastPalo Alto 0 0.5 10.25 Miles #Critical Facilities Railroads Highways Sphere of Influence City Boundary Area vulnerable to an approximate 24-inch sea level rise Area vulnerable to an approximate 55-inch sea level rise P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 6 S E A L E V E L R I S E Note: Data on sea level rise is evolving. The October 2011 Bay Plan amendments revised the 2100 sea level rise projection from 55 inches to up to 69 inches. However, BCDC uses the 55-inch scenario in the Bay Plan when assessing long- term impacts. Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; State of California Emergency Management Agency, 2007; PlaceWorks, 2016 FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SEA L E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y PASTEU R D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos Mountain View SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 East Palo Alto Fire Station 1 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Felt Lake Lagunita Reservoir Searsville Reservoir Railroads Sphere of Influence City Boundary P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 7 D A M I N U N D A T I O N Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; CAL FIRE, 2007, 2008; PlaceWorks 2016 # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## ## # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SAN A N T O N I O R D EL C A M I N O R E A L LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y CALI F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E East Palo Alto Menlo Park Menlo Park Menlo Park Menlo Park Atherton Stanford University Mountain View §¨¦280 |ÿ82 Los Altos Los Altos Hills Sunnyvale £¤101 Portola Valley 0 1 20.5 Miles #Critical Facilities Highways Railroads Sphere of Influence City Boundary Local Responsibility Area (Palo Alto) Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone State Responsibility Areas Moderate High Very High P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 8 W I L D F I R E H A Z A R D Z O N E S !( kj #* kj kj kj #* #* kj kj #* !(kj kj !(kj #* !( kj kj !( !(!( !( #*!(kj #* #* !(kj !( !( !( !( !( kj kj !(#* !( #* kj !(kj #* #* kj !( !( !(!( !( #* kj!( !( #*!( #* kj!(kj!( #*kj #*!( kj (! !( !( !( (! !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( (! !( !( !( !( !( !( !( (! !( !( (! !(!( !( !( !( !( (! !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( (! (!!( (! !( (! !( (! !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( (! (! !( !( !(!( !(!( !( (! !( !(!( !( (!!( !( (! !( (! (!!( !( !( !(!( (! !( !( !( !( !((! (! (! !( (!(! (! !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( (! (! !( (! !( (! !( (! (! (!(! (! (! !( (! !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( (! !(!(!(!(!(!(!( (! !( (! (! !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !((! !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( (! !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( (! !( !( !( !( !( !( (! !( !(!( !( !( !( !( (! (!!( !( !( !( !( !( (! !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( (! !( !( !( !( FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SEAL E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y PASTEU R D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y East Palo Alto Menlo Park Stanford University Mountain View Los Altos Los Altos Hills Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; Department of Toxic Substance Control, 2014; US EPA, 2014; PlaceWorks 2016 0 0.5 10.25 Miles SWQCB Geotracker Sites !(Permitted Underground Storage Tank Sites !(Ongoing Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites !(Closed Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites (!Ongoing Cleanup Program Sites (!Closed Cleanup Program Sites DTSC Cleanup Program Sites !(Cleanup Sites #*Tiered Permit Sites kj Hazardous Waste Facilities Hazardous Waste Generators Small Quantity Generators Large Quantity Generators Railroads Sphere of Influence City Limit P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 9 H A Z A R D O U S M A T E R I A L S S I T E S PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-12 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 City. These include world class research, technological innovation and public transit. The following policy framework strives to provide an environment free of the damaging effects of toxic and hazardous materials, locations of which have been identified and are shown on Map S-9. It strives for 95% landfill diversion and future zero solid waste production, and commits to a state-of-the-art cybersecurity infrastructure that is based on a comprehensive review of existing gaps and redundancies. GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS COMMUNITY SAFETY GOAL S‐1 A safe community that is aware of risks and prepared for emergencies. PUBLIC AWARENESS Policy S-1.1 Facilitate ongoing public education and awareness to prevent loss of life and property from impacts of natural and human-made disasters and to facilitate recovery when disasters occur. [NEW POLICY] [S1] Program S1.1.1 Expand public education programs that help and encourage each household in the City to be prepared to be self-sufficient, with enough stored water and food to support the entire household, forat least one week after a major earthquake, flood, terrorism event, pandemic or other major disaster. Also encourage businesses and other organizations to prepare for self- sufficiency.[Previous Program N-82] [S2] Program S1.1.2 Continue to implement and fund the Emergency Services Volunteer program. [NEW PROGRAM] [S3] Program S1.1.3 Conduct emergency hazard drills with key stakeholder organizations across the community to improve preparedness for known threats and hazards. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S4] Program S1.1.4 Support an annual community public safety fair to educate and engage the public on preparedness PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-13 and offer the opportunity to buy emergency disaster supplies for home and vehicle. [NEW PROGRAM] [S5] Program S1.1.5 Encourage local businesses to have disaster preparedness, communication, mitigation and recovery plans in place. [NEW PROGRAM] [S6] COMMUNITY SAFETY Policy S-1.2 Support the Palo Alto Police Department and Office of Emergency Services efforts in public safety education and community outreach. Use education and crime prevention as integral parts of the practice of law enforcement. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S7] Program S1.2.1 Develop accessible, attractive marketing materials to promote involvement in community crime safety programs. [NEW PROGRAM] [S8] Policy S-1.3 Deter criminal behavior in Palo Alto through a multidisciplinary approach that includes a safe built environment, effective social services, functional administrative processes and Police Department review of site plans for major development proposals. [NEW POLICY] [S9] Program S1.3.1 Explore the use of urban design principles to increase safety and prevent crime in Palo Alto. [NEW PROGRAM] [S10] Program S1.3.2 Support programs such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Good Neighbor Next Door, which incentivizes home purchase for first responders with discounts. [NEW PROGRAM] [S11] Policy S-1.4 Support the use of digital data, analytics and metrics that are available to local police departments and first responders. [NEW PROGRAM] [S12] Program S1.4.1 Make data available to maintain an accurate, up to date, and complete real-time local crime mapping PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-14 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 function to promote neighborhood safety. [NEW PROGRAM] [S13] Policy S-1.5 Encourage the development of community-based law enforcement and community safety strategies, including partnerships with school districts, private schools, businesses, transit agencies, nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations, and community groups such as Emergency Services Volunteers. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S14] Program S1.5.1 Promote neighborhood security by providing crime prevention information and training to residents, and continuing to fund resident involvement in neighborhood safety programs such as “Know Your Neighbor” grants and Block Preparedness Coordinators. [NEW PROGRAM] [S15] Program S1.5.2 Collaborate with the Palo Alto Unified School District, other school districts in the City, private schools, businesses, non-profits, and local faith- based organizations to provide community safety education. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S16] Program S1.5.3 Encourage the Palo Alto Unified School District to develop secure school facilities and collaborate with public safety departments on disaster preparedness activities; emergency disaster planning, exercises and drills; and disaster recovery. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S17] Program S1.5.4 Continue to support and encourage participation in Police Department programs to introduce youth to the importance and benefits of local law enforcement. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S18] Policy S-1.6 Work with the Police Department to develop effective, transparent law enforcement strategies that protect the privacy and civil liberties of the public and results in a safe community for all people. [NEW POLICY] [S19] Program S1.6.1 Enhance public safety department training for evolving challenges, such as small- to large-scale human threats, interacting with individuals with PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-15 mental illness, and non-lethal alternatives. [NEW PROGRAM] [S20] Program S1.6.2 Support the Palo Alto Police Department in implementing and maintaining approved technologies for data gathering, surveillance, and recording interactions with the public. Incorporate best practices in use policies with special consideration in ensuring the programs protect the public’s privacy rights and civil liberties, in accordance with current legislation. Ensure transparency by communicating new equipment implementation, usage, privacy considerations, and retention of data. [NEW PROGRAM] [S21] Program S1.6.3 Communicate transparently with the community regarding adoption of new Palo Alto Police Department equipment and/or tactics while balancing the need for operational security. [NEW PROGRAM] [S22] Policy S-1.7 Regularly review the adequacy of law enforcement services and emergency services in the City. Plan and develop law enforcement infrastructure and technology according to overall need and City growth. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S23] Program S1.7.1 Regularly monitor and review the level of public safety staffing and satellite public safety station locations required for efficient local service delivery. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S24] Program S1.7.2 Design the new Public Safety building to meet the needs of the public safety departments and be resilient against known threats and hazards. This includes remaining fully operational after a catastrophic (7.9 magnitude) earthquake, other natural disasters, moderate terrorist attack or crisis. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S25] Program S1.7.3 Provide community notifications in the event of emergency using the best available methods and explore new technologies for emergency public PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-16 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 information and warnings. [PTC] [Previous Program G-10] [S26] Policy S-1.8 Monitor federal and State terrorism response planning to ensure that Palo Alto coordinates with relevant agencies and is well-prepared in the event of a terrorist act. [NEW POLICY] [S27] Program S1.8.1 Update Palo Alto’s 2001 Terrorism Response Plan. [NEW PROGRAM] [S28] Policy S-1.9 Design Palo Alto’s infrastructure system to protect the life and safety of residents, ensure resiliency in the face of disaster, and minimize economic loss. [NEW POLICY] [S29] EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Policy S-1.10 Follow the guidelines in the Emergency Operations Plan and continue towards implementing the four phases of Emergency Management: mitigation/prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S30] Program S1.10.1 Regularly update and make publicly available the City of Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S31] ] Program S1.10.2 Participate in local and regional planning efforts to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies. [Previous Program N-81] [S32] Program S1.10.3 Implement the mitigation strategies and guidelines provided by the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, including evolving hazards resulting from climate change. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S33] Policy S-1.11 Ensure continuity of critical City operations, including utilities, public safety, information technology, and others, after natural, technological, or human caused disasters. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S34] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-17 Policy S-1.12 Work with other government agencies, neighboring cities, local institutions, non-profit organizations, and private corporations with established emergency response functions to enhance the City’s overall emergency response capabilities. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S35] Program S1.12.1 Encourage multiagency coordination in case of incidents that cross disciplinary or jurisdictional boundaries or coordination that involves complex incident management scenarios. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S36] Program S1.12.2 Explore the establishment of mutually-beneficial cooperative agreements between Palo Alto’s public safety departments and those of neighboring cities. [NEW PROGRAM] [S37] 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. [NEW POLICY] [S38] Program S1.13.1 Identify solutions to add an additional power line to Palo Alto to ensure redundancy. [NEW PROGRAM] [S39] 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. [NEW PROGRAM] [S40] 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. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S41] 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 PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-18 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 City-owned natural gas distribution pipelines. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S42] Program S1.13.5 Provide off-grid and/or backup power sources for critical City facilities to ensure uninterrupted power during emergencies and disasters. [NEW PROGRAM] [S43] 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 (LHMAP), as periodically adopted by the City Council and certified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, into the Safety Element. The LHMAP describes the type, location, and extent of natural hazards that can affect the City; describes the City’s vulnerability to these hazards; and includes a mitigation strategy for reducing the potential losses. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the Safety Element, the provisions of the LHMAP shall control. [NEW POLICY] [S44] 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. [Previous Policy N-49] [S45] Policy S-2.3 Implement public safety improvements, such as access roads and other infrastructure, in a manner that is sensitive to the environment. [Previous Policy N-50] [S46] EARTHQUAKES AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Policy S-2.4 Expand citizen awareness of seismic and geologic hazards through public education and preparedness. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S47] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-19 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. [Previous Policy N-51] [S48] Program S2.5.1 Periodically review and update the City’s Seismic Hazard Ordinance. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S49] 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. [Previous Program N-70] [S50] 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. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S51] Program S2.6.1 Encourage efforts by individual neighborhood or block-level groups to pool resources for seismic retrofits. [NEW PROGRAM] [S52] Program S2.6.2 Continue to use a TDR Ordinance for seismic retrofits to allow the transfer of development rights from eligible structures in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone to receiver sites in the CD zone. Revise the TDR Ordinance so that transferred development rights may be used only for residential development on the receiver sites. [(NEW PROGRAM) (Moved from Land Use Element May 1 Draft)] [S53] Program S2.6.3 Study the possibility of revising the transfer of development rights program to encourage seismic retrofits to include sunset dates by which transfer obligations must be fulfilled. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S54] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-20 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Program S2.6.4 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. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S55] Policy S-2.7 Encourage property owners, business owners and the Palo Alto Unified School District to evaluate their vulnerability to earthquake hazards and take appropriate action to minimize their risk. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S56] 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, structures that would affect the most people in a seismic event require submittal to the City of a geotech- nical/seismic report that identifies specific risks and appropriate mitigation measures. [Previous Program N-73] [S57] 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. [Previous Program N-74] [S58] 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. [NEW PROGRAM] [S59] 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. [Previous Policy N-52] [S60] Program S2.8.1 Implement flood mitigation requirements of FEMA in Special Flood Hazard Areas as illustrated on the PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-21 Flood Insurance Rate Maps. [Previous Program N-76] [S61] 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. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S62] Program S2.8.3 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. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S63] Program S2.8.4 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. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S64] Program S2.8.5 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. [NEW PROGRAM] [S65] Policy S-2.9 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. [NEW POLICY] [S66] Program S2.9.1 Keep basement restrictions up to date with changing flood hazard zones. [NEW PROGRAM] [S67] Policy S-2.10 Monitor and respond to the risk of flooding caused by climate change- related changes to precipitation patterns, groundwater levels, sea level rise, tides, and storm surges. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S68] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-22 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Program S2.10.1 Review development standards applicable in areas susceptible to flooding from sea level rise, including east of Highway 101, West Bayshore and East Meadow Circle, and the area east of San Antonio Road and north of East Charleston, and implement shoreline development regulations to ensure that new development is protected from potential impacts of flooding resulting from sea level rise and significant storm events. Regulations should be consistent with the Baylands Master Plan, as amended, and may include new shoreline setback requirements, limits on lot line adjustments to avoid the creation of vulnerable shoreline lots, and/or triggers for relocation or removal of existing structures based on changing site conditions and other factors. [NEW PROGRAM] (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure GHG-3) (Moved from Land Use Element May 1 Draft Program [L6]) [S69] Program S2.10.2 Study appropriate restrictions on underground construction in areas outside of flood zones, as shown on Map S-5, to accommodate expected higher groundwater levels due to sea level rise and minimize consequent flooding of underground construction. [NEW PROGRAM] [S68] Policy S-2.11 Support regional efforts to improve bay levees. [NEW POLICY] [S70] Program S2.11.1 Work cooperatively with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to provide flood protection from high tide events on San Francisco Bay, taking into account the impacts of future sea level rise, to provide one percent (100-year) flood protection from tidal flooding, while being sensitive to preserving and protecting the natural environment. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S71] Program S2.11.2 Work with regional, State, and federal agencies to develop additional adaptive strategies to address flood hazards to existing or new development and PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-23 infrastructure, including environmentally sensitive levees. [NEW PROGRAM] [S72] FIRE PROTECTION AND AWARENESS Policy S-2.12 Minimize exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards through rapid emergency response, proactive code enforcement, public education programs, use of modern fire prevention measures, and adequate emergency management preparation. [Previous Policy N-53] [S73] Program S2.12.1 Regularly review and update the Fire Department’s operations, training facilities, and programs to ensure consistency with current standards and Best Management Practices. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S74] Program S2.12.2 Explore technological tools, such as cameras or remote sensors, to identify smoke or fires and initiate response as quickly as possible. [NEW PROGRAM] [S75] Policy S-2.13 Require that the planning and design of development in areas exposed to wildland fire hazards minimize the risks of wildfire and include adequate provisions for vegetation management, emergency access, and firefighting. [NEW POLICY required by SB 1241] [S76] Program S2.13.1 Regularly review and fund updates to the Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan to ensure consistency with current standards and Best Management Practices. [Previous Program N-77] [S77] Program S2.13.2 Implement the Foothills Fire Management Plan to balance conservation of natural resources with reduction of fire hazards especially in open space areas. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S78] Program S2.13.3 Minimize fire hazards by maintaining low density zoning in wildland fire hazard areas. [Previous Program N-79] [S79] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-24 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Program S2.13.4 Work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and agencies to reduce wildfire hazards in and around Palo Alto, with an emphasis on effective vegetation management and mutual aid agreements. [NEW PROGRAM] [S80] Program S2.13.5 Consider implementation of CAL FIRE recommended programs in educating and involving the local community to diminish potential loss caused by wildfire and identify prevention measures to reduce those risks. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S81] Policy S-2.14 Provide emergency fire and medical services consistent with the response time standards set forth in the Fire Department’s annual budget. [Previous Policy N-54] [S82] Program S2.14.1 Evaluate measures for optimal service delivery to improve efficiency; develop automatic or mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions, including Stanford, to improve efficiencies. [Previous Program N-80] [S83] Program S2.14.2 Upgrade fire stations so that all remain fully functional following earthquakes. [NEW PROGRAM] [S84] Program S2.14.3 Review existing costs and contracts to develop a plan for the long term funding of the fire department and appropriate staffing levels at all stations. [NEW PROGRAM] [S85] Policy S-2.15 Expand Palo Alto Fire Department’s efforts in public education and community outreach to prevent injury, loss of life, and damage to property from accidental fires. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S86] Program S2.15.1 Provide public education on fire safety, including wildland and structural fire prevention, evacuation routes and guidelines for clearance of landscaping and other hazards around structures. [Previous Program N-78] [S87] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-25 Policy S-2.16 Monitor and respond to the risk of wild land fire hazards caused by climate change. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S88] HUMAN-CAUSED THREATS GOAL S‐3 An environment free of the damaging effects of human- caused threats and hazardous materials. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Policy S-3.1 Minimize the use of toxic and hazardous materials in Palo Alto. Promote the use of alternative materials and practices that are environmentally benign. [Previous Policy N-30] [S89] Program S3.1.1 Continue City permitting procedures for commercial and industrial storage, use, and handling of hazardous materials and regulate the commercial use of hazardous materials that may present a risk of off-site health or safety effects. [Previous Program N-47] [S90] Program S3.1.2 Minimize the risks of biohazards in Palo Alto, including Level 4 biohazards, by continuing to review and update, as necessary, local regulations regarding use, handling and disposal. [NEW PROGRAM] [S91] Program S3.1.3 Strengthen development review requirements and construction standards for projects on sites with groundwater contamination. [NEW PROGRAM] [S92] Program S3.1.4 Establish protocols to monitor the movement of hazardous materials on Palo Alto roadways and rail lines and respond effectively to spills via established truck and construction routes. [NEW PROGRAM] [S93] Program S3.1.5 Work with non-profit organizations to provide information to the public regarding pesticides, insecticidesand other commonly used hazardous materials, environmentallypreferable alternatives, PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-26 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 and safe recycling and disposal practices to all user groups. [Previous Program N-46] [S94] Program S3.1.6 Continue providing regular household hazardous waste collection events at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant and strive to make these programs more convenient and accessible to residents. [Previous Program N-48] [S95] Program S3.1.7 Continue to allow small quantity generators to dispose of hazardous waste at cost. [Previous Program N-50] [S96] Program S3.1.8 Continue to educate residents on the proper disposal of pharmaceutical and household hazardous waste. Encourage proper disposal of medications through pharmacies or drug take-back programs rather than flushing. [NEW PROGRAM] [S97] Policy S-3.2 Continue working with appropriate agencies to clean up hazardous waste sites and contaminated groundwater. [Previous Policy N-31] [S98] Policy S-3.3 Support public health by requiring as part of development review, property owners and private entities to disclose the presence of contaminated soil or groundwater, identify potential health impacts, and remediate contamination. [NEW POLICY] [S99] Policy S-3.4 Support public agency policies, regulations, legislation, and programs that implement Santa Clara County’s Hazardous Materials Management Program. [Previous Policy N-32] [S100] Policy S-3.5 Protect City authority for the approval or denial of proposed commercial hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities in the City. Continue to support the concept of “fair share” agreements between counties in the siting of such facilities. [Previous Policy N-33] [S101] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-27 Policy S-3.6 Work with the appropriate agencies, including Caltrain, to decrease the risks associated with rail infrastructure in Palo Alto, including the movement of hazardous materials through the City and the dangers of passenger trains in a fully-developed, populated environment. [NEW POLICY] [S102] Program S3.6.1 Work with the freight industry to monitor the contents of freight trains intersecting Palo Alto for potentially hazardous materials, and to establish accountability for accidents and spills. [NEW PROGRAM] [S103] Program S3.6.2 Work with Caltrain and the Palo Alto Unified School District, to educate students and the public on the dangers of rail trespass and the benefits of suicide support services available in Palo Alto. [NEW PROGRAM] [S104] Policy S-3.7 Monitor professional and medically-sound research and studies on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and share information with the Palo Alto community. [NEW POLICY] [S105] SOLID WASTE Policy S-3.8 Strive for 95 percent landfill diversion by 2030, and ultimately zero waste, by enhancing policies and programs for waste reduction, recycling, composting and reuse. [Previous Policy N-34] [S106] Program S3.8.1 Encourage residential and commercial food waste reduction through incentives, educational outreach and programs. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S107] Program S3.8.2 To the extent allowed by law, use refuse rate structures that incentivize waste reduction. [Previous Program N-51] [S108] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-28 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Program S3.8.3 Continue to work with CalRecycle and the Department of Toxic Substances Control to develop and promote long-term solid waste management, such as environmentally responsible recycling programs, composting of food waste and other organics and, City-wide electronics and digital hardware recycling efforts,. [Previous Program N-54] [S109] Policy S-3.9 Reduce solid waste generation through increased salvage and reuse of building materials, including architecturally and historically significant materials. [Previous Policy N-35] [S110] Program S3.9.1 Periodically review and update the adopted Construction and Debris program. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S111] Program S3.9.2 Educate Palo Alto residents and developers about available incentives to use environmentally friendly deconstruction activities to minimize our GHG emissions, and to save natural resources, as well as space in our landfills. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S112] . Policy S-3.10 Continue to implement the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policy and programs to reduce waste, toxic product use, resource consumption and to maximize energy efficiency. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S113] Program S3.10.1 Support efforts to enforce extended producer responsibility for solid waste to reduce waste produced from manufacturing, shipping, packaging and the entire life-cycle of the product. [NEW PROGRAM] [S114] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-29 Policy S-3.11 Encourage the use of reusable, returnable, recyclable, and repairable goods, and discourage the use of single use plastic water bottles and extended polystyrene (Styrofoam), through enforcement of the City’s 2016 Plastic Foam Ordinance expansion and continued incentives, education, and responsible City purchasing policies. [Previous Policy N-36] [S115] CYBERSECURITY Policy S-3.12 Secure that the City of Palo Alto’s computer and digital infrastructure such that public data, records and utilities are protected from unauthorized external access and internal system failures. [NEW POLICY] [S116] Program S3.12.1 Complete an assessment of the City’s digital infrastructure to locate vulnerabilities and gaps in system redundancies and develop recommendations for improved cybersecurity. [NEW PROGRAM] [S117] Program S3.12.2 Establish criteria for the installation of high security telecommunications technology in new local government projects. [NEW PROGRAM] [S118] Program S3.12.3 Establish a wi-fi network that will be available to public safety responders and Emergency Service Volunteers in the event of power interruption during an emergency or disaster. [NEW PROGRAM] [S119] Program S3.12.4 Develop an Infrastructure Master Plan that projects the future needs of streets, underground utilities, and all City assets and plans for the incorporation of new technology that improves efficiency and effectiveness. [(NEW PROGRAM) (PTC Program L2.9.1) (Moved from May 1 CC draft LUE. Figure out how to integrate.)] [L185] SAFETY SAFETY DRAFT –DECEMBER 13, 2016 MAY 15, 2017 S-1 5 This preliminary draft element was prepared by City staff on the basis of input from the CAC and members of the public received from August 2016 through December 2016. The Element was reviewed by the full CAC in December, 2016 and presented as a draft to Palo Alto City Council on May 15, 2017. INTRODUCTION The Safety Element satisfies the State-mandated requirement for a Safety Element. It addresses larger safety topics that are relevant to all cities, such as community safety and emergency management, and also focuses on a series of hazards, both natural and human-caused, that are important to Palo Alto. The Element addresses the potential risks to residents of and property in Palo Alto from the threat of earthquakes and other geological hazards, floods, and fires, as well as risks associated with hazardous materials and excess solid waste. Just as vital, it establishes a plan for a robust security infrastructure. The text is organized in to three topics, each with a corresponding goal, policies, and programs: Community Safety Natural Hazards Human-Caused Threats VISION: The City of Palo Alto is committed to the day-today safety of its entire residential, business and visitor community. The City will remain aware of all potential risks, fully prepared for emergencies, and will support public awareness, preparation and response. The following policy framework reflects Palo Alto’s longstanding belief that city safety begins internally, with education, awareness and action at the neighborhood level. Such prepared communities strengthen the City’s ability to be vigilant to both natural and human-caused hazards, and ultimately to minimize the impacts of these hazards. Community safety demands balancing a complex series of factors, and Palo Alto will continually develop best practices, coordinate with other organizations, and adopt technological innovations in order to achieve this balance. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-2 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 COMMUNITY SAFETY The potential of different types of hazards in Palo Alto varies greatly. Given this unpredictability, a safe City begins with a solid network of safety-related support, procedures and preparation at the community level. The goal of these policies and programs is to broaden public education and awareness of safe behaviors, and to promote implementation of community safety measures. The policy framework also reflects Palo Alto’s belief that safety can be built into the physical, behavioral and organization fabric of the community, including individual neighborhoods, the urban center and rural areas. In addition to preparation, community safety is defined by effective emergency management practices, adoption of effective regulation and application of innovative technologies by all safety-related City departments. Map S-1 shows the locations of fire and police stations within the city. NATURAL HAZARDS As is the case in every community, residents of Palo Alto are subject to a series of largely unpredictable, but rarely occurring, natural hazards. The very factors that make the City so desirable—its Bayfront position, foothills topography with beautiful creeks, and location at the center of globally significant but geologically active Bay Area—are directly associated with some of these natural risks. The goal of the Natural Hazards policy framework is to establish general safety measures, including adoption of a certified Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and then to minimize the potential for injury, loss of life and property damage resulting from individual hazards. These hazards include seismic events, as shown in Maps S-2, S-3 and S-4; flood events, as shown in Map S-5; and sea level rise, as shown in Map S-6. In the unlikely of event of dam failure, some areas of the City may be subject to inundation; these areas are shown in Map S-7. Finally, wildfire hazards zones are shown in Map S-8. As is evident throughout the Safety Element, policies are based on the City’s belief that risk reduction is best achieved through planning, regulation, technology and education. HUMAN-CAUSED THREATS Just as Palo Alto—a world-class City in a prime location—is subject to natural hazards, the diversity of people, culture, and economic drivers that define Palo Alto comes with its own risks. Like natural hazards, these threats are complex and many result from activities that contribute positively to the Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; PlaceWorks, 2016 ! ! #*#* #* #* #* #* $+ $+^_ FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SEA L E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y PASTEU R D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos Mountain View SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 East Palo Alto Fire Administration Palo Alto Police Station Stanford Police StationFire Station 6 Fire Station 2 Fire Station 1 Fire Station 3 Fire Station 4 Fire Station 5 0 0.5 10.25 Miles ^_Future Public Safety Building #*Fire Stations $+Police Stations !Caltrain Stations Park Railroads Highways Sphere of Influence City Boundary P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 1 F I R E A N D P O L I C E S T A T I O N S #* P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N S A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S - 2 E A R T H Q U A K E S A N D F A U L T S Source: US Geological Survey, 2004; Earthquakes and Faults in the San Francisco Bay Area (1970-2003); Scientific Investigations Map 2848. PALO ALTO Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; US Geological Survey Open File Report 06-1037, 2006; PlaceWorks, 2016. ! ! # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## ## # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SAN A N T O N I O R D EL C A M I N O R E A L LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y CALI F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E RedwoodCity Atherton Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos MountainView SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 EastPalo Alto Stanford University SunnyvalePortolaValley Woodside 0 1 20.5 Miles Liquefaction Susceptibility Level Very High High Moderate Low Very Low Not Mapped Water #Critical Facilities !Caltrain Stations Park/Open Space Railroads Highways Sphere of Influence City Boundary P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 3 L I Q U E F A C T I O N R I S K Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; US Geological Survey Open File Report 06-1037, 2006; PlaceWorks, 2016. # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## ## # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SAN A N T O N I O R D EL C A M I N O R E A L LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y CALI F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E RedwoodCity Atherton Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos MountainView SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 EastPalo Alto Stanford University SunnyvalePortolaValley Woodside 0 1 20.5 Miles Expansive Soil High potential for earthquake-induced landslides High potential for liquefaction High potential for surface rupture along fault #Critical Facilities !Caltrain Stations Sphere of Influence City Boundary Railroads Highways Park/Open Space P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 4 G E O T E C H N I C A L H A Z A R D S traces and potential for eqrthquake-induced landsllides where sloped Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; FEMA, 2015; PlaceWorks, 2016 # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAN D H I L L R D AL M A S T SEA L E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y PASTEU R DR CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos Mountain View SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 East Palo Alto Fire Station 1 0 0.5 10.25 Miles #Critical Facilities Railroads Highways Sphere of Influence City Boundary Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zones A: subject to 100-year flood; no base flood depth determined AE: subject to 100-year flood; base flood depth has been determined AH: subject to shallow flooding; base flood depth has been determined AO: subject to sheet flow, ponding, or shallow flooding; base flood depth has been determined P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 5 1 0 0 - Y E A R F L O O D Z O N E S ( S P E C I A L F L O O D H A Z A R D A R E A S ) No te: The Federal Emerg ency Manag ement Ag ency (FEMA) administers the Natio nal Flo o d Insu rance Pro g ram (NFIP) to make flo o d insu rance available to residents and bu sinesses. FEMA’s Flo o d Insu rance Rate Map (FIRM) identifies tho se p ro p erties that are within the Sp ecial Flo o d Hazard Area (SFHA). Pro p erties in the SFHA are p ro jected to be su bject to flo o ding in the event o f the 1% (100-year) flo o d event and are su bject to the City’s Flo o d Hazard Reg u latio ns (Palo Alto Mu nicip al Co de Chap ter 16.52). SFHAs in Palo Alto are categ o rized into fo u r Zo nes. Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Service Center, 2012; PlaceWorks, 2016. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SEAL E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y PASTEU R D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LI N C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Los Altos MountainView SAN FRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 EastPalo Alto 0 0.5 10.25 Miles #Critical Facilities Railroads Highways Sphere of Influence City Boundary Area vulnerable to an approximate 24-inch sea level rise Area vulnerable to an approximate 55-inch sea level rise P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 6 S E A L E V E L R I S E Note: Data on sea level rise is evolving. The October 2011 Bay Plan amendments revised the 2100 sea level rise projection from 55 inches to up to 69 inches. However, BCDC uses the 55-inch scenario in the Bay Plan when assessing long- term impacts. Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; State of California Emergency Management Agency, 2007; PlaceWorks, 2016 FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SEA L E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y PASTEU R D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos Mountain View SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 East Palo Alto Fire Station 1 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Felt Lake Lagunita Reservoir Searsville Reservoir Railroads Sphere of Influence City Boundary P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 7 D A M I N U N D A T I O N Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; CAL FIRE, 2007, 2008; PlaceWorks 2016 # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## ## # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SAN A N T O N I O R D EL C A M I N O R E A L LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y CALI F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E East Palo Alto Menlo Park Menlo Park Menlo Park Menlo Park Atherton Stanford University Mountain View §¨¦280 |ÿ82 Los Altos Los Altos Hills Sunnyvale £¤101 Portola Valley 0 1 20.5 Miles #Critical Facilities Highways Railroads Sphere of Influence City Boundary Local Responsibility Area (Palo Alto) Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone State Responsibility Areas Moderate High Very High P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 8 W I L D F I R E H A Z A R D Z O N E S !( kj #* kj kj kj #* #* kj kj #* !(kj kj !(kj #* !( kj kj !( !(!( !( #*!(kj #* #* !(kj !( !( !( !( !( kj kj !(#* !( #* kj !(kj #* #* kj !( !( !(!( !( #* kj!( !( #*!( #* kj!(kj!( #*kj #*!( kj (! !( !( !( (! !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( (! !( !( !( !( !( !( !( (! !( !( (! !(!( !( !( !( !( (! !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( (! (!!( (! !( (! !( (! !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( (! (! !( !( !(!( !(!( !( (! !( !(!( !( (!!( !( (! !( (! (!!( !( !( !(!( (! !( !( !( !( !((! (! (! !( (!(! (! !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( (! (! !( (! !( (! !( (! (! (!(! (! (! !( (! !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( (! !(!(!(!(!(!(!( (! !( (! (! !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !((! !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( (! !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( (! !( !( !( !( !( !( (! !( !(!( !( !( !( !( (! (!!( !( !( !( !( !( (! !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( (! !( !( !( !( FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SEAL E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y PASTEU R D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y East Palo Alto Menlo Park Stanford University Mountain View Los Altos Los Altos Hills Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; Department of Toxic Substance Control, 2014; US EPA, 2014; PlaceWorks 2016 0 0.5 10.25 Miles SWQCB Geotracker Sites !(Permitted Underground Storage Tank Sites !(Ongoing Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites !(Closed Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites (!Ongoing Cleanup Program Sites (!Closed Cleanup Program Sites DTSC Cleanup Program Sites !(Cleanup Sites #*Tiered Permit Sites kj Hazardous Waste Facilities Hazardous Waste Generators Small Quantity Generators Large Quantity Generators Railroads Sphere of Influence City Limit P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 9 H A Z A R D O U S M A T E R I A L S S I T E S PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-12 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 City. These include world class research, technological innovation and public transit. The following policy framework strives to provide an environment free of the damaging effects of toxic and hazardous materials, locations of which have been identified and are shown on Map S-9. It strives for 95% landfill diversion and future zero solid waste production, and commits to a state-of-the-art cybersecurity infrastructure that is based on a comprehensive review of existing gaps and redundancies. GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS COMMUNITY SAFETY GOAL S‐1 A safe community that is aware of risks and prepared for emergencies. PUBLIC AWARENESS Policy S-1.1 Facilitate ongoing public education and awareness to prevent loss of life and property from impacts of natural and human-made disasters and to facilitate recovery when disasters occur. [NEW POLICY] [S1] Program S1.1.1 Initiate Expand public education programs that help and strongly encourage each household in the City to be prepared to be self-sufficient, with enough stored water and food to support the entire household, for 72 hours at least one week after a major earthquake, flood, terrorism event, pandemic or other major disaster. Also encourage businesses and other organizations to prepare for self- sufficiency. Update and distribute the City’s earthquake preparedness guide, “Living with our Faults.”[Previous Program N-82] [S2] Program S1.1.2 Continue to implement and fund the Emergency Services Volunteer program. [NEW PROGRAM] [S3] Program S1.1.3 Conduct emergency hazard drills with key stakeholder organizations across the community to improve preparedness for known threats and hazards. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S4] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-13 Program S1.1.4 Support an annual community public safety fair to educate and engage the public on preparedness and offer the opportunity to buy emergency disaster supplies for home and vehicle. [NEW PROGRAM] [S5] Program S1.1.5 Encourage local businesses to have disaster preparedness, communication, mitigation and recovery plans in place. [NEW PROGRAM] [S6] COMMUNITY SAFETY Policy S-1.2 Support the Palo Alto Police Department and Office of Emergency Services efforts in public safety education and community outreach. Use education and crime prevention as integral parts of the practice of law enforcement. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S7] Program S1.2.1 Develop accessible, attractive marketing materials to promote involvement in community crime safety programs. [NEW PROGRAM] [S8] Policy S-1.3 Deter criminal behavior in Palo Alto through a multidisciplinary approach that includes a safe built environment, effective social services, functional administrative processes and Police Department review of site plans for major development proposals. [NEW POLICY] [S9] Program S1.3.1 Explore the use of urban design principles to increase safety and prevent crime in Palo Alto. [NEW PROGRAM] [S10] Program S1.3.2 Support programs such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Good Neighbor Next Door, which incentivizes home purchase for first responders with discounts. [NEW PROGRAM] [S11] Policy S-1.4 Support the use of digital data, analytics and metrics that are available to local police departments and first responders. [NEW PROGRAM] [S12] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-14 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 Program S1.4.1 Make data available to maintain an accurate, up to date, and complete real-time local crime mapping function to promote neighborhood safety. [NEW PROGRAM] [S13] Policy S-1.5 Encourage the development of community-based law enforcement and community safety strategies, including partnerships with school districts, private schools, businesses, transit agencies, nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations, and community groups such as Emergency Services Volunteers. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S14] Program S1.5.1 Promote neighborhood security by providing crime prevention information and training to residents, and continuing to fund resident involvement in neighborhood safety programs such as “Know Your Neighbor” grants and Block Preparedness Coordinators. [NEW PROGRAM] [S15] Program S1.5.1Program S1.5.2 Collaborate with the Palo Alto Unified School District, other school districts in the City, private schools, businesses, non-profits, and local faith-based organizations to provide community safety education. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S16] Program S1.5.3 Encourage the Palo Alto Unified School District to develop secure school facilities and collaborate with public safety departments on disaster preparedness activities; emergency disaster planning, exercises and drills; and disaster recovery. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S17] Program S1.5.4 Continue to support and encourage participation in Police sDepartment programs to introduce youth to the importance and benefits of local law enforcement. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S18] Policy S-1.6 Work with the Police Department to develop effective, transparent law enforcement strategies that protect the privacy and civil liberties of the public and results in a safe community for all people. [NEW POLICY] [S19] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-15 Program S1.6.1 Enhance public safety department training for evolving challenges, such as small- to large-scale human threats, interacting with individuals with mental illness, and non-lethal alternatives. [NEW PROGRAM] [S20] Program S1.6.2 Support the Palo Alto Police Department in implementing and maintaining approved technologies for data gathering, surveillance, and recording interactions with the public. Incorporate best practices in use policies with special consideration in ensuring the programs protect the public’s privacy rights and civil liberties, in accordance with current legislation. Ensure transparency by communicating new equipment implementation, usage, privacy considerations, and retention of data. [NEW PROGRAM] [S21] Program S1.6.3 Communicate transparently with the community regarding adoption of new Palo Alto Police Department equipment and/or tactics while balancing the need for operational security. [NEW PROGRAM] [S22] Policy S-1.7 Regularly review the adequacy of law enforcement services and emergency services in the City. Plan and develop law enforcement infrastructure and technology according to overall need and City growth. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S23] Program S1.7.1 Regularly monitor and review the level of public safety staffing and satellite public safety station locations required for efficient local service delivery. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S24] Program S1.7.2 Design the new Public Safety building to meet the needs of the public safety departments and be resilient against known threats and hazards. This includes remaining fully operational after a catastrophic (7.9 magnitude) earthquake, other natural disasters, moderate terrorist attack or crisis. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S25] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-16 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 Program S1.7.3 Provide community notifications in the event of emergency using the best available methods and explore new technologies for emergency public information and warnings. Work with neighborhood and civic organizations on emergency preparedness and security programs. [PTC] [Previous Program G-10] [S26] Policy S-1.8 Monitor federal and State terrorism response planning to ensure that Palo Alto coordinates with relevant agencies and is well-prepared in the event of a terrorist act. [NEW POLICY] [S27] Program S1.8.1 Update Palo Alto’s 2001 Terrorism Response Plan. [NEW PROGRAM] [S28] Policy S-1.9 Design Palo Alto’s infrastructure system to protect the life and safety of residents, ensure resiliency in the face of disaster, and minimize economic loss. [NEW POLICY] [S29] EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Policy S-1.10 Follow the guidelines in the Emergency Operations Plan and continue towards implementing the four phases of Emergency Management: mitigation/prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S30] Program S1.10.1 Regularly update and make publicly available the City of Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S31] Minimize exposure to all hazards through emergency management planning. [Previous POLICY N-55] Program S1.10.2 Participate in local and regional planning efforts to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies. Regularly update and distribute the City of Palo Alto Emergency Management Plan, including the earthquake, flood, and fire emergency evacuation plans. Consult with the Palo Alto Unified School District in updating the Plan.[Previous Program N-81] [S32] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-17 Program S1.10.3 Implement the mitigation strategies and guidelines provided by the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, including evolving hazards resulting from climate change. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S33] Policy S-1.11 Ensure continuity of critical City operations, including utilities, public safety, information technology, and others, after natural, technological, or human caused disasters. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S34] Policy S-1.12 Work with other government agencies, neighboring cities, local institutions, non-profit organizations, and private corporations with established emergency response functions to enhance the City’s overall emergency response capabilities. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S35] Program S1.12.1 Encourage multiagency coordination in case of incidents that cross disciplinary or jurisdictional boundaries or coordination that involves complex incident management scenarios. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S36] Program S1.12.2 Explore the establishment of mutually-beneficial cooperative agreements between Palo Alto’s public safety departments and those of neighboring cities. [NEW PROGRAM] [S37] 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. [NEW POLICY] [S38] Program S1.13.1 Identify solutions to add an additional power line to Palo Alto to ensure redundancy. [NEW PROGRAM] [S39] 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. [NEW PROGRAM] [S40] Program S1.13.3 Continue citywide efforts to underground utility wires to limit injury, loss of life, and damage to PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-18 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 property in the event of human-made or natural disasters. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S41] 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. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S42] Program S1.13.5 Provide off-grid and/or backup power sources for critical City facilities to ensure uninterrupted power during emergencies and disasters. [NEW PROGRAM] [S43] 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 (LHMAP), as periodically adopted by the City Council and certified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, into the Safety Element. The LHMAP describes the type, location, and extent of natural hazards that can affect the City; describes the City’s vulnerability to these hazards; and includes a mitigation strategy for reducing the potential losses. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the Safety Element, the provisions of the LHMAP shall control. [NEW POLICY] [S44] Policy S-2.2 Focus efforts to reduce exposure to natural hazards ion those areas of the City identified as vulnerable to where the greatest risks, as shown on the maps in this Element exist. [Previous Policy N-49] [S45] Policy S-2.3 Implement public safety improvements, such as access roads and other infrastructure, in a manner that is sensitive to the environment. [Previous Policy N-50] [S46] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-19 EARTHQUAKES AND SEISMIC AND OTHER GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Policy S-2.4 Expand citizen awareness of seismic and geologic hazards through public education and preparedness. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S47] 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 landslidinglandslides. [Previous Policy N-51] [S48] Program S2.5.1 Periodically review and update the City’s Seismic Hazard Ordinance. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S49] Program S2.5.2 Continue to provide incentives for seismic retrofits of structures in the University Avenue/ Downtown areathroughout the city, particularly those building types that would affect the most people in the event of an earthquake. [Previous Program N-70] [S50] 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. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S51] Strictly enforce Uniform Building Code seismic safety restrictions. [Previous Program N-69] Program S2.6.1 Encourage efforts by individual neighborhood or block-level groups to pool resources for seismic retrofits. [NEW PROGRAM] [S52] Allow development rights achieved through seismic upgrading of specified sites to be transferred to designated eligible receiver sites. [Previous Program N-71] Program S2.6.2 Continue to use a TDR Ordinance for seismic retrofits to allow the transfer of development rights from eligible structures in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone to receiver sites in the CD zone. Revise the TDR Ordinance so that transferred PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-20 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 development rights may be used only for residential development on the receiver sites. [(NEW PROGRAM) (Moved from Land Use Element May 1 Draft)] [S53] Program S2.6.3 Study the possibility of revising the a transfer of development rights program to encourage seismic retrofits to include sunset dates by which transfer obligations must be fulfilled. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S54] Program S2.6.4 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. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S55] Policy S-2.7 Encourage property owners, business owners and the Palo Alto Unified School District to evaluate their vulnerability to earthquake hazards and take appropriate action to minimize their risk. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S56] Revise the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances to recognize seismic, geologic, and soil related hazards.[Previous Program N-72] 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, structures that would affect the most people in a seismic event Rrequire preparation submittal to the City of a geotechnical/seismic report that identifies specific risks and appropriate mitigation measures. from an engineering geologist that reviews geologic, soils, and engineering reports for developments in hazard areas. Establish appropriate fees to cover the cost of this review. [Previous Program N-73] [S57] Program S2.7.2 Review and update, as appropriate, City code requirements for excavation, grading, and filling and construction to ensure that they conform to currently accepted and adopted State standards. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-21 Recover the cost of this work through grading permit fees. [Previous Program N-74] [S58] Program S2.7.3 Utilize the results of Palo Alto’s Seismic Hazards Identification Program and inventory of potentially seismically vulnerable buildings types to establish prioritiesze and consider incentives to encourage structural retrofits. [NEW PROGRAM] [S59] FLOOD HAZARD AND MITIGATIONS 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. [Previous Policy N-52] [S60] Program S2.8.1 Implement the flood mitigation requirements of FEMA relating to construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas as illustrated on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. [Previous Program N-76] [S61] 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. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S62] Program S2.8.3 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. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S63] Program S2.8.4 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. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S64] Program S2.8.5 Work with East Palo Alto, Santa Clara Valley Water District and San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-22 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 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. [NEW PROGRAM] [S65] Policy S-2.9 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. [NEW POLICY] [S66] Program S2.9.1 Keep basement restrictions up to date with changing flood hazard zones. [NEW PROGRAM] [S67] Policy S-2.10 Monitor and respond to the risk of flooding caused by climate change- related changes to precipitation patterns, groundwater levels, sea level rise, tides, and storm surges. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S6869] Program S2.10.1 Review development standards applicable in areas susceptible to flooding from sea level rise, including east of Highway 101, West Bayshore and East Meadow Circle, and the area east of San Antonio Road and north of East Charleston, and Iimplement shoreline development regulations to ensure that new development is protected from potential impacts of flooding resulting from sea level rise and significant storm events. Regulations should be consistent with the Baylands Master Plan, as amended, and may include new shoreline setback requirements, limits on lot line adjustments to avoid the creation of vulnerable shoreline lots, and/or triggers for relocation or removal of existing structures based on changing site conditions and other factors. [NEW PROGRAM] (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure GHG-3) (Moved from Land Use Element May 1 Draft Program [L6]) [S6970] Program S2.10.2 Study appropriate restrictions on underground construction in areas outside of flood zones, as shown on Map S-5, to accommodate expected higher groundwater levels due to sea level rise and PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-23 minimize consequent flooding of underground construction. [NEW PROGRAM] [S68] Policy S-2.11 Support regional efforts to improve bay levees. [NEW POLICY] [S7071] Program S2.11.1 Work cooperatively with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to provide flood protection from high tide events on San Francisco Bay, taking into account the impacts of future sea level rise, to provide one percent (100-year) flood protection from tidal flooding, while being sensitive to preserving and protecting the natural environment. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S7172] Program S2.11.2 Work with regional, State, and federal agencies to develop additional adaptive strategies to address flood hazards to existing or new development and infrastructure, including environmentally sensitive levees. [NEW PROGRAM] [S7273] FIRE PROTECTION AND AWARENESS Policy S-2.12 Minimize exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards through rapid emergency response, proactive code enforcement, public education programs, use of modern fire prevention measures, and adequate emergency management preparation. [Previous Policy N-53] [S7374] Program S2.12.1 Regularly review and update the Fire Department’s operations, training facilities, and programs to ensure consistency with current standards and Best Management Practices. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S7475] Program S2.12.2 Explore technological tools, such as cameras or remote sensors, to identify smoke or fires and initiate response as quickly as possible. [NEW PROGRAM] [S7576] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-24 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 Policy S-2.13 Require that the planning and design of development in areas exposed to wildland fire hazards minimize the risks of wildfire and include adequate provisions for vegetation management, emergency access, and firefighting. [NEW POLICY required by SB 1241] [S7677] Program S2.13.1 Regularly review and fund review and updates to the Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan and the fire emergency evacuation provisions in the City’s Emergency Management Plan to ensure consistency with current standards and Best Management Practices. [Previous Program N-77] [S7778] Program S2.13.2 Implement the Foothills Fire Management Plan to balance conservation of natural resources with reduction of fire hazards especially in open space areas. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S7879] Program S2.13.3 Minimize fire hazards by implementing maintaining low density zoning in wildland fire hazard areas. [Previous Program N-79] [S7980] Program S2.13.4 Work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and agencies to reduce wildfire hazards in and around Palo Alto, with an emphasis on effective vegetation management and mutual aid agreements. [NEW PROGRAM] [S8081] Program S2.13.5 Consider implementation of CAL FIRE recommended programs in educating and involving the local community to diminish potential loss caused by wildfire and identify prevention measures to reduce those risks. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S8182] Policy S-2.14 Provide emergency fire and medical services consistent with the response time standards set forth in the Fire Department’s annual budget. [Previous Policy N-54] [S8283] Program S2.14.1 Evaluate measures for consolidation of services with other jurisdictions for optimal service delivery to improve efficiency; develop automatic or mutual PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-25 aid agreements with other jurisdictions, including Stanford, to improve efficiencies. [Previous Program N-80] [S8384] Program S2.14.2 Upgrade fire stations so that all remain fully functional following earthquakes. [NEW PROGRAM] [S8485] Program S2.14.3 Review existing costs and contracts to develop a plan for the long term funding of the fire department and appropriate staffing levels at all stations. [NEW PROGRAM] [S8586] Policy S-2.15 SupportExpand Palo Alto Fire Department’s efforts in public education and community outreach to prevent injury, loss of life, and damage to property from accidental fires. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S8687] Program S2.15.1 Provide public education on fire safety, including wildland and structural fire prevention, evacuation routes and guidelines for clearance of landscaping and other hazards around structures. [Previous Program N-78] [S8788] Policy S-2.16 Monitor and respond to the risk of wild land fire hazards caused by climate change. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S8889] HUMAN-CAUSED THREATS GOAL S‐3 An environment free of the damaging effects of human- caused threats and biological and chemical hazardous materials. