HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-07-30 City Council Agenda PacketCity Council
1
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Monday, July 30, 2018
Special Meeting
Council Chambers
5:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in
the Council Chambers on the Thursday 11 days preceding the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the
presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker
request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to
discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the
Council, but it is very helpful.
TIME ESTIMATES
Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times
are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council
reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to
another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur
in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure
participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item
is called.
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW
Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their
remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
Call to Order
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Comments 5:00-5:10 PM
Oral Communications 5:10-5:30 PM
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of
Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Minutes Approval 5:30-5:35 PM
1. Approval of Action Minutes for the June 25, 2018 Council Meeting
Consent Calendar 5:35-5:40 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 999 Alma Street [18PLN-00060]:
Request for a Hearing on the Director's Tentative Approval of a
Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Recreation (Gym) Use in an
Existing Building on the Site. The Project Includes a Request to Begin
Operations at 5:00 A.M. and end at 11:00 P.M. The South of Forest
2 July 30, 2018
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.
Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan Permits By-right Hours of
Operation From 6:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. Environmental Assessment:
Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per Guidelines Section 15301. Zone District: RT-35
(SOFA II). (APPELLANTS HAVE WITHDRAWN REQUESTS FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING)
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
5:40-6:30 PM
3. Adopt the Initiative Measure to Reduce the Comprehensive Plan’s
Citywide Cumulative Cap on Office/R&D Development (Initiative
Measure) as an Ordinance Without Alteration, or Adopt a Resolution
Placing the Initiative Measure on the November 6, 2018 Ballot
6:30-7:15 PM
4. Re-adoption of a Resolution Placing a Measure on the November 6,
2018 General Election Ballot to Increase the City’s Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT) by One and One-half Percentage Points to Make
Minor Revisions to the Ballot Language
7:15-8:15 PM
5. Policy and Services Committee Recommends Council Adopt an
Ordinance Adding Chapter 10.62 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of
the Municipal Code to Regulate Unnecessary Idling of Vehicles
(Continued From April 2, 2018 and June 12, 2018)
State/Federal Legislation Update/Action
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who
would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may
contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
MEMO
3 July 30, 2018
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
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Informational Report
Proclamation Supporting National Night Out 2018
Follow up to the June 12 Study Session and Next Steps Regarding the
Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard Projects
Public Letters to Council
Set 1- 07-09-18 Set 2- 07-16-18
Set 3- 07-23-18 Set 4- 07-30-18
Set 5- 08-06-18
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
July 30, 2018
The Honorable City Council
Attention: Finance Committee
Palo Alto, California
Approval of Action Minutes for the June 25, 2018 Council Meeting
Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: 06-25-18 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 9
Special Meeting
June 25, 2018
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:04 P.M.
Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach
Absent: Scharff
Closed Session
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) and (e)(1):
Four Potential Cases.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach
to go into Closed Session.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent
Council went into Closed Session at 5:05 P.M.
Council returned from Closed Session at 6:47 P.M.
Mayor Kniss announced no reportable action.
Special Orders of the Day
1A. Proclamation Recognizing the Month of June 2018 as Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to
continue Agenda Item Number 32- Recommended Terms of Agreement for
Fire Protection Services to Stanford University… to a date uncertain.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 9
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 6/25/18
Minutes Approval
2. Approval of Action Minutes for the June 11, 12, 18, and 19, 2018
Council Meetings.
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to approve the Action Minutes for the June 11, 12, 18, and 19, 2018
Council Meetings.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent
Consent Calendar
Council Member Holman registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 23-
SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal
Code Title 18 (Zoning) Chapter 18.30 (Combining Districts) to add a new
Combining District to Allow for Higher Density Multi-family Housing…
Council Member Kou registered no votes on Agenda Item Numbers 8-
QUASI-JUDICIAL/PUBLIC HEARING 2515-2585 El Camino Real
[17PLN-00448]…, 18- QUASI-JUDICIAL/PUBLIC HEARING. 3225 El Camino
Real [17PLN-00007]…, 23- SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance
Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) Chapter 18.30
(Combining Districts) to add a new Combining District to Allow for Higher
Density Multi-family Housing…, and 24- Approval of Contract Number
C18171717 With Perkins + Will…
Council Member Tanaka registered no votes on Agenda Item Numbers 10-
Approval and Authorization for the City Manager or his Designee to Execute
the Following six Utilities Public Benefits Program Contract Amendments…,
14- Adoption of a Memorandum of Agreement and Salary Schedule…, 16-
Approval of a Contract With Summit Uniforms…, and 22- Approval of a Five-
year Contract With All City Management Services, Inc…
MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member
DuBois to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-28A, including changes to
Agenda Item Number 8- QUASI-JUDICIAL/PUBLIC HEARING 2515-2585 El
Camino Real [17PLN-00448]… outlined in the At Place Staff Memorandum.
3. Approval of Contract Number C18171689 With Toubar Equipment
Company, Inc. for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $716,030 for Landfill
Gas Collection and Control System and Leachate Collection System
Improvements at the Palo Alto Landfill Over a Term of 90 Days.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 9
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 6/25/18
4. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute an Electric
Enterprise Fund Professional Services Contract With Activu Corporation
in the Amount of $438,006, Including Change Orders for Additional
Related but Unforeseen Work in the Amount of $43,800, for a Total
Not-to-Exceed Amount of $481,006, for the Utility Control Room
Upgrade Project.
5. Approval of a General Services Contract With O'Grady Paving, Inc. for
Maintenance of the Renzel Marsh Freshwater Pond for a Total Not-to-
Exceed Amount of $511,500 Over a Four-month Term.
6. Approval of a Five-year Contract With Telecommunications Engineering
Associates (TEA) in a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $500,000 for
Annual Maintenance Services of Legacy Radio Infrastructure Plus a
Contingency Not-To-Exceed Amount of $25,000 per Year for Additional
Services.
7. Approval of Contract Number C18172268 With Municipal Resources
Group for Council Appointed Officers Performance Evaluation for a
Duration Through June 30, 2019 With the Option to Extend two
Additional Years for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $180,000.
8. QUASI-JUDICIAL/PUBLIC HEARING 2515-2585 El Camino Real
[17PLN-00448]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval
of a Vesting Tentative Map to Merge two Lots and Subdivide the
Combined 39,953 Square Foot lot Into 13 Residential Condominiums
and up to 13 Retail Commercial Units. The Subdivision Map Would
Facilitate Construction of the Previously Approved 39,858 Square Foot
Mixed-use Development Project (15PLN-00170). Environmental
Assessment: Reuse of a Previously Adopted Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration Prepared for the Associated Development
Application (15PLN-00170). Zoning District: Neighborhood Commercial
(CN) and Community Commercial (CC) (2) Zoning District.
9. Approval of Amendment Number 1 to the Agreement With Palo Alto
Unified School District (PAUSD) for PAUSD Athletic Field Brokering and
Maintenance Cost-sharing to Extend the Term to December 2019.
10. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager or his Designee to
Execute the Following six Utilities Public Benefits Program Contract
Amendments: 1) Amendment Number 1 to CLEAResult Consulting, Inc.
C15159135 Increasing Compensation by $910,000 and Extending the
Term for Three Additional Years; 2) Amendment Number 1 to Eagle
Systems International, Inc. DBA Synergy Companies C15159126
Number 2 to Eagle Systems International, Inc. DBA Synergy
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 4 of 9
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 6/25/18
Companies C15159125 Increasing Compensation by $900,000 and
Extending the Term for Three Additional Years; 4) Amendment
Number 1 to Ecology Action of Santa Cruz C15155144A With no
Increase in Compensation and Extending the Term for two Additional
Years; 5) Amendment Number 1 to Enovity, Inc. C15155144B With
no Increase in Compensation and Extending the Term for two
Additional Years; and 6) Amendment Number 1 to BASE Energy, Inc.
C15155144C With no Increase in Compensation.
11. Policy and Services Committee Recommends Approval of the Status
Update of the Community Services Department: Fee Schedule Audit.
12. Resolution 9779 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Determining the Proposed Calculation of the Appropriations Limit
for Fiscal Year 2019.”
13. Approval of a Construction Contract With Vortex Marine Construction,
Inc. in the Amount of $1,097,281 for the Baylands Boardwalk
Improvements Capital Improvement Project PE-14018 and Approve
Budget Amendments in the Capital Improvement Fund and the
Parkland Dedication Fee Fund.
14. Adoption of a Memorandum of Agreement and Salary Schedule
Between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Peace Officers'
Association Effective July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2021.
15. Approval of the Renewal of Three Public-private Partnership
Agreements Between the City of Palo Alto and TheatreWorks, Palo Alto
Players, and West Bay Opera for the use of the Lucie Stern Community
Theatre.
16. Approval of a Contract With Summit Uniforms for Five-years for a
Maximum Compensation Amount Not-to-Exceed $520,000
($104,000/Year) for the Purchase of Police, Fire, and Park Ranger
Uniforms and Related Equipment.
17. Approval of Contract Number C18172676 With Dixon Resources
Unlimited for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $285,126 for Support
of the City's Parking Programs for a One-year Term, and Exemption of
the Contract From Competitive Solicitation Requirements.
18. QUASI-JUDICIAL/PUBLIC HEARING. 3225 El Camino Real
[17PLN-00007]: Request for a Vesting Tentative Map to Subdivide a
29,962 Square Foot Parcel Into two Parcels Comprised of one
Commercial Parcel and one Residential Parcel for Condominium
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 5 of 9
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 6/25/18
Purposes. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS-MND) was Previously Prepared for an
Associated Development Application (15PLN-00003) That was
Approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment on
April 21, 2016. Zoning District: Service Commercial (CS).
19. Approval of Amendment Number 4 to the Agreement With the
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for Rail Shuttle Bus Service
Administration to Extend the Term of the Agreement for One-year and
for the City to Provide an Additional $130,600 for Community Shuttle
Service on the Existing Embarcadero Shuttle Route From July 2018
Until June 2019.
20. Approval of Contract Amendment Number Three to Contract Number
C15158029 With Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers to
Increase the Construction Support Budget in the Amount of $21,000
for Additional Work and to Extend the Contract Term for the Matadero
Creek Storm Water Pump Station Capital Improvement Program
Project SD-13003.
21. Resolution 9780 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Lalo Perez Upon his Retirement.”
22. Approval of a Five-year Contract With All City Management Services,
Inc., Effective August 1, 2018, in the Not-to-Exceed Amount of
$3,096,779 for Crossing Guard Services for the Palo Alto Unified
School District and Approval of a Budget Amendment in the General
Fund.
23. Ordinance 5443 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) Chapter
18.30 (Combining Districts) to add a new Combining District to Allow
for Higher Density Multi-family Housing That Includes a Workforce
Housing Component to be Located on Public Facilities Zoned Properties
Within 0.5 Miles of Fixed Rail Transit Stations;” and Ordinance 5444
Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
the Zoning Map to Apply the new Combining District to the Subject
Property at 2755 El Camino Real (FIRST READING: June 4, 2018
PASSED: 7-2 Holman, Kou no).”
24. Approval of Contract Number C18171717 With Perkins + Will for the
Professional Services Related to the Preparation of the North Ventura
Coordinated Area Plan for an Amount Not-to-Exceed $769,068 Over a
2.5-Year Term.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 6 of 9
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 6/25/18
25. Policy and Services Recommendation to Accept the Continuous
Monitoring Audit: Overtime.
26. Direction to the City Manager to set Aside $3 Million in Affordable
Housing Funds for a Potential Teacher Housing Project at 231 Grant
Avenue.
27. Ordinance 5445 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning),
Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts), Sections
18.28.050, 18.28.060, and 18.28.090 to Revise the Public Facilities
(PF) Zone Parking and Development Standards to Allow Council
Approval of Exceptions to PF Development Standards, Including
Setback Lines Imposed by a Special Setback Map, and Required
Parking Location for City Parking Facilities in the Downtown and
California Avenue Business District and for Essential Services
Buildings, and Make Other Clerical or Technical Corrections (FIRST
READING: June 11, 2018 PASSED: 8-0 Tanaka not Participating).”
28. Approval of Amendment Number One to Professional Services Contract
Number C16161182 With Freytag & Associates to Extend the Term of
the Agreement for One and a Half Years (1.5 years) to end
December 31, 2019 with no Additional Cost to the City for Professional
Services Related to Airplane Noise Assessment and Mitigation.
28A. Approval of a Contract With MNS Engineers, Inc. in an Amount Not-to-
Exceed $267,000 for a One-year Term for Operation Group Support
Services at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant.
MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 3-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, 19-21,
25-28A PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent
MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 8, 18, AND 24 PASSED:
7-1 Kou no, Scharff absent
MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 10, 14, 16, AND 22 PASSED:
7-1 Tanaka no, Scharff absent
MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 23 PASSED: 6-2 Holman, Kou no,
Scharff absent
Action Items
29. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 9781 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council
of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Weed Abatement Report and
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 7 of 9
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 6/25/18
Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment on the
Respective Properties Described Therein.”
Public Hearing opened and closed without public comment at 7:50 P.M.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Mayor Kniss to adopt a
Resolution confirming the report and ordering abatement costs to be a
special assessment on the properties specified in the report.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent
30. Resolution 9782 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Related to the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking
(RPP) Program Reducing or Otherwise Amending the Number of
Employee Parking Permits and Making Related Changes, Modify ing or
Maintaining the Prohibition on Re-parking in the RPP District More Than
two Hours After Initially Parking, and Making Other Clarifying
Modifications to Resolution 9671. California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA): Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
(Continued From April 2, 2018).”
MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to:
A. Adopt a Resolution to amend the Downtown Residential Preferential
Parking (RPP) Program Resolution No. 9671, reducing the number of
employee permits to 1,200 and making other clarifying changes;
B. Direct Staff to make corresponding changes to the Administrative
Guidelines for the residential preferential parking programs;
C. Direct Staff to amend the Resolution to modify the prohibition on
“re-parking” in the RPP District after two hours has expired from the
time of initial parking; and
D. Find these actions exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3)
and 15301 (Existing Facilities) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council
Member DuBois to:
A. Adopt a Resolution to amend the Downtown Residential Preferential
Parking (RPP) Program Resolution No. 9671, reducing the number of
employee permits to 1,000, and making other clarifying changes,
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 8 of 9
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 6/25/18
including permit allocation as outlined in the At Place Staff
Memorandum;
B. Direct Staff to make corresponding changes to the Administrative
Guidelines for the residential preferential parking programs;
C. Direct Staff to amend the Resolution to modify the prohibition on
“re-parking” in the RPP District after two hours has expired from the
time of initial parking; and
D. Find these actions exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3)
and 15301 (Existing Facilities) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Substitute
Motion Part A, “with 200 permits in reserve” after “to 1,000.”
SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Filseth
moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to:
A. Adopt a Resolution to amend the Downtown Residential Preferential
Parking (RPP) Program Resolution No. 9671, reducing the number of
employee permits to 1,000, with 200 permits in reserve, and making
other clarifying changes, including permit allocation as outlined in the
At Place Staff Memorandum;
B. Direct Staff to make corresponding changes to the Administrative
Guidelines for the residential preferential parking programs;
C. Direct Staff to amend the Resolution to modify the prohibition on
“re-parking” in the RPP District after two hours has expired from the
time of initial parking; and
D. Find these actions exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3)
and 15301 (Existing Facilities) of Title 14 of th e California Code of
Regulations.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-3 Fine, Kniss, Tanaka
no, Scharff absent
31. Review and Provide Direction to Staff on the Stanford University
General Use Permit 2018 Re-circulated Draft Environmental Impact
Report.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 9 of 9
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 6/25/18
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Fine to direct Staff to draft a letter in response to the Stanford University
General Use Permit 2018 Re-circulated Draft Environmental Impact Report
emphasizing previous Council Member comments and incorporating
comments from Council Members.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion , “if Santa Clara County
agrees to a deadline extension, direct Staff to return the draft letter to
Council on Consent on July 30, 2018.”
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to add to the Motion, “if an extension is not granted, direct Staff
to forward the draft letter to Council Members.”
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved,
seconded by Council Member Fine to direct Staff to draft a letter in response
to the Stanford University General Use Permit 2018 Re-circulated Draft
Environmental Impact Report emphasizing previous Council Member
comments and incorporating comments from Council Members, if Santa
Clara County agrees to a deadline extension, return the draft letter to
Council on Consent on July 30, 2018.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent
32. Recommended Terms of Agreement for Fire Protection Services to
Stanford University for the Period January 1, 2018 - June 30, 2023 and
Settlement of Prior Claim for Overpayment (Staff Requests This Item
be Continued to a Date Uncertain).
State/Federal Legislation Update/Action
None.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 P.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 9375)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/30/2018
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: 999 Alma Street - Training Space CUP
Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI -JUDICIAL. 999 Alma Street [18PLN -00060]:
Request for a Hearing on the Director's Tentative Approval of a Conditional
Use Permit for a Commercial Recreation (Gym) Use in an Ex isting Building on
the Site. The Project Includes a Request to Begin Operations at 5:00 A.M. and
end at 11:00 P.M. The South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan
Permits by-Right Hours of Operation from 6:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M.
Environmental Assessme nt: Exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guidelines Section 15301. Zone
District: RT-35 (SOFA II). APPELLANT'S HAVE WITHDRAWN REQUESTS FOR
PUBLIC HEARING
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Commu nity Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
in accordance with Sections 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
2. Adopt the attached Record of Land Use Action approving the proposed Conditional Use
Permit based on findings and subject to conditions of approval.
Background
The subject appeals of the Director’s tentative approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) have
been withdrawn (Attachments B and C). A CUP is typically acted upon by the director of
planning, unless an appeal is filed. For the subject recreation gym use, two appeals were filed
and a public hearing was held before the Planning and Transportation Commission. The
Commission voted 5-1 recommending approval of the gym. Since the public hearing, the two
appellant groups have indicated that they wish to withdraw their hearing requests. The item is
City of Palo Alto Page 2
being presented for Council consideration, however, because the Municipal Code only
recognizes withdrawal of a hearing request prior to the PTC hearing.
Accordingly, to complete the approval, staff recommends the Council approve the attached
Record of Land Use action (Attachment A) approving the project.
More background information on the project is av ailable in the PTC staff report:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65687 .
Environmental Review
The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained
in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX)
Attachment B: Hearing Request Letter 1 - Withdrawn (PDF)
Attachment C: Hearing Request Letter 2 - Withdrawn (PDF)
Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX)
Attachment E: Public Comment (PDF)
Page 1 of 4
ACTION NO. 2018-____
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR
999 ALMA STREET: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (18PLN-00060)
On July 30, 2018, the Council of the City of Palo Alto, after considering all of the evidence
presented, approved the Conditional Use Permit application for a commercial recreation use with
extended hours of operation located in the RT-35 Zoning District, making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background.
A. An application for a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow a commercial recreation use with
extended hours of operation on the site was submitted on February 13, 2018.
B. Planning Staff tentatively approved the application on May 9, 2018. Two timely requests for a
public hearing were received prior to the tentative de cision becoming effective.
C. The Planning and Transportation Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which
evidence was presented and all persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard , and
recommended approval of the Project on June 27, 2018. The Commission’s recommendations are
contained in CMR #____ and the associated attachments.
D. On July 30, 2018, the City Council, after reviewing the evidence presented, adopted the
recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission and approved the subject CUP
application.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The proposed project has been determined to be
Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality
Act Guidelines.
SECTION 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings.
Conditional Use Permit approval is based on the findings indicated under PAMC Section 18.76.010:
1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience.
The site is located in the South of Forest Avenue area at the intersection of Alma Street and
Addison Avenue. The site is surrounded by a variety of other commercial uses and personal
services, as well as a number of single family and multi-family residences. As conditioned, the
commercial recreation use will be conducted solely within the building at 999 Alma Street, and
the maximum hours of operation will be restricted. A commercial recreation (gym) use promotes
healthy living and physical activity, and with reasonable restrictions on the operations, including
restrictions on noise, parking, and glare as set forth in the Conditions of Approval, the use will not
Page 2 of 4
be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience, and will not be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.
The subject property is designated as Residential Transitional RT-35 in the SOFA II Coordinated
Area Plan. This land use designation is intended to promote the continuation of a mixed use,
walkable, area with a wealth of older buildings. In the future, as in the past, different non -
residential uses will become more or less dominant. However, it is a goal of the plan to make sure
that a particularly strong market in one sector does not drive out diversity. Neighborhood serving
retail and service uses that serve the residential communities in and near SOFA are particularly
valued. The differing height, intensity, and use restrictions recognize the differing potentials of
the area as it moves between purely residential neighborhoods and the downtown, and closer to
Alma Street and the transit center. A commercial recreation (gym) use is neighborhood-serving
and would promote a diversity of compatible land uses in the RT -35 district. As conditioned, the
project will be conducted in a manner that will be in accord with the applicable goals and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 4. Conditions of Approval.
1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Use and development shall be conducted in substantial
conformance with the approved plans entitled, "Interior Tenant Improvements at 999 Alma
Street,” stamped as received by the City on April 6, 2018 on file with the Planning Department,
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval.
2. HOURS OF OPERATION. The Commercial Recreation conditionally permitted use hours of
operation are limited to 5:00AM to 11:00PM Monday through Sunday. Bac k-of-house operations,
such as deliveries and taking garbage/recycling to the curb, shall not occur prior to 6:00AM or
after 9:00PM. The landlord may have different allowable hours of operation within this permitted
timeframe. The landlord may have different allowable hours of operation.
3. AMPLIFIED MUSIC. Amplified music shall be permitted in the interior of the building only.
Amplified music shall not be audible beyond the site boundaries.
4. NOISE. At no time shall any amplified music, the sound of dropped weights, or other noise
associated with the use be detectable from the exterior of the building. This restriction shall not
apply to HVAC systems associated with the use, such equipment shall conform to the standards
set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 9.
5. WINDOW SHADES. The project shall incorporate internal window shades on the Addison Avenue
elevation that screen from view light and glare to the adjacent residential use. The shades shall
unfurl no later than sunset, and shall remain drawn until sunrise the following day.
Page 3 of 4
6. PARKING. The subject site has 41 legal noncomplying (i.e. grandfathered) parking spaces. An
additional seven (7) parking spaces are required and shall be provided off-site per PAMC
18.52.050(c). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide
documentation of a shared parking arrangement with the property at 100 Addison Avenue, or
similar site located within 500 feet, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
7. LATE PARKING. The tenant shall direct gym members and employees to park at the 100 Addison
Avenue property or along Alma Street prior to 6:00AM and after 9:00PM.
8. USE AND OCCUPANCY: The applicant shall apply for and obtain a Use & Occupancy Permit for the
commercial recreation facility within 30 days of project approval. Unless further restricted by the
Building Department, the use of the site shall not exceed 86 people at any given point in time in
order to comply with the parking requirements of PAMC Section 18.52. This approval shall not
affect the ability of the site to be used for a permitted retail use pursuant to the previously
approved architectural review application (02-ARB-25) for the Anthropologie store.
9. COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE: The use is limited to the “Commercial Recreation” land use
classification defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.04.030(a)(33). Outdoor recreation
shall not be permitted on the site without the approval of a separate Conditional Use Permit.
10. NUISANCE ABATEMENT: The use shall be operated in a manner to protect adjacent residential
properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during the
business hours.
11. TENANT RELATIONS. Any complaints from other tenants of the site regarding noise or other
issues associated with the operation of the commercial recreation use shall be addressed by the
owner or long-term leaseholder of the building or through formal mediation . In addition, the City
may take Code Enforcement or other appropriate action if the use is not in compliance with the
Municipal Code or the terms of this Conditional Use Permit. Per Conditions of Approval 14 and
15, such action may include the imposition of additional conditions, or the revocation of th e
Conditional Use Permit.
12. CODE COMPLIANCE: The proposed use shall be comply with all applicable City codes, including
Titles 9 (Public Peace, Moral and Safety) and 15 (Uniform Fire Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code and 19 (Public Safety) of the State of California Administrative Code.
13. INTENSIFICATION OF USE: Any intensification of use, such as an increase in size of the space, shall
require an amendment to the conditional use permit and any other entitlements as specified in
the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
14. COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The applicant shall at all times be in compliance
with the conditions of approval and documentation describing the community center’s operation.
If commercial recreation operations result in unanticipated impacts that negatively impact the
health, safety, convenience, or general welfare, the Director of Planning and Community
Page 4 of 4
Environment may impose additional conditions to mitigate those impacts. Any changes by the
Director to this approval or imposition of new or modified conditions shall be in writing and
subject to the city’s appeal procedures for conditional use permits.
15. REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF APPROVALS: The director may issue a notice of
noncompliance for any failure to comply with any condition of this permit approval, or when a
use conducted pursuant to a conditional use permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental
to the public health, safety and welfare.
16. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harm less the
City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and
against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties
and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the
Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs
incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such
action with attorneys of its own choice.
SECTION 5. Term of Approval.
In the event the change to a commercial recreation use is not commenced within twelve months of
the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant
to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.090
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
Deputy City Attorney Interim Director of Planning and
Community Environment
1
Owen, Graham
Subject:RE: 999 Alma and neighborhood quality
From: Liz Kniss <lizkniss@earthlink.net>
Date: July 21, 2018 at 12:59:13 PM PDT
To: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Cc: Jonathan Lait <jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org>, Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Robert De
Geus <robert.degeus@cityofpaloalto.org>, Joshuah Mello <joshuah.mello@cityofpaloalto.org>, Planning
Commission <planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>, City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>,
Michael Dorricott <michaeldorricott@gmail.com>, Dena Mossar <dmossar@gmail.com>, Michael Hodos
<mehodos@mac.com>, Dave Price <price@padailypost.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com>,
John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>, KJ and Fred Kohler <fkohler@sbcglobal.net>, Sandy Peters
<peterssandyj@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: 999 Alma and neighborhood quality
Thx for letting us know.
Liz
On Jul 21, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> wrote:
On behalf the neighbors concerned about 999 Alma parking and traffic impact, I
want to communicate their reluctant option to not pursue the
appeal. Nevertheless, there is strong opinion that staff and PTC overlooked basic
stewardship responsibilities to protect neighborhood quality and failed to analyze
the cumulative impact on adjacent businesses who may be competing for very
scarce parking.
In the allocation of upcoming budgets, we urge Council to assure Transportation
Department receives full funding for staff and programs to manage parking and
traffic proactively.
Unfortunately the staff and PTC decision to avoid a required parking study means
that management of neighborhood parking continues in its remedial, retro
mode*** contrary to the comp plan.
Since the Transportation staff is so over-committed, then the burden of
neighborhood quality falls solely on nearby neighbors. I hope this situation will
be addressed by the next City Council and City Manager,
***For example, we urge that staff communicate to resident leaders by early
August about staff plans and timelines to correct the lack of signage impeding
enforcement of non-resident vehicles within the 10 RRP zones.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
2
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
May 23, 2018
To: City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attention: Graham Owen, Associate Planner
Dear Graham:
Receiver
MAY 232018
Department of Planning
munity Environment
We, the undersigned, request a hearing for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) dated May 9,
2018 and issued May 10, 2018 regarding 999 Alma Avenue in Palo Alto as part of application
18PLN-00060.
Our reasons are explained below.
PARKING: The area surrounding 999 Alma is heavily congested with parked cars during
workdays. Palo Alto's Municipal Code 18.76.010(c) requires that a CUP:
(1) Not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
(2) Be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
and the purposes of this title (Zoning).
We have asked for evidence to support these two findings in regards to parking but received
none. The City conducted no parking study for the CUP prior to granting the permit.
Meanwhile, other evidence indicates the permit will create a significant negative impact on
general welfare and convenience, and that such a manner of operation is not in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Residents of Downtown have considerable historical data and continue to collect information
about parking problems in the vicinity of this project. Two recent midday surveys were
conducted of these nearby blocks:
11999 Alma
5 Residential Street
Faces
9 Commercial Street
Faces
■No Parking Allowed
i
14
5
2
EMERSON
8
9
8
1?
4
2
4
Ii.
ALMA
2
0
0
i
The number on each street face is its parking capacity
The survey results show how crowded street parking already is around the gym:
Date
Type
Spaces in Use
Total Spaces
Utilization
Free Spaces
Thursday
May 3, 2018
11:30 am
Commercial
38
73
52%
35
Residential
34
43 _
79%
9
Total
44
Thursday
May 17, 2018
11:55 am
Commercial
37
73
51%
36
Residential
34
43
79%
9
Total
45
Average Total
45
The CUP cites a total of 48 parking spaces as needed for 999 Alma. With 20 of those being for
the 5,000 sq. ft. medical office in the same building, the gym adds a need for 28 parking spaces.
While seven cars will be allowed to park at the daycare facility at 100 Addison, that leaves 41
cars for the employees and customers of 999 Alma needing parking spaces. As the table above
indicates, the 35 to 36 available nearby commercial spaces are insufficient to handle this. The
use of residential spaces will likely be even higher. Employees and also customers staying for
more than two hours might first park in a commercial zone and then move to a residential zone,
which grant an additional two hours of free parking, to avoid purchasing a permit. Drivers
approaching from the south or east will encounter residential spaces before commercial ones
and thus likely use the former. Thus, the few available nearby residential spaces will likely be
taken, thus completely saturating residential streets.