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Policy S-3.1 Minimize the use of toxic and hazardous materials in Palo Alto. Encourage Promote the use of alternative materials and practices that are environmentally benign. [Previous Policy N-30] [S8990] Program S3.1.1 Continue City permitting procedures for commercial and industrial storage, use, and handling of hazardous materials and regulate the commercial use of hazardous materials that may PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-26 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 present a risk of off-site health or safety effects. [Previous Program N-47] [S9091] Program S3.1.2 Minimize the risks of biohazards in Palo Alto, including Level 4 biohazards, by continuing to review and update, as necessary, local regulations regarding use, handling and disposal. [NEW PROGRAM] [S9192] Program S3.1.3 Strengthen development review requirements and construction standards for projects on sites with groundwater contamination. [NEW PROGRAM] [S9293] Program S3.1.4 Establish protocols to monitor the movement of hazardous materials on Palo Alto roadways and rail lines and respond effectively to spills via established truck and construction routes. [NEW PROGRAM] [S9394] Program S3.1.5 Work with non-profit organizations to pProvide information to all user groups aboutthe public regarding pesticides, insecticides and other commonly used hazardous materials, environmentally friendly preferable alternatives, and safe recycling and disposal methodspractices to all user groups. [Previous Program N-46] [S9495] Program S3.1.6 Continue sponsoring aproviding regular household hazardous waste collection events at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant and strive to make these programs more convenient and accessible to residents. [Previous Program N-48] [S9596] Study the relative costs, advantages, and disadvantages of joining the regional household hazardous waste program operated by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health. [Previous Program N-49 (Study completed)] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-27 Program S3.1.7 Continue the program thatto allow small quantity generators to dispose of hazardous waste at cost. [Previous Program N-50] [S9697] Program S3.1.8 Continue to educate residents on the proper disposal of pharmaceutical and household hazardous waste. Encourage proper disposal of medications through pharmacies or drug take-back programs rather than flushing. [NEW PROGRAM] [S9798] Policy S-3.2 Continue working with appropriate agencies to clean up hazardous waste sites and contaminated groundwater. [Previous Policy N-31] [S9899] Policy S-3.3 Support public health by requiring as part of development review, property owners and private entities to disclose the presence of contaminated soil or groundwater, identify potential health impacts, and remediate contamination. [NEW POLICY] [S99100] Policy S-3.4 Support public agency policies, regulations, legislation, and programs that implement the Santa Clara County’s Hazardous Waste Materials Management PlanProgram. [Previous Policy N-32] [S100101] Policy S-3.5 Protect City authority for the approval or denial of proposed commercial hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities in the City. Continue to support the concept of “fair share” agreements between counties in the siting of such facilities. [Previous Policy N-33] [S101102] Policy S-3.6 Work with the appropriate agencies, including Caltrain, to decrease the risks associated with rail infrastructure in Palo Alto, including the movement of hazardous materials through the City and the dangers of passenger trains in a fully-developed, populated environment. [NEW POLICY] [S102103] Program S3.6.1 Work with the freight industry to monitor the contents of freight trains intersecting Palo Alto for potentially hazardous materials, and to establish accountability for accidents and spills. [NEW PROGRAM] [S103104] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-28 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 Program S3.6.2 Work with Caltrain and the Palo Alto Unified School District, to educate students and the public on the dangers of rail trespass and the benefits of suicide support services available in Palo Alto. [NEW PROGRAM] [S104105] Policy S-3.7 Monitor professional and medically-sound research and studies on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and share information with the Palo Alto community. [NEW POLICY] [S105106] SOLID WASTE Goal 7. Reduced Volumes of Solid Waste; Solid Waste Disposed in an Environmentally Safe, Efficient, Manner. Policy S-3.8 Reduce the amount ofStrive for 95 percent landfill diversion by 2030, and ultimately zero waste, by enhancing policies and programs for waste reduction, recycling, composting and reuse. solid waste disposed in the City’s landfill by reducing the amount of waste generated and promoting the cost-effective reuse of materials that would otherwise be placed in a landfill. [Previous Policy N-34] [S106107] Program S3.8.1 Encourage residential and commercial food waste reduction through incentives, educational outreach and programs. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S107108] Program S3.8.2 To the extent allowed by law, use refuse rate structures that incentivize waste reductionRegularly review the landfill fee structure to ensure that it encourages a reduction in solid waste disposal. [Previous Program N-51] [S108109] Improve City composting practices and continue promoting the household composting, program. [Previous Program N-52] [S107] Continue to develop cost-effective source separation programs for recyclable solid waste PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-29 materials for residential and commercial customers. [Previous Program N-53] [S108] Program S3.8.3 Continue to work with CalRecycle and the Department of Toxic Substances Control to develop and promote long-term solid waste management, programs that include environmentally sound disposal methods, such as environmentally responsible recycling programs, composting of food waste and other organics and, and City-wide electronics and digital hardware recycling efforts, such as the SMaRT Station©. [Previous Program N-54] [S109110] Policy S-3.9 Reduce solid waste generation through increased salvage and reuse of building materials, including architecturally and historically significant materials. [Previous Policy N-35] [S110111] Program S3.9.1 Periodically review and update the adopted Construction and Debris program. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S111112] Program S3.9.2 Educate Palo Alto residents and developers about available incentives to use environmentally friendly deconstruction activities to minimize our GHG emissions, and to save natural resources, as well as space in our landfills. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S112113] Maintain and expand the use of the Recycling Center at the City’s refuse disposal area. [Previous PROGRAM N-55] [S108] Support state and federal legislation encouraging the use of recyclable goods. [Previous Policy N-38] [S113] Policy S-3.10 Continue to implement the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policy and programs to reduce waste, toxic product use, resource consumption and to maximize energy efficiency. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S113114] Program S3.10.1 Support efforts to enforce extended producer responsibility for solid waste to reduce waste PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-30 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 produced from manufacturing, shipping, packaging and the entire life-cycle of the product. [NEW PROGRAM] [S114115] Ensure the environmentally sound disposal of solid waste. [Previous Policy N-37] [S108] Policy S-3.11 Encourage the use of reusable, returnable, recyclable, and repairable goods, and discourage the use of single use plastic water bottles and extended polystyrene (Styrofoam), through enforcement of the City’s 2016 Plastic Foam Ordinance expansion and continued incentives, education, and responsible City purchasing policiesthrough incentives, educational displays and activities, and City purchasing policies and practices. [Previous Policy N-36] [S115116] CYBERSECURITY Policy S-3.12 Secure that the City of Palo Alto’s computer and digital infrastructure such that public data, records and utilities are protected from unauthorized external access and internal system failures. [NEW POLICY] [S116117] Program S3.12.1 Complete an assessment of the City’s digital infrastructure to locate vulnerabilities and gaps in system redundancies and develop recommendations for improved cybersecurity. [NEW PROGRAM] [S117118] Program S3.12.2 Establish criteria for the installation of high security telecommunications technology in new local government projects. [NEW PROGRAM] [S118119] Program S3.12.3 Establish a wi-fi network that will be available to public safety responders and Emergency Service Volunteers in the event of power interruption during an emergency or disaster. [NEW PROGRAM] [S119120] Program S3.12.4 Develop an Infrastructure Master Plan that projects the future needs of streets, underground utilities, and all City assets and plans for the incorporation of new technology that improves efficiency and PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-31 effectiveness. [(NEW PROGRAM) (PTC Program L2.9.1) (Moved from May 1 CC draft LUE. Figure out how to integrate.)] [L185] Regularly review the water rate structure to ensure that it covers fixed costs based on cost of service studies and encourages conservation and efficiencyencourages efficiency and is competitive. [Previous Program N-23] BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-1 7 This preliminary draft element was prepared by City staff on the basis of input from the CAC and members of the public received from January 2017 through February 2017. The Element was reviewed by the full CAC on February 21, 2017 and revised based on CAC comments. The revised draft Element was presented to the CAC as a consent item on March 21, 2017. The CAC recommended it for Council review. It will be presented as a draft to Palo Alto City Council on May 15, 2017, along with final CAC comments. INTRODUCTION The Business and Economics Element addresses economic development policy issues. It is not a State-required Comprehensive Plan element. Instead, it is an optional element, but its contents are equally important to those in the mandatory elements. This Element, informed by local economic conditions and forecasts, focuses on the role of local businesses in the community and provides mechanisms for the City to support innovation, entrepreneurship, and local-serving retail and professional services. Its goals emphasize a thriving economy, compatibility and interdependence with residential neighborhoods, fiscal health, a culture of innovation and business diversity, flexibility and predictability in City regulations, as well as attractive, vibrant business centers and business employment districts. Implementation of this Element will take place over time and will utilize available planning and regulatory tools, such as the Zoning Ordinance, Coordinated Area Plans, and design review and ongoing outreach by the City to businesses. Land use topics relevant to the design of retail centers (Goal B-5) and business employment districts (Goal B-6) are discussed in the Land Use and Community Design Element. Transportation-related topics, such as employee commutes, the impact of commute-related congestion on residents, and adequate parking, are addressed in the Transportation Element. VISION: Palo Alto’s business environment will be dynamic and vital. Businesses will have access to a wide array of support services and will enjoy positive relationships with Palo Alto residents, officials, and City staff. The diverse character of Palo Alto will remain, so that the City’s livable neighborhoods are protected and enhanced, while its business districts remain competitive and attractive. The local economy will thrive, a diverse array of goods and services will be provided to Palo Alto consumers, and the City’s historic, mutually beneficial relationship with Stanford University supported. Most development will occur within Palo Alto’s business employment districts and will be consistent with the role and character designated for those districts by this Plan. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-2 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 ECONOMIC CONTEXT EMPLOYMENT Since 2010, in the aftermath of the Great Recession, the Silicon Valley region has experienced nearly a twenty percent increase in the number of jobs. During the same period of time, the unemployment rate has decreased to record lows. These trends are consistent with broader employment trends in both California and the Bay Area. The City is recognized as a hub of innovation and entrepreneurship, with employers concentrated in the education, medical, software, technology, biotechnology, financial, professional, and government services industries. Major employers in Palo Alto include Stanford University, Stanford Health Care, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, VMware, SAP, Space Systems/Loral, Hewlett-Packard, and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Each of these companies, institutions or agencies employs more than 2,000 persons. The top three employers, who are all affiliated with Stanford University, also include employees who work just outside of the city limits, in the part of unincorporated Santa Clara County that is within Palo Alto’s sphere of influence (SOI). As shown in Figure B-1, jobs are located throughout Palo Alto, primarily in the four Business Employment Districts, two Regional Centers, and three Multi-Neighborhood Centers identified in the Land Use and Community Design Element. The pie chart is based on approximately 95,000 jobs within the City limits. Stanford Research Park contains the largest concentration employees—36 percent—while the University Avenue/ Downtown Area and Stanford University Medical Center are other important employment areas, each hosting nine percent of the City’s employees. However, over a quarter of workers are dispersed outside of the Employment Districts and Centers. Successful businesses and employers are an integral part of a thriving, complete community. Local businesses offer many positives, including offering goods and services to residents and providing revenues that support the high quality of Palo Alto’s services. However, Palo Alto has an unusually high concentration of jobs, with approximately three times as many jobs (over 100,000) as employed residents (about 36,000). This indicates an exceptionally strong local economy, but it has also brought negative side effects over the past decade. Due to the high number of jobs PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-3 relative to a low number of employed residents, many workers must commute to Palo Alto, resulting in traffic congestion, air pollution, and parking constraints. The understandable desire of workers to live close to their jobs has driven up the price of housing dramatically. The resulting high cost of living prevents restaurants, hotels and others in the service industry from finding sufficient employees. Similarly, commercial rents have risen precipitously in response to the demand for a Palo Alto address, driving a conversion of retail spaces to office uses and pricing out smaller stores and professional services. The City recognizes the importance of providing affordable housing and efficient transit opportunities for employees of all types of businesses, as addressed in the Land Use and Community Design, Transportation and Housing Elements of this Plan. RETAIL Palo Alto is home to a wide array of retail opportunities, from Stanford Shopping Center, to University Avenue, to small neighborhood-oriented shopping centers. Currently, retail sales tax provides approximately five percent of total revenues to the City. Figure B-2 shows the revenue the City received in 2015 from sales tax (tax imposed on purchases of all goods in the state) and use tax (tax imposed on all Stanford Research Park, 36% Stanford Medical Center, 9% University Ave/Downtown, 9% San Antonio Road/ Bayshore Corridor, 6% Stanford Shopping Center, 5% Town & Country Village, 4% California Avenue, 3% East Bayshore, 2% Rest of City, 28% Figure B-1: City Employment Distribution Source: Association of Bay Area Governments and City of Palo Alto, 2016. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-4 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 purchases of goods from out-of-state vendors). Of the approximately $23 million in revenue, over half was generated by Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford Research Park and Downtown/University Avenue combined. The significant contribution of Stanford Research Park reflects the fact that retails sales tax includes taxes on business-to-business sales. While total sales tax revenue, including state and county pool allocations, in the City has increased significantly since 2009, the rate of increase has slowed in the past few years, as shown in Figure B-3. Recent economic studies have shown that retail spending is attributable not only to local residents, but also to local employees, local businesses, and visitors who come to the city for shopping and leisure, including University students. However, small, independent and locally-serving retailers in Palo Alto are currently experiencing challenges due to high rents, competition from online retailers, including in recruiting and retaining employees, as well as increasing healthcare costs. PLANNING CONTEXT THRIVING ECONOMY The City’s fiscal health and livability depend on maintaining a diverse community of businesses that are supported by residents, visitors, and workers. The City recognizes the need for all types of goods and services in the community, including by utilizing public-private partnerships and supporting non-profit agencies. Additionally, developing and maintaining advanced communications infrastructure is crucial to ensuring the City continues to be a viable location for new and established technology businesses. INTERDEPENDENCE A thriving business environment in Palo Alto is one that complements and supports the city’s residential neighborhoods and natural environment. The City can help cultivate interdependence between commercial centers and surrounding neighborhoods through policies that maintain the natural environment while minimizing potential impacts on neighborhoods such as traffic and parking. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-5 Stanford Shopping Center $5,700,000.00 25% Stanford Research Park $3,000,000.00 13% Downtown/ University Ave $3,400,000.00 15% California Ave/Park Blvd/Lambert Ave $1,500,000.00 6% Town & Country $600,000.00 3% All Other Areas $8,600,000.00 38% Figure B-2: Sales and Use Tax Revenue Received by the City by Geographical Area, Year Ending December 2015 Source: City of Palo Alto Office of the City Auditor. Sales Tax Digest Summary, Fourth Quarter Sales (October – December 2015). $- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 2009-10 Actual 2010-11 Actual 2011-12 Actual 2012-13 Actual 2013-14 Actual 2014-15 Actual 2015-16 Actual Fiscal Year Figure B-3: Sales Tax over Time Sales Tax Source: City of Palo Alto Open Data Portal. http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/home, accessed March 2017. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-6 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 FISCAL HEALTH Palo Alto’s continued fiscal health is crucial to providing the range and quality of infrastructure, services, amenities, and maintenance that residents expect. The key indicator of the fiscal health of any agency or organization is a balanced ratio of revenues to expenses. As shown in Figure B-4, the City’s total revenue stream has increased steadily over the last seven fiscal years (FY), from approximately $478 million in FY 2009-2010 to about $580 million in FY 2015-2016. This revenue comes from diverse sources, from the sale of utilities such as electricity, gas, water, and fiber optics; to the receipt of sales and property taxes. Figure B-5 illustrates total City expenses over the same time period, and shows that costs associated with salaries and benefits, utility purchases, contract services and other expenses have also risen, from about $526 million in FY 2009-2010 to about $629 million in FY 2015-2016. However, as illustrated in Figure B-6, Palo Alto’s total revenue has consistently outpaced its expenses, by an average of approximately $23 million per fiscal year. CULTURE OF INNOVATION AND BUSINESS DIVERSITY Palo Alto is a center of innovation within the technology sector. The City plays a key role in supporting business growth, including community-serving businesses and arts-based businesses, and utilizes metrics to track progress towards citywide economic goals. Partnerships and paired research efforts with Stanford University have consistently advanced across business sectors. FLEXIBILITY AND PREDICTABILITY The City can support a healthy businesses environment by providing regulations and operating procedures that provide business owners and neighbors with predictability and certainty through changing economic cycles, while maintaining flexibility and adaptability as market conditions change. This could involve streamlining administrative and regulatory processes, and simplifying design guidelines for new development. The City can act as a facilitator between residents and businesses in these processes to help ensure that neighbors, as well as employers, understand requirements and know what to expect. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-7 $- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 2009-10 Actual 2010-11 Actual 2011-12 Actual 2012-13 Actual 2013-14 Actual 2014-15 Actual 2015-16 Actual Fiscal Year Figure B-4: Revenues over Time Net Sales Property Taxes Charges to Other Funds Sales Taxes Charges for Services Rental Income Return on Investments Transient Occupancy Tax Other Income Other Revenue More (8 Revenue Types Grouped) Source: City of Palo Alto Open Data Portal, http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/home., accessed March 2017. $- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 $700,000,000 2009-10 Actual 2010-11 Actual 2011-12 Actual 2012-13 Actual 2013-14 Actual 2014-15 Actual 2015-16 Actual Fiscal Year Figure B-5: Revenues and Expenses over Time Revenues Expenses Source: City of Palo Alto Open Data Portal, http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/home, accessed March PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-8 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 RETAIL CENTERS Palo Alto’s robust retail economy is focused in retail centers, including both regional retail draws such as University Avenue/Downtown and Stanford Shopping Center, corridors such as California Avenue and El Camino Real, and smaller shopping centers like Edgewood Plaza. Regional retail centers employ large numbers of people, attract shoppers from well beyond Palo Alto’s boundaries, generate high sales tax revenues, and offer the broadest mix of goods and services. Multi- neighborhood Centers serve a much smaller area, typically the city or several neighborhoods within the city. Neighborhood Centers are the smallest unit; although their economic contributions are less substantial, they are vital to Palo Alto residents and are very much a part of community life. This Element provides policies and program to encourage the continued vibrancy of all Retail Centers, while recognizing that each Retail Center should maintain its distinctive character. BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS As described in the Land Use and Community Design Element, there are three Business Employment Districts in Palo Alto: Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical Center, and East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor. These districts provide thousands of local jobs, establish a customer base for many other Palo Alto businesses, and generate tax revenues for the city. Because each plays a central role in maintaining the fiscal health of the City, it is important to support their long-term viability and ability to respond to changing global economic conditions. STANFORD RESEARCH PARK As noted above, over one-third of the jobs in Palo Alto are located in Stanford Research Park. Over the coming decades, the Research Park will continue to evolve, but is likely to remain a major employment center. Working closely with Stanford University and the hundreds of employers in the Research Park will help the Research Park remain competitive with others in the Bay Area and nation, while also providing opportunities to address issues of shared concern, such as easing commute-related congestion. Reinvestment along El Camino Real will not only benefit Research Park employees, but will also help the City increase vitality and enhance the physical appearance of El Camino Real. Providing housing and services like restaurants within walking distance of the Research Park also helps fulfill the City’s goal of reducing auto dependence. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-9 STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC), including the Stanford University School of Medicine, the Stanford University Clinic, Stanford University Hospital, and Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital, currently employs approximately 10,000 people and is one of the largest concentrations of health care services in the Bay Area. The City approved a Development Agreement with SUMC in 2011 which will continue for 30 years, throughout the life of this Comprehensive Plan. The Development Agreement covers the construction of a new Stanford Hospital and clinics buildings, an expansion of the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, construction of new School of Medicine buildings, renovation of the existing Hoover Pavilion, construction of a new medical office building and parking garage at Hoover Pavilion, roadway improvements along Welch Road and Durand Way, and SUMC design guidelines. Growth associated with the agreement is expected to increase employment at SUMC by approximately 2,500 jobs. The City Council reviews SUMC’s compliance with the terms of the Agreement on an annual basis. EAST BAYSHORE AND SAN ANTONIO ROAD/BAYSHORE CORRIDOR The East Bayshore and San Antonio Road areas serve a special economic role. Its relatively low-cost space provides opportunities for a variety of service industries and start-up businesses that could not feasibly locate in the higher cost areas. GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS THRIVING ECONOMY GOAL B-1 Businesses in Palo Alto that contribute to economic vitality enhance the city’s physical environment, promote municipal revenues and provide needed local services. Policy B-1.1 Encourage new businesses that meet the City’s business, economic, or municipal services requirements, as articulated in this Plan and the City’s other Economic Development Policies, to locate in Palo Alto. [Previous Policy B-9] [B1] Direct the Palo Alto Office of Economic Program B1.1.1 Development to implement the Economic Development Policy, as periodically amended, to guide business development in the City. [Previous Program B-2] [B2] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-10 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Policy B-1.2 Promote Palo Alto’s image as a business-friendly community. Assume an active role in fostering businesses, including small start-ups, entrepreneurs, and start-up innovative businesses. [Previous Policy B-10] [B3] Policy B-1.3 Engage with all stakeholders in the community, including businesses of all sizes, local retailers, the public, and City decision-makers in order to understand the challenges businesses and employers face. [NEW POLICY] [B4] Policy B-1.4 Attract businesses that innovate in the areas of mobility and sustainability, and encourage these businesses to employ local residents. [NEW POLICY] [B5] Policy B-1.5 Consider the use of public private partnerships as a means of revitalizing selected areas where beneficial to achieving the City’s goals. [Previous Policy B-11] [B6] Policy B-1.6 Encourage the private sector to participate in partnerships with community groups and nonprofit or public agency building owners and developers to provide space for community-serving non-profits. [Previous Policy B-12] [B7] Policy B-1.7 Encourage businesses of all kinds to advance Palo Alto’s commitment to fiscal and environmental sustainability. [NEW POLICY] [B8] COMPATIBILITY AND INTERDEPENDENCE GOAL B-2 A thriving business environment that complements Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods and natural environment. Policy B-2.1 Support local-serving retail, recognizing that it provides opportunities for local employment, reduced commute times, stronger community connections and neighborhood orientation. [NEW POLICY] [B9] Policy B-2.2 Support a strong interdependence between existing commercial centers and surrounding neighborhoods as a way of encouraging economic vitality. [Previous Policy B-2] [B10] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-11 Policy B-2.3 Recognize that employers, businesses and neighborhoods share many values and concerns, including traffic and parking issues and preserving Palo Alto’s livability, and need to work together. [NEW POLICY] [B11] Policy B-2.4 Use a variety of planning and regulatory tools to ensure compatibility between Palo Alto’s thriving business districts and its healthy, stable neighborhoods. [Previous Policy B-1] [B12] Policy B-2.5 Recognize that Palo Alto’s natural environment and features are economic assets to the City. [Previous Policy B-3] [B13] FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY GOAL B-3 Careful management of City revenues and expenditures so that the fiscal health of the City is ensured and services are delivered efficiently and equitably. (NEW GOAL) Policy B-3.1 Promote a comprehensive approach to fiscal sustainability that includes careful monitoring of revenues and expenditures, efficient City operations, and land use, business and employment strategies. [NEW POLICY] [B14] Policy B-3.2 Support a diverse range of businesses that generate revenue and enhance the City’s fiscal sustainability. [NEW POLICY] [B15] Continue to refine tools, such as the Business Program B3.2.1 Registry, as data sources on existing businesses, including the type of business, number of employees, size, location, and other metrics to track the diversity of Palo Alto businesses. [NEW PROGRAM – PTC] [B16] Policy B-3.3 Develop strategies for promoting businesses and employers that generate revenues that will support a full range of high-quality City services, including retain and attract revenue-generating businesses. [NEW POLICY] [B17] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-12 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 CULTURE OF INNOVATION AND BUSINESS DIVERSITY GOAL B-4 The stimulation of diverse commercial, retail and professional service business opportunities through supportive business policies and a culture of innovation. Policy B-4.1 Nurture and support Palo Alto’s image as a global center of emerging technology by fostering innovation, supporting the established technology sector and attracting new businesses. [Previous Policy B-4] [PTC] [B18] Policy B-4.2 Attract and support small businesses, non-profit organizations, and professional services, which are vital to a diverse and innovative economy. [NEW POLICY] [B19] Revise zoning and other regulations as needed to Program B4.2.1 encourage the preservation of space to accommodate small businesses and other services. [NEW PROGRAM] [B20] Consider planning, regulatory, or other incentives to Program B4.2.2 encourage property owners to include smaller office spaces in their buildings to serve small businesses, non-profit organizations, and independent professionals. [NEW PROGRAM] [B21] Policy B-4.3 Promote the growth of small businesses. [NEW POLICY] [B22] Policy B-4.4 Recognize that Stanford Research Park contains a concentration of some of the City’s largest employers, and seek to maintain a mix of office and research and development uses. [NEW POLICY] [B23] Policy B-4.5 Maintain distinct business districts as a means of retaining local services and diversifying the City’s economic base. [Previous Policy B-5] [B24] Policy B-4.6 Encourage and support the operation of small, independent retail businesses and locally-serving professional services. [Previous Policy B- 7] [B25] Work with local merchants to encourage Palo Alto Program B4.6.1 residents, workers, and visitors to buy, and seek PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-13 professional services, in Palo Alto. [NEW PROGRAM] [B26] Study the impacts of on-line shopping on local, Program B4.6.2 traditional retail uses and develop strategies to help traditional retail adapt. [NEW PROGRAM] [B27] Evaluate which types of businesses are most likely Program B4.6.3 to be successful and where. [NEW PROGRAM] [B28] Study the overall viability of ground-floor retail Program B4.6.4 requirements in preserving retail space and creating an active street environment, including the types of locations where such requirements are most effective. [NEW PROGRAM] [B29] Maintain distinct neighborhood shopping areas that Program B4.6.5 are attractive, accessible, and convenient to nearby residents. [Previous Policy B-6] [B30] Policy B-4.7 Explore opportunities to provide spaces for arts and entertainment activities, and other creative and visitor uses. [NEW POLICY – PTC] [B31] FLEXIBILITY AND PREDICTABILITY GOAL B-5 City regulations and operating procedures that provide certainty, predictability and flexibility and help businesses adapt to changing market conditions. Policy B-5.1 Maintain a healthy business climate, which provides for predictability and flexibility for those seeking City approvals. Encourage streamlining of City administrative and regulatory processes wherever possible. Reduce inefficiencies, overlap, and time delays associated with these processes. [Previous Policy B-16] [B32] Regularly evaluate ways to improve coordination of Program B5.1.1 the City’s environmental review, permitting, and inspection processes. [Previous Program B-6] [B33] Improve design guidelines to reduce ambiguity and Program B5.1.2 more clearly articulate compatibility principles to PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-14 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 the business community and to the public. [Previous Program B-7] [B34] Simplify the design review process for small-scale Program B5.1.3 changes to previously approved site plans and buildings. [Previous Program B-5] [B35] Revise zoning and other regulations as needed to Program B5.1.4 encourage the revitalization of aging retail structures and areas. Encourage the preservation of space to accommodate small, independent retail businesses and professional services. [Previous Program B-10] [B36] Policy B-5.2 Continue to provide “one stop” service at the Development Center and to consolidate inspections to the extent feasible. [NEW POLICY] [B37] Policy B-5.3 Strengthen the role of the Office of Economic Development to attract and retain local serving businesses; assist businesses to navigate City procedures and requirements; and facilitate communication between residents and businesses.[NEW POLICY] [B38] RETAIL CENTERS GOAL B-6 Attractive, vibrant retail centers, each with a mix of uses and a distinctive character. REGIONAL CENTERS University Avenue/Downtown Policy B-6.1 Support and enhance the University Avenue/ Downtown area as a vital mixed use area containing retail, personal service, small office, restaurant, residential, and arts and entertainment uses. Recognize the importance of an appropriate retail mix, including small local businesses, to the continued vitality of Downtown. [(Previous Policy B-20) (Overlaps with Land Use Element Policy L-4.5)] [B39] Actively work with Downtown businesses, Program B6.1.1 professional associations and the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce to retain successful retail PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-15 businesses that contribute to the City’s goals for Downtown. [NEW PROGRAM – PTC] [B40] South of Forest Mixed Use Area (SOFA) Policy B-6.2 Maintain uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the Downtown business district and serve the needs of nearby neighborhoods. [Previous Policy B-21] [B41] Stanford Shopping Center Policy B-6.3 Work with appropriate stakeholders, leaseholders, and Stanford University to ensure that the Stanford Shopping Center is sustained as a distinctive, economically competitive, and high quality regional shopping center. [Previous Policy B-22] [PTC] [B42] MULTI-NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS California Avenue Policy B-6.4 Foster the establishment of businesses and commercial services in the California Avenue business district that serve the adjacent neighborhoods, as well as Stanford Research Park.[Previous Policy B-24] [B43] El Camino Real Policy B-6.5 Strengthen the commercial viability of businesses along the El Camino Real corridor, by, for example, encouraging the development of well- designed retail, professional services and housing. [Previous Policy B-25] [PTC] [B44] Policy B-6.6 Recognize the role of El Camino Real as both a local-serving and regional-serving corridor, defined by a mix of retail uses, housing and office space. [NEW POLICY] [B45] Town and Country Village Policy B-6.7 Retain Town and County Village as an attractive, local-serving retail center. [Previous Policy B-26] [B46] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-16 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS GOAL B-7 Thriving business employment districts at Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical Center, East Bayshore/San Antonio Road Area and Bayshore Corridor that complement the City’s business and neighborhood centers. STANFORD RESEARCH PARK Policy B-7.1 Support the positive relationship between the local business community and Stanford University faculty, alumni, and administrators. [Previous Policy B-28] [B47] Policy B-7.2 Facilitate the ability of Stanford University and Research Park businesses to respond to changing market conditions that support the long-term viability of the Research Park. [Previous Policy B-29] [B48] Review policies and regulations guiding Program B7.2.1 development at Stanford Research Park and revise them as needed to allow improved responsiveness to changing market conditions. [Previous Program B-15] [B49] Study the feasibility of a “transfer of development Program B7.2.2 rights” (TDR) program and other measures that would provide greater development flexibility within Stanford Research Park without creating significant adverse traffic impacts or increasing the allowable floor area. [Previous Program B-16] [B50] Policy B-7.3 Encourage investment and activity along El Camino Real and within Stanford Research Park that complements the Research Park and adjacent neighborhoods and enhances their physical appearance. [Previous Policy B-30] [B51] Policy B-7.4 Identify opportunities along the El Camino Real and within Stanford Research Park where commercial services serving Research Park employees and visitors might be created. [Previous Program B-17] [B52] Policy B-7.5 Encourage incubator businesses in Stanford Research Park. [Previous Policy B-31] [B53] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-17 STANFORD MEDICAL CENTER Policy B-7.6 Support the approved buildout of the SUMC and assist Stanford Medical Center in responding to changes in the delivery of health care services. Work with the Center to plan for changing facility needs within the context of City of Palo Alto planning goals and policies, as well as the goals and policies of other relevant jurisdictions. [Previous Policy B-32] [B54] EAST BAYSHORE AND SAN ANTONIO ROAD/BAYSHORE CORRIDOR Policy B-7.7 Seek to balance increases in costs for business space with the need for rehabilitation and replacement of outdated space in the San Antonio Road and East Bayshore areas, consistent with the East Meadow Circle Concept Plan as periodically amended. [Previous Policy B-33] [B55] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-18 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-1 7 This preliminary draft element was prepared by City staff on the basis of input from the CAC and members of the public received from January 2017 through February 2017. The Element was reviewed by the full CAC on February 21, 2017 and revised based on CAC comments. The revised draft Element was presented to the CAC as a consent item on March 21, 2017. The CAC recommended it for Council review. It will be presented as a draft to Palo Alto City Council on May 15, 2017, along with final CAC comments. INTRODUCTION The Business and Economics Element addresses economic development policy issues. It is not a State-required Comprehensive Plan element. Instead, it is an optional element, but its contents are equally important to those in the mandatory elements. This Element, informed by local economic conditions and forecasts, focuses on the role of local businesses in the community and provides mechanisms for the City to support innovation, entrepreneurship, and local-serving retail and professional services. Its goals emphasize a thriving economy, compatibility and interdependence with residential neighborhoods, fiscal health, a culture of innovation and business diversity, flexibility and predictability in City regulations, as well as attractive, vibrant business centers and business employment districts. Implementation of this Element will take place over time and will utilize available planning and regulatory tools, such as the Zoning Ordinance, Coordinated Area Plans, and design review and ongoing outreach by the City to businesses. Land use topics relevant to the design of retail centers (Goal B-5) and business employment districts (Goal B-6) are discussed in the Land Use and Community Design Element. Transportation-related topics, such as employee commutes, the impact of commute-related congestion on residents, and adequate parking, are addressed in the Transportation Element. VISION: Palo Alto’s business environment will be exciting, dynamic and vital. Businesses will have access to a wide array of support services and will enjoy positive relationships with Palo Alto residents, officials, and City staff. The competing needs diverse character of residents and businesses Palo Alto will be balancedremain, so that the City’s livable neighborhoods are protected and enhanced, while its business districts are remain competitive and attractive. The local economy will thrive, and a diverse array of goods and services will be provided to Palo Alto consumers., and the City’s historic, mutually beneficial relationship with Stanford University supported. Most development will occur within Palo Alto’s business employment areas,districts and will be consistent with the role and character designated for each areathose districts by this Plan. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-2 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 ECONOMIC CONTEXT EMPLOYMENT Since 2010, in the aftermath of the Great Recession, the Silicon Valley region has experienced nearly a twenty percent increase in the number of jobs. During the same period of time, the unemployment rate has decreased to record lows. These trends are consistent with broader employment trends in both California and the Bay Area. The City is recognized as a hub of innovation and entrepreneurship, with employers concentrated in the education, medical, software, technology, biotechnology, financial, professional, and government services industries. Major employers in Palo Alto include Stanford University, Stanford Health Care, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, VMware, SAP, Space Systems/Loral, Hewlett-Packard, and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Each of these companies, institutions or agencies employs more than 2,000 persons. The top three employers, who are all affiliated with Stanford University, also include employees who work just outside of the city limits, in the part of unincorporated Santa Clara County that is within Palo Alto’s sphere of influence (SOI). As shown in Figure B-1, jobs are located throughout Palo Alto, primarily in the four Business Employment Districts, two Regional Centers, and three Multi-Neighborhood Centers identified in the Land Use and Community Design Element. The pie chart is based on approximately 95,000 jobs within the City limits. Stanford Research Park contains the largest concentration employees—36 percent—while the University Avenue/ Downtown Area and Stanford University Medical Center are other important employment areas, each hosting nine percent of the City’s employees. However, over a quarter of workers are dispersed outside of the Employment Districts and Centers. Successful businesses and employers are an integral part of a thriving, complete community. Local businesses offer many positives, including offering goods and services to residents and providing revenues that support the high quality of Palo Alto’s services. However, Palo Alto has an unusually high concentration of jobs, with PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-3 approximately three times as many jobs (over 100,000) as employed residents (about 36,000). This indicates an exceptionally strong local economy, but it has also brought negative side effects over the past decade. Due to the high number of jobs relative to a low number of employed residents, many workers must commute to Palo Alto, resulting in traffic congestion, air pollution, and parking constraints. The understandable desire of workers to live close to their jobs has driven up the price of housing dramatically. The resulting high cost of living prevents restaurants, hotels and others in the service industry from finding sufficient employees. Similarly, commercial rents have risen precipitously in response to the demand for a Palo Alto address, driving a conversion of retail spaces to office uses and pricing out smaller stores and professional services. The City recognizes the importance of providing affordable housing and efficient transit opportunities for employees of all types of businesses, as addressed in the Land Use and Community Design, Transportation and Housing Elements of this Plan. RETAIL Palo Alto is home to a wide array of retail opportunities, from Stanford Shopping Center, to University Avenue, to small neighborhood-oriented shopping centers. Stanford Research Park, 36% Stanford Medical Center, 9% University Ave/Downtown, 9% San Antonio Road/ Bayshore Corridor, 6% Stanford Shopping Center, 5% Town & Country Village, 4% California Avenue, 3% East Bayshore, 2% Rest of City, 28% Figure B-1: City Employment Distribution Source: Association of Bay Area Governments and City of Palo Alto, 2016. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-4 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Currently, retail sales tax provides approximately five percent of total revenues to the City. Figure B-2 shows the revenue the City received in 2015 from sales tax (tax imposed on purchases of all goods in the state) and use tax (tax imposed on all purchases of goods from out-of-state vendors). Of the approximately $23 million in revenue, over half was generated by Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford Research Park and Downtown/University Avenue combined. The significant contribution of Stanford Research Park reflects the fact that retails sales tax includes taxes on business-to-business sales. While total sales tax revenue, including state and county pool allocations, in the City has increased significantly since 2009, the rate of increase has slowed in the past few years, as shown in Figure B-3. Recent economic studies have shown that retail spending is attributable not only to local residents, but also to local employees, local businesses, and visitors who come to the city for shopping and leisure, including University students. However, small, independent and locally-serving retailers in Palo Alto are currently experiencing challenges due to high rents, competition from online retailers, including in recruiting and retaining employees, as well as increasing healthcare costs. PLANNING CONTEXT THRIVING ECONOMY The City’s fiscal health and livability depend on maintaining a diverse community of businesses that are supported by residents, visitors, and workers. The City recognizes the need for all types of goods and services in the community, including by utilizing public-private partnerships and supporting non-profit agencies. Additionally, developing and maintaining advanced communications infrastructure is crucial to ensuring the City continues to be a viable location for new and established technology businesses. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-5 Stanford Shopping Center $5,700,000.00 25% Stanford Research Park $3,000,000.00 13% Downtown/ University Ave $3,400,000.00 15% California Ave/Park Blvd/Lambert Ave $1,500,000.00 6% Town & Country $600,000.00 3% All Other Areas $8,600,000.00 38% Figure B-2: Sales and Use Tax Revenue Received by the City by Geographical Area, Year Ending December 2015 Source: City of Palo Alto Office of the City Auditor. Sales Tax Digest Summary, Fourth Quarter Sales (October – December 2015). $- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 2009-10 Actual 2010-11 Actual 2011-12 Actual 2012-13 Actual 2013-14 Actual 2014-15 Actual 2015-16 Actual Fiscal Year Figure B-3: Sales Tax over Time Sales Tax Source: City of Palo Alto Open Data Portal. http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/home, accessed March 2017. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-6 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 INTERDEPENDENCE A thriving business environment in Palo Alto is one that complements and supports the city’s residential neighborhoods and natural environment. The City can help cultivate interdependence between commercial centers and surrounding neighborhoods through policies that maintain the natural environment while minimizing potential impacts on neighborhoods such as traffic and parking. FISCAL HEALTH Palo Alto’s continued fiscal health is crucial to providing the range and quality of infrastructure, services, amenities, and maintenance that residents expect. The key indicator of the fiscal health of any agency or organization is a balanced ratio of revenues to expenses. As shown in Figure B-4, the City’s total revenue stream has increased steadily over the last seven fiscal years (FY), from approximately $478 million in FY 2009-2010 to about $580 million in FY 2015-2016. This revenue comes from diverse sources, from the sale of utilities such as electricity, gas, water, and fiber optics; to the receipt of sales and property taxes. Figure B-5 illustrates total City expenses over the same time period, and shows that costs associated with salaries and benefits, utility purchases, contract services and other expenses have also risen, from about $526 million in FY 2009-2010 to about $629 million in FY 2015-2016. However, as illustrated in Figure B-6, Palo Alto’s total revenue has consistently outpaced its expenses, by an average of approximately $23 million per fiscal year. CULTURE OF INNOVATION AND BUSINESS DIVERSITY Palo Alto is a center of innovation within the technology sector. The City plays a key role in supporting business growth, including community-serving businesses and arts-based businesses, and utilizes metrics to track progress towards citywide economic goals. Partnerships and paired research efforts with Stanford University have consistently advanced across business sectors. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-7 $- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 2009-10 Actual 2010-11 Actual 2011-12 Actual 2012-13 Actual 2013-14 Actual 2014-15 Actual 2015-16 Actual Fiscal Year Figure B-4: Revenues over Time Net Sales Property Taxes Charges to Other Funds Sales Taxes Charges for Services Rental Income Return on Investments Transient Occupancy Tax Other Income Other Revenue More (8 Revenue Types Grouped) Source: City of Palo Alto Open Data Portal, http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/home., accessed March 2017. $- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 $700,000,000 2009-10 Actual 2010-11 Actual 2011-12 Actual 2012-13 Actual 2013-14 Actual 2014-15 Actual 2015-16 Actual Fiscal Year Figure B-5: Revenues and Expenses over Time Revenues Expenses Source: City of Palo Alto Open Data Portal, http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/home, accessed March PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-8 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 FLEXIBILITY AND PREDICTABILITY The City can support a healthy businesses environment by providing regulations and operating procedures that provide business owners and neighbors with predictability and certainty through changing economic cycles, while maintaining flexibility and adaptability as market conditions change. This could involve streamlining administrative and regulatory processes, and simplifying design guidelines for new development. The City can act as a facilitator between residents and businesses in these processes to help ensure that neighbors, as well as employers, understand requirements and know what to expect. RETAIL CENTERS Palo Alto’s robust retail economy is focused in retail centers, including both regional retail draws such as University Avenue/Downtown and Stanford Shopping Center, corridors such as California Avenue and El Camino Real, and smaller shopping centers like Edgewood Plaza. Regional retail centers employ large numbers of people, attract shoppers from well beyond Palo Alto’s boundaries, generate high sales tax revenues, and offer the broadest mix of goods and services. Multi- neighborhood Centers serve a much smaller area, typically the city or several neighborhoods within the city. Neighborhood Centers are the smallest unit; although their economic contributions are less substantial, they are vital to Palo Alto residents and are very much a part of community life. This Element provides policies and program to encourage the continued vibrancy of all Retail Centers, while recognizing that each Retail Center should maintain its distinctive character. BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS As described in the Land Use and Community Design Element, there are three Business Employment Districts in Palo Alto: Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical Center, and East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor. These districts provide thousands of local jobs, establish a customer base for many other Palo Alto businesses, and generate tax revenues for the city. Because each plays a central role in maintaining the fiscal health of the City, it is important to support their long-term viability and ability to respond to changing global economic conditions. STANFORD RESEARCH PARK As noted above, over one-third of the jobs in Palo Alto are located in Stanford Research Park. Over the coming decades, the Research Park will continue to evolve, but is likely to remain a major employment center. Working closely with Stanford PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-9 University and the hundreds of employers in the Research Park will help the Research Park remain competitive with others in the Bay Area and nation, while also providing opportunities to address issues of shared concern, such as easing commute-related congestion. Reinvestment along El Camino Real will not only benefit Research Park employees, but will also help the City increase vitality and enhance the physical appearance of El Camino Real. Providing housing and services like restaurants within walking distance of the Research Park also helps fulfill the City’s goal of reducing auto dependence. STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC), including the Stanford University School of Medicine, the Stanford University Clinic, Stanford University Hospital, and Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital, currently employs approximately 10,000 people and is one of the largest concentrations of health care services in the Bay Area. The City approved a Development Agreement with SUMC in 2011 which will continue for 30 years, throughout the life of this Comprehensive Plan. The Development Agreement covers the construction of a new Stanford Hospital and clinics buildings, an expansion of the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, construction of new School of Medicine buildings, renovation of the existing Hoover Pavilion, construction of a new medical office building and parking garage at Hoover Pavilion, roadway improvements along Welch Road and Durand Way, and SUMC design guidelines. Growth associated with the agreement is expected to increase employment at SUMC by approximately 2,500 jobs. The City Council reviews SUMC’s compliance with the terms of the Agreement on an annual basis. EAST BAYSHORE AND SAN ANTONIO ROAD/BAYSHORE CORRIDOR The East Bayshore and San Antonio Road areas serve a special economic role. Its relatively low-cost space provides opportunities for a variety of service industries and start-up businesses that could not feasibly locate in the higher cost areas. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-10 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS GROWTH THRIVING ECONOMY GOAL B-1 B-3: New Businesses in Palo Alto that contribute to economic vitality, and enhance the city’s physical environment, promote municipal revenues and provide needed local services.and Municipal Revenues Policy B-1.1 Encourage new businesses that meet the City’s business, andeconomic, goals or municipal services requirements, as articulated in this Plan and the City’s other Economic Development Policies, to locate in Palo Alto. [Previous Policy B-9] [B1] Direct Implement the City’s Economic Resource Program B1.1.1 Plan Palo Alto Office of Economic Development to implement the Economic Development Policy, as periodically amended, to guide business development in the City. [Previous Program B-2] [B2] Policy B-1.2 Promote Palo Alto’s image as a business-friendly community. Assume an active role in fostering new businesses, particularly including small start-ups, entrepreneurs, and , start-up innovative businesses. in emerging industries. [Previous Policy B-10] [B3] Policy B-1.3 Engage with all stakeholders in the community, including businesses of all sizes, local retailers, the public, and City decision-makers in order to understand the challenges businesses and employers face. [NEW POLICY] [B4] Policy B-1.4 Attract businesses that innovate in the areas of mobility and sustainability, and encourage these businesses to employ local residents. [NEW POLICY] [B5] Policy B-1.5 Consider Encourage the use of public private partnerships as a means of redeveloping and revitalizing selected areas where beneficial to achieving the City’s goals. [Previous Policy B-11] [B6] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-11 Policy B-1.6 Encourage the private sector to participate in partnerships withpartnerships with community groups and nonprofit or public agencyies building owners and developers to provide space for community-serving non-profits.or public agencies community benefits when feasible and services that would not otherwise be made available. [Previous Policy B-12] [B7] Policy B-1.7 Encourage businesses of all kinds to advance Palo Alto’s commitment to fiscal and environmental sustainability. [NEW POLICY] [B8] On an ongoing basis, evaluate opportunities for City involvement in public/ private partnerships, including public investment in infrastructure and other improvements, siting of public art, and modification of land use regulations and other development controls. [Previous Program B-3] Support the development of technologically advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of the emerging telecommunications industries [Previous Policy B-13] Develop the City Council-approved fiber optic ring around the City as recommended in the 1996 Telecommunications Strategy Study and evaluate and implement enhancements to the system. [Previous Program B-4] Work with electronic information network providers to maximize potential benefits for Palo Alto businesses, schools, residences, and other potential users [Previous Policy B-14] Allow the creative use of City utilities and rights of way to ensure competition among networks in providing information systems infrastructure [Previous Policy B-15] COMPATIBILITY AND INTERDEPENDENCE GOAL B-2 B-1: A thriving business environment that complements is Compatible with Palo Alto’s residential Character neighborhoods and natural environment. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-12 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Policy B-2.1 Support local-serving retail, recognizing that it provides opportunities for local employment, reduced commute times, stronger community connections and neighborhood orientation. [NEW POLICY] [B9] Policy B-2.2 Support a strong interdependence between existing commercial centers and surrounding neighborhoods as a way of encouraging economic vitality. [Previous Policy B-2] [B10] Policy B-2.3 Recognize that employers, businesses and neighborhoods share many values and concerns, including traffic and parking issues and preserving Palo Alto’s livability, and need to work together. [NEW POLICY] [B11] Policy B-2.4 Use a variety of planning and regulatory tools including growth limits, to ensure compatibility between Palo Alto’s thriving business districts and its healthy, stable neighborhoods. change is compatible with the needs of Palo Alto neighborhoods. [Previous Policy B-1] [B12] Policy B-2.5 Recognize that Palo Alto’s street tree systemnatural environment and features is anare economic assets to the City. [Previous Policy B-3] [B13] FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY GOAL B-3 Careful management of City revenues and expenditures so that the fiscal health of the City is ensured and services are delivered efficiently and equitably. (NEW GOAL) Policy B-3.1 Promote a comprehensive approach to fiscal sustainability that includes careful monitoring of revenues and expenditures, efficient City operations, and land use, business and employment strategies. [NEW POLICY] [B14] Policy B-3.2 Support a diverse range of businesses that generate revenue and enhance the City’s fiscal sustainability. [NEW POLICY] [B15] Continue to refine tools, such as the Business Program B3.2.1 Registry, as data sources on existing businesses, including the type of business, number of employees, size, location, and other metrics to track the diversity of Palo Alto businesses. [NEW PROGRAM – PTC] [B16] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-13 Policy B-3.3 Develop strategies for promoting businesses and employers that generate revenues that will support a full range of high-quality City services, including retain and attract revenue-generating businesses. [NEW POLICY] [B17] CULTURE OF INNOVATION AND BUSINESS DIVERSITY GOAL B-4 B-2: A diverse mix of Commercial, Retail, and Professional Service Businesses The stimulation of diverse commercial, retail and professional service business opportunities through supportive business policies and a culture of innovation. Policy B-4.1 Nurture and support Palo Alto’s image as a global center of emerging technology by fostering innovation, supporting the established businesses technology sector as well asand newattracting new businesses. [Previous Policy B-4] [PTC] [B18] Policy B-4.2 Attract and support small businesses, non-profit organizations, and professional services, which are vital to a diverse and innovative economy. [NEW POLICY] [B19] Revise zoning and other regulations as needed to Program B4.2.1 encourage the preservation of space to accommodate small businesses and other services. [NEW PROGRAM] [B20] Consider planning, regulatory, or other incentives to Program B4.2.2 encourage property owners to include smaller office spaces in their buildings to serve small businesses, non-profit organizations, and independent professionals. [NEW PROGRAM] [B21] Policy B-4.3 Promote the growth of small businesses. [NEW POLICY] [B22] Policy B-4.4 Recognize that Stanford Research Park contains a concentration of some of the City’s largest employers, and seek to maintain a mix of office and research and development uses. [NEW POLICY] [B23] Policy B-4.5 Maintain distinct business districts as a means of retaining local services and diversifying the City’s economic base. [Previous Policy B-5] [B24] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-14 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Policy B-4.6 Encourage and support the operation of small, independent retail businesses, and locally-serving professional services. [Previous Policy B-7] [B25] Work with local merchants to encourage Palo Alto Program B4.6.1 residents, workers, and visitors to buy, and seek professional services, in Palo Alto. [NEW PROGRAM] [B26] Study the impacts of on-line shopping on local, Program B4.6.2 traditional retail uses and develop strategies to help traditional retail adapt. [NEW PROGRAM] [B27] Evaluate which types of businesses are most likely Program B4.6.3 to be successful and where. [NEW PROGRAM] [B28] Study the overall viability of ground-floor retail Program B4.6.4 requirements in preserving retail space and creating an active street environment, including the types of locations where such requirements are most effective. [NEW PROGRAM] [B29] Maintain distinct neighborhood shopping areas that Program B4.6.5 are attractive, accessible, and convenient to nearby residents. [Previous Policy B-6] [B30] Initiate assessment districts or other programs to facilitate neighborhood shopping center improvements such as landscaping, parking, and access to public transportation. [Previous Program B-1] Encourage the renovation and reuse of long-term vacant buildings. [Previous Policy B-8] Policy B-4.7 Explore opportunities to provide spaces for arts and entertainment activities, and other creative and visitor uses. [NEW POLICY – PTC] [B31] FLEXIBILITY AND PREDICTABILITY GOAL B-5 City regulations and operating procedures that provide certainty, and predictability and flexibility and help businesses adapt to changing market conditions. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-15 Policy B-5.1 Maintain a healthy business climate, which provides for predictability and flexibility for those seeking City approvals. Encourage streamlining of City administrative and regulatory processes wherever possible. Reduce inefficiencies, overlap, and time delays associated with these processes. [Previous Policy B-16] [B32] Regularly evaluate ways to improve coordination of Program B5.1.1 the City’s environmental review, permitting, and inspection processes. including issues relating to hazardous materials and water quality regulations. [Previous Program B-6] [B33] Improve design guidelines to reduce ambiguity and Program B5.1.2 more clearly articulate design compatibility principles to the business community and to the public. [Previous Program B-7] [B34] Simplify the design review process for small-scale Program B5.1.3 changes to previously approved site plans and buildings. [Previous Program B-5] [B35] Evaluate methods to achieve the development limitations currently imposed by adopted floor area ratios in a more flexible manner. Such methods could include the use of building envelope restrictions. [Previous Program B-8] Revise the Sign Ordinance to more clearly reflect community design standards and requirements relating to size, number of signs, allowed locations, and design. [Previous Program B-9] Revise zoning and other regulations as needed to Program B5.1.4 encourage the revitalization of aging retail structures and areas. Encourage the preservation of space to accommodate small, independent retail businesses and professional services. [Previous Program B-10] [B36] Policy B-5.2 Continue to provide “one stop” service at the Development Center and to consolidate inspections to the extent feasible. [NEW POLICY] [B37] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-16 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Policy B-5.3 Strengthen the role of the Office of Economic Development to attract and retain local serving businesses; assist businesses to navigate City procedures and requirements; and facilitate communication between residents and businesses.[NEW POLICY] [B38] RETAIL CENTERS GOAL B-6 Attractive, vibrant business retail centers, each with a mix of uses and a distinctive character. ALL CENTERS Where redevelopment is desired, encourage owners to upgrade commercial properties through incentives such as reduce parking requirements, credit for on-street parking, and increases in allowable floor area. Use such incentives only where they are needed to simulate redevelopment or contribute to housing or community design goals. [Previous Policy B-17] Create incentives for providing multi-unit housing on top of parking lots in or near commercial centers and transit hubs. [Previous Policy B- 18] Use street corridor improvements as catalysts for economic revitalization in selected Centers. [(Previous Policy B-19) (Overlaps with Land Use Policy L-4.1)] Identify and prioritize commercial centers in need of economic or physical revitalization. [Previous Program B-11] REGIONAL CENTERS University Avenue/Downtown Policy B-6.1 Support and enhance the University Avenue/ Downtown area as a vital mixed use area containing retail, personal service, andsmall office, restaurant, residential, and arts and entertainment uses. Recognize the importance of an appropriate retail mix, including small local businesses, to the continued vitality of Downtown. [(Previous Policy B-20) (Overlaps with Land Use Element Policy L-4.5)] [B39] Actively work with Downtown businesses, Program B6.1.1 professional associations and the Palo Alto PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-17 Chamber of Commerce to retain successful retail businesses that contribute to the City’s goals for Downtown. [NEW PROGRAM – PTC] [B40] South of Forest Mixed Use Area (SOFA) Policy B-6.2 Maintain uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the Downtown business district, allow for the continued operation of automotive service uses, and serve the needs of nearby neighborhoods. [Previous Policy B-21] [B41] Stanford Shopping Center Policy B-6.3 Work with appropriate stakeholders, leaseholders, and Stanford University to ensure that the Stanford Shopping Center is sustained as a distinctive, economically competitive, and high quality regional shopping center. [Previous Policy B-22] [PTC] [B42] MULTI-NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS California Avenue/Cal-Ventura Maintain the existing local-serving retail orientation of the California Avenue business district. Discourage development that would turn the district into a regional shopping area or intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods. [(Previous Policy B-23)] Policy B-6.4 Foster the establishment of businesses and commercial services in the California Avenue business district that serve the adjacent neighborhoods, as well as Stanford Research Park.