The likely impact then on both commercial and residential streets will be considerable. The City
is already expending tens of millions of dollars and considerable staff time to reduce parking
impacts in this area after massive outcry from residents. For the City to now claim that
increasing the parking problems on these streets will have no negative impact is implausible
and completely contradicts its own prior and current declarations.
Rather, the first finding for the CUP cannot be made because the increased parking activity in
the commercial and residential areas will be detrimental to the general welfare and
convenience of existing uses. The increase in parking demand means owners and tenants of
properties on residential blocks may not be able to find any
parking in front of their buildings, despite many have purchased
permits from the City for that very purpose. Extra traffic and
contention for parking is itself a safety issue the City has already
acknowledged. Late night visitors to the gym parking in
residential areas will also create noise that can easily disturb
residents. The residence at 160 Addison is very close to the
gym, as can be seen in the picture on the right taken from the
Addison side of that housing. Remarkably, the CUP's argument
for making the first finding does not even mention parking!
There is no evidence therefore the City considered the impact of
parking at all when making the finding.
The second finding for the CUP can also not be made. Page 4 of the recently -adopted
Comprehensive Plan says the Plan "... encourages commercial enterprise, but not at the
expense of the city's residential neighborhoods." In particular, Policy T-5.11 on page 93 says,
"Work to protect residential areas from parking impacts of nearby businesses and uses,
recognizing that fully addressing some existing intrusions may take time." The gym is clearly a
commercial enterprise and it is a new intrusion because of its extended hours. Its parking
shortage will harm the nearby neighborhoods. So it is definitely not in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan. And once again, the CUP's argument for this finding also does not even
mention parking! There is thus no evidence the City considered the impact of parking on
nearby neighborhoods in any manner when making this second finding.
Although the CUP does include requirement 6 that "the tenant shall direct gym members and
employees to park at the 100 Addison property or along Alma Street prior to 6:00 am and after
9:00 pm," this condition is hardly sufficient to address the concerns above. First, the CUP
allows the gym to operate for 18 hours a day (from 5:00 am to 11:00 pm), but requirement 6
affects just three of those (5:00 am to 6:00 am and 9:00 pm to 11:00 pm), meaning the parking
directive will not apply to the other 15 hours of daily operation. Then, the CUP contains no
monitoring, reporting, neighborhood engagement, or other mechanism to insure gym members
and employees actually comply. In other cases, such as for Castilleja School, located a few
blocks away, the CUP contains very specific monitoring and reporting requirements. And
thirdly, as is noted below, the gym will not even be staffed at these hours, so it is unclear how it
could itself monitor and enforce the requirement.
There may be some confusion over the references to "grandfathering" of parking for the 999
Alma site. Under Municipal Code 18.52.030(c), grandfathering means new uses are not
required to provide any parking spaces that were needed but missing on July 20, 1978,
provided all existing parking on that date is retained. In this particular case, grandfathering
exempts the gym and medical office from providing the 41 parking spaces that the building
presumably needed but didn't have on July 20, 1978. But that exemption from providing onsite
parking is separate from the independent findings under Municipal Code 18.76.010(c) required
to grant a CUP. CUPs are for less -favored uses and look at the impacts of one specific proposed
use on the community in general. A proposed use might be fully parked but still generate
external parking and/or traffic negatively impacting others and thus not be granted a CUP.
Hence, the grandfathering of 41 parking spaces for 999 Alma is not relevant to the CUP process
and in no way means the City can avoid examining parking issues generated by 999 Alma's
proposed gym upon the community. Rather, the CUP process requires that the City make
deliberative findings that the parking impacts will not create considerable harm to the
community. Those findings cannot be made for the current proposal.
It is also problematic that a city staff member wrote in an email dated May 10, 2018, "Given
their gym model, which is personal trainer -focused, I doubt there will be much parking spill-
over onto the surrounding streets." The "doubt" that "there will be much spillover" reiterates
that City is not relying on any formal study or analysis in its parking findings. Furthermore, the
personal trainer -focused model is not itself a requirement of the CUP. The current gym
operator or a successor could switch to having unsupervised exercise equipment rather than
personal trainers and continue under the same CUP. If the City's CUP findings were in any way
based on the personal trainer -focused model, that model should then be a requirement in the
CUP.
OPERATIONS: The gym's own website at https://www.trainingspacepa.com/ as of May 22,
2018 contradicts the City's statement above about the personal training and also the 5 am to
11 pm operating hours limitation in condition 1 of the CUP. Rather, the gym is advertising that
it will be a "24/7 access gym" as is seen in this excerpt from its website:
,TRAINING DICE
ALTO
HOME ABOUT MEMBERSHIP CONTACT TRAINERS FAQ
1111 ABOUT US
We are
Vile are ti_QJ ,.i hour llIrN u.
We are J Q Fume,
We ARC as rndepe' .I"'t fitness conne r ty for All people to reach R i, pc,i
We 4R/ a spa e e,-:reuulHOW you mat WHEl.yc;Aar t. NOKID, .t.'• 'If
We ARE the rrnly.4 I a; cess gym in Pala Alto.
WVewelccunememLe's:: ALL Mile, I'net .
Our
• Fu nal Training. Tittsleds, medicine balls, slam balls, core trailers, TN.
• Siren alnlnp Iaec sacs, benches, machines, olympic platforms, EN
f y 0
This next excerpt from the same web page says the gym offers 24/7 hours 365 days a year but
that staff will be there for just twelve hours on weekdays and four hours on Saturdays.
f r traausigspacepazom
Ii to v a e o
TRAINING
ALTO
HOME ABOUT MEMBERSHIP CONTACT TRAINERS FAQ
Ifeki
t f. 4
ADDRESS
Downtown Palo Alto
999 ALMA STREET
PALO ALTO, CA 94301
HOURS
Opening in June 2018
Member Access
24/7 365
Staffed Hours
Mon -Fri Bam-8pm
Sat 9am-fpm
f O
The statement from City staff that the gym will be "personal trainer -focused" appears to be
contradicted by the hours above, since those list times when the gym will not be staffed.
Further evidence is on the gym's FAQ page at https://www.trainingspacepa.com/faq, excerpted
here:
<ramx�t�aea$rmtam
p..km.en ier
111 1.
TRAININGSPACEALTO
^'A PA0.Q
HOME ABOUT MEMBERSHIP CONTACT TRAINfRS IA¢
Can I purchase a mernhershrp it I don I hare a trainer?
tr
f V G=
How do I gel ray ACCESS KEY?
{9mr dwf;!`:G1ta Ann ar! DM ni par sLiN Turtle, al n3a[1D:r ham!jr
fVG.
WM my memherstrip dues increase over blare?
Id'wee atom dos xay./resew,. IO wcwrs we, a fli wwvedae
f V G'
f y L7
The above says:
Can I purchase a membership if I don't have a trainer?
Yes!
How do I get my ACCESS KEY?
Come during business hours and one of our staff members will issue your ACCESS KEY.
These indicate that not all gym customers will have trainers and again that no staff will even be
present at all times when customers can use the gym.
That unsupervised customers will have access to the building is not anticipated in the CUP.
Such customers might park in front of residences, create noise, disturb residents, and /or
violate other provisions in the CUP outside the building. There is no mechanism by which the
gym could prevent or even monitor for this, given that it would have no staff present at the
time.
RECOMMENDATIONS: For all the above reasons, we believe the Planning and Transportation
Commission and the City Council should not uphold the CUP. Instead, we recommend:
1) A thorough and independent study first be conducted that analyzes different parking
and traffic conditions, including those stemming from drop-off and pick-up at the
incoming day care center at 100 Addison and how to ensure safety for children of the
day care center and patients of the medical office given the extra traffic when those
businesses and the gym begin operation.
2) A CUP requirement be added prohibiting gym members and employees from parking in
residential spaces whatsoever. That would mean disallowing the gym from purchasing
any RPP permits.
3) A CUP requirement be added to require the gym to develop a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program that includes free transit passes for its employees.
4) A CUP requirement be added that the gym participate in the Downtown Transportation
Management Association (TMA).
5) A CUP requirement be added to institute (a) strict and frequent monitoring, (b)
reporting to the city and neighborhood, and (c) meaningful enforcement.
6) A CUP requirement be added that the gym must be staffed during operating hours so it
can enforce the CUP requirements.
7) The hours of operation advertised by the gym on its website match the limits imposed
by the CUP.
8) The CUP should renew every three years so that changes in local parking conditions can
be accommodated.
Thank you very much,
Ray & Anneke Dempsey
1036 Bryant Street
Deanna Dickman
940 Bryant Street
Betsy & Robert Gamburd
1024 Ramona Street
Michael Hodos
944 Bryant Street
Ron & Mina Laurie
1037 Ramona Street
Sandy and Jerry Peters
1021 Ramona Street
Diana Wahler
940 Bryant Street
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
1
Owen, Graham
From:Dena Mossar <dmossar@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, July 06, 2018 5:27 PM
To:Owen, Graham
Cc:Karen Smestad; Dena Mossar; Goldstein, Paul
Subject:Public Hearing re: 999 Alma St. project
Graham: Karen Smestad and I have discussed our appeal of this project and have decided to withdraw our request for a
hearing.
Do we need we need to do anything more official than this e‐mail to remove our appeal from the docket?
Dena
Received
Graham Owen
Associate Planner
City of Palo Alto
Planning Division
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
May 24, 2018
MAY 242018
& Department of Planning
Community Environment
SUBJECT: 999 Alma Street, Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Recreation,
18PLN-00060
Mr. Owen:
This letter serves as a request for a public hearing of the proposed Director's
Decision for 999 Alma giving tentative approval with conditions for project 18PLN-
00060.
As near -neighbors of this site we have the following concerns, which we hope can be
addressed in the requested public process. We make this request for the following
reasons:
1. The tentative approval makes an exception to allowable hours of operation
set out for Zone District RT-35, which were established in the SOFA II
process. This exception would change the allowable opening hours of
operation from 6am (as specified in the code) to 5am (one hour earlier than
specified in the code). Stipulated closing time is set at 11pm and is in
conformance with code.
2. The SOFA II process was a highly controversial public process involving a
committee of stakeholders and numerous public discussions and hearings
before both the Planning Commission and the City Council.
3. The project site is at the southern end of the RT-35 Zone District and is the
closest property to adjacent single-family housing of all properties in the RT-
35 zone area. There are no other commercial properties in the general area
that begin operation at 5am —in fact, we believe the standard operating
hours are 8am - 10pm. We do not believe that businesses in this area should
be exempted from codified rules set in a very public process.
4. Planning staff has reasoned that allowing the tenant to open one hour earlier
than permitted under existing code is justified because "CalTrain begins
operation at this time." This assumption by staff seems to have not been
based on anything other than their impression, as CalTrain does not begin
operations at 5am on the weekends or holidays.
5. The proposed recreational facility at this site intends to operate seven days a
week - presumably also on many holidays.
6. Palo Alto has been discussing ways to reduce train noise for many years. This
long-standing policy seems to be in conflict with planning staffs assumption
that existing train noise excuses new sources of noise. We would argue that
the existence of regionally -generated noise is not a justifiable reason to
permit additional local noise.
7. Staff has stipulated that amplified music be permitted in the interior of the
building only and shall not be audible beyond the site boundaries. They have
further stipulated that all noise, including amplified music and dropped
weights, not be detectable from the exterior of the building. It is our
understanding, however, that staff has not conducted sound testing, or
required that the applicant provide data, that would show that this
stipulation can reasonably be met in the existing structure.
8. Staff has shown concern for light and glare and impacts on residential
properties. However, the stipulated hours required to keep window shades
drawn do not take into account daylight hours that vary with the season. For
example, in December, lighted windows could affect residential properties
for a full 4 hours before the requirement to close at 9pm became effective.
9. Staff has directed the tenant to direct gym members and employees to park
at 100 Addison or along Alma Street prior to 6am and after 9pm. We do not
believe that this is an enforceable requirement.
10. We understand that because of the City's policy regarding grandfathering
parking -deficits in the area, this project is not required to realistically meet
its parking requirement under code. Staff has stipulated that the applicant
provide documentation of a shared parking arrangement within 500 feet of
the site (most probably at 100 Addison) to provide a required additional
seven (7) off -site parking spaces.
11. We believe that the neighborhood parking permit program will probably
prohibit excessive parking in residential areas.
12. We are very concerned, and have been since the time Anthropolgie occupied
the site, that there is a dangerous conflict between pedestrian behavior
(jaywalking between the parking lot and entrance to the facility) and
automobile traffic —especially at those times the gym is open and there is no
daylight (varying with the season). The Director's decision is silent on this
topic.
13. We understand that after the Conditional Use Permit is issued, it would be
our responsibility to work with Code Enforcement if problems arose. Though
we hope that the new tenant would be a good neighbor and a successful new
business, the proposed Director's Decision gives us no confidence that
relevant issues have been adequately addressed.
Dena Mosssar
1024 Emerson St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
„, SA, Li
Karen Smestad
1023 Emerson St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attachment D
Project Plans
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to City Council members. These plans are available to
the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environment Department on
the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue.
Directions to review Project plans online:
1.Go to: http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPlanningProjects
2.Scroll down the center of the page and click “View pending projects”
3.Scroll to find “999 Alma Street” and click the address link
4.On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and
other important information
Direct Link to Project Webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4289&TargetID=319
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/23/2018 9:17 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Liz Kniss <lizkniss@earthlink.net>
Sent:Saturday, July 21, 2018 12:59 PM
To:Neilson Buchanan
Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Mello, Joshuah; Planning Commission;
Council, City; Michael Dorricott; Dena Mossar; Michael Hodos; Dave Price; Gennady
Sheyner; John Guislin; KJ and Fred Kohler; Sandy Peters
Subject:Re: 999 Alma and neighborhood quality
Thx for letting us know.
Liz
On Jul 21, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> wrote:
On behalf the neighbors concerned about 999 Alma parking and traffic impact, I want to
communicate their reluctant option to not pursue the appeal. Nevertheless, there is
strong opinion that staff and PTC overlooked basic stewardship responsibilities to
protect neighborhood quality and failed to analyze the cumulative impact on adjacent
businesses who may be competing for very scarce parking.
In the allocation of upcoming budgets, we urge Council to assure Transportation
Department receives full funding for staff and programs to manage parking and traffic
proactively.
Unfortunately the staff and PTC decision to avoid a required parking study means that
management of neighborhood parking continues in its remedial, retro mode*** contrary
to the comp plan.
Since the Transportation staff is so over-committed, then the burden of neighborhood
quality falls solely on nearby neighbors. I hope this situation will be addressed by the
next City Council and City Manager,
***For example, we urge that staff communicate to resident leaders by early August
about staff plans and timelines to correct the lack of signage impeding enforcement of
non-resident vehicles within the 10 RRP zones.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/25/2018 7:35 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dena Mossar <dmossar@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 24, 2018 5:07 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Goldstein, Paul; Dena Mossar
Subject:Consent Calendar Item Scheduled for July 30, 2018
999 Alma Street, Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Recreation, 18PLN-00060
As near-neighbors of this site we would like to emphasize the importance of protecting residential
neighborhoods from early morning noise and activity.
Though we have withdrawn the appeal of the staff recommendation, we are relying on the good will and
assurances of the gym operator to protect us from potential impacts in the early-morning hours and on
weekends. The gym operator has assured us that early-morning activity will be minimal. The burden of
enforcing conditions on this project will, by definition, fall on the neighborhood.
We would like to make clear that modifying existing zoning to include early morning operations is a bad idea
and, in our belief, should never have been allowed into this review process. In no way should the 5 am start for
this project be used as a precedent for future applications. The fact that CalTrain begins operations at 5 am on
weekdays is not a valid reason to permit conditional uses that begin at 5 am.
We hope that you will make clear to planning staff that there should be no exemptions made to the hours of
operation authorized in Zone District RT-35 (6 am to 11pm).
Dena Mossar and Paul Goldstein
1024 Emerson St.
Palo Alto
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
July 30, 2018
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Adopt the Initiative Measure to Reduce the Comprehensive Plan’s
Citywide Cumulative Cap on Office/R&D Development (Initiative
Measure) as an Ordinance Without Alteration, or Adopt a Resolution
Placing the Initiative Measure on the November 6, 2018 Ballot
From: Joint Report of the City Clerk, City Manager and City Attorney
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Accept the fiscal impact report prepared by EPS Consulting (Attachment A); and either
2. Adopt an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, as proposed by the Initiative Measure to Reduce the Office/R&D
Development Cap (“Initiative Measure”), to reduce the citywide cumulative cap on new
office/R&D development to 850,000 square feet (Attachment B); or
3. Adopt a resolution calling an election to submit the Initiative Measure to the voters at
the next general municipal election on November 6, 2018 (Attachment C).
Discussion
The existing citywide cumulative cap on new office/R&D development in the updated
Comprehensive Plan 2030 and the Initiative Measure to reduce that cap are described
in the staff report for the June 11, 2018 City Council meeting:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65424.
Under the Palo Alto City Charter, Article VI, Section 2, when an initiative petition is
submitted with sufficient verified signatures to qualify for the ballot, the City Council
must either adopt the initiative ordinance without alteration or place it on the ballot at
the next general municipal election that is at least 88 days from the date of petition
certification. If the Council opts to place the initiative on the ballot, the Charter
authorizes the Council to also submit to the voters at the same election an amendment
to the initiative, and if a majority of qualified electors vote in favor of the amendment,
the initiative would be deemed amended. The Council is separately empowered under
this Charter provision to propose and submit any ordinance to the voters. The last day
to place any measure on the ballot for the November election is August 10, 2018.
Page 2
Fiscal Impact Report
Shortly before the Council’s summer recess, Council directed staff to prepare an
economic and fiscal impact analysis of the Initiative to the City and school district. This
analysis was to evaluate impacts on funding for infrastructure, below market rate
housing, traffic congestion, the Stanford Research Park and the community’s ability to
attract and retain business and employees. The Council also requested an analysis of
the Initiative’s consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and other policy
documents, as well as compliance with state law.
The City contracted with Economic & Planning Services (EPS) to prepare the fiscal
impact analysis. This is the same firm that prepared the fiscal analysis for the
Comprehensive Plan and was selected based on their familiarity with the City and ability
to use existing, City-specific, economic models given the compressed timeline for
preparation of this report.
EPS evaluated the cost savings attributable to the Initiative that could result from less
office/R&D space and employment. Revenue reductions from reduced property tax,
sales tax, transient occupancy tax and other revenue sources were also analyzed.
Based on the foregoing, the consultant concluded a possible net revenue reduction of
$1,000,000 annually. This loss represents the difference between a full office/R&D
buildout at 1.7 million square feet compared to the Initiative proposal of 850,000
square feet. This impact would not begin to be realized until the Initiative limit was
reached and the full opportunity cost of $1,000,000 would not be realized until the
theoretical buildout of another 850,000 square feet of office/R&D was constructed (to
equal the Comprehensive Plan policy of 1.7 million square feet). This potential revenue
loss represents about 0.5 percent of the City’s operating budget1. EPS estimates the
City would generate 4,250 fewer jobs under the Initiative based on a full buildout
analysis.
The consultant also analyzed the potential fiscal impact on one-time development
impact fee payments to the City. Based on an overall fee burden on new office/R&D
space of $63 per net new gross square foot, EPS concluded the City would collect
roughly $50,000,000 less in impact fees at full buildout between 1.7 million square feet
and the Initiative proposal of 850,000 square feet. However, it is important to note that
development impact fees are earmarked for investments that directly mitigate the
impact of new development and that reductions in development could reduce the City’s
need for these revenues.
To understand the potential impacts to the Stanford Research Park and the City’s ability
to attract and retain business and employees, EPS conducted stakeholder interviews
1 Analysis is based on the City’s 2018 General Fund expense budget of $210.4 million.
Page 3
with individuals with local knowledge and regional perspectives2. Those interviewed
expressed concerns about the impact of regulatory actions on the City’s business
climate, uncertainty about business expansion potential, how the restriction on
office/R&D could create a fixed supply driving up rents, and impacts related to public
investment opportunities with reduced impact fee revenue. With respect to Stanford
Research Park, there is a recognition that the Park generates a significant amount of
revenue to the City in terms of higher property values, business-to-business tax
revenue and related revenue generated by research park tenants for business travel.
Under current regulations, there remains about 850,000 square feet of developable
area in the research park. It is unlikely, based on past development activity, that this
amount of development will be achieved by 2030. However, to the extent the Initiative
causes companies to re-think about locating or expanding in Palo Alto, it may have a
chilling effect on Stanford Research Park and other commercial areas in the City. EPS
and staff are unable to quantify conclusions as to the impact of the Initiative on the
Stanford Research Park or the City’s ability to attract or retain employees. This requires
a more qualitative analysis and individuals with different perspectives may not agree as
to the impact the Initiative may or may not cause.
More information from the stakeholders interviewed and greater detail on the fiscal
analysis is available in Attachment A. Representatives from EPS will attend the Council
meeting.
While not included in the EPS analysis, staff has reviewed the Initiative compared to the
City’s Comprehensive Plan, Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA), and selected references to
state law. There were no inconsistencies identified in any of th ose documents when
compared to the Initiative. Some Comprehensive Plan polices related to business
attraction and retention, small businesses and fostering a culture of innovation are
implicated to some degree, but not found to be inconsistent with the Initiative.
As directed by Council, a Council subcommittee was formed to consider whether to
propose a companion measure to amend the Initiative Measure. The subcommittee
consisting of Mayor Kniss and Councilmember Scharff determined not to forward an
amending measure to the full Council.
Resource Impact
The estimated cost of the November 2018 election including this citizen initiative, 1
additional ballot measure, the 3 open seats on the City Council, and translation into
several languages is approximately $125,000. The FY 2019 Budget currently includes
funding of $100,000.
Environmental Review
2 Attachment A includes a list of individuals interviewed.
Page 4
The potential actions to adopt or submit to the voters the citizen initiative are not a
project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Fiscal Impact Report (PDF)
Attachment B: Ordinance Adopting Office Cap Initiative Measure (PDF)
Attachment C: Resolution Calling Election to Submit Initiative Measure to Voters (PDF)
Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney
Page 5
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Jonathan Lait, City of Palo Alto
From: Benjamin C. Sigman, Jason Moody, and Anisha Gade,
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Subject: Economic Review of Initiative Measure to Reduce Office/R&D
Cumulative Cap in the Comprehensive Plan; EPS #181111
Date: July 24, 2018
During April 2018, three Palo Alto residents submitted a notice of intent
to circulate an initiative petition (“Initiative Measure”) which, if adopted,
would amend Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan and the Palo Alto Municipal
Code to reduce the current citywide cap on new square feet of
office/R&D development by 50 percent (from the current cap of 1.7
million square feet to a new cap of 850,000 square feet, with certain
exemptions) and to require voter approval to change the new cap.
Initiative Measure supporters gathered sufficient signatures to qualify
the Initiative Measure for the November ballot. After accepting the City
Clerk’s Certificate of Sufficiency for the Initiative Measure, the City
retained Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) to review the Initiative
Measure and consider its potential fiscal and economic impact on the
City.
The goal of this Economic Review is to provide the City with reliable
information concerning resulting impacts if the Initiative Measure is
adopted by City Council or approved by voters. However, the analysis
contained in this Review is limited due to time constraints imposed by
California Elections Code. Working on an expedited timeline, EPS
coordinated with the City to understand the Initiative Measure, conduct
technical analysis of fiscal effects, and perform outreach to stakeholders,
local and regional economic experts, and others to understand the range
of possible economic ramifications. This Review does not directly
consider non-economic factors that may be important to the community,
including the potential implications of the Initiative Measure on traffic,
community characteristics, environmental conditions, or other quality of
life factors.
Memorandum July 24, 2018
Economic Review of Initiative Measure Page 2
P:\181000s\181111_PaloAltoFiscal\Deliverable\181111_EconReview7.24.18_FINAL.docx
Key Findings
The Initiative Measure will not have an immediate, direct effect on new office/R&D
development in Palo Alto, but could curtail new development in the future.
From 2001 through 2017, new construction only added about 14,000 square feet of net new
office/R&D space annually in Palo Alto, on average. If this development pattern continues,
the Initiative Measure will not have a direct effect on growth. However, if the pattern of
development changes, it is possible that the Initiative Measure will reduce the City’s
office/R&D buildout. Impact estimates presented below (i.e., General Fund and Fee Revenues
effects) assume that office/R&D inventory would increase to the maximum allowed by the
Comprehensive Plan in the absence of the Initiative Measure.
The net fiscal impact of the Initiative Measure on the City’s General Fund is
estimated at a maximum of roughly $1 million per year (in constant 2018 dollars),
assuming that office/R&D development is reduced from 1.7 million square feet to
850,000 square feet at Comprehensive Plan buildout.
EPS estimates that General Fund revenue could fall by about $2.2 million per year and that
General Fund expenses could decrease by $1.2 million per year. The net fiscal effect $1.0
million represents only about 0.5 percent of the current City General Fund. A direct fiscal
impact would occur only if the cap becomes a binding constraint. The fiscal impact estimate
derives exclusively from office/R&D space reductions and does not factor in possible side
effects of the Initiative Measure, such as the potential impact on the business climate and
regional competitiveness of the City.
The Initiative Measure could reduce one-time development impact fee revenues by
over $50 million, assuming that office/R&D development is reduced from 1.7
million square feet to 850,000 square feet.
Considering current fees levied in the city, including the Housing Fee, Parks Fee, School Fee,
Traffic/Transportation Impact Fee, Community Center Fee, Libraries Fee, Public Safety
Facilities Fee, General Government Fee, and Public Art Fee, EPS estimates that the overall
fee burden on new office/R&D space is about $63 per net new gross square foot of
office/R&D development. If the Initiative Measure reduces office/R&D development in the city
by 850,000 square feet, the City would not collect one-time fee revenues for capital
improvements. However, it is important to note that development impact fees are earmarked
for investments that directly mitigate the impact of new development on public facilities, and
that reductions in development could reduce the City’s need for these revenues.
Interviewees expressed significant concerns about the Initiative Measure, primarily
owing to the potential effect on the overall business climate in the City, reduced
funding for community development priorities, and reduced potential for Stanford
Research Park to sustain its role as an essential economic engine for the City and
region.
Major themes captured from discussions with interviewees include:
o Regulatory actions affect the City's business climate;
o The Initiative Measure reduces certainty about business expansion potential;
o The Initiative Measure could create a fixed supply of office/R&D space;
o City fee revenues could decrease, thereby affecting affordable housing development and
other public investments;
Memorandum July 24, 2018
Economic Review of Initiative Measure Page 3
P:\181000s\181111_PaloAltoFiscal\Deliverable\181111_EconReview7.24.18_FINAL.docx
o The Initiative Measure could result in a decrease in private-sector contributions to the
community; and
o The Initiative Measure may prompt unintended consequences.
These themes are detailed in the Interviews section, below.
Research Effort and Findings
Ongoing Fiscal Impact Analysis on City General Fund
This analysis relies on the fiscal impact model developed by EPS for the City’s Comprehensive
Plan Update. The model estimates ongoing, annual public service cost expenses and General
Fund revenues.1 In this application, EPS relies on the existing model to estimate:
cost savings attributable to the Initiative Measure that could result from less office/R&D
space and employment in the City; and
revenue reductions attributable to the Initiative Measure, including from reduced property
tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax, and other revenue sources.
The model captures typical office development conditions citywide and typical City expenses for
non-residential uses. Key analytical assumptions are consistent with those in the EPS analysis of
Comprehensive Plan Update alternatives.
The EPS fiscal impact model is fully documented in the Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.2 The analysis is based on the City’s Fiscal Year 2015 adopted budget, with
revenue and cost effects attributable to growth considered on a revenue-line-item and
department-by-department cost basis.3 The analysis incorporates analytical inputs from key City
departments, collected through an extensive interview process. Model outputs reflect 15-year
forecasts of fiscal outcomes, in constant 2018 dollars.4 The model holds current conditions and
operations factors constant, including tax rates, organizational structures, and governance
policies.5
1 Palo Alto Unified School District General Fund effects are not formally considered as part of this fiscal
analysis. However, EPS estimates that if the Initiative Measure reduces office/R&D by 850,000 square
feet, PAUSD will collect approximately $3.6 million (2018 dollars) less annually in property tax
revenue. In addition, the possible reduction in office/R&D could result in higher property tax rates for
PAUSD bonds, since these rates can decrease if assessed value increases. EPS coordinated with Cathy
Mak, PAUSD Chief Business Officer, on assumptions concerning PAUSD revenue estimates.
2 Documentation of the EPS fiscal impact model is available here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65394
3 FY2015 data were current when the Fiscal Impact Analysis commenced. Since then, General Fund
revenue has increased notably, but expenditures also have similarly increased. The 2015 data are
believed to be sufficiently representative of current revenue and cost factors for land use planning.
4 For the cap analysis, results have been inflated to 2018 dollars based on the US Consumer Price
Index.