[Previous Policy B- 24] [B43] El Camino Real Policy B-6.5 Strengthen the commercial viability of businesses along the El Camino Real corridor, by, for example, encouraging Encourage the development of well-designed pedestrian-oriented neighborhood retail, professional services and housing. office centers along the El Camino corridor. [Previous Policy B-25] [PTC] [B44] Policy B-6.6 Recognize the role of El Camino Real as both a local-serving and regional-serving corridor, defined by a mix of retail uses, housing and office space. [NEW POLICY] [B45] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-18 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Town and Country Village Policy B-6.7 Retain Town and County Village as an attractive, local-serving retail center. the local-serving retail character of Town and Country Village. [Previous Policy B-26] [B46] NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS Support the upgrading and revitalization of Palo Alto's four Neighborhood Commercial Centers. [Previous Policy B-27] Review the effect of size caps, parking requirements, and other land use restrictions on the viability and competitiveness of neighborhood centers. [Previous Program B-13] BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS GOAL B-7 Thriving business employment districts at Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical Center, East Bayshore/San Antonio Road Area and Bayshore Corridor that complement the City’s business and neighborhood centers. STANFORD RESEARCH PARK Policy B-7.1 Support the positive relationship between the local business community and Stanford University faculty, alumni, and administrators. [Previous Policy B-28] [B47] Policy B-7.2 Facilitate Stanford’s the ability of Stanford University and Research Park businesses to respond to changing market conditions that support the long-term viability of the Research Park. [Previous Policy B-29] [B48] Modify zoning regulations to allow convenience-oriented businesses such as restaurant s and office support services within the Research Park. [Previous Program B-14] Review policies and regulations guiding Program B7.2.1 development at Stanford Research Park and revise them as needed to allow improved responsiveness PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-19 to changing market conditions. [Previous Program B-15] [B49] Study the feasibility of a “transfer of development Program B7.2.2 rights” (TDR) program and other measures that would provide greater development flexibility within Stanford Research Park without creating significant adverse traffic impacts or increasing the allowable floor area. [Previous Program B-16] [B50] Policy B-7.3 Encourage commercial investment and activity along El Camino Real and within Stanford Research Park that complements the Research Park and adjacent neighborhoodsStanford Research Park and enhances their its physical appearance. [Previous Policy B-30] [B51] Policy B-7.4 Identify opportunities along the El Camino Real and within Stanford Research Park where a concentration of commercial services serving Research Park employees and visitors might be created. [Previous Program B-17] [B52] Evaluate the location near the northwest corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real for a hotel and conference facility. [Previous Program B-18] Policy B-7.5 Encourage incubator businesses in Stanford Research Park. [Previous Policy B-31] [B53] STANFORD MEDICAL CENTER Policy B-7.6 Support the approved buildout of the SUMC and Aassist Stanford Medical Center in responding to changes in the delivery of health care services. Work with the Center to plan for changing facility needs, but within the context of City of Palo Alto planning goals and policies, as well as the goals and policies of other relevant jurisdictions. [Previous Policy B-32] [B54] EAST BAYSHORE AND SAN ANTONIO ROAD/BAYSHORE CORRIDOR Policy B-7.7 Seek to balance increases in costs for business space with the need for rehabilitation and replacement of outdated space Discourage actions that could increase the cost of business space in the San Antonio Road and East Bayshore areas, consistent with the East Meadow Circle Concept Plan as periodically amended. [Previous Policy B-33] [B55] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-20 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 1 RELEVANT CITY DOCUMENTS AND STUDIES: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY ELEMENTS Compiled for the Comprehensive Plan Citizens’ Advisory Committee, October 2016 – November 2016 Natural Environment Element • Airplane Noise Study [link]: Palo Alto also commissioned its own of aircraft overflight noise, performed by consulting firm Freytag & Associates Inc. The evaluation found that planes fly lower, faster and more frequently, resulting in increased noise. • Guidelines for Dewatering During Basement or Below Ground Garage Construction [link]: Adopted by the City in 2016, the guidelines provide a set of requirements for the dewatering process that must be adhered to, including 1) the use of fill stations so that others may use water for irrigation; and 2) a plan that demonstrates how a maximum amount of pumped water will be safely used. • Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance, Section 18.040.140 of the Zoning Code [link]: This ordinance applies to areas within 50 feet of the top of a stream bank and establishes requirements for construction, planting, lighting, and irrigation within the stream corridor. The ordinance was informed by the "Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams: A Manual of Tools, Standards, and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resource in Santa Clara County [link]” created by the Water Resources Protection Collaborative, a group of representatives from the water district, cities, the County, business, agriculture, streamside property owners and environmental interests convened by SCVWD. The City formally adopted the guidelines in 2007. • Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan (Master Plan) [link]: The goal of this Master Plan, currently set for adoption in 2017, is to provide guidance for meeting future recreational, programming, and environmental and maintenance needs, as well as establishing priorities for future park renovations and facility improvements. • Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) [link]: The UFMP, adopted in 2015, establishes long-term management goals and strategies to foster a sustainable urban forest in Palo Alto. The UFMP addresses topics such as the state of Palo Alto's tree canopy, best management practices, interdepartmental coordination, and tree-related City regulations. • Tree Technical Manual [link]: The Tree Technical Manual establishes specific technical standards and specifications deemed necessary to implement the City’s 1997 Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, and to achieve the City’s tree preservation goals. • Baylands Master Plan (BMP) [link]: Originally adopted in 1978 and last updated in 2008, the BMP is a long-range plan for “treating the Baylands as an integrated whole and balancing ecological preservation with continued commercial and recreational use.” • Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) [link]: Most recently revised in 2013, the Plan addresses the protection and management of federally listed and special-status species, labeled 2 "Covered Species," that occur or potentially occur on Stanford lands. The HCP plan area includes some lands within the Palo Alto city limits, and portions these lands, such as the Lagunitas Reservoir and undeveloped areas west of Foothill Expressway, have been identified as habitats for Covered Species. • Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) [link]: A Draft S/CAP was released in April 2016. On April 18, 2016 the Council unanimously approved the primary goal of the S/CAP - achieving an 80% reduction in Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) below 1990 levels by 2030. On November 28, 2016 the Council unanimously adopted the S/CAP Framework [link]. This Framework will serve as the road map for achieving Palo Alto’s 80 x 30 GHG reduction goal, and for developing the Sustainability Implementation Plans (SIPs). Safety Element • Local Hazard Mitigations Plan (LHMP) [link]: Palo Alto’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) is currently developing a city-specific version of Santa Clara County’s LHMP, a plan required by federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 that will update the City’s 2012 “annex” of the County LHMP [link]. The LHMP describes broad community goals and actions to mitigate the highest- priority hazards facing Palo Alto. The Plan will build on a comprehensive vulnerability/risk assessment to develop a series of policies and actions to mitigate the city’s top hazards of earthquake, flood, sea-level rise, wildfire, drought and extreme heat. • Vulnerability Assessment [link]: Recent legislation, notably Senate Bill 379 (2015), requires that local climate adaptation and safety policy be based on a formal vulnerability assessment. As noted below, the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, currently being prepared, is based on such an assessment. Throughout 2016, the LHMP team has identified and assessed top city hazards, inventoried its major assets and established a community risk profile. Although the vulnerability assessment has not yet been published, Planning staff is coordinating with staff from the City’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) [link], the department that is responsible for the vulnerability assessment and LHMP. • Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) [link]: A THIRA is a four step planning tool that the Department of Homeland Security requires of states and “high-threat, high-density urban areas,” including Palo Alto, to prepare. The THIRA covers natural hazards, technological hazards, and human-caused threats and lays out a framework “to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk.” Through the THIRA process, the City identified a range of potential hazards and prioritized the greatest risks, ranging from earthquake and flood to airplane accidents or cyber-attacks. • Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) [link]: The City Council adopted the current EOP in January 2016. It “serves as the foundational document for the City’s emergency management activities” and establishes departmental roles and responsibilities for mitigating, preparing for, responding to, and recovering from emergencies or disasters. It also outlines interjurisdictional coordination, mutual aid, and a “Whole Community” approach of collaborating with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), community-based organizations (CBOs), faith-based organizations (FBOs), private-sector businesses, educational organizations, and other stakeholders. 3 • SAFER Bay Levee Improvements [link]: The San Francisquito Creek JPA is currently conducting a levee improvement design project for the Bayfront levees between San Francisquito Creek and the Palo Alto/Mountain View border. The Strategy to Advance Flood protection, Ecosystems and Recreation or “SAFER Bay” will develop a Bayfront levee system design that provides 1% (100- year) protection from tidal flooding, assuming three feet of seal level rise over the next five decades. Palo Alto is participating in a feasibility study to identify potential alternative methods and alignments for levee improvements, estimated project costs, and preliminary environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and permitting requirements. • Foothills Fire Management Plan (FFMP) [link]: The goal of this 2009 management plan is to reduce losses from wildland fire in Palo Alto’s Wildland Urban Interface area, including the foothill areas within the City limits west of I-280. The majority of this area is covered by the Pearson- Arastradero Preserve, Foothills Open Space Preserve, and Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. In 2012, the City entered into a multi-year agreement with the Santa Clara FireSafe Council to implement the FFMP and to provide additional community education and outreach to the residents of the Wildland Urban Interface area within the city. The FireSafe Council is currently in the process of preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan [link] that includes a Palo Alto annex [link]. • Seismic Risk Management Advisory Group [link]: The City has convened an advisory group to provide input about community priorities regarding updating Palo Alto’s Seismic Hazards and Identification Program (Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.42). Members represent local residents (owners and renters), architects, engineers, contractors, developers, City staff, and regional agencies. Agendas, minutes, and presentations are available at the link above. • Capital Improvement Program [link]: The 2017-2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), adopted as part of the Fiscal Year 2017 Capital Budget, provides information regarding plans for infrastructure maintenance, expansion, and regulation in Palo Alto. • Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee [link]: In 2010 the City Council created a commission of 17 citizens and commissioners to provide a recommendation on infrastructure needs, priorities, projects and associated funding mechanisms to address the infrastructure backlog and future needs. The IBRC considered these questions over a 25-year time horizon and made specific recommendations to “catch up” (address deferred maintenance) and “keep up” (conduct routine maintenance and plan head for systematic repairs), as well as plan for new or rehabilitated facilities. The IBRC final report contains 20 specific recommendations, including a new system for monitoring infrastructure; building a new Public Safety Building; and approaches to financing infrastructure investments. The IBRC concluded their work in 2011. • Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) [link]: As required by the Urban Water Management Planning Act, all cities are required to update their UWMP every five years and submit it to the California Department of Water Resources for review and approval. The 2015 UWMP, adopted by the City Council in May 2016, includes an assessment of the reliability of the City’s water sources, an analysis of water demand and alternative water supply sources, a description of water conservation efforts, and a water shortage contingency plan. • Water Integrated Resources Plan (WIRP) [link]: Originally adopted in 2003 and updated in 2016, the WIRP discusses the variety of potable water supply resources and planning. It includes an 4 assessment of alternative potable water supplies, and assesses recycled water as a tool to reduce potable water demand. • Recycled Water [link]: The City owns and operates the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), a wastewater treatment plant, for the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Stanford University. Wastewater from the City and these communities is treated by the RWQCP prior to discharge to the Bay. The RWQCP currently produces recycled water in excess of the current demand; therefore staff is working to expand the recycled water demand and distribution system. The City certified an EIR [link] on September 28, 2015, to expand recycled water through South Palo Alto to Stanford Research Park and is currently working on updating the 1992 Recycled Water Master Plan. To improve the quality of recycled water and reduce its salinity/total dissolved solids (TDS), the City is initiating a jointly funded feasibility study (with SCVWD and Mountain View) on the installation of an advanced water purification system (AWPS) at RWQCP (link to CMR here). • Sewer System Management Plan [link]: The Sewer System Management Plan documents the proper operation and maintenance of CPAU’s sanitary sewer system, including capacity management and system audits. In addition, the Municipal Code includes the Sewer Use Ordinance [link] to prevent and control pollution and protect and foster human and environmental health and the Private Sewage Disposal Systems Code [link], which prohibits the installation of private sewage disposal systems or septic systems in subdivisions, except where installation of public sanitary sewerage facilities is clearly not feasible. • Storm Drain Master Plan [link]: The City prepared a Storm Drain Master Plan Update in June 2015. The Master Plan Update re-examined and reprioritized the storm drain improvements needed to increase the capacity of the City’s storm drain system to bring it into conformance with current design standards. More recently, an 11-member Storm Drain Blue Ribbon Committee concluded its work and forwarded recommendations to Council for future storm drain funding. The Blue Ribbon Committee suggested a shift to using the term “stormwater management” and recommended that the City emphasize green storm water infrastructure planning and implementation in its future storm water program and City-wide capital improvement program scoping and budgeting. The shift toward green infrastructure is consistent with new mandates from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board to develop a Green Storm Water Infrastructure Plan. (Council staff report and complete recommendations here) [link] • Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) Master Plan [link]: The City of Palo Alto operates its own fiber optic utility. City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) has the day-to-day responsibility for operating, maintaining, and marketing a 41-mile dark fiber optic backbone system (“fiber system”) that passes key City facilities, business parks, and commercial areas. CPAU licenses “dark fiber” for commercial purposes. Customers pay a one-time construction fee to connect to the fiber system and then pay a monthly recurring charge to license the use of the dark fiber. In 2015 the City completed a Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) Master Plan and a Wireless Network Plan. The key recommendations from the FTTP Master Plan suggested that the City explore a public-private partnership to develop an FTTP network (as a complement to the existing dark fiber network) and offer retail FTTP services. The Wireless Network Plan recommends expanding the City’s existing Wi-Fi coverage to additional City facilities and adjoining public areas such as parks; installing dedicated wireless facilities to address the needs of the City’s first responders and Utilities; and considering a citywide broadband wireless network for use by the general public. 5 • CPAU Carbon-Neutral Portfolio [link]: The City is committed to providing a carbon-neutral electricity supply from sources including solar, wind, landfill-gas-to-energy plants and hydroelectric projects and has many long term power contracts in place to ensure a reliable supply of renewable energy. CPAU requires that all of the facilities from which CPAU procures electricity must comply with applicable State, federal and local environmental rules and regulations, including individual environmental review and permitting processes. CPAU relies on those State and federal environmental laws and controls that protect endangered species, which the developers of renewable energy power plants must comply with and which the governing bodies approving those developments must enforce. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT PLACES MEMO Tuesday, December 13, 2016 The following documents are attached for your review and information: 1. CAC member Bonnie Packer’s comments 2. CAC member Hamilton Hitching’s comments 3. CAC member Annette Glanckopf’s comments Comments From CAC Member Bonnie Packer 12/12/2016 Introduction is great. Just a few editorial comments: Introduction: “management of open land”: Shouldn’t this say open space instead of open land? Map N-2: What do the 4 zones indicate? Storm drain system Map N-5 ?? This did not come through Energy: What about natural gas? Climate change: It should be noted here that some of the policies and programs in the Transportation Element are also for the purpose of slowing global warming by reducing GHG. Open Space: N-1.1 [N1] private open space. Private open space should be defined more explicitly. Is the intent here to refer to private property located in the open space zones? Does private open space include small backyards in the flatlands? It is very important that this be made clear. There are references elsewhere to residential backyards. Policy N-1.9 [N22] bullet points: Are these essentially a restatement of the rules for development in the open space zone? If so, eliminate the bullet points and simply state that the City will continue to apply the guidelines in the zoning code relating to developments in open space zone. Program N1.10.4 [N27]: What in-lieu fees are being referred to here? Please be specific. Policies N-11. And 12 [N28 and N29] Add San Mateo County. Urban Forest: Programs N2.6.1 and 2: Need to clearly and explicitly define street trees; that is trees that are in the City rights-of way. Accordingly, rewrite Policy N-2.7 [Previous Policy N-15] [N42] as follows: Where no tree exists in the City right of way, or if City-planted trees (street trees) are removed from the right of way in front of new commercial, multi-unit, and single family housing projects, require the owner/developer to provide or replace such street trees and related irrigation systems where appropriate. [Previous Policy N-15] [N42] Creeks: Setback requirements: Policy N-3.3 and programs: will any of this prevent the construction of or repair of existing trail bridges? Water Resources: Policy N-4.6 [N83] retaining rainwater on site – What sites does this policy apply to? City property? Is this for all properties? It should be rewritten to state: “Encourage the retention and utilization of rainwater on site….. “ There is some language missing in the following program: Program N4.8.2 Explore appropriate ways to monitor dewatering for all dewatering and excavation projects and to is not recharged into the aquifer. [NEW PROGRAM] [N92] Program N4.12.1 [N105] Evaluate Promote the use of permeable paving…..What verb belongs here? Evaluate or Promote? Program N4.12.3 is redundant as the idea is expressed in N-4.12.1. Also, it is not clear where this would apply, as written (another poorly drafted EIR mitigation measure) Program N4.12.3 Mitigate flooding through improved surface permeability or paved areas, and storm water capture and storage. (EIR Mitigation Measure) [NEW PROGRAM] [N107] Air Quality: Policy N-5.3 should be made stronger by adding the language in italics: Establish and regularly enforce regulations that reduce emissions of particulates from manufacturing, dry cleaning, construction activity, grading, wood burning, landscape maintenance, including leaf blowers, and other sources. [(Previous Policy N-27)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1)] [N130] Policy N-5.4 Add introductory language as indicated in italics: Establish and regularly enforce regulations that require all potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants be adequately buffered, or mechanically or otherwise mitigated to avoid odor and toxic impacts that violate relevant human health standards. [Previous Policy N-29] [N135] Noise: Policy N-6.1[N136] The long narrative about guidelines for noise levels must come from some official document that should be referred to, rather than repeated here in the comp plan. Program N6.10.1 [N151] Remove the reference to the Stanford University Medical Center. Energy: (In the Safety Element this is referred to as Power – which is the better term?) Program N7.1.1 [N161] should this say “meet customer electricity and natural gas needs”? Climate change: No comments Safety element. Community Safety: Policy S-1.6 [S19] Should protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons (i.e., not just residents). Program S1.7.2 [S25] regarding the Public Safety building: Rewrite: “Ensure that the new Public Safety building meets the needs….and will be resilient….” Power: In the Natural Environment Element the word used is Energy. Does it matter? Natural Hazards: Floods: Policy S-29 [S65] Use “Prohibit” rather than “prevent”regarding habitable basements in flood zones. Comments from CAC Member Hamilton Hitchings 12/12/16 I have read the latest version of the Safety Element and overall it looks quite good. I did spot a couple of things: * Program S1.1.3 "Develop citywide emergency drills that involve residents...". I believe this is supposed to be "emergency services volunteers". We don't currently have drills for the untrained general population and we are not planning on adding them to my knowledge. I think Annette feels strongly about this so Annette plays weigh in. * MAP S-2 says "Earthquakes and Faults" with no legend of what they are nor text saying there are not any in Palo Alto. It would be nice if it was clearer to the reader what it was showing us. * MAP S-5 "Fema Flood Zones". I believe the 100 year flood zone is larger than denoted, especially in the Duveneck/St. Francis and Crescent Park Neighborhoods. Since Embarcadero and cross streets are not show such as Newell, Middlefield and Louis its harder to tell and it would be helpful if those could be added. Hamilton Hitchings Comments from CAC Member Annette Glanckopf 12/13/16 Hello all. My comments follow: Safety Element 1. Program S1.1.3: Yes I do feel strongly about this. The city is not going to take on implementing a drill for all residents. The program should read: Develop citywide emergency drills that involve key stakeholders - City of Palo Alto first responders, city staff, ESVs (Emergency Service Volunteers) and the Red Cross 2. Program S2.6.1: On seismic : The program encourages neighborhoods to pool resources for seismic retrofits. I think the city c/should be the agent that does this...or at least add to program 3. Combine Program S2.5.2 and S2.53 4. Policy s2.9: Change word "Prevent" to "Prohibit"....new habitable basements ...within the flood zone 5. Policy s2.15 I suggest using the word "expand" not "support "........ the Fire dept efforts in public education since they are currently mainly focused on foothills fire prevention planning 6. As far as the maps: I agree with Hamilton...all of them need larger and better identification. IE the one on earthquake faults not clear where the faults are. Natural Environment 7. Tighten spacing map and page N4 8. Program Nl.1.1- remove errata "s," before Pearson 9. Policy Nl.4: Program Nl.4.1calls for review of CEQA thresholds of significance regarding special status species.....but for me this is hanging. Then what action should be 10. taken...report status to the agencies listed in program? 11. Goal N2 under Urban Forest: Add a new Program N2.1.2. Add " explore feasibilit y and locations for a memorial park to commemorate citizens who have contributed significant pub/le service to the City of Palo Alto.,, 12. Program N2.9.1. There is a comment Replacement tree program complete. If so, should this program be removed? 13. Program N3.4.1addresses creek stewardship, which is currently ongoing by Acterra. Replace the word "develop" to "enhance"or" expand." 14. Water Resources Policy N4.3: Add incentive programs,.Note: some of which are currently in place at city or county level 15. Policy N4.8 Program N4.8.1add regulate ...research, develop programs and regulate new construction .................... 16. Program N4.8.2: Add regulate 17. Policy N4.15 Add new program "Considerprohibiting waterfrom (new) construction (basements) toflow into storm drains" 18. OMIT Program N5.2.2 or reword. It addresses cars idling for more than 3-5 minutes. I am not sure how one can regulate cars in traffic from idling. 19. Policy N.6.2 :Consolidate construction noise under Policy N6.10 Annette COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT PLACES MEMO Tuesday, March 21, 2017 The following documents are attached for your review and information: 1. CAC member Don McDougall’s comments 2. CAC member Jennifer Hetterley’s comments 3. CAC member Annette Glanckopf’s comments don McDougall 3/19/17 Analysis including Safety x POLI CIES PRO GRAMS Deleted Routine In Progress New Community Services 27 10%40 11%13 48%COMMUNITY SERVICES Trnasportation 58 22%75 20%17 29%C1 Efficient 23 21 2 10 15 Land Use 81 30%56 15%-25 -31%C2 Quality 2 3 1 Natural Environment 58 22%106 29%48 83%C3 Parks maintained 6 3 2 2 1 1 Safety 24 9%77 21%53 221%C4 Parks adapt 2 8 1 0 1 6 Business & Economics 18 7%14 4%-4 -22%C5 Well-being 9 5 3 5 266 368 102 38%42 40 5 16 2 27 102 TRANSPORTATION T1 Sustainable 26 23 5 3 8 19 Community Services 27 11%40 14%13 48%T2 Congestion 4 6 0 3 54 Trnasportation 58 24%75 26%17 29%T3 Efficient Roadway 17 8 3 2 1 Land Use 81 33%56 19%-25 -31%T4 Character 3 3 0 1 Natural Environment 58 24%106 36%48 83%T5 Parking 11 14 1 1 1 14 Safety T6 Safe 7 14 2 8 1 10 Business & Economics 18 7%14 5%-4 -22%T7 Transit Dependent 1 3 2 2 242 291 49 20%T8 Region 12 4 1 3 3 81 75 12 19 15 102 LAND USE L1 Attractive 18 8 14 1 1 6 L2 Community 4 6 2 L3 Hoods 9 3 3 L4 Pedestrian Retail 10 11 2 4 1 6 L5 Employment districts 4 1 1 0 L6 Buildings 13 5 4 2 5 L7 Historic 12 6 1 2 1 L8 Cultural 1 0 4 L9 Public Spaces 13 12 1 3 1 9 L10 Airport 3 6 3 1 4 87 58 27 15 4 36 85 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT N1 Open Space 10 11 8 7 9 N2 Urban Forest 12 18 8 13 N3 Creeks 8 7 1 3 N4 Water 16 30 1 11 4 22 N5 Air 3 10 6 7 N6 Noise 12 11 2 2 5 N7 Energy 8 15 6 11 N8 Climate Change 4 5 1 4 73 107 9 41 7 74 SAFETY S1 Prepared 13 29 19 27 S2 Natural Hazards 15 28 1 9 3 18 S3 Human Causes 12 19 11 2 13 40 76 1 1 1 1 BUSINESS B1 Economic Dev 1 1 2 B2 Compatiblity 3 0 B3 fiscal responsibility 2 1 1 B4 Retail 6 4 1 4 B5 Regulations 1 5 2 B6 Vibrant retail 1 1 2 B7 Employment districts 2 2 16 14 0 4 1 7 339 370 54 96 30 247 Total Routine or IP 126 CAC Member Don McDougall’s Comments on Draft Implementation Plan Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. March 21, 2017. change changeAnalysis excluding Safety 1998 Programs 1998 Programs Current draft Programs Current draft CAC Member Jennifer Hetterly’s Comments on Draft Implementation Plan Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. March 21, 2017. Agree with Don – don’t sacrifice qualitative value of programs on the altar of quantitative targets. Only 15% completed is a very misleading metric. 185/368 programs in the draft are “ongoing” - those that are routine will never be “complete.” The 15% metric implies a failure by the City to implement the Comp Plan, when in fact, if this draft were adopted as is, we would start on day one with close to 50% of the programs already underway! Prioritization is a fraught exercise. Dot activity oversimplifies the challenges. 1. By listing the programs without the policies (just what we told Council NOT to do) we can’t see the inter-relationships. There may well be opportunities to integrate some programs into the policies (thereby eliminating such programs) or identify redundancies between policy and program (which may allow deletion of the program). It also may be appropriate to add or revise programs to respond to Council’s latest policy choices. For example, elimination of the Downtown CAP should not necessarily lead to deletion of program L1.16.6 to “Evaluate and adjust the zoning definition of office uses allowed in downtown and to consider ways to prioritize for small business and startups.” And Council’s direction to exclude specific development requirements and community indicators in the Comp Plan (because they’re not fully baked yet) does not mean we shouldn’t have a more general Policy to measure and evaluate the success of policy incentives to increase housing affordability, reduce SOV use and manage the sufficiency and use of parking or monitor the impacts of development. 2. Dot exercise encourages folks to pile on for their own, or most high profile priorities – leaving programs for lower profile, though critically important interests neglected. 3. Again, passion for quantification (dots for 10% of programs in each element) distorts qualitative priorities. a. The total number of programs in each element has NO bearing on the relative importance of individual programs across the board. I would argue that based on the Land Use policies, programs in CSF, T, S and NE should have relatively more dots as that’s where all the impacts of ramped up growth can be measured and mitigated. b. Furthermore, even by that approach, the number of dots are not equitably distributed. If you want 10%, make it 10% - LU should not get 10 dots for 56 progams. 4. A single meeting is insufficient. CAC Member Annette Glanckopf’s Comments MARCH 21, 2107 BUSINESS ELEMENT: • DESCRIPTION B10: REVISE SOME OF THE SUH DEVELOPMENT ACCOMPLISHED OR IN PROGRESS. (NEW HOSPITAL, CLINIC, PARKIGN STRUCTURE AT HOOVER) DOES IT BELONG IN COMP PLAN? • ELEMENT AFTER POLICY B3.4.6 PRORAM B4.6.3. • KEEP: MAINTAIN DISTINCT NH SHOPPING ARES THAT ARE ATRACTIVE ACCESSIBLE AND CONVENIENT TO NEARBY RESIDENTS. NEEDS TO BE IN BOTH PLACES (FITS BETTER UNDER GOAL B6) • OFFICE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: NEED POLICY DECISION FROM COUNCIL POLICY B5.3 ALSO POLICY WON’T BE ANY GOOD W/O STAFFING COMMUNITY SERVICES: • C1.14.1 WHY DOES PAUSD NEED TO KNOW ABOUT EVERY DEVELOPMENT DON’T THEY JUST NEED TO KNOW JUST THE ONES FOR YOUTH. • C1.19.1. REPLACE WORD SENIOR WITH ADULT • C1.19.2 AFTER SENIOR SERVICES, ADD “IN MULTIPLE LOCATIONS” • GOAL C.2 O C.2.21 TIE PERFORMANCE REVIEW TO PERFORMANCE INCREASES O C.3.21. DOESN’T FIT IN THIS SECTION. • C.5.1.1 WORDING IS TOO FLUFFY. • C5.6.2: TO ME, IT IS LOW VALUE TO TRY TO EDUCATE VISITORS ON HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, WHEN WE HAVE SO MANY OTHER NEEDS • C5.91. INDOOR GARDENS ? LAND USE GOAL L-1 • PROGRAM L1.3.1 WRONG ORDER. ESTABLISH POTENTIAL SITES FIRST, THEN WORK WITH STAKEHOLDERS • PROGRAM L.1.71. ADD AFTER REGULATORY TOOLS “SUCH AS FINING” • L.1.12.3 ADD MIDTOWN AND CHARLESTON PLAZA (HOUSING SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED) O NOTE: ANY DEVELOPMENT WOULD DEVASTATE LOCAL BUSINESSES AND MAKE PARKING WORSE GOAL L-2 • PROGRAM L2.2.1 OMIT. I DO NOT THINK SMALL RETAIL FITS IN RESIDENTIAL ESPECALLY R1 • PROGRAM L2.3.1. DO NOT REMOVE SAN ANTONIO FROM HOUSING SITE POTENTIAL. THERE IS HOUSING THERE ALREADY WITH GREENHOUSE, PALO ALTO GARDENS, AND THE JCC/ALTAIRE AND ALTURA • L.4.4.2: QUESTION: EXISTING WORK WITH PRIVATE ENTITIES FOR RESTROOMS? • • L.4.4.3 QUESTION: WHO IS WORKING WITH CN MERCHANTS? NOT THE CHAMBER , IF PLANNING, DO THEY TAKE ACTION ON CITY COMPLAINT, OR HOW DO THEY PRIORITIZE? CN SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO HAVE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS. THE SMALL MERCHANTS CANNOT AFFORD AN ASSESSMENT. • L.4.5.1: KEEP LOWER FAR • L4.6.2: OTHER AREAS NEED A COORDINATED PLAN BEFORE DOWNTOWN…..FRYS’S FIRST (MENTIONED ALTER) THEN EL CAMINO ARE HIGHER PRIORITY. • L.4.10.1 EAST WEST CONNECTION OMIT WORDING “TO BRING NEIGHBORHOODS TOGETHER” • L.6.13.1 INCLUDE WIDER SIDEWALKS • L9.4.2 WHILE A WORTHY GOAL, IT ISN’T IMPRACTICAL. IN MY EXPERIENCE MOSTLY DOESN’T WORK • L9.8.1 OMIT WORDING (OR RE-WORD) “PUBLIC BUILDINGS”. WHY SHOULD WE BUILD PUBLIC BUILDING IN GATEWAYS? • L.9.13.1 HOW CAN THIS BE RE-WORDED SO THAT THE CITY DOESN’T PUT DOWN IMPROVEMENTS LIKE RE-TARRING STREETS AND THEN PUBLIC WORKS COMES ALONG AND TEARS UP. NEED TO INCLUDE COORDINATION BETWEEN DIFFERENT UTILITIES AND BUILDING. • L.10.3.1 IF THIS IS EXISTING AND IS PLACE, CAN WE OMIT ? NATURAL ENVIRONMENT • N2.1.1 ADD ADOPT THE URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN (WORDING DELETED FROM ANOTHER ELEMENT) • N2.2.1 ADD ESPECIALY FOR CONTRUCTION • N3.3.2 COMBINE WITH N.3.3.1 • N4.7.3 COMBINE WITH N.4.7.1 • N4.7.4 COMBINE WITH N.4.7.1 • N.4.11.3 COMBINE WITH N4.11.1 • COMBINE N4.13.1 AND N4.12.2 • N4.13.2: DO WE NEED THIS? COMPLETE IMPROVEMENTS TO STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN…SINCE IT IS ONGOING AND WILL BE DECIDED SOON IN BALLOT? • COMBINE N.4.14.1 AND N.4.14.2 • COMBINE N4.16.1 AND N4.16.3 SAFETY ELEMENT • S.1.5.1 ONGOING PROGRAM. ADD OES TO DEPARTMENT • S.1.10.1 IS ONGOING. DOES THIS NEED TO BE A POLICY? • S1.10.3 IS ONGOING. DOES THIS NEED TO BE A POLICY? • S2.7.1 REWORD • S2.7.3 COMBINE WITH S 2.5.2 • S2.8.2 SHOULDN’T THIS BE ONGOING? • S.2.9.2 CONSIDER RE-WRITING AND COMBINING WITH S.10.1 • S.2.12.2 COMBINE WITH S.2.13.1. IN S,2,12,2 ADD “FOOTHILLS” • S.2.13.5 COMBINE WITH S2.15.1 • S.3.6.2 DOESN’T BELONG IN THIS SECTION “ SUICIDE PREVENTION” • S.3.1.5 COMBINE WITH S.3.1.6 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • B.1.1: IS THERE A POLICY? • B.4.6.3: STUDY SHOULD INCLUDE – “WHAT MAKES GROUND FLOOR RETAIL VIABLE” AS WELL AS WHAT TYPE OF BUSINESSES FIT IN WHAT TYPE OF AREA? D’TOWN, CAL AVE, MIDTOWN, EL CAMINO ETC TRANSPORTATION • T1.2.4: NEEDED? WHAT OTHER MAJOR CITY FACILITY WILL BE BUILD AFTER PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING • T1.5.1 REMOVE WORDING “ FOR LOCAL ERRANDS” LOCAL ERRANS AND COMMUTING ARE APPLES AND ORANGES • T.1.11.1: VTA SERVICES.. IS THIS A VERY SHORT TERM PROGRAM THAT IS NOT NEEDED IN COMPL PLAN? • T1.19.5 I SUPPORT SAFETY FEATURES AS ENHANCED LIGHTING, BUT NOT INTREPRETATIVE STATIONS ESPECIALLY IN PARKS. SEEMS LIKE THIS SHOULD BE 2 SENTENCES. ONE FOR PARKS (ISN’T THIS IN PARK MASTER PLAN) AND ONE FOR THE BIKE/PED ROUTES. I SUPPORT STREET TREES AND LIGHTING. CONCERN OVER NEIGHBOHOOD SEATING AND INTREPRETIVE STATIONS • T3.10.1 COMBINE WITH T.3.10.3 • T.3.10.4 RATHER AN UNDERPASSING DOWNTOWN, WE NEED ANOTHER IN SOUTH PALO ALTO ESPECIALLY NEARFOR SCHOOL CROSSINGS • T.5.1.2 I DO NOT SUPPORT REDUCED PARKING FOR RETAIL AND RESTAURANTS • T.5.1.4 I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROGRAM – UNBUNDLED PARKING • T5.2.3 ADD CONSIDER SPECIAL PARKINF RATES FOR PALO ALTO RESIDENTS • T.5.4.1 COMBINE WITH T.5.7.2 • T.6.1.2 MAKE MORE GENERIC. REMOVE CONCEPT OF PAPER MAPS. • T6.2.1 WHY THIS AREA? IS THIS MORE OF A PROBLEM THAN ANY OTHER AREA? SAY MIDTOWN AT TOWLE? OR CROSSING AT SAFEWAY? COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 1 of 41 TUESDAY, December 13, 2016 Rinconada Library – Embarcadero Room 1213 Newell Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 5:30 PM TO 8:30 PM Call to Order: 5:35 P.M. 1 Co-Chair Keller: 2 Present: Fine, Glanckopf, Hitchings, Keller, Kleinhaus, Kou, Levy, McDougall, McNair, 3 Moran, Nadim, Packer, Peschcke-Koedt, Summa, Sung, Titus, Uang, Uhrbrock, 4 van Riesen, Wenzlua 5 6 Absent: Emberling, Filppu. Hetterly 7 Oral Communication: 8 Co-Chair Garber: Yolanda, have you completed? Have you completed the roll? 9 Yolanda Cervantes: Yes. 10 Co-Chair Garber: I count 16. I think that’s right. We have a quorum. We will move forward. Now, is the 11 time that we would have members of the public speak at oral communications. We have two cards. If 12 you would like to speak, please present a card. The first speaker will be [Betty Jo Chang], followed by 13 Esther Nygard. Betty Jo, you will have three minutes and yes, please use that speaker right there, thank 14 you. 15 Betty Joe Chang: Good evening. Thank you for your efforts on this Plan Element. It’s made a big 16 progression since the last time I read it and I really appreciate the time you’ve put into it. I just had a 17 couple of comments. I do have a handout with more of the reasons why. On item S-2.8.1, page S20, the 18 flood immigration requirements. I’d like you to consider adding to this policy S-2.8.1, a recommendation 19 that municipal code 16.2, the Cities flood hazard regulations be also applied to those areas on your map 20 as 6 of sea level rise. In residential areas that are within that 55-inch sea level rise, should have the 21 municipal code regulation 16.2 attached to it as well. This will have the effect of proactively reducing 22 construction of resident basement dwellings in areas where we know we may expect more flooding 23 during the practical lifetime of residential construction. This decoupled Palo Alto’s health and safety 24 concerns from often glacier responses of a property insurance mechanism, such as FEMA. We have to 25 remember that FEMA is about property damage and this plan is about health and safety of our citizens. 26 The second item, S-2.8.2, page S20 also. Thank you for continuing to participate in the Community 27 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 2 of 41 Waiting Program and for looking at perhaps, improving our rating one more notch because that may 1 reduce the cost of volunteer health – flood insurance in these areas that are going to be prone to 2 increased flooding as a result of climate change. Item S-2.8.3, also on the same page; partnering with 3 appropriate agencies to expand flood zones is appropriate due to channel creek changes and sheet 4 flooding, Nah Nah Nah. Please add – consider adding to that policy again. The recommendation that 5 municipal code 16.2B be added to – applied to all those areas dedicated on your map as 6 for sea level 6 rise. Program S-9 on page S21, prevent habitual basements as part of residential development in areas 7 within the flood hazard zone. We have to remember that all of Palo Alto is in some risk of flooding. 8 Please consider adding a prohibition of new habitual basements as part of the single family and 9 multifamily residential neighborhoods within the sea level rise and dam inundation map areas on maps 10 as 6 and as 7. Finally, program S-2.9, the study of appropriate restrictions on groundwater construction, 11 where the groundwater is 14-feet or less to accommodate expected high water levels. Please consider 12 adding a deadline for this study report of no later than 24 months from adoption to the Comprehension 13 Plan. Time is of the essence in this regard. Thank you again, for your time and your contribution to the 14 City. 15 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Esther Nygard If there is anyone else that would like speak, please give us a 16 card. Oh, I’m sorry Nygard, I apologize. 17 Esther Nygard: That’s alright. Good evening everybody. I just wanted to bring to your attention the 18 Water Energy Climate Nexus, which I believe is not mentioned in this plan so far. The Water Energy 19 Climate Nexus is a major theme in climate change adaptation these days. California’s water sector 20 consumes nearly 20% of the State electricity and 30% of its natural gas and its needs are growing. The 21 water sector uses – I’m done? The water sector uses electricity to pump, treat, transport, deliver and 22 heat water. Expected increases in groundwater pumping, water treatment, and water recycling mean 23 the energy intensity of water will grow but water does not only consume energy. It is an important 24 player in the generation of power and heading into the future, we expect climate change will add 25 additional stress on the availability of water for both portable use and energy production. For California 26 and Palo Alto to meet its climate goals, we need to rethink the role that water plays as a significant 27 electricity consumer and producer. Water and energy symbolically rely on each other to be produced 28 and delivered and in the face of climate change, they are inherently impacted together and it becomes 29 imperative that one cannot address without the other. Some possible goals to adapt to climate change 30 and reduce greenhouse gasses, as suggested in the paper from Department of Energy include the 31 following. First, optimize the energy efficiency of water management, treatment, distribution and used 32 systems. Second, enhance the reliability and resilience of energy and water systems. Third, increase safe 33 and productive use of non-traditional water sources. Fourth, promote responsible energy operations 34 with respect to water quality, ecosystem, and systemic impacts. Fifth, explore productive synergies 35 among water and energy systems. I believe Palo Alto already has some of these goals and/or some 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 3 of 41 programs that address some of these goals. However, in my opinion, the Energy Water Climate Nexus 1 remains to be acknowledged more explicitly in our plans. Thank you. 2 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. 3 Staff Comments: 4 1. Recap of November 28th City Council meeting on the Draft Land Use Element 5 Co-Chair Garber: Staff, I believe we have a recap of the November 28th City Council meeting on the Draft 6 Land Use Element. 7 Hillary Gitelman: I really wanted to be brief here. I don’t know how many of you were able to watch but 8 some of CAC members were actually at the meeting. It was a long conversation with the City Council 9 about the Land Use Element. Elaine and Elena were there, and Joanna was there to help give a brief 10 presentation of all the work the CAC had done in putting together the Draft Element and also 11 transmitting all of the comments that were in the Council’s Packet. I think, safe to say that the City 12 Council appreciated all of your efforts. They gave us a lot of comments. It was very diffuse. I mean they 13 didn’t get to the point where they could narrow down and sort of get to decisions yet but I think we set 14 the stage for a productive meeting the next time we go to Council, which we’re planning to do at the 15 end of January; where we’ll actually ask them to make choices between the options in the growth 16 management area, the height limit area and the others that you articulated in the Land Use Element. I 17 think we’re well positioned for that discussion. It will be a meeting of where they – Council gets both the 18 Land Use Element and then Transportation Element. So, they can also see the synergies between the 19 two of them. We don’t have a definite date yet. We’re tentatively on the calendar for the 30th of January 20 but I will let you know if that changes. We’re actually kind of hoping they set aside a whole day for this 21 discussion, instead of trying to cram it into a late Monday evening but we’ll see if we can prevail on the 22 new Council to make that happen. Then, just one more thank you to all of you for your efforts this year 23 and not just to the Committee but to the Staff and consultants. We’ve all put in a tremendous amount 24 of work and to the public, we have some religious attendees who have shared their thoughts with us 25 throughout this year and I appreciate all of that. We put in a lot of work. I think we have a lot to show 26 for it and we’re getting very close to the end on this project. So, we have good momentum. It’s been 27 really terrific and of course, special thanks to Adrian, Lydia, and Doria, who are moving on to other 28 assignments. Luckily, I think they will all be in a position to help us get this work done in their new roles. 29 Hopefully, we will, in 2017 see a conclusion to this process. Anyway, that’s all I have. 30 2. 2017 CAC Schedule 31 3. Changes to CAC and Next Steps 32 33 Elaine Costello: Ok, speaking of conclusion to this process and of – you know, we did this – this turn 34 around was shorter because of the holidays so, there were a couple little glitches in terms of what went 35 out. There was a page, I think it was page 7 that said the next steps, and it gives a colon and if you turn 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 4 of 41 to the next page, there were not next steps. That doesn’t mean you’re done. That just meant that At 1 Places are that list of next steps and the list of appendices. Basically, what we’re looking for is in January, 2 we will be at the meeting on business and economics and we will be – we have been asking members of 3 that subcommittee to let us know their availability for a subcommittee meeting on either January 5th or 4 6th. So, that we can have a subcommittee meeting before we hear it in mid-January and the other dates 5 that are on here as well. It’s really quite – as Hillary said, it’s quite a remarkable achievement that we 6 had really pushed – a lot of you have worked really hard to get these two elements done tonight so, that 7 we could have the majority – well, we could have almost everybody on the original CAC here for the 8 final action on this. So, we only have one more element to go, which is business and economics and then 9 we have some work on implementation and some work on governance and the user’s guide and we will 10 be done and it will move on. So, if you – both the schedule – the monthly schedule and this set of next 11 steps, which was actually page 10, are at your At Places. Also, At Your Places – any questions on the 12 schedule or how we’re going to move ahead? Also, At Places are the comments that were received from 13 CAC members and the comments that were received from Betty Jo. Betty Jo brought her comments 14 tonight and the other comments are all staples together. So, that is what is at your At Places and with 15 that, we were going to let Dan, who had some comments to make too. 16 17 Co-Chair Garber: As one of the co-chairs, also wanted to add our special thanks to Lydia and Adrian, 18 who are attending their last meeting of the CAC. I am so sorry for that. You would have such a better 19 time here. Lydia is not with us but hopefully, she’ll get the message but congratulations again and we 20 will look forward to your good work on the Council. Also, thank you, Lisa. We also wanted to give a 21 special thank you to Doria and this is her last meeting, however, we are hoping that she might come and 22 visit us as a representative of the PTC in the coming year and we’ll find out if that happens or not. 23 (Crosstalk) Either do we but we’re dancing to the rain gods here. Then finally, Heidi, who is not here this 24 evening. We also wanted to extend a special thank you and hopefully, she will continue her participation 25 as a citizen and through oral communications and the modes of communications that we have available 26 to ourselves. Any case, thank you and I wanted to offer all of that. 27 28 Agenda Items: 29 1. Action: Safety Element III 30 a. Introduction to revised Safety Element 31 b. Discussion of Draft Element 32 33 Co-Chair Garber: Let us get to our agenda items. We want to take action on the Safety Element. Does – 34 and – one moment. I will do that in a second. Did Staff have any comments to lead us into Safety 35 Element or do we want to go directly to – ok. 36 Elaine Costello: Do a brief presentation on where the status of the Safety Element (Inaudible)… 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 5 of 41 Co-Chair Garber: Ok, and then, just before we go I want to acknowledge that Whitney McNair joined us, 1 to add to the list, thank you. 2 Joanna Jansen: Thank you, Dan. The first element on our agenda tonight is the Safety Element and this 3 element is coming back to you. It has not gone to the subcommittee since the last time you saw it. This 4 is an element that incorporates your changes that we discussed when we were here on November 15th. I 5 think at – by the time of November 15th, we were pretty far along in this element due to the hard and 6 very knowledgeable – hard work and knowledge of our subcommittee members and the participation of 7 Staff from the Police Department and the Office of Emergency Services and Public Works and IT. A lot of 8 upfront work went into getting the element into good shape. Enough that we were able to make a series 9 of – for the most part, pretty minor cleanups and clarifications and additions based on your 10 conversation last time. I think one of the most significant changes that you probably recognize was that 11 this element was reorganized based on our discussion. I think the trigger for this was, the discussion of 12 water-related policies. Previously, this element included a section on infrastructure and within that 13 infrastructure section, there were sections on water, wastewater, stormwater, etc. and CAC pointed out 14 that a lot of those policies were very closely related to the policies about creeks and water resources in 15 the Natural Environment Element. We took a closer look at that and we were able to reorganize those 16 policies and programs and combine a lot of the water-related policies and programs into the Natural 17 Environment Element. That kind of dissolve our infrastructure as a whole so, we’ve moved the pieces of 18 what used to be in infrastructure goal into various – other places. The section on power is now found 19 under Community safety because that was really about maintaining a safe and reliable grid during 20 emergencies. The section on solid waste has been moved to be a part of a goal about human-caused 21 threats along with hazardous materials as has cyber security. With that, we kind of dissolved the 22 infrastructure goal and the other piece that was moved within this element is that there use to be a goal 23 5, about emergency management, which was really about specifically, responding and kind of this 24 disaster response type of role and that has become now a part of Goal S-1, Community safety. Again, in 25 response to the CAC discussion that we had last month. So, some reorganization here. I thought the 26 element worked really well, once we made these changes. Hopefully, you guys feel the same. That’s one 27 of the most substantive things that we’ve done since the last time you saw it. Then, under – so, there 28 are three goals in this element now. Just briefly, under each other of them. The Staff report details the 29 changes but I will just mention some of them. Under Goal S-1, I think one thing that we didn’t get quite 30 right was this program about emergency drills. I think that should have been changed to be able 31 emergency service volunteers and so, we can certainly clarify that in the next round and thank you, for 32 those of you who pointed that out. We have added a little bit more about engaging the business 33 community, not only in disaster preparedness but also in recovery plans. We’ve mentioned the use of 34 urban design principles to increase safety and the role of block preparedness coordinators. One thing I 35 wanted to note that’s not mentioned in your Staff report, rather than an addition, was a deletion. There 36 was a program last time about proactively identifying offenders before a crime has occurred and I think 37 that made a lot of folks nervous about profiling as the appropriates of such a program and I think while 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 6 of 41 it might have had good intentions, we realized that that was probably flawed and that program is not 1 here anymore. That’s been removed in response to those concerns. Of course, there are still many 2 programs about working with the Police Department and specifically, transparency and communication 3 about police strategies as well as satellite police locations. Goal 2 is about natural hazards. Specifically, 4 earthquakes and geological hazards and flood hazards, as well as fire hazards. These policies were 5 changed to clarify seismic rehabilitation and some policies where the rehabilitation wasn’t specified, a 6 new policy to encourage or support neighborhoods that do want to pursue an effort to pool resources 7 for seismic retrofit efforts. Clarifying the program about sunset dates for TDR programs that would 8 incentivize seismic retrofits and add a reference to the Baylands Master Plan in terms of whenever the 9 City is considering shoreline development as part of flood control or flood prevention projects. Finally, 10 under human-caused threats, probably one of the major topics that we changed under this goal had to 11 do with groundwater contamination and ongoing kind of refinements to the policies and programs 12 about basements and basement construction. In addition, we made some changes to the POP program 13 about telecommunications to replace maximum with the word high and clarify in the Program S-3.12.3 14 about the Wi-Fi network. We removed the specific reference to off grid. Again, in my opinion, kind of, 15 really rather minor changes in terms of the policies and programs themselves and defiantly interested to 16 hear your comments on the Safety Element. Thank you. 17 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Can I have members of the subcommittee – the safety subcommittee 18 speaks first. If you’d – if those that would like to speak would put their cards up. Hamilton, followed by 19 Annette, followed by Don. Go ahead Hamilton. 20 Hamilton Hitchings: I think that the changes that the Staff made have actually worked out really well. I 21 like the new organization. I think that was a big win. It feels denser and more organized. So, thank you 22 on that. In general, the element looks good. There are a couple of little things that I think Staff can clean 23 up after this meeting before it gets presented to Council but I don’t see any reason to have another 24 subcommittee meeting at this point. Do make 100% sure you correct S-13 because we brought it up a 25 couple times before. Other than that, I think – and the diagrams still needs some work because I was 26 looking at the flood diagram and then I’m like, there are whole neighborhood that was flooded in the 27 (Inaudible) Francis and Crescent Park area that aren’t covered in that diagram and that was only like a 28 50-year flood, approximately. I know – I think it needs a little bit more and the map needs a little bit 29 more detail and just, in general, the diagrams. The earthquake one was kind of confusing too but that 30 was the first time we’ve seen the diagrams. They’re the right subject matter, just a little bit more detail 31 would be great. Again, I don’t think there’s any reason that these changes can’t be handled solely by 32 Staff. I feel like the elements really come together so, thank you. 33 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Annette and then Don. 34 Annette Glackopf: Well, my comments are going to echo Hamilton’s but first of all, let me say thank you 35 for our little goody and for dinner and for all the good work and the element is coming together. I would 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 7 of 41 echo the comment that was already made about the drills and I know Staff also responded to that. In my 1 notes included some sample wording. On the topic of seismic and encouraging neighborhoods to pool 2 resources. The City already does – or had a program to do that so, I think also the City could – we could 3 also add – the City could be an agent that does the pooling; that’s sort of a note. When we talk about 4 habitable basements, which is Policy S-2.9, rather than the word prevent new habitable basements 5 within the flood zone. I think we should say prohibit. I think the Save Palo Alto Groundwater has made it 6 very clear on that point. I’m not sure how you would do code informant on that, which has always been 7 my button but I like the word prohibited rather than prevent. Then, on Policy S-2.1.5 of 15, about the 8 Fire Department's efforts in education. Rather than support these efforts, I would use the word expand 9 the Fire Department's efforts in public education. I know that is something they want to do but 10 currently, the major focus is in the fire areas in the Foothills. With that, I think it really looks good. I also 11 think the maps in this section and the natural environment section need to be tightened up. The 12 graphics, the text need to be increased. I mean you have to use a microscope to actually look at them. 13 I’m glad that we include all – many of the key maps that were included in THIRA, in that whole process; 14 threats, analysis, etc. Ok. Thanks. 15 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. 16 Don McDougall: The first thing I want to do is complement both of Annette and Hamilton for their 17 leadership on this subcommittee. In fact, they did a tremendous job of reviewing everything in detail. I 18 like what was done here. I think that there’s actually been more impact on this than is implied. The 19 suggestion that this was, you know, tweaking it, I think that is a real interesting content and 20 presentation. I think the idea not that it is safety and natural impacts and man mad impacts, really 21 clarifies what we’re trying to deal with. I like the idea that we added prepare, mitigate and recover as 22 opposed to just business continuity in the business section. I like the connection to the Bay Lands 23 Master Plan, I think that was really important. I think Hamilton’s point about the hundred-year flood. I 24 think there’s a map somewhere that shows the 100-year flood area and it’s different than this one. I 25 think we need to deal with that and I would encourage – like Hamilton, I don’t believe we need another 26 subcommittee but I would encourage the basement and groundwater – a review of that to maybe 27 tighten it up. I think there’s still a great deal of and about that. There’s lots of good technology from 28 [ISRE] and people like that with maps and I think relying on the fact that the maps look great when 29 they’re in color but they don’t look so great when they’re in black and white. They look great when 30 they’re on a 25x48 sheet but they don’t look so great when they’re on an 8 ½ by 11 sheets. There could 31 be some focus on that; just for presentation purposes. Again, I’d like to thank and complement Hamilton 32 and Annette. 33 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Are there other discussions from other members? If you would put your 34 cards up. Bonnie… 35 Co-Chair Keller: Should we just go around? Why don’t we just go around (Inaudible) 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 8 of 41 Co-Chair Garber: I think we may only have one person that is interested in speaking. Bonnie go ahead. 1 Bonnie Packer: Ok, I have just a couple of very small things. Policy S-.6, protect the privacy and civil 2 liberties, not just of residents but of all persons. With that in mind, last night around 10:30 at night, the 3 City Council passed a resolution about inclusiveness and I can’t get on the internet so I couldn’t 4 download my copy of it but I thought that would be a good thing. It’s a general resolution. It’s in 5 reaction to the election and the concerns that people have but about ensure that people feel safe and 6 that their human rights are being recognized and that there (Inaudible) process and a whole lot of things 7 like that. I think it would be – somehow if we could fit it in somewhere under the community safety, that 8 this is a safe Community for all persons. With respect to how the law treats them, treats people and in 9 other ways and that it might be something to consider. Another thing that will be coming before the City 10 that they may consider – the new City Council may consider is the concept of a sanctuary City. Again, 11 we’re talking about safety for all people and this may be an appropriate place to refer to that if not 12 include that resolution. I had a couple of just grammatical point – oh, there’s one other question I have. 13 In the natural environment section, we talk about – sections called energy. I the safety, we call it power. 14 I don’t know what the difference is and in what context and whether we should be consistent in the 15 words that we’re using. I know the power grid is different from energy supplies like from natural gas. So, 16 some clarification so, little definition to make a distinction there might be useful. That’s a seismic issue. I 17 love to raise seismic and also, I want to thank you for the lovely food and the little gift and thank you. 18 Co-Chair Garber: So, just to fair, we will touch on everyone and we’ll go down the line here. Why not 19 start over there? Amy, you don’t have a card up. Is there anything you would like to add to the 20 discussion? 21 Amy Sung: No. 22 Adrian Fine: Just really quickly, I think this is a really great section. Thanks Staff for including some urban 23 design issues around safety and the environment. Two points. So, one on Policy S-3.11 about digital 24 infrastructure and securing that. It sounded a little bit like the City was trying to go it alone and discover 25 what is right for us. There may be some other Cities that we can learn from or other Cities we can teach 26 in terms of providing a safe digital data infrastructure. The last one is on Annette’s point about S-2.9, 27 preventing or prohibiting basements in flood zone. That seems like a pretty specific policy. I mean, I’m 28 just not sure this group really debated whether we’re going to put that forward into the Comp. Plan. I’m 29 just raising it as it is now. Otherwise, I think this is a great section, though. 30 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Don, you’ve already spoken. Ellen. 31 Ellen Uhrbrock: Well, I want to really thank the Staff for making the revisions of the – with the 32 organization of this and I think it’s fine. I have this one small comment except it’s a new addition. You 33 have an S-1 on Community safety. You refer to the plans for the elderly and people with special needs 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 9 of 41 and I wonder if you want to include another category and is people who work or live on the third floor 1 or above in high rise buildings. 2 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Alex. 3 Alex van Riesen: I was also thinking about the point that Bonnie mentioned and I was wondering if it 4 wouldn’t be worthwhile to change the vision statement? I don’t know if that’s in stone but I notice that 5 the language would – sorry – would lend itself to that because the very first line of the vision statement 6 is, the City of Palo Alto is committed to the day to day safety of its entire residential, business and 7 Community. It would seem like we could include a line that would accentuate that the risks or some of 8 the hazards that we’re concerned about are not just natural disasters or human disasters or toxic waste 9 but some of the things that I think have been a growing concern in Communities. So, just a thought 10 about where to put it. 11 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Jennifer. 12 Jennifer Hetterly: I think the element is shaping up really nicely. Also, most of my concerns were in the 13 flood hazard and mitigation section. I think it needs to be strengthened somewhat. I didn’t have time to 14 write them up though but I have read this handout from Betty Joe Chang and I would like to advance the 15 recommendations that she puts there. Particularly, the first 3 out of the 4. Other smaller issues are 16 Program S -3.1.5, which is work with non-profit organizations to provide information to the public 17 regarding pesticides and other commonly used hazardous materials. I’d like to add insecticides to that 18 list. Pesticides and insecticides and other commonly used – that came up several times in the natural 19 environment subcommittee as a concern so, I would love to see that added here. Just above that, 20 Program S-3.1.3, about strengthening development review requirements has a second sentence that 21 standards should be consistent with state and federal regulations. I think you can delete that second 22 sentence because of course, they have to be consistent with state and federal regulations. The next 23 page or to pages later, Program 3.6.2, about working with Caltrain and the Palo Alto Unified School 24 District to educate students on the dangers of rail trespass and benefits of suicide support. I’d like to add 25 the public; educate students and the public because it’s not just students who are at risk. That was all I 26 had for this element. Thanks. 27 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Doria. 28 Doria Summa: I’ll be quick. Thank you, I do think it looks much improved and very close to being ready. 29 Just too quick, I’ll just associate my comments with Jen’s and the Committee and speakers before, I do 30 agree that the most important thing is probably strengthening the flood section. Thank you. 31 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Hamilton, you have already spoken, may I come back to you? 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 10 of 41 Whitney McNair: Thank you. I think the section is looking great. I just had a comment. There’s an 1 identification of critical facilities, which has a triangle symbol and it may be identified somewhere in 2 another element but it doesn’t have a definition within this element at all. So, I was having a hard time 3 trying to understand what those represented. Then, I’m just working with the engineers at Stanford, just 4 to make sure the dam inundation map is correct from the records that we have as well as the map S9. 5 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Jason. 6 Jason Titus: Yeah, I think it looks great. I’ve been – each of the points that I was wanting to make sure 7 were included, seem included. It’s great. 8 Co-Chair Garber: Ok. Lisa. 9 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: I also think it looks great. I mean it’s a huge, I think, development to get here. I 10 have a couple things similar to what Bonnie said. Whether it’s the vision that Alex mentioned or there’s 11 the human-caused threat section, is to add something about the inclusive and protecting everyone. The 12 diversity is there, which is great to see and I think where every that policy or program goes, probably 13 should also include something about the bullying – the children or teen issues that I think we’ve been 14 seeing as well as part of the human-caused threats. I think it belongs somewhere in safety but I may 15 have missed it. Is that – I may just have missed it. 16 Joanna Jansen: Sorry, if I could. That has been mentioned before and I think it’s in the Community 17 Services and Facilities Element. 18 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: I thought I had seen something somewhere but I might (Inaudible) something in 19 safety as well; given that there’s this human cause section in a sense and that would I think, pick up on 20 what Alex and Bonnie said as well. Then, to go to a little bit on the flood hazards which is the Policy S-21 2.8, because the programs now include existing, not just new development. I think the policy just needs 22 to be slightly expanded so that, you know, it’s something – minimize exposure to flood hazards by 23 maintaining and enhancing existing flood and reviewing proposed development. It’s just because the 24 programs have to do with existing as well. Then, this is one – a little bit what Adrian said on the 25 basements. I’m not convinced we need to prohibit them and the way it’s written, I – this is more of a 26 small technical thing. It happens that the neighborhood I live in, is generally speaking in the flood hazard 27 area or flood zone but our house is actually not in the flood zone. We have a map amendment, we’re 28 not in the flood zone. There are a few other houses there. The way it’s written, I think it – we’re not 29 planning to build a basement so, it’s not a personal issue but I think the way it’s written, since it’s saying, 30 prevent the basements in the neighborhoods within the flood hazards, rather than that property within 31 the flood hazard. It shouldn’t be a neighborhood constraining a house that is not in the flood hazard. If 32 we keep this basement provision which, I would actually say, I’m not sure we should but if so, then fine. 33 Beyond that, I just want to echo, I think it’s just been – oh, sorry, one other thing, going to your point 34 too. There are several places that it mentions elderly and people with disabilities and such I’m 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 11 of 41 wondering if, given the other discussion we had, we should also include children. Just in general because 1 it tends to be – I mean, I think we’ll naturally protect children before anyone else but it probably worns 2 having them in there because it is kind of a special need in a way. That would be consistent throughout, 3 not one particular section. That was it. I thought it was awesome and thank you also for the lovely meal 4 and gifts and the great year. 5 Co-Chair Garber: I hear we may be seeing more of you? 6 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: Yes, I’m not leaving, sorry. 7 Co-Chair Garber: Yeah! 8 Co-Chair Keller: Yeah! 9 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: Instead I have decided to retire from my day job. (Inaudible) 10 Co-Chair Garber: Alright, thank you. Bonnie, we’ve heard from you. Julia. 11 Julia Moran: I don’t have too much to say. The major concerns I had the last meeting have been solved 12 so, thank you and clearly, the Committee has done a huge amount of work. Thank you so much for all 13 that. Thank you for the gifts. I would just concur with Alex and Bonnie and Lisa about adding something 14 regarding the Human Safety Element where ever everyone deems it best fit. 15 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Elaine. 16 Elaine Uang: Yeah, thank you again. Great gifts, great meal, great everything. I’m glad that Alex pointed 17 out the vision in the City of Palo Alto being committed to the day to day safety of its entire residential, 18 business and visitor Community. Just looking through this in a cursory exploration, it seems like while 19 there was some language put into sort of talk about and recognize the business Community, I think 20 there need to be a few additional references to the business Community. If you think about Palo Alto 21 during the day, Monday-Friday, 8-6 or whatever, I mean, the population almost doubles and so, that’s a 22 significant portion of the people. I think we need to explore the Safety Element through the lens of the 23 number of people that it impacts and which policies impact the most folks. So, I think the inclusion of 24 business, especially, under the emergency management section, is critical. Adding that to the seismic 25 and the flood hazard issues are -- the earthquake geological hazards and flood hazards and mitigation is 26 important too but I think what we would find by enlarging, in anyone of these events, during the 27 business hours, we do need to have some attention to the volume of people who are in our City under 28 that function and they’re not necessarily residents. In similarly, I would just call out, I appreciate Lisa and 29 Adrian’s mention of the suggestion to prohibit basements. I think, you’ll find that overall and across the 30 City, the number of people who are affected by habitable basements is relatively small compared to the 31 overall number of people who are in our City during the business days. I also just – in thinking ahead 32 about implementation, we’ve always been looking at these as paper documents. I think the average 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 12 of 41 person is going to use this online. We haven’t talked much about cross referencing but you know, the 1 note – the idea of making sure that everybody feels physiologically safe and if that’s in the Community 2 services and facility, we need to recognize that within the Safety Element. I’ve also noticed, in just 3 thinking about orders of magnitude and where safety occurs. I think, what you’d find is actually 4 vehicular safety or vehicular incidents, traffic incidents and safety through vehicular and pedestrian or 5 vehicular and bike incidents are probably going to be higher than say a really violent crime within the 6 City of Palo Alto. As we think about the hyperlinks and coordination between elements, I’d like to see 7 some language – where did I highlight this? Referencing – ok, so, Adrian mentioned S-1.3.1, coordinating 8 or us of urban design principles. I’d also like to see streetscape design and coordination with Visions 9 Zero, which I think was mentioned in the Transportation Element because that’s going to be – probably, 10 the core effort that the City undertakes to really reduce any sort of life, safety, health issue within the 11 City. Just think ahead, we haven’t talked a lot about the intersections between elements but hyperlinks 12 and if you look at San Jose or other general plans, they have all of these links to different programs and 13 different elements and I think we just need to, you know, make ours a little bit stronger by creating 14 those links. 15 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Stephen. No comments? Let us note that Lydia has joined us and I think 16 you missed our thank you and grand send off to your new position that you’ll be stepping into. We will 17 miss you but we suspect that you’ll be having a lot to do with our topics here in the coming months. 18 Anyway, comments about the Safety Element? 19 Lydia Kou: Well, thank you and I’m very sorry I missed it. Thank you for all the food and it smells lovely 20 and the presents. As everybody said the element is coming along really well. I notice that the 21 introduction for the Natural Element, the preservation word is put back in with the addition over here 22 with the At Places, that was one of the things I was going to mention. Then, besides some random 23 letters throughout the element, itself – there’s random letters, ‘s’s and ‘r’s that are by themselves. 24 Besides that, it looks fine. I did want to ask about, in – let's see—Policy N-1.1, Program N… 25 Co-Chair Garber: Lydia, we’re actually on the Safety Element. 26 Lydia Kou: Oh, you’re on the safety… 27 Co-Chair Garber: Yeah. 28 Lydia Kou: …Well, safety is great under Annette and Hamilton and Don's hands. Thank you, I’ll go back 29 later then. Thank you. 30 Co-Chair Garber: Hamilton, we missed you, if you want to speak again and then we’ll go to Arthur. 31 Hamilton Hitchings: Yeah and these are just comments on your comments. I wanted to start by following 32 up on Bonnie’s comment. I was a little shocked when you said it because we work really hard to get the 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 13 of 41 civil liberties and privacy in and we did not limit it in scope to the residents so, I almost had a heart 1 attack when she said it was also limited to residents. I want to make very sure that Staff and Place 2 Works changes the language in Policy S-1.6. We were focused on the Program S-1.2 which has the right 3 wording. It says protect the public's privacy rights and civil liberty and then either Place Works or Staff 4 extracted it out for the policy. On the policy, S-1.6 it needs to say public, not all residents because we 5 want to make sure our Police Department is looking out for everybody who’s in the City boundaries. So, 6 please make sure that’s in there before it goes to City Council. I just had a couple other comments. You 7 know, we want to continue to strengthen basement groundwater at a level that’s appropriate for the 8 Comp. Plan. I think so of the comments in here are a little bit too specific. I don’t think we’re putting 9 implementation dates, for example, at this level but I think that’s important. I do think that Lisa’s point 10 about being in the flood zone, not the neighborhood because all flooding is based on the flood 11 designation of your property, is really important. You shouldn’t be penalized if you happen to be in a 12 neighborhood with a lot of houses but not within the actual flood zone. I think that was a really good 13 point. I agree with Elaine that the number one hazard in the City is actually vehicular. That should be 14 covered in the Transportation Element and I don’t know what the right way to link it is. I think we want 15 to avoid doing duplicate programs but at the same time, make sure that it’s referenced. Maybe it could 16 even be referenced in the introduction as well but absolutely, vehicular safety as covered in the 17 Transportation Element is absolutely critical. Those are my comments. Thank you. 18 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Arthur. 19 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. The first thing I’ll talk about is the flooding issue. If you look at S-2.11.2, this 20 is worded in a strange way; work with regional state and federal agencies to determine if sea levels in 21 the San Francisco Bay warrant additional adaptational strategies to address of flooding hazards to 22 existing and new development and infrastructure and etc. The answer is yes, you don’t actually need to 23 do anything to study that and there for, the issue is not to work with them to determine it but work with 24 them to determine what’s needed. So, really, it should be work with regional blah blah blah agencies to 25 develop adaptation strategies – to develop additional adaptation strategies to address flooding hazards 26 blah blah blah, with respect to sea level rise in the San Francisco Bay. I think that that’s the way it should 27 be worded. You know, it’s a forgone conclusion, like our water – regional water treatment control – 28 regional water quality control plant is going to be affected by sea level rise unless we do something and 29 so, the question is not if, it’s when and how and what we do about it. This thing should be revised to 30 actually do something. The second thing is with respect to habitable basements. Federal government 31 FEMA regulations currently prohibit basements in flood zones, period. No, if, and's or buts. The question 32 is if somebody is just outside of a flood zone because they used a level of map amendment or a LOMA or 33 LOMR, those are two things. Then, what happens with those things is if they’re just outside the flood 34 zone, then when you – if you build a basement, you’re going to hit groundwater really quickly and 35 you’re going to cause a big problem. The issue is, while it’s not corrected, it should be residential 36 neighborhoods within the flood zone because the neighborhood is either completely within or partly 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 14 of 41 within or not within so, that wording is awkward, in terms of 2.9. It really gets in terms of Program 2.9.2 1 where we talk about the idea of groundwater levels 14-feet or less. Now, what I’m wondering, is 14-feet 2 or less measured from what? I’m assuming that’s 14-feet or less measured from an ambient ground 3 level nearby. You know, whatever the existing ground level is and it doesn’t actually say that. Doesn’t 4 actually say what 14-feet or less is from. So, that’s where we need to deal with it because essentially, 5 where you are in an area that would be inundated by flood zone – by flooding, including with sea level 6 rise. That’s an area in which we should not have basements and this 14-feet is another way of 7 measuring that. The idea of expanding the flood zone restrictions to other kinds of building restrictions, 8 there actually much more problematic. One restriction is the restriction on basements and that’s – I’m 9 fine with the idea that you should not put new basements where you’re at a current flood risk or 10 incipient flood risk but if somebody is living outside the flood zone and their house burns down. What 11 happens is – let's say they have a fire but not all the house is burned, just have a fire in their kitchen and 12 kitchens are expensive and as result of that, when you have to rebuild the kitchen, you then have to 13 rebuild the whole house. Jack up the house above the base flood elevation which is what FEMA 14 regulations require in the flood zone. Requiring that outside the flood zone does not seem to make 15 sense. Therefore, that regulation that requires jacking up the house when you rebuild it outside the 16 flood zone, I wouldn’t – that’s to owners restriction if you have a kitchen fire for example. The issue is 17 basements, expensive regulations on that, that makes sense. Expensive regulations of other FEMA 18 regulations outside the flood zone doesn’t make as much sense and so, we need to think about what 19 you do there. For example, minor additions to square footage and having to have that above base flood 20 elevation while – instead of the existing grade, the level of the height of your house. You know, there 21 are things like that, those subtleties which I would not expand that in terms of this. However, on the 22 other hand, if you scrape your house and build a new house, that should be above base flood elevation 23 because it makes sense for that to be above the revised base flood elevations, taking into consent sea 24 level rise. I think that some new aunses are appropriate here. Finally, the issue of S-3.1.2 on hazardous 25 materials. This is written into weak of way; minimize the risk of biohazards in Palo Alto, including level 4 26 biohazards. No, bio level 4 biohazards should be prohibited. No ifs, and's or buts. Limiting any of the 27 other things – minimizing the other things, yes. Level 4 biohazards, prohibiting, we should not allow 28 introduction into our City and so the wording of that is awkward and incomplete. Similarly, the City has 29 gone on record with the removal of high levels of hazardous materials at the regional water quality 30 control plant, particular chlorine was removed and in terms of CPI removing hazardous materials there. 31 The City has gone on record, that policy of limiting – prohibiting high levels of hazardous materials, 32 according to whatever the hazardous requirements are. I’m not sure what the standards are for that but 33 that should be a policy under human-caused threats and it’s not there as far as I can tell. That the rule – 34 and the City has gone on record of that and so, it should be captured in here somewhere. So, those are 35 the things I’d like to bring up and I would like to add my thanks to everybody for participating in this for 36 the last year and a half and continuing hopefully. Thanks to those of us who are nothing going to be 37 continuing in their current capacity or at all because of elevation to elected office. 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 15 of 41 Co-Chair Garber: Ok. I see a couple of other cards up here. Annette, did you have something further to 1 add? Then Jennifer, did you also? 2 Annette Glackopf: Well, this is really short. I’m not going to go back to the basements again, although I 3 have some thoughts. I agree with Elaine, that we really should in the document have links and there’s 4 not any that I can see in there. I’m not sure everyone is going to be looking at it online but that would be 5 very useful. So, that’s one but my real comment is that I’m very concerns or interested in the comments 6 that Betty Joe Chang and Esther Nygard made and a couple of us have resigned to their comments. 7 Although we didn’t respond directly to them, I think they are all very, very good. I think Esther’s might fit 8 in the natural environment section; the Nexus of water and energy which is really fascinating. We really 9 haven’t talked about that but the ones that Betty Joe mentioned, I think are very, very reasonable and 10 so, I would agree with Jennifer that we should include them in the Comp. Plan, in the places that are 11 indicated here. So, that’s it. I don’t know if anyone else wants to raise their card and resignatedwith that 12 and also agree with me or raise your hand if you agree with me. Staff, take that into consideration. 13 Co-Chair Garber: Alright, thank you. Jennifer. 14 Jennifer Hetterly: I don’t want to overly belabor the basement flooding issue but I do want to have some 15 clarification because my understanding is that all flood zones are not created equal. There is more than 16 one flood zone and the FEMA requirement only prohibits basements within the FEMA special hazard – 17 special flood hazard area. As I also understand it, there are several parts of the City that the City deems 18 prone to flooding that are not within that special flood – that singular special flood hazard zone. I do 19 think that it’s worth providing for flood mitigation policies within the City’s government to protect the 20 homes that are in those high flood prone areas. I had another point. No, I forgot it. I’ll have to come 21 back if I remember. Thanks. 22 Co-Chair Garber: Arthur. 23 Co-Chair Keller: I’ll just elaborate on that Jennifer said. There are two main flood hazard zones in the 24 City’s special flood hazard areas and one of those is from the creek flooding from the San Francisquito 25 creek and the other is title flooding and there are some houses and proper parcels that are actually 26 subject to both flood zones. Therefore, have whichever – they have both restrictions applying essentially 27 and those restrictions include no basements. They also, the restrictions include when a new house is 28 built, if it’s a tear down, that the base flood – that the finished floor of the lowest level be above the 29 base flood elevation and that if an improvement is/or rebuild is made exceeding 50% of the current 30 value of the home, then that requires essential, jacking up the house over base flood elevation. If you 31 added an addition to it or a remodel to it, you can generally do that within 50% but if you have a – some 32 sort of calamity like a kitchen fire, which diminished the value of the home, then when you go above – 33 then the 50% above that is actually fairly easy to reach and gets to problems. Which is why when I want 34 to put in a plug for the idea of ordinance or law coverage, if you can get it on your insurance because 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 16 of 41 that will pay for bringing your house up to code, including jacking it up if necessary in the event of a 1 rebuild, if necessary in the event of a covered claim. 2 Co-Chair Garber: My comment – oh, Amy. 3 Amy Sung: I see that basement construction seems to generate a lot of interest so, I think that we might 4 want to put in a request for the study of what is an appropriate policy that should be set for basement 5 constructions. Especially, that the land is very scares in Palo Alto and in the interest of making sure that 6 the land can be put into the best of use. I heard that that was 14-feet, I’m not quite sure, did I hear that 7 correctly about – I heard a number about 14-feet – ok, so I – you know, with technology advancing so, it 8 might be time that the City do some studying to find out, you know what would be the very best way so 9 that that we can conserve the water in regarding to the dewatering of the basement excavation. Thank 10 you. 11 Hillary Gitelman: I just want to add one thing to the conversation. I am not at, at all well informed on 12 flood hazard issues so, I will not speak to that specifically, but Arthur’s comments on the hazardous 13 materials used raised for me this issue that we’re working on a general plan here, not a set of 14 regulations. We have regulations in our code specific to CPI and other hazardous materials users 15 including the bid hazards and so, those things are already regulated by our code and intention here in 16 Policy S- 3.1 and the programs that follow were to create a framework, that supported those regulations 17 and their perpetuation. We didn’t actually want to repeat the regulations and I think the same can be 18 said about flood hazard issues. I think we want policies that support the Community’s interests and 19 minimizing flood hazards and precluding development that would accentuate or expand those hazards 20 and that’s sort of what we’ve been shooting for without getting to the point of actually putting 21 regulatory language in what is a general plan. I hope that helps. 22 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Not that we need to talk more about basements but I am not actually going 23 to talk about content. However, I will just simply mention that this isn’t the only venue where 24 basements are being discussed and tomorrow evening there is the Policy and Services subcommittee 25 meeting of the City Council where Keith Bennett, the head of Save Palo Alto’s groundwater and I are 26 making a presentation and Esther and others will be there. It’s the – the scope is very specific to the 27 techniques of construction and the strategies relative to conserving our groundwater, where we are 28 talking at the regulatory level as oppose to the Comp. Plan level but it’s you’re interested, you can either 29 come and join us or you can read the minutes afterward and that may or may not go to the Council later 30 next year. Ok, if there is no more conversation about that. I would love to entertain a motion to 31 recommend the draft go to the Council. I’m hearing that motion being made by Annette, do I hear a 32 second? 33 Hamilton Hitchings: Well, I’d like a friendly amendment. 34 Co-Chair Garber: Please. 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 17 of 41 Hamilton Hitchings: Just that Staff has an opportunity to incorporate a couple of these clean up 1 provisions in there. 2 Male: And I’ll second. 3 Elaine Costello: Yeah, I would actually support that. There were just some things that we just missed. 4 WE wouldn’t change policy where there are differences of opinion. We would continue with our practice 5 of showing options so, we’re not going to go in there and rewrite the policy from what you saw tonight. 6 People pointed out some wording things that we know we were intending to make and they just 7 somehow didn’t get in there but they will. I agree completely that that’s a good amendment. 8 Co-Chair Garber: Arthur. 9 Co-Chair Keller: As it is our practice of late, anybody that has any additional comments that they wish to 10 go into the packets that go to the Council, can do so, until one week from today? 11 Elaine Costello: Yes. 12 Co-Chair Keller: Then that will go into that packets. So, they basically – the Council will get the – let me 13 refer to it as the corrected Safety Element, the minutes of today’s meeting, the attachments and the 14 handouts from today’s meeting. As well as additional notes submitted by members of the CAC or 15 members of the public to Staff by a week from today. 16 Co-Chair Garber: Alright. Does the maker of the motion except for the amendment, offered by the 17 seconder? 18 Annette Glackopf: Absolutely. 19 Co-Chair Garber: Alright, then I think we can move forward with the motion as amended. All those in 20 favor, raise they hands and say aye. Those not voting in favor? None. – thank you – those opposed. Any 21 abstentions? I think it moved unanimously then by the members that are currently here. 22 Commission Action: Motion: Forward the draft Safety Element for City Council review with 23 comments from the CAC and minutes. Staff is to clean up minor items that do not change policy as 24 discussed. Motion made by Commissioner Glanckopf, seconded by Commissioner Hitchings, motion 25 passed unanimously. 26 2. Natural Environment Element IV 27 a. Introduction of revised Natural Environment Element 28 b. Report from Natural Environment Subcommittee 29 c. Discussion of Draft Element 30 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 18 of 41 Co-Chair Garber: Let's move onto our next topic, the natural environment chapter. Does Staff want to 1 make some introductory comments? 2 Joanna Jansen: Yes, thank you Dan. Oh, before I forget and also since it’s kind of at the front of the 3 element. I want to make sure that you guys had a chance to see this piece that was provided At Places. 4 This is from Staff and this is a revised first page of the element. I know Lydia already picked up on this. 5 There was a couple of changes to the vision and the introduction that were not captured in the version 6 that you got. So, I wanted to make sure you saw this. A few words but they’re important words in the 7 vision and introduction components are important so, I want to make sure you had an opportunity to 8 take a look at that. Just like we moved things out of safety, of course we moved them into natural 9 environment. You probably notice some changes in the overall organization of the element. Primarily, 10 within the goal for water resources goal and also another change at the organizational level was to 11 move Goal 3, which is about creek – with now Goal 3, about creeks and riparian corridors; to put that 12 with the water resources goal. Lots of important synergy between these two goals in terms of things like 13 storm water or water quality, etc. So, those two goals are next to each other now and means that creak 14 and urban forest kind of switched places. Just to back up a step about the kind of history of this element 15 since the last time you saw it. We did talk about this element on November 15th when we were last 16 together and then since that time we had another natural environment subcommittee meeting to go 17 over the CAC’s comments and kind of have one final review of this element. We had a great discussion 18 with the subcommittee and joined by a number of departmental experts from the Urban Forestry, Public 19 Works, City Manager’s Office, Community Services and Utilities to help us with the refinements to the 20 Natural Environment Element. We made the changes to the vision and introduction that I just pointed 21 out. Under the urban space goal, we’ve continued to kind of make sure that we’re really emphasizing 22 this theme of connectivity and interconnectivity and specifically by referencing the figure that we are 23 pulling in from the parks recreation trails and open space master plan that has the natural systems map, 24 linking corridors and open spaces and urban parks, into really a kind of holistic view of open space and 25 habitat and ecology in Palo Alto. We are continuing to flush out the language about review of special 26 status species and the appropriate sources of what species could be considered. So, we have a program 27 to update the CEQA’s – the City’s CEQA thresholds about special status species analysis. We carried over 28 an idea that’s already in the urban forest section where the urban foresters are involved in reviewing 29 City projects to make sure that we do a similar type of review for project that could impact open space. 30 That’s part of City practice already but we wanted to acknowledge and memorialize that. Again, as 31 Hillary was saying, kind of provide some basis for that as an ongoing practice. I wanted to point out in 32 both this goal and the urban forest goal. There was some redundancy that we identified between the 33 Land Use Element and the open space – excuse me, the Natural Resource Element. The Land Use 34 Element Council draft that the Council just reviewed has a section on park land acquisition. As you recall, 35 when we were talking about the Land Use Element, that was a very important topic that we spent quite 36 a bit of time on. As we moved into the Natural Environment Element and talked about open space 37 expansion, acquisition, etc. We noticed some overlap there so, we’re proposing to consolidate those 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 19 of 41 policies and programs about acquisition so, that they’re all in one place. I think as practitioners, we see 1 that you’ve got a much greater chance of people noticing, understanding and acting on those programs 2 if they’re all in one place, rather than if they’re sprinkled throughout. Again, it gives us chance to make 3 sure that the document is internally consistent as well. I’ll get to the similar kind of issue in urban forest 4 in just a second. Then, we did add a little bit more about the development criteria for the Foothills area. 5 This is a case in Policy N-.19 which you probably recall a lot of detail since the time of the existing Comp. 6 Plan, a lot of detail has been incorporated into the zoning designation for the open space zone but we – 7 rather than kind of lose all that entirely and say, well that’s taken care of in the zoning now. We wanted 8 to retain some of the more important features of those development requirements and so, we’ve added 9 – rather than taking all of that out, we’ve gone back and put a little bit more back in there to make sure 10 that it’s really clear what the goals of those development criteria are. Moving on to urban forest, we’ve 11 incorporated the changes from canopy as we discussed at our last meeting and I think we’ve gotten 12 those down at this point. We tried to be responsive to all of those requirements or excuse me, requests 13 from canopy and including policies about avoiding net loss of tree canopy at the neighborhood level and 14 mentioning the urban forest in the visions and the introduction. We talked at the subcommittee level 15 about tree removal and a new program expanding the ability of Community members to appeal tree 16 removals. Urban forest is another place where there was some overlap with the land use section. The 17 land use section actually has a whole subtopic on the urban forest. I think it’s an important topic and 18 when we -- earlier on, when we talked about land us, we hadn’t really gotten to urban forest yet and we 19 were all really anxious to talk about it and make sure it was in there. I think now that we’re looking at 20 natural environment that has an entire goal about urban forest, we’re seeing that is a logical place for 21 the policies and programs about the urban forest. So, we pointed out in your Staff report and in the 22 element some places where those can be kind of consolidated and made sure that they are internally 23 consistent again. Some of them were almost exact duplications. Goal 3, creeks and riparian corridors, I 24 think one of the big things here to point out is that there are options in terms of these backs for natural 25 creeks, which are defined as those West of Foothill, for either a 100-foot setback or a 150-foot setback 26 and your element includes a map of where that setback would apply. Those are two options that we 27 anticipate would be carried forward to Council. Under Goal 4, water resources. We had Public Works 28 Staff present who help to clarify the procedure for groundwater management in California. It’s not really 29 done by the City, it’s done by groundwater management agency. In this case, it’s the Santa Clara Valley 30 Water District so, at our last meeting we discussed adding some policy language that had to do with 31 managing and planning for groundwater. That’s really going to be the role – the purview of the water 32 district so, we changed that from making the programs and policy sound like the City was going to be 33 doing that planning, to make sure that the City is going to have a very strong, active, kind of advocacy 34 role with the district as they do their planning and that the City is a very strong participant in that but 35 not leading that effort. An idea kind of, that was added to these goals was, we had already policies and 36 programs about minimizing impervious surfaces. At the subcommittee, we talked about yes, it’s good 37 that when something is going to be paved, it could be impervious or maximize impervious surfaces but 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 20 of 41 that the first step should be to try and minimize that area that is paved, even if it’s going to pave with 1 impervious surfaces and that site design. A new development should be kind of approached with that as 2 a goal, rather than just pave everything as long as it’s impervious. So, a little bit of refinement to that 3 language. We did add a reference to insecticides as Jennifer already mentioned and we also added some 4 specific references to the City’s recycled water ordinance. There is a recycled water ordinance in place 5 that has a lot of detail about where and when and how much dual plumbing is required in new 6 development for toilet and urinal flushing. We didn’t try to repeat all of the detail of that but just refer 7 to the ordinance itself. Under air quality, we just expanded the program we had already put in about 8 idling to include schools as additional source of places where people idle and make sure that to the 9 extended that that issue is addressed or enforced that schools are included in those educational efforts. 10 There was a previous policy – there’s an existing policy about mitigation of odor that had been, I think in 11 a previous version of the element, formatted as a program that was corrected back to a policy 12 consistent to what is currently in your current Comp. Plan. The Noise Element or excuse me, noise goals 13 haven’t changed too much. One thing that was important to the subcommittee members is changing a 14 reference to requiring certain types of review for projects that are subject to CEQA. To clarify that that 15 review should take place when the project is subject to the City’s development review, in response to 16 concerns that, which projects are subject to CEQA might change over time and so, this really puts that 17 regulation kind of, in the City’s court, rather than letting CEQA determine which projects do and don’t 18 get that level of analysis. We deleted the words from large commercial from Program N-6.11.2 so that – 19 which references participating regional forums to address noise impacts from airports. That it’s not only 20 large commercial airports but any airports. Goal 7 is about energy and again, we were joined by the 21 City’s Chief Sustainability Officer and also Staff from the Utilities Departments. Based on their input we 22 made some changes to several policies and programs on this in this sections. We did delete the program 23 regarding the use of carbon offsets, urban renewable credits, not because the City doesn’t want to 24 pursue that but because that should be complete as of January. So, that program is already going to be 25 completed by the time this moves forward to Council so, that’s recommended for deletion. Then, just 26 some refinement of the language about implementation and incentives and prioritization in this section. 27 Also, I just wanted to mention that a change that’s happened in this – under this goal, had to do with 28 transition from natural gas to electric. That was something that our subcommittee discussed in some 29 detail. Natural gas use does have GHG emissions associated with it and the S-CAP takes a relatively 30 aggressive approach towards phasing out the use of natural gas. In the Comp. Plan, we’re not quite as 31 strong as some of the strategies that are in the S-CAP but we do support the S-CAP strategies of 32 exploring that transition and continuing to figure out the best and almost most cost effective feasible 33 ways to move – phase out natural gas and move toward electrification but the water has – excuse me, 34 the language has been soften somewhat. Finally, Goal 8 is about climate change and climate adaptation. 35 We’ve strengthened the wording of the policy, instead of ‘seeking’ to reduce greenhouse emission in N-36 8.2, we are just going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We’re not going to seek to do it, we’re just 37 going to go ahead a do it. Consistent with the Council’s action in approving the S-CAP policy framework, 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 21 of 41 since the time that we met on this element in November. We also reworded the program about 1 protecting the municipal services center and other facilities from the impacts of sea level rise, including 2 the waste water treatment plant. We refined the wording of the Policy N-8.4, that wants to balance 3 responses to sea level rise with protecting the natural environment so, that we don’t respond to sea 4 level rise by building a bunch of new infrastructure that’s going to damage the delicate Bay front 5 ecology. Then, finally, I just want to note that at the subcommittee level, we did discuss the idea of a 6 policy that would have prohibited the City from obtaining power or electricity from a specific type of 7 solar energy called a concentrated solar thermal. This was due to concerns at the subcommittee level 8 about potential impacts on birds, in particular. The utilities Staff has said that this is not part of the 9 power portfolio right now, it wouldn’t be a major constraint right now but just being able to be flexible 10 and responsive as technology changes and as costs of electricity change in the future. They felt 11 uncomfortable about adding a specific prohibition on a specific type of alternative energy projects. So, 12 that policy is not the version that you have before you tonight and that’s it, I think. 13 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Are there members of the subcommittee that would like to speak to this? If 14 so turn your cards up. Don, Jennifer, Doria. Let's go in that order. Don, you’re first. 15 Don McDougall: I think I have a miss mash of comments. Complementary and disagreement and detail 16 in general. First off, I think that once again, the organization is – the changes in organization are 17 important because they create interesting structure and they do a better job of sending the message 18 across. I do want to compliment Staff – our Staff, if I can refer to them that way for participating but I 19 think also, the fact that they got so many other Staff from other departments to come and participate in 20 those meetings needs to be complimented and I know that wasn’t easy to do and I appreciate their 21 time. Under the vision statement, right from start. I like the fact that we’re no longer saying that this 22 natural environment is all about beauty and appearance and we’ve added health and I think that that’s 23 really important. In the vision statement, I do wonder why we say even in built up areas as opposed to 24 just simply say, in built up areas or whatever. I’m not quite sure that even doesn’t detract from what 25 we’re trying to say. In terms of details, I think that people should be complimented for adding so much 26 of the stuff about insecticides and pervious surfaces, idling and I think the challenge will be whether we 27 have the will and ability to enforce those things. I think Shani, who’s not here, should be complimented 28 on her contributions to that. I like the idea that in general, we’re talking about preservation and not 29 management. I think that’s a really important concept. I think when this was written 20 years ago, 30 management was probably the issue; I think preservation is today. I think that – I’m not sure we’re 31 strong enough with the public appeal process or ability relative to tree removal. I think that we might 32 want to strengthen that. I really like the fact that we’ve added the concept of smart energy grid but I 33 think there’s more opportunity for smartness in the whole natural environment and data collection that 34 we do. I think over the next 15 years, the length of this plan, the transition from natural gas probably 35 will be a higher – of higher importance than it appears today and the fact that we’re dealing with carbon 36 offsets, I would object that we’re removing that from here. The idea that there should be carbon offsets 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 22 of 41 as opposed to just simple illuminating the problem and not having offsets. The same thing with solar 1 thermal, I worry that we’re removing that because we’re worried about the economy of this and I’m not 2 sure in their natural environment section, we should be worrying about the economy as opposed to the 3 environment. Solar thermal is well known to be hazardous. As was mentioned, I really like the idea that 4 we’re being positive, we’re not ‘seeking’ to reduce greenhouse gas, we’re going to reduce it. In the map 5 N3, I do want to mention that the fact that map shows regional habitat connection, I think the 6 connectivity of our habitat is really, really, important and I think that the fact that that got called out, I’d 7 like to thank you for that. Thank you. 8 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you, Don. Jennifer and then Doria. 9 Jennifer Hetterly: Yeah, I think this element is coming along – has come along great. I really appreciate 10 Staff and Place Works work on this. They really transformed it a lot in terms of how it’s presented and 11 how the content comes across. I just have a few comments, Program N-1.10.2 about dedicating publicly 12 owned recreational open space and conservation areas as parkland. I’d like to say publicly controlled 13 and not publicly owned. We currently have quite a bit of dedicated park land that is under long-term 14 leases. We don’t own it as a City but we’ve nonetheless dedicated it as park land to preserve that 15 function for the life of the lease so, I’d like to be changed to controlled. Same program, for some 16 examples of things that we ought to consider dedicating as rental wetlands and Gamble House. I believe 17 the rental wetlands is dedicated park land already. So, a different example would be good there like 18 Rinconada Community Gardens, would be one that’s not dedicated parkland but is clearly a park like 19 use. Policy N-2.2 under the urban forest, that’s where I think you consolidated the land use policy about 20 the urban forest as infrastructure into this Natural Element policy. I actually think the urban forest – I 21 think we ought to retain that original land use Policy L-9.11 in the land use sections as well. More than 22 parks and preserves and other open space, the urban forest infrastructure is really impacted by all 23 developments and all land use decisions so, I think it has broader concerns and ought to be elevated in 24 both elements. Next comment – oh, the groundwater regulation, I understand that the water district 25 has regulatory authority over that. I know we previously had a program that called for looking into 26 setting use fees for groundwater extraction. I assume that that came out because we don’t have the 27 authority to do that, is that correct? If it’s not correct, I think we should put it back in. If it is correct, 28 then I think we ought to be really cautious about – we ought to be looking for other ways to control the 29 groundwater impacts of excavation. 30 Joanna Jansen: Jennifer? 31 Jennifer Hetterly: Yeah? 32 Joanna Jansen: Sorry, I don’t know if this is what you’re thinking but under N-4.7.1, there is still a bullet 33 point that says an approach to metering extracted groundwater. Is that? 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 23 of 41 Jennifer Hetterly: I don’t know if metering means charging a fee or if it just means monitoring how 1 much is extracted? So, I think where it was before was in Program N-4.8.2 and that program needs some 2 editing anyways, it’s not a complete sentence. So, I’d love to see fees back in there if it’s allowable; if 3 not, I get that but we ought to be looking for other ways that the City can reduce dewatering beyond 4 regulation of the dewatering and one of those ways is to control underground construction. Next – this 5 is my last comment I think – is also about water. 1Program N-4.1 and 3.1 is about a standardized process 6 for evaluating the impacts of development on the storm drain system, including point source discharge, 7 base flow, peak flow, etc. I would like to add to that something about exploring opportunities for cost 8 recovery – increased cost recovery based on those evaluations. It doesn’t really get us very far to just 9 evaluate the impacts if we don’t have a strategy for doing something about it. I would like to add a cost 10 recovery element to that program. That’s all I had. 11 Elaine Costella: I’m having trouble finding that number. 12 Alex van Riesen: I think it’s N.13.1 13 Jennifer Hetterly: It’s page N33, N-4.13.1, sorry. 14 Elaine Costella: Thank you, I just missed (Crosstalk) 15 Alex van Riesen: You said 1.3.1 16 Jennifer Hetterly: Oh, my bad. (Crosstalk) 17 Elaine Costello: No, no, that’s fine, I just want to make sure we have it, that’s all. Thank you. 18 Doria Summa: I also wanted to thank Staff for including such a broad range of experts from other 19 departments. That was very helpful. Especially, given the very technical nature of the energy section and 20 in general, I had a concern that the energy section as Director Gitelman says, to be overly regulatory, 21 instead of general enough. I think there is a couple thing where it does lean a little that direction 22 because I think there’s likely to be so many new technologies and changes in the years to come. If 23 anything seems to regulatory versus broad, I think it could be made more general but I do think, based 24 on what I learned at the subcommittee meetings, I would be more comfortable if concentrated solar 25 power was called out. It wasn’t just for birds, it was for a lot of other species and it has a lot of negative 26 – really profoundly negative effects. That’s not to say that if 20-years from now, it was the only way we 27 could get energy, we wouldn’t be able to rethink it but I think it belongs in there at least as a cautionary 28 thing if not outright prohibited. Wait, I have to put on my glasses. Oh, I agree with Jen about 1.10.2 and 29 that about pursues dedication of – and her change, publicly controlled but I would like to get rid of the 30 word pursue and says dedicate. That just needs to get done and I also agree with her comments on the 31 urban forest and then, finally in the groundwater policy we were just talking about. I had a concern 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 24 of 41 about contaminated groundwater from sites migrating, that you guys addressed in the Safety Element 1 so, thank you very much. I wonder if there shouldn’t be a correlating bullet under 4.7.1, that sort of 2 strengthens the idea that it should be – that those things need to be looked at and addressed because 3 what we find that there are assumptions of where the plume goes and where it doesn’t and there’s 4 recently been some testing in certain neighborhoods. I would just think it would be good for it to be 5 tested and once and for all that could – or it could be – it should be tested regularly, but on a reasonable 6 basis but I think there needs to be a bullet there to address that. Thanks. 7 Co-Chair Garber: Ok, why don’t we go around the table. Lydia, would you start us off? 8 Lydia Kou: Mine is pretty short. Policy N-1.1 under program – in the programs, I was wondering if 9 Program N-11.2, promote and support ecosystems protections and environment education programs in 10 Palo Alto. Since a lot of out ecosystem touches the other – there are other Cities that it touches, I’m 11 wondering if we should have another program to include adjoining Cities, such as East Palo Alto or 12 Woodside, etc. The Cities that adjoin and then, on page N17, in one of the bullets it says – and I don’t 13 understand this – it says, be clustered or closely grouped in relation to the areas surrounding to reduce 14 conspicuousness. Minimize access roads. I wonder if the ‘ness’, that word is there – too much additional 15 wording in there but (Inaudible). Page N17 (Crosstalk) and then it starts again. So, those are just a 16 couple of things and then also, like I said earlier, the random letters in different areas. Thank you. 17 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Stephen. 18 Stephen Levy: Pass. 19 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Elaine. 20 Elaine Uang: Couple of, kind of specific wording comments. Policy N-1.1, I think there’s – sometimes 21 there are a tendency to suggest that everything that’s landscaped is natural and I just want to make a 22 suggestion for the second sentence of the policy, respect the role that natural and constructed 23 landscapes play within the urbanized part of the City because not everything that is green is actually 24 natural. Every lawn or grass lawn that put out there is actually not native landscape necessarily. On the – 25 Oh my gosh, there’s a lot of little things. I’m glad to see the urban forest and understory as a category, 26 right before Goal N2 but I’m wondering if we can also include the word understory as part of Goal – the 27 language in Goal N2. So, thriving urban forest and understory. The understory – I think while the urban 28 forest is primary and the trees really provide the bulk of the ecosystem benefits for both the open space 29 and the urban areas. I think the understory plays a strong role especially, in things like storm water 30 management and drainage. So, I’d like to see the understory also put back in. Especially, like under 31 policy N 2.2, recognizing the importance of the urban forest and understory. I think there’s also some 32 language that I find a little bit loose. The appreciation of natural systems, I think maybe something that 33 could be stronger and is actually a concept – a strong scientific concept is the term ecosystem services 34 and so, maybe instead of appreciation of natural systems, we can kind of make that stronger and really 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 25 of 41 recognize the actual services that the natural landscapes and connected ecosystems provide for our 1 City. Let's see creeks and riparian areas, Goal N3. Again, just a few – there’s – I’ve pushed in the past for 2 separating the natural creeks from the channelized creeks and I think that the language here is still kind 3 of conflating those things. I’m not sure that we would necessarily want to push for conservation of all 4 the channelized creeks. If there’s room to make improvements to the channelized creeks in the future, 5 I’d like to see the language, you know, be open to that. I might suggest conservation of natural creeks 6 and riparian areas as open space amenities, ecological habitats and elements Community design and 7 then also, make separate – the mention of maintaining channelized creeks so, that -- because I think 8 they’re very different – they’re highly – the channelized creeks are highly constructed and very different 9 and don’t provide the same services as the natural creeks. Then, in – I think there’s a mention of map 10 N4, illustrating where the possible 150-foot setbacks are and that’s just not very clear in the draft that 11 was sent out. Maybe that shows up better in the big map but it’s not very clear from the small – and I 12 also am just not – and maybe this is something that Staff can provide later but I’d like to understand 13 where the suggestion of 150-feet setbacks come from? Like if there’s a strong – is there strong evidence 14 or recommendation from another agency or best practice because it’s not clear to me why 150-feet as 15 opposed to 100 or 125. Then – oh, just one more thing. On climate change, I think there’s a reference to 16 sustainable Community strategy which I think is a mandate from SP375. I mean, the core of the 17 sustainable Community strategy is really being to integrate land use transportation and housing and N-18 8.1.1, makes reference to a whole bunch of other things that it's important for; climate change, 19 greenhouse gas, water supply, sea level rise but really the crux of, you know the mandate for 20 sustainable Community strategy is to integrate land use transportation housing for those climate change 21 and greenhouse gas reduction. If there’s a way to kind of reference that and again, tie this piece, this 22 Natural Environment Element back to land use, back to transportation and further this links, I’d like to 23 see that happen. 24 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Julia. 25 Julia Moran: I just have one little comment. Thank you, subcommittee and thank you for meeting with 26 all those experts. This is clearly, very detailed section and I appreciate the work you guys have done. 27 Program N-2.9.3, I think there’s someone who mentioned this last meeting. I’m just concerned – 28 expanded opportunities for Community members to appeal the removal of trees and in private 29 residences. I don’t know, I – maybe it's ok – it makes me a little uncomfortable. It’s something to 30 consider that there was someone last meeting and I also concur that – I’m not sure about that language. 31 Co-Chair Garber: Did Staff understand that? I wasn’t – if you point, forgive me for asking? 32 Julia Moran: My point is… 33 Co-Chair Garber: That… 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 26 of 41 Julia Moran: So, it expands the opportunities for Community member to appeal the removal of trees 1 under private residences and I’m not that… (Crosstalk) 2 Co-Chair Garber: Increase it to something that is – sorry. (Crosstalk) 3 Julia Moran: …Community members should – increasing what’s already there is there. 4 Co-Chair Garber: Ok, thank you. 5 Co-Chair Garber: Forgive me, anything else? 6 Julia Moran: No. 7 Co-Chair Garber: Ok. Bonnie. 8 Bonnie Packer: Thank you. I think the element has really been put together very nicely. Most of my 9 comments are for the purpose of clarification. Even though this is not a regulatory document, I want to 10 make sure that it’s good – what you mean to say is really well understood. So, like in N-1.1, you talk 11 about managing private open space and I’m not really sure what private open space is? There are other 12 references to residential back yards and that private open space and it’s nice to tell residents about nice 13 ways to keep your backyards and there’s nothing very regulatory about what is said but I’m not sure 14 what is meant by private open space. Do you mean all the land that people have their – that is in the 15 open space zones, that’s private or what? I just – a little definitional clarification – little paraphrase or 16 something that would add to that. You mention that you put in a lot of the – in the bullet points under 17 N-1.9, which is a lot of the development requirements in the open space zone. Maybe you should just 18 say that that comes from the zoning code for the development standards for building in the open space 19 zones in that section. Policies – I think it’s N-.11, where it talks about working with Stanford, Santa Clara 20 County, and the water district, I would add San Mateo County because so much of Stanford is also in San 21 Mateo County. We might as well – they’re right across San Francisquito Creek, we should be working 22 with them, who knows. In the urban forest area, I have no problem with the intent but I think there’s – it 23 isn’t clear what a street tree is. I know or I understand a street tree to be those trees that the City 24 planted in the City’s rights of ways and that isn’t defined well here. So, that Policy N-2.7, that says 25 require new commercial, multi-unit, blah blah blah, to provide street trees. It’s so vague, like where? 26 When? What do they need to provide? I have in my comments submitted, alternate language that 27 would specify that if you remove a tree or if there are no trees in the right away, in front of the property 28 that you’re developing, then you do something about it. I’m just asking for explicit language in that area. 29 The creeks, I just have one question. One of the – in the setback requirements, it says that ensure that if 30 you’re going to have a trail along the creek, it can only be on one side and I’m thinking of Fern Canyon in 31 Foothills Park. There’s a beautiful trail that goes up one side of the creek, crosses over and goes down 32 the other side. So, you want to be sure that it – that there – that some trails it may be appropriate to 33 have it on both sides of a creek or maybe if it’s high up, it doesn’t matter. Water resources, I suggest in 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 27 of 41 my written comments, mostly grammatical changes for clarification and also, under air quality. In the 1 noise section, Policy N-6.1, you have a whole, huge long thing about decibel levels and it doesn’t belong 2 here. I mean, you said earlier you wanted to keep this on a high level and not be regulatory. So, that 3 whole section, it goes for about a whole page. I can’t find – oh, here it is. On page N35, if you can just 4 refer to the guidelines for maximum outdoor noise levels and interior noise to some document and not 5 repeat it here in the Comp. Plan, it would be more consistent with the broad scope that we’re trying to 6 do. That’s it, thank you. 7 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Yes, Hillary. 8 Hillary Gitelman: Just one note on that last comment. This is a crazy section where the State guild lines 9 actually, require some excessive detail on interior and exterior noise level. So, we’ll look at it. If there’s a 10 way to simplify it, we will. 11 Bonnie Packer: If you got to do it, you got to do it. 12 Co-Chair Garber: If you go to go. Lisa. 13 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: I actually have nothing to add. I thought that the new programs and the new 14 policies were awesome and I love especially, the extra protection for our trees and the urban canopy but 15 I didn’t see anything major and some of the others have been mentioned. 16 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Jason. 17 Jason Titus: Yeah, I was generally really impressed and was actually, really proud to be a Palo Alton. Just 18 reading through this and seeing the stuff that we’re promoting and planning for. There were a couple 19 things. One on the non-concentrating solar thermal, I didn’t know if there was a particular reason why 20 we didn’t say that we wanted to do solar water heating. I mean, it is real in Hawaii. Other places it is 21 actually mandated that every new home has to do it. If we want to reduce natural gas usage in a place 22 that’s sunny the vast majority of the time. Seems like we should probably – at least encourage it and 23 potentially even just say, new construction, you should incorporate solar water heating of some sort. 24 Then, also, on water usage. There was – we had something in 4.16.3 saying that we wanted to 25 investigate ways to use non-traditional water sources. Including things like gray water and such but it 26 seems kind of wimpy for something that's supposed to be looking way, way out – 20-years in the future. 27 Lots of places use gray water now so, why wouldn’t we say we want to encourage the usage of gray 28 water and say, this is – there is a lot of water that is going to waste that could be used for irrigation and 29 houses and all that right now. I just want to be stronger there. 30 Co-Chair Garber: Great. Thank you. Whitney. 31 Whitney McNair: Thank you. I just want to – I have two comments. One is map N-1, I believe that the 32 map is been created from the bike and pedestrian plan that was adopted earlier, I think in 2012 and so, 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 28 of 41 built upon that are these pollinator pathways that do seem to be getting some traction and as a 1 concept, I think it’s an interesting and supportable concept. I would just want it to be – just identify that 2 the lines that are drawn on the map, look as though they follow a very specific course and it ma – it 3 should just be a conceptual diagram because the lines do go through existing property. They don’t really 4 follow the right of way, they go through parking lots and buildings. I know in particular, through the 5 research park they do so, it doesn’t really follow what one would think of as a natural pathway, where 6 you would have landscaping. So, I just wanted to identify if the idea is conceptual, the map should sort 7 of reflect that point. If it’s not, then really where they’re drawn should be looked at a little more. Then, 8 Program N-2.12.3, this one is – I think it’s a little overreaching. It’s about cooperating with different 9 entities, including Stanford and Caltrain and PG&E and what not, to ensure that tree planting removal 10 and maintenance practice are consistent with City guild lines. Throughout the document, I really want to 11 make clear, if it’s meant to be applying to Stanford University, we’ll talk about that. If it’s meant to apply 12 to Stanford – the lands that Stanford owns that are within the research park that are – then I think that 13 distinguishing needs to be made. Those Stanford-owned lands, that are within the research park, 14 already have to meet City regulations but if it’s really intended to be Stanford University as it’s written – 15 Stanford already has to comply with County regulations and there’s regulations for landscaping and tree 16 removal and replacement and also, Stanford has the ability to do a vegetation management plan, where 17 they holistically look at the whole of the campus; to look at the trees and the landscaped areas for all of 18 the lands within Santa Clara County. That is different and more comprehensive than just an identified 19 parcel and the tree that’s on that one sort of, regulated parcel, where they are doing a building. So, it’s a 20 way to – that one might be preserving more trees in the long run if you’re looking at it comprehensively 21 and so, I just think that the way that it’s written is not appropriate. It’s overreaching and Stanford has to 22 comply with other guild lines that might be more apply. 23 Female: What number is that again? 24 Whitney McNair: It’s N-2.12.3. 25 Elaine Costello: Ok, thank you. 26 Whitney McNair: It may be that the language ensures inconsistent with City guild lines but that needs to 27 be softened in some way. 28 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you, sorry. Annette. 29 Annette Glackopf: Don’t we wish we had a plan like that in Palo Alto. I basically agree with some of the 30 comments – most of the comments that Doria and Jen made. A couple of comments, on Policy N-14, 31 Program 4.1, it calls to review a CEQA thresholds of significance regarding special status species but it 32 leaves us sort of hanging. So, it’s fine to call for a review but what is the action on that? Maybe reports 33 status to the agencies listed. The one goal that I’d like to see added, that I’ve asked three times already, 34 is I would like something probably a new program into 12 to explore the feasibility and locations for a 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 29 of 41 memorial park to commemorate citizens who have contributed significant public services to the City of 1 Palo Alto. I’ve talked to Canopy about that. It’s sort of ongoing things and I think it would nice if were in 2 the Comp. Plan. Program N-3.4.1 addressed creek stewardship and this is sort of currently on-going with 3 Actera and so, I think we need to address that. At least I get an email everyday referring to this so, 4 maybe the word develops – replace the word develop to enhance or expand, would be worthwhile. 5 Joanna Jansen: Annette, I’m sorry. Can you restate which one you were looking at there? 6 Annette Glackopf: Ok, I sent you actually some of the notes. 7 Joanna Jansen: Oh, ok. 8 Annette Glackopf: Program N-3.4.1 addressed creek stewardship and Actera seems to have a lot going 9 on in that so, you should at least address that. Another thing is, I would like -- a little further on under 10 Policy N-4.15, to add a new program. I think Doria or Jen referred to this and certainly the storm – the 11 Palo Alto – Save Palo Alto Groundwater has talked about this; something to the effect of considering 12 prohibiting water from new construction for basements to flow into storm drains. So, consider 13 prohibiting water from dewatering to go into storm drains and they’ll talk about that tomorrow night. 14 Then, sort of a funny one on this Program N-5.2.2, I think it either needs to be omitted or reworded. I 15 understand the philosophy of addressing cars idling for more than 3-5 minutes and I can certainly see 16 that in a driveway but you know, with our traffic jams, that certainly is a possibility on City streets. We 17 need to sort of – we can’t really regulate cars getting stalled in traffic for huge amounts of time. Finally, 18 the only other thing I’d like to mention at this time is Bonnie was talking about City trees in the right of 19 way. I think the City needs to do a lot of work about – in this area. I think that street trees should be 20 mandatory; they’re not. It’s sort of voluntary and if someone right now dumps a tree – takes it down, 21 which they do all the time. Whether it’s in the front of their property or a City-owned tree, there’s no 22 code enforcement or regulation for them to put it back and a lot of (Inaudible) trees, even in City right 23 away areas, is controlled by, what I consider a very fickle rule in that you have to plant at a certain 24 distance from driveways and utility outboxes. Which if you planted the right species of trees, that 25 wouldn’t be a consideration. I agree with Bonnie that there needs to be some work there but we also 26 need to really look at zoning and what we can do in that area. I have some more comments but it’s sort 27 of in the notes that I sent to Staff. 28 Co-Chair Garber: Ok, we can come back to you if you like in the next round. Hamilton. 29 Hamilton Hitchings: I wanted to commend the subcommittee on a very thorough and thoughtful 30 modernization of the element. It really looks in good shape. I just want to go through quickly, I’ve been 31 focused on the Safety Element but I want to make a couple comments on people's comments tonight. 32 On Don’s comments really resonated with me, as did Annette’s. I want to second Elaine’s mention of 33 distinguishing channelized creeks. You know, that ship has sailed and I understand some people are not 34 happy but they were channelized for very good reason and they are very different than something like 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 30 of 41 the San Francisquito Creek, which has not been channelized and it’s important to distinguish between 1 them. In terms of Julia’s comment about not expanding the appeal of removal of trees. It wasn’t meant 2 to go so far as to allow neighbors to prevent you from removing them but merely to notify. So, I think 3 within that context, it is appropriate to expand and so, at least you can be notified that your neighbor is 4 about to remove a tree. I really agreed with Bonnie’s comments about the need to clarify what private 5 open space means. Is it your back yard or is it like space within the private open – we need a clear 6 definition of that along with what a street tree is within the element. I want to second Jason’s 7 recommendation on encouraging gray water. I just want to go into – reinforce a couple of things that 8 Annette said including the memorial public park. We really need to prohibit dewatering into storm 9 drains. I absolutely agree with that. The street trees, we really need code enforcement to replace them. 10 I had a neighbor across the street – who I like a lot by the way – but they remove their tree and you 11 know, I don’t know if it will ever be replaced but I mean it was a very key location. So, I think it is 12 important that we have mandatory street trees and that they be enforced. It’s really part of the 13 character and part of the preservation of our urban forest. I’d love to see at least a little bit of 14 strengthening of language in that. Again, I want to thank the subcommittee for a great job. 15 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Doria, we’ve heard from you and Jennifer. Alex. 16 Alex van Riesen: My comments, I appreciate the extensive nature of this element. I just have a couple 17 comments on the urban forest section and understory. I was struck by – it seems that there’s an 18 emphasis within the Goal N2, particularly to protect the urban forest from development. That comes up 19 newer house times which seems appropriate in ways but I guess the other thing we talked about before 20 that there’s a – either the imminent threat of drought and flooding. You know one or the other, the 21 feast and the famine and the water. I realize you have N-2.6.2 which is a mention of drought but it 22 seems to me that there’s something missing in terms of a plan or who’s thinking about what happens to 23 the trees if the drought continues or if – as the other chart show – flooding continues and what’s the 24 impact. I don’t know if that would be true in other areas as well but it seems like there almost would be 25 another section or under protection and expansion some greater mention of drought and flooding with 26 regards to the trees since that’s a significant portion of the City. The other thing I thought about is in 27 Program N-6.2.1 under noise and I was just – it says to continue working to reduce noise impacts 28 created by events and activities taking place in Community adjoining Palo Alto and I couldn’t think of 29 anything other than a Stanford football game or Shoreline – No, I was getting there. Wow, you people 30 are on top of it, man. I couldn’t even get to number two. The thing is, I’ve lived here 15-years and I’ve 31 noticed no change so, the word continue has no meaning for me there so, I wonder if there’s a way to 32 toughen that up. Maybe it’s happened but I’ve heard nothing about – sometimes you’ll hear nothing 33 and then you’ll hear it likes its crystal clear. Especially, in South Palo Alto. I wonder if there’s a way to 34 toughen that up so, that – can we actually make some changes because it’s not my understanding that 35 Mountain View has done anything to change Shoreline – erect a wall in the back, you know, as some 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 31 of 41 other theaters have done but my feeling is nothing has changed. That program feels destined for not 1 working unless it’s beefed up. 2 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Ellen. 3 Alex van Riesen: Sorry. 4 Ellen Uhrbrock: I am quite in awe of the knowledge and the ability of the subcommittee and the 5 committees but I really want to know, what is the distribution of this plan? When it’s published and it’s 6 approved by the Council. Who do you expect to read it and use it and have it as a reference? Could you 7 answer that for me, please? 8 Hillary Gitelman: This is envisioned of a plan that will be used by the City decision makers, Staff and the 9 public in reviewing development applications, legislative changes, capital investments. It’s intended to 10 be a broad policy framework that will be available to inform those decisions and allow everyone to 11 balance our goals and priorities. 12 Co-Chair Garber: I can just add, I would use it professionally, at least a couple times a week. Anything 13 else? Done? 14 Co-Chair Keller: Don already went. 15 Co-Chair Garber: Oh, no I said done not Don. Adrian, go ahead. 16 Adrian Fine: Alright, overall, I really agree with a lot of folks. This is a pretty good document. 3 points; I 17 also want to echo the gray water thing. It does seem conspicuous now that you guys both mention it. 18 Policy N-5.2 about supporting behavior changes to reduce emission particulates from automobiles. 19 That’s a really big goal. I think everyone would agree with it. There’s not much meat underneath it. It 20 related pretty heavily to our transportation element. It might be related to incentives for EVs. I just 21 seemed pretty thin for such a large policy. The last thing I was wondering about, just a suggestion. 22 There’s a lot of new finance mechanisms for clean energy, clean water, cleaner utilities so that residents 23 can do it locally; even solar share programs. There might be something here in terms of the City 24 promoting or identifying or working with residents on new clean power and clean water initiatives. 25 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Amy. 26 Amy Sung: I think this is an amazing element. I first thought that it was pretty boring but after I read 27 through it, I admit, I was totally wrong. I wanted to focus on energy use because we are now at 40% of 28 our energy consumption and it’s really in residential buildings. I was looking at the energy use 29 particularly, in Policy N-7.7 and it says explore a variety of the cause of effect ways to reduce natural gas 30 to – in the existing new buildings in Palo Alto. I think (Inaudible) talks about the existing buildings, we do 31 have a lot of homeowners who are not interested in remodeling instead of selling their houses. This 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 32 of 41 might be an area that we really capitalize on harvesting some of the energy and reduce the energy use. 1 Maybe in the programs, we could have something, like provide incentives for the existing homeowners 2 that are wanting to upgrade their energy use. For example, the Program 7.7.1, talks about the carbon 3 neutral and natural gas supply. Something I think that something we talked about incentives. That might 4 be something we can consider. The other is Policy N-7.6; it has a very specific language talking about 5 solar photo (Inaudible) panels. This is like a particular – a clean energy that we wanted to promote but 6 for example, you know, (Inaudible) is just talking about the incorporation of a solar panel into roof tiles 7 as we advance into technology. Here you talked about this Comp. Plan is really to be high level and for 8 the broad language. Maybe this specific reference that you (Inaudible) solar panel, might be just too 9 specific. Instead, you maybe want to talk about the clean energy or solar energy or something really 10 high level. I have a question about Program N-7.6.3 says, it promoted solar energy in individual private 11 projects and I’m not quite sure, what does that mean, individual private projects? Does that mean new 12 buildings, single family homes or garage or what? It’s just not very clear on that (Crosstalk) 13 Co-Chair Garber: Amy, what number was that? I’m sorry. 14 Amy Sung: Program 7.6.3, page 54. 15 Male: She’s looking at the track change version, maybe you’re looking clean, improvised version. 16 Amy Sung: Anyway, I just thought the energy section, when it touches on the existing homes at that part 17 of the area, we can focus on. Thank you. 18 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Arthur. 