5 A complete discussion of analytical caveats is provided here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65394
Memorandum July 24, 2018
Economic Review of Initiative Measure Page 4
P:\181000s\181111_PaloAltoFiscal\Deliverable\181111_EconReview7.24.18_FINAL.docx
Initiative Measure Fiscal Impact Findings
Assuming full build out of 1.7 million square feet (MSF) of office/R&D versus 850,000 square
feet, the fiscal analysis identifies a change in the net annual fiscal impact on the City General
Fund of about $1.0 million per year. Revenues flow primarily from property tax, followed by sales
tax and transient occupancy tax. Costs are primarily attributable to the City’s provision of public
safety services. The reduction of the office/R&D cap could eliminate development of 850,000
square feet, reducing employment growth in the City by about 4,250 jobs, as compared with the
current development cap.6 In this analysis, each job generates an estimated net positive fiscal
impact on the City General Fund of about $240 per year, which consistent with findings from EPS
fiscal analysis of the City’s Comprehensive Plan alternatives. Actual impacts realized could be
greater or less depending on a number of factors, including the building types, geographic
locations, and tenant/end users affected by the Initiative Measure.
Figure 1 Estimate of Initiative Measure Impact on City General Fund (2018$)
Source: Economic & Planning Systems; based on Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
One-Time Fiscal Impact on Development Impact Fee Revenue
The California State Constitution authorizes cities to require the payment of fees or the
dedication of land as a condition of development approval. Municipalities may impose
requirements to defray the cost of a wide variety of public facilities, services, and infrastructure.
The most common uses include affordable housing, parks and recreation, transportation,
community facilities, and schools. When imposing fees, municipalities must be careful to exercise
their authority in a reasonable manner, making sure that the fee imposed directly reflects local
code requirements (e.g., open space dedication policy) or bears a “reasonable relationship” to
the public need that the new development will create. In the case of development impact fees,
the importance of establishing the “nexus” or proportional relationship between the impact of the
development on public facilities and infrastructure has been defined in both State law and in a
variety of State and federal court decisions.7
6 Assumes 200 square feet of office per job, consistent with efficient space usage alternatives
considered in EPS analysis of the Comprehensive Plan.
7 The Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code 66000) defines standards for development
impact fees.
Scenario Expenses Revenues Net Revenue
1.70 MSF Scenario $2,318,000 $4,346,000 $2,028,000
0.85 MSF Scenario $1,159,000 $2,173,000 $1,014,000
Initiative Measure
Impact Estimate -$1,159,000 -$2,173,000 -$1,014,000
Memorandum July 24, 2018
Economic Review of Initiative Measure Page 5
P:\181000s\181111_PaloAltoFiscal\Deliverable\181111_EconReview7.24.18_FINAL.docx
EPS has assessed current development impact fees applicable to office/R&D development in Palo
Alto. The goal of this task is to identify current levels of statutorily-required contributions to
public goods and infrastructure. EPS considered City development impact fees levied on
office/R&D projects and calculated the reduction in revenue attributable to the Initiative
Measure, in the event that it reduces office/R&D development in the city by 850,000 square feet.
The analysis considers the following development fees:
Housing Fee (PAMC Section 16.65.060): Fee on non-residential, commercial and industrial
development to contribute to programs that increase the City's low income and moderate-
income housing stock.
Traffic/Transportation Impact Fee8
o Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance (PAMC Ch. 16.59): Fee on new
development throughout the City to fund public facilities and services that relieve
citywide traffic congestion caused by new development projects.
o Transportation Impact Fee for New Nonresidential Development in the Stanford Research
Park/El Camino Real Commercial Service Zone (PAMC Ch. 16.45): Fee on new
nonresidential development to fund capacity improvements at four intersections.9 This
traffic fee (one of three transportation fee areas in the City of Palo Alto) is the highest in
the City.10
Parks, Community Centers, Libraries, Public Safety, and General Government (PAMC
Ch. 16.58): Fee on new residential and non-residential development to provide community
facility funds for parks, community centers, libraries, public safety, and general government.
Public Art for Private Developments (PAMC Ch. 16.61): Fee on all new, commercial
developments that have a floor area of 10,000 square feet or more and have a construction
value of $200,000 or more must either provide on-site construction/installation of public art
or pay in-lieu fees.
Schools: The Board of Education of Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) collects school
impact fees on new residential and commercial construction within District boundaries. Fees
are used only for construction and reconstruction of school facilities.
All of these fees are categorized as Development Impact fees. As such, the fee levels bear a
reasonable relationship to the public need that new development creates. Therefore, it is fair to
conclude that these fees pay for infrastructure and community improvements that are
8 Please note that during August 2018 the City anticipates bringing forward for Council consideration a
municipal code amendment to increase the citywide transportation impact fee in Ch. 16.59 and to
cease collection of the Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real fee, as recommended by the City’s
traffic consultant in the 2017 nexus study.
9 This fee was originally adopted in 1989 to mitigate at 8 intersections, but in 2002 the list was
updated to reflect 4 capacity improvement projects, 2 of which have been completed and 2 of which
will be improved as part of a County project.
10 The Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real Commercial Service Zone Transportation Fee is
included in the analysis to reflect the potential maximum effect on traffic/transportation impact fee
revenue based on the City’s existing fees. If unrealized development would have occurred elsewhere,
the traffic fee revenue reduction would be lower.
Memorandum July 24, 2018
Economic Review of Initiative Measure Page 6
P:\181000s\181111_PaloAltoFiscal\Deliverable\181111_EconReview7.24.18_FINAL.docx
necessitated by growth, and lower growth would generally be expected to result in lesser
impacts to be mitigated. However, it also is important to note that fee revenues often provide
matching funds that leverage funding sources from other governmental agencies and private
institutions for affordable housing and other capital improvements with communitywide benefit.
Furthermore, since the cap restricts development of net new office/R&D space, not job growth, it
is possible that employment gains could continue even with the cap, leaving the City with
increased traffic and other impacts and fewer fee dollars with which to mitigate those impacts.
Initiative Measure Fee Revenue Impact Findings
The analysis calculates unrealized fee revenue under the assumption that the Initiative Measure
reduces office/R&D development from the buildout level identified in the Comprehensive Plan,
based on the City’s current fee schedule. Figure 2 presents development impact fee estimates.
Memorandum July 24, 2018
Economic Review of Initiative Measure Page 7
P:\181000s\181111_PaloAltoFiscal\Deliverable\181111_EconReview7.24.18_FINAL.docx
Figure 2 Development Impact Fee Revenue Estimates
Effect on Below-Market-Rate Housing Production
The City has two housing funds, the Residential Housing Fund and the Commercial Housing Fund,
that consist of impact fees paid to the City by residential and commercial developments for the
purpose of rehabilitating and developing housing. Uses of the funds are governed by a set of
Guidelines last amended by the City Council in August 2015. These funds, which can only be
used to support housing, represent a significant resource that can be leveraged to address the
City’s housing goals.
Fee Category
Fee
Per
Square
Foot
Comprehensive
Plan
Maximum
Revenue
(1.7 MSF)
Initiative
Measure
Maximum
Revenue
(0.85 MSF)
Initiative Measure
Loss of Revenue
Estimate
Housing Fee $35.00 $59,500,000 $29,750,000 -$29,750,000
Traffic/Transportation Impact Fee (1) $17.75 $30,175,000 $15,087,500 -$15,087,500
Parks Fee $5.06 $8,603,700 $4,301,850 -$4,301,850
Public Art Fee (2) $3.00 $5,100,000 $2,550,000 -$2,550,000
General Government Fee $0.73 $1,239,300 $619,650 -$619,650
Public Safety Facilities Fee $0.58 $984,300 $492,150 -$492,150
School Fee (3) $0.56 $904,400 $452,200 -$452,200
Community Center Fee $0.29 $486,200 $243,100 -$243,100
Libraries Fee $0.27 $462,400 $231,200 -$231,200
TOTAL IMPACT FEES $63.24 $107,455,300 $53,727,650 -$53,727,650
(1) This fee is a combination of two components: the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee as well as the highest of Palo
Alto's Area-Specific Transportation Impact Fees, that of the Stanford Research Park / El Camino Real Commercial Service
Zone. Hexagon Transportation Consultants calculated the Citywide fee to be $5.33 per square foot, based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineer's standard trip generation rates. The City of Palo Alto's publication on Development Impact Fees
lists the SRP/ECR CS Zone fee as $12.42 per square foot. The City anticipates bringing forward for Council consideration a
municipal code amendment to increase the citywide transportation impact fee in Ch. 16.59 and to cease collection of the
Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real fee, as recommended by the City’s traffic consultant in the 2017 nexus study. The
proposed code amendments are currently planned for the August 13th, 2018 City Council agenda.
Sources: City of Palo Alto; Palo Alto Unified School District; Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.; Saylor Current
Construction Costs 2018; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
(2) The City's Public Art for Private Developments Ordinance states that this fee shall total "1% of the first $109.36 million
construction valuation and 0.9% of construction valuation for valuation in excess of $109 million for commercial buildings
with a floor area of at least 10,000 sq. ft. and construction value of at least $200,000." Because it is impossible at this stage
to estimate true construction costs of potential future development, this assessment assumes a 1% fee based on average
commercial construction costs of $300 per square foot, derived from Saylor Current Construction Costs 2018 .
(3) This fee is levied on per square foot of commercial accessible space. A modest adjustment has been made to square
footage, to relfect the building area to which this fee is applied.
Memorandum July 24, 2018
Economic Review of Initiative Measure Page 8
P:\181000s\181111_PaloAltoFiscal\Deliverable\181111_EconReview7.24.18_FINAL.docx
The impact of the Initiative Measure would reduce revenues accruing to the Commercial Housing
Fund, a subsidy account for affordable housing production. Given that the estimated City subsidy
per affordable unit is about $136,100, if a maximum of $29.8 million in affordable housing fees
are not collected due to the development cap (as shown in Figure 2), approximately 219
affordable housing units would not be funded.11 At the same time, the lower fee revenue reflects
the lower need for new affordable units attributable to office development.
Effect on Transportation Improvements
In addition to affordable housing, a maximum of $15.1 million in funding for transportation
improvements and traffic congestion mitigation efforts might not be collected. To put this figure
in the context of local cost metrics, $15 million is sufficient to fund signalization, enhanced
bikeways, mobility and safety improvements, complete streets improvements, and intersection
improvements, for example. City transportation fees also might contribute to grade separation
improvements being considered as part of the Caltrain electrification and High Speed Rail
projects. Figure 3 presents transportation improvement projects, and associated cost estimates,
included in the Palo Alto Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study 2017, some of which might be
affected by funding reductions.12
11 City of Palo Alto Housing Work Plan, February 2018.
12 Future fees will be updated to reflect evolving transportation improvements and escalating costs.
Memorandum July 24, 2018
Economic Review of Initiative Measure Page 9
P:\181000s\181111_PaloAltoFiscal\Deliverable\181111_EconReview7.24.18_FINAL.docx
Figure 3 List of Transportation Capital Improvements
Source: City of Palo Alto Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study, 2017
Office/R&D Development History and Outlook
As part of this review, EPS also considers past office/R&D development patterns to identify the
likely point at which the Initiative Measure office/R&D cap could become a binding constraint on
future office/R&D development in the City. The following analysis of historic office/R&D
development suggests that it is unlikely that the cap will have a binding constraint on
development in the near term. However, at least three factors should be considered before
characterizing the cap as superfluous, including (1) historic net new development has been
modest in part due to conversions of office to other uses and the demolition of significant office
structures, (2) the cap could extend past 2030, and (3) there is development potential at the
Memorandum July 24, 2018
Economic Review of Initiative Measure Page 10
P:\181000s\181111_PaloAltoFiscal\Deliverable\181111_EconReview7.24.18_FINAL.docx
Stanford Research Park that could increase net new development relative to past development
patterns, although no future redevelopment plans for the Park have been made public.
From 2001 through 2017, City-sourced data reveal Palo Alto has only added approximately
240,000 square feet of net new office/R&D space citywide, or about 14,000 square feet per year
on average. This net addition of space is modest relative to the level of development in the City,
owing to the conversion and/or demolition of office stock to other uses.13 More recently, from
2015 through 2017, the city saw a net increase in office/R&D of approximately 134,000 square
feet, or almost 45,000 square feet per year on average, in part because there were fewer
conversions and/or demolitions in the City. If the level of net new development during these time
periods were to continue into the future, it would take 19 or more years (starting in 2015) for
the Initiative Measure cap to be a binding constraint on office/R&D development in the City.
Figure 4 illustrates the historic trend in net additions to office/R&D building stock in Palo Alto,
based on data compiled by the City.
Figure 4 Net Change in Citywide Office and R&D Development Floor Area
Source: City of Palo Alto
13 Sun Microsystems was converted to the Oshmann Family Jewish Community Center (~390,000
square feet). The former Facebook headquarters (~323,000 square feet) has been demolished.
‐400,000
‐300,000
‐200,000
‐100,000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Sq
u
a
r
e
F
e
e
t
o
f
N
e
t
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
S
p
a
c
e
A
d
d
e
d
2015‐2017 Average
= 45,000 SF2001‐2017 Average
= 14,000 SF
Memorandum July 24, 2018
Economic Review of Initiative Measure Page 11
P:\181000s\181111_PaloAltoFiscal\Deliverable\181111_EconReview7.24.18_FINAL.docx
Despite the modest net additions to office/R&D space in recent history, new deliveries (gross
development) of office space in Palo Alto totaled over 1.8 million square feet citywide between
2001 and 2017, or an average of about 107,000 square feet per year.14 If demolitions and the
conversion of office space to other uses were to slow and new deliveries maintain their historic
pace (i.e., gross development of about 107,000 square feet per year), it is conceivable that the
Initiative Measure cap of 850,000 square feet could become a binding constraint more quickly.
Current zoning at Stanford Research Park alone allows for the addition of about 850,000 square
feet of net new office/R&D development capacity. However, the likelihood of net new
development hitting the cap in the near term is remote, absent a major shift in the development
pattern at Stanford Research Park.
Interviews
EPS conducted telephone interviews with local, private, and not-for-profit entities to provide a
qualitative characterization of the potential economic impact of the Initiative Measure. In
particular, these interviews were intended to provide diverse perspectives on:
Potential positive or negative impacts of the Initiative Measure on Palo Alto's ability to attract
and retain business and employment, generally; and
Potential positive or negative impacts of the Initiative Measure on the Stanford Research
Park, specifically.
Interviewees included representatives from the Stanford Research Park, the Chamber of
Commerce, former City officials, local employers, an affordable housing developer, and local and
regional economic experts. EPS coordinated with City staff to identify interviewees. The following
is a summary of selected comments derived from this process.
Regulatory actions may affect the City's business climate.
Most companies seek growth. They need to be nimble, to innovate, and to evolve. The
Initiative Measure sends the message that Palo Alto is closed for business; economic growth
is unwanted.
The announcement of the Initiative Measure likely already has had an effect on the business
climate in Palo Alto.
A regulatory restriction on office/R&D space is likely to have a dampening effect on the ability
of Palo Alto to attract and retain business enterprises. If this restriction makes office space in
Palo Alto more expensive, it will disproportionately affect small enterprises and early-stage
startups.
The cumulative effect of various local policies and regulations is becoming severe (i.e., the
cap adds to the recent increase in minimum wage, higher tax rates, and restrictive and
subjective planning/land use regulations).
Palo Alto’s office market already is showing some signs of weakness, including increasing
vacancies.
14 New deliveries of office data from CoStar Group (R&D deliveries are not included due to potential
definitional conflicts between CoStar Data and City land use code).
Memorandum July 24, 2018
Economic Review of Initiative Measure Page 12
P:\181000s\181111_PaloAltoFiscal\Deliverable\181111_EconReview7.24.18_FINAL.docx
Interviewees increasingly view Redwood City and Sunnyvale, among other Bay Area locales,
as business locations that are competitive with Palo Alto, and friendlier to business interests.
The Initiative Measure sponsors point out that there is economic research that finds there are
limits to the economic benefit of urban density. These interviewees expressed the opinion
that Palo Alto is strained by traffic congestion to such an extent that it could negatively affect
future growth.
The Initiative Measure sponsors also clarify that Initiative Measure is not a moratorium on
growth in perpetuity. Rather, the Initiative Measure would moderate growth to a level that is
in line with the historical average. If the development cap were to become a binding
constraint prior to 2030, voters can choose to increase, modify, or remove the Initiative
Measure’s limitations.
The Initiative Measure reduces certainty about business expansion potential.
Businesses desire a predictable and objective framework that defines land use and real
estate potential.
The cap makes space availability less certain in the future, which is undesirable for business
planning.
Firms that want to grow in Palo Alto desire the flexibility to expand readily, sometimes
scaling up rapidly to take on new lines of business.
The passage of the Comprehensive Plan was viewed as a positive accomplishment from the
business perspective. Through that Plan, the community documented its vision for future
growth. The Initiative Measure compromises the clarity of the Comprehensive Plan, and firms
are increasingly concerned about additional, future regulations.
The Initiative Measure could create a fixed supply of office/R&D space.
Interviewees provided mixed accounts of the effect that a fixed office/R&D supply might
have. Most indicated a strong belief that fixed office/R&D will have a negative impact on Palo
Alto’s economic competitiveness and productivity potential. However, the Initiative Measure
sponsors identify a vein of economic research that finds congestion and other side effects of
density can have a negative effect on economic competitiveness and productivity.
Numerous interviewees noted that the Initiative Measure may not fully curb office/R&D space
demand. Palo Alto is perennially desirable due to its proximity to Stanford University, the
Stanford Research Park, a highly-skilled labor force, and local venture capital sources.
There is some potential for a run on office/R&D development entitlements, and interviewees
expressed concern about a regulation-driven increase in development permitting.
The basic laws of economics dictate that fixed supply will result in rising rents and property
values as demand increases. High rents and the challenges of expanding locally could make
Palo Alto a less viable location for small businesses and startup enterprises.
The Initiative Measure may prompt unintended consequences.
Commercial real estate trends indicate many businesses are seeking to increase the
efficiency of their office usage. The Initiative Measure’s limits on office expansion could
Memorandum July 24, 2018
Economic Review of Initiative Measure Page 13
P:\181000s\181111_PaloAltoFiscal\Deliverable\181111_EconReview7.24.18_FINAL.docx
further incentivize increases in employee density in Palo Alto. Business owners may choose
to add employees without growing their physical space.
In Palo Alto, from 2001 through 2014, the number of jobs in the city increased by roughly
8,000, despite modest net new office development during this period. Furthermore, national
data reveal that during economic boom times office space usage becomes increasingly
efficient as companies grow their payroll without commensurate increases in office space.
Between 1992 and 2001, average office space per worker in the US fell by about 15
percent.15 Some interviewees indicated that workplace densification potential suggests that
the Initiative Measure does not necessarily limit economic and job growth in the City.
Stanford Research Park
Stanford Research Park (SRP) has historically been and continues to be a critical economic
engine in Palo Alto.
The development capacity throughout the SRP is about 850,000 square feet (i.e. the entire
office/R&D allowance, if the Initiative Measure passes.)
Tenants want the flexibility to expand and certainty for long-range planning.
The SRP model relies on ground leases that last 51 years. This structure limits the flexibility
to develop quickly. Some tenants with sufficient unbuilt capacity and significant remaining
lease terms might undertake new office/R&D projects. If not, SRP management must wait to
redevelop or reinvest until the tenant’s lease expires. A run on office/R&D development
proposals could be detrimental as SRP management cannot move quickly, given its leasing
structure. Currently, three tenants control approximately 380,000 square feet of unbuilt
office/R&D capacity at SRP.
If development potential in SRP is lost, the fiscal impact could be greater than what is shown
in Figure 1. This would be due to a number of factors, chiefly among them, higher property
values, higher business-to-business tax revenue, and greater business travel that likely is
generated by SRP tenants. It also is possible that the cost of providing City services to new
development at SRP is less than estimated by the EPS model.16
SRP has produced a Fiscal Analysis that presents an assessment of potential fiscal impacts
attributable to office/R&D space at SRP.17 The analysis points to a number of factors
(consistent with those described above) that result in potentially greater net fiscal
contributions to the City General Fund. EPS has not fully vetted the SRP analysis but concurs
15 Trends in Square Feet per Office Employee: An Update, CoStar Portfolio Strategy, Fall 2017
16 The EPS fiscal impact model attributes costs of service to commercial uses generally. A significant
cost of service is related to police calls for service. According to the Police Department, a key driver of
calls for service is commercial activity, primarily attributable to vibrant mixed-use areas of the City
where retail, restaurants, and office uses are present. As a single-use business park, SRP likely
generates fewer calls for service than other commercial areas in the City.
17 Stanford Research Park Fiscal Analysis, July 17, 2018.
Memorandum July 24, 2018
Economic Review of Initiative Measure Page 14
P:\181000s\181111_PaloAltoFiscal\Deliverable\181111_EconReview7.24.18_FINAL.docx
that the net fiscal benefit of employment at SRP likely is higher than EPS’s citywide
estimates.
The SRP analysis also considers potential significant jumps in assessed value and the fiscal
benefits of redevelopment at SRP, including benefits to the City and to PAUSD.
Redevelopment potential at SRP still exists even if the Initiative Measure reduces the
maximum development potential of the Park. However, a modest amount of net new
development potential can incentivize full scale redevelopment of a site. When this occurs,
the entire project is reassessed and taxed at its new higher value, thereby creating
significant tax revenue benefits, above those captured by the fiscal analysis.
A lack of new office/R&D development potential at SRP also could affect the possibility of new
housing and other uses at SRP, if the cap hinders the ability of SRP to sustain its
competitiveness. With growth potential, SRP offers opportunities for creative, beneficial
development programming in which employee housing is available on site.
Interviewees
Stakeholders
Joe Rice and Jennifer Paedon, Lockheed Martin
Jon Goldman, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Board Member
Candice Gonzalez, Palo Alto Housing
Tiffany Griego and Amy Herman, Stanford Research Park
Leah Popoff and Iris Gai, VMWare
Local and Regional Experts
Micah Weinberg, Bay Area Council Economic Institute
Steve Levy, Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy
Nardin Sarkis, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Government Relations Associate
Initiative Sponsors
Greg Schmid, former City of Palo Alto City Councilmember
Joe Hirsch, former City of Palo Alto Planning Commissioner
SL/2018 Elections/Office Cap Initiative/ORD Adopting 1 July 2018
Office Cap Initiative
** NOT YET ADOPTED **
DRAFT
Ordinance No. ____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the Provisions of an
Initiative Measure Amending the Comprehensive Plan and Title 18 (Zoning) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Reduce the Maximum Allowable New Office and
R&D Development Citywide from 1.7 Million Square Feet to 850,000 Square
Feet, Subject to Specified Exemptions
RECITALS
A. On May 22, 2018, the proponents of the initiative to reduce the
citywide cumulative office/R&D development cap by fifty percent from 1.7 million
square feet to 850,000 square feet submitted petition signatures to the Office of the
City Clerk, which signatures the City Clerk transmitted to the County of Santa Clara
Registrar of Voters for verification in accordance with Elections Code Section 9115.
B. On June 3, 2018, the Registrar of Voters certified that the initiative
petition qualified with the sufficient number of valid signatures with a total of 2,430
which is greater than 6% of the registered voters in the City of Palo Alto at the last
general municipal election for the City.
C. On June 11, 2018, the City Council accepted the Certificate of
Sufficiency of the Initiative Petition issued by the Registrar of Voters and directed
staff to provide a report on the potential effects of the initiative.
D. On July 30, 2018, the City Council accepted the report.
E. The Palo Alto City Charter, Article VI, Section 2 authorizes the City
Council to adopt without alteration the proposed initiative ordinance to amend the
Comprehensive Plan and Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. The text of the proposed initiative ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan
and Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to reduce the cap on the maximum allowable new
office/R&D development citywide by fifty percent from 1.7 million square feet to 850,000
square feet, subject to specified exemptions, is set forth in full in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
SL/2018 Elections/Office Cap Initiative/ORD Adopting 2 July 2018
Office Cap Initiative
SECTION 2. The Comprehensive Plan and Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code are hereby
amended to read as set forth in full in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning & Community
Environment
Exhibit A
1. Palo Alto's Current Cap on New Office/R&D Development Is Excessive:
From 1989 to 2014, Palo Alto added approximately 1.5 million square feet of
non-residential development, as monitored by the City. The recently adopted
2030 Comprehensive Plan, which is the primary tool to guide future development
in the City, would allow an additional 1.7 million square feet of office/R&D
development. This Initiative reduces that amount by setting a new cumulative cap
on new office/R&D development that could occur in the City. The Initiative's
cumulative cap of 850,000 new square feet is in line with the average annual
square feet of non-residential development that has occurred since the City's
monitoring began. Importantly, the Initiative does not prevent the City from
adopting or enforcing annual caps on new office/R&D development —provided
that the cumulative total cap is not exceeded.
2. Palo Alto Cannot Tolerate More Traffic: According to the City's own study,
there are already about three jobs in the City for every employed resident. As a
result, the City has one of the highest commuter ratios in the nation for cities with
populations of more than fifty thousand. Excessive new office/R&D development
in Palo Alto —as the recently adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan allows —will
lead to even more jobs, and thus exacerbate traffic congestion and parking
shortages in the City. Two-thirds of City residents cite these issues as major
concerns.
3. Housing Prices Are Already Too High: Lack of affordable housing is another
major concern for City residents. And one of the primary causes of rising home
prices is rapid business expansion with the associated escalation of land prices.
Palo Alto cannot stand to have its affordable housing crisis deepened by the rapid
growth in office/R&D development and jobs that could occur under the recently
adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
4. Economic Prosperity Could Be Threatened by Excessive Growth. One
marker of Palo Alto's success as a center of Silicon Valley's innovation economy
has been the extraordinary mobility of its professional workers. The 2030
Comprehensive Plan recognizes that "employers, businesses and neighborhoods
share many values and concerns, including traffic and parking issues and
preserving Palo Alto's livability." Placing a moderate cumulative limit on
office/R&D growth will support the City's unique mobility of local businesses
and workers, while at the same time allowing a reasonable amount of growth over
the period of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION 2: CITY OF PALO ALTO 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
This Initiative hereby amends the Land Use and Community Design Element of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, as amended through April 20, 2018 ("Submittal Date"). Text to be
inserted in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is indicated in bold type, and text to be deleted is
indicated in stril gh type. Non -bolded text currently appears in the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan. Except as expressly provided below, the language adopted and readopted in the following
amendments may be repealed or amended (as by, for example, increasing the cap or by adding
Page 2 of 8
additional exemptions) only by a vote of the people through December 31, 2030.
A. Policy L-1.10 on page 37, under the heading "GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND
MONITORING," is hereby readopted with the following changes:
Cap new square feet of office/R&D development
citywide at 850,000 square feet, exempting medical office uses in the Stanford
University Medical Center (SUMC) vicinity. Use January 1, 2015 as the baseline and
monitor development towards the cap on an annual basis.
Continue to exempt medical,
governmental and institutional uses from the cap on office/R&D development; no other
exemptions are allowed.
Through December 31, 2030, this Policy L-1.10 may not be amended or repealed
except by a vote of the people, provided, however, that the Palo Alto City Council
may reduce the citywide cap of 850,000 new square feet of office/R&D development
without a vote of the people.
B. Program L1.10.1 on page 37, following Policy L-1.10, is deleted in its entirety as follows:
eatided-sinee-kauffy-17204--5-Feaehes-6-7-pereent-ef-the-alleweel-squafe-feetager or
SECTION 3: 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
In light of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendments set forth above in Section 2 of this
Initiative, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is hereby further amended as set forth below in order to
promote internal consistency among the various provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Text to be inserted in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is indicated in bold type, and text to be
deleted is indicated in atrOcethr-eugh type. Non -bolded text currently appears in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan and is not changed or readopted by this Initiative. The language adopted in
the following amendments may be further amended as appropriate without a vote of the people,
during the course of further updates and revisions to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, provided that
such amendments do not conflict with Policy L-1.10.
A. The text on page 20, under the heading "GROWTH MANAGEMENT," is amended as
follows:
The pace of non-residential growth and development in Palo Alto has been moderated by
a citywide cap on non-residential development first adopted by the City Council in 1989.
This Plan
presents an updated cumulative growth management and monitoring system, as
approved by the voters in the Palo Alto Reduced Office/R&D Development Cap
Page 3 of 8
Initiative. This system moderates the overall amount of new office/R&D development
to enhance Palo Alto's livability.
This updated approach uses 2015 as the baseline from which to monitor new
development and establishes a cumulative, citywide cap on office/R&D uses, including
conversions of existing square footage to office/R&D space.
B. Program B1.1.1 on page 196 is amended as follows:
Implement and periodically amend an Economic Development Policy to guide business
development in the City in a manner consistent with Policy L-1.10.
C. Program B7.2.1 on page 200 is amended as follows:
Review policies and regulations guiding development at Stanford Research Park and
revise them as needed to allow improved responsiveness to changing market conditions
in a manner consistent with Policy L-1.10.
D. The following rows of the Implementation Table on pages 214, 266, and 268 are
amended as follows:
Program #
Program Text
Lead
Department
or Agency
Priority
(S/M/L/IP/R)°
Anticipated
Level of
Effort
($/$$/$$$)
L1.10.1
et ..Pt>, tt ..t
reaches ,tom Ya ..
square f „tags > > 39 000
square f e. Concurrently •a
Naming&
Enviceiment
Depiatifient
M
S
13.1.1
Implement and periodically amend
an Economic Development Policy
to guide business development in
the City in a manner consistent
with Policy L-1.10.