19 Co-Chair Keller: I’ve been listening to this and I have a few comments on which are on other comments 20 that people have made. Firstly, I wholeheartedly agree with Don McDougall about the need to improve 21 the tree removal appeal process. Currently, if a private owner wants to remove a tree, they do appeal – 22 they basically apply for it and then the City approves it or denies it and the neighbors who may be 23 affected by that removal because of enjoyment – all people nearby see the tree, enjoy the tree. They 24 have no rights currently at all. Maybe they get notified but can’t do a damn thing about it and therefore 25 a strengthening that to allow an appeal. Particularly, for protected trees but even nonprotected trees, 26 wherever there’s an appeal process – that is for an application. If there’s an application, the neighbors 27 should be able to appeal. The City decided, just like any other development going on. With respect to N-28 2 – by the way, that’s to respect to N -2.9.3. With respect to 2.12.3, I think that this should be referred 29 to within the City of Palo Alto. I agree with the idea of Stanford University lands within the City of Palo 30 Alto. I don’t think it should be weakened at all and I believe it should specifically include this City of Palo 31 Alto utility because our utilities have been butchering trees, not consistent with City guidelines. I agree 32 entirely with the comments of Elaine Uang, with respect to channelized versus natural creeks. The ship 33 has sailed. We are not going to remove channelized creeks, the channels there. If anything, they are 34 potential for raising the heights of the channels in order to have sea level rise dealt with. They aren’t 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 33 of 41 going away and don’t expect them to go away and create regulations that are consistent with them 1 staying. The issue with respect to extracting groundwater. The water district does have regulations in 2 terms of extracting groundwater basically, in terms of wells but other than that, they have no 3 regulations with respect to that. So, expecting that to be reliant on this – on the water district 4 regulations means that there are no regulations. Regulating pumping into storm drains is something 5 reserved to the City. The water district has no say on that and so, that’s something in which it does make 6 sense for us to be regulating. The next thing is with respect to N-4.5 – sorry—N-5.2.2, I assume that the 7 way to handle this, which is idling, it idling while parked and if you simply add the phrase while parked, it 8 makes perfect sense and works fine. With respect to N-5.3.3 which is health impacts of particulate 9 emissions and providing information about the steps that (Inaudible) remove, reduce particulate 10 emissions. Isn’t this being handled by the air district? I notice there’s things deleted on the next page on 11 N-37 on the track changes version about wood fire – wood burning stoves and things like that. So, I’m 12 wondering if some reference to the air district makes sense or if this policy is still something that we’re 13 doing? Going up a little higher, with respect to N-5.3, there’s a mention of leave blowers. People seem 14 to be all up in arms about the particulate matters of the leaf blower machines and completely ignoring 15 the fact that leaf blowers blow dust from the dirt, from the ground and that dust is as much as a 16 problem. Whether the leaf blowers are electric or gas – or fossil fuel powered, that dust that lingers in 17 the air and is a hazard in and of itself. Finally, with respect to concentrated solar thermal. The issues 18 with respect to concentrated solar thermal are not mirror affecting wildlife. There is a current large 19 project of concentrated solar thermal, I think it’s called Tonopah. I may not have the name correct but in 20 particular, this is towed as being solar power and as such, it basically says, it is greenhouse gas free. That 21 is not correct. It heats up during the day and at night it has to stay warm. They use natural gas to keep it 22 heated overnight so, that in the morning when the sun comes on, it can heat up and use – generate 23 power. This is not the kind of greenhouse gas free energy that the City of Palo Alto should be buying and 24 therefore, I would suggest that we do include the prohibition for concentrated solar thermal unless and 25 until, it is truly greenhouse gas free, without the use of fossil fuels to create heat during night time 26 hours. I think that that’s something that we should do because if we’re going to have 100% greenhouse 27 gas-free electric utility, buying concentrated solar thermal power, does not generate greenhouse gas-28 free power. Also, one final thing is there was a mention of various kinds of things in term of -- I think it 29 was Amy Sung mentioned about various incentives for retrofits. It is interesting that the City of Palo Alto 30 utilities incentive program seems to be very targeted. You get incentives for doing an X or you get 31 incentives for doing a Y. Where those are specifically targeted for what it is. You get incentive certain 32 times for putting in solar thermal water heaters but you don’t get incentives for putting in solar – for 33 improving a certain water—heating—for example, if you use solar thermal water space heating, you 34 don’t get incentives for that. That’s kind of silly. In PG&E territory, they have this idea that you measure 35 the energy usage of the home before you retrofit. You measure the energy usage of the home after the 36 retrofit and if your improvement excesses a certain threshold, you get a lump of money. That’s a much 37 better strategy, I think that our approach which is targeted in vulcanized ways and I think we should 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 34 of 41 explore what other electric and – what other (Inaudible) utilities do in terms of their incentive programs 1 and think about copying some of that in that regard. I also think that we need to, in order to promote 2 solar power, we need to think about a time of use metering. And solar power works with time of use 3 metering and we explored it but not for those – we explored time of use metering for those with electric 4 (Inaudible) but not if you have solar power but if you have solar power and (Inaudible) you can get time 5 of use metering and invest in our utilities in PG and E territories. I think we should include that and 6 consider that because that I think will promote energy efficient and if you think about when the wind 7 blows, were buying more and more wind power. The wind blows at night and therefore we want to 8 promote energy use at night and energy saving during the day. Notwithstanding the duck's belly chart – 9 people have seen that. Anyway, thank you. 10 Co-Chair Garber: Doria, did you have something else? Oh, I’m sorry. Stephen and then Doria. 11 Stephen Levy: If it's red, I guess it’s on. I wanted to follow up on what Elaine said way back at the 12 beginning. It’s on N-34, it’s 8.1.1. It’s about what the sustainable Community strategy means. I don’t 13 need to the change the language at this point but it does go to something that we talked about way 14 earlier in the process. That at the end Hillary, I hope, were going to write about how elements are 15 connected. I work for three regional planning agencies and two air quality agencies, I think I have this 16 right but Elaine and Joanna and Hillary, if I mark it up, jump in at the end, please. The suitable 17 Community Strategy has two pieces. It sets regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and it 18 requires that within each region, enough housing is provided to match the job and population growth. 19 It's that other meaning of sustainability. That doesn’t mean a lot per say but what Elaine said is really 20 important because land use and transportation, housing and transportation, in the right place – for 21 every agency that I work for is one of the major greenhouse gas emission and climate change adaptation 22 policies. It's not some abstract thing and it anybody on Council doesn’t get that, if we don’t 23 communicate that through the document, for example, by understanding that the Land Use Element 24 and the Housing Element are part of a greenhouse gas reduction policy, along with the Transportation 25 Element. I think that’s a mistake. So, I really want to support what Elaine said. That confers with my 26 professional knowledge. If you see if any different, please jump in because it is more important to get it 27 right but I think sometimes people see that and think it’s only about greenhouse gasses. It’s only one 28 way, it's only regulation or stuff and I think it really is housing and transportation also. 29 Co-Chair Garber: Doria. 30 Doria Summa: Just very quickly, I wanted to respond to some of the comments and we tried to 31 distinguish between channelize creeks and natural creeks but we wanted to make sure that we 32 maintained the concept of even the channelized creeks provide habitat for animals. On creeks, again, 33 the 150-foot setback for creeks is actually the County standard and that’s why it was added as an option. 34 Somethings that a couple people have mentioned, specific technologies and practices. We didn’t include 35 because they’re part of the green building code which will evolve as things evolve and change. I agree 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 35 of 41 with Whitney, that we need to make it clear that we weren’t trying to tell Stanford what to do on the 1 whole entire campus. That wasn’t our intention and getting back to her map comment. I think, in 2 general, it’s hard to evaluate the maps because they’re so small so, I hope at some time, we could get a 3 full-size version. Arthur was absolutely right, it was stopped cars, it was not idling cars in traffic. We 4 didn’t think we could do anything about that. I appreciate the comment about strengthening street tree 5 protection and urban forest. I also agree that we should prohibit concentrated solar thermal. That’s it. 6 Co-Chair Garber: I have a couple comments and Arthur also wanted to talk. I wasn’t going to speak on 7 this but – oh and Don, alright. Trees, I agree that street trees should be essentially required. They are 8 very important for the character of our neighborhoods, for our streets. They play a very important part 9 in the identity of our town. I have a slightly different take, which I think is more aligned with Julia’s 10 relative to trees that are on my personal property. I have talked about this before, where I think in the 11 residential neighborhoods, the weight on the scale should be in favor of the individual homeowner and 12 so, I have a hard time giving my neighbors appeal power over my decision of what I do with my trees on 13 my property. I’m not saying about the trees that are protected but just in general. That much said, let 14 me move on to my other topics. Tomorrow night, in addition with the Services and Policy Committee, 15 we’re also going to lay out very briefly a policy framework for thinking about the conservation of 16 groundwater. If the goal is ultimately the conservation of groundwater, then there are several policies 17 that I think the City should think about pursuing. This is not to compete with the County obsess over 18 these issues but I think the City can do a number of things to support that goal. For instance, reduction 19 of extraction sources. There are many in the City. They are from underpasses and building primarily but 20 that is something that we can control and that we can legislate and regulate. Reduction of groundwater 21 depletion due to construction. That includes buildings and additions to single family homes. Utilization 22 of surface groundwater, where groundwater is surfaced, we should make out best efforts to utilize that 23 in a beneficial way and not simply pour it down the drain and back into the Bay. There are a variety of 24 ways that are being explored but we should be more proactive about that. We should also be exploring, 25 presumably with the County and others, is groundwater recharge. We’ve talked about a number of 26 those issues in here but there are at least 4 or 5 different programs. I can imagine that would directly 27 support those sorts of activities. Then there’s, of course, the coordination with (Inaudible) etc. but I 28 would actually look to slightly reorganize the groundwater Policy N-4.7 and start with, at the top our 29 goal of conservation of Palo Alto’s groundwater and then, let everything else fall under neither that. I 30 am comfortable with Policy 4.8 because I will be talking about that in much greater detail at the 31 regulatory level tomorrow and we’ll have other things. There may be some learnings that come out of 32 that, that can influence the Comp. Plan later but that can be added in, you know, at the Council level or 33 even by us if we wanted to. Then finally, under water quality and storm water management. One of the 34 things that we’ve learned in the work that – and the calculations that Keith and I have been working on, 35 is the degree to which soil absorption of water, how important that is to our environment. It acts as a 36 buffer for flooding and it’s one of the key things that helps use mitigate that. It operated very much the 37 way that wetlands do and that is something that should probably find its way into Policy 4.9. We don’t 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 36 of 41 understand entirely how those soils work but we do know there – we have a rough idea of their capacity 1 and their ability to buffer the impacts when there are storm surges etc. That’s it. Arthur and then Don. 2 Don, please. 3 Don McDougall: Just quickly, on the tree on private property issue. I’m sort of between should you, 4 shouldn't you. I think the elephant in the room is Castilleja, coming out and saying we’ve got 168 trees 5 were going to get rid of and is that on private property or not on private property and huge Redwoods 6 and should people have the opportunity to speak out about that or not. Therefore, I lean in the direction 7 of allowing some sort of appeal, especially if it’s any kind of protected tree. I think the other issue about 8 that and I’ve mentioned this before, is the issue of transparency. We’ve talked a lot about trees being in 9 public – on the public divides and so on. The City took out three trees in front of our house a year and a 10 half ago. I have no visibility of whether they’re ever going to plan on replacing those or not. Since my 11 neighbor won’t fix his irrigation system and he irrigates the mud every day, it’s a problem. I want to 12 mention Shani again. I think she had a really positive impact with this and her experience with other 13 Communities up and down the Bay, that was why the 150-foot. She knew that that was a County 14 regulation, number 1 and she was also aware of what places like San Jose were doing, even with 15 concrete creeks and the importance of that. The same thing with the pollination routes and that map. 16 Whitney mentioned, it looked like it went through buildings and parking lots and I think the pollination 17 route was not necessarily a creek route or something. It was a concept to where pollination would 18 happen. I was to reinforce what Stephen said about the sustainable. People heard me say sustainable 19 enough during the campaign over and over again but it’s sustainability and connectedness of things. It’s 20 the connection of the various kinds of sustainability. In fact, if there comes down and we haven’t done a 21 business one yet as to what – are the three E’s, is the social equity and the economy and the 22 environment that are connected and I hope in the end that we can, as a Comprehensive Plan, connect 23 all three of those. I think that would be really important. Thank you. 24 Co-Chair Garber: Hillary. 25 Hillary Gitelman: I just wanted to make sure, everyone knew that Shani had sent her apologies. She was 26 going to have to go to the San Jose City Council this evening to represent the Audubon Society so, she 27 wasn’t able to make it. 28 Co-Chair Garber: And Arthur. 29 Co-Chair Keller: So, firstly, I think that Don McDougall is right about the need for being able to appeal to 30 trees. Don understands the idea why somebody should not be able to appeal a tree on private property 31 when they can appeal individual review second stories on private property. They can review all sorts of – 32 appeal all kinds of other things on private property developments. What’s special about trees that they 33 should not be able to appeal that? Makes no sense to me. If they can appeal anything, they should be 34 able to appeal the removal of trees, especially, protected trees. I also agree with Don McDougall’s point 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 37 of 41 about street trees. I had a tree removed from the front of my house, street tree because it died and I 1 said, good. Dig out the stump and put a new one in and the City said, no, we can’t because it’s within 5-2 feet of a water meter and water line. So, put some other tree in there. Now, notice that I can actually 3 put a tree – I’m the part of Palo Alto that has rolling curbs and therefore, this tree is behind the curb and 4 then there’s a property line with a fence there and then on my side of the property line, I can feel free to 5 put a tree in, exactly two feet away from where the City refuses to put one in. That’s kind of crazy and 6 that needs to be improved. We need to think about better ways, after all, [Dave Doctor] has this idea of 7 structural soil. Why can’t we use structural soil kind of techniques for being able to dig out the stump 8 and put it in so that the tree roots go down, away from the water meter? Finally, I appreciate Stephen 9 Levy bringing up sustainable Community strategy and SB375. I heard him talk a lot about transportation, 10 land use, housing, I didn’t hear him talk anything about jobs. What seems to me, accepting the idea that 11 the housing needs to be created in order to satisfy the needs for jobs. 12 Stephen Levy: I didn’t say that. 13 Co-Chair Keller: Well, in the event, well… 14 Stephen Levy: So…(Crosstalk) 15 Co-Chair Garber: Well, hang on, hang on. 16 Stephen Levy: … you’re the Chairman, you don’t get to miss quote. 17 Co-Chair Garber: Well, (Inaudible) (Crosstalk) 18 Co-Chair Keller: I’m sorry, I missed…(Crosstalk) 19 Co-Chair Garber: Finish your comments (Inaudible) 20 Co-Chair Keller: I’m sorry if I miss quoted you. I think that you mentioned the idea of creating housing 21 but I don’t think you mentioned the idea of limiting jobs. One of the things about this is that I know that 22 Stephen has lived here for decades and so, have I. I lived here seeing a recession, boom, recession, 23 boom and we’ve had a pretty much a boom for a lot since the last recession in the early 90’s. What 24 happened in previous booms is that we’ve had expansion within Silicon Valley and those expansions 25 have involved relocations out of the valley is what’s happened. We had disc drives, used to be created 26 here and now disc drives have moved in construction elsewhere and now they’re overseas. We had the 27 construction of Silicon – generating manufacturing equipment and then that was moved elsewhere out 28 of the valley. Now, we have a boom in terms of software and the software is being created here and 29 we’re basically more and more intensification within Silicon Valley and we don’t have the same kind of 30 thing about relocating so, that expansion happens elsewhere. So, where we’re winding up with, the 31 Cities – for example, Menlo Park said, oh, well all the other Cities are expanding jobs, we want to have 32 our share of expanding jobs and so, what’s happening is they’re expanding jobs fast and sure, they are 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 38 of 41 expanding housing but they are expanding jobs faster than they are expanding housing. The same thing 1 with Mountain View. Mountain View is expanding housing but they’re expanding jobs in terms of what’s 2 going on with Google and LinkedIn and whatever. Faster than they are expanding housing. The issue 3 that in some sense, what we need to think about is yes, we do need to create more housing but as a 4 region, we need to basically say, we need to slow down on creating jobs and yes, companies, you need 5 to create some of these jobs elsewhere and figure out – spread the wealth in other Communities. I think 6 that that’s part of the issue of what we need to do in terms of sustainability Community strategy. It’s 7 balancing transportation, housing and jobs and that means not simply putting your foot on the scale of 8 jobs, which is what we’ve been doing much too much, especially in the last few years in Palo Alto but 9 moderating on jobs and increasing them and basically, increasing housing. That’s the kind of balance I 10 think we need to do. Also, in terms of transportation, our transportation infrastructure is not keeping up 11 with this either. Thank you. 12 Stephen Levy: So…(Crosstalk) 13 Co-Chair Garber: Hang on, Bonnie is first. Then you, Stephen. I’m sorry, she was (Inaudible) 14 Bonnie Packer: I want to say that I think that the last few comments of our Co-Chair where rather out of 15 line and not part of what the subject matter of this element. It would just – anyway, I’m not going to go 16 into the reason why. I totally disagree with your concept about jobs. I do want to underscore what 17 Elaine and Stephen said about cross referencing. I did say in my written comment that in the 18 introductory part about climate change, refer to the Transportation Element and yes, the Land Use 19 Element to because we do talk about locating a concentration of people, whether its jobs or housing 20 near transit because that has another effect on (Inaudible). I mean it’s all interrelated. Going back to the 21 minutia of street trees, I hope that whole issue of appeals is not worked out here in this Comp. Plan. 22 That’s an issue for the City Council and a larger group of people to weigh in on and a public hearing. I 23 just think consider it and that’s it. It isn’t our job to decide what’s appropriate or not appropriate as far 24 as appeal process. I might recommend, since I did bring up the issue of defining street trees that maybe 25 the City have more education about street trees, what the City’s role is and what a private person’s role 26 is because it’s totally confusing. There isn’t – the City’s done a poor job in that communication of that 27 area. So, communication about respected responsibilities with regard to our urban forest might be a 28 useful high-level program/policy kind of thing, in the Comp. Plan because we should keep it high level. 29 Thank you. 30 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Stephen. 31 Stephen Levy: Hillary, I remember way back when you said at the very end – I don’t know – the Staff I 32 guess would write about the connections between the elements. As I look down here, unless that’s 33 somehow in the intro or the user guild. I don’t see any place in the upcoming steps and I think a number 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 39 of 41 of us think that some of those connections are really important. Is that something you’re planning to 1 do? 2 Hillary Gitelman: Yes, that’s a good point. We had already – always anticipated that that conversation 3 would start in our review of implementation because we’re going to look at all the programs from all the 4 elements and then, the last meeting where we have talked about… (Crosstalk) 5 Stephen Levy: Ok, I just wanted to make sure. 6 Hillary Gitelman: …sort of taking stock, we’ll talk about what those relationships are. 7 Stephen Levy: Look, I suspect that Arthur and I have very different visions for the region. I was trying to 8 share what I know, asking the Staff to step in about what the law and the implementation of the 9 sustainable Community strategy means. If Arthur disagrees with that, that’s his disagreement. I was 10 trying to do an explanation and I think I’m correct, ok? So, in our region, we have – we’re about to have 11 an adopted plan by [ABEC], that actually increases the targets for jobs in population because that’s what 12 the experts – and I didn’t go this one – that’s what the experts think is happening. In that plan, the 13 integration of housing and transportation is absolutely critical to the reduction of greenhouse gas 14 emissions and the protection of the climate. That’s all I’m saying. If Arthur wants the region to grow 15 differently, as Bonnie said, that’s a different topic than what I was talking about and again, I’ll ask Hillary 16 and Joanna and Elaine, have I said anything wrong because I kind of does this for a living? 17 Hillary Gitelman: Let me weigh in, I think going back to Elaine’s original comment and I think that was 18 right now. We’ve reference the sustainable Communities strategies here and it was – in this sense of 19 trying to talk about climate change and climate adaptation but the regional agencies think about this, it 20 about the integration of land use and transportation and so, we can try and draw out that theme in this 21 reference and be more complete in our program here. 22 Stephen Levy: Thank you. 23 Co-Chair Garber: Ok. Thank you all. I’m not seeing any more cards up. 24 Female: Dan? 25 Co-Chair Garber: Yes. 26 Female: I’m sorry. If I may, I just wanted to provide a little clarification on the tree issue. Just basically to 27 state that we draw designation between trees on single family lots versus anything else. So, for any type 28 of development commercial, industrial, or multi-family, we do regulate trees. So, the removal of a tree 29 would be a modification to an approved landscaping plan so that is something that is regulated. We 30 issue permits and that is appealable through our process. What is different for single-family lots is that 31 we do not regulate nonprotected trees within back yards. I think that’s the question that was being 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 40 of 41 discussed by the subcommittee so, that would the specific change that would occur if this was further 1 explored by the City Council and also, I wanted to mention that the City does regulate street trees and 2 we do require street trees as part of developments. 3 Co-Chair Garber: I’m sorry? Ok. Are we good to go? I would love to hear a motion to move this element 4 going forward by one of the subcommittee members. You so move, is there a second? Doria seconds. 5 Are there any friendly or unfriendly amendments that might be offered? Bonnie. 6 Bonnie Packer: (Inaudible) A friendly amendment as we did with the Safety Element, that was we send 7 forward would include the relevant comments and the changes that were recommended by… 8 Co-Chair Garber: By the Committee. 9 Bonnie Packer: …by what you sensed was a consensus of the Committee. 10 Co-Chair Keller: Also, the minutes of the meeting and people can submit comments to a week from 11 today. 12 Co-Chair Garber: Hamilton, did you have a comment there? 13 Hamilton Hitchings: Yeah, I was just going to add the word corrections but Bonnie got it covered. 14 Co-Chair Garber: Ok. With that, would those that support the motion, please raise their hand and say 15 aye. All opposed? None, showing. Any abstentions? No, abstentions. It passes unanimously. Thank you 16 very much. 17 Commission Action: Motion: Forward the draft Natural Environment Element for City Council 18 review with comments from the CAC and minutes. Staff is to clean up minor items that do not 19 change policy as discussed. Motion made by Commissioner Summa and seconded by 20 Commissioner McDougal, motion passed unanimously. 21 Co-Chair Garber: What else do we possibly have to talk about this evening? 22 Stephen Levy: Thanks for the food. 23 Co-Chair Garber: Yes, thank you for the food. 24 Hillary Gitelman: Please, note the next meeting date, January 17th and we’ll send out a calendar 25 reminder for all of the 2017 meeting. So, January, February, March, April. 26 Co-Chair Garber: Alright folks (Crosstalk) Yeah and if anyone is not able to join us on those dates, please 27 let us know but with that, we are adjourned. 28 Feedback for Continuous Improvement: 29 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 41 of 41 Future Meetings: 1 Next meeting: January 17, 2017 – Rinconada Library (Embarcadero Room) 2 Topic: Natural Resources Element II 3 4 Adjournment: 8:30 p.m. 5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 1 of 38 TUESDAY, March 21, 2017 Rinconada Library – Embarcadero Room 1213 Newell Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 5:30 PM TO 8:30 PM Call to Order: 5:30 P.M. 1 Co-Chair Keller: I call the Citizens Advisory Committee meeting of the Comprehensive Plan 2 updates to order on Tuesday, March 21st, 2017 and the time is 5:30. Will the secretary place call 3 roll? 4 Present: Filppu, Glanckopf, Hetterly, Hitchings, Keller, Kleinhaus, Levy, McDougall, 5 McNair, Moran, Packer, Peschcke-Koedt, Summa, Sung, Titus, Uang, Uhrbrock, 6 van Riesen 7 8 Absent: Garber, McNair 9 Oral Communication: 10 Co-Chair Keller: Our first agenda item is oral communications. Are there any speakers from the 11 public who wish to speak today? Seeing and hearing none. We close oral communication. 12 Staff Comments: 13 1. March 20th City Council Hearing 14 Co-Chair Keller: Next, we have Staff comments on last night’s meeting. I’d like to acknowledge 15 that some people were there and I’d like to hear – if you were, you heard an interesting 16 meeting and let’s hear what Staff has to say about it. 17 Hillary Gitelman: Thank you, Arthur. Good evening everybody and thanks to those who were 18 there or who were listening in last night. If you were there or were listening in, you know that 19 the Council conducted a public hearing on the supplement to the draft EIR. There was a lot of 20 conversation about the EIR but they started with this issue that we spent our last CAC meeting 21 talking about, which is the placement of programs in the Comp. Plan. We reproduced for you 22 today the two motions that were adopted last night. The first one, motion number one, address 23 this program issue. To cut to the punch line, the Council basically reconsidered and retracted 24 their prior direction to put the programs in the back of the book. Their direction last night was 25 to proceed as originally intended where the programs are both in the Implementation Plan in 26 the back and in the elements. They also asked the Staff to continue to work on consolidating redundant 27 programs, eliminating any that are infeasible and incorporate suggestions from you all and the public 28 about the relative priority and timeline for the programs and the estimated level of effort. I am hoping 29 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 2 of 38 that your work today is going to inform that work product. Then ultimately, the Council indicated that 1 they’ll be the final arbiter of this prioritization and the suit of programs that we bring forward. I thought 2 it was a nice to have the Council really listen to what the CAC and others in the community had been 3 saying to them in the last month or so. It was nice that they started out the meeting with that and then 4 they heard testimony on the – or they offered comments and questions on the EIR. Then they grappled 5 with this question of what should be described as the preferred scenario in the final EIR and that’s what 6 the second motion on this page references. Again, it was very – Len and I were talking about it that they 7 were sort of statesmen like last night and they sort of swung to the middle and ended up with a set of 8 recommendations or a set of direction to us that kind of reflects the middle of the range of planning 9 scenarios that have been included in the EIR process. Good news on both fronts I think and we have a 10 direction to move forward. The next time we go back to Council will be on May 1st, for them to look 11 again at the revised Land Use and Transportation Elements. I’m looking forward to that and I hope that 12 some or all of you will be able to either be there or listen in because of it – we’re real to the point where 13 the fruits of your labor are starting to show in these elements. I think they are pretty good and the 14 Council is going to feel like we’re making great headway when they see them on the 1st. That’s our wrap-15 up. 16 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. The next meeting will be on April 18th that we know about and there will 17 also be one in May. Also, I understand that it was in the Council’s packet, something about 18 acknowledging us so you might want to tell us when that is so all of us can show up. 19 Hillary Gitelman: In the Staff report last night, we put a little section on next steps and we laid out the 20 next few Council meetings to talk about Comp. Plan items. May 1st, I have already mentioned but there’s 21 a date in the middle of June; I think it was June 5th, that we set aside for adoption of a resolution 22 thanking the CAC for their efforts. I hope you’ll plan to be in attendance and I’ll let you know if that date 23 changes but at this point, we feel like you guys will have wrapped up your work by then and it would be 24 nice for the Council to acknowledge all of your efforts so June 5th. 25 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Don, you wanted to say something? 26 Don McDougall: I think I understood that you’re saying that people who were there last night could 27 comment in addition to Hillary’s comments, is that true or you don’t want to do that? That’s fine. 28 Co-Chair Keller: If you want to do that very briefly, we have a lot of things to talk about. 29 Don McDougall: I do want to just briefly say two things. I have to say that I was impressed that Corey 30 Wolbach did lead the listening to people I would say and I think he should be recognized for that. 31 Whatever we think of whatever politics he might have, I think that he did listen to people and he did 32 respond and individually, he fell on his sword for the collective Council I would say. The second thing 33 that I would like to say is that I’m continued to be disturbed as Hillary reported, with the insistence that 34 we reduce the number of programs. I’ve said before and I’ll say again, the notes that I sent didn’t get 35 included in the package tonight so I’m sorry for that. I think the number of programs is informative. I 36 think it’s informative that there are more programs in the Community Services Element. It says that 37 we’re a much more compassionate community than we use to be. I think it’s informative that there are 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 3 of 38 more in transportation because we’re concerned about the same thing the Council is concerned about. I 1 think it’s informative that there are more things in the Natural Element because in fact, there – we 2 understand more and I believe that we are more responsive to the natural environment than we were in 3 1998. I think this desperate desire to reduce the number of programs will mislead the future. I think that 4 leaving the programs there – I agree with what Hillary said about consolidating where there are 5 duplicates. Let’s do that and let’s do that aggressively but other than that, I think the programs should 6 be left there. They are informative, it understands – it allows people in the future to understand what 7 we in 2017 were interested in and just simply getting rid of them in order have 160 programs instead of 8 300 programs or 370 programs doesn’t make sense. I think the other thing in there is looking at the 9 Safety Element, there wasn’t a Safety Element before. There is one now and I think the programs there 10 are important. As will be pointed out those are ones that have been added by the professionals. I think 11 they are programs that we don’t want to have eliminated. Should we have a Fire Department, yes, we 12 should. Do we want to eliminate that program so that somebody in the future can say gee, the plan 13 doesn’t say you have to have a Fire Department? I think the other thing to remember is that Council 14 keeps telling us that they get to decide on this stuff. This is a guideline, it’s not rules so why not put in 15 the guild lines that we believe are the guidelines. Thank you for your forbearance. 16 Co-Chair Keller: Sure. Anybody else who wishes to speak briefly? Stephen. 17 Stephen Levy: You can check Hillary but in my conversations, there’s an element in the first motion that 18 I think was intended to be there but somehow didn’t and you can check. I think the intent was that the 19 programs be put back in under the policies and I thought it was there and when I read this, it didn’t have 20 that statement but I think that was the intent. 21 Co-Chair Keller: That’s what motion number 1A was. Option 4B was to put the programs in the – also in 22 the main body of the Comprehensive Plan. 23 Stephen Levy: Right but I’m saying put them – organize them under the policies. 24 Co-Chair Keller: Yes, that was the intent. 25 Stephen Levy: Yeah, ok. The second point is that I have a different take then Don. I listened to the 26 whole meeting and read this, there was no intent or request to willy-nilly reduce programs. The 27 language here is pretty clear that it’s to consolidate redundant programs and eliminate infeasible 28 programs. I don’t have a particular definition for redundant or infeasible but the Council didn’t say just 29 throw out programs to reduce the number. For example, there are a whole bunch of programs in the 30 Natural Environment Element that all say that we should conserve energy and they’re all probably in the 31 SCAP. 32 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Any other quick – Hi, Doria. 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 4 of 38 Doria Summa: Sorry and I’ll be quick. I wanted to thank the Council who isn’t here, for reconsidering the 1 prior actions and I also want to thank Don. I really appreciate the analysis that he did of the programs 2 and kind of counting them differently and thinking about them differently. I have to say, his work and 3 also other members of this body who spoke last night have really convinced me that we shouldn’t be – 4 that prioritizing programs isn’t really the right thing to do. They should all be left in because they all are 5 an expression of somebody’s heartfelt concern and desire. Redundancy is different or things that are 6 complete, I agree that those should be taken out. I don’t remember if Shani said this or I had a dream 7 last night but she may have said – it’s something like Sofie’s choices, which do you pick to throw out. 8 Then the other thing that struck me last night is that there were many, many letters At Places from the 9 public and I just want to touch very briefly on three letters. One was from Super Intendant of schools 10 McGee, Todd Collins, who is a Board Member and actually [Penny Elsons], who is a very well-respected 11 civically engaged member of the public who I guess you would say. They’re really strong concerns that 12 the EIR was not a contemplating in any realistic way the impacts of Stanford’s growth on the school 13 system. I really worry that that’s been under – I know it’s not – it hasn’t been the focus of what we’ve 14 been doing but I really am very concerned that that has been grossly underestimated in the whole 15 process here. I mean, the Super Intendent of Schools and a Board Member and then Penny, who has 16 been working on school issues for many, many years. I just wanted to opine that I think it’s very 17 important that – then analysis of how Stanford’s expansion is going to affect the school system be 18 beefed up and done more accurately and completely. Thanks. 19 Co-Chair Keller: Hillary, will speak to that. 20 Hillary Gitelman: If I can just chime in on that issue. I appreciate the comment and we did get comments 21 like that last night and we’ll be addressing that in the final EIR as we move forward. I also wanted to say 22 – I probably should have said this earlier that those of you who are interested in commenting on the EIR, 23 the supplement to the draft EIR and draft EIR, the comment period goes through the end of the month 24 and there’s going to be another public hearing at the Planning Commission next Wednesday evening. 25 You have another chance to do it orally or you can send us notes in writing and any subsistent 26 comments we receive will be responded to in the final EIR. Feel free to submit comments like Doria’s or 27 on another subject; we’re happy to get them. 28 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Shani. 29 Shani Kleinhaus: Thank you. I spoke last night about the prioritization. I’ve had – I did use Sophie’s 30 choice because I don’t see how we’re going to prioritize youth over elderly over people with 31 developmental disabilities and all that stuff. I just don’t – even if we don’t take the – any of the 32 programs out, I think the people who came to speak here over the time that we’ve been doing this are 33 really the people who did not feel that there was somebody here representing them. So, none of us are 34 probably going to be especially interested in their issues; whatever those issues where. I think that the 35 result of a prioritization program here will essentially be setting side a lot of the comments that we got 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 5 of 38 from a lot of the people who came to speak from the public. One other thing that I have a problem with 1 prioritization is – well, I kind of – I would like to get back to that because I’m not sure exactly but I do 2 think that we will be leaving out groups that we shouldn’t and I don’t like this type of exercise. We’ve 3 tried it and everyone – a lot of the people who participated in the exercise of the Implementation 4 Committee did not like that exercise and we said ok, we’ll try it and see how it works. Maybe for Staff 5 that works but for me, it didn’t. I don’t know what betters – a better way there is to do things but I think 6 the best thing – we wasted a month and a half because of not knowing what’s going to happen with all 7 these programs and how they’re going to be so maybe we need to have a little more time. What we 8 might want to do is first look at consolidation and consistency and see if we have all of that. Only then, 9 come back and see which programs – if we want to do that. One other thing is that a lot of new 10 programs… 11 Co-Chair Keller: I just want to say is that right now we are talking about the comments on last night’s 12 Council meeting. If we are going to get to DOT exercise, that will be next on the agenda. If you have any 13 more comments on last night… 14 Shani Kleinhaus: I spoke about that last night so I was repeating that. I will – but that’s ok. We can talk 15 about the other things later. 16 Co-Chair Keller: Ok. I want to trim this a little bit but Annette? 17 Annette Glanckopf: I didn’t go but I did watch every golden word and I don’t think we have really 18 emphasized enough that we have really worked on the redundancy or the conflict between programs. 19 The two things that I didn’t hear last night where that and the thing that Don brought up, which really 20 have been something that I really resonate with is that the numbers that were presented for completed. 21 I mean, that’s great that we completed something Palo Alto in 10-years. I was looking at this fairly 22 carefully and I think we should have some different designation for the ongoing programs. That should 23 defiantly be called out even though you guys put enormous work into this matrix of all these categories. 24 I’ll come back later when we start talking about how we do this but I … 25 Co-Chair Keller: We’ll deal with the (inaudible) next so if you can deal with last night’s meeting. 26 Annette Glanckopf: Again, I just think that our major effort should be to combine things and make a big 27 point that things are not redundant and that we’ve really – the last Comp. Plan accomplished a lot more 28 than the Council seems to think it did. That was my… 29 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Len. 30 Don McDougall: Yes, thanks. I just wanted to commend the Council for their actions last night. They 31 began to act like representative leaders rather than giddy winners. It was a pleasure to see and a very 32 good step forward for this community. Thank you. 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 6 of 38 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Amy. 1 Amy Sung: Actually, I have just some small question. Yesterday, I thought that it was so good to see so 2 many members of the CAC that went to the Council meeting; that was tremendous I think. That shows 3 that we really care about what we produce and appreciated that Council was taking the time to address 4 it. My question was that I see that the two Co-Chairs submitted a letter to the Council. Was that on 5 behalf of our CAC? I wasn’t so sure of that. The other one that I heard repeatedly was the comments 6 about had we know this is what Council wanted then we would have done it differently. I think that is 7 very interesting and I just wanted to just bring up what I thought about that comment. In our real world, 8 we produce something and then it was – whatever stage it is, we found that there are improvements to 9 be made. I think it is a better when it’s still in the planning and the paper stage that we make 10 improvements and I really, really appreciated the opportunity for the Staff to put in such tremendous 11 efforts to put all the programs in one place. That’s the one thing that I think we are not afraid to do and 12 that is that to make the final product the way that it is the best that it can be and not just say well, this is 13 what it was given to us and we are just going to do what we were told from the beginning. That’s my 14 comment, thank you. 15 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. A little clarification, the first that was in the current Comp. Plan, the ’98 to 16 2010 Comp. Plan, the programs are in the Implementation Plan. They’ve always been there and so the 17 only question is whether they were going to be in the elements under the programs – under the policies 18 or not. That’s what the Council decided to last night was to put them under the programs where – that’s 19 what motion 2A is. The second is that the letter from the Co-Chairs represents our understanding of 20 where we saw the consensus of the meeting for people who were at the meeting. We also represented 21 some of the comments from – that – where people were actually in favor of the Council’s comments at 22 the meeting – at the people who were at the meeting, some of them expressed interest in having the 23 programs not be part of the elements and we mentioned that as well. That’s our interpretation of what 24 happened at the meeting so we put that together. A couple of things about this that I just want to add. 25 One is that – I think that – I agree with Len that it was more of a collegial process and I think that that’s 26 important. The second thing is I wonder what eliminating infeasible policies and programs are? The 27 reason I have concerns about that is because – for example, some people feel that undergrounding 28 Caltrain is infeasible or even grade separation is infeasible. Yet, that’s the consensus and actually, the 29 position of the City. I’m not sure what the threshold is for something being infeasible. What the 30 judgment is on that and so I had a question of that. I’m not sure if Staff wants to address that at some 31 point but maybe we should – do you want to address that? Thank you. 32 Hillary Gitelman: Well, thanks for the opening. Just to reiterate, we as Staff, of course, are interested in 33 following the Council’s direction and the Council directed us to incorporate suggestions from this body 34 on prioritization and a timeline. I hope that you will offer some comments on that tonight and of course, 35 we’re also will welcome any comments that you have on consolidating redundant programs. The Council 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 7 of 38 did have some pause about this phrase, eliminating infeasible policies and programs, because there was 1 an acknowledgment that there wouldn’t be a lot of programs in there that are infeasible but there are 2 this issues that we have so many programs in there and they won’t all be able to be completed. That’s 3 why prioritization is important so we’re not going to get hung up on the infeasibility clause. I think we’re 4 going to focus on a consolidation of programs where that’s appropriate and we would welcome your 5 input this evening and we’ve been charged with prioritization. If you want to offer prioritization 6 suggestions tonight, we would welcome those and reflect your input in our recommendation back to 7 Council. 8 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I guess infeasibility comes from a – there was actually a State legislature 9 some number of years ago, that decided that Pie should not be 3.14 blah blah blah blah. That is should 10 be 3 and State law actually defined it as such. 11 12 Agenda Items: 13 1. Consent: Revised Business and Economics Element 14 Co-Chair Keller: I guess out next agenda item – if we are closed on this, is the revised Business and 15 Economics Element. Does Staff want to say anything about that first? 16 Hillary Gitelman: We put this back on consent at the Committee’s direction. I think our thought was that 17 it had benefited a lot from the last round of comments. If you all have additional comments that you’d 18 like to submit. We’re hoping tonight you’ll forward it to the Council and then have a – in the next week if 19 you have any additional (Crosstalk)… 20 Elena Lee: Yes, if you have additional comments, please send them to us by the 31st and we incorporate 21 that into the packet that goes to Council for their review. 22 Hillary Gitelman: We’re looking for a motion from the group this evening on this element. 23 Co-Chair Keller: Are there any very quick comments that people have? I guess – Hamilton, yes? 24 Hamilton Hitchings: I think Staff did a great of incorporating our feedback. They made some changes 25 which were sort of made general to appeal to the group so I’m very supportive of that but I want on the 26 record that there’s a policy now that talks about sustainability. The way I had originally proposed it was 27 to focus on innovative companies in mobility, which is self-driving cars and transportation like Tesla and 28 Ford and the Stanford Research Center on that and greenhouse gas reduction. That will be lost when 29 people look at sustainability but we have an opportunity to attract those kinds of companies to Palo Alto 30 and so I just wanted it for the record that that’s specifically was what I was talking about. 31 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Don. 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 8 of 38 Don McDougall: (Inaudible) I support what Hamilton just said. I think Staff did a really nice job and I 1 agree that Hamilton’s sustainability initiative was not – cannot be encompassed in one word. I am still a 2 little concerned through the element that retail versus commercial business is not sufficiently separated 3 in some places. We’re just talking about business in general and it’s not clear what it is we’re trying to 4 protect. I think one more pass through trying to make it clear whether we’re looking after retail or we’re 5 looking after the business community because they are really different approaches. 6 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I’d like to acknowledge that Council Member Lydia Kou is here and also, next 7 is Bonnie Packer. 8 Bonnie Packer: Also, I think the Business Element is great. There was – I just remembered last time 9 there was a discussion about whether or not there was really an Office of Economic Development in the 10 City and then I saw it mentioned towards the end. I can’t find it now so if it exists fine but if it doesn’t 11 exist, there was one of these programs or policies that mentioned it. That’s just a little detail and 12 another thought though about this particular element, I found that there were very few programs. 13 There are a lot of policies and it made me think about the other elements and how some policies could 14 be programs and programs could be policies. I just don’t – this one seemed – this element may be 15 because so much of the issues are covered in land use and transportation so it’s a smaller element. It 16 seemed to flow better but it also pointed out that when I went to do the DOT priority exercise and I 17 looked at the programs, I didn’t have the policies in front of me to remember what the programs – what 18 policies was supposed to implement. It was very hard to prioritize without seeing the policies written in 19 front of me in that chart. I am going to bring that up again when we talk about the process, later on, 20 tonight. Thank you. 21 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Annette. 22 Annette Glanckopf: I think element really looks pretty good. I just had some small – two or three little 23 small things and one is that I agree with Bonnie. I’ve been really hot on this Office of Economic 24 Development. I have my own little vision of what it should be but I’m not really sure that the Council – I 25 think we really need to have some sort of policy decision if there is an office, about what exactly the 26 Council wants this office to do because I think it’s going to imply Staffing if we do it the way the Business 27 Element requires. I’m fine with that but to me, it’s right now a little bit fluffy. I just echo what Bonnie 28 said. The other things have to do with really retail, which I sort of put in my note. There was a section 29 that was eliminated because it was supposed to be redundant but it’s in the retail centers and it talks 30 about maintaining distinct neighborhood shopping centers, which really there are only three that are 31 attractive, accessible and covenant etc. etc. Since we call out all the other big areas, I would just like to 32 see that one left in. We call that Cal. Ave, University, south of Forest etc. It wouldn’t take very much just 33 to leave it in. Finally, somewhere in Program B-4.3 – 4.6.3, they talk about studying retail and to me, 34 really what we should be studying is what does make ground floor retail viable rather than just sort of 35 numbers and concepts and looking at online shopping. What type of businesses fits in what area? Would 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 9 of 38 you put a high-end clothing store in a neighborhood center for example or what types of businesses? I 1 think that could actually be a lot better and I would actually ask you to add that to the policy, which I 2 think will fluff up the local retail. I really do agree with Don, it is really high level and it doesn’t really talk 3 in this section about local serving small business – local serving retail. 4 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you, Annette. I’ll just add that that also is interesting in terms what makes a retail 5 center and what’s appropriate in a mix of a retail center? For example, a mix of shops with an anchor 6 store like a grocery store, sufficient parking and what was interesting going back to a dead horse of the 7 Alma Plaza, none of the proposals for that everywhere for a viable shopping center that had a sufficient 8 number of other shops. Stephen. 9 Stephen Levy: Two quick comments and a question. I echo Don and Hamilton in thanking the Staff. My 10 memory is that Hamilton meant what he said he meant so I hope that that can be clarified either from 11 the notes or whatever. My question is Elena, if I heard right, we will pass the Business Element on 12 consent in the existing element plus all of the comments that are made tonight, will be forwarded to the 13 Council. That there will not be a revision per say but the comments will be additive and in a separate 14 joint document. 15 Hillary Gitelman: That was out intention based on the input we received from this group last month. 16 Co-Chair Keller: Also, the comments people make between now and the 31st so people can still – CAC 17 Members can still submit comments through the 31st. They will be attached to it but not revisions, yes. 18 Don. 19 MOTION 20 Don McDougall: I was going to make a motion to the opposite. First of all, I agree with your comment 21 about the defining a center and defining retail as being viable but I would be remised by not saying a 22 sustainable; I think that’s key. I would make a motion that we accept the current revision of the Business 23 Element and that we allow Staff to moderately modify and I trust Staff to decide what is moderately 24 modify it. If the statements and comments are outrageous then leave them out. If they just simply 25 improve the element per say, then include them so that we avoid a round of discussion about all of the 26 extra statements. My motion would be to allow the Staff to modify and then subsequently submit the 27 Business Element. 28 Co-Chair Keller: I think the job of the (inaudible) restate the motion and so – or at least to – what I 29 understand is that you are basically giving Staff the discretion to take into count our comments and 30 make minor changes in the spirit of what we have and correction based on the feedback that Staff gets 31 from the CAC Member. Does that (inaudible) 32 Don McDougall: Yes, thank you for the very clear restatement of my motion. 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 10 of 38 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. 1 Annette Glanckopf: Arthur, I’ll second it with my two amendments. 2 Co-Chair Keller: Great. (Crosstalk) First, before we do this, I think Shani had a comment that she didn’t 3 get to say and then we’ll go into the motion. Yes? 4 Shani Kleinhaus: I’m sorry I had to miss the discussion last time but when I look at it, one thing that is 5 really missing for me is profession services. It’s not the same as small business necessarily and I don’t 6 see enough for doctors, physiatrists, dentists – all this – not just health but other types of professional 7 services. Small HR firms, lawyer firms, all those things. There’s stuff about – I just don’t see that called 8 here and I think it’s needed. B-1.4 could be consolidated into B-1.6. Those two are very similar. I’m not 9 sure that they initially were like that but now they are. There is a – Policy B-3.3 is a program and not a 10 policy so that’s something that could be easily changed I suppose. I’m not sure whether Policy B-4.1, 11 supporting the established technology sector means that the City needs to support Palantir. I think 12 we’ve had a lot of discussions why that would not be a good idea but that’s what it reads like to me. I 13 think that Program B-5.1.4, revised zoning to – revitalize aging retail and allow space to accommodate 14 small independent retail businesses. Often those things are opposite. If you renovate, then it’s not 15 affordable so I’m not – things tend to become bigger and different. I think there’s an internal 16 contradiction in this program. I think creating certainty, which is a goal, is something that we cannot 17 commit too. That’s wrong because usually when you streamline things, the way to do it is by cutting out 18 the public input. By making sure you have regulation instead of conversation and I am not sure we really 19 want to do that. I’m sorry I wasn’t here before and the comments I just made, some of them maybe 20 easy to fix and other may not. I would not vote to accept it yet. We’re not ready. 21 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you, Shani. I also support the idea of supporting local serving businesses that are 22 not necessarily retail. We see – for example, the outcry for 550 Hamilton and the – causing people to 23 have to leave the thriving building with Bank of American in it on El Camino, which is supposedly being 24 replaced by a – for what I consider, not illegal (inaudible) to zoning, commercial building that would 25 have a large RND tenant in there. I think that we need to be careful about the encroachment of those 26 RND-type services in – where they replace local serving, non-retail business. Hamilton? 27 Hamilton Hitchings: That change could be accomplished by adding three words to the end of Policy 4-6. 28 Encourage the policy – it reads, encourages and support small independent retail businesses and other 29 services. By other services, we also meant professional services but Shani didn’t read it that way so we 30 could add other services including professional services. That would be a three-word addition. I don’t 31 know if this group feels comfortable adding that too – as an amendment but if there is consensus on 32 that, we could do that. I really don’t want this to go back to the subcommittee so I’d rather we resolve it 33 now. 34 Co-Chair Keller: I think Joanna has a comment. 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 11 of 38 Joanna Jansen: Yeah, we did hear this comment before about the need for professional services so the 1 attempt to address that is in Policy B-4.2, which says encourage the retention of small businesses, non-2 profit organizations, and professional services, which are vital to a diverse and innovative economy. 3 Co-Chair Keller: Could you be on a microphone? 4 Shani Kleinhaus: That’s about retention, that’s not about bringing more. I think we need more than just 5 to retain. 6 Joanna Jansen: I guess I was just making the point that professional services and this kind of service 7 specifically is in Policy B-4.2 rather than adding to B-4.6 if that’s acceptable? 8 Co-Chair Keller: I think this is – I think this fits in with the category of giving Staff the discretion to figure 9 out how best to deal with this. Is there anybody who doesn’t think we should encourage retention of 10 our or growth of professional services? I don’t see anybody who is opposed to that so there seems to be 11 consensus on giving staff discretion on figuring out to do that. Ok, there was a – Jen, I think you wanted 12 to go next and then I think Annette has some amendments. 13 Jennifer Hetterly: I just wanted to make one comment that doesn’t have any policy implications but 14 from a usability perspective for people reading the Comp. Plan. I think the narrative – the figure on page 15 B-2 and I mention this last time, that it tracks the sales and used tax revenue by geographical area. That 16 reflects the total revenue and I think that there’s not a strong understanding that what Palo Alto gets 17 out of the total is really just a small portion; some 10%-11%. I would love to see some – a sentence or 18 some language in the narrative that just makes that clear to the reading that we’re not getting $22 19 million dollars in sales tax revenue going into the City’s coffers as a result to if we’re getting some 20 portion of that or maybe I missed the understanding it. If so, if you could clarify the language so that I 21 would understand it and others would too. I think that would be helpful. 22 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. If want to say something, put up your tag but I think Annette is next. 23 Annette Glanckopf: You also need to change the word December on that chart. It’s not spelled 24 correctly. 25 Co-Chair Keller: Annette, you said you had several amendments. 26 MOTION AMENDMENTS 27 Annette Glanckopf: Right, I was going to second Don’s motion with now three amendments. I would like 28 to see that a paragraph is put back in, it’s very short. To keep distinct neighborhood shopping etc., which 29 you think is redundant but I think if really fits in with all the other different section. The other one is that 30 I would like to add to the point of B-4.6.3 about the study that we’re going to look at for retail – ground 31 floor retail and talk about what makes ground floor retail viable and what businesses fit it. Then the 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 12 of 38 third motion would be that I don’t think it’s too terribly repetitive to add those three words that 1 Hamilton came up with in one of the programs. 2 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I think it was one of the policies, right Hamilton? 3 Annette Glanckopf: It was a program I think. Wasn’t it? 4 Hamilton Hitchings: It was policy B-4.6. 5 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Don, do you accept those amendments? 6 Don McDougall: I would prefer that the amendment is with careful consideration of those three things 7 as opposed to them being specifically called out because several people have made comments that 8 we’re not putting in the motion. I – you’re making specific recommendations, right? I’m saying that I 9 don’t want that… 10 Annette Glanckopf: No, I’m just adding – One I just said was leave something in and then the other one 11 was just add some wording. 12 Don McDougall: Right but then should we, in the motion, include Shani’s comments and Hamilton’s 13 comments and (inaudible)(crosstalk) 14 Annette Glanckopf: I did include both of those. 15 Don McDougall: Are those the – if those are the only comments then I would have no objection but I 16 would just say that with special consideration to as opposed to those being specific. I’m afraid 17 something is being left out, as opposed to… 18 Co-Chair Keller: I think that was perhaps direction to include, it that’s ok. 19 Don McDougall: Yeah, I’ll accept that. 20 Co-Chair Keller: OK, great. Who – I think that Stephen had a comment and then I’d like to sort of trunk 21 it. Not go too far on this so let’s go. 22 Stephen Levy: Sure. Is Staff can clarify, my understanding is if figure B-2 and B-3 represent the total sale 23 tax in the tax revenue and the distribution, not a – that they are the total. 24 Hillary Gitelman: That’s correct. 25 Co-Chair Keller: I think that Jen’s comment is that that’s only a portion of the total revenue and that it 26 should be indicated sale tax as a percentage of the overall revenue – whatever percentage it is 27 (inaudible) revenue. Is that right, Jen? 28 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 13 of 38 Jennifer Hetterly: Maybe. I think maybe I should just talk to Staff after the meeting and clarify my 1 (inaudible)(crosstalk) 2 Co-Chair Keller: Jen can talk to Staff afterward, great. Thank you. Are there any other comments before 3 we call the question? Ok, great. I’m not going to restate the motion as amended. I think Staff has it. All 4 those in favor of the motion – you had a comment, Amy? 5 Amy Sung: Excuse me, can you just repeat what is the motion that we are going to vote on? 6 Co-Chair Keller: We are voting on a motion to have the – to submit this element, the revised Business 7 and Economics Element to Council. Giving Staff the discretion to incorporate the comments that have 8 been made that are consistent with the – that are compatible with the comments that have been made 9 and making minor additions or changes. Also, directions to include the three points that Annette had 10 made, which were accumulating comments that were made by several people here. 11 Hilary Gitelman: Also, directing us to forward any written comments we receive by the end of next 12 week. 13 Co-Chair Keller: Also, todays – those written comments by the 31st of March. As well as the notes of 14 today’s meeting. That being done, any – all in favor of the motion. Any opposed? Any abstentions? The 15 motions carry with one abstention. Shani Kleinhaus abstains. 16 MOTION PASSES WITH ON ABSTENTION 17 Co-Chair Keller: If you have any further comments, please submit them by the 31st. 18 2. Action: Draft Implementation Plan Chapter 19 a. Introduction of Implementation Plan Chapter 20 b. Report from Implementation Subcommittee 21 c. Discussion of Draft Chapter 22 Co-Chair Keller: Now we go onto the draft implementation chapter. This is not an element, it’s 23 a chapter so it has slightly different statues. Perhaps we should go with Staff giving an 24 introduction. 25 Joanna Jansen: Thank you, Arthur. I just wanted to take a minute to go over both the 26 Implementation Plan itself and also, go ahead and talk a little bit about the DOT exercise. I’m 27 going to be talking about both of those things. As Arthur said and as we explained in the Staff 28 report, the Implementation Plan is a chapter of the Comp. Plan. It’s in your existing Comp. Plan 29 too. It gathers all of the programs from all of the elements into one table to track their 30 implementation over time. It – you have that table and that was the bulk of your packet for this 31 week. It was the 78-page table that gathers all of the programs from the elements as they have 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 14 of 38 been drafted by the CAC and those of them that have been – has specific direction given by the 1 Council, we attempted to capture and reflect that direction from the Council in the plan as well. 2 The table itself in your packet has a column showing the lead department or agency that would 3 be responsible for the program. A relative priority column and that has five different priorities 4 based on the feedback that we heard at the subcommittee. That includes what we are currently 5 calling routine programs, meaning that things that Staff are going to do on a regular basis as 6 part of the normal course of doing business. In progress or IP programs, those are things that 7 are specific to elements such as – there’s one that I am looking at here that says, optimize 8 traffic signal timing. That’s something that’s already in progress but it’s a (inaudible) that will be 9 completed and checked off a list someday. Then there’s short, medium and long term and so in 10 general, we are thinking that short means that we’ll do this within the first 5-years after 11 adoption, medium is 5-10-years and long term is 10-years or more out most likely. We don’t 12 have a lot of long terms but that’s what those prioritizes mean. Another column that we added 13 to your plan here for you packet is that whether or not it’s a new or existing program. That was 14 something that the subcommittee really expressed a strong interest in being able to see so 15 we’ve added that information to this table. We found out that there are about; I think 110 16 existing programs that are being carried forward and about 258 new programs that are being 17 added based on bringing this up to date with the concern of today. Then finally, we have 18 anticipated level of effort. Just trying to give at least some order of magnitude sense of whether 19 a program is going to be less expensive or more expensive using a number of dollar signs to 20 indicate that. We have not assigned any specific dollar values to any of these programs yet but 21 we wanted you to have some kind of sense of scale. Certainly, your comments on those are 22 welcome too if you have thoughts on how those columns are completed. Then for your packet, 23 we just have a note column here to make sure that some of the changes that we made over 24 time are reflected or so that you can see how these programs connect to things like the EIR 25 mitigation measure for example. This table was really created for your packet. This is probably 26 not the form that the implementation chapter is going to take in the Comp. Plan itself. We’re 27 just trying to provide you with the most useful and distinct information to work through as a 28 CAC. The existing Comp. Plan has a slightly different set of columns and certainly, we can 29 explore the utility of those columns once the programs themselves get a little bit more refined. 