Office of
Economic
Development
R
$
Page 4 of 8
B7.2.1
Review policies and regulations
guiding development at Stanford
Planning &
Community
M
$$
Research Park and revise them as
needed to allow improved
responsiveness to changing market
conditions in a manner consistent
with Policy L -L10.
Environment
Department
SECTION 4: PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS
This Initiative hereby amends the Palo Alto Municipal Code ("Municipal Code"). Text to be
inserted in the Municipal Code is indicated in bold type. Except as expressly provided below,
the language adopted in the following amendments may be repealed or amended only by a vote
of the people through December 31, 2030.
A. A new Section 18.40.200 (Growth Management) is added to Chapter 18.40 (General
Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code to read as follows:
18.40.200 Growth Management
This section 18.40.200 adopts the citywide cap on office/R&D development that
appears in Policy L-1.10 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030 pursuant
to the Palo Alto Reduced Office/R&D Development Cap Initiative:
Cap new square feet of office/R&D development citywide at 850,000 square
feet, exempting medical office uses in the Stanford University Medical Center
(SUMC) vicinity. Use January 1, 2015 as the baseline and monitor
development towards the cap on an annual basis. Continue to exempt
medical, governmental and institutional uses from the cap on office/R&D
development; no other exemptions are allowed.
Notwithstanding anything in this Municipal Code or any other City ordinance or
resolution to the contrary, the City shall not approve any non-exempt office/R&D
development that would exceed this cap, or add further exemptions to the cap,
except to the extent permitted by the Palo Alto Reduced Office/R&D Development
Cap Initiative.
Through December 31, 2030, this Section 18.40.200 may not be amended or repealed
except by a vote of the people, provided, however, that the Palo Alto City Council
may reduce the citywide cap of 850,000 new square feet of office/R&D development
without a vote of the people.
SECTION 5: EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS
A. This Initiative shall not apply to or prohibit any development project or ongoing activity
that has obtained, as of the Effective Date of this Initiative, a vested right pursuant to
State law.
Page 5 of 8
B. The provisions of this Initiative shall not apply to the extent, but only to the extent, that
they would violate the Constitution or laws of the United States or the State of California.
C. The City Council is authorized to grant exceptions to the voter approval requirements in
Policy L-1.10 where necessary to comply with state or federal law governing the
provision of housing, including but not limited to affordable housing requirements. This
exception applies only if the City Council first makes each of the following findings
based on substantial evidence in the record with respect to a proposed mixed -use housing
project including office/R&D uses that are subject to the cap set by this Palo Alto
Reduced Office/R&D Development Cap Initiative: (1) a specific provision of state or
federal law requires the City to accommodate the housing that will be permitted by the
exception; (2) the exception permits no more office/R&D development than that
necessary to comply with the specific provision of state or federal law; and (3) it is not
feasible for the City to require modifications to the office/R&D component of the
proposed project in a way that would allow the City to satisfy the specific state or federal
law without exceeding the cap set by this Palo Alto Reduced Office/R&D Development
Cap Initiative.
SECTION 6: IMPLEMENTATION
A. Effective Date: "Effective Date" means the date that the Palo Alto Reduced Office/R&D
Development Cap Initiative became effective. Upon the Effective Date of this Initiative,
the provisions of Section 4 are hereby inserted in the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code as
an amendment thereof, and the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 are hereby inserted in the
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030, as an amendment thereof; except that if
state or local law limits the number of Comprehensive Plan amendments in any given
year and those amendments have already been utilized in the year in which the Initiative
becomes effective, this 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be the first
amendment inserted in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030 on January 1 of
the following year. Upon the Effective Date of this Initiative, any provisions of the City
of Palo Alto Zoning Code or any other City of Palo Alto ordinance or resolution that are
inconsistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code amendments
adopted by this Initiative shall not be enforced in a manner inconsistent with this
Initiative.
B. Interim Amendments: The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030 in effect on the
Submittal Date and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as amended by this Initiative comprise
an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies for the City of
Palo Alto. To ensure that nothing in this Initiative, would prevent the 2030
Comprehensive Plan from being an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible
statement of the policies of the City, and to ensure that the actions of the voters in
enacting this Initiative are given effect, any amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
that is adopted between the Submittal Date and the date that the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan is amended by this Initiative shall, to the extent that such interim -enacted provision
is inconsistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan provisions readopted and amended by
this Initiative, be amended as soon as possible to ensure consistency between the
Page 6 of 8
provisions readopted and amended by this Initiative and other provisions of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. Likewise, any amendment to the Palo Alto Municipal Code that is
adopted between the Submittal Date and the date that the Municipal Code is amended by
this Initiative shall, to the extent that such interim -enacted provision is inconsistent with
the Municipal Code provision adopted by this Initiative, be amended as soon as possible
to ensure consistency between the provisions adopted by this Initiative and other
provisions of the Municipal Code.
C. Other City Plan, Ordinances, and Policies: The City of Palo Alto is hereby authorized
and directed to amend the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030, all area plans,
specific plans, the City of Palo Alto Zoning Code, Land Use Map, and Zoning Map, and
other ordinances and policies affected by this Initiative as soon as possible as necessary
to ensure consistency between the provisions adopted in this Initiative and other sections
of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, all area plans, specific plans, the Zoning Code, the
Zoning Map, and other City ordinances and policies.
D. Reorganization: The 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Municipal Code may be
reorganized or readopted in different format, and individual provisions may be
renumbered or reordered, in the course of ongoing updates of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan and the Municipal Code, provided that the provisions of Section 2 of this Initiative
shall remain in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the provisions of Section 4 of this
Initiative shall remain in the Municipal Code, unless earlier repealed or amended by the
voters of the City.
E. Implementing Ordinances: The City Council is authorized, after a duly noticed public
hearing, to adopt implementing ordinances, guidelines, rules, and/or regulations, as
necessary, to further the purposes of this Initiative.
F. Enforcement and Defense of Initiative: The City Council shall take all steps reasonably
necessary to enforce this Initiative and to defend it against any challenge to its validity.
SECTION 7: EFFECT OF COMPETING OR ALTERNATIVE MEASURE ON THE
SAME BALLOT
This Initiative sets a citywide cap of 850,000 new square feet of office/R&D development using
January 1, 2015 as the baseline, with specified exemptions, and requires voter approval to
increase or repeal the cap or add further exemptions to the cap through December 31, 2030. By
voting for this Initiative, the voters expressly declare their intent that any other measure that
appears on the same ballot as this Initiative and addresses a citywide cap on office/R&D
development, shall be deemed to conflict with this Initiative. Because of this conflict, if this
Initiative and any such other City of Palo Alto measure receive a majority of votes by the voters
voting thereon at the same election, then, to the extent allowed by state law and any legally valid
provisions of the City's City Charter, the measure receiving the most votes in favor shall prevail
and no provision of the other measure shall take effect. For the purposes of this Section 7, any
other voter -sponsored measure that appears on the same ballot as this Initiative and purports to
amend any provision of this Initiative shall be deemed to directly conflict with this entire
Initiative.
Page 7 of 8
SECTION 8: SEVERABILITY AND INTERPRETATION
This Initiative shall be broadly construed in order to achieve its purpose.
This Initiative shall be interpreted so as to be consistent with all applicable Federal, State, and
City laws, rules, and regulations. If any section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence,
clause, phrase, part, or portion of this Initiative is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a final
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Initiative. The voters hereby declare that this Initiative and each
section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion thereof
would have been adopted or passed even if one or more sections, subsections, paragraphs,
subparagraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts, or portions were declared invalid or
unconstitutional. If any provision of this Initiative is held invalid as applied to any person or
circumstance, such invalidity shall not affect any application of this Initiative that can be given
effect without the invalid application.
Any singular term shall include the plural and any plural term shall include the singular. The
title and captions of the various sections in this Initiative are for convenience and organization
only, and are not intended to be referred to in construing the provisions of this Initiative.
SECTION 9: AMENDMENT OR REPEAL
Except as otherwise provided herein, this Initiative may be amended or repealed only by the
voters of the City of Palo Alto.
Page 8 of 8
1
SL:/2018 Election/ RESO Initiative Measure Office Cap
** NOT YET ADOPTED **
DRAFT
Resolution No. ___
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Submitting to the Voters
at the Next General Municipal Election on November 6, 2018 an Initiative
Ordinance to Amend the Comprehensive Plan 2030 and Title 18 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Reduce the Maximum Allowable New Office and R&D
Development Citywide from 1.7 Million Square Feet to 850,000 Square Feet
RECITALS
A. An initiative petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Title 18 (Zoning) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code to reduce the citywide cumulative office/R&D development cap
by fifty percent from 1.7 million square feet to 850,000 square feet (referred to herein as the
“Initiative Measure” or “Initiative Petition”) has been submitted to the City in accordance with
the requirements of Section 2 of Article VI of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
B. On June 11, 2018, the City Council accepted the Certificate of Sufficiency of the
Initiative Petition issued by the County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters and directed staff to
return with a resolution putting the measure on the November 6, 2018 ballot.
C. By Resolution No. 9776, adopted on June 18, 2018, the City Council called a
general municipal election for November 6, 2018 (“Election”).
D. Pursuant to Section 2 of Article VI of the City Charter, the City Council is required
to submit to the electors of the City of Palo Alto the Initiative Measure at the next general
municipal election which is a regularly scheduled general municipal election on November 6,
2018.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. Initiative Measure Submitted to Voters at General Municipal
Election. A regularly scheduled general municipal election has been called for the City of Palo
Alto to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. Under Charter Article VI, the following question
is submitted to the voters at the election:
CITY OF PALO ALTO INITIATIVE MEASURE ________:
Shall an ordinance amending the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Municipal
Code to reduce the maximum amount of new office/research and development
(R&D) that may be developed in Palo Alto from 1.7 million square feet to
850,000 square feet, subject to certain exemptions, and to preclude the City
Council from increasing this development cap until 2031 without voter approval,
be adopted?
For the Ordinance ____
Against the Ordinance ____
2
SL:/2018 Election/ RESO Initiative Measure Office Cap
SECTION 2. Adoption of Measure. The measure to be submitted to the voters is
attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “1” and incorporated by this reference. If a majority of
qualified electors voting on such measure shall vote in favor of City of Palo Alto Initiative
Measure “___”, it shall be deemed ratified and shall read as provided in Exhibit “1”.
SECTION 3. Notice of Election. Notice of the time and place of holding the
election is hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further
or additional notice of the election in time, form, and manner as required by law.
SECTION 4. Impartial Analysis. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to
transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an
impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the
measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure, and transmit such impartial
analysis to the City Clerk on or before August 21, 2018.
SECTION 5. Ballot Arguments. Arguments in favor of or against the measure
shall be submitted to the City Clerk on or before August 14, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. under Elections
Code section 9286 et seq. If the City Clerk receives more than one argument for and/or against,
the priorities established by Elections Code section 9287 shall control.
SECTION 6. Rebuttal Arguments. Rebuttal arguments shall be controlled by the
provisions of Elections Code section 9285. The deadline for filing rebuttal arguments shall be
August 21, 2018, at 5:00 p.m.
SECTION 7. Duties of City Clerk. The Palo Alto City Clerk shall do all things
required by law to effectuate the November 6, 2018, general municipal election, including but
not limited to causing the posting, publication and printing of all notices or other election
materials under the requirements of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the California
Elections and Government Codes.
SECTION 8. Request and Consent to Consolidate. The Council of the City of Palo
Alto requests the governing body of any other political subdivision, or any officers otherwise
authorized by law, to partially or completely consolidate such elections and the City Council
consents to such consolidation. The Council requests the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara
County to include on the ballots and sample ballots, all qualified measures submitted by the
City Council to be ratified by the qualified electors of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 9. Request for County Services. Under Section 10002 of the California
Elections Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto requests the Board of Supervisors of Santa
Clara County to permit the Registrar of Voters to render services to the City of Palo Alto relating
to the conduct of Palo Alto’s General Municipal and Special Elections which are called to be
held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. The services shall be of the type normally performed by
the Registrar of Voters in assisting the clerks of municipalities in the conduct of elections
including but not limited to checking registrations, mailing ballots, hiring election officers and
arranging for polling places, receiving absentee voter ballot applications, mailing and receiving
absent voter ballots and opening and counting same, providing and distributing election
supplies, and furnishing voting machines.
3
SL:/2018 Election/ RESO Initiative Measure Office Cap
SECTION 10. Transmittal of Resolution. The City Clerk is hereby directed to submit
a certified copy of this resolution to the Board of Supervisors and Registrar of Voters of the
County of Santa Clara.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ _____
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
Exhibit 1
1. Palo Alto's Current Cap on New Office/R&D Development Is Excessive:
From 1989 to 2014, Palo Alto added approximately 1.5 million square feet of
non-residential development, as monitored by the City. The recently adopted
2030 Comprehensive Plan, which is the primary tool to guide future development
in the City, would allow an additional 1.7 million square feet of office/R&D
development. This Initiative reduces that amount by setting a new cumulative cap
on new office/R&D development that could occur in the City. The Initiative's
cumulative cap of 850,000 new square feet is in line with the average annual
square feet of non-residential development that has occurred since the City's
monitoring began. Importantly, the Initiative does not prevent the City from
adopting or enforcing annual caps on new office/R&D development —provided
that the cumulative total cap is not exceeded.
2. Palo Alto Cannot Tolerate More Traffic: According to the City's own study,
there are already about three jobs in the City for every employed resident. As a
result, the City has one of the highest commuter ratios in the nation for cities with
populations of more than fifty thousand. Excessive new office/R&D development
in Palo Alto —as the recently adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan allows —will
lead to even more jobs, and thus exacerbate traffic congestion and parking
shortages in the City. Two-thirds of City residents cite these issues as major
concerns.
3. Housing Prices Are Already Too High: Lack of affordable housing is another
major concern for City residents. And one of the primary causes of rising home
prices is rapid business expansion with the associated escalation of land prices.
Palo Alto cannot stand to have its affordable housing crisis deepened by the rapid
growth in office/R&D development and jobs that could occur under the recently
adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
4. Economic Prosperity Could Be Threatened by Excessive Growth. One
marker of Palo Alto's success as a center of Silicon Valley's innovation economy
has been the extraordinary mobility of its professional workers. The 2030
Comprehensive Plan recognizes that "employers, businesses and neighborhoods
share many values and concerns, including traffic and parking issues and
preserving Palo Alto's livability." Placing a moderate cumulative limit on
office/R&D growth will support the City's unique mobility of local businesses
and workers, while at the same time allowing a reasonable amount of growth over
the period of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION 2: CITY OF PALO ALTO 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
This Initiative hereby amends the Land Use and Community Design Element of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, as amended through April 20, 2018 ("Submittal Date"). Text to be
inserted in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is indicated in bold type, and text to be deleted is
indicated in stril gh type. Non -bolded text currently appears in the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan. Except as expressly provided below, the language adopted and readopted in the following
amendments may be repealed or amended (as by, for example, increasing the cap or by adding
Page 2 of 8
additional exemptions) only by a vote of the people through December 31, 2030.
A. Policy L-1.10 on page 37, under the heading "GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND
MONITORING," is hereby readopted with the following changes:
Cap new square feet of office/R&D development
citywide at 850,000 square feet, exempting medical office uses in the Stanford
University Medical Center (SUMC) vicinity. Use January 1, 2015 as the baseline and
monitor development towards the cap on an annual basis.
Continue to exempt medical,
governmental and institutional uses from the cap on office/R&D development; no other
exemptions are allowed.
Through December 31, 2030, this Policy L-1.10 may not be amended or repealed
except by a vote of the people, provided, however, that the Palo Alto City Council
may reduce the citywide cap of 850,000 new square feet of office/R&D development
without a vote of the people.
B. Program L1.10.1 on page 37, following Policy L-1.10, is deleted in its entirety as follows:
eatided-sinee-kauffy-17204--5-Feaehes-6-7-pereent-ef-the-alleweel-squafe-feetager or
SECTION 3: 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
In light of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendments set forth above in Section 2 of this
Initiative, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is hereby further amended as set forth below in order to
promote internal consistency among the various provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Text to be inserted in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is indicated in bold type, and text to be
deleted is indicated in atrOcethr-eugh type. Non -bolded text currently appears in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan and is not changed or readopted by this Initiative. The language adopted in
the following amendments may be further amended as appropriate without a vote of the people,
during the course of further updates and revisions to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, provided that
such amendments do not conflict with Policy L-1.10.
A. The text on page 20, under the heading "GROWTH MANAGEMENT," is amended as
follows:
The pace of non-residential growth and development in Palo Alto has been moderated by
a citywide cap on non-residential development first adopted by the City Council in 1989.
This Plan
presents an updated cumulative growth management and monitoring system, as
approved by the voters in the Palo Alto Reduced Office/R&D Development Cap
Page 3 of 8
Initiative. This system moderates the overall amount of new office/R&D development
to enhance Palo Alto's livability.
This updated approach uses 2015 as the baseline from which to monitor new
development and establishes a cumulative, citywide cap on office/R&D uses, including
conversions of existing square footage to office/R&D space.
B. Program B1.1.1 on page 196 is amended as follows:
Implement and periodically amend an Economic Development Policy to guide business
development in the City in a manner consistent with Policy L-1.10.
C. Program B7.2.1 on page 200 is amended as follows:
Review policies and regulations guiding development at Stanford Research Park and
revise them as needed to allow improved responsiveness to changing market conditions
in a manner consistent with Policy L-1.10.
D. The following rows of the Implementation Table on pages 214, 266, and 268 are
amended as follows:
Program #
Program Text
Lead
Department
or Agency
Priority
(S/M/L/IP/R)°
Anticipated
Level of
Effort
($/$$/$$$)
L1.10.1
et ..Pt>, tt ..t
reaches ,tom Ya ..
square f „tags > > 39 000
square f e. Concurrently •a
Naming&
Enviceiment
Depiatifient
M
S
13.1.1
Implement and periodically amend
an Economic Development Policy
to guide business development in
the City in a manner consistent
with Policy L-1.10.
Office of
Economic
Development
R
$
Page 4 of 8
B7.2.1
Review policies and regulations
guiding development at Stanford
Planning &
Community
M
$$
Research Park and revise them as
needed to allow improved
responsiveness to changing market
conditions in a manner consistent
with Policy L -L10.
Environment
Department
SECTION 4: PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS
This Initiative hereby amends the Palo Alto Municipal Code ("Municipal Code"). Text to be
inserted in the Municipal Code is indicated in bold type. Except as expressly provided below,
the language adopted in the following amendments may be repealed or amended only by a vote
of the people through December 31, 2030.
A. A new Section 18.40.200 (Growth Management) is added to Chapter 18.40 (General
Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code to read as follows:
18.40.200 Growth Management
This section 18.40.200 adopts the citywide cap on office/R&D development that
appears in Policy L-1.10 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030 pursuant
to the Palo Alto Reduced Office/R&D Development Cap Initiative:
Cap new square feet of office/R&D development citywide at 850,000 square
feet, exempting medical office uses in the Stanford University Medical Center
(SUMC) vicinity. Use January 1, 2015 as the baseline and monitor
development towards the cap on an annual basis. Continue to exempt
medical, governmental and institutional uses from the cap on office/R&D
development; no other exemptions are allowed.
Notwithstanding anything in this Municipal Code or any other City ordinance or
resolution to the contrary, the City shall not approve any non-exempt office/R&D
development that would exceed this cap, or add further exemptions to the cap,
except to the extent permitted by the Palo Alto Reduced Office/R&D Development
Cap Initiative.
Through December 31, 2030, this Section 18.40.200 may not be amended or repealed
except by a vote of the people, provided, however, that the Palo Alto City Council
may reduce the citywide cap of 850,000 new square feet of office/R&D development
without a vote of the people.
SECTION 5: EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS
A. This Initiative shall not apply to or prohibit any development project or ongoing activity
that has obtained, as of the Effective Date of this Initiative, a vested right pursuant to
State law.
Page 5 of 8
B. The provisions of this Initiative shall not apply to the extent, but only to the extent, that
they would violate the Constitution or laws of the United States or the State of California.
C. The City Council is authorized to grant exceptions to the voter approval requirements in
Policy L-1.10 where necessary to comply with state or federal law governing the
provision of housing, including but not limited to affordable housing requirements. This
exception applies only if the City Council first makes each of the following findings
based on substantial evidence in the record with respect to a proposed mixed -use housing
project including office/R&D uses that are subject to the cap set by this Palo Alto
Reduced Office/R&D Development Cap Initiative: (1) a specific provision of state or
federal law requires the City to accommodate the housing that will be permitted by the
exception; (2) the exception permits no more office/R&D development than that
necessary to comply with the specific provision of state or federal law; and (3) it is not
feasible for the City to require modifications to the office/R&D component of the
proposed project in a way that would allow the City to satisfy the specific state or federal
law without exceeding the cap set by this Palo Alto Reduced Office/R&D Development
Cap Initiative.
SECTION 6: IMPLEMENTATION
A. Effective Date: "Effective Date" means the date that the Palo Alto Reduced Office/R&D
Development Cap Initiative became effective. Upon the Effective Date of this Initiative,
the provisions of Section 4 are hereby inserted in the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code as
an amendment thereof, and the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 are hereby inserted in the
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030, as an amendment thereof; except that if
state or local law limits the number of Comprehensive Plan amendments in any given
year and those amendments have already been utilized in the year in which the Initiative
becomes effective, this 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be the first
amendment inserted in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030 on January 1 of
the following year. Upon the Effective Date of this Initiative, any provisions of the City
of Palo Alto Zoning Code or any other City of Palo Alto ordinance or resolution that are
inconsistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code amendments
adopted by this Initiative shall not be enforced in a manner inconsistent with this
Initiative.
B. Interim Amendments: The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030 in effect on the
Submittal Date and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as amended by this Initiative comprise
an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies for the City of
Palo Alto. To ensure that nothing in this Initiative, would prevent the 2030
Comprehensive Plan from being an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible
statement of the policies of the City, and to ensure that the actions of the voters in
enacting this Initiative are given effect, any amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
that is adopted between the Submittal Date and the date that the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan is amended by this Initiative shall, to the extent that such interim -enacted provision
is inconsistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan provisions readopted and amended by
this Initiative, be amended as soon as possible to ensure consistency between the
Page 6 of 8
provisions readopted and amended by this Initiative and other provisions of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. Likewise, any amendment to the Palo Alto Municipal Code that is
adopted between the Submittal Date and the date that the Municipal Code is amended by
this Initiative shall, to the extent that such interim -enacted provision is inconsistent with
the Municipal Code provision adopted by this Initiative, be amended as soon as possible
to ensure consistency between the provisions adopted by this Initiative and other
provisions of the Municipal Code.
C. Other City Plan, Ordinances, and Policies: The City of Palo Alto is hereby authorized
and directed to amend the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030, all area plans,
specific plans, the City of Palo Alto Zoning Code, Land Use Map, and Zoning Map, and
other ordinances and policies affected by this Initiative as soon as possible as necessary
to ensure consistency between the provisions adopted in this Initiative and other sections
of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, all area plans, specific plans, the Zoning Code, the
Zoning Map, and other City ordinances and policies.
D. Reorganization: The 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Municipal Code may be
reorganized or readopted in different format, and individual provisions may be
renumbered or reordered, in the course of ongoing updates of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan and the Municipal Code, provided that the provisions of Section 2 of this Initiative
shall remain in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the provisions of Section 4 of this
Initiative shall remain in the Municipal Code, unless earlier repealed or amended by the
voters of the City.
E. Implementing Ordinances: The City Council is authorized, after a duly noticed public
hearing, to adopt implementing ordinances, guidelines, rules, and/or regulations, as
necessary, to further the purposes of this Initiative.
F. Enforcement and Defense of Initiative: The City Council shall take all steps reasonably
necessary to enforce this Initiative and to defend it against any challenge to its validity.
SECTION 7: EFFECT OF COMPETING OR ALTERNATIVE MEASURE ON THE
SAME BALLOT
This Initiative sets a citywide cap of 850,000 new square feet of office/R&D development using
January 1, 2015 as the baseline, with specified exemptions, and requires voter approval to
increase or repeal the cap or add further exemptions to the cap through December 31, 2030. By
voting for this Initiative, the voters expressly declare their intent that any other measure that
appears on the same ballot as this Initiative and addresses a citywide cap on office/R&D
development, shall be deemed to conflict with this Initiative. Because of this conflict, if this
Initiative and any such other City of Palo Alto measure receive a majority of votes by the voters
voting thereon at the same election, then, to the extent allowed by state law and any legally valid
provisions of the City's City Charter, the measure receiving the most votes in favor shall prevail
and no provision of the other measure shall take effect. For the purposes of this Section 7, any
other voter -sponsored measure that appears on the same ballot as this Initiative and purports to
amend any provision of this Initiative shall be deemed to directly conflict with this entire
Initiative.
Page 7 of 8
SECTION 8: SEVERABILITY AND INTERPRETATION
This Initiative shall be broadly construed in order to achieve its purpose.
This Initiative shall be interpreted so as to be consistent with all applicable Federal, State, and
City laws, rules, and regulations. If any section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence,
clause, phrase, part, or portion of this Initiative is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a final
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Initiative. The voters hereby declare that this Initiative and each
section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion thereof
would have been adopted or passed even if one or more sections, subsections, paragraphs,
subparagraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts, or portions were declared invalid or
unconstitutional. If any provision of this Initiative is held invalid as applied to any person or
circumstance, such invalidity shall not affect any application of this Initiative that can be given
effect without the invalid application.
Any singular term shall include the plural and any plural term shall include the singular. The
title and captions of the various sections in this Initiative are for convenience and organization
only, and are not intended to be referred to in construing the provisions of this Initiative.
SECTION 9: AMENDMENT OR REPEAL
Except as otherwise provided herein, this Initiative may be amended or repealed only by the
voters of the City of Palo Alto.
Page 8 of 8
1 of 1
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: AMY FRENCH, CHIEF PLANNING OFFICIAL, PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: JULY 30, 2018
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3 – Adopt the Initiative Measure to Reduce the
Comprehensive Plan’s Citywide Cumulative Cap on Office/R&D Development
(Initiative Measure) as an Ordinance Without Alteration, or Adopt a Resolution
Placing the Initiative Measure on the November 6, 2018 Ballot
Attached is a document, containing 11 exhibits, which was referenced as “Stanford Research
Park Fiscal Analysis July 17, 2018” in a footnote on the EPS report contained in the staff report.
_______________________ _________________________
Amy French James Keene
Chief Planning Official City Manager
3
Assumptions and/or Cost and Revenue Factors Note/Source of Assumption (1)
Growth Measures
Sq. Ft. of Workspace per New SRP Employee 250 Conservative Ratio of New Employee Headcount/Sq. Ft. (Current SRP Ratio is 1:355 SF)
Employment Workspace Growth (Sq. Ft.)850,000 Total Unbuilt Square Footage Under Current Zoning per Stanford Research Park
Employee Growth 3,400 Calculated
Valuation-Related
Property Value per Sq. Ft., 2015 $1,183 SRP Exhibit 4 (based on 2014-2016 transactions, assume 2015 avg.)
Annual Turnover Rate 2.7%SRP Exhibit 5 (based on 2002-2017 transactions)
Annual Market Appreciation Adjustment Factor 6.1%SRP Exhibit 6 (actual 15-year average annual growth rate from 2002 to 2017)
15-Year Market Appreciation Rate, Unadjusted, SRP 245%SRP Exhibit 6 (actual 15-year percentage growth rate, proxy for growth from 2015 to 2030)
15-Year Market Appreciation Adjustment Factor, EPS 132%EPS Report Figure 13, page 19
Property Value per Sq. Ft., 2030 (using EPS Adjustment Factor)$1,561
In-Lieu VLF Revenue 25%EPS Report page 19. Revenue source is 25% of Palo Alto property tax revenue
County Basic Property Tax Rate 1.0%Common Knowledge
City of Palo Alto Property Tax Rate 9.4%SRP Exhibit 6 (share of 1.0% property tax rate)
City of Palo Alto Property Transfer Tax Rate/$1,000 $3.30 SRP Exhibit 5
Palo Alto Sales and Use Taxes
SRP Tenant Sales and Use Tax Generation/Sq. Ft. (2)$0.30 SRP Exhibit 7, rounded
Business-to-Business Palo Alto Sales per Sq. Ft. (3)$20.00 EPS Report page 23
Business-to-Business Palo Alto Sales Tax Revenues/Sq. Ft.$0.20 EPS Report page 23
Taxable Business Spending in Palo Alto per Employee/Sq. Ft.$2.00 EPS Report Page 23
Taxable Business Spending per Employee Sales Taxes/Sq. Ft.$0.02 EPS Report Page 23
Taxable Spending Per Worker $9,270 EPS Report Figure 17, page 24
Palo Alto Sales Capture Rate of Employee Spending 80%EPS Report Figure 17, page 24
City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Rate 1.0%EPS Report Page 22
Other Palo Alto Tax Revenues
Utility Users Tax Per Capita $82.75 EPS Report Figure A25-A30
Hotel TOT Tax per Employee $104.28 SRP Exhibit 9, based on EPS assumptions
City of Palo Alto Expenditures Per Job $259 EPS Report Figure 4, page 6
Value
Exhibit 1. Estimation of Net Revenue Generation to the City of Palo Alto per Employee for Future Employment Growth, in Approximate 2015 Dollars
Calculated, uses the EPS Market Appreciation Adjustment Factor of 132%, vs. some variation of the SRP
unadjusted factor of 245%. The EPS factor incorporates inflation and other adjustments, but it is unclear
how the SRP rate of 245% should be similarly adjusted.
Assumptions and/or Cost and Revenue Factors Note/Source of Assumption (1)Value
Exhibit 1. Estimation of Net Revenue Generation to the City of Palo Alto per Employee for Future Employment Growth, in Approximate 2015 Dollars
Annual City of Palo Alto Tax Revenues and Expenditures
City of Palo Alto Revenues
Property Tax $1,250,272 Calculated
In-Lieu VLF Revenue $312,568 Calculated
Transfer Tax $120,079 Calculated
Sales Tax
SRP Tenant Sales and Use Taxes $255,000 Calculated
Business-to-Business Sales Taxes (2)$170,000 Calculated
Employer Spending per Employee Sales Taxes $17,000 Calculated
Employee Spending Sales Taxes $252,144 Calculated
Total Sales Taxes with Business-to-Business Sales $694,144 Calculated
Total Sales Taxes Excluding Business-to-Business Sales (4)$524,144 Calculated
Utility Users Tax $281,350 Calculated
Hotel TOT Tax $354,538 Calculated
Grand Total Tax Revenues
Total Revenues with Business-to-Business Sales $3,012,951 Calculated
Total Revenues Excluding Business-to-Business Sales (4)$2,842,951 Calculated
City of Palo Alto Expenditures $880,600 Calculated
Net Annual City of Palo Alto Revenue per New SRP Employee (5)
Total with Business-to-Business Sales $2,132,351 Calculated
Per Employee with Business-to-Business Sales (6)$627 Calculated
Total Excluding Business-to-Business Sales $1,962,351 Calculated
Per Employee Excluding Business-to-Business Sales (4) (6)$577 Calculated
Net Annual City of Palo Alto Revenue per New 2030 Comprehensive Plan Employee
Per Employee for 6 Scenarios Estimated by EPS $192 - $284
(6) Note, if the SRP-calculated 15-year Market Appreciation Rate of 245% were reflected in the analysis, with adjustments of inflation and other factors, instead of the EPS Market Adjustment Factor of
132%, these results would likely vary.
(5) The per employee figures derived for SRP are substantially greater than the per employee figures derived by EPS in the 2017 Fiscal Analysis for the Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan for employees
associated with new development. These figures vary by scenario evaluated by EPS, ranging from $192 to $284 net revenue per employee.
EPS Report Figures 3 and 4, page 6. The range reflects different scenario results based upon the mix of
employment-generating land uses
(2) This figure is based upon taxable sales generated by Stanford Research Park tenants. The figure is derived based upon sales trends over a 10-year period. The analysis assumes future tenants in new
growth space will achieve taxable sales at a similar rate.
(3) The EPS Fiscal Analysis report includes an estimate for Business-to-Business Spending in Palo Alto. It is unclear if this is measuring point of sale taxable sales generated by businesses located in the
new development, such as the SRP Tenant Sales and Use Tax Generation estimated above. If these are measuring the same revenue factor, then the SRP-based figure would supersede this more generic
estimate which was based on generalized analysis of Palo Alto's sales and use tax revenues.
(4) This figure reflects a total adjustment assuming the SRP estimate for "Tenant Sales and Use Tax Generation" is measuring the same fiscal factor as "Business-to-Business Palo Alto Sales per Sq. Ft."
Since the SRP-specific estimate is greater, the analysis retains this figure and excludes the lower "Business-to-Business" estimate derived in the EPS analysis.
Sources: "Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan," Prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., February 17, 2017; Stanford Research Park; and ALH Urban & Regional
Economics.
(1) If the value is based upon an external assumption, the source of the assumption is noted here. In most cases, the source is the report titled "Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030
Comprehensive Plan," Prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), February 17, 2017. The source pages or report figures are noted as relevant. This column also notes if a value is the result of a
calculation.
Jurisdiction 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
City of Palo Alto (2)$6,647,612 $7,341,823 $7,916,903 $9,138,785 $9,660,372 $10,945,707 $10,706,835 $11,526,910 $11,708,677 $11,986,762 $14,655,975 $14,715,106 $14,402,858 $18,480,546 $16,575,641 $16,449,135
Transfer Taxes $102,300 $429,825 $249,150 $136,125 $34,980 $618,420 $0 $111,540 $103,950 $0 $512,243 $1,117,215 $462,000 $4,232,250 $1,786,191 $436,920
Property Tax $1,335,953 $1,362,672 $1,389,925 $1,685,586 $1,667,099 $1,786,616 $2,009,120 $2,405,875 $2,384,732 $2,368,335 $2,420,634 $2,522,896 $2,644,074 $2,873,566 $3,019,401 $3,268,389
Bonds and Assessments $209,414 $213,602 $217,874 $264,220 $261,322 $280,057 $314,935 $377,127 $373,813 $371,243 $379,441 $395,471 $414,465 $450,439 $473,299 $512,329
In Lieu VLF Revenues $0 $0 $0 $421,396 $416,775 $446,654 $502,280 $601,469 $596,183 $592,084 $605,158 $630,724 $661,018 $718,391 $754,850 $817,097
SRP Palo Alto Sales and Use Taxes $1,040,145 $1,193,124 $1,722,353 $2,060,458 $2,456,596 $2,726,661 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,600,000 $4,400,000 $3,430,000 $3,300,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,600,000
Taxable Spending by Workers $1,296,400 $1,345,900 $1,400,200 $1,467,100 $1,542,600 $1,618,200 $1,702,700 $1,724,600 $1,772,500 $1,853,200 $1,924,700 $1,985,900 $2,056,600 $2,115,300 $2,192,100 $2,254,400
Business Spending on Employees $87,400 $90,700 $94,400 $98,900 $104,000 $109,100 $114,800 $116,300 $119,500 $124,900 $129,800 $133,900 $138,700 $142,600 $147,800 $152,000
Utility User Taxes $990,000 $1,060,000 $1,130,000 $1,210,000 $1,290,000 $1,380,000 $1,480,000 $1,580,000 $1,690,000 $1,810,000 $1,930,000 $2,070,000 $2,210,000 $2,360,000 $2,520,000 $2,650,000
Transient Occupancy Taxes $1,586,000 $1,646,000 $1,713,000 $1,795,000 $1,887,000 $1,980,000 $2,083,000 $2,110,000 $2,168,000 $2,267,000 $2,354,000 $2,429,000 $2,516,000 $2,588,000 $2,682,000 $2,758,000
PAUSD $7,685,377 $7,839,084 $7,995,866 $9,696,720 $9,590,372 $10,277,919 $11,557,926 $13,840,348 $13,718,718 $13,624,395 $13,925,253 $14,513,543 $15,210,644 $16,530,848 $17,369,797 $18,802,162
Property Tax $6,466,039 $6,595,360 $6,727,267 $8,158,269 $8,068,795 $8,647,257 $9,724,182 $11,644,483 $11,542,150 $11,462,792 $11,715,917 $12,210,870 $12,797,372 $13,908,117 $14,613,961 $15,819,071
Bonds and Assessments $1,219,337 $1,243,724 $1,268,599 $1,538,451 $1,521,578 $1,630,662 $1,833,744 $2,195,865 $2,176,568 $2,161,603 $2,209,336 $2,302,672 $2,413,272 $2,622,732 $2,755,837 $2,983,091
County of Santa Clara $2,839,413 $3,004,694 $3,001,698 $3,584,868 $3,512,334 $3,957,782 $4,218,870 $5,089,178 $5,042,251 $4,973,171 $5,253,738 $5,670,133 $5,706,183 $7,444,834 $6,935,714 $7,008,798
Transfer Taxes $34,100 $143,275 $83,050 $45,375 $11,660 $206,140 $0 $37,180 $34,650 $0 $170,748 $372,405 $154,000 $1,410,750 $595,397 $145,640
Property Tax $2,255,194 $2,300,297 $2,346,303 $2,845,401 $2,814,195 $3,015,948 $3,391,553 $4,061,306 $4,025,615 $3,997,937 $4,086,220 $4,258,848 $4,463,405 $4,850,805 $5,096,986 $5,517,298
Bonds and Assessments $550,120 $561,122 $572,344 $694,092 $686,479 $735,694 $827,317 $990,693 $981,986 $975,235 $996,770 $1,038,880 $1,088,779 $1,183,279 $1,243,331 $1,345,860
State (Sales and Use Taxes)$6,760,946 $7,755,306 $11,195,294 $13,392,976 $15,967,875 $17,723,296 $16,250,000 $16,250,000 $16,250,000 $16,900,000 $28,600,000 $22,295,000 $21,450,000 $19,500,000 $19,500,000 $23,400,000
Other $5,978,546 $6,263,336 $7,020,311 $8,478,312 $8,908,748 $9,664,863 $10,160,723 $11,550,115 $11,476,074 $11,543,657 $13,976,800 $13,122,413 $13,384,263 $13,812,919 $14,323,617 $15,945,549
Bonds & Assessments, All Others (3)$216,929 $221,267 $225,693 $273,701 $270,699 $290,106 $326,236 $390,660 $387,227 $384,564 $393,056 $409,661 $429,338 $466,602 $490,283 $530,713
Other School Funds (inc. Foothill-DeAnza)$3,870,050 $3,947,451 $4,026,400 $4,882,882 $4,829,330 $5,175,551 $5,820,112 $6,969,449 $6,908,200 $6,860,703 $7,012,204 $7,308,443 $7,659,475 $8,324,277 $8,746,739 $9,468,021
Other Property Tax Revenues (4)$591,385 $603,213 $615,277 $746,157 $737,974 $790,880 $889,376 $1,065,007 $1,055,647 $1,048,389 $1,071,540 $1,116,809 $1,170,450 $1,272,039 $1,336,596 $1,446,815
Special Sales Taxes at 1.25%$1,300,182 $1,491,405 $2,152,941 $2,575,572 $3,070,745 $3,408,326 $3,125,000 $3,125,000 $3,125,000 $3,250,000 $5,500,000 $4,287,500 $4,125,000 $3,750,000 $3,750,000 $4,500,000
Total $29,911,893 $32,204,244 $37,130,071 $44,291,661 $47,639,701 $52,569,566 $52,894,354 $58,256,552 $58,195,720 $59,027,985 $76,411,767 $70,316,194 $70,153,949 $75,769,147 $74,704,768 $81,605,643
Sources: Exhibits 5, 6, 7, and 8; and ALH Urban & Regional Economics.
Exhibit 2. Stanford Research Park Select Tax Revenue Estimates Aggregated by Jurisdiction, 2002 - 2017 (1)
(4) "Other Property Tax Revenues" accrue to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Santa Clara Valley Water District North West Zone 1, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Santa Clara County Importation Water-Misc District, and
(1) Does not include all tax revenues, especially to the City of Palo Alto. The analysis focuses on revenue sources most affected by growth, per the assessment of Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., as cited in the following study prepared for the City of Palo Alto: "Fiscal Analysis
of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan," February 17, 2017.
(3) Includes VMC, Mid Peninsula Open Space, and SCVWS - State Water Proj.
(2) As this analysis includes sales and uses taxes generated by SRP tenants, the EPS sales category of Business-to-Business sales referenced in the report cited in footnote (1) is not included in case this is duplicative of the actual SRP tenant sales. If the two categories are not
duplicative then the City of Palo Alto Sales and Use Tax revenues estimated herein are underestimated.
Type of Tax Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Transfer Tax Ex. 3 $136,400 $573,100 $332,200 $181,500 $46,640 $824,560 $0 $148,720 $138,600 $0 $682,990 $1,489,620 $616,000 $5,643,000 $2,381,588 $582,560
Property Tax Revenues Ex. 4 $16,714,420 $17,048,709 $17,389,683 $21,088,758 $20,857,471 $22,352,770 $25,136,574 $30,100,463 $29,835,938 $29,630,801 $30,285,118 $31,564,550 $33,080,630 $35,951,855 $37,776,430 $40,891,586
Basic 1.0% County Tax Revenues $14,178,341 $14,461,907 $14,751,146 $17,888,960 $17,692,766 $18,961,183 $21,322,600 $25,533,318 $25,308,929 $25,134,918 $25,689,956 $26,775,259 $28,061,305 $30,496,879 $32,044,611 $34,687,104
Bonds & Assessments $2,536,080 $2,586,801 $2,638,537 $3,199,798 $3,164,705 $3,391,587 $3,813,974 $4,567,145 $4,527,008 $4,495,883 $4,595,162 $4,789,291 $5,019,326 $5,454,977 $5,731,819 $6,204,482
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Ex. 4 $0 $0 $0 $421,396 $416,775 $446,654 $502,280 $601,469 $596,183 $592,084 $605,158 $630,724 $661,018 $718,391 $754,850 $817,097
Sales & Use Tax Revenues (2)Ex's 5 & 7 $10,485,073 $11,876,435 $16,565,188 $19,595,006 $23,141,816 $25,585,583 $23,692,500 $23,715,900 $23,767,000 $24,728,100 $40,554,500 $32,132,300 $31,070,300 $28,507,900 $28,589,900 $33,906,400
Utility Users Tax Revenue Ex. 7 $990,000 $1,060,000 $1,130,000 $1,210,000 $1,290,000 $1,380,000 $1,480,000 $1,580,000 $1,690,000 $1,810,000 $1,930,000 $2,070,000 $2,210,000 $2,360,000 $2,520,000 $2,650,000
Transient Occupancy Tax Ex. 7 $1,586,000 $1,646,000 $1,713,000 $1,795,000 $1,887,000 $1,980,000 $2,083,000 $2,110,000 $2,168,000 $2,267,000 $2,354,000 $2,429,000 $2,516,000 $2,588,000 $2,682,000 $2,758,000
Total $29,911,893 $32,204,244 $37,130,071 $44,291,661 $47,639,701 $52,569,566 $52,894,354 $58,256,552 $58,195,720 $59,027,985 $76,411,767 $70,316,194 $70,153,949 $75,769,147 $74,704,768 $81,605,644
Sources: Exhibits 5, 6, 7, and 8; and ALH Urban & Regional Economics.
Exhibit 3. Stanford Research Park Select Tax Revenues Estimates Aggregated by Type of Tax, 2002 - 2017 (1)
(1) Does not include all tax revenues, especially to the City of Palo Alto. The analysis focuses on revenue sources most affected by growth, per the assessment of Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., as cited in the following study prepared for the City of Palo Alto: "Fiscal Analysis
of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan," February 17, 2017.
(2) As this analysis includes sales and uses taxes generated by SRP tenants, the EPS sales category of Business-to-Business sales referenced in the report cited in footnote (1) is not included in case this is duplicative of the actual SRP tenant sales. If the two categories are not
duplicative then the City of Palo Alto Sales and Use Tax revenues estimated herein are underestimated.
Date of Sale Property Address
Square
Feet Acreage Land Value
Improvements
Value
Total Assessed
Value
12/19/2016 1701 Page Mill / 3150 Porter 152,172 8.456 $76,000,000 $114,000,000 $190,000,000 $1,249
4/28/2016 2475 Hanover 81,928 4.704 $31,620,000 $73,440,000 $105,060,000 $1,282
6/1/2015 600-660 Hansen 99,317 5.917 $31,066,650 $78,702,180 $109,768,830 $1,105
4/1/2015 3301-3307 Hillview 284,098 16.305 $120,958,001 $220,780,326 $341,738,327 $1,203
6/22/2014 3175 Hanover 124,895 7.168 $43,147,623 $90,995,539 $134,143,162 $1,074
Average:$1,183
Source: Stanford Research Park, Transaction Tracking Sheet, SRP Leasehold Sales, 2000 - June, 2018.
Total Assessed Value
Per Square Foot
Exhibit 4. Stanford Research Park Recent Sales Transactions and Assessed Value per Square Foot
Values 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
Total SRP Property Sales (1)$31,000,000 $130,250,000 $75,500,000 $41,250,000 $10,600,000 $187,400,000 $0 $33,800,000 $31,500,000 $0 $155,225,000 $338,550,000 $140,000,000 $1,282,500,000 $541,270,000 $132,400,000 $3,131,245,000
Transfer Taxes (2)
County of Santa Clara $34,100 $143,275 $83,050 $45,375 $11,660 $206,140 $0 $37,180 $34,650 $0 $170,748 $372,405 $154,000 $1,410,750 $595,397 $145,640 $3,444,370
City of Palo Alto $102,300 $429,825 $249,150 $136,125 $34,980 $618,420 $0 $111,540 $103,950 $0 $512,243 $1,117,215 $462,000 $4,232,250 $1,786,191 $436,920 $10,333,109
Total $136,400 $573,100 $332,200 $181,500 $46,640 $824,560 $0 $148,720 $138,600 $0 $682,990 $1,489,620 $616,000 $5,643,000 $2,381,588 $582,560 $13,777,478
Sq. Ft. Traded (1)89,595 501,431 167,960 97,133 0 284,208 0 60,932 73,978 0 188,465 471,982 123,910 1,461,479 598,140 117,634 4,236,847
SRP Property Turnover Rate
Total SRP Sq. Ft. Base (3)10,300,000
Total Turnover, 2002-2017 41%
Average Annual Turnover Rate (4)3%
Sources: Stanford Research Park, Transaction Tracking Sheet, SRP Leasehold Sales, 2000 - June, 2018; californiacityfinance.com; Stanford Research Park; and ALH Urban & Regional Economics.
(1) Property sales and square feet traded are based upon information maintained by Stanford Research Park, tracking SRP leasehold sales.
(2) Transfer tax rates are $1.10 per $1,000 of property value for the County of Santa Clara and $3.30 per $1,000 of property value for the City of Palo Alto. See http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PropTransfTaxRates.pdf.
(3) Figure maintained by Stanford Research Park.
(4) Averaged over 15 years, from 2002 to 2017.
Exhibit 5. Stanford Research Park Transfer Tax Revenues, 2002-2017
Tax Characteristic/Jurisdiction Tax Rates (1)2002 (2)2003 (2)2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Property Tax Rate
Total Property Taxes Paid (3)1.17887 $16,714,420 $17,048,709 $17,389,683 $21,088,758 $20,857,471 $22,352,770 $25,136,574 $30,100,463 $29,835,938 $29,630,801 $30,285,118 $31,564,550 $33,080,630 $35,951,855 $37,776,430 $40,891,586
Property Taxes Based on 1.0% of Value 1.0 $14,178,341 $14,461,907 $14,751,146 $17,888,960 $17,692,766 $18,961,183 $21,322,600 $25,533,318 $25,308,929 $25,134,918 $25,689,956 $26,775,259 $28,061,305 $30,496,879 $32,044,611 $34,687,104
Taxes Paid for Bonds & Assessments (4)0.1789 $2,536,080 $2,586,801 $2,638,537 $3,199,798 $3,164,705 $3,391,587 $3,813,974 $4,567,145 $4,527,008 $4,495,883 $4,595,162 $4,789,291 $5,019,326 $5,454,977 $5,731,819 $6,204,482
Portion for PAUSD 0.0860 $1,219,337 $1,243,724 $1,268,599 $1,538,451 $1,521,578 $1,630,662 $1,833,744 $2,195,865 $2,176,568 $2,161,603 $2,209,336 $2,302,672 $2,413,272 $2,622,732 $2,755,837 $2,983,091
Portion for Santa Clara County 0.0388 $550,120 $561,122 $572,344 $694,092 $686,479 $735,694 $827,317 $990,693 $981,986 $975,235 $996,770 $1,038,880 $1,088,779 $1,183,279 $1,243,331 $1,345,860
Portion for City of Palo Alto 0.0148 $209,414 $213,602 $217,874 $264,220 $261,322 $280,057 $314,935 $377,127 $373,813 $371,243 $379,441 $395,471 $414,465 $450,439 $473,299 $512,329
Portion for Foothill-DeAnza 0.0240 $340,280 $347,086 $354,027 $429,335 $424,626 $455,068 $511,742 $612,800 $607,414 $603,238 $616,559 $642,606 $673,471 $731,925 $769,071 $832,490
Portion for All Others (5)0.0153 $216,929 $221,267 $225,693 $273,701 $270,699 $290,106 $326,236 $390,660 $387,227 $384,564 $393,056 $409,661 $429,338 $466,602 $490,283 $530,713
Allocation of 1.0% Property Taxes
County of Santa Clara 0.159059062 $2,255,194 $2,300,297 $2,346,303 $2,845,401 $2,814,195 $3,015,948 $3,391,553 $4,061,306 $4,025,615 $3,997,937 $4,086,220 $4,258,848 $4,463,405 $4,850,805 $5,096,986 $5,517,298
City of Palo Alto 0.094224911 $1,335,953 $1,362,672 $1,389,925 $1,685,586 $1,667,099 $1,786,616 $2,009,120 $2,405,875 $2,384,732 $2,368,335 $2,420,634 $2,522,896 $2,644,074 $2,873,566 $3,019,401 $3,268,389
PAUSD 0.456050497 $6,466,039 $6,595,360 $6,727,267 $8,158,269 $8,068,795 $8,647,257 $9,724,182 $11,644,483 $11,542,150 $11,462,792 $11,715,917 $12,210,870 $12,797,372 $13,908,117 $14,613,961 $15,819,071
Other School Funds 0.248955062 $3,529,770 $3,600,365 $3,672,372 $4,453,547 $4,404,704 $4,720,482 $5,308,369 $6,356,649 $6,300,786 $6,257,465 $6,395,645 $6,665,836 $6,986,004 $7,592,352 $7,977,668 $8,635,530
All Others (6)0.041710467 $591,385 $603,213 $615,277 $746,157 $737,974 $790,880 $889,376 $1,065,007 $1,055,647 $1,048,389 $1,071,540 $1,116,809 $1,170,450 $1,272,039 $1,336,596 $1,446,815
Total 1.00000000 $14,178,341 $14,461,907 $14,751,146 $17,888,960 $17,692,766 $18,961,183 $21,322,600 $25,533,318 $25,308,929 $25,134,918 $25,689,956 $26,775,259 $28,061,305 $30,496,879 $32,044,611 $34,687,104
Palo Alto Property Tax In Lieu of VLF (7)$0 $0 $0 $421,396 $416,775 $446,654 $502,280 $601,469 $596,183 $592,084 $605,158 $630,724 $661,018 $718,391 $754,850 $817,097
Avg. Annual Aggregate
% Change % Change
Tax Characteristic 2002 2017 2002-2017 2002-2017
Growth in Property Taxes (8)$16,714,420 $40,891,586 6.1%244.65%(9)
(3) Total taxes paid sourced to property tax bills for SRP-owned properties for the years 2003 through 2017.
(5) Includes VMC, Mid Peninsula Open Space, and SCVWS - State Water Proj.
(9) Adjustment factor assuming 6.1% compounded annual average growth for 15 years.
(7) In its fiscal impact analysis for the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan, EPS estimates that In Lieu VLF revenues to the City of Palo Alto are equivalent to approximately 25% of the property tax revenues to the City of Palo Alto (see EPS Report page 19). This factor is applied to the
estimated City of Palo Alto property tax revenues from SRP (based upon the overall 1.0% property tax rate). This revenue source was created by the State of California, first implemented in Fiscal Year 2004-2005. For the purpose of this analysis, 2005 is assumed to comprise the first year of this
municipal revenue source.
(1) Tax rates corresponding to TRA 006-001, which is associated with the majority of the valuation for SRP (the other TRA is 006-055, with rates very similar to TRA 006-001). The tax rate allocation factors correspond to Fiscal Year 2015-16 for simplification and illustrative purposes.
Exhibit 6. Historic Property Tax Trend for Stanford Research Park, Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Revenues, and Annual Taxes Paid Growth Rate, 2002 - 2017
(2) Due to lack of data, the total property tax amounts for 2002 and 2003 were conservatively estimated from the total figure from 2004, with the amount estimated to increase by 2.0% between 2003 and 2004, and then another 2.0% between 2002 and 2003. The 2.0% reflects the likely
minimum increase in underly property valuation pursuant to the provisions of Proposition 13.
(6) All Other taxing entities include Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Santa Clara Valley Water District North West Zone 1, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Santa Clara County Importation Water-Misc District, and Santa Clara Valley Water
(8) Comprises a proxy for growth in property value.
Sources: Stanford Research Park; Post-ERAF IAF for Tax Roll Year 2015-16, Property Tax Division, Controller-Treasurer Department, County of Santa Clara; County of Santa Clara Compilation of Tax Rates & Information, for Fiscal Year 2015-2016, Controller-Treasurer, County of Santa Clara; "Fiscal
Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan," Prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., February 17, 2017; and ALH Urban & Regional Economics.
(4) Of the .1789 amount for bonds and assessments, approximately one-half, or 0.08600 accrues to the Palo Alto Unified School District. The other distributions include .03880 to Santa Clara County, .01477 to the City of Palo Alto, .02400 to Foothill-DeAnza Community College, and .01530 to a
range of other, smaller districts.
Sales and Use Tax Characteristic Values 2002 (2)2003 (2)2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 (3)2014 2015 2016 2017 (4)
SRP Palo Alto Sales and Use Taxes
Amount (5)$1,040,145 $1,193,124 $1,722,353 $2,060,458 $2,456,596 $2,726,661 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,600,000 $4,400,000 $3,430,000 $3,300,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,600,000
Percent of Total Sales (6)6.6%7.8%9.1%10.3%11.5%12.8%14%16%15%14%21%14%15%13%13%15%
City of Palo Alto Sales and Use Taxes (7)$15,759,780 $15,231,370 $18,996,540 $20,004,445 $21,299,966 $21,357,657 -----$24,500,000 ----
Imputed SRP Taxable Sales (8)$104,014,548 $119,312,398 $172,235,296 $206,045,784 $245,659,608 $272,666,088 $250,000,000 $250,000,000 $250,000,000 $260,000,000 $440,000,000 $343,000,000 $330,000,000 $300,000,000 $300,000,000 $360,000,000
Distribution of Sales and Use Taxes (9)
City of Palo Alto 1.00%$1,040,145 $1,193,124 $1,722,353 $2,060,458 $2,456,596 $2,726,661 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,600,000 $4,400,000 $3,430,000 $3,300,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,600,000
State of California 6.50%$6,760,946 $7,755,306 $11,195,294 $13,392,976 $15,967,875 $17,723,296 $16,250,000 $16,250,000 $16,250,000 $16,900,000 $28,600,000 $22,295,000 $21,450,000 $19,500,000 $19,500,000 $23,400,000
Special Taxes 1.25%$1,300,182 $1,491,405 $2,152,941 $2,575,572 $3,070,745 $3,408,326 $3,125,000 $3,125,000 $3,125,000 $3,250,000 $5,500,000 $4,287,500 $4,125,000 $3,750,000 $3,750,000 $4,500,000
Total 8.75%$9,101,273 $10,439,835 $15,070,588 $18,029,006 $21,495,216 $23,858,283 $21,875,000 $21,875,000 $21,875,000 $22,750,000 $38,500,000 $30,012,500 $28,875,000 $26,250,000 $26,250,000 $31,500,000
SRP Total Sq. Ft. Base (10)10,300,000
Palo Alto Sales Tax per Square Foot of SRP Building Area (11)
5-Year Average (2013-2017)$3,266,000
5-Year Average (2013-2017) Per Sq. Ft. $0.32
10-Year Average (2008-2017)$3,083,000
10-Year Average (2008-2017) Per Sq. Ft. $0.30
(6) The amount or percent of sales and use taxes in Palo Alto contributed by SRP are cited in the City of Palo Alto's Sales Tax Digest Summaries for 2002 (amount) and 2008 through 2012 and 2014 through 2017 (percent). The analysis assumes the percent derived from the fourth quarter 2002 report of 6.6%
pertained to the full calendar year. Percentages for the intermediary years not reported by the City (i.e., 2003 through 2007) were assumed to increase by 1.2% per year, which is the annual average growth rate between the 2002 assumption and the 2008 reported figure.
(7) For 2002 and 2003 these figures comprise 1.0% of the taxable sales reported in the City of Palo Alto by the State of California Board of Equalization. For the years the years 2004 through 2007 and 2013 these figures were included in the City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Digest Summaries for the trailing four
quarters ending in December of the respective year, excepting 2013 where the figure corresponds with the trailing four quarters ending September 2017. These figures are all included because they were needed to support other calculations. If figures are not cited they were not necessary to complete the
analysis as other important data points were provided and did not need to be calculated or estimated.
(11) This analysis calculates the sales and use tax revenues associated with SRP on a per square foot basis across the entire property, to derive an average sales and use tax figure on a per square foot basis, reflecting different time horizons.