30 We’re pulling this all together into an adopted Comp. Plan. That is – that’s the implementation 31 table itself and just to back up a second, the overall goal here is to provide a tool for the 32 community, the decision makers and Staff to figure out how are we going to implement the 33 Comp. Plan. How we are going to achieve the goals that are articulated in the Comp. Plan and 34 also to help set prioritizes and make decisions on a year to year basis or as budgeting cycles 35 move forward, about how to allocate resources and what new programs to undertake and what 36 ongoing programs to continue. I think we heard some very insightful comments at the 37 subcommittee about – just acknowledging the fact that prioritizes in this piece of the Comp. 38 Plan – on of the reason why it’s a chapter and not an element is because I think we see this 39 really as a very living piece of the Comp. Plan. Something that’s going to need to change on a 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 15 of 38 pretty regular basis and respond to changing conditions in the external world. We can and do 1 want to set some priorities or get a sense at least, of prioritizes as of today, 2017, but it’s 2 probably not going to be exactly the same priorities that would be held 5-years from now or 8-3 years from now. A lot of things will change and those priorities are going to need to change in 4 response. This is a more fluid piece of the Comp. Plan rather than the policies, which we’re 5 hoping are going to provide long standing regulatory guidance for all of the City activities. With 6 that said about the Implementation Plan and what this is itself, then I want to go on and just 7 explain a little bit about the DOT exercise that we’re going to do tonight and then I’m sure you 8 guys will have questions and thoughts on the DOT exercise. We definitely have time on the 9 agenda to talk about that. You’ll see these posters around the room and these are the same 10 version of the rows of the programs that you have in your packet. To the extent that you did 11 your homework and used your packet either electronically or hardcopy, to identify prioritizes or 12 opportunities for consolidation or any other comments on the programs. You should be able to 13 find that correspondence pretty easily and they’re in the order on the wall that they are in your 14 packet. If you start here with community services, transportation, land use and natural 15 environment are on the wall in this room and right out there in the little area just outside the 16 door, we have safety on the opposite side of the windows that are facing me and then business 17 and economics on that wall next to the lady’s room. That’s the order that you can find in your 18 packet. For the elements that have a larger number of programs, we have 10 dots each and 19 they are color coded. You can see the poster – there’s a poster on each one of the walls and 20 next to where the posters are its reminding you of what color to use. It’s just so you can keep 21 track so you don’t have to count each one of these so you have a set of colors to use for each 22 element so for example, land use is blue. For the two elements with the least number of 23 programs, we have a lower number of dots so for community services and for business and 24 economics, we have four dots since those have considerably fewer programs than the others. I 25 acknowledge that ten is more or less an arbitrary number. It seemed like a nice round number 26 that folks can kind of wrap their mind around. It doesn’t necessarily represent exactly the same 27 proportion of programs in each element because there are different numbers but we thought 28 we’d make it not to terribly complicated and just let you go with 10; see what you think how 29 that works. We’re going to ask you to put those on representing your highest priorities for the 30 programs in that element. Each dot represents a priority for you. In the subcommittee, the 31 questions came up of whether or not folks can put more than one dot on a program if they 32 think that’s really exceptionally high priority for them and we heard arguments on both sides of 33 that point. We decided that for this round, you can put more than one on but just be aware 34 that that does – it’s going to affect the total so probably best to try to keep that a moderate 35 number if you can, rather than putting all ten of your dots on one program. We didn’t have that 36 happen during the subcommittee so I don’t think it’s going to happen here but that’s something 37 to keep in mind. What we want to do it try to divided you up into (crosstalk) – Oh, thank you. 38 Great input. One more point to make is when you are thinking about your priorities and again, 39 you think about these however you want and you’re going to have your dots to use how you 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 16 of 38 see fit. When we talked about this at the subcommittee, some folks thought well, if a program 1 is already in process or it’s a routine program, maybe that means that I don’t need to put dots 2 on it or shouldn’t waste my dots on that because it’s already happening. Instead, I want to use 3 my dots to express what I think on something that is not happening already that should 4 happen. That’s one way of thinking about it but I would also suggest that those ongoing 5 programs and even the routine programs are drawing from the same pool of money and Staff 6 time as are new programs. We have at the City a finite set of resources and part of the 7 challenge here – it is a really difficult choice to figure out how to use those finite resources or 8 how to prioritize them in a given year based on what’s happening in Palo Alto and what we’re 9 hearing the community and a lot of other conditions that we have to take into account. It can 10 happen in a City that a City looks at what it can do with the finite set of resources and decides 11 to discontinue a program that’s currently happening in order to fund a new effort or a new 12 project. If you do think that there’s something that’s in progress already that’s important to 13 continue, consider putting a dot on that because it is – the fact that it’s in progress already, 14 doesn’t necessarily guarantee that it will continue forever. Just logistically, given the space that 15 we have available, what we thought might work best is to divide you up into three groups and 16 have each group focus on a set of two elements at a time and then we’ll rotate. We’ll do 15 17 minutes for those two elements and then you’ll rotate to the next set of two elements. That 18 way everybody gets a shot and you have about 15 minutes per set of two and we’re not having 19 all 21 people try to put dots on one poster at a time. Yes? 20 Hamilton Hitchings: If you’re going to do that, can you please make sure that we’re on the ones that we 21 were on in the subcommittee for as our first one? 22 Co-Chair Keller: Actually, what we’re going to do is do it based on where you’re sitting and just go 23 around and do it that way because it’s easier to divide up. Otherwise, people have been in different 24 subcommittees and they’ve been overlapping so that’s not necessarily going to work. The way – what 25 I’m going to suggest is that if you’re sitting on this side of the room, you do the –these are the dots. The 26 dots are in here. The dots are in your envelope. What we are going to do is that the people who are 27 sitting on this wall are going to do the wall behind them first. The people who are sitting on that wall are 28 going to do the ones in the corridor first and the people who are sitting on this wall are going to do the 29 ones over here and behind me first. That’s the simplest way and then we’ll rotate around in a clockwise 30 fashion. It’s as arbitrary as any other one but at least it – you were self-selected without realizing it. I 31 have one preliminary comment and that is that I think the term ‘relative priority’ for short term, 32 medium, and long term are routine and in progress. The word priority is probably inappropriate. I would 33 say relative timing might make more sense because we’re going through a prioritization exercise so that 34 would – because short, medium, long-term, that’s a time element and not a priority element. What 35 we’re going to do first is those people who are – we’re going to give people – we’re going to go around 36 once. The people who are on the implementation subcommittee will go first, people who are not on the 37 implementation subcommittee will go second in terms of a discussion on the next thing. If you were on 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 17 of 38 the implementation subcommittee, please put your tags up. If you were not on the implementation 1 subcommittee, put your tags down and we’ll go around. Then we’ll take everybody else in the second go 2 around. We’ll give everybody two minutes to go around this and make any comments you have before 3 the dot exercise and then we’ll come back after the dot exercise and have another round until the end. 4 Joanna Jansen: Can I make just one more logistical comment… 5 Co-Chair Keller: Sure. 6 Joanna Jansen: …in case it comes up. Some of these that are all of a solid color, it’s a little bit hard to see 7 the dots or where the edges of the dots are but this is a dot. It might look solid to you. If you need any 8 help getting the dots off or reaching the row that you are trying to reach or anything else, please let us 9 know. There will be Staff around near the posters and we are happy to help you with those mechanical 10 pieces. 11 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Do the Staff have any more comments? Great, so let’s kick it off with Elaine. 12 Elaine Uang: I’m glad to see that we are going through this prioritization effort and I’ll just keep this 13 really brief. I’m actually very glad that the dot exercise is staying in the way that we – that you had 14 envisioned it. I thought it was actually very useful during the implementation subcommittee to see in 15 totality what everybody else was thinking. I think the danger with – it’s a useful tool to have a 16 spreadsheet and have each of us internally prioritize but the danger of doing that is that we can’t all see 17 everyone’s possibilities. As an elementary school teacher, will tell you, the act of actually getting up and 18 physically moving around and using movement to view so much information – a large quantity of 19 information in totality is actually very useful. Not only does this give you the ability to see all the 20 programs in three very concentrated posters. It allows you to make connections between different 21 programs and allows you to see redundancies a little bit better as opposed to just these little 8 ½ by 11 22 sheets. I actually found the implementation subcommittee exercise to be quite useful and I’m glad to 23 just see that where perpetuating this so thanks. 24 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. By the way, there are two purposes of the name tags. One is to show me 25 you want to speak and the other is to remind me of your name because even though I remember 26 everybody, I am really bad at names and I forget them all the time. Don. 27 Don McDougall: I have to say that I am not longer enthusiastic about the dot exercise. The first thing I 28 would say is that Arthur is absolutely right. The short, medium and long are totally different than in 29 progress or routine. One is measuring time and time (inaudible) and ones measuring the status. A 30 second comment would be that I think it’s interesting that through here you’ve got the 1, 2, 3 dollar 31 signs. Anything that is measured or evaluate has 2 or 3 dollar signs. I don’t think that’s necessary and I 32 think that’s pejorative relative to anything that we want to measure. I think that everybody continues to 33 repeat two things. One is that things will change in the future and I think the real issue here is which are 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 18 of 38 the things that Council, Staff or whatever, are going to review every year or every 5-years or every 15-1 years? They need to be put in those buckets, not buckets of a higher priority. The Council will change, 2 the Staff will change. Everything will continue to change; circumstances will change and knowing how 3 frequently we’re going to look at these things is more important than in 2017, we thought this was a 4 high priority but by 2018, it’s not and it becomes useful information. The other thing that I would ask is 5 that I don’t understand what the result of this is going to be. As Elaine said, it was really usually to sit in 6 a room with the subcommittee and do this exercise and look at it and say wow, look at all the dots. 7 There all there and they’re not there or whatever. What we haven’t heard here is when we’re done, 8 does Staff go away and take all of the programs that don’t have any dots and delete them or what 9 happens? We don’t understand – we got an explanation about how we do the exercise but we have not 10 an explanation of what happens with the dots. I mean, does Council get given seven dots for this one, 11 three dots for that one, no dots for this one. I don’t understand and I am not in favor of this exercise in 12 this format. 13 Hillary Gitelman: I’d like to respond to that if I could? For those of you who weren’t at the 14 subcommittee meeting, we had a similar round and kind of talking about do we like the dot exercise, do 15 we not and I think we went around and everybody was like no, we don’t want to do the dot exercise. 16 Then we did the dot exercise and we went around and said hey, that was kind of interesting. We learned 17 something out of that. I’m hoping we will go through that same process this evening. I’m going back to 18 the City Council motion last night, they directed Staff to encourage – to incorporate suggestions from 19 the CAC and use their own judgment to identify relative priorities of the implementation programs. We 20 have an obligation to give the Council our recommendations regarding priorities and this evening we are 21 looking for your input on that. That’s the purpose of the dot exercise. 22 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. 23 Don McDougall: I don’t think that answers my question about what are you going to do? Tell them high, 24 medium or low or delete the ones that you didn’t like? That doesn’t answer my question, I’m sorry. 25 Elaine Costello: Excuse me, let me try and – one thing that we were talking to the Co-Chairs earlier 26 today. One thing is that we are not entirely sure – we do know that we have an obligation to get back to 27 the Council on priorities and we do look forward to your input. We – what we will do, is we will take – 28 we’ll add a column or I’m just going to say add a column and we’ll show how many dots there were from 29 this dot exercise. Our thinking this afternoon when we met with the Co-Chairs, was we would then send 30 that back out to you and before we forwarded anything to the Council – once we get the results from 31 tonight’s dot exercise, we’ll take a look at it – it is not – we’re not really high on – we’re not high on 32 anything but we’re not excited about deleting programs. That’s just not – I can’t think of one program 33 that we deleted. We are – have been charged with trying to consolidate them but we are very, very 34 interested in what your thoughts are about what’s the most important things to do? Our thought was 35 that we would put this together as a piece of information for you. We would give it some thought and 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 19 of 38 we would send it back out to you and then you could back at the next meeting. There are a number of 1 possibilities that we thought of what we would do next. We would ask for your comments on it. We may 2 ask you to refine a few things. We haven’t really settled on that part yet but we do know that our plan is 3 to put this on a spreadsheet. We have figured out with Place Works how we can send it back out to you 4 as a spreadsheet that you could fill in again and comment on. This is the first iteration toward getting a 5 sense of priorities. That’s where are thinking is right now. 6 Co-Chair Keller: After we do the dot exercise, we’ll have an opportunity – if we get to it soon enough, to 7 comment afterward and figure out where we go next. Ok? Who’s next? Shani? 8 Shani Kleinhaus: I still don’t feel comfortable with this. I would rather we did something like three colors 9 for each one of those next 5-years, next 10-years, next 15-years so look at more scheduling rather than 10 comparing them to each other. I think that would be more helpful in terms of prioritization because it 11 says what you do sooner rather than a competing – I have ten dots for every environmental program on 12 earth, whether it’s noise or air pollution or nature or all these other things; it just can’t be done. I just 13 don’t understand this. I don’t think it will reflect the things that are really important. There’s a lot of 14 things in progress. One of the questions I had is you say it has 258 programs but a lot of them seem to 15 be in progress already, even if they are new. How many new programs that are not yet being 16 implemented are there by Staff? I don’t have an answer to that. I don’t know if Don it in his table but I 17 really think it’s very, very important to know how many truly new programs there are and if so, they 18 should be highlighted because what the City is already doing, they prioritize this to continue or not but 19 most likely they will continue. I’d like an answer to that if possible. How many new programs that are 20 not yet being implemented, are there? 21 Elaine Costello: There are 258 new programs… 22 Shani Kleinhaus: Yes. 23 Elaine Costello: … and some of them – we don’t – I haven’t really broken it out into what is being 24 implemented but since they are new… 25 Shani Kleinhaus: There are a lot of programs here that when I looked at it, there seemed to be more 26 programs that are new and next to them had in progress. The new with nothing. 27 Elaine Costello: We don’t have the number for whatever (crosstalk) (inaudible) 28 Shani Kleinhaus: I think that’s really important to know how many new programs that are not in 29 progress there are because what happens over time is the Council directs new programs all the time, 30 whether they are in the plan or not. Now we captured some of those that are already in progress and 31 we put them into this document so what happens next to the ones that came from the public that can 32 to speak to us and asked for the news ones that are not already in progress. That’s something that I 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 20 of 38 don’t see here and I think it will be lost. I would really like to know that number of how many are there 1 that are not already in progress and are new or somehow already being executed as a matter of 2 routine? 3 Co-Chair Keller: I’m not sure Staff can give you that number today but when we have out spreadsheet, 4 (Inaudible) 5 Shani Kleinhaus: Any news ones that are routine but were just captured here or in progress and is 6 captured here, should be taken out of the new programs. They are just captured, they are not new. 7 Co-Chair Keller: Hamilton. 8 Hamilton Hitchings: I’m just going to flow from Shani’s. It’s not a false fact but it’s a highly miss leading 9 statement to say that there are 258 new programs. What the correct statement is that the 10 Comprehensive Plan has added texted for 258 new programs within the thing but many of those are 11 programs that are fully funded and ongoing. When you throw out a number like that, people are really 12 latching on to like this 15%. 15% is another false fact because many of those are ongoing, many of them 13 cannot be completed like the cap of 1.7 million-square-feet so people latch on to that and say see, we 14 only did 17%. No, we didn’t do over half or half of what’s in the Comp. Plan. We just – a lot of those 15 things are ongoing. We have to be really careful about completely misrepresenting what’s going on 16 through how we speak. I do want to thank the Staff for eliminating or I should say consolidating the 17 number of programs and there’s plenty more room to consolidate. Just an example, C-5.1.1 through C-18 5.4.1, those four programs to me look pretty identical and could certainly be consolidated. I don’t know 19 if you can get that down to two or one but that’s an example. There’s a lot more room so I want to 20 support and highly encourage the Staff to continue that progress and I think they can reduce the 21 number of other things. I think Arthur put it really well that this isn’t so much about selecting things. It’s 22 about talking about which things we should do first. The priorities are essential – what we are doing 23 with these dots is talking about what we think the highest priority of things that we should be working 24 on in the next 5-years let’s say. Then they’ll go back and look at the next things and that’s how we 25 should view this, as a timing exercise rather than a priority. I feel this exercise – I know this isn’t going to 26 be popular, is a useful exercise. I did it at a small startup and that start-up kind of changed the world. 27 You all are carrying smartphones around now so the – we did this and I – we do it all the time in the 28 industry. It’s like stop whining guys. Anyway, just had to throw that out there. This is part of getting shit 29 done. I just want the Staff to confirm that they’re not deleting programs that don’t get votes. Thank you. 30 Elaine Costello: No, we’re not going to delete programs just because they didn’t get votes and if 31 programs get consolidated, we’ll merge the numbers – we’re really not trying to play the game here. 32 We’re really trying to set what should be done first and respond to the Council’s request for priorities. 33 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Doria. 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 21 of 38 Doria Summa: First of all, I approach this as a prioritization, not a timing because that’s what it was 1 called. That’s a problem for me and I really would like to associate my concerns with Don and Shani and 2 to a certain extend Hamilton’s. I’m sure his startup succeeded for other reason than the dot exercise. 3 That was probably a merit of the product. Regardless, I have a problem with prioritizing because I think 4 it leaves things out and that’s kind of Shani’s ethical approach to this. I have a problem with what the 5 work that Don showed me that he did last night, which Hamilton really referenced in that the numbers 6 aren’t really factual. I have a problem – I do not see how the dot exercise encourages any interactivity or 7 discussion between this group. It’s like 19 adults running around individually without participating with 8 one another at all so I don’t see how it advances the conversation. I’m concerned I guess, based on 9 some of Don’s question about how it’s going to be used. If it’s not really going to be used, what’s the 10 point of doing it? I’m also concerned that a more accurate way would be to do it the way that I 11 recommended at the subcommittee level, which is having a workable electronic spreadsheet. Where 12 everyone could – where priority designation for each item would have been decided whether it’s 1 13 through 3 or 1 through 5 and you could only vote once on everyone that you were interested in. I’m not 14 concerned that Staff is going to throw away sad, little, unpopular programs. That’s not really my 15 concern. My concern is that it’s not telling us anything and that with multiple dots being able to be used 16 by one person and given the number of people here, that the percentage of interest could be miss 17 represented. Other than that, that’s about it. 18 Co-Chair Keller: Annette. 19 Annette Glanckopf: I pretty much think this is not – even though it’s going to be a lot of fun to run 20 around and put dots on things. I really don’t think it’s getting there and I agree with what Don said and 21 Doria said. For me, I think our focus should be trying to figure out which new programs are the high 22 priority programs and combine the ones that are redundant. I counted in my own estimation, at least 20 23 programs that I would consolidate. It also concerns me that we go off in detail – we have all these 24 Master Plans out there and then we go into detail and we cherry pick things from the Master Plan so I 25 think that’s something that we have to be cautious of. If I were looking at this as a Council Member, I 26 would like to know what department is doing what priorities? If you look at this, community services 27 and poor Hillary, have just about everything in the plan. Public Works has a little bit, the fire has a little 28 bit, police has a little bit, so it’s really misleading to sort of say that we’re going to just put dots there. In 29 the Business Element, there are only nine programs and so, that’s not ten, even though you have 30 reduced it. In the Safety Element, as Hamilton has pointed out a number of times, almost every program 31 in there is a high priority program. In the future, what I would like to see is if I were allocating the 32 money. I would like to see this by the department and by priority. I think you need to leave them in the 33 Comp. Plan with the policies and programs but when you get to big Implementation Plan, to me it 34 should be by the department. High priorities first and maybe sub-departments so transportation, 35 planning, business development and then go from there. Then also, finally, I looked at this in detail and 36 to me, I think – again, I think it is a work of art what you guys did but I don’t totally agree with 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 22 of 38 everything as far as existing or new programs. I think there’s a whole bunch of things that are ongoing, 1 that are really not new and maybe have different lead departments. I’m willing to do the dot exercise 2 and maybe that will pick out the high of the high but again, I don’t think it’s getting there, just the way 3 Doria said. I don’t think in the end game – we’re going to all have a good time doing this but I don’t think 4 it really gets the end result we want. 5 Co-Chair Keller: Alex. 6 Alex Van Riesen: What I took from what Hillary said is that you were given a mandate by the City 7 Council to prioritize these. I get the pragmatist in me says that you’re going to prioritize this one way or 8 another and the City Council wants that and the question is whether we’ll have any input in that or not. 9 It seems to me, this is our chance to speak up. I agree that you may not like it because it may artificially 10 force the equation but it does seem to me that the ones that are gathering our greatest attention are 11 the ones that need to be addressed the soonest. The things that are getting our greatest attention. I 12 sympathize with those Sofie’s choice issue and that there are lots of things but the reality is they – it’s 13 going to be difficult to accomplish all the things that are on the list, to begin with. I find that we need to 14 be able to have some focal point to start with. Having said that, I’d like to see tonight that there’s some 15 resolution to this issues about how many programs are actually accomplished in the first 15-years. I 16 know Don has put out some – I can’t totally read Don’s – I’m reading yours – I hear – I don’t know if my 17 concerns are the same as Shani but what percentage of the programs were actually accomplished? I 18 hear some disagreement with the number 15% so I’d like a brief run through at some point on how did 19 we come up with that number? Is that number accurate and how was it defined? Another one is that I 20 guess I’ve been asking myself, are there any other options for creating a priority list and it sounds like – I 21 don’t know if anyone else has come up with any – that – I don’t know if it’s worth it to continue to give 22 time to think about that but I do want to say that I like the idea of things to revisit in 5, 10 and 15-years. 23 My idea – I don’t – I wonder if we should consider including a policy and/or a program for the City 24 Council to be mandated to have to review this document every year because what I have heard is that – 25 from other people, is that no one ever looked at this in the first 15-years. Now, I kind of don’t believe 26 that’s true but shouldn’t it be mandated that the City Council has to come back and review this 27 document publicly. Then that would be an opportunity for the community to speak into some of the 28 elements or the priority of the programs that are not being addressed. Can I just mention one last thing? 29 I just wanted to say that I think it’s a mistake – the only thing that -- I would rather us not double up on 30 the dots. I think for a more accurate read, I’d rather that everyone – well, I still think it communicates 31 something. 32 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Bonnie. 33 Bonnie Packer: Hi, I am standing because I hurt my muscle. It hurts to sit. Ok, I agree with most -- what 34 most people said who were concerned about this exercise. When we came to the implementation 35 subcommittee I said, we don’t have any criteria for creating priorities. I’m sure Hamilton when you did a 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 23 of 38 priority thing, you had criteria. Do we have the resources? Do we have the time? All these things you 1 consider when you are doing a priority exercise. We don’t have criteria to work with. Some people are 2 saying time and some people say what’s our most favorite thing that we like. For all of us, when we 3 were working on these elements, all the programs are kind of important otherwise, we wouldn’t have 4 put them in. How do we choose? We go to Safety, am I going to weigh one against another and have 5 somebody die because we didn’t do the flood thing right. We didn’t – you know. Those are – when I – 6 when we got this a week early and I thought, that’s nice. They are giving us lot of time but I felt that this 7 is not a good use of my volunteer time. To really spend all this time thinking about each program and 8 trying to prioritize and weigh it against the other programs. It’s just too heavy, it’s too much and it was 9 just – without the policies in here – see a lot of the programs seem to be redundant and should be 10 consolidated. That’s because probably this program is trying to implement a certain policy and the other 11 program that sounds like that program is implementing another policy. Without – I didn’t want to take 12 the time to go back to whatever draft I had of the particular element that these things were referring to. 13 I couldn’t really figure it out. Why aren’t we prioritizing the policies? Why not do that and then within 14 the policies prioritize the programs. It just seems like the Council wants us to do this but what are they 15 going to learn from it if we’re confused about what we’re doing? I hope they read these minutes and 16 they understand our frustration. When it comes to the – when push comes to shove, it’s really going to 17 be a matter of political will and City Resources and the particular Council what’s really going to happen. 18 Our input is probably not going to inform them that much in 2017 or in 2018. Thank you. 19 Co-Chair Keller: Stephen. 20 Stephen Levy: My understanding Hillary, is that Staff was asked to develop some priorities in that 21 process and gather input from this Committee. Is that correct? I joined the Committee to serve in an 22 advisory Committee to the Council. I’m happy to do that. I kind of feel that the experience when we did 23 this at the subcommittee is that we talked about it for an hour and then finally somebody said let’s do it 24 and we all looked at it at the end and there were actually some pretty strong priorities that dropped out 25 of it. I would rather just get it on and do it. My memory – Hamilton, and others of the subcommittee 26 were that we all felt that there were some duplications. I looked at it and there were probably eleven 27 policies that said it one way or another that we should be energy efficient in the City. There are probably 28 eight policies that say that we really need to be careful about seismic events in the City. I end up with a 29 question. Is that for Staff or are you asking our input on the consolidation or will that come from you 30 looking at the priorities? 31 Hillary Gitelman: I think we’d welcome your input this evening about this consolidations task. 32 Stephen Levy: Fine. (Inaudible) since you now said that this would come back to the Committee, have 33 we blown our schedule? We were tasked with doing the introduction governance thing in April and then 34 being done in May. I would hate to blow the schedule. Can you comment on that? 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 24 of 38 Hillary Gitelman: I think your hope is that this would come back as an item early on the agenda at your 1 next month meeting and we’d still have time to do the governance and other things that are scheduled 2 for that day. We just want to show you as a result of this meeting and your input in the intervening 3 month, how we’ve revised the table that you see. 4 Stephen Levy: You don’t anticipate any more subcommittee meetings or duplicate meetings or anything 5 like that? 6 Hillary Gitelman: That’s correct. 7 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. If those of you who are on the subcommittee could please put your tags 8 down and those of you who were not on the subcommittee, if you wish to speak put your tags up so 9 that I can call on you. Amy, you were not on the subcommittee so you go first. 10 Amy Sung: I wanted to say that I am in favor of this dot exercise simple because (inaudible). This is the 11 work of our labor and who else is more familiar with the product that has been produced and delivered 12 – to be delivered. When you look at the context, I think a lot has to do with the intent of what the 13 programs are intended to do. I think that gives a great inside to the Council who is going to make the 14 decision. Why was it deemed more important and why it was given such a weight of priority? Not that 15 that will be automatically be granted but I think it provides a great insight and guidance. At least what 16 the Council can do it reach back to the Committee – I don’t know. I’m sure that – but then we will be all 17 gone and go our separate ways but I think that provides a great insight and intent. When there is a vast 18 number of programs and if everyone is giving equal weight, how do you evaluate? I remember we were 19 all so excited and I think it was even mentioned yesterday what – Did I remember correctly? That we 20 were so congratulating that our Palo Alto schools where being ranked number one. My god, there are so 21 many schools in the State and in the Country and we were so happy because there was some sort of a 22 ranking system. I think that is what we are being told, that you categorize so that you put them in little 23 boxes to see how they have been stuck up against each other. I do want to address the concerns that, 24 what happen to those that are not being favored? You feel like you have so many kids and those that 25 are not being loved and neglected -- I think we heard the reassurance that those that are not being 26 loved will still be there. Just kind of showing that this is a product that’s being delivered but carries 27 different weight. Thanks. 28 Co-Chair Keller: Len. Ellen, did you want to speak? 29 Ellen Uhrbrock: I’d like to say that from the very, very beginning working with this group, I have always 30 been more interested in what the programs are and what you’re going to plan to do over the next 20-31 years. Really, I am more interested in the programs and how you are going to do it than I am in the 32 policies. The policies seem to be rather – I shouldn’t say this but rather easy to write. They are very 33 grand but then, how are you going to do it.? I like seeing all the different programs and then I like seeing 34 how they fit together and build something that is coherent and progress. To me, it’s been rather an 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 25 of 38 interesting assignment. Then I look at these programs and I think, ok now, if that was my job, how would 1 I organize it and how would I do it? Some of them I don’t understand at all and can’t figure out how I can 2 do it at all; that’s not surprising. It’s a game and I think that we might as well play this game and see 3 what we are able to do and do it good or bad. Actually, what we are doing is helping to advise the Staff 4 what they – what their jobs are going to be and you're advising the new City Planner on how he has to 5 be the CEO and worth the big bucks in running Palo Alto. That puts me in a rather low level of working 6 with the Committee but it’s been very interesting, very fun and this is big business. Whatever I 7 contributed would be a little bit and thank you for putting up with me. 8 Co-Chair Keller: Len. 9 Len Filppu: Thank you. I think that there – here’s what I am thinking about this issue. There is confusion I 10 believe, in what the City Council intends to do – there go the lights. 11 Co-Chair Keller: It’s 7 – there’s the 7th inning stretch, we have the 7 o’clock dark. 12 Len Filppu: Yes, and I am trading and selling stickers too if anyone is interested. There’s this sense that 13 there’s this number shock about the programs. That people are freaked out at the number of programs. 14 When this group was chartered with creating – coming up with – thinking out of the box, asking the 15 neighbors, finding input from the community and writing down a smorgasbord of a variety of 16 interesting, relevant programs. What I am worried about and maybe it’s just my years in Washington 17 have made me jaded. I’m worried that in an environment where the City Council first voted to relegate 18 programs to an appendix to move on with whatever agenda and then, the next step is ok, they are back 19 but let’s prioritize with just ten dots. There are an enormous amount of programs within elements, that 20 once you put a numerical value – once you quantify these programs, it’s much easier for not Staff, not 21 the process going on here but the next set of eyes reviewing this to say well, these didn’t make the cut 22 so let’s just get rid of these. That’s what I am worried about and that’s my message to City Council is 23 please understand that these have been squabbled over, fought over, thought out of the box over, input 24 from neighbors and residents and they’re presented to you in good faith for your due consideration. 25 Thank you. 26 Co-Chair Keller: Jen. 27 Jennifer Hetterly: I’m also a little concern about the dot project. I think it vastly oversimplifies a complex 28 challenge of prioritizing programs but I also – and I also don’t think that it represents suggestions from 29 the CAC. I think if you go forward to Council saying, based on this dot exercise, these are the CAC’s 30 recommendations. I don’t think that gives them a full picture and it wouldn’t seem to me, to represent 31 all the issues that people are concerned about today. Early on, in this process and really throughout the 32 process, we’ve talked about the implementation stage as when we were really going to come back 33 together and look at the whole picture and pull it all together and see how everything fits. Where we 34 had extra, where we had not enough and fill in the gaps; whatever. This doesn’t accomplish that in my 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 26 of 38 view. I think it doesn’t – the dots don’t allow us to say ok, now that we look at the whole thing – oh, let 1 me back up. Not having the policies together with the programs; I think is doing exactly what we just 2 told Council not to do. We can’t then have a holistic view of what’s going on and how they relate and I 3 think that’s part of some of the discomfort that we’re seeing at the table today. We couldn’t go back 4 and look up every single policy that went with every single program in order to make those connections. 5 I think we’re starting out the gates at a deficit because we didn’t have that big picture. I think there are 6 several areas where we have lots of policies that say support this and a program that says, collaborate 7 with so and so to support that. Where the program doesn’t really go much further than the policy, those 8 would be easy redundancies perhaps to eliminate. There are also plenty of places where we could 9 integrate the program into the policy and have sufficient comfort on this panel to say that’s ok, we can 10 give up that program as long as the policy has this little extra. There may well be places – oh, for the 11 downtown cap there were some programs that were eliminated as a result of Council’s choice not to 12 have the downtown cap but it doesn’t seem like they are naturally connected. One was evaluated and 13 adjust the zoning definition for office uses allowed in downtown and consider ways to prioritize for 14 small business and startups. That doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not we have a downtown 15 cap or not. I think we’re missing – there’s a lot of stuff that’s falling through the cracks that we’re not 16 pulling together by relying on this very simplistic program. Last, of all, I am concerned about the dot 17 distribution. I think the total number of programs in an element is no reflection on the importance of 18 the individual programs within that element. It may well be that the Business Element has some – two 19 programs that are hugely important but since it’s the shortest one, it gets one sticker. Where 20 transportation maybe has 30 programs that are hugely important out of the 77. It’s not a numbers 21 game. It’s a qualitative game and I think that we missed that in doling out the numbers. I think if you are 22 going to dole out the numbers in that arbitrary way, that you should do it equability in that arbitrary 23 way. If you are going to say 10% for each element, then you ought to be 10% for each element. Not 10% 24 for two of them and 8% for some of them and 6% for some of them. It ought to be uniform. 25 Co-Chair Keller: Julia. 26 Julia Moran: I’m fine doing the dot program. I share some of the concerns that other people have but 27 hopefully, it’ll flush out as we go forward. I just hope that once we do it, that we both look at what – 28 maybe this will be obvious once it’s all on the wall but both look at the results to see our priorities but 29 also were within an area where we have a lot of similar programs and which ones stand out within that. 30 I – when I went through it -- for example, early childhood. There were two programs involving early 31 childhood and I – my priority was having something involving early childhood not one over the other 32 and so I’m not sure the best way that that will be shown so I’m hoping that will be the case. As well as 33 perhaps – like Stephen said, there are sections where there are 10+ programs involving – I think I 34 counted 15 programs about taking care of our trees. Perhaps – I hope that we can use this in the 35 subcommittee or the Staff to help with figuring out which of those tree programs are important and as 36 they go forward and consolidate. 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 27 of 38 Co-Chair Keller: Lisa. 1 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: A few thought. A little bit different – the first is I agree. I think we should do the 2 dot exercise and the way I am taking it – I think there’s been a little bit of discussion about this. I’m 3 taking this as our first chance to show what we think are most important, potentially to do first. Nothing 4 is being taken out of the plans so everything is there. This is at least our chance to give some priority in 5 the context of what should we do first. Second – sorry about that. The second is I did – I think you 6 mentioned and you mentioned it Arthur, the way this was laid to priority – to me, prioritization means 7 what’s most important, not what costs the most money or is the fastest to do or the slowest to do or 8 whatever. It’s really what moves the needle? If this is our goal, this is our vision. What gets us the 9 furthest there and that’s my number on priority. It doesn’t matter if it’s going to take 5-years or 5-10 minutes, that’s still my number one priority. The way I’m doing – at least the dots, I’m not sure if we are 11 all doing it the same way is what’s most important. What’s going to get us closest, fastest or furthest – 12 not fastest, furthest on our journey of where we are today to where we want to be through all these 13 different programs that we’re eventually going to hopefully do. Priority would be what’s most 14 important, not what’s fastest or cheapest or whatever so that’s on the dot exercise. I’m all for doing it. I 15 think we’ll actually learn something from doing it and then we can always step back and say – as I think 16 you mentioned and someone else mentioned too is how to we help pull it all together and see how 17 things mesh. I would still love to do that and this won’t get us there but it at least gets us a start on what 18 might be most important. A subsistent question on the Land Use Element. The two programs that we 19 have put in relating to height had come out but it didn’t have a comment saying that Council had said to 20 take them out. I am actually – assuming that we still have the discretion to do something, I was going to 21 propose we – because we had talked so much about that here. I’m not into the exact wording but add 22 back something where we came back over and over to the idea of allowing more dense housing and 23 potentially some height flexibility if it was near transit and it was part of some – I’m not talking Master 24 Plan in a technical sense but part of plan to go toward (inaudible). I don’t see it in here anywhere and so, 25 it just – unless Council has directed us to take it out, I was going to ask if we could put that –however we 26 want to word it, something back in that kind of captures because we spent a lot of time on that both in 27 transportation and in land use. Those are my comments. 28 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. The first is in terms of height flexibility, there actually is something in the 29 Housing Element already there in terms of height flexibility near transit and with respect – (inaudible) 30 respect to low – to – with respect to low-income housing. It’s not here because we’re not prioritizing the 31 Housing Element. That’s done and it’s already been sent to the State. We don’t have the Housing 32 Element here. It’s already in the Housing Element. We don’t have the Housing Element here. I’m not 33 sure whether the Housing Element should be in the Implementation Plan as well and just incorporated 34 and that’s an open question. Consolidations interfere with the dot exercise because if you do the dot 35 exercise before consolidation, then if people have put two dots on something to consolidate, if you sum 36 them, you get two dots together. If you – things may fall out because they weren’t a sufficient priority 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 28 of 38 individually but become a higher priority when they are consolidated. There’s some interaction there 1 that I have discovered when I have done this exercise on prior work. That you always do consolidation 2 work first and then you do the dot exercise but we’re not doing that in that order. There’s also this 3 distinguishing between the urgent and the important and we are confusing the two in terms of dot 4 exercise. Secondly, there’s the notion of dot currency. The dots are currency and there are no relations 5 to the cost. Should you use three dots in order to count for one dot on a 3-dollar sign item and one dot 6 for a current – for a single dollar sign item, as an example. I can put three dots on 3-dollar sign item and 7 somehow that has the same weight as putting three dots on one dollar sign item. Even though it’s hard 8 to do all three of the 3-dollar sign items because they are costly. Maybe we should make a distinction 9 between things – between programs and policies that are newly codified versus ones that are newly 10 instituted. Right now, if they are newly in the Comp. Plan, we’re not making the distinction if whether 11 they are things that are already ongoing for which they are newly codified in the Comp. Plan, as opposed 12 to simply something that we are proposing to start; that’s a new program – a true new program. We 13 should make a distinction between true new programs and newly codified programs that are already 14 ongoing and I think that will clarify the count of what we’re really adding. I would like to see the policies 15 put back into the spreadsheets so when we get this back, we can see it in context. I hope the 16 consolidation is an opportunity to clarify wording because I think that when you are going through this 17 process and consolidating, clarifying and trying to eliminate conflicts is a useful thing. In terms of Alex, 18 maybe we should have a quiz for – on the Comp. Plan for Board, Commissioners, and new Council 19 Members. Also, a program that is not loved does not necessarily mean that it is killed but maybe it 20 starved and doesn’t get attention. Maybe that’s the (inaudible) prioritizing – prioritization. Maybe 21 ongoing programs shouldn’t be programs. Maybe they should be policies and maybe we should take an 22 opportunity to revisit that. Just as Annette talked about – I think you talked about the Safety Element, I 23 think you mentioned that there were a lot of policies without programs? Maybe that’s what this should 24 be. Ongoing things should be policies and not programs. I just want to make a reference that there is an 25 old song for those us who are old enough. Remember a song about eleven spoons full and said – the line 26 is, you know you have to finally decide, say yes and leave the other behind. That’s a good Segway into 27 doing the dot exercise. I’m hoping that we can do the dot exercise 10-minutes per wall because 28 otherwise, we will have no time to discuss. If you can try to do 10-minutes per wall and then move on 29 from there and Staff will basically try to shuffle us on to the next group when we can. Please, let’s go 30 with the dot exercise. The group on here – on the wall by the windows will do community service and 31 transportation. The group over here by the wall – this wall with the clock will do land use and 32 community design and natural environment and the group over by the corridor or the entrance will to 33 the two outside. Thank you. We are talking about next steps and one of the things that I’d like to just 34 mention is that since Staff is talking about sending us a spreadsheet along for our review, we can briefly 35 talk about – there are two purposes of the spreadsheet. One is to provide our input but the spreadsheet 36 can also be done – can also be useful as a way of getting data. For example, if the spreadsheet included, 37 just of discussion sake, the lead department of agency. You could take that spreadsheet and sort it as 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 29 of 38 you wished to be able to do analytics based on that. For those of us who are computer savvy with our 1 Microsoft Excel, you could have fun and analysis the data you got from the spreadsheet. I basically filled 2 time with that information till people sat down. Maybe Staff can give us a comment on how we should 3 lead with the process and then we’ll go around the room. 4 Hilary Gitelman: Elaine and Joanna are looking at me worriedly. What is she going to say about that dot 5 exercise? Thank you all for getting up, moving around and giving us your thoughts. What we did at the 6 subcommittee was to just go around with one round of comments of observation. What did we learn 7 from this exercise and in tonight, I think we’d also be interested in your thoughts on next steps, just so 8 we’re all on the same page of what we were thinking would happen next. As Arthur said, we would send 9 out a spreadsheet that shows you the results from tonight’s exercise and provides an opportunity for 10 you to present – provide us with some additional input. I am most interested in getting your input on 11 consolidation suggestions. We’re going to still talk about how we send this out and what we ask from 12 you and when but I think many of you have observed that the consolidation question is probably the 13 most useful – use of our time. We’ll try and put that front and center with the request we send out to 14 you. God, there was one more thing I wanted to say. 15 Co-Chair Keller: While you are thinking of the other thing, I am wondering if that’s an opportunity to 16 take things that are ongoing programs that really should be considered policies and recommend that 17 that be done. 18 Hillary Gitelman: If you all have suggestions on that kind of thing, we’ll take those as well because what 19 we’d like to do is ultimately, provide the Council with our recommendation here and anything that we 20 need to clean up along the way we will. I also wanted to acknowledge the request we had for some 21 additional numbers – number of new programs, the number of completed programs. We will get back to 22 you all with that. Oh, I remember what the other things were. There was a request to provide the 23 policies in the document. That is going to be problematic for us because if you think about it, the goals, 24 plus the policies, plus the programs are the whole plan. We would go from having a spreadsheet that’s – 25 how many pages is this? 70 something pages to quite a voluminous document. Also, a lot of the policy 26 language is still very much in flux because the Council hasn’t completed their review. I apologize, I would 27 love to do that for you but we’re just not going to be able to – we’re going to have to continue to ask 28 you to compare the spreadsheet you get with the elements that have the programs. The last version of 29 these things and if you can’t do it, I totally understand. We’re going to – there are going to be 30 opportunities for the public to engage with this whole plan as it gets closer to the finish line and if there 31 are any horrible disasters, we’ll catch them along the way. We just can’t at this point consolidate the 32 whole things. It’s just not feasible. 33 Elena Lee: I’m sorry, I’d like to also add that I think on the website, we have linked all the latest version 34 of each element so there will be a central place where you can select and pick the latest so that should 35 help a little. Yes, we can do that. 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 30 of 38 Elaine Costello: What I think we can do – one of the things that is happening is that – as Hillary said, we 1 are responding to the Council and doing additional versions of things so there are sets of policies 2 roaming around. We will make sure that the set that you should use in reference to this set of programs 3 is identified at the top – we can probably put it on each page even, with a link so that you could at least 4 see the one and if you say, wait, I saw another version. Yes, there are other versions. What the other 5 versions are is that we are responding to changes that the Council asked for. For example, in land use at 6 their meeting in; I think January. We’re certain – you’re going to see different things but we’ll make sure 7 that each page has a link to the version of the element that these programs relate to. Does that work for 8 you? 9 Hillary Gitelman: We’ll send out some instructions with the materials. I think it would be useful to do a 10 round of comments and observations. 11 Co-Chair Keller: Are you talking about pages or tabs? Are each of these a page or just one long 12 spreadsheet? 13 Elaine Costello: You are so far ahead of us Arthur. Those are excellent questions. 14 Co-Chair Keller: Ok great. Thank you. Also, you might also simply put the links to all of the element – all 15 the latest versions of the elements in the email cover note to which you would attach the spreadsheet. 16 That might be easier than putting them in the header of a spreadsheet. Whatever is easiest for the Staff. 17 Why don’t we do around the room and I think last time we started with Elaine. This time, we’ll start with 18 Lisa and you’ll have two minutes and we’ll just go around the room. If you’re quick, we will be able to 19 popcorn afterward. 20 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: I’ll actually be very quick. I thought this was a really good exercise and it’s 21 wonderful to see how much common thought we have I think around a lot of them. There are quite a 22 few orphan ones that will hopefully still get moved forward but it’s nice to see that. I don’t have any 23 questions or anything else to add. 24 Co-Chair Keller: Stephen. 25 Stephen Levy: I think we replicated what happened when the subcommittee did it, which was we had 26 an hour discussion then we went around and did the dots and there was a whole bunch of agreement. 27 In response to consolidation, I just looked at one element. We have a ton of programs that say we want 28 to be energy efficient and we also have an SCAP. We have a ton of programs that say we want clean 29 water and water quality. With all difference to Shani – I’d worked with Shani, we have over 20 programs 30 that say we really, really, really value the trees. Those are all important topics but whether trees, water 31 quality, and energy efficiency are worth 55 programs, that’s one area I’d look at to consolidate. I’m sure 32 there are others that – perhaps you could take a topic or heading of cost effective – I looked down there 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 31 of 38 and there are five things that are cost effective and they could be dot items under one and that would 1 be a way to preserve the content but make it a program about having cost-effective energy 2 Co-Chair Keller: Bonnie. 3 Bonnie Packer: I’m looking forward to the new version with the links because that will really help with 4 being able to consolidate – I mean offering suggestions about consolidation because it was really hard to 5 do that. I know some people wrote on the pages and I did that in the subcommittee but it’s really hard. 6 It’s – I’m looking forward to that and I’m wondering when we get this, will we be – could we – will we 7 have an opportunity to – in our response to sort of do the dot exercise again without the actual dots? 8 You know what I mean? 9 Hillary Gitelman: I think we’re still giving some thought to how this will work exactly. I hope you can be 10 patience and we will try and get this out in a reasonable time frame. 11 Bonnie Packer: Thank you. 12 Co-Chair Keller: Julia. 13 Julia Moran: I was glad we did the exercise. I’d agree with Stephen that I think the topics that he named 14 and I am sure there are others, where there’s a ton of – pretty much saying the same thing within a 15 program but it’s relating to different policies. If there’s a way that we can cross over and not have that 16 many programs repeated would be great. 17 Co-Chair Keller: Jason. 18 Jason Titus: Same, I thought it was actually a useful exercise. I did think that it sorts of culls out the 19 things that people are at least – where there are commonality and interest. Then, also I think the energy 20 efficiency was one area where I think it’s really important -- we did have a large number of things that 21 could probably be organized together. 22 Co-Chair Keller: Alex. 23 Alex Van Riesen: Same. I thought it was a helpful exercise and I agree with Stephen. I thought it went 24 similar to how it went in the subcommittee. 25 Co-Chair Keller: Annette. 26 Annette Glanckopf: Well, I still felt like a 4th grader but – and didn’t have enough time. I did find it really 27 difficult because some of the elements I had like 20 high priorities and it was very difficult to make those 28 decisions. It is interesting to see the commonality. 29 Co-Chair Keller: Jennifer. 30 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 32 of 38 Jennifer Hetterly: I have two things to say. First, in the preamble for the implementation chapter, on 1 page 2 there’s a section called priorities. It says that in adopting this plan, the CAC says the following 2 three broad priorities – I’m wondering where those came from? Did these come from Council because 3 we haven’t framed the entire Comp? Plan in the context of those three priorities as far as I know. 4 Hillary Gitelman: I think this was our reading of the work that the CAC has done so we’d love your 5 comments or thoughts on that if you think that should be revised. 6 Jennifer Hetterly: Off the top of my head I would say that I would love to see it be revised to be the -- 7 first one to be, increase the proportion of affordable housing in the community. I’d love to see an added 8 item to maintain the balance of public service and facilities as the population grows. I think ought to 9 broaden it beyond just those three. My next comment is, however –whatever you all decide to do with 10 this dot program, I would like to know what are Staff’s expectations in terms of whatever form it takes, 11 your representation of what the CAC suggestions are about prioritization. I’m wondering if the CAC is 12 going to have an opportunity to act on – to confirm or endorse whatever that representation is or are 13 you all just going to represent how you think best and send it forward? 14 Hillary Gitelman: Ideally, we will have another version at the next meeting that the Committee can bless 15 if you feel so inclined. 16 Jennifer Hetterly: I personally think that it is important for the Committee to bless whatever’s put forth 17 as the representation of our suggestions. If we’re not going to have the opportunity to do that, then that 18 will certainly affect the nature of my participation in the process. 19 Co-Chair Keller: Is this an opportunity for Staff requesting that in this go around with – along with the 20 spreadsheets, we solicit people to suggest what the priorities are and that we filter them at the next 21 meeting? 22 Hillary Gitelman: I think we would like any comments you have on the introductory section. Not just 23 that but there are two or three pages of text here. If you have any suggestions of how that should be 24 edited, we would be happy to accept them. 25 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. 26 Doria Summa: I guess – I don’t find this very useful. I don’t know how you can look at it at this point and 27 seeing all these dots and frankly, connect them. It doesn’t mean anything to me yet. Maybe when we 28 have time to study the results it will mean something. I share Jen’s concern about those priorities. I 29 think boiling down to three is too narrow. That’s about it. I don’t think there’s any way to discuss the 30 content of anything. We can’t even see from where we are sitting and stuff. 31 Co-Chair Keller: Len. 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 33 of 38 Len Filppu: I’m just curious, does this exercise – will this exercise have any bearing on where in the 1 element these policies and programs might appear? In other words, if there’s one program that just is 2 wildly dotted out more than others, does that move it up in the Comp. Plan at all? 3 Hillary Gitelman: No. At this point, we are continuing to believe that the programs will be under the 4 policies that they are intended to implement in the elements and then they’ll appear by a goal in this 5 Implementation Plan. 6 Len Filppu: So, there is not change to the goals or the policies? 7 Hillary Gitelman: That’s right. 8 Len Filppu: The tail is not wagging the dog. 9 Hillary Gitelman: The tail is not wagging the dog. 10 Len Filppu: Ok, thank you. 11 Co-Chair Keller: Hamilton. 12 Hamilton Hitchings: If you look at – we had a lot of discussion in this Committee about land use and 13 transportation and when I look over at the land use and when I look at the transportation, we actually 14 tend to agree in many cases on what some of the most important programs are. I think that’s a very 15 reassuring for me and actually, shows that there is a lot of consensuses. I mean land use was fairly 16 contentious but if you look at these programs, there’s a lot of support. I hear that there is a lot of 17 concern that this prioritization will be miss used and I have a couple of comments about that. First, I 18 think we are overweighting how much importance the Council is going to put on this. They have asked 19 for out input and I think – when I look at this, there’s a bunch of columns and I see – the way I 20 envisioned this is that there’s going to be an additional column. Maybe it’s like how many votes each 21 one of these got. When – if I was a Council Member and I was scanning down, I would be like oh, this 22 one got 12. I won’t – I’m going to stop and pay extra attention to that. I’m going to read it a second 23 time. If I have a fundamental philosophical – it may not change it and ultimately, the Council and Staff 24 are going to do this anyway. They are going to do it in a different context, they’ll do it around budgets, 25 the overall. They are not going to go well; public safety only got 10 dots so we’re going to cut the Fire 26 Department. I mean, they are going to have to do it and this just provides another column of input. I 27 don’t really – I would like us to share this information as just part of the Implementation Element. Just 28 another column in here besides relative priority, new and existing, and anticipated. I’d also like for the 29 things that got a lot of dots, Staff to go back and consider revising the priorities. If something got 10 30 dots, it really should be priority low. User discretion but in general, do that. I’d also like to see maybe a 31 list of the top 10 or 20 – maybe top 20 programs that this Council did. Just put in a list so that it’s 32 something that the existing Council can quickly skim and go oh, these are things that they thought were 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 34 of 38 really important. Just because I know everybody has their (inaudible) things and a lot of us have the 1 same things. It just gives it a little bit more attention and it’s more likely that it will make it onto their to-2 do list. I guess I am done. There is one last thing, sorry. The priorities, we did discuss the priorities but if I 3 was going to come up with three priorities, I would give the Staff an A for picking three. However, I do 4 agree with Jen. We do need to add the word percentage of affordable housing and not – the other one 5 that I would like to add -- maybe it doesn’t make it on there – is increase public safety. We actually have 6 a ton of stuff in the Infrastructure Plan that’s in the cue for public safety like a new Police Department, 7 improvements to the fire stations etc. My special interest would be for that but I think if there’s only 8 three, they have picked at least three good ones. 9 Co-Chair Keller: Shani. 10 Shani Kleinhaus: I’d like to reiterate that it’s really important to show what is completely new and not 11 already being done and codified. You asked for redundancies so I marked a few of the one that I found. I 12 think in the community and services and services and facilities, there is a lot of redundancy. C-1.19, one, 13 two, three can probably be put together. Same with C-1.17.1 with potentially C-1.18.2. There are others 14 and I would let you go through and see that there are a lot of things. I think it’s evident because people 15 kind of picked one of them but if you really look and put them together, then they got a lot more points 16 and it looks like it. There is one that has an error I think. N-4.8.2, I think it says the opposite of what it 17 wants to say. It says explore ways so that dewatering does not result in recharge into the aquifer. I think 18 that is not what it should be so please take a look at that one. T-2.1.1 can be combined with T-2.1.2. T-19 6.6.4 has been done in many of the other ones so it kind of – you can break it into others relatively 20 easily. I have a few more of those. There something – L-3.2.1 which just seems like there’s some kind of 21 leftover text here so we might want to look at that one, L-3.2.1. L-9.4.2 was moved but stills remain in 22 the land use so it needs to be removed from there. I’m not sure about this one, looks like N-4.14.1 and 23 4.14.2 can be combined. I think that’s what I wrote down but there are probably a lot more of them. 24 Co-Chair Keller: Ellen. 25 26 Ellen Uhrbrock: I think the Council at the start of each year or election year has a retreat where they set 27 their own priorities, is that an annual event? Wouldn’t that be a good time for them to review the 28 priorities of the long-range plan and see where they are – measure on what had been done before and 29 what is going to come up? I think it would be something they could really benefit from to know how 30 we’re doing or which way we are going and it fits in when they start a new Council meeting. My other 31 comment is that somebody ought to reread a lot of these and see if our policies are actually policies and 32 programs are actually programs. They seem to be able to morph from one to the other a lot and that it 33 would be clearer overall if it was distinct that this is a policy and this is a program. The reading of it 34 would be lots – more comprehensive to somebody who is wanting to see what’s in this. That’s all. 