Exhibit 7. Stanford Research Park Sales and Use Tax Generation, 2002 - 2017 (1)
Sources: City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Digest Summaries, Quarterly Sales, City of Palo Alto Office of the City Auditor, 2002-2017 (see https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/reports/tax.asp); State of California, Board of Equalization, Taxable Sales by City, Calendar Years 2002 and 2003; Stanford
Research Park; and ALH Urban & Regional Economics.
(2) The 2002 and 2003 City of Palo alto Sales and Use Taxes comprise 1.0% of the total Taxable Sales reported for the City of Palo Alto by the State of California, Board of Equalization.
(4) Only City of Palo Alto sales and use tax revenues through third quarter 2017 are presently available, measuring the revenues for the four prior quarters. For analytical purposes, these data are treated as a proxy for all of 2017.
(8) Comprises an estimate of the taxable sales generated by SRP. The estimate comprises the SRP sales and use taxes divided by .01, reflecting the City's sales and use tax rate of 1.0%.
(9) SRP sales taxes are distributed to the jurisdictions receiving shares of sales and use taxes generated in Palo Alto. The percentages vary over time. This analysis illustratively includes a generic distribution reflective of the present/recent time horizon.
(10) From Stanford Research Park.
(1) This analysis is generally based upon sales and use tax revenues reported by the City of Palo Alto for Stanford Research Park. These specific revenues are reported by the City of Palo Alto for 2008 through 2012, and 2014 through the most recent time period available (trailing year ending third quarter
2017). As noted in other footnotes, missing data points were estimated to develop an estimated time series of sales and use taxes received by the City of Palo Alto and other jurisdictions from Stanford Research Park tenants. Sales and Use Tax figures highlighted in purple are estimated.
(3) For 2013 the City of Palo Alto's quarterly sales tax digest summaries do not identify the amount or share of sales and use tax contributed by SRP. Pursuant to the quarterly digest through December 2013, total sales and use taxes in Palo Alto were approximately $24.5 million. During the several years
before and after 2013, SRP's share of Palo Alto's sales and use taxes typically ranged from 13% to 16%, with one outlier year (2012) at 21%. Conservatively, the analysis assumes for 2013 that SRP's sales and use taxes comprised 14% of total City sales and use tax revenues.
(5) Sales and use taxes generated by SRP are estimated for 2002 through 2007. These revenues are estimated by multiplying the City of Palo Alto's total sales and use tax revenues by the percent share assumed to be contributed by SRP for each year. For all other years, except 2013, these figures are
presented by the City of Palo Alto quarterly in the City's Sales Tax Digest Summaries. Unless otherwise noted, figures correspond to the calendar year of the year cited.
Data Characteristic 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Stanford Research Park Employment (2)23,000 23,384 23,774 24,171 24,575 24,985 25,402 25,826 26,258 26,696 27,142 27,595 28,055 28,524 29,000 29,000
Taxable Spending by Workers
Taxable Spending per Worker (3)$7,046 $7,194 $7,362 $7,587 $7,847 $8,096 $8,379 $8,347 $8,438 $8,678 $8,864 $8,996 $9,163 $9,270 $9,449 $9,717
Annual Sales Taxes, rounded (4)$1,296,400 $1,345,900 $1,400,200 $1,467,100 $1,542,600 $1,618,200 $1,702,700 $1,724,600 $1,772,500 $1,853,200 $1,924,700 $1,985,900 $2,056,600 $2,115,300 $2,192,100 $2,254,400
Business Spending on Employees
Taxable Spending per Employee (5)$380 $388 $397 $409 $423 $437 $452 $450 $455 $468 $478 $485 $494 $500 $510 $524
Annual Sales Taxes, rounded (6)$87,400 $90,700 $94,400 $98,900 $104,000 $109,100 $114,800 $116,300 $119,500 $124,900 $129,800 $133,900 $138,700 $142,600 $147,800 $152,000
Utility Users Tax (UUT)
Estimated UUT Per Employee (7)$43.05 $45.27 $47.61 $50.06 $52.64 $55.35 $58.21 $61.21 $64.36 $67.68 $71.17 $74.84 $78.69 $82.75 $87.02 $91.50
Annual UUT Taxes, rounded (8)$990,000 $1,060,000 $1,130,000 $1,210,000 $1,290,000 $1,380,000 $1,480,000 $1,580,000 $1,690,000 $1,810,000 $1,930,000 $2,070,000 $2,210,000 $2,360,000 $2,520,000 $2,650,000
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
Hotel Room Rate (9)$182 $186 $191 $196 $203 $210 $217 $216 $218 $225 $229 $233 $237 $240 $245 $252
Annual TOT, rounded (10)$1,586,000 $1,646,000 $1,713,000 $1,795,000 $1,887,000 $1,980,000 $2,083,000 $2,110,000 $2,168,000 $2,267,000 $2,354,000 $2,429,000 $2,516,000 $2,588,000 $2,682,000 $2,758,000
(6) For each year, comprises SRP Employment * Taxable Spending per Employee * 1.0% City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Rate (see Exhibit 1), rounded to the nearest $100.
Sources: Stanford Real Estate, Stanford University; "Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Draft Report," February 17, 2017, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI-Average Data, Electricity
per KWH in San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA; and ALH Urban & Regional Economics.
Exhibit 8. Employment-Based SRP City of Palo Alto Fiscal Revenues, 2002-2017 (1)
(7) The annual rate for 2015 is based on an estimate generated by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in "Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Draft Report," February 17, 2017, Figures A25-A30. The EPS estimate of $82.75
in 2015 was adjusted backward in time based upon the U.S. Department of Labor CPI-Average Price Data index for Electricity per KWH in San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA (see http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsap/APUA42272610).
A rate of change from December 2008 to December 2017 was estimated, at 1.05155, as an illustrative estimate (see Exhibit 10). This rate was applied annually for the entire time period as a proxy for the additional years. While utility users taxes
reflect payments for other utility services other than electricity, the electricity index is deemed a reasonable proxy for all utility services subject to the utility users tax. ALH Economics believes this results in a conservative analysis, as there were years
prior to 2015 where the City's electricity rates remained unchanged. See http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52037.
(5) The annual rate for 2015 is based on an estimate generated by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in "Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Draft Report," February 17, 2017, page 23. The EPS estimate of $500 per
employee in 2015 was adjusted backward and forward in time based upon the U.S. Department of Labor CPI Index for Urban West Consumers (see Exhibit 11, annual figures). EPS converted the per employee metric to a per square foot metric.
However, in this case, the per employee metric is applied because of the availability of an estimated time series of SRP employment.
(9) The annual rate for 2015 is derived from analysis presented by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in "Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Draft Report," February 17, 2017, Figure 19, page 27 (See Exhibit 6). The
deduced EPS average hotel room rate of $240 in 2015 was adjusted backward and forward in time based upon the U.S. Department of Labor CPI Index for Urban West Consumers (see Exhibit 11, annual figures).
(10) For each year, comprises SRP Employment * Hotel Room Rate * 90% Palo Alto Capture Rate (See Exhibit 9) * 14% City of Palo Alto Transient Occupancy Tax (see Exhibit 1), rounded to the nearest $1,000.
(8) For each year, comprises SRP Employment * Estimated UUT per Employee, rounded to the nearest $10,000.
(1) Figures for 2015 outlined and in bold are source figures, per the information provided in footnotes 3, 5, and 7.
(4) For each year, comprises SRP Employment * Taxable Spending per Worker * 80% Palo Alto Capture Rate (See Exhibit 1) * 1% City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Rate (see Exhibit 1), rounded to the nearest $100.
(3) The annual rate for 2015 is based on an estimate generated by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in "Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Draft Report," February 17, 2017, page 23. The EPS estimate of $500 per
employee in 2015 was adjusted backward and forward in time based upon the U.S. Department of Labor CPI Index for Urban West Consumers (see Exhibit 11, annual figures).
(2) Annual employment extrapolated from employment estimates of 23,000 in 2002 and 29,000 in 2016. Employment assumed stable in 2017. Estimates provided by Stanford Real Estate, Stanford University.
Metric Value Notes, including Sources
Room nights of demand/yr./employee 3.45 SRP survey in 2016 found 100,000 room nights of demand for 29,000 employees
New Employees x 3,400 SRP estimate
Room nights of demand/yr.=11,724 Calculated
Palo Alto Capture x 90%Deduced from EPS Report, Figure 19, page 27
Palo Alto Demand =10,552 Calculated
Average Room Rate x $240 Deduced from EPS Report, Figure 19, page 27 (rate is in 2015 dollars)
Annual Rooms Revenue =$2,532,414 Calculated
TOT Tax Rate x 14%EPS Draft report, page 26
Annual TOT Tax =$354,538 Calculated
TOT per Employee $104.28 Calculated, Annual TOT Tax/New SRP Employee
(1) This figure compares to 3 room nights of demand/yr/employee estimated by EPS, on page 26, third paragraph of the report referenced in Sources.
Exhibit 9. Derived City of Palo Alto TOT per New SRP Employee, in 2015 Dollars
Sources: "Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan," Prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., February 17, 2017; Stanford Research Park;
and ALH Urban & Regional Economics.
This compares to an EPS estimate of 3 room nights of demand per employee, presented
on page 26.
Series Id:
Series Title:
Area:
Item:
Years:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 0.178 0.178 0.182 0.182 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.210 0.194 0.194
2009 0.194 0.194 0.202 0.202 0.220 0.220 0.220 0.220 0.220 0.220 0.202 0.202
2010 0.212 0.212 0.218 0.218 0.239 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.208 0.208
2011 0.206 0.206 0.211 0.211 0.226 0.226 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.203 0.203
2012 0.207 0.207 0.209 0.209 0.220 0.220 0.218 0.218 0.218 0.218 0.207 0.207
2013 0.212 0.212 0.212 0.212 0.228 0.228 0.228 0.228 0.228 0.231 0.219 0.219
2014 0.221 0.221 0.222 0.182 0.232 0.233 0.233 0.223 0.223 0.222 0.213 0.213
2015 0.222 0.222 0.224 0.225 0.233 0.233 0.233 0.233 0.227 0.227 0.172 0.172
2016 0.187 0.187 0.191 0.190 0.202 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.201 0.190 0.190
2017 0.189 0.189 0.201 0.204 0.210 0.210 0.210 0.210 0.210 0.210 0.204 0.204
Source: United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Electricity per KWH
2008 to 2017
APUA42272610
Electricity per KWH in San Francisco-Oakland-San
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA
Exhibit 10. Electricity Price Index
2008 to 2017
Series Id:
Series Title:
Area:
Item:
Base Period:
Years:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2
2002 182.4 183.2 184.0 185.1 184.8 184.5 184.7 185.3 185.7 185.8 185.8 185.5 184.7 184.0 185.5
2003 186.6 188.1 189.3 188.8 188.5 188.1 188.4 189.2 189.6 189.4 188.5 188.3 188.6 188.2 188.9
2004 189.4 190.8 192.2 192.3 193.4 193.3 192.9 193.0 193.8 195.0 195.1 194.2 193.0 191.9 194.0
2005 194.5 195.7 197.1 198.6 198.8 198.0 198.6 199.6 201.7 202.6 201.4 200.0 198.9 197.1 200.7
2006 201.7 202.7 203.8 205.3 206.9 206.4 206.7 207.5 207.8 207.1 206.3 206.2 205.7 204.5 206.9
2007 207.790 208.995 210.778 212.036 213.063 212.680 212.542 212.406 212.920 213.917 214.904 214.733 212.230 210.890 213.570
2008 215.739 216.339 218.533 219.437 221.009 223.040 223.867 222.823 222.132 221.034 217.113 214.685 219.646 219.016 220.276
2009 215.923 217.095 217.357 217.910 218.567 219.865 219.484 219.884 220.294 220.447 219.728 219.307 218.822 217.786 219.857
2010 219.989 220.179 220.809 221.202 221.417 221.147 221.331 221.523 221.384 221.708 221.671 222.081 221.203 220.790 221.616
2011 223.149 224.431 226.558 227.837 228.516 228.075 227.805 228.222 229.147 229.195 228.771 228.117 227.485 226.428 228.543
2012 228.980 229.995 232.039 232.561 233.053 232.701 231.893 233.001 234.083 234.966 233.206 232.029 232.376 231.555 233.196
2013 232.759 234.595 235.511 235.488 235.979 236.227 236.341 236.591 237.146 237.000 236.153 236.096 235.824 235.093 236.555
2014 236.707 237.614 239.092 239.808 241.350 241.616 241.850 241.660 241.920 241.650 240.220 239.095 240.215 239.365 241.066
2015 238.318 239.748 241.690 242.302 244.227 244.332 245.040 244.737 244.257 244.341 243.749 243.434 243.015 241.770 244.260
2016 244.600 244.821 245.404 246.589 247.855 248.228 248.375 248.498 249.234 249.897 249.448 249.516 247.705 246.250 249.161
2017 250.814 252.252 252.949 253.806 254.380 254.469 254.708 255.282 256.504 257.223 257.126 257.347 254.738 253.112 256.365
2018 258.638 259.986 260.994 262.037 263.240
Source: United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject.
CUUR0400SA0,CUUS0400SA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Exhibit 11. CPI Index - All Urban Consumers
West Region United States
2002 to May, 2018
All items in West urban, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted
West
All items
1982-84=100
2002 to 2018
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
July 30, 2018
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Readoption of a Resolution Placing a Measure on the November 6,
2018 General Election Ballot to Increase the City’s Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT) by One and One-half Percentage Points to Make
Minor Revisions to the Ballot Language
From: Joint Report of the City Clerk and City Attorney
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution that:
1. Rescinds previously-adopted Resolution No. 9778 that submitted a measure to the voters at the
general election on November 6, 2018 to increase the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) by
one and one-half percentage points, using ballot language that would have been required under
a potential statewide initiative Constitutional measure that has since been withdrawn; and
2. Submits the same measure to the voters at the general municipal election on November 6, 2018
to increase the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) by one and one-half percentage points,
using updated ballot language.
Background
On June 18, 2018, the City Council adopted a Resolution submitting a one and one-half percent
TOT increase to the voters for the November general election. The Council supported the use of
procedural language that would have been required if an initiat ive Constitutional measure that
had qualified for the November ballot (“the California Business Roundtable Initiative” or “CBRI
Initiative”) had been placed on the ballot and adopted by voters. Staff Report of June 18, 2018 ,
Action Minutes of June 18, 2018
On June 28, 2018, the proponents of th e CBRI Initiative pulled it from the November ballot,
after reaching a compromise with the state legislature and Governor.
Discussion
Now that it is clear that the procedural requirements in the CBRI Initiative will not be imposed
on cities, staff recommends revising the ballot language to remove the protective language
inserted to comply with the CBRI measure. In addition to this change, the language includes
minor revisions for grammar and compliance with ballot requirements.
Resource Impact
Minor changes to the ballot language have no resource impact.
Page 2
Environmental Review
This action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Resolution Submitting Measure re TOT to Voters with Attached Proposed
Ordinance (PDF)
Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney
Page 3
Resolution No.
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Submitting to the Voters at
the General Municipal Election on November 6, 2018 a Measure to Adopt an
Ordinance to Amend Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Increase the
City's Transient Occupancy Tax By 1.5 Percentage Points
RECITALS
A. Pursuant to Section 2.33.020 of title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the City
currently levies a Transient Occupancy Tax.
B. The City Council desires to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code to increase the
transient occupancy tax (commonly called the "TOT" or "hotel tax") which is currently charged
on persons who occupy hotel or motel rooms in the City for 30 days or less, from the current 14%
to 15.5%.
C. A proposed ordinance attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as
Exhibit "A" (the "Ordinance") would implement the proposed revision to the tax.
D. By its Resolution No. 9776 the City Council called a general municipal election for
November 6, 2018 ("Election").
E. At its regular meeting on June 18, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
9778 submitting a measure to increase the hotel tax to the voters at the general election on
November 6, 2018, using language that would have required under a potential statewide
initiative Constitutional measure that has since been withdrawn. The City Council desires to
rescind the previously -submitted hotel tax measure and resubmit it with modifications to the
ballot language.
F. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53724 and Election Code Section 9222, the
City Council desires to submit the attached Ordinance to the voters of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and determines that each of the findings
set forth above are true and correct.
SECTION 2. Rescission of Resolution No. 9778. The City Council hereby rescinds
Resolution No. 9778, adopted on June 18, 2018. It shall have no further force and effect.
SECTION 3. General Tax Election. The City Council proposes to impose the general
tax set forth in the Ordinance and to present this proposal to the voters on November 6,
2018.
1
140521 jb 0131209
SECTION 4. Measure. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9222, the City Council
hereby submits the Ordinance to the voters at the general election on November 6, 2018 and
orders the follow question to be submitted to the voters:
To provide funding for vital City services such as ensuring
modern, stable 911 emergency communications,
earthquake safe fire stations and emergency command
center; improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety; ensuring
safe routes to schools; maintaining City streets and
sidewalks; and other City services, shall the City of Palo Alto
adopt an ordinance increasing the transient occupancy tax
paid by hotel, motel, short-term rental guests by 1.5%,
providing approximately $2.55 million annually until ended
by voters, subject to annual audits?
YES
NO
SECTION 5. Adoption of Measure. The measure to be submitted to the voters is
attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. If a majority
of qualified electors voting on such measure shall vote in favor, the measure shall be deemed
adopted.
SECTION 6. Notice of Election. Notice of the time and place of holding the election is
hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or
additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
SECTION 7. Impartial Analysis. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9280,
the City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City
Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed
500 words in length, showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of
the measure, and transmit such impartial analysis to the City Clerk on or before August 21,
2018.
SECTION 8. Ballot Arguments. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9286 et. seq.,
August 14, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. shall be the deadline for submission of arguments in favor of, and
arguments against, any local measures on the ballot. If more than one argument for and/or
against is received, the priorities established by Elections Code Section 9287 shall control.
SECTION 9. Rebuttal Arguments. The provisions of Elections Code Section 9285
shall control the submission of any rebuttal arguments. The deadline for filing rebuttal
arguments shall be August 21, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.
SECTION 10. Duties of City Clerk. The Palo Alto City Clerk shall do all things required
by law to effectuate the November 6, 2018, general municipal election, including but not
limited to causing the posting, publication and printing of all notices or other election materials
2
140521 Jb 0131209
under the requirements of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the California Elections and
Government Codes.
SECTION 11. Request and Consent to Consolidate. The Council of the City of Palo Alto
requests the governing body of any other political subdivision, or any officers otherwise
authorized by law, to partially or completely consolidate such elections and the City Council
consents to such consolidation. The Council requests the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara
County to include on the ballots and sample ballots, all qualified measures submitted by the
City Council to be ratified by the qualified electors of the City of Palo Alto. The Council
acknowledges that the election will be held and conducted according to procedures in the
Elections Code, including Section 10418.
SECTION 12. Request for County Services. Pursuant to Section 10002 of the California
Elections Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of
Santa Clara County to permit the Registrar of Voters to render services to the City of Palo Alto
relating to the conduct of Palo Alto's General Municipal and Special Elections which are called
to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. The services shall be of the type normally performed
by the Registrar of Voters in assisting the clerks of municipalities in the conduct of elections
including, but not limited to, checking registrations, mailing ballots, hiring election officers and
arranging for polling places, receiving absentee voter ballot applications, mailing and receiving
absent voter ballots and opening and counting same, providing and distributing election
supplies, and furnishing voting machines.
SECTION 13. Transmittal of Resolution. The City Clerk is hereby directed to submit
forthwith a certified copy of this resolution to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and
to the Registrar of Voters.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: July 2018
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
140521 jb 0131209
3
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
City Attorney Director of Administrative Services
4
140521 jb 0131209
"EXHIBIT A"
**NOT YET ADOPTED **
Ordinance No.
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.33 of Title
2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to the Transient Occupancy Tax
The People of the City of Palo Alto do ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 2.33 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by
amending Chapter 2.33 as follows:
Chapter 2.33
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
2.33.010 Definitions.
2.33.020 Tax imposed.
2.33.030 Exemptions.
2.33.040 Operator's duties.
2.33.050 Registration.
2.33.060 Reporting and remitting.
2.33.070 Penalties.
2.33.080 Failure to collect and report tax; determination of tax by supervisor of revenue
collections.
2.33.090 Appeal.
2.33.100 Records.
2.33.110 Refunds.
2.33.120 Actions to collect.
2.33.130 Violations; misdemeanor.
2.33.140 Third party rental transactions.
2.33.010 Definitions.
Except where the context otherwise requires, the definitions given in this section govern the
construction of this chapter:
(a) "Person" means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, social club,
fraternal organization, joint stock company, corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver,
trustee, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
(b) "Hotel" means any structure, or any portion of any structure, in the City of Palo Alto
which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or
sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel,
bachelor hotel, lodging house, morning house, apartment, house, dormitory, public or private
1
club, mobilehome or house trailer at a fixed location, or other similar structure or portion
thereof, even if such structure is also used for other purposes, including residential purposes.
(c) "Occupancy" means the use or possession, or the right to the use or possession, of any
room or rooms or portion thereof in any hotel for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes.
(d) "Transient" means any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by
reason of concession, permit, right of access, license or other agreement for a period of thirty
consecutive days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Any such person so
occupying space in a hotel shall be deemed to be a transient until the period of thirty days has
expired unless there is an agreement in writing between the operator and the occupant
providing for a longer period of occupancy.
(e) "Rent" means the total consideration paid by a transient, for the occupancy of space in a
hotel, whether or not received by the operator, including, without limitation, transaction
service fees and any unrefunded advance reservation or other rental deposit. For purposes of
this definition, rent shall be valued in money, whether it is received in money, goods, labor or
otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits and property and services of any kind or nature,
without any deduction therefrom whatsoever.
(f) "Operator" means the person who is the proprietor of the hotel, whether in the capacity
of owner, lessee, sublessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee, or any other capacity. Where
the operator performs his or her functions through a managing agent of any type or character
(other than an employee), the managing agent shall also be deemed an operator for the
purposes of this chapter and shall have the same duties and liabilities as his or her principal.
Compliance with the provisions of this chapter by either the principal or the managing agent
shall, however, be considered to be compliance by both.
(g) "Rental agent" means any person other than an operator who collects rent from a transient
for the transient's occupancy of a hotel.
2.33.020 Tax imposed.
For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient is subject to and shall pay a tax in
the amount of feu#een fifteen and one-half percent of the rent paid by the transient. Said tax
constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the city, which is extinguished only by payment to
the operator or to the city or to a rental agent pursuant to section 2.33.140. The transient shall
pay the tax to the operator at the time the rent is paid. If the rent is paid in installments, a
proportionate share of the tax shall be made with each installment. Any unpaid tax shall be
due upon the transient's ceasing occupancy in the hotel. If for any reason the tax due is not
paid to the operator, the supervisor of revenue collections may require that such tax shall be
paid directly to the supervisor of revenue collections.
2
2.33.030 Exemptions.
No tax shall be imposed upon:
(a) Any person as to whom, or any occupancy as to which, it is beyond the power of the city
to impose the tax herein provided;
(b) Any officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express
provision of federal law or international treaty;
(c) Any federal or state of California officer or employee on official business who shall pay
rent by warrant or check drawn on the treasury of the United States or the state of California or
provides written evidence of such official business on a form approved in advance by the
supervisor of revenue collections. Copies of the documentation for each exemption claimed
must be submitted to the supervisor of revenue collections with each return made pursuant to
Section 2.33.060.
No exemption shall be granted under this section except upon a claim therefor made at the
time rent is collected and under penalty of perjury upon a form prescribed by the supervisor of
revenue collections. Additionally, a copy of such warrant or check and a copy of such claim form
shall be submitted with each return made pursuant to Section 2.33.060.
2.33.040 Operator's duties.
Each operator shall collect the tax imposed by this ordinance to the same extent and at the
same time as the rent is collected from every transient. The amount of tax shall be separately
stated from the amount of the rent charged, and each transient shall receive a receipt for
payment from the operator. No operator shall advertise or state in any manner, whether
directly or indirectly, that the tax or any part thereof will be assumed or absorbed by the
operator, or that it will not be added to the rent, or that, if added, any part will be refunded
except in the manner hereinafter provided.
2.33.050 Registration.
(a) Within ten days after commencing business, each new or unregistered operator of any
hotel renting occupancy to transients shall present a valid certificate of occupancy issued by the
building official pursuant to Title 16 and apply for registration of said hotel with the supervisor
of revenue collections who will issue a "Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate" to be at
all times posted in a conspicuous place on the premises by such registrant or any operator
previously registered. The application shall require such information as the supervisor of
revenue collections deems necessary or convenient to the collection of the tax imposed by this
chapter. The supervisor of revenue collections may require updating of application information
from time to time as he or she deems necessary or advisable. Registration under this section
shall lapse with the certificate of occupancy upon which it was issued. Said certificate shall,
among other things, state the following:
(1) The name of the operator;
(2) The address of the hotel;
3
(3) The date upon which the certificate was issued;
(4) "This Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate signifies that the person named on the
face hereof has fulfilled the requirements of Chapter 2.33 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
'Transient Occupancy Tax' by registering with the supervisor of revenue collections for the
purpose of collecting from transients the Transient Occupancy Tax and remitting said tax to the
supervisor of revenue collections. This certificate does not authorize any person to conduct any
unlawful business or to conduct any lawful business in an unlawful manner, or to operate a
hotel without strictly complying with all local applicable laws, including but not limited to those
requiring a permit from any board, commission, department or office of this city. This
certificate does not constitute a permit and is not transferable to a different operator."
2.33.060 Reporting and remitting.
Each operator shall, on or before the last day of the month following the close of the previous
calendar month, or at the close of any shorter reporting period which may be established by
the supervisor of revenue collections, make a return to the supervisor of revenue collections on
forms provided by him or her of the total rents charged to transients and the total rents paid by
transients and the amount of tax collected for transient occupancies. If no tax was due or
collected during the previous reporting period, the operator shall file a return so stating under
penalty of perjury. At the time the return is filed, the full amount of the tax collected shall be
remitted to the supervisor of revenue collections. The supervisor of revenue collections may
establish shorter reporting periods for any certificate holder if he or she deems it necessary in
order to ensure collection of the tax, and he or she may require further information in the
return. Returns and payments are due immediately upon cessation of business for any reason.
All taxes collected by operators pursuant to this chapter shall be held in trust for the account of
the city until payment thereof is made to the supervisor of revenue collections.
2.33.070 Penalties.
(a) Original Delinquency. Any operator who fails to remit any tax imposed by this chapter
within the time required shall pay a penalty of ten percent of the amount of the tax which
penalty amount shall be added to the amount of the tax, for purposes of calculating additional
penalties.
(b) Continued Delinquency. Any operator who fails to remit any delinquent remittance on or
before a period of thirty days following the date on which the remittance first became
delinquent shall pay a second delinquency penalty of ten percent of the amount of the tax
including the ten percent penalty first imposed.
(c) Fraud or Misrepresentation. If the director of finance, in his or her judgment, determines
that the nonpayment of any remittance due under this chapter is due to intentional conduct,
misrepresentation or fraud, a penalty of twenty-five percent of the amount of the tax shall be
added thereto in addition to the penalties stated in subsections (a) and (b) of this section.
(d) Additional Penalty. In addition to the penalties imposed under subsections (a) and (b) of
this section, any operator who fails to remit any tax imposed by this chapter shall pay a penalty
of one percent per month or fraction thereof, whichever is less, on the amount of the tax from
the date on which the remittance first became delinquent until paid.
4
(e) Penalties Merged with Tax. Every penalty imposed and such additional penalties as
accrue under the provisions of this section shall become a part of the tax herein required to be
paid.
2.33.080 Failure to collect and report tax; determination of tax by supervisor of revenue
collections.
If any operator fails or refuses to collect said tax and to make, within the time provided in this
chapter, any report and remittance of said tax or any portion thereof required by this chapter,
the supervisor of revenue collections shall proceed in such manner as he or she may deem best
to obtain facts and information on which to base his or her estimate of the tax due. As soon as
the supervisor of revenue collections shall procure such facts and information as he or she is
able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any tax imposed by this chapter and
payable by any operator who has failed or refused to collect the same and to make such report
and remittance, he or she shall proceed to determine and assess against such operator the tax
and penalties provided by this chapter. In case such determination is made, the supervisor of
revenue and collections shall give a notice of the amount so assessed by sending it personally
or by depositing it in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the operator so
assessed at his or her last known place of address.
Such operator may within fourteen days after serving or mailing of such notice make
application in writing to the supervisor of revenue collections for a hearing on the amount
assessed. If application by an operator is not made within the time, prescribed, the tax and
penalties, if any, determined by the supervisor of revenue collections to be due shall become
final and conclusive and immediately due and payable. If such application is made, the
supervisor of revenue collections shall give not less than ten days' written notice in the manner
prescribed herein to the operator to show cause at a time and place fixed in said notice why
said amount specified therein should not be fixed for such tax and penalties. At such hearing,
the operator may appear and offer evidence why such specified tax and penalties should not be
so fixed. After such hearing, the supervisor of revenue collections shall determine the proper
tax to be remitted and shall thereafter give written notice to the operator in the manner
prescribed herein of such determination and the amount of such tax and penalties. The amount
determined to be due shall be payable after twenty days of the serving or mailing of such
determination unless an appeal is taken as provided in Section 2.33.090.
2.33.090 Appeal.
Any operator aggrieved by any decision of the supervisor of revenue and collections with
respect to the amount of such tax and penalties, if any, may appeal to the director of finance or
his or her designee by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within twenty days of the
serving or mailing of the determination of tax due. The director of finance or the designee shall
fix a time and place for hearing of such appeal, and give notice in writing to such operator at his
or her last known place of address. The findings of the director of finance or the designee shall
be final and conclusive and shall be served upon the appellant in the manner prescribed above
for service of notice of hearing. Any amount found to be due shall be immediately due and
payable upon the service of notice.
5
2.33.100 Records.
It shall be the duty of every operator liable for the collection and payment to the city of any
tax imposed by this chapter to keep and preserve all records as may be necessary to determine
the amount of such tax as he or she may have been liable for the collection of and payment to
the city. Said records shall be kept or made available at one location within the limits of the city
for a period of three years. The supervisor of revenue collections and/or city auditor or their
designee shall have the right at any and all reasonable times, to examine and audit said records
for the purpose of determining the accuracy thereof.
2.33.110 Refunds.
(a) Claim Required. Prior to seeking judicial relief with respect to a dispute regarding the
amount of any tax, penalty, or interest collected or received by the city under this chapter, an
aggrieved taxpayer, fee payer, operator, transient or any other person must comply with the
provisions of section 2.28.230 of this code.
(b) Operators. An operator may claim as an overpayment any tax previously paid which was
calculated on the basis of taxable consideration written off by the operator as a bad debt in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and claimed as a deduction on a
federal income tax return in accordance with provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, and
regulations issued pursuant thereto. The bad debt claim may be taken as an adjustment to
future taxes due the city after the operator's procedure and forms for adjustment of bad debt
have been reviewed and approved by the supervisor of revenue collections.
(c) Transients. A transient may only request a refund of taxes under this chapter when the
transient, having paid the tax to the operator, establishes that the transient has been unable to
obtain a refund from the operator who collected the tax.
2.33.120 Actions to collect.
Any tax required to be paid by any transient under the provisions of this chapter shall be
deemed a debt owed by the transient to the city. Any such tax collected by an operator which
has not been paid to the city shall be deemed a debt owed by the operator to the city. Any
person owing money to the city under the provisions of this chapter shall be liable to an action
brought in the name of the city for the recovery of such amount.
2.33.130 Violations; misdemeanor.
Any operator or other person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter or who fails or
refuses to register as required herein, or to furnish any returns or other data required by the
supervisor of revenue collections, or who renders a false or fraudulent return or claim, is guilty
of a misdemeanor, and is punishable as provided in this code.
2.33.140 Third party rental transactions.
(a) Any transient who pays rent to a rental agent instead of to an operator shall, at the time
the rent is paid, pay the tax to the rental agent in the manner required by section 2.33.020. If
for any reason the tax is not paid to the rental agent, it shall be paid to the operator before the
transient has ceased occupancy in the hotel or paid directly to the supervisor of revenue
6
collections pursuant to section 2.33.020. Any transient seeking a refund under section 2.33.110
of taxes paid to a rental agent must establish that the transient has been unable to obtain a
refund from the rental agent who collected the tax.
(b) Any rental agent who collects rent shall comply with all obligations of the operator set
forth in sections 2.33.040 and 2.33.100 of this chapter. The rental agent shall remit all collected
taxes to the operator before the deadline for the operator to remit the taxes to the supervisor
of revenue collections under section 2.33.060, and the rental agent shall provide the operator
with copies of all records required to be maintained by the operator pursuant to section
2.33.100 of this chapter, including records necessary for the operator to comply with its
obligations under this chapter.
(c) If the supervisor of revenue collection determines that a rental agent has failed to collect,
remit, or report any tax, the supervisor may take any action against the rental agent that he or
she may take against an operator under sections 2.33.070 and 2.33.080 of this chapter subject
to the requirements of those sections. If the supervisor assesses unremitted taxes and
penalties against the rental agent, the rental agent shall be subject to the provisions of sections
2.33.080, 2.33.090, 2.33.110, and 2.33.120 of this chapter as if it were an operator. Nothing in
this section shall prohibit the supervisor from assessing the full amount of any unremitted taxes
and penalties solely against the operator in lieu of assessing some or all of those taxes and
penalties against the rental agent.
SECTION 2. General Tax. Proceeds of the tax imposed by this Ordinance shall be
deposited in the general fund of the City and shall be available for any legal purpose.
SECTION 3. Amendment or Repeal. The City Council may repeal Chapter 2.33 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code or amend that Chapter without a vote of the people except that any
amendment to Chapter 2.33 that increases the amount or rate of tax due from any Person
beyond the amounts and rates authorized by this Ordinance may not take effect unless approved
by a vote of the people.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion
of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and
effect. The people hereby declare that they would have adopted each section, subsection,
sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be
declared invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective only if approved by a majority
of the voters and shall go into effect immediately after the vote is declared by the City Council
and the duty of service providers to collect the tax shall commence as provided in California
Public Utilities Code Section 799.
//
//
7
SECTION 6. Execution. The Mayor is hereby authorized to attest to the adoption of this
Ordinance by the voters of the City by signing where indicated below.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by
the People of the City of Palo Alto voting on the 6th day of November, 2018.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED
City Attorney City Manager
Director of Administrative
Services
8
City of Palo Alto (ID # 9471)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/30/2018
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: P&S Recommendation to Council - Anti-Idling Ordinance
Title: Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Council to Adopt
an Ordinance Adding Chapter 10.62 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the
Municipal Code to Regulate Unnecessary Idling of Vehicles (Continued From
April 2, 2018 and June 12, 2018)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommended Motion
The Policy and Services Committee recommends that Council adopt the attached
ordinance (Attachment A) amending the Municipal Code to add Chapter 10.62 to Title
10 (Vehicles and Traffic) to regulate unnecessary idling of vehicles.
Background
On August 28, 2017, the City Council discussed a Council Colleagues Memo from Vice
Mayor Kniss and Council Members Filseth, Holman and Dubois, recommending the City
develop an ordinance to implement Programs N5.2.1 and N5.2.2 in the Draft
Comprehensive Plan and to support Healthy Cities, Healthy Communities Priority by
requiring drivers to shut off their engines after two or three minu tes of stationary idling
if not in an active traffic path, noting exceptions.
The following motion was unanimously passed by Council 8-0 (Fine absent):
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council
Member Holman to direct Staff to return to the Policy and Services Committee with an
Ordinance to implement Programs N5.2.1 and N5.2.2 in the Draft Comprehensive Plan
and to support the Healthy Cities, Healthy Communities Council Priority by requiring
drivers to shut off their engines after two or three minutes of stationary idling if not in
an active traffic path, noting exceptions. The Ordinance would be patterned after
ordinances adopted in Minneapolis, MN; Salt Lake City, UT; and Ann Arbor, MI.
Discussion
On December 12, 2017, the Policy and Services Committee (Committee) discussed the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
staff report and a draft Anti-Idling Ordinance prepared for discussion purposes
(Attachment B – P&S Staff Report). The Committee was overall supportive of an effort
to discourage extended vehicle idling, and the Committee discussed primarily
exemptions to the ordinance and enforcement of the ordinance (Attachment C –
Transcript, Item 3, pp 15-31).
The exemptions that staff brought forward for the Committee’s consideration were
derived from other city anti-idling ordinances. The Committee recommends that all of
the listed exemptions be included in the ordinance (Attachment A). They include
emergency vehicles, refrigeration trucks and armored vehicles among other special
circumstances where extended idling may be warranted.
Regarding enforcement, staff drafted several options for the Committee, ranging from
emphasizing education and providing for no active enforcement, to escalating fines.
Staff recommended that the ordinance primarily function as an education tool to help
people understand and appreciate the issue, recognizing that formal enforc ement would
be challenging and of limited effectiveness. After some discussion the Committee voted
3-1 (Wolbach no) to include an enforcement component with the following fine
amounts: $0 (written warning) for the first violation, $100 for the second violation and
$150 for the third violation. Councilmember Wolbach preferred the no enforcement
option in recognition that enforcement would be very rare due to lack of resources and
the impractical operational logistics that would be required to enforce idling time limits.
The Committee also discussed the need for education on the topic of extended idling,
particularly collaborating with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), as extended
idling is frequently observed at school drop off and pick up time s. The Committee
discussed interest in PAUSD collaborating with students to help educate parents and
caregivers understand the negative impacts of extended idling. Staff will share the
ordinance with PAUSD and discuss with them how they might work with stu dents to
help with community education.
Resource Impact
Adoption of an ordinance in itself will have limited resource impact. With the
understanding that additional resources will not be available, enforcement will be a low
priority for existing staff. If the City Council anticipates active enforcement of the
ordinance, including tracking prior violations to implement an escalating fine structure,
staff will need to return with an analysis of resources required.
Policy Implications
The ordinance supports the Comprehensive Plan, Heathy City Healthy Community and
Sustainability Climate Action Plans as related to the City’s carbon reduction efforts.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Anti-Idle Draft Ordinance - 12.21.17 (post-committee)
Attachment B: P&S Dec 2018 Anti Idling ID# 8704
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Attachment C: 12-12-17 P&S Action Minutes
Not Yet Approved
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 10.62 to Title
10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Regulate
Unnecessary Idling of Vehicles.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. Program N5.2.1 of the updated City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
instructs the city to “[p]romote understanding of the impacts of extended idling on air quality,
for residents, auto-dependent businesses and schools.” Additionally, Program N5.2.1 of the
updated Comprehensive Plan instructs the city to “[c]onsider adopting and enforcing penalties
for drivers that idle for longer than 3-5 minutes.” This ordinance is intended to effectuate Policy
N-5.2 and support behavior changes to reduce emissions of particulate matter and other air
pollutants from automobiles.
B. Title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 2485 currently makes it
unlawful for any diesel-fueled commercial vehicle weighing over 10,000 pounds and operating
in California to idle for more than 5 minutes, subject to certain exceptions. Additionally, Title
13, California Code of Regulations, section 2480 requires that school busses and other school-
serving busses turn off their engines when stopping at or within 100 feet of a public or private
K-12 school, with idling permitted for only up to 30 seconds prior to departure . The California
Air Resources Board is authorized to enforce these laws by issuing civil and/or criminal citations
to vehicle owners and/or operators and penalties of at least $300 per violation. These
regulations do not preclude local governments from regulating vehicle idling more stringently
or in a broader manner than the state does currently.
C. The unnecessary operation of internal combustion engines poses a
number of public health concerns. In particular, airborne pollutants from engine emissions can
cause or aggravate pulmonary diseases, including asthma, lung cancer, bronchitis, acute
respiratory infections, and emphysema. In addition to public health concerns, idling engines
also impose economic costs, including wasted energy, consumption of non -renewable
resources, and costs related to medical care and lost productivity due to pollution-related
illness. Idling engines also diminish citizens’ quality of life by generating noise, odor, and visible
smog.
D. In addition to impacts on local community health and welfare,
unnecessary idling contributes to environmental degradation in the Bay Area and more broadly
by emitting greenhouse gases, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. Although
technological advancements in internal combustion engines have reduced some of these
impacts, increases in vehicle usage and the continued use of older vehicles has offset many of
these technological benefits.
ATTACHMENT A
Not Yet Approved
E. The City of Palo Alto is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions
from activities within the city. This commitment is demonstrated in part by the city’s
Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, which targets an 80-percent reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions from 1990 levels by 2030. Additionally, Goal N-5 of the updated Comprehensive Plan
demonstrates the city’s commitment to developing local policies and working with BAAQMD to
promote regional solutions to improve air quality in Palo Alto and throughout the Bay Area.
SECTION 2. Chapter 10.62 (Idling of Vehicles) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) is
hereby added to read as follows:
Chapter 10.62 Idling of Vehicles
10.62.010 Intent and Purpose.
It is the intent and purpose of this chapter to discourage the Idling of Vehicle engines in the
City of Palo Alto in order to protect public health, improve environmental conditions, conserve
energy and resources, promote economic efficiency, and improve quality of life. This intent and
purpose shall be effectuated through primarily educational means.
10.62.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, these words shall have the following definitions:
(a) Idle or Idling means to operate a Vehicle’s internal combustion engine while the
Vehicle is stationary.
(b) Vehicle is defined as in California Vehicle Code section 670.
10.62.030 Restriction of Vehicle Idling.
(a) A Vehicle owner or a Vehicle operator shall not cause or permit the Vehicle to Idle
on public property, in public rights of way, or on private property that is open to the general
public within city limits for more than 3 consecutive minutes.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply in any of the following circumstances:
(1) A Vehicle is forced to remain stationary because of an official traffic control device,
direction of a law enforcement official, or any traffic conditions beyond the operator's
control, including traffic congestion, railroad crossings, construction zones, security
checkpoints, and vehicle queues for drive-through goods and services;
(2) Idling is necessary to operate defrosters, heaters, air conditioners, or other
equipment to prevent a safety or health emergency for human or animal occupants, or
Not Yet Approved
to prevent the aggravation of a passenger’s disability or health condition, but not
merely to maintain the comfort of vehicle occupants;
(3) Idling is necessary to provide heat to an occupied Vehicle if the outside ambient
temperature is below 40 degrees Fahrenheit, or Idling is necessary to provide cooling to
an occupied vehicle if the outside temperature is more than 85 degrees Fahrenheit;
(4) Idling is necessary to power heaters or air conditioners to maintain the comfort of
vehicle occupants while waiting for assistance when a vehicle is immobilized due to
mechanical problems;
(5) An emergency or law enforcement vehicle, including police, fire, ambulance, public
safety, military, or any vehicle being used in an emergency capacity, Idles in the course
of or in preparation for emergency or law enforcement duties;
(6) An armored vehicle Idles while in the course of business;
(7) Idling is necessary to power auxiliary work equipment that is actively in use,
including, but not limited to, cargo refrigeration units, waste collectors/compactors,
lifts, winches, pumps, compressors, drills, mixers, and other safety and construction
equipment. Auxiliary work equipment does not include equip ment primarily intended
for vehicle cabin comfort or occupancy, such as air conditioning, heating, radio,
television, digital displays, or kitchen appliances;
(8) Idling is necessary for any Vehicle maintenance, service, repair, inspection,
research and development, or diagnostics;
(9) An engine is operated in accordance with instructions from the Vehicle
manufacturer for proper operation;
(10) Idling is necessary for a licensed private security provider to perform security
duties;
(11) A Vehicle designed to carry 15 or more passengers Idles to maintain comfortable
cabin temperatures while paying passengers are on board for up to 10 minutes prior to
a scheduled embarkation; or
(12) Applicable federal, state, or local law requires Idling.
10.62.040 Enforcement.
It is the responsibility of the members of the police department or such persons as
assigned by the chief of police to enforce the provisions of this chapter through any appropriate
action, including administrative citation, compliance order, criminal citation, civil injunctive
Not Yet Approved
4
code enforcement, and/or written warnings. Any criminal citation issued under this chapter
shall be designated as an infraction.
10.62.050 Penalties.
The maximum penalty for a first violation of this chapter occurring within a calendar year
shall be a written warning with no fine. The maximum fine shall be $100.00 for a second
violation and $150.00 for a third and any subsequent violation of this chapter occurring within a
calendar year.
SECTION 3. This chapter shall be in pilot status until June 1, 2019. Before the end of
the pilot period, staff will return to Council to review the program, make any necessary
adjustments, and consider this chapter for permanent adoption , subject to amendment from
time to time as deemed appropriate. Unless Council acts to extend the pilot period or make
permanent this chapter before June 1, 2019, this chapter, as it may from time to time be
amended, shall be deemed approved on a continuing basis on that date.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remain ing portion or
sections of the ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the
ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the
fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
invalid.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15308 of the CEQA
Guidelines, as an action taken for the protection of the environment.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Not Yet Approved
5
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Chief of Police
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8704)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/12/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Review draft Anti -Idiling Ordinance
Title: Discussion and Recommendation to Council Regarding Anti -Idling
Ordinance
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee review the draft anti-idling
ordinance, provide feedback on identified policy issues including exceptions and
enforcement, and consider recommending the ordinance to Council for approval.
Background
On August 28, 2017 the City Council discussed a Council Colleagues Memo from Vice
Mayor Kniss and Council Members Filseth, Holman and Dubois, recommending the City
develop an ordinance to implement Programs N5.2.1 and N5.2.2 in the Draft
Comprehensive Plan and to support Healthy Cities, Healthy Communities Priority by
requiring drivers to shut off their engines after two or three minutes of stationary idling
if not in an active traffic path, noting exceptions.
The following motion was unanimously passed by Council 8:0 Fine absent:
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded
by Council Member Holman to direct Staff to return to the Policy and
Services Committee with an Ordinance to implement Programs N5.2.1
and N5.2.2 in the Draft Comprehensive Plan and to support the
Healthy Cities, Healthy Communities Council Priority by requiring
drivers to shut off their engines after two or three minutes of
stationary idling if not in an active traffic path, noting exceptions. The
Ordinance would be patterned after city ordinances adopted in
Minneapolis, MN; Salt Lake City, UT; and Ann Arbor, MI.
Discussion
City staff reviewed the Colleagues Memo and a number of Anti-Idling Ordinances from
City of Palo Alto Page 2
other cities and counties including Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Ann Arbor, Auburn and
Placer County. Staff prepared a draft ordinance for the Committee to discuss and
consider for Council approval (Attachment B).
Staff is supportive of the goal that residents, workers and visitors should be more
conscious of the harmful impact of long time idling on the environment. Staff
understands and supports an attempt to reduce long time idling behavior, recognizing it
would be good for the community, and consistent with our Healthy City, Comprehensive
Plan and Sustainability and Climate Action Plan goals.
Staff also believes that this ordinance should primarily function as an education tool to
help people understand and appreciate the issue. Formal enforcement activity will be
challenging and of limited effectiveness. If the Committee chooses to recommend an
ordinance to Council, it should do so with a realistic understanding of the enforcement
constraints. Code enforcement and police officers will rarely be available to respond to
complaints of violations due to limited resources and the need prioritize other health
and safety issues. And even when resources are available, violation s typically would not
be ongoing when enforcement officers arrive at the scene, making formal enforcement
activity difficult. Experience with other similar mandates has shown that enforcement is
resource-intensive and of limited effectiveness. This can contribute to some citizens’
feelings of frustration toward local government.
Staff discussed internally whether there is value and merit in an ordinance that states
explicitly that enforcement mechanisms and resources will not be deployed. This is a
point of discussion for the Committee. Is an ordinance the most appropriate tool to
attempt to influence extended idling behavior? Perhaps a targeted education campaign,
as resources allow, supported by a strong Council resolution is more fitting? Staff is not
recommending this alternative, but raises it for discussion purposes. Neither are we
recommending a responsive enforcement program if an ordinance is recommended.
There are a number of exceptions in the draft ordinance. Cities that have anti-idling
ordinances differ in the exceptions they include. Staff included all relevant exceptions
from the examples we consulted, as a starting point. We seek the Committee’s direction
in this area, as well.
Timeline
Staff will bring the Policy and Services recommendation to Council early in 2018.
Resource Impact
It is important to note that this initiative arrived on the “City’s plate” so to speak, unplanned
and out of step with the City workplan. In addition, the staff report identifies the challenges
associated with enforcment.
Adoption of an ordinance in itself will have limited resource impact. Depending on the
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Committee and Council’s direction, additional resources may needed for education,
signs and informational material, and enforcement. As indicated above, the
requirements associated with these choices needs to be a key focus of the Committee’s
discussion.
Policy Implications
The draft ordinance supports the Comprehesive Plan, Heathy City Healthy Community
and Sustainabiity Climate Action Plans as related to our city’s carbon reduction efforts.
Attachments:
Attachment A: ID# 8409 Colleagues Memo Vehicle Idling
Attachment B: Anti-Idle Draft Ordinance - 11.30.17
City of Palo Alto
COLLEAGUES MEMO
August 28, 2017 Page 1 of 5
(ID # 8409)
DATE: August 28, 2017
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Council Member Filseth, Council Member Holman, Council Member
DuBois, Council Member Kniss
SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES MEMO FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS DUBOIS, FILSETH,
HOLMAN, AND VICE MAYOR KNISS REGARDING AN ANTI-IDLING ORDINANCE
(AIO)
Goals:
The City’s S/CAP plan calls for a reduction in citywide CO2-equivalent emissions of
224,600 tons by 2030, of which 111,900 tons are expected to come from mobility1.
Emissions from stationary idling of cars, trucks and buses are one source of these
emissions, and according to some studies the average US city emits about 13 tons of
carbon each day, just from idling.
An anti-idling ordinance would additionally support the Council’s Healthy
Cities, Healthy Communities Priority and, as stated in State Resolution 160,
emission from idling vehicles “is linked to asthma, decreased lung function,
cardiac disease, cancer, and other serious health problems.” 2
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District states that inhaling particulate
matter resulting from idling can aggravate asthma, cause coughing or difficult
breathing, decrease lung function, exacerbate cardiovascular problems, lead to
chronic bronchitis. 3
A city ordinance requiring drivers to shut off their engines after the more feasible of
two or three minutes of stationary idling would make a modest but measurable
contribution to our 80-30 goal and improved health conditions at a low cost.
We further understand that some exceptions are necessary for public safety and
possibly for some specific health conditions. Examples include:
Fire trucks when responding to emergency calls
Police vehicles when responding to emergency situations
Public Works vehicles under certain specific and detailed conditions listed
in City Fleet Policies & Procedures
Possibly some particular health conditions
August 28, 2017 Page 2 of 5
(ID # 8409)
Background and Discussion:
Idling vehicles in Palo Alto produce an estimated 6.2 tons of CO2-equivalent
emissions per year (see Appendix A: DOE). Some of this is short-duration idling
done by vehicles at intersections; such as waiting for a stoplight to change, or in
stop-and-go traffic. However, other idling is done at curbsides, such as by vehicles
waiting to pick up passengers or deliver goods, and may last 10 minutes or more;
tech-employee and tourist buses, have been observed to idle for even longer.
Perhaps the greatest contributors to CO2 emissions due to idling are construction
vehicles that idle for long periods of time while in queue to make deliveries or pick up
excavation dirt, for instance because they often use diesel fuel
There is not a good reason for such extended curbside idling. Modern vehicle engines
do not suffer wear and tear from simply being turned on and off, and now use very
little fuel in start-up. Some cars now automatically turn-off and on when idling. The
efficiency tradeoff between keeping a car idling vs restarting it has largely disappeared.
The S/CAP 80-30 goal calls for the City to reduce transportation emissions by 117,900
tons between now and 2030. An Anti-Idling Ordinance (AIO) would target extended
curbside idling and construction idling, and would likely reduce City emissions by 600-
1200 tons per year, or .5-1% of the 2030 goal. This is a modest amount to be sure, yet
still measurable; and the expense and effort would be low. And it would still be the
equivalent of permanently taking 120-240 cars off the road/year.
Furthermore, there are other benefits; for example, reducing auto fumes outside
schools, where considerable idling is done by parents waiting to pick up kids will
create a healthier environment for children and adults.
The primary costs would likely be: posting signs in idle-rich places such as schools,
truck delivery stops, and employee-bus stops; community education and outreach to
promote awareness of the problem and the ordinance; and any ongoing enforcement
costs. The first two of these are likely to be modest. The third is unclear, but
independent of enforcement, even just signs and education are likely to have at least
some impact.
Recommendation:
Develop a City ordinance to implement Programs N5.2.1 and N5.2.2 in the Draft
Comprehensive Plan and to support Healthy Cities, Healthy Communities Priority by
requiring drivers to shut off their engines after two or three minutes of stationary
idling if not in an active traffic path, noting exceptions. The ordinance would be
August 28, 2017 Page 3 of 5
(ID # 8409)
patterned after city ordinances adopted in Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and Ann
Arbor.
Staff Impact:
While adoption of a new ordinance itself would require minimal staff resources, the new
ordinance would raise community expectations that more will be spent on the installation
of signs and on enforcement of the new ordinance. Resource impacts will depend on the
number of signs installed and on the type and level of enforce ment that is desired. If no
additional staff resources are added, efforts towards education, response to complaints,
citation and prosecution would compete with other priorities of existing staff in
Transportation, Code Enforcement, the Police Department and the Attorneys Office. Since
violations of the idling ordinance would be a lesser priority for enforcement than many
other moving violations, there is likely to be limited or no enforcement without t he
addition of staff resources.
1. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51856
2. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160ACR160
3. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/planning-
healthy- places/draft_planninghealthyplaces_marchworkshop-
pdf.pdf?la=en
Appendix A: Potential GHG Impact of an Anti-Idling Ordinance
in Palo Alto Appendix B: Background on Vehicle Idling (Idle
Free Bay Area)
Appendix A: Potential GHG Impact of an Anti-Idling Ordinance in Palo Alto
E. Filseth, June 2017
While estimates of total nationwide idling emissions are available, little quantitative analysis
is available on the direct impact of anti-idling ordinances (AIO) on reducing these emissions.
Although a few idling studies have examined specific vehicle types such as police cars, an
estimate for AIO impact on general auto emissions must rely on considerable guesswork.
1.0 Annual Vehicle Idling Emissions in Palo Alto - Estimate Tons of CO2
Total US Annual Personal-Vehicle Emissions from Idling (1) 30,000,000
Population of USA 321,000,000
Population of Palo Alto 66,000
2.0 What Range of Possible Idling Reduction from an AIO? % Reduction
A. Minneapolis Study on Police Car idling after ordinance adopted (2) 25%
B. Columbus, OH Study on Police Car idling after equipment install (3) 35%
C. Crown Delivery Services study after anti-idle policy established (4) 90%
D. American Transportation Research Inst. 2009 Trucking Study (5) 42%-78%
E. 2009 Survey by Vanderbilt University ("warming time" excluded) (6) 30%
Estimated Total Annual Palo Alto Idling Emissions (30M x population ratio) 6,168
August 28, 2017 Page 4 of 5
(ID # 8409)
F. Bottom-up Estimate for Palo Alto:
Avg # of stoplights per vehicle trip - guess 3
Avg idling minutes at each stoplight - guess 0.5
Avg # of in-traffic idling minutes per vehicle trip (ordinance won't affect) 1.5
% of vehicle trips which include an extended curbside idle - guess 5%
Avg minutes per extended-idle - guess 10
Avg Extended-Idle Minutes per vehicle trip (ordinance will affect) 0.5
Total Idle-Minutes per vehicle trip before Ordinance 2
% of Extended-Idle Minutes an ordinance would eliminate - guess 60.0%
# of Extended-Idle Minutes per vehicle trip an ordinance would eliminate 0.3
Total Idle-Minutes per vehicle trip after Ordinance 1.7
Net % Reduction in Idle-Minutes per Vehicle Trip 15.0%
3.0 Estimated GHG Impact of an AIO in Palo Alto Low High
Annual idling emissions in Palo Alto (from 1.0 above) 6,168 6,168
Estimating the actual % emissions reduction from an ordinance is difficult. Studies based on Police and
delivery vehicles (2.0 A-D above) may not represent general auto transit (though one poll, 2.0 E,
suggests they
may). However, even if general auto transit savings were half that of Police and commercial vehicles, they
might still reach 15% overall. 2.0 F above suggests 15% could indeed be achievable given reasonable
assumptions.
Therefore assume 10-20% range.
Estimated idling % reduction from an AIO 10% 20%
Estimated GHG reduction from an AIO (tons) 617
1,234
4.0 References
1 https://www.afdc.energy.gov/uploads/publication/idling_personal_vehicles.pdf
2 http://aceee.org/files/pdf/case-studies/Minneapolis_Anti-Idling.pdf
3 http://www.assetworks.com/resource-items/city-of-columbus-gps-case-study/
4 https://www.geotab.com/wp-content/themes/geotab-template/resources/case-study/Anti-Idling-Program-Slashes-Fleet-
Fuel- Costs.pdf
5 http://atri-online.org/research/results/ATRI1pagesummaryMIRTDemo.pdf
6 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ea09/c74c727b6211097735d4e6a39ea961c0a63e.pdf
Appendix B: Background on Vehicle Idling
Source: Idle Free Bay Area, 2017 https://idlefreebayarea.org/about/
About Idling
% of City's SCAP Target Reduction of 117,900 tons from Transportation 0.52% 1.05%
August 28, 2017 Page 5 of 5
(ID # 8409)
Idling means leaving a vehicle’s engine running when it is parked or not in use.
Idling happens while:
Waiting to pick someone up from school, sports practice or the library
Sitting at a drive-through or car wash
Checking email and voicemail – check before you start the car
Myths about idling:
“I need to warm up my car.” Idling is NOT the best way to warm up your car –
driving is
“Shutting off and restarting my car is hard on the engine and uses more gas than
if I leave it running.” Frequent restarting has little impact on engine components
Top reasons to be idle free:
Save money –30 seconds of idling uses more fuel than restarting the engine
Breathe easier – car exhaust can aggravate asthma and decrease lung function –
especially in children
Keep the sky blue – car exhaust is the #1 source of summertime air pollution
in the Bay Area
Reduce your carbon footprint
How Idling Affects Your Health:
The pollutants found in exhaust not only affect our environment, they also affect our
health. Particulate matter (PM) is the name for tiny particulates, such as soot, dust and
dirt found in the air. When inhaled, these small particles travel into the lungs and
sometimes into the bloodstream. Inhaling PM can:
Aggravate asthma
Cause coughing or difficult breathing
Decrease lung function
Exacerbate cardiovascular problems
Lead to chronic bronchitis
30-second Rule: Turn off the car’s engine if you’ll be waiting for more than 30 seconds
and help us all breathe easier.