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 35 of 38 Co-Chair Keller: Don. 1 Don McDougall: There have been lots of comments that this was a useful process because now we 2 know what important. I would argue that we also know now what’s not important so relative to 3 Hamilton’s suggestion that we actually put a column in and tell them how many – the Council how many 4 dots things go. I would argue that if this is a useful process, then we should look at land use – that one 5 sheet over there and there are two of them that have a lot of dots. Those should be called out as being 6 important. Everything else that’s not in that category, should just simply be put in. If you start saying this 7 is important, this is less important, this is less important, this is not important at all. Then it will never 8 get any attention and if nobody voted for looking after disabled, does that mean that it gets ignored 9 forever. I would never put in the number of dots. I would put in two or three out of each category that 10 says what’s important because implicitly, you’re saying what’s not important and everything else and I 11 think that’s wrong. I keep hearing consolidation. I object to consolidation. I think that we should be 12 talking about removing duplication where they persist. The reason I object to consolidation is that I think 13 that if you look at the table that I created, the number of programs associated with a particular item; I 14 think is informative of what we thought was important. I think Council, Staff, the users of the document 15 need to think about what goals did we say were important. What policies did we say were important as 16 well as what programs? If you look at this, you can see under transportation, that sustainable, which is 17 all about SOVs, parking and safety and transit dependent came out as either new or with lots of 18 programs. Implicitly, that tells me that those things are important. If we start saying let’s consolidate 19 and take all those programs down to two programs. I no longer have that information about what’s 20 important so I think duplication makes sense. I think consolidation is a dangerous thing to do. As relative 21 to the implementation and the implementation subcommittee, I think I will happily comment on your 22 preamble because I think the thing that we want to make sure is that we’ve created some sort of user 23 manual. How do we expect this to be used? Is it going to be put on the shelf for people to look at when 24 they think they need information or is it something that’s going to be proactively reviewed on an annual 25 basis? That’s why I insist that we need to say that we don’t need to review all 250 programs every year 26 but maybe we need to review 125 of them. Half of them need to be reviewed every year. Some of them 27 every 5-years or whatever. We need a user manual so that we have some expectation about how this 28 gets used in the future. Thank you. 29 Co-Chair Keller: Amy. 30 Amy Sung: I really enjoyed this process. I really think that it is kind of a validation to show that this is 31 really an area that we gather a lot of agreements and attention so I really liked this exercise. In terms of 32 consolidation, I remember in the beginning when we started out, there were some Stanford students or 33 Professor or they volunteered work. They – I remember vaguely that their work had to do with the kind 34 of deep (inaudible) and then they are going to see what (inaudible) did receive the most attention. I 35 think we see a lot of those in social media and that you can see that instead of consolidating this – 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 36 of 38 affordable housing for instance. If you condense it into one word, it becomes one word but if you said 1 that technology that Stanford (inaudible) is, then you will see that it pops up in ten places. I think that is 2 one way to see – to gauge how often that has been mentioned and popped up. I think that might be 3 something to remember. In term of implementation, I think that looking at it – the -- for example, the 4 top three or top five, it really shows that there’s really an area that gathers attention and our energy so 5 that it may warrant special attention. Like I said, not everything is created equal and of course, I am very 6 concerned about those that have one dots or no dots so maybe that issue should be color coded as a 7 first tier, a second tier and a third tier and that’s just that. Thank you. 8 Co-Chair Keller: Elaine. 9 Elaine Uang: Two points, I’ve seen a couple of programs where they might be the same general concept 10 but applied to different parties. For example, on the Safety Element, we have emergency power backup 11 for the City and then emergency power backup for the residence. I’m wondering if maybe there is some 12 opportunity to – if they are just two separate parties, do they need to be two different programs and 13 just something around that. Same with things like safe routes to school for PAUSD versus safe routes to 14 school for private schools and daycare centers or something like that. If they are different parties but 15 generally the same concept, maybe they actually could be the same programs. I just think it’s worth 16 taking a look at. Then, in some ways, the way that we structured this by doing very hierarchical goals, 17 policies and then programs supporting each policy, has sort of hamstrung us a little bit and that 18 hierarchical approach might not be the right thing because it doesn’t leave us the opportunity to make 19 connects and allow programs to actually support multiple policies or go support policies across 20 elements. I took a look and I actually went to the OPR – the State OPR general plan guidelines, just kind 21 of looking at what is their recommendation for the structure of general plans. They basically say goals 22 and policies are key in the primary. I looked around at some of the neighboring – our neighboring Cities; 23 Mountain View and San Jose just have goals and policies in their general plan. Redwood City has another 24 interesting fact which I really thought – at first I scratched my head but now I actually see some value in 25 it. They have goals and policies and then they have a separate implementation section under each 26 element but it’s separate. It’s not connected – the programs aren’t directly connected to specific 27 policies. They are just a set of programs and I think the way – the reason why that is, is that some of 28 those programs might overlap between several policies. I mean, I get why we did it the way that we did 29 it but now, kind of rolling back up and thinking about things. Maybe the structure has not allowed us to 30 capitalize on places where there is overlap and really highlight what that overlap is. I don’t know that we 31 can really go back based on council direction and change that but it had occurred to me that maybe 32 there is a lot of languages to weigh through because we are structuring it in such a way that it’s 33 preventing us to thinking about linkages. The linkages to me are really where you’re going to get the 34 streamlined Comp. Plan. A streamline Comp. Plan is very important because the more concise – the 35 more usable the document is and the more accessible it is to the general public and that’s where I’m 36 really worried that while I’m not – I think it’s all very important stuff that we’ve talked about. It’s going 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 37 of 38 to be really hard for the average person to come along and really just want to go through this and say 1 hey, yeah, I get it. Here’s what my Cities vision is and here are all of the direction that they want to take 2 to fulfill that. It’s going to be basically – no one is going to look at it now because it’s this massive brick 3 and we put the programs in two places. 4 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I appreciate the comments that people have. I have some concern about 5 consolidating programs where – that might actually not be appropriate. Let me give – my favorite case 6 and point and that are, there is a program in there to have a coordinated area plan for Fry’s electronics 7 site and California Avenue. Now, there’s a difference between having one coordinating area plan for 8 both sites, which something that will take (inaudible) years and won’t be done by the time that the Fry’s 9 site lease is up in 2019. When we have an opportunity to design what we want for that site versus 10 having two coordinating area plans, one of the Fry’s sites, which is just on that side alone and figure out 11 what you’re going to do with that site as it turns over and you can do that quickly and get it done. Then 12 the broader one, you can do over time, which is the California Avenue site and because those have been 13 consolidated into one program, we have the mistake of hauling off the urgent from the important 14 because Fry’s site is urgent. The second thing is that we can talk about how we might have done it in 15 terms of having programs be different but the history of our City is that programs went under policies 16 went under goals. That’s how we authored it and that’s what we did. If we had a different way of doing 17 it 2-years ago, or perhaps 8-years ago, when I first started working on the Comp. Plan on the Planning 18 Commission. If we had a different direction, we’d have gone differently but this is where we are now. 19 What we can do, however, is we can think about organization online and I would like to see us talk 20 about this at the last meeting. Have a little bit of discussion and maybe somewhat of a brainstorming 21 session on how this – there’s two versions of this. There it is as a PDF document or a document on the 22 shelf, which is the official version of – the legal version of the Comp. Plan as a document. Then there is 23 more livable, usable version of that in which there are hyperlinks, in which programs can appear under 24 multiple places. In which there are cross references. In which all of the sustainability stuff can be culled 25 out so you can index them. Where there are hyperlinks from a reference to say the Tree Production 26 Manual or the Urban Forest Master Plan. All of those are hyperlinked out so that you can get to them 27 directly to where they exist. I think that would be a much more useful document and actually, would 28 become a go-to document for a lot of stuff in the City because otherwise, you don’t know where 29 everything is. You know where to find the Bay Lands Master Plan. You know where to find the – what all 30 these different plans are. If they are all referenced from the Comp. Plan, think about that as a great 31 index to all the policies of the City in one place from one source. Finally, I think that the other thing we 32 can do in the – I hope we can do at the last meeting, is thinking about what lessons we learned. We 33 basically spent 2-years of this – hard fought 2-years and a lot of work that we did. Can we really get 34 some lessons learned from this process and use that as an opportunity to capture that so when we go to 35 the next round in this -- I hope it starts in 2025 or earlier because if we’re going to have the next Comp. 36 Plan actually go into effect in 2035, we have to start early. Then that means that we can sort of dig that 37 out of the time capsule and give it to the next Comp. Plan Committee and say ok, this is what lessons we 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 38 of 38 thought you might have learned. Let’s try to use that as the basis for the next one. Staff seems to have a 1 comment and then we can answer – people can also talk again. 2 Hillary Gitelman: I was just going to try and wrap up because we’re almost at that hour. I really – first I 3 wanted to acknowledge all the input we got this evening. I know everyone wasn’t thrilled about the 4 exercise. It was difficult what we asked you to do, it was imperfect but I think we got a lot out of it and I 5 hope at some level, all of you understand what we were trying to go for and know that we will use this 6 information to generate another product that we will again, appreciate your input on. We’re being a 7 little vague about what we’re spending out to you and what it will look like and exactly what we’ll be 8 asking but we’ll try and firm that up in the next week or so, so we give you plenty of time before the 9 next meeting. If you have questions in the (inaudible) or additional suggestions that didn’t make it out in 10 the air this evening. Please don’t hesitate to email that to the Staff and we’ll start assembling a package 11 of information for the next meeting. 12 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Remember that your comments on the Business and Economics Element are 13 due on March 31st. Also, due on March 31st are your comments on the supplemental draft 14 Environmental Impact Report on the Comp. Plan. If anybody has any last-minute comments, we’ll 15 entertain them. Otherwise, this meeting is adjourned. 16 Feedback for Continuous Improvement: 17 Future Meetings: 18 Next meeting: April 18th, 2017 – Rinconada Library (Embarcadero Room) 19 20 Adjournment: 8:30 PM 21 City of Palo Alto (ID # 8083) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/22/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Library Information Report Title: Responses to Questions From City Council Following the October 4, 2016, Joint Meeting With Library Advisory Commission From: City Manager Lead Department: Library Palo Alto City Council and the Library Advisory Commission attended a Joint Meeting on October 4, 2016. This informational report provides additional information to the topics that were discussed and questions that Council Members asked. Open Hours: Hours of Operation: Palo Alto City Library expanded its public service hours in September 2015. On days that the library is open, service hours begin at 10:00 am. Rinconada and Mitchell Park libraries are now open 10am-9pm, Monday-Thursday. Both libraries have extended hours on Sundays from 10am-6pm. Downtown library is currently closed on Monday and College Terrace library is closed on Mondays and Thursdays. Both libraries are now open 10am-6pm on open days. The libraries are open a combined total of 260 hours a week. A comparison chart with other Silicon Valley and Redwood City libraries is attached. College Terrace Library: Originally built in 1936, the approximately 2860 square feet College Terrace Library reopened in 2010 after a yearlong closure for upgrades and earthquake retrofitting. The cost estimate to open the library on Thursdays is $121.15/hour (salary, benefits and overhead). Operation costs for all the five branches is approximately $2,864.80/hour (see https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/28146 for some larger library comparisons) Branch Salary & Benefits Overhead (variable costs like water and Collection (physical and Totals City of Palo Alto Page 2 electricity)* virtual) Children's $511.58 $19.71 $43.77 $575.06 College Terrace $121.15 $19.71 $47.89 $188.76 Downtown $186.37 $19.71 $43.08 $249.16 Mitchell Park $948.31 $19.71 $76.55 $1,044.57 Rinconada $724.74 $19.71 $62.80 $807.26 Totals $2,492.14 $98.57 $274.09 $2,864.80 Note: Individual library overhead costs are not available. Total overhead costs were split between the libraries. Expansion of “teen only” hours: Final Cram Slam is one of Mitchell Park library’s most popular teen programs. Offered on Fridays and Saturdays from 6pm-9pm in May and December during finals week, this program attracted an audience of 150 to 200 teens last fiscal year. While no formal plans have been made to expand “teen only” hours, many of the library’s online learning tools are available 24/7. In FY18, the library is also planning to subscribe to Brainfuse, an online tutoring service that provides one-on-one online homework help, test prep, resume help and skills building services. Brainfuse will be available Monday through Sunday between 1-10 pm. Circulation Statistics: Today, libraries are a vibrant active learning and community space in addition to being repositories of books and other materials. A typical patron might visit the library for many reasons – to find materials or information, to attend a program, to use the library’s internet stations, to access free wireless, to study, work or socialize with friends, or to use the meeting or community rooms. As libraries have transformed themselves in response to the community needs, historical measurements of library use need to be reviewed along with metrics of success for new services. In line with the national and regional trends, Palo Alto library’s circulation has dropped in comparison to the previous years. However, every other metric - visitor count, programming attendance, online resource usage and community room and meeting room usage have increased. Additionally, in the last year, the Palo Alto community has been able to enjoy the offerings of the newly renovated Mitchell Park library. Mitchell Park’s Children’s Area, which is as large as the public service space in Children’s Library, in particular has become a destination for many families. As a result, the Children’s Library’s visitor counts and checkouts have seen a decline. Clarification on the term “Youth librarians”: Both libraries have librarians who are professionally-trained (Master’s degrees) librarians specially trained to work with children and teens, along with parents and caregivers. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Facilities: The concept of libraries emerging as a critical community space is most clearly demonstrated by the growing use of meeting spaces available at three of the five libraries in Palo Alto. In FY16, the library had a total of 8,695 uses of the meeting spaces. Based on user ratings, patrons seem to be very satisfied with this feature. They have rated this service between 4.5-5 stars on LiquidSpace and 4-5 stars on Yelp. Branch Reservations Downtown 1,352 Mitchell Park 3,113 Rinconada 4,230 Total 8,695 Collections and Programs: Palo Alto library has been closely monitoring changes in user demographics. As community needs are changing, the library has also responded by expanding relevant collections and programs. Foreign Language Collection: The attached 2011-15 American Community Survey indicates that 30% of the population is Asian. Other surveys also indicate that the community speaks many languages in addition to English– Spanish, Hebrew, Persian, Russian, Mandarin, Korean, Japanese and several Indian languages. The library has a robust and popular foreign language collection. An attachment of the library’s foreign language collection list is provided. Diverse Programming: In the last year, the library launched a New Americans Program series with programs ranging from Welcome to America series, ESL Conversation Group, Beyond the Basics, ESL Book Club and Citizenship classes. The library’s youth department also offers bilingual story times in Mandarin, Spanish, Russian and Persian. Several multi-cultural festivals and displays have also been well received by the community. The library also offers volunteer opportunities that include recruiting expert retirees in the area to assist with ESL and technology classes. A discussion about the library’s collections and programs would be incomplete without mentioning online learning opportunities provided by the many subscription databases and ebooks. In FY16, database and ebook usage increased by 96.7%. The library’s database list for FY18 is attached. While there is no formal plan to offer this now, some Massive Open Online Courses classes use the meeting rooms to meet-up to work together. City of Palo Alto Page 4 3D Printing: The library also has a reputation of providing popular technology related services and programming. In 2016, the library introduced 3D printing at the Rinconada and the Downtown library. Launched in September 2016, this highly sought-after service attracted 90 curious families. While this service was mostly used for recreational purposes, teens Justin and Sri developed, designed, and constructed a prototype traffic calming / pedestrian safety system for their elementary school using 3D parts printed at PACL! Unfortunately, this service is not available at the Mitchell Park Library at this time as 3D printing impacts air quality that could compromise the library’s LEED Platinum status if we seek recertification. At this time too, there is not a way to place the 3D printer in a printer room, like other copiers, as the device requires additional staff supervision.” Other Media definition: The library circulates items that are based on interests such as Watt metering devices & bocce balls (Downtown Library). Partnerships: The library collaborates and partners with many City departments and local organizations. MP teen center and library collaboration: The Library and the Mitchell Park Teen Center have been collaborating in the following areas: Class Visits – The library’s middle school library tour includes a visit to the Teen Center. Programs – MP Teen Center and the library work in partnership on several popular programs. Past examples include Festival of Colors, Finals Cram Slam, Nail Painting Party, International Games Days, and Toy Drive. Publicity – Both organizations share each other's programs on social media on Facebook and tag all teen groups including the library’s TLAB and clickPA, and the Teen Center teen group, The Drop. Little Free Libraries: These libraries are not sponsored by the library. FOPAL has occasionally placed their donated items into these stations as an advertisement. See https://littlefreelibrary.org/ for more information. Attachments: Attachment A: SVLS and Redwood City Library Open Hours Attachment B: PACL Digital Resources Services FY 17-18 Attachment C: Non English language items Attachment D: ACS Demographic and Housing estimates SVLS and Redwood City Library Open Hours Library Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Los Gatos 11-8 11-8 10-6 10-6 10-6 10-5 12-5 (Sept- May) 10-3 (Jun-Aug) Mountain View 10-9 10-9 10-9 10-9 10-6 10-6 1-5 Palo Alto Rinconada (formerly Main) 10-9 10-9 10-9 10-9 10-6 10-6 10-6 Children's 10-6 10-6 10-6 10-6 10-6 10-6 1-5 College Terrace closed 10-6 10-6 closed 10-6 10-6 closed Downtown closed 10-6 10-6 10-6 10-6 10-6 closed Mitchell Park 10-9 10-9 10-9 10-9 10-6 10-6 10-6 San Jose Martin Luther King, Jr. - Main 8-9 8-9 8-9 8-9 8-6 9-6 1-7 Almaden 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Dr.Roberto Cruz- Alum Rock 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Alviso 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Bascom 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Berryessa 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Biblio. Latinoamericana 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Calabazas 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Cambrian 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Edenvale 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Educational Park 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Evergreen 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Hillview 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Joyce Ellington 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Pearl Avenue 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Rose Garden 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Santa Teresa 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Seven Trees 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Tully Community 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Vineland 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed West Valley 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Willow Glen 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed East San Jose Carnegie 1-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 12-6 10-6 closed Santa Clara City Central Park 10-9 10-9 10-9 10-9 10-6 10-6 1-5 Mission Library and Family Reading Center 1-6 1-6 1-8 10-6 1-6 closed closed Northside Branch 11-8 11-8 10-6 10-6 10-6 10-6 closed Sunnyvale 10-9 10-9 10-9 10-9 10-6 10-6 12-6 Santa Clara County Campbell 1-9 1-9 10-9 10-6 10-6 10-6 closed Cupertino 10-9 10-9 10-9 10-9 10-6 10-6 12-6 Gilroy 1-9 1-9 1-9 10-6 10-6 10-6 closed Los Altos 10-9 10-9 10-9 10-9 10-7 10-7 10-7 Milpitas 10-9 10-9 10-9 10-9 10-7 10-7 10-7 Morgan Hill 1-9 Lobby 12-1 1-9 Lobby 12-1 1-9 Lobby 12-1 10-6 10-6 10-6 closed Saratoga 1-9 1-9 10-6 10-6 10-6 10-6 1-5 Woodland 11-8 11-8 11-8 11-5 11-5 11-5 closed Redwood City Downtown 10-9 10-9 10-9 10-9 10-5 10-5 12-5 Fair Oaks Branch 10-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 10-5 10-5 closed Schaberg Branch 10-7 10-7 10-7 10-7 closed 10-5 closed Redwood Shores 10-8 10-8 10-8 10-8 closed 10-5 12-5 PACL Digital Resources Services (FY 2017-18) Title Content Type Intended Audience NoveList Plus Reader's advisory resource All ages Novelist K-8 Plus Reader's advisory resource Elementary and middle school students Gale Database Package (Consortia package) Comprehensive information resources for the public; bundled usage data All ages Academic Onefile Biography Resource Center Biography database All ages Business and Company Resource Center Provides information on businesses Adults Chilton Library Detailed information for vehicle maintenance and repairs Adults Custom Newspapers Full-text newspaper database Adults Gale Virtual Reference Library (10 titles)Full-text reference books All ages Health and Wellness Resource Center Health and medicine resources Adults HistoryResource Center full-text periodicals, reference works, primary documents and scholarly analyses Informe Full-text articles from Spanish and Portuguese magazines and newspapers Adults InfoTrac OneFile with subset per databases Peer-reviewed, full-text scholarly content across the academic disciplines Adults Kids InfoBits Full-text articles with pictures in magazines, newspapers and reference books Elementary school students Literature Resource Center Full-text articles about authors, their works, and literary movements All ages Opposing Viewpoints Full-text articles covering all sides of social issues All ages Student Resource Center - Gold Full-text magazines providing articles highlighting significant ideas, discoveries, events and people from major eras in American and world history Middle and high school students ABC Mouse.com 3,500+ interactive books, educational games, puzzles, and other learning activities young learners (ages2-6+) American Physical Society Journals Physics Adults AtoZdatabases Business resources Adults Author Alerts service Customers subscribe to receive notification about newly added titles to the Library All ages Axis360 Electronic books, digital audio books and music All ages Bay Areas Consumers Checkbook Rates companies and services in the Bay area Adults BookFlix - Scholastic Streamed children's books; the only resource with fiction and nonfiction side by side for reading and learning Preschool and elementary BookLetters Weekly e-newsletters for Adults, Kids & Teens or browse the lists of bestsellers & award winners All ages California Mission Books Full text books for reports on California missions All ages Credo Reference Premium Full text of over 600 reference books that cover all subjects All ages Culturegram online Comprehensive homeowrk support Elementary school students Discover & Go Customers use it to obtain free passes to museums in the Bay area.All ages Encyclopedia Britannica Reference Comprehensive All ages Encyclopedia Britannica Kids Comprehensive for children Elementary and middle school students Enki Digital books published by small and independent press All ages Evanced Calendar Customers use it to register for library programs; library uses it for statistics All ages Evanced Summer Reader Customers use it to register for Summer Reading Program; staff use it for the program management All ages Foundation Center Freegal Music Streaming movies and music, more concentration on classic titles All ages Hoopla Streaming movies and music; more concentration on popular titles All ages Learning Express Comprehensive test preparation software for all ages All ages Mango Languages International langauges learning All ages Morningstar Financial data for investors Adults OverDrive Electronic books, digital audio books and music All ages Newsbank Online newspapers of local interest All ages Oxford English Dictionary Comprehensive All ages Proquest Ancestry Library Edition Geneology research Adults Proquest Heritage Quest Collection of the U.S. Federal Census records from 1790 through 1930, along with more than 25,000 fully searchable family and local history books, Freedman's records and more Mainly adults ProQuest NYT Historical Primary resource for students homework assistance Middle and high school students ProQuest Newspaper Direct Press Display, renamed Press Reader in 2016 Only resource for same day 3000 international newspapers in native languages All ages ProQuest Safari Tech Books Comprehensive collection of electronic books on science and technology All ages Rand California California statistical research Adults Social Studies Fact Cards A series of research resources designed for quick reference Elementary and middle school students Total Boox Juvenile books and books reviews Tumble Books Children's books online, only resource with bi-lingual books Preschool and elementary school students World Book Electronic version of the enclopedia All ages Zinio Popular magazines in digital form All ages Staff Tools Adobe Creative Cloud eBranch staff use for creating content for the library website; managers use it for creating marketing and other documents Better Impact Staff use for managing volunteer activitives CollectionHQ Staff use for managing, promoting and selecting library collection Lynda.com Mass360 Staff use for managing mobile devices OCLC Access Staff tool for creating records for online catalog Language # Items DEC 2016 # Items DEC 2015 # Items DEC 2014 Total Checkouts 2016 Checkouts 2015 Checkouts 2014 Checkouts Turnover Chinese 7,234 6,210 5,055 134,302 20,853 37,834 17,712 18.56539 French 1,323 438 276 77,073 5,056 1,747 842 58.25624 German 532 164 133 23,523 1,928 378 181 44.21617 Gujarati 103 109 109 150 45 61 18 1.456311 Hebrew 224 109 39 6,834 832 392 64 30.50893 Hindi 1,083 670 492 12,095 1,347 1,992 1,313 11.16805 Italian 617 197 142 28,009 2,312 359 73 45.39546 Japanese 380 49 6 26,481 1,669 446 46 69.68684 Korean 659 227 171 13,147 2,031 1,418 1,371 19.94992 Panjabi 98 110 110 124 12 18 1 1.265306 Persian 437 191 191 5,397 345 390 104 12.35011 Russian 2,637 2,375 1,912 28,053 5,547 7,136 3,467 10.63823 Spanish 3,316 3,533 3,334 63,341 6,635 13,084 9,208 19.10163 Vietnamese 69 42 4 804 58 50 12 11.65217 18,712 14,424 11,974 419,333 48,670 65,305 34,412 22.40984 Non-English Language Materials 2014 - 2016 DP05 ACS DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING ESTIMATES 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section. Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section. Tell us what you think. Provide feedback to help make American Community Survey data more useful for you. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties. Subject Palo Alto city, California Estimate Margin of Error Percent Percent Margin of Error SEX AND AGE Total population 66,478 +/-41 66,478 (X) Male 32,849 +/-755 49.4%+/-1.1 Female 33,629 +/-756 50.6%+/-1.1 Under 5 years 3,248 +/-359 4.9%+/-0.5 5 to 9 years 4,121 +/-333 6.2%+/-0.5 10 to 14 years 5,110 +/-411 7.7%+/-0.6 15 to 19 years 3,924 +/-418 5.9%+/-0.6 20 to 24 years 3,046 +/-485 4.6%+/-0.7 25 to 34 years 8,274 +/-666 12.4%+/-1.0 35 to 44 years 9,603 +/-477 14.4%+/-0.7 45 to 54 years 10,130 +/-559 15.2%+/-0.8 55 to 59 years 4,324 +/-479 6.5%+/-0.7 60 to 64 years 3,171 +/-389 4.8%+/-0.6 65 to 74 years 5,841 +/-475 8.8%+/-0.7 75 to 84 years 3,458 +/-321 5.2%+/-0.5 85 years and over 2,228 +/-292 3.4%+/-0.4 Median age (years)41.1 +/-0.8 (X)(X) 18 years and over 51,101 +/-507 76.9%+/-0.8 21 years and over 49,361 +/-551 74.3%+/-0.8 62 years and over 13,245 +/-484 19.9%+/-0.7 65 years and over 11,527 +/-421 17.3%+/-0.6 18 years and over 51,101 +/-507 51,101 (X) Male 24,477 +/-662 47.9%+/-1.1 Female 26,624 +/-584 52.1%+/-1.1 65 years and over 11,527 +/-421 11,527 (X) Male 4,747 +/-284 41.2%+/-1.7 1 of 3 04/10/2017 Subject Palo Alto city, California Estimate Margin of Error Percent Percent Margin of Error Female 6,780 +/-295 58.8%+/-1.7 RACE Total population 66,478 +/-41 66,478 (X) One race 63,421 +/-473 95.4%+/-0.7 Two or more races 3,057 +/-469 4.6%+/-0.7 One race 63,421 +/-473 95.4%+/-0.7 White 41,325 +/-904 62.2%+/-1.3 Black or African American 1,054 +/-369 1.6%+/-0.6 American Indian and Alaska Native 64 +/-104 0.1%+/-0.2 Cherokee tribal grouping 1 +/-5 0.0%+/-0.1 Chippewa tribal grouping 0 +/-28 0.0%+/-0.1 Navajo tribal grouping 0 +/-28 0.0%+/-0.1 Sioux tribal grouping 0 +/-28 0.0%+/-0.1 Asian 19,956 +/-748 30.0%+/-1.1 Asian Indian 3,463 +/-667 5.2%+/-1.0 Chinese 10,500 +/-794 15.8%+/-1.2 Filipino 477 +/-164 0.7%+/-0.2 Japanese 1,392 +/-346 2.1%+/-0.5 Korean 1,995 +/-599 3.0%+/-0.9 Vietnamese 654 +/-384 1.0%+/-0.6 Other Asian 1,475 +/-616 2.2%+/-0.9 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 70 +/-65 0.1%+/-0.1 Native Hawaiian 16 +/-26 0.0%+/-0.1 Guamanian or Chamorro 0 +/-28 0.0%+/-0.1 Samoan 0 +/-28 0.0%+/-0.1 Other Pacific Islander 54 +/-59 0.1%+/-0.1 Some other race 952 +/-436 1.4%+/-0.7 Two or more races 3,057 +/-469 4.6%+/-0.7 White and Black or African American 203 +/-108 0.3%+/-0.2 White and American Indian and Alaska Native 146 +/-88 0.2%+/-0.1 White and Asian 1,992 +/-415 3.0%+/-0.6 Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native 37 +/-42 0.1%+/-0.1 Race alone or in combination with one or more other races Total population 66,478 +/-41 66,478 (X) White 43,909 +/-898 66.1%+/-1.3 Black or African American 1,332 +/-371 2.0%+/-0.6 American Indian and Alaska Native 339 +/-169 0.5%+/-0.3 Asian 22,473 +/-754 33.8%+/-1.1 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 299 +/-161 0.4%+/-0.2 Some other race 1,308 +/-496 2.0%+/-0.7 HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE Total population 66,478 +/-41 66,478 (X) Hispanic or Latino (of any race)4,876 +/-674 7.3%+/-1.0 Mexican 2,901 +/-607 4.4%+/-0.9 Puerto Rican 99 +/-73 0.1%+/-0.1 Cuban 173 +/-126 0.3%+/-0.2 Other Hispanic or Latino 1,703 +/-383 2.6%+/-0.6 Not Hispanic or Latino 61,602 +/-684 92.7%+/-1.0 White alone 37,698 +/-1,011 56.7%+/-1.5 Black or African American alone 1,054 +/-369 1.6%+/-0.6 American Indian and Alaska Native alone 14 +/-17 0.0%+/-0.1 Asian alone 19,867 +/-740 29.9%+/-1.1 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 62 +/-61 0.1%+/-0.1 2 of 3 04/10/2017 Subject Palo Alto city, California Estimate Margin of Error Percent Percent Margin of Error Some other race alone 173 +/-145 0.3%+/-0.2 Two or more races 2,734 +/-455 4.1%+/-0.7 Two races including Some other race 214 +/-204 0.3%+/-0.3 Two races excluding Some other race, and Three or more races 2,520 +/-433 3.8%+/-0.7 Total housing units 27,555 +/-618 (X)(X) CITIZEN, VOTING AGE POPULATION Citizen, 18 and over population 42,853 +/-797 42,853 (X) Male 20,371 +/-686 47.5%+/-1.2 Female 22,482 +/-600 52.5%+/-1.2 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables. For more information on understanding race and Hispanic origin data, please see the Census 2010 Brief entitled, Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010, issued March 2011. (pdf format) While the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities. Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Explanation of Symbols: 1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate. 2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution. 4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate. 6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. 7. An 'N' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. 8. An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available. 3 of 3 04/10/2017 City of Palo Alto (ID # 8085) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/22/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Emergency Medical Services Week 2017 Title: Proclamation Honoring Emergency Medical Services Week, May 21-27, 2017 From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Attachments: Attachment A: Proclamation Honoring Emergency Medical Services Week Proclamation Emergency Medical Services Week May 21-27, 2017 WHEREAS, emergency medical services are a vital public service; and WHEREAS, EMS professionals are available twenty-four hours a day, three hundred and sixty-five days a year; and WHEREAS, quality emergency medical services care dramatically improves survival and reduces mortality and morbidity; and WHEREAS, emergency medical services have grown to fill a gap by providing important, out of hospital care; and WHEREAS, the emergency medical services system consists of first responders, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, emergency medical dispatchers, firefighters, police officers and emergency physicians; and WHEREAS, the members of emergency medical services teams engage in specialized training and continuing education to enhance their lifesaving skills; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate to recognize the value and accomplishments of emergency medical services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services Week with the theme “EMS Strong: Always in Service.” NOW, THEREFORE, I, H. Gregory Scharff, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council do hereby proclaim and call upon all citizens of Palo Alto to observe the week of May 21 – May 27, 2017 as Emergency Medical Services Week, with appropriate ceremonies and observances in which our community may join in recognizing the important public safety contributions of our emergency medical technicians and paramedics. Presented: May 22, 2017 ______________________________ H. Gregory Scharff Mayor CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR May 22, 2017 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Digest Summary Third Quarter Sales (July – September 2016) The following files are attached for this informational report for which no action is required. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Sales Tax Digest Summary - Background and Discussion (PDF) Attachment B: MuniServices Sales Tax Digest Summary (PDF) Attachment C: Economic Categories and Segments (PDF) Attachment D: MuniServices Economic News and Trends (PDF) Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Page 2 Informational Report to the City Council BACKGROUND Sales and use tax represents about $29.2 million, or 15 percent, of projected General Fund revenue in the City’s adopted operating budget for fiscal year 2017. This revenue includes sales and use tax for the City of Palo Alto and pool allocations from the state and Santa Clara County.1 We contract with MuniServices LLC (MuniServices) for sales and use tax recovery services and informational reports. We use the recovery services and informational reports to help identify misallocation of tax revenue owed to the City, and to follow up with the State Board of Equalization to ensure that the City receives identified revenues. We include sales and use tax recovery information in our quarterly reports to the Policy and Services Committee. The California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 7056, requires that sales and use tax data remain confidential. Therefore, the City may not disclose amounts of tax paid, fluctuations in tax amounts, or any other information that would disclose the operations of a business. This report, including the attached Sales Tax Digest Summary, includes certain modifications and omissions to maintain the required confidentiality of taxpayer information. We share the information provided by MuniServices with the Administrative Services Department (ASD) for use in revenue forecasting and budgeting and coordinated this report with them. DISCUSSION MuniServices prepared the attached report (Attachment B) covering calendar year 2016 third quarter sales (July through September 2016). These funds are reported as part of the City’s fiscal year 2017 revenue. In March, ASD should receive information from the state on aggregate sales and use tax receipts for the fourth quarter of 2016. Following are some highlights of the sales and use tax information: •Palo Alto’s overall sales and use tax revenue (cash receipts) for the third quarter of 2016 increased by about $142,000, or 2.1 percent, including pool allocations, compared to the third quarter of 2015. For all Santa Clara County jurisdictions, sales and use tax revenue for the third quarter of 2016 decreased by $828,000, or 0.8 percent, compared to the third quarter of 2015. •Statewide, almost every region in California experienced an increase in sales and use tax revenue for the year ending in September 2016, with a one-year statewide increase of 2.3 percent. •Palo Alto’s sales and use tax revenue totaled $28.3 million for the year ending in September 2016, an increase of 6.2 percent from $26.6 million during the prior one-year period. Most of this revenue increase came from a small number of businesses. 1 See definitions of state and county pools on page 3. Office of the City Auditor Sales Tax Digest Summary – Third Quarter Sales (July – September 2016) Attachment A City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Sales Tax Digest Summary 2 •Excluding pool allocations and adjusting for prior-period and late payments, Palo Alto’s sales and use tax revenue for the third quarter of 2016 increased by 6.1 percent compared to the third quarter of 2015 and increased by 6.3 percent compared to the prior year. More detailed information is shown in Attachment B. Economic Influences on Sales and Use Tax In its Economic News & Trends (Attachment D), MuniServices discusses economic influences, including national and state economic trends, employment data, and auto, retail, and e-commerce sales, that may affect the City’s sales and use tax revenue. Preliminary estimates from the California Employment Development Department show that the December 2016 unemployment rate, which is not seasonally adjusted, was 3.3 percent in Santa Clara County and 2.3 percent in Palo Alto. Economic Category Analysis MuniServices’ analysis of economic categories for the year ending September 2016 shows: Economic category % of Palo Alto’s sales and use tax revenue % Increase (Decrease) compared to prior year General retail 34.9% (0.8%) Food products 19.7% 5.4% Business-to-business 19.4% 22.6% Construction 3.6% (15.5%) Miscellaneous 22.4% 1.2% The following chart shows sales and use tax revenue by geographic area, based on information provided by MuniServices. Palo Alto’s Sales and Use Tax Revenue by Geographic Area For the Year Ending September 2016 (Amounts include tax estimates and exclude pool allocations) Stanford Shopping Center $5.4 million, 22% Stanford Research Park $3.3 million, 14% Downtown/University Avenue $3.8 million, 16% California Ave/Park Blvd/Lambert Ave $1.5 million, 6% Town & Country $0.6 million, 3% All Other Areas $9.3 million, 39% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Sales Tax Digest Summary 3 DEFINITIONS In California, either sales tax or use tax may apply to a transaction, but not both. The sales and use tax rate in Palo Alto was 8.75 percent during the third quarter of 2016. Effective January 1, 2017, the sales and use tax rate in Palo Alto is 8.5 percent. Sales tax – imposed on all California retailers; applies to all retail sales of merchandise (tangible personal property) in the state. Use tax – generally imposed on consumers of merchandise (tangible personal property) that is used, consumed, or stored in this state; purchases from out-of-state retailers when the retailer is not registered to collect California tax, or for some other reason does not collect California tax; leases of merchandise (tangible personal property). Countywide/statewide pools – mechanisms used to allocate local tax that cannot be identified with a specific place of sale or use in California. Local tax reported to the pool is distributed to the local jurisdiction each calendar quarter using a formula that relates to the direct allocation of local tax to each jurisdiction for a given period. Examples of taxpayers who report use tax allocated through the countywide pool include construction contractors who are consumers of materials used in the improvement of real property and whose job site is regarded as the place of business, out-of-state sellers who ship goods directly to consumers in the state from inventory located outside the state, and California sellers who ship goods directly to consumers in the state from inventory located outside the state. Other examples of taxpayers who report use tax through the pools include auctioneers, construction contractors making sales of fixtures, catering trucks, itinerant vendors, vending machine operators and other permit holders who operate in more than one local jurisdiction but are unable to readily identify the particular jurisdiction where the taxable transaction takes place. Respectfully submitted, Harriet Richardson City Auditor Sources: MuniServices California State Board of Equalization California Employment Development Department City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2017 Adopted Operating Budget Audit staff: Lisa Wehara Attachment A City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Digest Summary Collections through December 2016 Sales through September 2016 (2016Q3) www.MuniServices.com (800)800-8181 Page 1 California Overview The percent change in cash receipts from the prior year was 2.3% statewide, 3.2% in Northern California and 1.6% in Southern California. The period’s cash receipts include tax from business activity during the period, payments for prior periods and other cash adjustments. When we adjust for non-period related payments, we determine the overall business activity increased for the year ended 3rd Quarter 2016 by 2.0% statewide, 1.9% in Southern California and 2.1% in Northern California. City of Palo Alto For the year ended 3rd Quarter 2016, sales tax cash receipts for the City increased by 6.2% from the prior year. On a quarterly basis, sales tax revenues increased by 2.1% from 3rd Quarter 2015 to 3rd Quarter 2016. The period’s cash receipts include tax from business activity during the period, payments for prior periods and other cash adjustments. Excluding state and county pools and adjusting for anomalies (payments for prior periods) and late payments, local sales tax increased by 6.3% for the year ended 3rd Quarter 2016 from the prior year. On a quarterly basis, sales tax activity increased by 6.1% in 3rd Quarter 2016 compared to 3rd Quarter 2015. Regional Overview This seven-region comparison includes estimated payments and excludes net pools and adjustments. % of Total / % Change City of Palo Alto California Statewide S.F. Bay Area Sacramento Valley Central Valley South Coast Inland Empire North Coast Central Coast General Retail 34.9 / -0.8 28.3 / 2.0 26.6 / 0.8 27.8 / 3.4 31.0 / 3.5 29.1 / 1.2 27.0 / 5.8 28.8 / 4.6 31.4 / 0.4 Food Products 19.7 / 5.4 20.8 / 4.7 22.1 / 4.6 17.0 / 3.9 16.7 / 4.0 22.1 / 5.0 17.2 / 4.9 18.6 / 3.6 31.0 / 1.6 Construction 3.6 / -15.5 9.7 / 5.0 9.5 / 2.0 11.7 / 7.8 12.3 / 4.3 8.4 / 4.3 12.0 / 11.1 13.6 / 6.3 9.5 / 3.4 Business to Business 19.4 / 22.6 16.5 / 0.7 20.1 / 4.0 13.8 / 2.5 12.4 / -6.7 16.2 / -0.3 15.5 / 0.8 8.3 / -5.5 6.3 / 0.4 Miscellaneous/Other 22.4 / 1.2 24.7 / 2.4 21.7 / 1.2 29.7 / 7.0 27.6 / 3.8 24.2 / 0.5 28.3 / 7.8 30.7 / 1.4 21.8 / 1.3 Total 100.0 / 6.3 100.0 / 2.0 100.0 / 2.0 100.0 / 3.7 100.0 / 1.3 100.0 / 1.3 100.0 / 4.1 100.0 / 2.5 100.0 / 0.6 City of Palo Alto State Wide S.F. Bay Area Sacramento Valley Central Valley South Coast Inland Empire North Coast Central Coast Largest Segment Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants Department Stores Service Stations Restaurants Auto Sales - New Restaurants % of Total / % Change 17.5 / 5.4 14.8 / 5.9 15.8 / 5.4 16.2 / 6.1 13.6 / 1.9 25.2 / -3.8 11.3 / 6.4 11.9 / 13.0 22.6 / 1.3 2nd Largest Segment ***Auto Sales - New Auto Sales - New Auto Sales - New Auto Sales - New Restaurants Auto Sales - New Department Stores Misc. Retail % of Total / % Change *** / ***11.2 / 4.8 10.9 / 4.7 11.4 / 3.9 10.9 / 5.6 13.9 / 9.3 11.0 / 6.1 10.9 / 1.1 10.7 / 4.1 3rd Largest Segment Miscellaneous Retail Department Stores Department Stores Department Stores Restaurants Food Markets Department Stores Restaurants Auto Sales - New % of Total / % Change 10.3 / 20.8 9.4 / 0.0 7.7 / -2.2 9.2 / -0.2 10.9 / 5.9 8.7 / 3.4 10.4 / 1.8 10.8 / 4.6 9.0 / 11.2 *** Not specified to maintain confidentiality of tax information CITY OF PALO ALTO ECONOMIC CATEGORY ANALYSIS FOR YEAR ENDED 2nd QUARTER 2016 ECONOMIC SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR YEAR ENDED 2nd QUARTER 2016 BENCHMARK YEAR 2016Q3 COMPARED TO BENCHMARK YEAR 2015Q3 Attachment B City of Palo Alto www.MuniServices.com (800)800-8181 Page 2 Gross Historical Sales Tax Performance by Benchmark Year and Quarter (Before Adjustments) $- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 BENCHMARK YEAR QUARTERLY Net Cash Receipts for Benchmark Year 3rd Quarter 2016: $28,289,009 *Benchmark year (BMY) is the sum of the current and 3 previous quarters (2016Q3 BMY is sum of 2016 Q3, Q2, Q1 & 2015 Q4) Restaurants 15% Miscellaneous Retail 9% Department Stores 8% Electronic Equipment 6%Leasing 5%Food Markets 2% Recreation Products 1% All Other 39% Net Pools & Adjustments 15% Attachment B City of Palo Alto www.MuniServices.com (800)800-8181 Page 3 TOP 25 SALES/USE TAX CONTRIBUTORS The following list identifies Palo Alto’s Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors. The list is in alphabetical order and represents the year ended 3rd Quarter 2016. The Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors generate 51.7% of Palo Alto’s total sales and use tax revenue. Anderson Honda Integrated Archive Systems Tesla Lease Trust Apple Stores Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Tesla Motors Audi Palo Alto Macy's Department Store The Pace Gallery Bloomingdale's Magnussen'S Toyota Tiffany & Company Bon Appetit Management Co.Neiman Marcus Department Store USB Leasing CVS/Pharmacy Nordstrom Department Store Varian Medical Systems Eat Club Redwood City Electric Volvo Cars Palo Alto Fry's Electronics Space Systems Loral Hewlett-Packard Stanford University Hospital Sales Tax from Largest Non-confidential Economic Segments $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 Benchmark Year 2016Q3 Benchmark Year 2015Q3 Attachment B City of Palo Alto www.MuniServices.com (800)800-8181 Page 4 Historical Analysis by Calendar Quarter Economic Category % 2016Q3 2016Q2 2016Q1 2015Q4 2015Q3 2015Q2 2015Q1 2014Q4 2014Q3 2014Q2 2014Q1 General Retail 29.2% 1,983,231 2,141,794 1,673,846 2,526,551 1,935,178 2,009,743 1,797,756 2,591,589 1,994,264 2,032,155 1,791,298 Miscellaneous/Other 25.5% 1,727,134 1,617,307 1,413,133 1,491,158 1,609,541 1,564,157 1,400,769 1,655,225 1,400,415 1,437,507 1,283,210 Food Products 17.9% 1,213,382 1,194,369 1,126,103 1,166,195 1,146,174 1,167,014 1,061,755 1,096,087 1,054,462 1,051,681 972,997 Business To Business 15.2% 1,027,730 1,140,526 974,162 1,428,210 888,609 833,370 757,827 885,327 596,226 970,762 858,119 Net Pools & Adjustments 12.3% 831,377 1,313,745 1,072,794 1,226,261 1,060,979 1,039,250 968,777 1,178,482 945,653 786,945 1,013,633 Total 100.0% 6,782,854 7,407,741 6,260,038 7,838,375 6,640,481 6,613,534 5,986,884 7,406,710 5,991,020 6,279,050 5,919,257 Economic Segments % 2016Q3 2016Q2 2016Q1 2015Q4 2015Q3 2015Q2 2015Q1 2014Q4 2014Q3 2014Q2 2014Q1 Miscellaneous/Other 44.6% 3,027,081 2,973,047 2,607,097 3,237,983 2,720,241 2,549,852 2,370,361 2,906,134 2,211,697 2,577,014 2,328,959 Restaurants 15.7% 1,068,101 1,068,502 1,005,688 1,029,733 1,019,505 1,045,011 942,709 962,018 936,160 940,540 870,158 Miscellaneous Retail 8.6% 581,831 681,345 469,360 714,151 478,994 479,298 415,270 628,099 508,061 514,133 481,305 Department Stores 7.2% 491,433 546,629 435,470 714,831 553,325 595,374 503,590 750,481 548,595 591,500 472,857 Apparel Stores 5.9% 398,170 444,383 337,880 519,318 397,534 428,100 370,810 507,843 398,747 429,748 365,777 Service Stations 2.0% 138,155 144,735 123,004 140,758 173,082 181,582 148,902 166,861 203,484 215,162 184,185 Food Markets 1.9% 126,755 109,108 104,676 116,778 113,092 106,818 104,856 117,245 105,600 98,705 90,272 Business Services 0.7% 47,066 65,510 51,647 76,156 51,885 120,003 103,773 131,505 66,163 62,060 63,768 Recreation Products 1.1% 72,885 60,737 52,422 62,406 71,844 68,246 57,836 58,042 66,860 63,243 48,343 Net Pools & Adjustments 12.3% 831,377 1,313,745 1,072,794 1,226,261 1,060,979 1,039,250 968,777 1,178,482 945,653 786,945 1,013,633 Total 100.0% 6,782,854 7,407,741 6,260,038 7,838,375 6,640,481 6,613,534 5,986,884 7,406,710 5,991,020 6,279,050 5,919,257 *Net Pools & Adjustments reconcile economic performance to periods’ net cash receipts. The historical amounts by calendar quarter: (1) include any prior period adjustments and payments in the appropriate category/segment and (2) exclude businesses no longer active in the current period. Attachment B City of Palo Alto www.MuniServices.com (800)800-8181 Page 5 Quarterly Analysis by Economic Category, Total and Segments: Change from 2015Q3 to 2016Q3 Ge n e r a l R e t a i l Fo o d P r o d u c t s Co n s t r u c t i o n Bu s i n e s s t o Bu s i n e s s Mi s c / O t h e r 20 1 6 / 3 T o t a l 20 1 5 / 3 T o t a l % C h g La r g e s t G a i n Se c o n d L a r g e s t Ga i n La r g e s t D e c l i n e Se c o n d L a r g e s t De c l i n e Campbell 6.8% 7.0% -0.8% -7.4% -9.5% 2,319,746 2,315,249 0.2%Recreation Products Restaurants Office Equipment Service Stations Cupertino -18.7% 12.1% -44.6% -1.7% -10.1% 5,654,086 6,135,343 -7.8%Office Equipment Restaurants Bldg.Matls-Whsle Business Services Gilroy -1.0% 4.3% 7.8% 8.7% 4.4% 3,751,383 3,657,312 2.6%Auto Sales - New Misc. Vehicle Sales Service Stations Business Services Los Altos -0.6% 2.4% 40.5% -7.6% -8.5% 567,027 569,363 -0.4%Miscellaneous Retail Liquor Stores Service Stations Furniture/Appliance Los Gatos -7.8% 4.6% -11.6% -19.5% -5.6% 1,624,993 1,700,023 -4.4%Auto Sales - New Restaurants Miscellaneous Other Office Equipment Milpitas -0.7% 6.3% 47.4% -0.2% -0.5% 5,189,410 4,935,973 5.1%Bldg.Matls-Whsle Electronic Equipment Office Equipment Service Stations Morgan Hill 9.0% 10.4% 9.7% 69.2% -4.7% 2,103,861 1,891,289 11.2%Electronic Equipment Bldg.Matls-Whsle Service Stations Auto Sales - New Mountain View 1.0% 0.1% 9.1% 31.3% -6.3% 4,220,873 3,960,316 6.6%Business Services Light Industry Service Stations Chemical Products Palo Alto 1.7% 5.1% -13.1% 7.3% 15.8% 5,951,475 5,611,188 6.1%Leasing Auto Sales - New Electronic Equipment Department Stores San Jose -0.6% 5.1% -2.1% -9.2% -2.3% 37,255,873 38,047,512 -2.1%Electronic Equipment Restaurants Office Equipment Service Stations Santa Clara -3.9% 1.7% -7.2% 11.1% 1.5% 11,956,230 11,475,845 4.2%Light Industry Leasing Bldg.Matls-Whsle Heavy Industry Santa Clara Co.9.1% -4.2% -2.5% 34.8% -19.5% 1,081,098 1,102,384 -1.9%Office Equipment Restaurants Food Processing Eqp Health & Government Saratoga -0.2% -0.7% 58.4% 27.4% -0.7% 269,907 267,796 0.8%Furniture/Appliance Food Markets Service Stations Restaurants Sunnyvale -2.6% 2.5% -31.8% 8.5% 0.5% 6,944,129 6,904,068 0.6%Light Industry Office Equipment Bldg.Matls-Whsle Service Stations Attachment B City of Palo Alto www.MuniServices.com (800)800-8181 Page 6 2013Q3 2013Q4 2014Q1 2014Q2 2014Q3 2014Q4 2015Q1 2015Q2 2015Q3 2015Q4 2016Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 El Camino Real 1,049,438 1,038,409 2,563,317 1,084,815 1,108,045 1,102,757 1,105,340 1,090,236 1,088,571 1,140,412 1,188,495 1,210,148 1,258,506 Town and Country 525,116 550,852 570,860 590,134 624,333 629,346 637,224 644,288 636,497 639,830 642,372 632,157 645,939 Midtown 185,301 185,348 185,472 185,910 187,120 188,251 192,122 194,028 195,907 192,190 193,066 207,568 206,960 East Meadow Area 100,045 103,590 107,316 109,171 114,419 104,735 117,701 172,602 166,805 161,897 173,019 185,564 192,748 Charleston Center 81,455 90,116 84,760 86,432 86,288 87,413 88,622 89,612 90,642 91,711 91,991 92,121 91,914 City of Palo Alto - Selected Geographic Areas of the City Benchmark Year 3rd Quarter 2016 $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 2013Q3 2013Q4 2014Q1 2014Q2 2014Q3 2014Q4 2015Q1 2015Q2 2015Q3 2015Q4 2016Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 El Camino Real Town and Country Midtown East Meadow Area Charleston Center *Benchmark year (BMY) is the sum of the current and 3 previous quarters (2016Q3 BMY is sum of 2016 Q3, Q2, Q1 & 2015 Q4) Attachment B City of Palo Alto www.MuniServices.com (800)800-8181 Page 7 2013Q3 2013Q4 2014Q1 2014Q2 2014Q3 2014Q4 2015Q1 2015Q2 2015Q3 2015Q4 2016Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 Stanford Shopping Ctr 5,508,513 5,637,256 5,647,210 5,685,894 5,713,169 5,726,273 5,769,236 5,775,751 5,765,715 5,670,796 5,501,966 5,464,490 5,371,067 Stanford Research Park 7,949,998 7,307,557 4,299,015 4,027,889 3,724,671 3,304,003 3,082,331 2,869,143 2,411,043 2,953,900 2,924,944 3,119,427 3,257,664 Downtown 3,022,194 3,068,553 3,108,592 3,124,224 3,189,273 3,220,248 3,251,198 3,318,323 3,351,331 3,399,758 3,445,331 3,672,532 3,838,501 San Antonio 2,106,291 2,122,586 2,234,235 2,393,463 2,453,548 2,495,915 2,504,156 2,465,311 2,483,850 2,476,949 2,517,603 2,451,491 2,414,093 California Avenue 1,078,153 1,104,341 1,104,237 1,109,685 1,119,047 1,120,996 1,113,385 1,108,904 1,106,175 1,097,493 1,091,796 1,090,901 1,073,085 City of Palo Alto - Selected Geographic Areas of the City Benchmark Year 3rd Quarter 2016 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 2013Q3 2013Q4 2014Q1 2014Q2 2014Q3 2014Q4 2015Q1 2015Q2 2015Q3 2015Q4 2016Q1 2016Q2 Stanford Shopping Ctr Downtown #REF!San Antonio California Avenue 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 2013Q3 2013Q4 2014Q1 2014Q2 2014Q3 2014Q4 2015Q1 2015Q2 2015Q3 2015Q4 2016Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 Stanford Shopping Ctr Downtown San Antonio California Avenue $- $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 $9,000,000 2013Q3 2013Q4 2014Q1 2014Q2 2014Q3 2014Q4 2015Q1 2015Q2 2015Q3 2015Q4 2016Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 Stanford Shopping Ctr Stanford Research Park Downtown San Antonio California Avenue *Benchmark year (BMY) is the sum of the current and 3 previous quarters (2016Q3 BMY is sum of 2016 Q3, Q2, Q1 & 2015 Q4) Attachment B City of Palo Alto www.MuniServices.com (800)800-8181 Page 8 2013Q3 2013Q4 2014Q1 2014Q2 2014Q3 2014Q4 2015Q1 2015Q2 2015Q3 2015Q4 2016Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 Valley Fair 6,815,517 6,883,838 6,885,378 6,958,214 7,108,448 7,455,179 7,588,546 7,273,028 7,282,265 7,248,371 7,228,310 7,063,549 7,053,562 Stanford Shopping Ctr 5,508,513 5,637,256 5,647,210 5,685,894 5,713,169 5,726,273 5,769,236 5,775,751 5,765,715 5,670,796 5,501,966 5,464,490 5,371,067 Oakridge Mall 3,954,094 3,924,360 3,934,469 3,972,556 4,005,370 4,040,521 4,159,367 4,236,080 4,215,653 4,158,194 4,075,061 3,871,802 3,909,043 Hillsdale 2,367,935 2,387,185 2,374,185 2,401,370 2,438,295 2,450,278 2,494,792 2,513,866 2,470,404 2,434,086 2,410,095 2,363,729 2,363,729 Santana Row 2,156,984 1,765,101 2,453,638 2,523,193 2,525,349 2,565,665 2,634,908 2,706,867 2,735,522 2,834,796 2,807,754 2,754,804 2,933,889 City of Palo Alto - Regional Shopping Mall Comparison Benchmark Year 3rd Quarter 2016 $- $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 2013Q3 2013Q4 2014Q1 2014Q2 2014Q3 2014Q4 2015Q1 2015Q2 2015Q3 2015Q4 2016Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 Valley Fair Stanford Shopping Ctr Oakridge Mall Hillsdale Santana Row *Benchmark year (BMY) is the sum of the current and 3 previous quarters (2016Q3 BMY is sum of 2016 Q3, Q2, Q1 & 2015 Q4) Attachment B Economic Categories and Segments Economic Category Economic Segment Description Business to Business - sales of tangible personal property from one business to another business and the buyer is the end user. Also includes use tax on certain purchases and consumables. Business Services Advertising, banking services, copying, printing and mailing services Chemical Products Manufacturers and wholesalers of drugs, chemicals, etc. Electronic Equipment Manufacturers of televisions, sound systems, sophisticated electronics, etc. Energy Sales Bulk fuel sales and fuel distributors and refiners Heavy Industry Heavy machinery and equipment, including heavy vehicles, and manufacturers and wholesalers of textiles and furniture and furnishings Leasing Equipment leasing Light Industry Includes, but is not limited to, light machinery and automobile, truck, and trailer rentals Office Equipment Businesses that sell computers, and office equipment and furniture, and businesses that process motion pictures and film development Construction Building Materials – Retail Building materials, hardware, and paint and wallpaper stores Building Materials - Wholesale Includes, but is not limited to, sheet metal, iron works, sand and gravel, farm equipment, plumbing materials, and electrical wiring Food Products Food Markets Supermarkets, grocery stores, convenience stores, bakeries, delicatessens, health food stores Food Processing Equipment Processing and equipment used in mass food production and packaging Liquor stores Stores that sell alcoholic beverages Restaurants Restaurants, including fast food and those in hotels, and night clubs Attachment C Economic Categories and Segments Economic Category Economic Segment Description General Retail – all consumer focused sales, typically brick and mortar stores Apparel Stores Men’s, women’s, and family clothing and shoe stores Department Stores Department, general, and variety stores Drug Stores Stores where medicines and miscellaneous articles are sold Florist/Nursery Stores where flowers and plants are sold Furniture/Appliance Stores where new and used furniture, appliances, and electronic equipment are sold Miscellaneous Retail Includes, but is not limited to, stores that sell cigars, jewelry, beauty supplies, cell phones, and books; newsstands, photography studios; personal service businesses such as salons and cleaners; and vending machines Recreation Products Camera, music, and sporting goods stores Miscellaneous/Other Miscellaneous/Other Includes but not limited to health services, government, nonprofit organizations, non- store retailers, businesses with less than $20,000 in annual gross sales, auctioneer sales, and mortuary services and sales Transportation Auto Parts/Repair Auto parts stores, vehicle and parts manufacturing facilities, and vehicle repair shops Auto Sales - New New car dealerships Auto Sales - Used Used car dealerships Miscellaneous Vehicle Sales Sale and manufacture of airplanes and supplies, boats, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, trailers and supplies Service stations Gas stations, not including airport jet fuel Attachment C ECONOMIC NEWS & TRENDS February 17, 2017 ECONOMIC NEWS & TRENDS Attachment D ECONOMIC NEWS & TRENDS February 17, 2017 2 www.MuniServices.com HIGHLIGHTS U.S. GDP for 4Q2016 and Annual 2016: Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 1.9% in the 4Q2016; in 3Q2016 the GDP increased 3.5%. CPI: Rose 2.1% in 2016: A larger increase than the 0.8% rise in 2014 and the 0.7% advance in 2015. This also represented a larger increase than the 1.8% average annual increase over the past 10 years. Inflation: 2.4% at the end of 2017 from 2% at the end of 2016. (Kiplinger) Interest Rates: Reserve officials raised interest rates for the first time in 2017 and forecast a steeper path for borrowing costs in 2017. Minimum Wage: In 2017, increased in 20 States. In California the minimum wage rose .50 cents to $10.50 and is expected to affect 1.7 million people. Unemployment: The U.S. unemployment rate rose by 0.1 percentage point to 4.7% in December and 4.8% in January. California’s unemployment rate fell by 0.1 percentage point to 5.2% in December, following a 0.2% decline in November. California Job Forecast for 2017: Similar to 2016 but with more jobs openings, pressure to raise salaries and hourly rates of pay, and technology sectors that remain vibrant. U.S. Sales for Retail and Food Services for December: $469.1 billion, an increase of 0.6% from the previous month, and 4.1% above December 2015. Total sales for the 12 months of 2016 were up 3.3% from 2015. The food at home index, which fell 0.4% in 2015, decreased 2.0% in 2016. This is the first time the food at home index declined in consecutive years since it declined four years in a row from 1952 through 1955. California Retail Sales and Use Tax for January 2017: $1.17 billion for January outpaced expectations in the governor’s proposed 2017-18 budget by $376.8 million, or 47.4%. For the fiscal year to date, sales tax receipts of $13.23 billion are $96.7 million above the revised estimates released in January, or 0.7%. Alcohol Index for January: Increased 0.2%. 2016 Holiday Spending: For November and December 2016 was $935.3 billion, up 4.0% from the same two months in 2015 ($899.2 billion). The comparable growth rate from 2014 to 2015 was 2.2%. Sharing Economy: Projections show that five key sharing sectors – travel, car sharing, finance, staffing and music and video streaming – have the potential to increase global revenues from roughly $15 billion today to around $335 billion by 2025. (Pricewaterhouse Cooper) E-commerce sales for 4Q2016: For the U.S. $102.7 billion, an increase of 1.9% from 3Q2016. Total retail sales for the 4Q2016 were estimated at $1,235.5 billion, an increase of 1.9% from 3Q2016 and were outpaced by e-commerce sales. The 4Q2016 e-commerce estimate increased 14.3% from the 4Q2015 while total retail sales increased 4.1% in the same period. E-commerce sales in 4Q 2016 accounted for 8.3% of total sales. California: Would be approximately 13-14% the total sales, based on California’s portion of the national economy. Internet Economy: Comprised approximately 6% of GDP in 2014 and has continued to grow rapidly, driving innovation at a faster rate than we have ever seen in human history. The paper estimates that [mobile internet & app services] contribution to the US GDP is approximately 3.11%. More than 3.2 billion people use the internet. (Internet Association) California’s Cannabis Economy: A projected $7 billion potential pot economy in California with an expected $1 billion in state and local annual taxes. (Fortune) New and Used Vehicles: New cars continued to rise modestly, up 0.3% in 2016 following a 0.2% increase in 2015 and a 0.5% advance in 2014. Used cars and trucks, which increased in 2015, fell 3.5% in 2016. Auto loan delinquencies: Subprime auto loans at least 90 days delinquent hit 1.95% in 3Q2016, up from 1.86% the year before. Gasoline Index for January 2017: Increased 7.8%. Gasoline Prices in California: AAA shows (February 10, 2017) the national average price of self-serve regular at $2.26 per gallon (December 16, 2016 MuniServices reported $2.15). Mortgage Rates: The average rate for a 30-year mortgage rose to 4.12% from 3.5%. The NAR expects rates to rise by 4.4% by the end of 2017 and 4.8 in 2018. Housing National Forecast for 2017: Realtor.com® is forecasting the homeownership rate will stabilize at 63.5% after bottoming at 62.9% in 2016. Attachment D ECONOMIC NEWS & TRENDS February 17, 2017 3 www.MuniServices.com SECTION 1 - U.S. ECONOMY U.S. Economy and Indicators / CPI http://www.census.gov; http://www.census.gov/retail/marts/www/marts_current.pdf; https://www.census.gov/economic- indicators/; https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/qgsp_newsrelease.htm (released February 2, 2017; next release May 11, 2017); https://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm; http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Economics/Economic_and_Revenue_Updates/documents/2017/Feb-17.pdf; https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm; U.S. GDP: Rose 1.6% in 2016, following a 2.6-percent increase in 2015. CPI: Picked up pace in 2016, rising 2.1% in the U.S. and 2.5% in California. For the U.S. in January 2017 increased 0.6%; all items index rose 2.5% over the last 12 months. Retail Trade: Up 0.8% November 2016, and up 4.3% from last year. Non-Store Retailers: Up 13.2% from December 2015, miscellaneous stores were up 7.1% from last year. Sales for Retail and Food Services for December: $469.1 billion, an increase of 0.6% from the previous month, and 4.1% above December 2015. Total sales for the 12 months of 2016 were up 3.3% from 2015. CPI for January 2017 Gasoline: Increased 7.8%. Construction for December 2016: 4.2% above the December 2015 estimate of $1,133.7 billion. The value of construction in 2016 was $1,162.4 billion, 4.5% above the $1,112.4 billion spent in 2015. CPI for January 2017 Food and Alcohol: Had been unchanged for 6 consecutive months, increased 0.1%. Tourism Spending: Accelerated in 3Q2016, increasing at an annual rate of 5.0% after increasing 4.5%. Increased Mortgage Rates: The average rate for a 30- year mortgage has risen to 4.12% from 3.5% before the election in November. Realtors expect rates to rise by 4.4% by the end of 2017 and 4.8 in 2018. Consumer Price Index (CPI) Year in Review for 2017 https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm CPI: Rose 2.1% in 2016: A larger increase than the 0.8% rise in 2014 and the 0.7% advance in 2015. This represents a larger increase than the 1.8% average annual increase over the past 10 years. Energy and Gasoline: The gasoline index increased 9.1% in 2016 after sharp decreases in 2015 and 2014. Energy rose 5.4% in 2016; after declining in 2015 and 2014. Shelter: Rose 3.6% in 2016 after increasing 3.2% in 2015, 2.9% in 2014, and 2.5% in 2013. Apparel: Declined slightly in 2016. Falling 0.1%, its third consecutive yearly decline. Rent: Rose 4.0% in 2016. While the index for owners' equivalent rent increased 3.6%. Medical Care: Rose 2.6% in 2015 increased 4.1% in 2016; largest December-to-December increase since 2007. Motor Vehicle Insurance: Rose 7.0% in 2016; largest annual rise since 2002. Tobacco and Alcohol: Tobacco rose 3.6%, and the alcoholic beverages index increased 1.4%. New and Used Vehicles: New cars continued to rise modestly, increasing 0.3% in 2016 following a 0.2-percent increase in 2015 and a 0.5-percent advance in 2014. Used cars and trucks, which increased in 2015, fell 3.5% in 2016. Attachment D ECONOMIC NEWS & TRENDS February 17, 2017 4 www.MuniServices.com Services Sector for 3Q2016 https://www.census.gov/services/qss/qss-current.pdf Total Revenue: 3Q2016 was $3,512.5 billion, an increase of 1.6% from 2Q2016 and up 5.3% from 3Q2015. Utilities: $150.9 billion, an increase of 20.2% from 2Q2016 and up 1.8% from the 3Q2015. Transportation and Warehousing: $221.8 billion, an increase of 2.2% from the 2Q2016 and down 1.1% from 3Q2015. Real Estate and Rental and Leasing: $170.8 billion, an increase of 2.7% from 2Q2016 of 2016 and up 7.2% from 3Q2015. Educational Services: $16.1 billion, a decrease of 7.2% from 2Q2016 and up 6.2% from 3Q2015. Health Care and Social Assistance: $608.8 billion, a decrease of 1.5% from 2Q2016 and up 5.4% from 3Q2015. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation: $67.2 billion, an increase of 7.0% from 2Q2016 and up 7.8% from 3Q 2015. Accommodation: $65.1 billion, an increase of 6.5% from 2Q2016 and up variation, or price changes, was $65.1 billion, an increase of 6.5% from 2Q2016 and up 7.4% from 3Q2015. U.S. Economic Forecasts http://www.kiplinger.com/tool/business/T019-S000-kiplinger-s-economic-outlooks/index.php; http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/outlook-2017/index.html?videoId=147308 GDP Growth: 2.1% for 2017 versus 1.6% for full-year 2016 (Kiplinger); 2 ¼ (Goldman Sachs) Strong Dollar: Currently the strongest it has been since 1986, will remain strong in 2017 (University of Virginia) Interest Rates: 10-year T-notes up to 3% from 2% at the end of 2016 (Kiplinger) Rate Hikes: Upward pressures with three interest rate hikes from the Federal Reserve (Goldman Sachs) Unemployment: Ending 2017 at 4.5% from 4.8% now (Kiplinger) Crude Oil: Trading from $55 to $60 / bbl in May (Kiplinger) Retail Sales: Up 3.9% excluding gasoline, in 2017 from a 3.8% rise in 2016 (Kiplinger) Employment: Modest employment overheating which means upward pressure on inflation (Goldman Sachs) Economic policies from Washington: Tax reform, fiscal easing, infrastructure spending (Kiplinger) Regulation Rollback: Repealing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed to regulate financial institutions after the 2008 financial crisis. (University of Virginia) Housing Market: Banks less restrained; offsetting may be limits on mortgage interest deduction that could affect the favorability of home ownership (University of Virginia) SECTION 2 - CALIFORNIA ECONOMY / FISCAL FOCUS http://controller.ca.gov/ard_state_cash_summaries.html; (February 2017) http://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Economics/Economic_and_Revenue_Updates/ (February 2017) CPI: Rising 2.1% in the U.S. & 2.5% in California. January Revenues: $15.04 billion for January beat projections in the proposed 2017-18 budget by $884.4 million, or 6.2%. Retail Sales and Use Tax for January 2017: $1.17 billion for January outpaced the governor’s proposed 2017-18 budget by $376.8 million, or 47.4%. For the fiscal year to date, sales tax receipts of $13.23 billion are $96.7 million above the revised estimates released in January, or 0.7%. Personal Income Tax: January PIT of $13.27 billion topped projections in the governor’s proposed budget by $237.2 million, or 1.8%. In the current fiscal year. California has collected total PIT receipts of $47.85 billion, 1.0% shy of January’s revised estimate. Corporation Tax: Fiscal year-to-date corporation tax receipts of $3.65 billion are $211.5 million above projections in the proposed 2017-18 budget, or 6.1%. Attachment D ECONOMIC NEWS & TRENDS February 17, 2017 5 www.MuniServices.com 2017 California Economic Forecast http://californiaforecast.com/monthly-newsletter/ http://www.efp.ucsb.edu/ Jobs: Similar to 2016 but with more jobs openings, more pressure to raise salaries and hourly rates of pay, and technology sectors that remain vibrant. The world economy is growing fast with demand for technology services and microprocessors. Retail: With record levels of population, employment, and income, greater levels of spending on goods and services is inevitable. Visitor / Tourism: More domestic demand for California vacations will occur in 2017, and much of this will offset the reduction in foreign visitors who find California (and the rest of the U.S.) too expensive. Jobs / Immigration: If immigration laws are tightened and undocumented workers are deported, then the state’s agricultural, construction, and hospitality sectors will experience labor shortages. This will prompt higher wages and salaries and higher rates of inflation in California. California Housing http://www.car.org/marketdata/marketforecast/ California Housing Forecast for 2017: Following modest gains in home sales in 2016, California’s housing market will post a nominal increase in 2017, as supply shortages and affordability constraints hamper market activity. The C.A.R. forecast sees a slight increase in existing home sales of 0.8% next year to reach 419,600 units. Real Estate: Sales of existing single-family homes in California slowed in December, with sales volume down from both the previous month and year by 7% and 0.6%, respectively, to a seasonally adjusted annualized rate of 411,230 units. For 2016 as a whole, 416,250 single-family homes were sold in California, up 1.7% from 2015. Median Home Price: In December increased by 1.5% from the previous month and 3.9% from December 2015 to $509,060. For 2016 as a whole, the median home price climbed 5.4% to reach $502,250. SECTION 3 – AUTO SALES California Car Sale Trends / California New Car Dealers Association 3Q2016 http://www.cncda.org/CMS/Pubs/CA%20Auto%20Outlook%203Q%202016.pdf California New Car YTD: 3Q2016 (867,798) / 3Q2015 (918,835) or a -5.6%. California Registrations YTD: YTD 2016 (1,548,716) / YTD 2016 (1,577,327) or a +1.8%. New Retail Light Vehicle Registrations: Increased 2.1% during the first nine months of this year. Retail Car Registrations: Declined 5.8%, while light trucks (consisting of pickups, SUVs, and vans) surged 13.7%. Used Vehicle Market: Up 7.4% for the first six months of this year; the increase slipped to just 0.7% after nine months. Registrations for six year old or newer vehicles were about 933,000 units during the first nine months of this year, 60% of the new vehicle total. Attachment D ECONOMIC NEWS & TRENDS February 17, 2017 6 www.MuniServices.com National Auto Forecast/ CPI http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=73755530 ; https://www.nada.org/steven-szakaly-auto-sales-forecast- 2017/; https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm; http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimhenry/2016/12/31/why-its-ok- auto-loan-delinquencies-are-trending-up-for-2017/#46c06e545f52; http://browndigital.bpc.com/publication/frame.php?i=375579&p=&pn=&ver=flex; http://www.wsj.com/articles/warning- light-flashes-on-auto-loans-1478632602?mod=rss_markets_main January 2017 National CPI: Use Cars and Trucks: Declined 0.4% after increasing in 2016; New Vehicles: Increased slightly, rising 0.9%. Light-Vehicle Sales: 17.1 million light-vehicle sales in 2017; 2016 volume to finish at 17.4 million, just missing the 2015 record of 17.47 million. January 2017 Sales: U.S. auto sales slipped 2% in January compared with the same period a year ago. Discounts and rebates equaled $3,635 per car on average in December far exceeding incentive spending in January 2016 and representing a 10% discount off the asking price. Franchised Dealers: Will sell more used vehicles. New Car Dealerships: Expected to retail 15.3 million used vehicles in 2017, compared to an expected 15.1 million used sales in 2016. Total Used Vehicle Market: Will exceed 40 million retail sales in 2017. Delinquencies Could Reach 1.4% in 2017: Expected to increase in year-end 2017. Subprime auto loans at least 90 days delinquent hit 1.95% in 3Q 2016, up from 1.86% the year before. (Kiplinger, January 19, 2017). Consumer Price Index for December 2016: Along with the shelter index, the indexes for motor vehicle insurance, medical care, education, airline fares, used cars and trucks, and new vehicles were among the indexes that increased. SECTION 4 - GASOLINE Gasoline prices rose late last year (increased 1.8% in December) at a time when prices at the pump normally go down. The normal decrease is because the nation's refineries have completed the switch-over to winter grade gasoline, which is cheaper to produce. Consumers also tend to drive less in the late fall and early winter, reducing demand. Gasoline Prices in California: AAA shows (February 10, 2017) the national average price of self-serve regular at $2.26 per gallon (note in MuniServices December 16, 2016 report, we reported $2.15). California Gas Prices as of February 10, 2017 is showing gas prices at some California locations at $2.29 per gallon (MuniServices in December 16, 2016 reported $1.99) and a high at $5.03 (South San Francisco). National Average: Although the average remains flat compared to one week ago (from February 10, 2017), drivers are paying ten cents less per gallon month-over-month, and 52 cents more per gallon year-over-year. Pump prices have been pressured higher overall due to cuts in oil production globally, but increased U.S. production and low demand has led to a leveling out of prices over the last couple of weeks. Demand: The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) latest weekly estimates of U.S. gasoline demand show that January 2017 figures are down 6% from January 2016 and are at their lowest standing for the first month of the year since 2012. http://gasprices.aaa.com/gas-prices-remain-stable-despite-record-low-demand/ Oil Consumption Impact on the Economy: There has been significant focus recently on increasing oil production, but too little on the economic and energy-security benefits of reducing oil consumption. Americans consume less oil than they did in 2008, even as the economy and miles traveled grew by more than 10% and 5%, respectively. Because America uses more than 20% of the world’s oil, our reduced demand has played an important role in lowering global prices. With the average gasoline price in the U.S. down to $2.38 a gallon (at the time of the article), American families are saving more than $1,000 each year. https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-using-less-oil-helps-the-economy-1484611447 Attachment D ECONOMIC NEWS & TRENDS February 17, 2017 7 www.MuniServices.com SECTION 5 - RETAIL AND E-COMMERCE SALES AND TRENDS E-commerce Sales for 4Q2016 https://www.census.gov/retail/mrts/www/data/pdf/ec_current.pdf (February 17, 2017); https://ycharts.com/indicators/ecommerce_sales_as_percent_retail_sales E-commerce sales for 4Q2016: For the U.S. $102.7 billion, an increase of 1.9% from 3Q2016. Total retail sales for the 4Q2016 were estimated at $1,235.5 billion, an increase of 1.9% from 3Q2016 and were outpaced by e-commerce sales. The 4Q2016 e-commerce estimate increased 14.3% from the 4Q2015 while total retail sales increased 4.1% in the same period. E-commerce sales in 4Q 2016 accounted for 8.3% of total sales. California: Would be approximately 13-14% the total sales, based on California’s portion of the national economy. Please contact your MuniServices Client Manager for specific impact. Holiday Season Sales (November and December 2016) http://www.census.gov/retail/marts/www/marts_current.pdf 2016 Holiday Spending: $935.3 billion, up 4.0% from the same two months in 2015 ($899.2 billion). The comparable growth rate for the holiday seasons from 2014 to 2015 was 2.2%. Total Retail and Food Services: Excluding the gasoline stations component, total retail and food services sales for the 2016 holiday season were up 3.9%, which was not different from the 2014 to 2015 increase of 4.2%. Non-Store Retailers: Holiday spending jumped 12.8%; 2016 trend was the highest in the past five years. Consumer Spending in 2016 https://www.wsj.com/articles/cars-gasoline-lifted-u-s-retail-sales-0-6-in-december-1484314510 Consumption of Goods and Services: Two-thirds of all U.S. output goes to goods and services consumed by U.S. households, making the pace of consumer spending a key gauge of economic vitality. Reasons for Spending: Worker wages have grown more quickly over the past year after a long period of stagnant growth, with average hourly earnings up 2.9% in December from a year earlier. Living costs for everyday items such as gasoline, continue to grow modestly, giving people more money for shopping and travel. 2016 Review: American consumers finished 2016 spending at a solid pace, splurging on cars and pouring money into online shopping during the holidays. Retail Sales: Sales at U.S. retailers rose 0.6% in December from a month earlier, the eighth monthly increase in nine months, helping to extend the economy’s long expansion. Retail sales rose 3.3% in all of 2016, faster than the prior year’s gain of 2.3% and similar to the underlying trend during the expansion. Household Wealth: Households collectively spent 10% of their disposable income in 3Q2016 paying down debt, hovering close to the lowest level since record-keeping began in 1980. Online Stores: Consumers continued to turn to e-commerce retailers such as Amazon.com Inc.; 2016 spending rose 11% at online retailers and fell almost 6% at department stores. Macy’s, Kohl’s Corp., J.C. Penney and Sears Holdings Corp. each reported a drop in holiday sales. Attachment D ECONOMIC NEWS & TRENDS February 17, 2017 8 www.MuniServices.com State of the Retail Industry in 2017 https://nrf.com/news/the-state-of-the-retail-industry-2017 Jobs: Retail supports 1 in 4 American jobs. United States: 3,793,621 retail establishments; 42 million jobs supported, and $2.6 trillion in total GDP impact. California: 418,840 retail establishments; 4,713,568 jobs supported, and $330 billion in total GDP impact. Motor vehicles and parts dealers GDP in millions at $13,826 (26,229 retail establishments). Food and beverage stores GDP in millions at $18,650 (29,877 retail establishments); Gasoline stations GDP in millions at $5,694 (6,717 retail establishments); Sporting goods, hobby, book and music stores GDP in millions at $3,505 (12,991 retail establishments); and Food services and drinking places GDP in millions at $40,220 (97,094 retail establishments). Refer to the NRF website for a comprehensive look at GDP value by major industry in the State as well as direct impact of the retail industry by subsector in California. Retail Trends Post Holiday Consignment: As much as 30% of online holiday purchases are returned compared with about 10% of holiday purchases overall. Internet apparel retail sales, including secondhand sites, will jump from $52.9 billion in 2016 to $59.6 billion in 2017 and $78.8 billion by 2020. https://www.wsj.com/articles/online-consignment-shops-clean-up-after-the- holidays-1484575200 Valentine’s Day 2017: Consumers are expected to spend an average $136.57. Total spending is expected to reach $18.2 billion, down from $19.7 billion last year, which was a record. Retail Arbitrage: People touring the country in RVs are financing life on the road with ‘retail arbitrage,’ buying odds and ends in small-town stores and flipping them for a profit on Amazon. These deal hunters use barcode-scanning and price- comparison apps to calculate their expected profits and turn their RVs, some the size of Manhattan apartments, into mobile retail-distribution centers, sometimes with children in tow. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-secret-to-a-career-in-an-rv- always-be-reselling-1483548712 Pet Industry is Economic Powerhouse: The pet industry generated more than $221 billion and supported over 1.3 million U.S. jobs in 2015. Consumers spend over $77 billion on their pets annually. http://www.usmayors.org/pets/default.asp. https://petleadershipcouncil.org/press-releases/new-study-pet-industry-is-economic-powerhouse; Super Bowl Spending and Late Tax Refunds: Last year, the week before the Super Bowl brought in $395 million in U.S. TV sales and the following week $353 million, making the stretch one of the biggest sales periods after Black Friday. There is uncertainty with this year’s results because of delayed tax returns. http://www.morningstar.com/advisor/t/118323673/the-taxman-misses-kickoff-wsj.htm Mall Closures/ Retail Mall Vacancies: In 4Q2016 mall vacancies were flat from the third at 7.8%, indicating that the retail real estate market if finally showing signs of correction. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-property-usa-malls- idUSKBN14Q0CJHurdles Facing Retailers in 2017: Vertical farms in urban locales and hydrophonic conditions. Growth of retail e-commerce, which is responsible for most growth in food sales. Consolidation which creates distraction strategies like reduced store counts and square footage. Shoppers who seek value more than anything. Amazon’s expansion with groceries and Prime Now. https://www.iddba.org/IDDBA/media/research/trends-report/whats-in-store/whats-in-store-2017-executive-summary.pdf Changing Economy Sharing Economy: Projections show that five key sharing sectors – travel, car sharing, finance, staffing and music and video streaming – have the potential to increase global revenues from roughly $15 billion today to around $335 billion by 2025. Pricewaterhouse Cooper Attachment D ECONOMIC NEWS & TRENDS February 17, 2017 9 www.MuniServices.com Sales of Web Connection: Global tally of connected devices are 6 million today and will be pushed to more than 20 billion by 2020. Kiplinger, 12/9/16 Gig Economy Data: In 2005, contingent workers accounted for roughly 2 to 4 percent of all workers. About 7 percent of workers were independent contractors, the most common alternative employment arrangement, in that year. BLS plans to collect these data again in May 2017. Pew Research SECTION 6 - RESTAURANT TRENDS http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/travel/food-trends-2017/index.html; ttp://www.calrest.org/newsroom/pizza-on-the- forefront-of-automation-in-the-restaurant-industry Social Responsibility: Chefs will be committed to addressing issues including food waste and sharing food. E-Commerce: The e-commerce mania has spread to food industry. Root-to-Stem Style: Waste based cooking. The amount of food lost and wasted every year is equal to more than half of the world’s annual cereals crops. Vegetarian Food: Eating more vegetables in the main course will be a preferred trend of 2017. Robots: Using robots to make pizza and other items. SECTION 7 - SELECTED 2017 REGIONAL ECONOMIC FORECASTS Bay Area: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2016/12 /28/2017-forecast-economists-downturn-reckoning.html North Bay: http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/industrynews/ 6672089-181/north-bay-economy-jobs-growth-california- us?artslide=0 Central Valley: http://www.pacific.edu/Documents/school- business/BFC/Forecasts/CA-Metro-Forecast-Jan2017- V2.pdf Sacramento: http://www.cbaweb.cba.csus.edu/sacbusinessreview/Sac ramento_Business_Review/Archives_files/SBR_Report_Ja n16Web.pdf Los Angeles: https://beaconecon.com/products/regional_outlook_los_ angeles San Diego: http://www.sandiegometro.com/2017/01/california- economic-forecast-2017/ CLIENT SERVICE TEAM Larry.Bergkamp@MuniServicse.com (Senior Advisor / Cannabis) Patricia.Dunn@MuniServices.com (Contracts) Julia.Erdkamp@MuniServices.com (Client Service Manager, Southern California) Mary.Flynn@MuniServices.com (Client Service Manager) Robert.Hamud@MuniServices.com (Client Service Manager) Doug.Jensen@MuniServices.com (Senior Vice President, Client Services) Jeff.Kolin@MuniServices.com (Senior Advisor) Fran.Mancia@MuniServices.com (Vice President, Government Relations) Brenda.Narayan@MuniServices.com (Economic News & Trends / Policy Research & Reports) Marina.Sloan@MuniServices.com (Client Service Manager) Attachment D City of Palo Alto (ID # 8118) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/22/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: PAFD Performance Report FY17 Q3 Title: Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly Performance Report for the Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2017 From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council review the Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly Performance Report for the Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2017. Background and Discussion In Fiscal Year 2015 the Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) identified performance reporting as a key initiative, and began reporting on key performance measures quarterly. The report provides overall calls for service information, as well as more detailed information on the key service areas, including Emergency Medical Services, Fire Suppression, Rescue and Hazardous Materials Response, and Fire Prevention. The report also provides information on mutual and automatic aid with our regional public safety partners and internal workforce planning efforts. Performance measures include the following: Calls for Service: This data provides information on the final outcome of all emergency response calls. The data is tracked in the Fire Department’s Record Management System, and uses standardized call type codes, which are defined by the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). The report includes overall call volume by primary category, and a detailed listing of call type in the service type sections. Response Times: This aspect measures the time it takes from an emergency call or request for response being created in the dispatch center to the arrival of resources to the scene of the emergency. This information is tracked in the City of Palo Alto Page 2 Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System, and the performance goals, or service levels, are set by Council in accordance with county and national standards. Ambulance Transports: The report provides the number of ambulatory transports to hospitals or other medical care facilities, and the proportion of Emergency Medical Calls that included transports. This information is tracked in the Fire Department’s Emergency Medical Record Management System. Fire Containment: This measures the proportion of building and structure fires that are contained to the area or room of origin within Palo Alto and Stanford Campus. Mutual and Automatic Aid: This includes the number and proportion of all incidents in which the PAFD provided aid to neighboring communities, as well as the aid received from neighboring Fire Departments. This information is tracked in the CAD System. Permits: This provides the count of facility, electric vehicle, and solar permits issued by the Fire Prevention Bureau. This information is currently tracked in the Development Center’s Records Management System. Inspections: A count of the total number of Hazardous Materials and State Mandated inspections is provided. In addition, an estimated number of inspections to be completed for the year is also provided to assess overall workload performance to date. Fire and Life Safety Plans Reviewed: This provides a total count of all plans reviewed, as well as the proportion of plans that were reviewed within the time guidelines. Vacancies and Off-Line Employees: This section provides the total number of budgeted full-time equivalent line personnel, current vacancies, and employees that are off line from workers compensation or light duty. This information is obtained from the Fire Department’s Staffing and Scheduling System (TeleStaff), as well as the City’s Personnel Management System. Succession Planning Metrics: This provides the number and proportion of line personnel that are eligible to retire, or will be eligible within the next five years. This information is tracked in the City’s Personnel Management System. This report also provides the total number of hours line personnel have spent in an acting capacity. Personnel serving in an acting capacity are a key component of the Department’s overall succession planning efforts. Acting capacity allows junior officers to learn the responsibilities of higher ranks with guidance from senior officers. This information is tracked in TeleStaff. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Training hours: The total number of training hours completed by all line personnel is provided, as well as the average number of hours per each line personnel on staff. This information is tracked in the Fire Department’s Record Management System. Local, State and Federal mandates require fire personnel to train a minimum of 20 hours per month. Attachments: ATTACHMENT A: Coverletter Draft FY17Q3 ATTACHMENT B: FY17Q3 Report FINAL ATTACHMENT C: Thank You Letters ATTACHMENT D: EMS Customer Survey P.O Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2184 650.327.6951 fax City of Palo Alto Fire Department Honorable Councilmembers, I am pleased to provide the third quarterly Performance Report of Fiscal Year 2017. This quarter we continue to see an increase in our overall call volume, particularly for Emergency Medical Service Calls. This increase is primarily seen for Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Calls that do not require transport. This is the first quarter that the proportion of transports dipped below seventy percent (70%), with transports representing sixty-four percent (64%) of all EMS calls. The Department incurs expenses associated with treating patients but only recovers costs when patients are transported to a hospital. The Department is exploring revenue-generating options for these treat and non-transport patients. While the number of fires decreased in the quarter, the severity of the fires increased and are important to note. The fires occurred on successive days and four of the fires exceeded the capacity of the Palo Alto Fire Department’s on-duty staffing of 27 personnel. One fire, the three-alarm structure fire and hazardous materials incident at the Stanford Medical School, required an effective response force of 61 personnel. This quarter also marked a milestone in the number of employees eligible to retire in the near future. Half of the entire line personnel (51%) is now eligible to retire in within the next five years. Twenty seven employees are currently eligible to retire. The Department is preparing for this turn-over and is actively engaged in creating a new hire list and recently completed a promotional exam. We are also collaborating with Human Resources to explore new recruiting and hiring methods to streamline the process and enable the creation of a new hiring list annually. I am grateful to our employees for their hard work and dedication, and recognize the commitment they have to excellence in their profession. The commitment of those employees that choose to stay with us and continue their hard work even though they are eligible to retire solidifies their dedication to serving our community. Sincerely, Eric Nickel, EFO, CFC, CFO Fire Chief P.O Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2184 650.327.6951 fax City of Palo Alto Fire Department 1 | P a g e Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly Performance Report Fiscal Year 2017, Third Quarter Calls for Service The Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) responded to a total of 2,318 calls for service in the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2017. This includes responses within Palo Alto, Stanford, and neighboring cities to provide Auto and Mutual Aid. Approximately eighty-one percent (81%) of calls are generated from Palo Alto, thirteen percent (13%) from Stanford, and the remainder from neighboring cities or requests for regional fire deployment. The majority of calls were for Emergency Medical Services, making up sixty-two percent (62%) of the responses. Table 1 below shows the main categories of the calls to which PAFD responded. Calls are classified based on the actual event occurred, rather than the initial call request. Table 1. Calls for Service Type FY16 Q3 FY17 Q3 Emergency Medical Service 1348 1447 Good Intent 377 343 False Alarm & False Call 206 300 Service Call 102 136 Rescue & Hazardous Material 57 62 Fire 43 29 Severe Weather & Natural Disaster 0 1 Grand Total 2133 2318 Good Intent and False Alarm calls make up the second largest types of responses. Most calls for service that may be a true threat of fire, gas or other emergency hazard are actually found to be something else after Firefighters investigate the situation. These calls are coded as Good Intent calls. As well, many fire alarm activations are from causes other than fire or emergency hazard. These situations are categorized as False Alarm calls. Emergency Medical Services Emergency Medical Service (EMS) is the primary service that the Palo Alto Fire Department provides to Palo Alto and Stanford. While this shift toward EMS is being seen across the region, the Palo Alto Fire Department is the only Fire Department in the County that provides ambulance and transport services. Of the 1,447 Emergency Medical Service calls the PAFD responded to in the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2017, the overwhelming majority were for medical, trauma and cardiac calls that did not involve a vehicle accident. There was an eight percent (8%) increase over the same quarter last year for these types of calls. Table 2. EMS Performance Measures 2 | P a g e Calls for Service FY16 Q3 FY17 Q3 NFIRS Code Description 321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 1237 1342 322 Vehicle accident with injuries 81 62 324 Motor vehicle accident with no injuries 17 30 323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident 10 10 381 Rescue or EMS standby 3 3 Total 1348 1447 Transports Number of Transports 951 921 Percent of EMS Calls resulting in transport 70.5% 63.6% Response Times Percent of first responder arriving on scene to EMS calls within 8 minutes 91.7% 95.5% Percent of paramedic responder arriving on scene to EMS calls within 12 minutes 99.0% 99.2% Median response time for first responder arriving on scene to EMS calls 04:56 04:36 Most EMS calls (64%) resulted in an ambulance transport to a local hospital or care facility. This is the primary source of revenue generated from emergency medical services, and revenue received in this quarter is on track with budget projections. Response Time Goal Met: At least 90% of first responder arriving on scene to EMS calls within 8 minutes. This quarter the PAFD first responder arrived on scene to EMS calls within 8 minutes ninety-five percent (95%) of the time. Response Time Goal Met: At least 99% of paramedic responder arriving on scene to EMS calls within 12 minutes. This quarter the PAFD paramedic responder arrived on scene to EMS calls within 12 minutes ninety-nine percent (99%) of the time. Fire Suppression Very few of the potential fire calls coming into dispatch turn out to be a real fire once PAFD investigates the scene and cause of the concerning elements. This quarter PAFD responded to 29 calls where fire was present, with 3 occurring in neighboring cities. The main incidents during this quarter occurred during the month of March, and included a structure fire on the 800 block of El Camino Real on March 10. Engine 61 arrived on scene and saw smoke flowing from a vent on the roof. The smoke was coming out the front door and the building was evacuated. The fire was extinguished by a sprinkler head in the rear storage closet and workroom. The fire appeared to have started at the water heater and spread to cardboard storage boxes. Crews ventilated the building, and after the smoke cleared and the CO level dropped to acceptable levels, the scene was turned over to the fire inspectors and the building responsible. The next day a three-alarm fire and hazardous materials incident occurred at Stanford University Medical School. Engine 66 was dispatched the first responder, and upgraded the response to a full first alarm after confirming the presence of fire. Crews discovered light smoke in the hallway and water coming out of one of the rooms. There was also a blackened security window and a small amount of 3 | P a g e heat detectable with the Thermal Imaging Camera (TIC). The crews made entry and found a fire burning in a laboratory hood that had extended into the hidden attic space. After the fire was extinguished, crews checked for any fire extension in the walls and ceiling. The room was clear of fire, although it was discovered that the original fire had penetrated the ceiling and burst a water pipe above the room. A fire investigation concluded that the substance which burned was completely consumed and it is not clear what started the fire in the hood. A total of 61 firefighters from departments throughout the area responded to this significant incident. The following week, another structure fire occurred on the 600 block of Toyon Place. E64 arrived on scene of a fire in a residential building. There was smoke and flames showing from the back corner of the home at the master bedroom. The Fire Attack group was able to access the fire, but had to pull ceiling and walls to “chase” the fire, which had penetrated to the attic through a recessed light. It appeared that lit incense in a shrine at the corner of the master bedroom may have caused the fire. There was moderate fire damage to the materials in room, but damage was isolated to the room and contents of origin. On March 19, a two-alarm fire occurred on the 300 block of Seale Ave. Battalion 66 arrived first on scene to a single-story home showing heavy flames and smoke coming from the roof. Engine 61 made entry and found fire burning in the kitchen area at the rear of the home. The fire was already quite advanced which indicated that it had been burning for quite some time before the fire department was notified by passersby. The home was searched for persons and an “all clear” was declared, indicating that no one was home at the time of the fire. The fire was successfully knocked down within 20 minutes, and Engine 63 assisted in retrieving as much of the occupants’ property as possible. It was determined that the fire started in the kitchen on the stove top. The fire consumed the entire kitchen and reached a flashpoint prior to being extinguished by fire crews. The fire extended into the attic via the false ceiling and skylight well. Prior to the flashpoint the plastic skylight had burned through and the kitchen window broke thus creating a wind driven fire. The final structure fire in the quarter occurred at Veterans Hospital on March 24. Engine 65 responded to a water flow alarm at the Veterans Hospital at an “out” building. Veterans Administration Police stated that building was full of smoke and the fire alarm was sounding. Crews opened the door and found the building full of grey smoke from floor to ceiling, triggering a request for a full structure response. Engine 65 advanced a hose line into the structure through the door. Visibility was 1 to 2 feet in all directions. Truck 66 made entry and forced the interior upstairs door, while Engine 64 pulled a second hose and searched the first floor for any occupants. Crews located a small fire burning in the middle of a large work shop in a 4000 square foot building. The fire was kept under control by an activated sprinkler head. Crews extinguished the fire and overhauled the building, removing the majority of the water. The building was turned over to Palo Alto Veterans Administration, building engineers and their safety division. Table 3. Fire Performance Measures 4 | P a g e Calls for Service FY16 Q3 FY17 Q3 NFIRS Code Description 113 Cooking fire, confined to container 12 8 111 Building fire 12 6 154 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 6 3 131 Passenger vehicle fire 4 3 100 Fire, other 3 2 150 Outside rubbish fire, other 0 2 118 Trash or rubbish fire, contained 0 2 140 Natural vegetation fire, other 2 1 114 Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or flue 0 1 132 Road freight or transport vehicle fire 0 1 142 Brush, or brush and grass mixture fire 1 0 130 Mobile property fire, other 1 0 132 Road freight or transport vehicle fire 1 0 161 Outside storage fire 1 0 Total 43 29 Response Times Percent of first responder arriving on scene to Fire calls within 8 minutes 86.8% 87.7% Median response time for first responder arriving on scene to Fire calls 05:43 05:12 Fire Containment Percent of building and structure fires contained to the room or area of origin 78% 60% Response Time Goal Not Met: At least 90% of first responder arriving on scene to Fire calls within 8 minutes. This quarter the PAFD first responder arrived on scene to Fire calls within 8 minutes eighty-eight percent (88%) of the time. While, under the goal this is still an improvement from historical performance on this measure, which is typically near eighty-one percent (81%). The Fire Department has begun an operational readiness initiative that includes some adjustments to reduce response times. Fire Containment Goal Not Met: At least 90% of building and structure fires contained to the room or area of origin. This quarter there were five building fires within Palo Alto. The two fires that were not contained to room or area of origin were both residential home fires in Palo Alto. In both cases, the fire had spread from the original area despite a response time under 8 minutes. PAFD additionally responded to one building fire as mutual aid to Mountain View, however, the final confined to area information is unavailable. Rescue and Hazardous Materials The Fire Department responded to a total of 62 rescue and hazardous material calls. The most common rescue call is for the removal of victims from a stalled elevator, which accounts for thirty-one percent (31%) of these call types. The majority (68%) of these calls are for buildings on Stanford campus that had multiple incidents. Table 4. Rescue and Hazardous Materials Measures 5 | P a g e Calls for Service FY16 Q3 FY17 Q3 NFIRS Code Description 353 Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 18 19 400 Hazardous condition, other 7 8 331 Lock-in (if lock out , use 511 ) 3 7 440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem, other 0 4 412 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 8 3 463 Vehicle accident, general cleanup 4 3 411 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 2 3 444U Power line down - PA Utilities Related 1 3 422 Chemical spill or leak 2 2 444 Power line down 1 2 442 Overheated motor 0 2 443 Light ballast breakdown 0 1 445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 4 1 413 Oil or other combustible liquid spill 1 1 451 Biological hazard, confirmed or suspected 0 1 423 Refrigeration leak 0 1 421 Chemical hazard (no spill or leak) 0 1 412U Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) - PA Utilities Related 4 0 Total 57 62 Response Times Median response time for first responder arriving on scene to Rescue & Hazardous Materials calls 05:19 05:41 6 | P a g e Mutual and Automatic Aid The Fire Department has automatic aid agreements with five regional Fire Departments, including Mountain View, Menlo Park, Woodside, Los Altos, and Santa Clara County Fire. The PAFD primarily provides aid to Mountain View, and the data below shows the number of calls continues to increase from the prior fiscal year. The Deputy Chief of Operations communicates regularly with the Mountain View Fire Department to review the agreement and ensure Palo Alto’s resources are not overly relied upon. In this quarter, the PAFD provided mutual or automatic aid to three other jurisdictions on a total of 136 incidents. Six agencies provided mutual or automatic aid for calls within Palo Alto or Stanford on a total of 110 incidents. Table 5. Mutual and Automatic Aid Performance Measures Mutual and Auto Aid Provided FY16 Q3 FY17 Q3 Agency Mountain View Fire 85 111 Santa Clara County Fire 17 24 Menlo Park Fire 3 1 All Mutual and Auto Aid Provided 107 136 Mutual and Auto Aid Received Agency Mountain View Fire 91 75 Menlo Park Fire 13 20 Santa Clara County Fire 9 9 Woodside Fire 3 2 Moffet Fire 3 2 Santa Clara City Fire 0 2 All Mutual and Auto Aid Received 119 110 7 | P a g e Fire Prevention The Fire Prevention Bureau ensures compliance with the Fire Code for the safety of occupants and protection of property. Fire Inspectors perform fire sprinkler and fire alarm plan checks, permitting, and field inspections with the goal of ensuring all construction complies with local and national codes. The hazardous materials inspections for the year have increased this quarter from 440 reported in the last two quarters. This is from additional facilities identified and some businesses adding products that meet the threshold for inspection. The number of fire permits increased from this quarter last fiscal year, while the solar and electric vehicle permits saw a minimal decrease. The department continues to stay on track with State mandated inspections. Table 6. Prevention Bureau Performance Measures Permits FY16 Q3 FY17 Q3 Fire Permits Issued 135 196 Electric Vehicle Permits Issued 25 17 Solar Permits Issued 24 22 Inspections Hazardous Material Inspections Completed 113 113 Number of Hazardous Material Inspections for the year 207 584 Percent of Hazardous Material Facilities Inspections Complete to date 140% 51% State Mandated Inspections Completed 99 109 Number of State Mandated Inspections for the year 340 397 Percent of State Mandated Facilities Inspections Complete to date 87.6% 79.1% Fire and Life Safety Plan Review Plans Reviewed 435 497 Percent of Reviews Completed On-Time 97.0% 96.6% 8 | P a g e Workforce Planning The Department operates daily emergency response operations with a total of 96.00 FTE line personnel. This includes three battalions of crews that staff six stations in the City and Stanford 24 hours each day. Over the last quarter, the department has operated with 12.0 positions vacant and 7.0 employees off- line creating a total of 19.00 FTE positions that require backfilling. This quarter the Department had one retirement. The number of employees eligible to retire continues to grow, and the Department is focusing on creating a new hiring list. A new entry level testing process has begun with an expected list to be established in Fall of 2017. Once the position is posted it can take 9 to 12 months to complete the necessary review and selection procedures to create a new list. As additional employees leave or retire, the department may have to rely heavily on overtime over the next year. Table 7. Vacancies and Off-Line Employees FY16 Q3 Classification Budgeted FTE Vacancies Off-Line Employees (Workers Comp/Light Duty) Personnel On Line Percent of Personnel On Line Battalion Chief 4.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 100% Fire Captain 22.00 1.00 2.00 19.00 86% Fire Apparatus Operator & Fire Fighters 70.00 11.00 5.00 54.00 77% TOTAL 96.00 12.00 7.00 77.00 80% Table 8. Succession Planning FY16 Q3 FY17 Q3 Number of Line Personnel Currently Eligible to Retire 21 27 Number of Line Personnel Eligible to Retire in Five Years 20 19 Percent of all Line Personnel Eligible to Retire within Five Years 46.1% 51.1% Number of Acting Battalion Chief Hours 408 84 Number of Acting Captain Hours 1,474 2,762 Number of Acting Apparatus Operator Hours 6,493 7,469 Training Hours of Training Completed 9,617 8,770 Average Hours per Line Personnel 121.7 113.9 From: Christine Losq [mailto:christine_losq@clea-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 9:57 AM To: Yarbrough, Shane Subject: Thank you Hello Shane, I stopped by the Mayfield Fire House last week to thank everyone for their help during the last days that my husband was alive. He passed away on January 8. Knowing that help was at hand helped him pass away peacefully, his mind at rest that there is someone I can always call on when in need, even though we live way up here on the hill. We had four visits at our home from the fire house team in the last days of his life, on those days when hospice and private nursing care services were unavailable. The teams provided essential lift assists that mitigated his respiratory distress. The compassion of each person who came when I called was and continues to be a comfort. Please extend my personal thanks to the teams on December 28: Brent, Joe, and Captain Jen on January 1: Jesus (and two team members whose names I forgot to write down; you will know who you are) on January 2: Brent, Christie, and Jesus on January 3: Jesus, Adam, and Charles In gratitude, Christine Losq 4017 Page Mill Road ******************************* christine_losq@clea-inc.com cell: 650-248-4522 home: 650-949-3173 From: Carl Niedner [mailto:cdn@coelo.com] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 6:17 PM To: Nickel, Eric; cdn@coelo.com Subject: Thanks, and followup Chief -- Sorry to have missed you today at this morning's conference. A couple of issues to follow up on: 1. You can be really proud of your D.C. (Both of them, actually, but this pertains specifically to Catherine). Preet Bassi, CPSE Executive Director, pulled me aside after the last class today, and told me, "You guys did an amazing job. I have been getting rave review after rave review about your session. Your talk set the standard for how I want agency/vendor talks to go in the future." (As close to a direct quote as I can remember) This is probably at least 70% attributable to Catherine. She kept us on track, organized the outline, did the graphics, built the PPT and had a great sense of how to connect with people. I am really grateful to her for all she did (while doing her main job, as well). I hope her efforts help your CFAI process! thanks -- Carl -- -----Original Message----- From: Shrout, Kate Berlitz [mailto:kshrout@BuckleySandler.com] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 9:30 AM To: Fire Subject: 127 Rinconada Response Hi, I wanted to say thank you to the team that responded to 127 Rinconada Ave this morning. My husband had a seizure and the response team was very professional and comforting. We really appreciate their help. Best, Kate Berlitz Shrout Counsel BuckleySandler LLP T. 202.349.7932 F. 202.349.8080 Number of Your Patients in this ReportYour Score January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 EMS System Report Palo Alto, CA 1515 Center Street City of Palo Alto 1 (877) 583-3100 www.EMSSurveyTeam.com Client 9701 service@EMSSurveyTeam.com Lansing, Mi 48096 8395.27 Number of Patients in this Report 19,079 Number of Transport Services in All EMS DB 138 Page 1 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Executive Summary This report contains data from 83 City of Palo Alto patients who returned a questionnaire between 01/01/2017 and 03/31/2017. The overall mean score for the standard questions was 95.27; this is a difference of 2.59 points from the overall EMS database score of 92.68. The current score of 95.27 is a change of 1.63 points from last period's score of 93.64. This was the 11th highest overall score for all companies in the database. You are ranked 4th for comparably sized companies in the system. 84.05% of responses to standard questions had a rating of Very Good, the highest rating. 99.75% of all responses were positive. Page 2 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Demographics — This section provides demographic information about the patients who responded to the survey for the current and the previous periods. The information comes from the data you submitted. Compare this demographic data to your eligible population. Generally, the demographic profile will approximate your service population. Total This PeriodLast Period OtherFemaleMale OtherMaleTotalFemale Under 18 4 2 06 462 0 18 to 30 0 1 01 011 0 31 to 44 1 6 07 231 0 45 to 54 3 6 09 143 0 55 to 64 3 6 09 7114 0 65 and older 31 34 065 355823 0 Total 42 55 097 83 34 49 0 Gender Page 3 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 01, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Dispatch Analysis This analysis details the section results that concern dispatcher operations. The analysis contains the mean scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score, the second column is your variance from the database score. Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 96.27 92.93 3.34 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 94.35 92.72 1.63 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived 93.22 91.07 2.15 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Overall Section Score Total DB 2.44 100 92.24 Variance 0 Your Score 94.68 Page 4 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 01, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Ambulance Analysis This analysis details the section results that concern ambulance operations. The analysis contains the mean scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score, the second column is your variance from the database score. Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 96.47 92.43 4.04 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Cleanliness of the ambulance 96.83 94.35 2.48 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Comfort of the ride 93.48 87.91 5.57 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Skill of the person driving the ambulance 97.18 93.97 3.21 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Overall Section Score Total DB 3.81 100 92.21 Variance 0 Your Score 96.02 Page 5 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 01, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Medic Analysis This analysis details the section results that concern medic operations. The analysis contains the mean scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score, the second column is your variance from the database score. Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 97.97 94.45 3.52 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 97.67 94.39 3.28 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 97.26 94.01 3.25 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Skill of the medics 97.00 94.33 2.67 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment 94.10 92.76 1.34 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if applicable) 95.26 92.51 2.75 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 92.92 90.56 2.36 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Page 6 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 01, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Medic Analysis This analysis details the section results that concern medic operations. The analysis contains the mean scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score, the second column is your variance from the database score. Medics' concern for your privacy 93.40 93.46 -0.06 Your Score Total DB Variance -0.06 Variance1000 Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 96.58 94.31 2.27 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Overall Section Score Total DB 2.47 100 93.42 Variance 0 Your Score 95.89 Page 7 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 01, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Billing Staff Assessment Analysis This analysis details the section results that concern office operations. The analysis contains the mean scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score, the second column is your variance from the database score. Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 88.89 88.45 0.44 Your Score Total DB VarianceVariance1000 Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 89.29 88.45 0.84 Your Score Total DB VarianceVariance1000 Overall Section Score Total DB 0.64 100 88.45 0 Your Score 89.09 Page 8 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 01, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Overall Assessment Analysis This analysis details the section results that concern assessment of operations. The analysis contains the mean scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score, the second column is your variance from the database score. How well did our staff work together to care for you 97.26 93.55 3.71 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 97.54 93.57 3.97 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 95.44 93.38 2.06 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 87.72 87.35 0.37 Your Score Total DB VarianceVariance1000 Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical Transportation service 96.83 93.57 3.26 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 95.00 93.13 1.87 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Overall Section Score Total DB 2.72 100 92.43 Variance 0 Your Score 95.15 Page 9 of 26 January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 City of Palo Alto Question Analysis This section lists a synopsis of the information about your individual questions and overall scores for this monthly reporting period. The first column shows the company score from the previous period, the second column shows the change, the third column shows your score for this period and the fourth column shows the total Database score. Dispatch Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 96.273.63 92.9392.64 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 94.352.35 92.7292.00 Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived 93.221.21 91.0792.01 Ambulance Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 96.473.57 92.4392.90 Cleanliness of the ambulance 96.830.40 94.3596.43 Comfort of the ride 93.48-0.20 87.9193.68 Skill of the person driving the ambulance 97.182.99 93.9794.19 Medic Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 97.972.80 94.4595.17 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 97.671.84 94.3995.83 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 97.261.81 94.0195.45 Skill of the medics 97.001.94 94.3395.06 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment 94.10-0.48 92.7694.58 Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if applicable)95.261.16 92.5194.10 Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 92.92-0.51 90.5693.43 Medics' concern for your privacy 93.400.27 93.4693.13 Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 96.581.69 94.3194.89 Billing Staff Assessment Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 88.89-0.16 88.4589.05 Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 89.293.01 88.4586.28 Page 10 of 26 January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 City of Palo Alto Question Analysis (Continued) Overall Assessment Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB How well did our staff work together to care for you 97.262.37 93.5594.89 Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 97.543.25 93.5794.29 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 95.44-0.13 93.3895.57 Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 87.721.67 87.3586.05 Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical Transportation 96.832.25 93.5794.58 Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 95.003.00 93.1392.00 Page 11 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Mar 2016 Apr 2016 May 2016 Jun 2016 Jul 2016 Aug 2016 Sep 2016 Oct 2016 Nov 2016 Dec 2016 Jan 2017 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 97.22 100.00 95.03 93.75 94.64 94.44 91.24 98.15 90.13 83.33 97.73 95.83 100.00 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 97.22 100.00 93.95 93.18 94.64 94.91 93.75 98.15 88.89 83.33 97.73 93.37 100.00 Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance 97.22 95.83 93.08 93.15 94.64 93.48 82.21 96.30 88.95 100.00 97.73 91.85 100.00 Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 98.91 94.44 97.28 94.33 98.53 95.38 97.62 98.48 89.42 91.67 100.00 95.70 100.00 Cleanliness of the ambulance 100.00 93.75 97.56 95.83 96.88 95.90 92.86 98.48 94.90 100.00 100.00 96.05 100.00 Comfort of the ride 96.51 93.75 94.51 93.41 95.31 93.03 90.48 95.45 92.65 91.67 93.75 93.18 100.00 Skill of the person driving the ambulance 99.40 96.88 95.24 94.17 96.88 97.13 94.05 95.45 93.14 100.00 100.00 96.49 100.00 Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 98.84 97.22 96.43 96.35 98.53 96.37 97.22 98.57 92.65 100.00 100.00 97.50 100.00 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 99.43 97.22 96.43 96.65 98.53 95.24 97.22 97.86 94.23 100.00 100.00 97.13 100.00 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 100.00 97.22 97.02 96.51 95.59 95.90 90.33 97.79 93.63 100.00 100.00 96.61 100.00 Skill of the medics 98.84 97.22 96.95 95.60 97.06 97.62 98.53 97.14 93.37 100.00 100.00 96.31 100.00 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your 98.13 94.44 96.15 93.75 98.33 94.17 92.65 97.79 92.02 100.00 97.92 93.10 100.00 Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions 95.83 100.00 96.55 92.31 94.23 93.65 82.21 97.41 91.46 100.00 97.92 94.32 100.00 Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 98.48 89.29 93.38 92.41 89.29 93.52 85.79 95.00 92.07 100.00 95.45 92.02 100.00 Medics' concern for your privacy 98.21 87.63 95.14 94.38 98.44 92.27 91.18 97.50 90.10 100.00 91.67 93.53 100.00 Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 100.00 97.22 95.39 95.74 97.06 94.58 94.12 98.53 92.16 100.00 97.92 96.19 100.00 Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing 86.00 100.00 87.50 86.48 96.43 90.22 84.38 94.64 85.04 100.00 96.88 86.11 100.00 Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your 84.00 100.00 87.50 84.94 95.83 90.00 87.50 94.64 80.25 100.00 96.43 87.04 100.00 How well did our staff work together to care for you 97.62 97.22 96.53 94.29 94.12 95.76 97.06 99.29 91.33 100.00 100.00 96.61 100.00 Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical 99.38 97.22 95.17 94.78 97.06 95.18 91.18 97.79 91.33 100.00 100.00 96.93 100.00 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 96.98 96.88 94.74 94.95 92.19 95.34 89.76 97.66 93.89 100.00 100.00 94.32 100.00 Extent to which the services received were worth the fees 89.00 100.00 91.91 85.55 85.94 86.54 78.64 89.32 81.93 100.00 93.18 85.96 100.00 Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical 98.84 97.22 96.05 96.13 95.31 95.49 93.75 99.24 91.15 100.00 100.00 96.05 100.00 Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 98.75 100.00 95.30 96.07 93.75 95.26 90.69 96.88 88.40 91.67 97.73 94.23 100.00 Your Master Score 97.65 96.47 95.18 93.97 95.43 94.55 91.64 97.16 91.09 96.93 98.08 94.50 100.00 Your Total Responses 49 10 48 105 17 66 22 36 58 3 13 68 2 Monthly Breakdown Below are the monthly responses that have been received for your service. It details the individual score for each question as well as the overall company score for that month. Page 12 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Monthly tracking of Overall Survey Score Page 13 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Greatest Increase and Decrease in Scores by Question Increases Last Period This Period Change Total DB Score Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 92.64 3.63 92.9396.27 Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 92.90 3.58 92.4396.47 Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 94.29 3.25 93.5797.54 Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 86.28 3.01 88.4589.29 Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 92.00 3.00 93.1395.00 Skill of the person driving the ambulance 94.19 3.00 93.9797.18 Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 95.17 2.80 94.4597.97 How well did our staff work together to care for you 94.89 2.37 93.5597.26 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 92.00 2.35 92.7294.35 Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical Transportation service 94.58 2.25 93.5796.83 Decreases Last Period This Period Change Total DB Score Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 93.43 -0.52 90.5692.92 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment 94.58 -0.48 92.7694.10 Comfort of the ride 93.68 -0.20 87.9193.48 Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 89.05 -0.16 88.4588.89 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 95.57 -0.13 93.3895.44 Page 14 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Greatest Scores Above Benchmarks by Question Highest Above Benchmark This Period Variance Total DB Score Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 94.453.5297.97 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 94.393.2897.67 Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 93.573.9697.54 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 94.013.2597.26 How well did our staff work together to care for you 93.553.7197.26 Skill of the person driving the ambulance 93.973.2197.18 Skill of the medics 94.332.6797 Cleanliness of the ambulance 94.352.4996.83 Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical Transportation service 93.573.2696.83 Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 94.312.2796.58 Page 15 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Key Drivers — This section shows the relative importance of each question to the respondents' overall satisfaction. The greater the coefficient number, the more important the issue is to your patients' overall satisfaction. The questions are arranged based on their weighted importance value. Question Your Score Correlation Coeffecient Extent to which medics cared for you as a person .8903942996.58 Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if applicable).86133005195.26 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously .84916177997.67 Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived .847684693.22 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment .83775933894.10 Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility .83569550697.54 Skill of the medics .81890450797.00 How well did our staff work together to care for you .81225705997.26 Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance .7881192497.97 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service .77016232794.35 Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort .75123736792.92 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family .74331680297.26 Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service .73578935796.27 Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs .71844515489.29 Medics' concern for your privacy .69509696793.40 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment .68636096995.44 Skill of the person driving the ambulance .67962211397.18 Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office .67870756688.89 Cleanliness of the ambulance .6671191896.83 Comfort of the ride .64284864593.48 Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner .62763423496.47 Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged .5633924787.72 Page 16 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Company Comparisons — The following chart gives a comparison of the mean score for each question as scored by comparable companies. Your company is highlighted. There is also a green-shaded highlight of the highest score for each question. This will show how you compare to similar companies. Your Company A B C D E F Comparison Companies Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 89.11 91.12 0 91.87 93.7091.2596.27 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 91.91 91.40 0 91.20 93.6991.3094.35 Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance 86.11 85.54 0 91.07 92.0189.6693.22 Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 90.63 91.68 90.29 92.80 93.7788.3096.47 Cleanliness of the ambulance 92.91 93.93 92.04 94.74 95.4791.6396.83 Comfort of the ride 86.82 84.76 0 88.62 88.7886.0493.48 Skill of the person driving the ambulance 91.23 89.61 92.67 93.40 94.8792.1997.18 Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 93.24 94.57 94.43 92.15 95.6293.3697.97 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 92.76 95.59 94.93 92.65 95.6793.3997.67 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 91.22 94.40 94.37 91.36 94.5693.5697.26 Skill of the medics 92.47 94.40 93.85 93.45 95.6293.6097.00 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your 91.79 93.44 93.31 90.68 93.6992.5994.10 Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if 91.67 92.86 0 90.90 93.4691.8295.26 Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 91.29 94.09 89.68 89.67 92.7990.7092.92 Medics' concern for your privacy 91.78 94.26 93.55 91.34 94.2792.7793.40 Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 93.06 95.83 95.30 92.51 95.5093.8996.58 Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 91.11 86.56 0 87.31 87.8487.5288.89 Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 92.44 85.05 0 86.84 88.0387.0689.29 How well did our staff work together to care for you 92.65 92.18 93.80 92.02 94.7694.0697.26 Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 92.31 92.93 93.42 92.93 94.5093.5997.54 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 91.67 91.95 0 91.72 94.4392.7195.44 Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 84.05 86.32 0 87.23 87.0588.5887.72 Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical 90.94 91.94 93.62 90.86 94.4494.1096.83 Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 90.85 89.00 92.84 90.16 93.9292.1195.00 Overall score 95.27 91.67 91.04 91.58 93.27 91.40 93.61 National Rank 11 56 73 59 36 65 31 Comparable Size (Medium) Company Rank 4 17 24 19 10 22 8 Page 17 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Ca l i f o r n i a Yo u r Co m p a n y 91.19Total Score Benchmark Comparison 95.27 To t a l D B Si m i l a r S i z e d 92.68 92.13 Medics' concern for your privacy 91.8393.40 93.46 93.36 Skill of the medics 92.7997.00 94.33 94.00 Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical 92.1497.54 93.57 93.36 Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance 90.5393.22 91.07 90.80 Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 93.1197.97 94.45 94.40 Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 88.8292.92 90.56 90.38 Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions 90.9095.26 92.51 92.22 Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing 87.3488.89 88.45 88.12 How well did our staff work together to care for you 92.1897.26 93.55 93.67 Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 92.9396.58 94.31 94.15 Extent to which the services received were worth the fees 85.9787.72 87.35 87.15 Skill of the person driving the ambulance 92.8497.18 93.97 93.55 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 91.4994.35 92.72 92.27 Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical 92.1496.83 93.57 93.34 Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 91.3895.00 93.13 92.72 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 93.1797.67 94.39 94.29 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 91.6495.44 93.38 92.87 Cleanliness of the ambulance 93.4896.83 94.35 94.07 Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your 87.9089.29 88.45 88.08 Comfort of the ride 87.9493.48 87.91 86.82 Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 92.4296.47 92.43 92.15 Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 92.2696.27 92.93 92.52 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your 90.8094.10 92.76 92.72 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 92.6697.26 94.01 94.01 Number of Surveys for the period 83 Page 18 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Benchmark Trending Graphic - Below are the monthly scores for your service. It details the overall score for each month as well as your subscribed benchmarks for that month. Page 19 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Cumulative Comparisons This section lists a synopsis of the information about your individual questions and overall scores over the entire lifetime of the dataset. The first column shows the company score and the second column details the total database score. Your Score Total DB 91.7594.46Overall Facility Rating Dispatch 94.06 91.54 Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 92.2895.01 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 92.0294.39 Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance 90.3392.77 Ambulance 95.22 91.34 Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 91.6695.51 Cleanliness of the ambulance 93.8696.46 Comfort of the ride 87.0792.95 Skill of the person driving the ambulance 92.7795.95 Medic 95.56 92.76 Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 93.7996.93 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 93.7096.73 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 93.4396.33 Skill of the medics 93.8496.64 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment 91.9294.96 Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if 91.7193.94 Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 90.1493.59 Medics' concern for your privacy 92.6994.58 Page 20 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Cumulative Comparisons (Continued) Your Score Total DB 91.7594.46Overall Facility Rating Medic 95.56 92.76 Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 93.6496.36 Billing Staff Assessment 88.66 88.15 Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 88.1388.81 Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 88.1788.51 Overall Assessment 94.45 91.82 How well did our staff work together to care for you 92.8696.06 Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 93.0495.96 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 92.7895.64 Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 86.7487.52 Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical 92.9596.20 Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 92.5795.33 Page 21 of 26 The Top Box Analysis displays the number of responses for the entire survey by question and rating. The Top Box itself shows the percentage of "Very Good" responses, the highest rating, for each question. Next to the company rating is the entire EMS DB rating for those same questions. Top Box Comparisons January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 City of Palo Alto EMS DB % Very Good Company % Very Good Very GoodGoodFairPoor Very Poor Overall Company Rating 2 2 37 213 76.09%84.05%1338 Dispatch 0 0 4 32 74.45%80.85%152 Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 0 0 1 8 58 86.57%76.24% Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 0 0 1 12 49 79.03%75.31% Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived 0 0 2 12 45 76.27%71.79% Ambulance 0 0 2 42 74.79%84.78%245 Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 0 0 0 11 67 85.90%75.75% Cleanliness of the ambulance 0 0 0 9 62 87.32%79.42% Comfort of the ride 0 0 2 14 53 76.81%65.02% Skill of the person driving the ambulance 0 0 0 8 63 88.73%78.97% Medic 0 2 13 72 79.43%86.23%545 Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 0 0 2 2 70 94.59%82.04% Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 0 0 1 5 69 92.00%82.41% Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 0 0 0 8 65 89.04%81.34% Skill of the medics 0 0 2 5 68 90.67%81.44% Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment 0 1 2 10 59 81.94%77.25% Page 22 of 26 Top Box Comparisons January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 City of Palo Alto (Continued) EMS DB % Very Good Company % Very Good Very GoodGoodFairPoor Very Poor Overall Company Rating 2 2 37 213 76.09%84.05%1338 Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if applicable)0 0 2 7 49 84.48%77.10% Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 0 0 2 13 45 75.00%72.36% Medics' concern for your privacy 0 1 1 14 56 77.78%78.53% Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 0 0 1 8 64 87.67%82.37% Billing Staff Assessment 0 0 5 21 63.31%63.38%45 Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 0 0 3 10 23 63.89%63.13% Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 0 0 2 11 22 62.86%63.49% Overall Assessment 2 0 13 46 77.03%85.19%351 How well did our staff work together to care for you 0 0 1 6 66 90.41%78.84% Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 0 0 1 5 65 91.55%78.73% Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 1 0 1 7 62 87.32%78.75% Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 1 0 8 10 42 68.85%66.22% Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical Transportation service 0 0 1 7 63 88.73%79.92% Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 0 0 1 11 53 81.54%79.69% Page 23 of 26 January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 City of Palo Alto Standard Deviation by Question SD Variance Database Standard Deviation Company Standard Deviation Total DBYour Score Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 96.27 92.93 9.90 14.36 4.46 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 94.35 92.72 11.376 14.239 2.86 Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived 93.22 91.07 12.88 16.568 3.69 Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 96.47 92.43 8.701 15.41 6.71 Cleanliness of the ambulance 96.83 94.35 8.318 11.915 3.60 Comfort of the ride 93.48 87.91 12.52 19.566 7.05 Skill of the person driving the ambulance 97.18 93.97 7.905 12.973 5.07 Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 97.97 94.45 8.964 13.734 4.77 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 97.67 94.39 8.34 14.22 5.88 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 97.26 94.01 7.809 14.659 6.85 Skill of the medics 97.00 94.33 9.967 13.656 3.69 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your 94.10 92.76 14.126 15.52 1.39 Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if applicable) 95.26 92.51 11.796 16.163 4.37 Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 92.92 90.56 12.984 18.343 5.36 Medics' concern for your privacy 93.40 93.46 13.815 14.377 0.56 Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 96.58 94.31 9.54 14.545 5.00 Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 88.89 88.45 16.078 17.901 1.82 Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 89.29 88.45 14.983 18.051 3.07 How well did our staff work together to care for you 97.26 93.55 8.838 14.32 5.48 Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 97.54 93.57 8.553 14.146 5.59 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 95.44 93.38 14.63 14.85 0.22 Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 87.72 87.35 20.982 21.438 0.46 Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical Transportation service 96.83 93.57 9.316 15.099 5.78 Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 95.00 93.13 10.919 16.457 5.54 Overall Survey Rating 95.27 92.68 11.38 15.52 4.14 Page 24 of 26 City of Palo Alto January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 Responses vs Score Histogram — This graph shows the number of responses on the Y axis vs the average score on the X axis. Page 25 of 26 We were unable to find any records that matched the filters you provided, please widen your search scope. No Records for filters provided Page 26 of 26