Take the pledge!
Not Yet Approved
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 10.62 to Title
10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Regulate
Unnecessary Idling of Vehicles.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. Program N5.2.1 of the updated City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
instructs the city to “[p]romote understanding of the impacts of extended idling on air quality,
for residents, auto-dependent businesses and schools.” Additionally, Program N5.2.1 of the
updated Comprehensive Plan instructs the city to “[c]onsider adopting and enforcing penalties
for drivers that idle for longer than 3-5 minutes.” This ordinance is intended to effectuate Policy
N.5.2 and support behavior changes to reduce emissions of particulate matter and other air
pollutants from automobiles.
B. Title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 2485 currently makes it
unlawful for any diesel-fueled commercial vehicle weighing over 10,000 pounds and operating in
California to idle for more than 5 minutes, subject to certain exceptions. Additionally, Title 13,
California Code of Regulations, section 2480 requires that school busses and other school-serving
busses turn off their engines when stopping at or within 100 feet of a public or private K-12
school, with idling permitted for only up to 30 seconds prior to departure . The California Air
Resources Board is authorized to enforce these laws by issuing civil and/or criminal citations to
vehicle owners and/or operators and penalties of at least $300 per violation. These regulations
do not preclude local governments from regulating vehicle idling more stringently or in a broader
manner than the state does currently.
C. The unnecessary operation of internal combustion engines poses a
number of public health concerns. In particular, airborne pollutants from engine emissions can
cause or aggravate pulmonary diseases, including asthma, lung cancer, bronchitis, acute
respiratory infections, and emphysema. In addition to public health concerns, idling engines also
impose economic costs, including wasted energy, consumption of non -renewable resources, and
costs related to medical care and lost productivity due to pollution-related illness. Idling engines
also diminish citizens’ quality of life by generating noise, odor, and visible smog.
D. In addition to impacts on local community health and welfare, unnecessary
idling contributes to environmental degradation in the Bay Area and more broadly by emitting
greenhouse gases, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. Although
technological advancements in internal combustion engines have reduced some of these
impacts, increases in vehicle usage and the continued use of older vehicles has offset many of
these technological benefits.
Not Yet Approved
E. The City of Palo Alto is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions
from activities within the city. This commitment is demonstrated in part by the city’s
Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, which targets an 80-percent reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions from 1990 levels by 2030. Additionally, Goal N-5 of the updated Comprehensive Plan
demonstrates the city’s commitment to developing local policies and working with BAAQMD to
promote regional solutions to improve air quality in Palo Alto and throughout the Bay Area.
SECTION 2. Chapter 10.62 (Idling of Vehicles) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) is
hereby added to read as follows:
Chapter 10.62 Idling of Vehicles
10.62.010 Intent and Purpose.
It is the intent and purpose of this chapter to discourage the idling of vehicle engines in the
City of Palo Alto in order to protect public health, improve environmental conditions, conserve
energy and resources, promote economic efficiency, and improve quality of life. This intent and
purpose shall be effectuated through primarily educational means. [Optional: “Accordingly, the
city shall not be authorized to enforce this chapter under Chapter 1.08 (Violations), 1.12
(Administrative Penalties – Citations), 1.16 (Administrative Compliance Orders), or by any
criminal or civil means.”]
10.62.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, these words shall have the following definitions:
(a) Idle or Idling means to operate a Vehicle’s internal combustion engine while the
Vehicle is stationary.
(b) Vehicle is defined as in California Vehicle Code section 670.
10.62.030 Restriction of Vehicle Idling.
(a) A Vehicle owner or a Vehicle operator shall not cause or permit the Vehicle to Idle on
public property, in public rights of way, or on private property that is open to the general public
within city limits for more than 3 consecutive minutes.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply in any of the following circumstances:
(1) A Vehicle is forced to remain stationary because of an official traffic control device,
direction of a law enforcement official, or any traffic conditions beyond the operator's
control, including traffic congestion, railroad crossings, construction zones, security
checkpoints, and vehicle queues for drive-through goods and services;
Not Yet Approved
(2) Idling is necessary to operate defrosters, heaters, air conditioners, or other
equipment to prevent a safety or health emergency for human or animal occupants , or
to prevent the aggravation of a passenger’s disability or health condition, but not merely
to maintain the comfort of vehicle occupants;
(3) Idling is necessary to provide heat to an occupied Vehicle if the outside ambient
temperature is below 40 degrees Fahrenheit, or Idling is necessary to provide cooling to
an occupied vehicle if the outside temperature is more than 85 degrees Fahrenheit;
(4) Idling is necessary to power heaters or air conditioners to maintain the comfort of
vehicle occupants while waiting for assistance when a vehicle is immobilized due to
mechanical problems;
(5) An emergency or law enforcement vehicle, including police, fire, ambulance, public
safety, military, or any vehicle being used in an emergency capacity, Idles in the course of
or in preparation for emergency or law enforcement duties;
(6) An armored vehicle Idles while in the course of business;
(7) Idling is necessary to power auxiliary work equipment that is actively in use,
including, but not limited to, cargo refrigeration units, waste collectors/compactors, lifts,
winches, pumps, compressors, drills, mixers, and other safety and construction
equipment. Auxiliary work equipment does not include equipment primarily intended for
vehicle cabin comfort, such as air conditioning, heating, radio, television, digital displays,
or kitchen appliances;
(8) Idling is necessary for any Vehicle maintenance, service, repair, inspection, research
and development, or diagnostics;
(9) An engine is operated in accordance with instructions from the Vehicle
manufacturer for proper operation;
(10) Idling is necessary for a licensed private security provider to perform security
duties;
(11) A Vehicle designed to carry 15 or more passengers Idles to maintain comfortable
cabin temperatures while paying passengers are on board for up to 10 minutes prior to a
scheduled embarkation; or
(12) Applicable federal, state, or local law requires Idling.
10.62.040 Enforcement.
Not Yet Approved
4
[Four potential enforcement scenarios are included below, beginning with education and
increasing in stringency.]
[Option 1 – Omit PAMC 10.62.040 entirely and include optional language in 10.62.010 above.]
[Option 2]
Until such time as the City Council designates, by resolution, an intent to administratively
enforce this chapter and includes this chapter in a revision to the city’s Administrative Penalty
Schedule, the city shall not be authorized to enforce this chapter under Chapter 1.08 (Violations),
1.12 (Administrative Penalties – Citations), 1.16 (Administrative Compliance Orders), or by any
criminal or civil means. Upon passage of such a resolution or resolutions, enforcement of this
chapter shall be available solely through the administrative mechanisms in Chapters 1.12 and
1.16 of this code, and/or written warnings.
[Option 3]
Enforcement of this chapter shall be available solely through the administrative mechanisms
in Chapters 1.12 and 1.16 of this code, and/or written warnings. The maximum fine for a violation
of this chapter shall be $100.00 for a first violation, $150.00 for a second violation, and $200.00
for a third violation occurring within a calendar year.
[Option 4]
It is the responsibility of [“the Director of Planning & Community Environment, or his or her
designee,” OR “the members of the police department or such persons as assigned by the chief
of police”] to enforce the provisions of this chapter through any appropriate action, including
administrative citation, compliance order, criminal citation [note: police officers only], or by civil
injunctive code enforcement. The maximum fine for a violation of this chapter shall be $300.00
for a first violation, $450.00 for a second violation, and $600.00 for a third violation occurring
within a calendar year.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remain ing portion or
sections of the ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the ordinance
and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any
one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15308 of the CEQA
Guidelines, as an action taken for the protection of the environment.
Not Yet Approved
5
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
[Planning Director and/or Police Chief]
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 3
Special Meeting
December 12, 2017
Chairperson Wolbach called the meeting to order at 6:07 P.M. in the
Community Meeting Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: DuBois, Kniss, Kou, Wolbach (Chair)
Absent:
Agenda Items
1. Review and Recommendation to the City Council of an Ordinance
Amending Sections 4.42.190 (Taxi Meters) and 4.42.200 (Schedule of
Rates, Display) of Chapter 4.42 of Title 4 (Business and License
Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Allow Taxicab Service
to be Prearranged by Mobile Device Application and Internet Online
Service. This Action is Exempt Under Section 15061(b)(3) of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Chair Wolbach to
recommend the City Council adopt the proposed, revised Palo Alto Municipal
Code Section 4.42 in order to allow taxicab service to be prearranged
through a mobile device application and an internet online service.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
At this time the Committee discussed Future Meetings and Agendas.
Future Meetings and Agendas
At this time, the Committee heard Agenda Item Number 3.
3. Discussion and Recommendation to Council Regarding Anti-idling
Ordinance.
ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 3
Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting
Action Minutes 12/12/2017
MOTION: Chair Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member XX to
recommend the City Council adopt the Staff Recommendation with Option 1
on the enforcement.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to
recommend a modified Option 4, using the fine amounts indicated in Option
3.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to return to Council after a pilot
period of one year for a status update.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to use the following fine amounts: $0 (written
warning) for the first violation, $100 for the second violation and $150 for
the third violation.
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved,
seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to recommend a modified Option 4, with the
following fine amounts: $0 (written warning) for the first violation, $100 for
the second violation and $150 for the third violation; and direct Staff to
return to the City Council after a pilot period of one year with a status
update.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 3-1 Wolbach no
At this time, the Committee heard Agenda Item Number 2.
2. Discussion and Recommendations for 2018 City Council Priority Setting
Process.
MOTION: Chair Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to
recommend the City Council:
A. Direct Staff to bring to the Retreat an upda ted version of the Priority
Tally Sheet, with the removal of the Healthy Cities, Healthy
Community Priority and including possible consolidation of items on
the list; and
ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 3
Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting
Action Minutes 12/12/2017
B. Encourage Council to pick only three priorities, that the priorities do
not extend past a third year, give each priority equal importance and
be specific about goals and not about policies; and
C. Consider Housing, Transportation, Finance and Grade Separation as a
starting point for the priorities.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “Make the National Citizen
Survey available prior to Retreat.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “Direct Staff to bring last
year’s priorities to the Retreat.”
MOTION RESTATED: Chair Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member
DuBois to recommend the City Council:
A. Direct Staff to bring to the Retreat an updated version of the Priority
Tally Sheet, with the removal of the Healthy Cities, Healthy
Community Priority and including possible consolidation of items on
the list; and
B. Encourage Council to pick only three priorities, that the priorities do
not extend past a third year, give each priority equal importance and
be specific about goals and not about policies; and
C. Consider Housing, Transportation, Finance and Grade Separation as a
starting point for the priorities; and
D. Make the National Citizen Survey available prior to the Retreat; and
E. Direct Staff to bring last year’s priorities to the Retreat.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 7:51 P.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 9459)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 7/30/2018
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: 2018 National Night Out
Title: Proclamation Supporting National Night Out 2018
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Attachments:
Proclamation Supporting National Night Out 2018
Proclamation
NATIONAL NIGHT OUT - 2018
WHEREAS, the National Association of Town Watch is sponsoring a unique nationwide crime, drug
and violence prevention program on August 7, 2018, entitled “National Night Out;” and
WHEREAS, the “35th Annual National Night Out” provides an opportunity for the City of Palo Alto
to join forces with thousands of other communities across the country in promoting cooperative, police-
community crime prevention efforts; and
WHEREAS, the local neighborhood and homeowners’ associations play a vital role in assisting the
Palo Alto Police Department through joint crime, drug and violence prevention efforts in the City of
Palo Alto and is supporting “National Night Out 2018” locally; and
WHEREAS, it is essential that all citizens of Palo Alto be aware of the importance of crime
prevention programs and the impact that their participation can have on reducing crime, drugs and
violence in Palo Alto; and
WHEREAS, police-community partnerships, neighborhood safety, awareness and cooperation are
important themes of the “National Night Out” program; and
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Liz Kniss, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council
does hereby call upon all residents of the City of Palo Alto to participate in “National Night Out” on
Tuesday, August 7, 2018.
Presented: July 30, 2018
______________________________
Liz Kniss
Mayor
City of Palo Alto (ID # 9476)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 7/30/2018
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Follow up from June 12 Bike Boulevard Study Session
Title: Follow up to June 12 Study Session and Next Steps Regarding the
Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard Projects
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council accept this informational report follow up to June 12 study
session and next steps regarding the Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard
Projects.
Introduction
On June 12, 2018, the City Council held a study session at Mitchell Park Community Center to
provide the public with background and an update on the Neighborhood Traffic Safety and
Bicycle Boulevards – Phase 1 Project (“NTSBB1 Project”). This memo is a follow up to that
session, and outlines next steps for the NTSBB1 Project and Phase 2 of the project (“NTSBB2
Project”).
During the June 12 study session, staff provided a background briefing on the City Council-
adopted Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan which includes the NTSBB Project. There was
general acknowledgement that while the project design was developed with substantial
community and stakeholder engagement, the implementation and start of construction has
been met with significant community concern. The level of public outreach and speed of
implementation have unintentionally caused significant frustration and concern among the
community about the project. Over the past few months, staff has made numerous changes to
the implementation of the project with careful consideration of the cost impact of construction
contract change orders.
Approximately 150 people attended the June 12 study session with more than 50 individuals
providing oral communications. Speakers represented a mix of opinions between those who like
the project and those who do not. All of the speakers, regardless of their position, provided
valuable feedback to both the City Council and staff and created a better understanding of
individual experiences with the project. The views, perspectives, and questions shared were
heard, captured and summarized in the Summary of Public Comments and Staff Responses
document (Attachment A to this memo). There is also Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on
City of Palo Alto Page 2
the existing project webpage that provides helpful information in response to some concerns.
FAQ link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62995.
Discussion
Six (6) major themes emerged from community testimony. They are outlined below, not in any
particular order, and also include staff responses. As previously mentioned, some of the
responses to resident questions can be found in the existing FAQs online at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62995 or through the summary
sheet attached to this memo as Attachment A.
Rationale for Bike/Ped Plan
For many years, the City has pursued the goal of doubling the percentage of commuter trips by
bicycling by the year 2020. This is articulated not only in the City’s Bike + Ped plan, but also in
the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, Comprehensive Plan and the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan. Specifically, the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan included the
implementation of a network of bicycle boulevards – including the NTSBB – that are designed to
promote bicycle commuting by reducing motorist speeds, as well as providing enhanced safety
for all. The bicycle boulevards were also designed to address desirable improvements identified
in the Safe Routes to School program by providing a higher level of safety for students. The
project’s linkage to the overall effort to increase bike commuting and safety was not readily
understood. Additionally, there were community members who questioned the overall rationale
of needing such an extensive network of bike boulevards.
Continued Construction
There were concerns that while the City “paused” construction on the project in late March,
some construction continued. On March 28, 2018, staff directed the construction contractor to
suspend all work on the project that had not yet already started. Staff sent out a Community
Update about this on April 6, 2018. At that point in time, the raised intersections on Louis Road
at Moreno Avenue and Fielding Drive/Amarillo Avenue were already underway. All elements
along Ross Road and Moreno Avenue were substantially complete. Throughout the months of
April, May, and June, the contractor completed punch-list items (construction quality control)
along Ross Road and Moreno Avenue. The completion of work on Louis Road, however, was
delayed due to an underground drainage issue. The improvements on Louis Road are now
complete except for pavement artwork, scheduled to be installed July 23-27. The construction
of permanent improvements on the remaining segments of the NTSBB1 Project have been on
hold/pause since April.
Metrics to Assess Improvements
A number of residents expressed the need for identified metrics to determine whether the
intended improvements are occurring, and a way to adjust conditions in the future. Staff will be
using the following metrics at six (6) and 12-month intervals to make such determinations:
1. Motor vehicle travel speeds
2. Traffic collisions
3. Traffic volumes for all modes (motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians)
4. Behavior of all users at the roundabouts (including turning movement counts)
5. Survey of residents
City of Palo Alto Page 3
6. Survey of representatives of Ohlone Elementary School, Palo Alto YMCA, Palo Alto
Buddhist Temple, and other special facilities directly affected by the improvements
included in this current construction contract
7. Survey of bicyclists
8. Survey of emergency responders
9. Survey of the general public
Baseline data for many of these metrics is identified in a 2016 staff report. Staff will provide the
six (6) month and 12-month assessments starting in January 2019.
Project Needs Time to Work
Residents at the study session reported that their experience riding a bike or driving on Ross
Road changed as the construction progressed, and said they felt vehicles were driving slower
thus far. They urged the City to give the already implemented elements time to see how they
work before making any decisions to reverse elements. Staff agrees with these sentiments.
Better Community Engagement
The start of construction on Ross Road clearly caught many people by surprise. Many residents
felt they were not adequately informed about the design and start of construction. While there
was a lot of community engagement from 2014 to 2016 when the project was being designed,
many residents said they had not been contacted in the months prior to construction. Staff
understands and agrees, and is working to ensure more door-to-door outreach is done, as well
as continual community information updates. Staff will also review the community engagement
process for future projects.
Not Everybody Rides a Bike
The last major theme is that these changes are hard for some drivers to adjust to and navigate.
In recognizing that not everybody rides a bike and in keeping with this comment, staff will pay
close attention to the navigability of street treatments for various types of drivers before
installing new traffic calming elements.
Next Steps
As previously noted, the project has been in “pause” mode since April, with construction only
happening on elements started prior to this time. The status and plan for each segment of
phase one of the NTSBB1 Project segment is provided below. Further details are provided in
Attachment B.
Segments 1, 2, and 3 (Ross Road and Moreno Avenue) – Now complete, with the
exception of punch list items and modifications to the YMCA driveway in response to
public comments and staff observations.
Segment 4 (Louis Road from Moreno Avenue to Amarillo Avenue) – Now
complete, with the exception of installing pavement artwork in late July, decorative steel
bollards, and any punch list items.
Segment 5 (Amarillo Avenue) – Pending direct outreach to the abutting residents,
implement a revised plan to install select project elements during the month of August
(note: the elements do not include new roundabouts nor planted curb extensions). The
select project elements include 1) a shared-use path along the south side of Amarillo
Avenue between the new Louis Road enhanced intersections and Ohlone Elementary
City of Palo Alto Page 4
School bicycle cage and internal sidewalk network; and 2) high-visibility crosswalks
connecting the north side of Amarillo Avenue to Greer Park at the two Tanland Drive
intersections. The shared-use path is critical, as it will provide students with a safe,
protected route to walk and bicycle from Louis Road directly to the sidewalk leading to
the school building and the school bicycle parking, which helps during congested arrival
and dismissal periods. The high-visibility crosswalks will provide a connection from the
north side of Amarillo Avenue to Greer Park. This increases pedestrian safety at the
park.
Segments 6, 7, and 8 (Bryant Street) – Install bicycle boulevard and wayfinding
signs only on Bryant Street between the City of Menlo Park and East Meadow Drive as
well as marked crosswalks. These signs and markings will improve navigation for
bicyclists, brand the entire stretch of the existing bicycle boulevard with the “Ellen
Fletcher Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard” name, and allow for the installation of
“Peninsula Bikeway” sign toppers, which will identify a new regional bicycle route
developed by the Managers’ Mobility Partnership (a joint effort of the City of Redwood
City, the City of Menlo Park, the City of Palo Alto, the City of Mountain View, and
Stanford University).
Segment 9 (Louis Road and Montrose Avenue) – Pending direct outreach to the
abutting residents and a community meeting, convert existing substandard bicycle lanes
along Louis Road between East Charleston Road and Ross Road to standard bicycle
lanes (e.g., at least six-feet-wide adjacent to on-street parking and at least four-feet-
wide adjacent to curb) and install bicycle boulevard branding and wayfinding signs, BIKE
BLVD stencils, and marked crosswalks along Montrose Avenue between Middlefield Road
and East Charleston Road. These changes will affect some on-street parking, but will
improve the current conditions where the existing southbound bicycle lane adjacent to
on-street parking does not meet current design guidelines and the existing northbound
bicycle lane is only part-time with parking allowed in certain segments between 7:00pm
and 7:00am.
Pending the completion of the work on Segments 1-5, staff will not proceed with further
hardscape concrete improvements at this time. This means that the remaining improvements
on Amarillo Avenue, Bryant Street, Louis Road between East Meadow Drive and Ross Road, and
East Meadow Drive between Louis Road and Fabian Way will be suspended pending further
evaluation and City Council direction.
Beyond the project’s next steps outlined above, staff plans to bring back the six (6) month
assessment report in January 2019, and schedule a discussion with both the Planning and
Transportation Commission and the City Council on how to proceed with the remaining
elements of the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. This larger discussion will include the
policy direction related to scope and parameters for bicycle boulevards as well as the
scheduling, funding, and a comprehensive community engagement process to be used for the
design of the uncompleted segments of the NTSBB1 Project and the design of the NTSBB2
Project. It is important to note that the NTSBB2 Project, which includes Maybell Avenue, Park
Boulevard, Stanford Avenue, and Wilkie Way, is nearing final design with the concept plans
having been approved by City Council in 2015 and 2016. This process will be suspended to
ensure that the final design of new bicycle improvements reflects new City Council policy
direction.
Attachments:
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Attachment A-Summary of Public Comments and Staff Responses
Exhibits 1-4 to Attachment A (Visuals)
Attachment B-Further Details on Proposed Work
Page 1
Attachment A
June 12, 2018 City Council Study Session Regarding the NTSBB Phase 1 Project
Summary of Public Comments and Staff Responses
Background
Approximately 150 members of the public attended the Study Session on the Neighborhood
Traffic Safety Bicycle Boulevard (NTSBB) Phase 1 project, held at Mitchell Park on June 12,
2018. Fifty (50) members of the public expressed their feelings about the project, and a
summary of unique comments (no duplicates) with staff responses follow. Similar comments
have been consolidated. It is noted that physical improvements outside the boundaries of the
Phase 1 project and general opinions (e.g., I like the project, I do not like the project) are not
listed. An informal tally indicated that the public speakers were about evenly split between
supporting and criticizing the project. You can find a video to the meeting online here:
http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-2-3-2-2-3-4-2-2-2/.
The existing FAQs section on the City webpage provides further information and is available
online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62995.
Public Comments and Staff Responses
1. What is the reason for the Bicycle Boulevard project?
• For many years, the City has pursued the goal of doubling the percentage of
commuter trips by bicycling by the year 2020. The Bicycle + Pedestrian
Transportation Plan adopted in 2012 included the implementation of a network of
bicycle boulevards designed to promote bicycle commuting by reducing the speed of
motorists, decreasing the delay to bicyclists, and reinforcing the fact that both
bicyclists and motorists share the roadway. The bicycle boulevards were also
designed to address desirable improvements identified in the Safe Routes to School
program by providing a higher level of safety for students and pedestrians.
2. The City said the Phase I project was on “pause.” Why has work continued, and in
particular on Louis Road?
• In late March staff directed the construction contractor to suspend all work on the
project that had not yet already started. Staff provided a Community Update about
this on April 6, 2018. At that point in time, construction of the raised intersections on
Louis Road at Moreno Avenue and Fielding Drive/Amarillo Avenue was already
underway. All elements along Ross Road and Moreno Avenue were substantially
complete. Throughout the months of April, May and June, the contractor completed
punch-list items along Ross Road and Moreno Avenue. The completion of work on
Louis Road, however, was delayed due to an underground drainage issue. The
improvements on Louis Road will be completed in July.
3. Numerous comments speculated on the effect of the improvements in terms of traffic
collisions, vehicle speeds and volumes, bicycles volumes, bicycles on sidewalks, safety at
roundabouts, impact on pedestrians and the disabled, and the livability of the
neighborhood. There were other comments on the need to measure rather than speculate.
• Objective measures, or metrics, are needed to assess the actual effect of the
improvements. A set of metrics has been developed that include both the behavior
of the users of the project’s streets and sidewalks and the perspective of City
residents. A summary of some of the “before” data is available in Exhibit 1 to this
Attachment A.
Page 2
4. Several comments suggested halting further work until the performance of the bicycle
boulevards is better understood, especially the behavior and impact on motor vehicles,
bicyclists and pedestrians at roundabouts. Some felt the improvements actually made
things worse while some had the opposite perspective.
• The actual effect of the improvements, using the identified metrics, will be collected
and evaluated. Based on this evaluation the City will be able to make the most
informed decision on the next step.
5. Numerous comments criticized the public engagement process for the design and
construction phases of the project. In addition, several suggestions were made to improve
the process such as use of social media (NextDoor) and use of 3D designs. The lack in
communications before construction led some to the belief that the Ross Road bicycle
boulevard would be similar to the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard although they are
different.
• The City public engagement process will be reengineered, for both the design and
the implementation/construction stages of capital improvements.
6. Several comments expressed concern over the impact that the Ross Road bicycle boulevard
design has on seniors, as both motorists and pedestrians.
• In keeping with this theme, staff will pay close attention to the navigability of street
treatments for seniors during the design and before the installation of new traffic
calming elements.
7. Several speakers questioned the basic tenants of the bicycle boulevard concept including
encouraging bicycles into travel lanes, the use of bicycle lanes, using physical devices to
slow the speed of vehicles, the current prohibition of closing streets, and taking a minimalist
approach in the use of design elements.
• Considering the evaluation from the Phase 1 project, the City Council may wish to
review the current direction of the bicycle boulevard project and to provide direction
for future projects. The current design is based on the understanding that in a
traffic-calmed environment, bicyclists are more visible to motor vehicle drivers if they
travel in the travel lane instead of in and out of the travel lane. Exhibit 2 to this
Attachment shows more information on this.
8. It was reported that fire trucks are no longer using Ross Road and are avoiding the
roundabouts; they use alternative routes now.
• This is inaccurate. All of the City’s emergency response vehicles can safely navigate
the roundabouts and the Fire Department has indicated that the modifications have
not altered their emergency response routes or times. The Fire Department also
followed up directly with that constituent to clarify this statement.
9. Motorists at the Ross Road/Moreno Avenue and Ross Road/East Meadow Drive roundabouts
and at various bulbouts are striking the curb.
• The City’s current standards call for vertical curb on new streets and for new street
features. The roundabouts are designed for operating speeds of 10 MPH. Motorists
may take time to adjust their behavior and reduce speeds, as intended.
Page 3
10. Change the bulbouts at the YMCA driveways.
• The curb cut at the northernmost YMCA driveway will be modified to make it easier
for motorists to turn into and out of the parking lot, while still preserving the traffic
calming effects of the curb extensions and the green stormwater infrastructure
installed to treat rainwater runoff.
11. Need more traffic enforcement in the area especially with the changes.
• Transportation staff is working with the Palo Alto Police Department’s new Traffic
Enforcement unit to increase both motor vehicle and bicycle traffic safety
enforcement throughout the city. These specific concerns are being shared with the
Transportation staff working with PAPD.
12. Several comments on the need for better education of the roadway users regarding use of
roundabouts, cell phone usage, pedestrians (in particular seniors and children), and
bicyclists (especially children).
• Priority attention is being focused on school-aged children through the Safe Routes
to School Program.
13. Landscaping should not require lots of water considering our goals to reduce water usage as
a community.
• All of the plants installed as part of the project are drought-tolerant, native varieties.
14. Several comments on the work on Louis Road and the number of stop signs during
construction.
• There were more STOP signs on Louis Road during construction than exist after
construction completion. In the completed state there are northbound STOP signs at
Amarillo Avenue and the southern leg of Moreno Avenue. In the southbound
direction, there are STOP signs at the northern leg of Moreno Avenue and Fielding
Drive. For more information about the Louis/Moreno/Amarillo construction, questions
and answers can be found here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=69668.41&BlobID=
65716
15. Review the placement of “bike boulevard” signs on Ross. Some are blocking the sidewalk.
• Wherever possible, new signs were located within the planted curb extension or
behind the sidewalk. In some rare instances, signs were installed within the
sidewalk. ADA guidelines regarding sidewalk width were considered during the
installation and all sidewalk remain accessible to handicapped and disabled
individuals.
16. On Amarillo Avenue near Louis Road, where the proposed shared use path is now, consider
doing a limited no parking period, or consider doing a shared bike and pedestrian lane to
keep the cars and bikes separated.
• The shared-use path will be raised six-inches above the street and set aside for
bicyclists and pedestrians 24 hours per day. It is not possible to permit part-time
parking on the shared-use path. Parking surveys conducted during the project
concept planning phase indicate that there will be sufficient parking capacity
remaining after the removal of on-street parking on the south side and the
installation of the shared-use path.
Page 4
17. The roundabouts hinder the ability of large trucks to navigate an intersection.
• Most trucks can navigate the roundabouts. Very large rigs however, like a moving
truck, may need to use an alternate route. The City will provide information to assist
movers/delivery services (transportation@cityofpaloalto.org), and residents should
advise movers of the roundabout since that type of information is normally factored
into the planning of the mover’s route. Similar situations that lead to similar
impediments include street closures, one-way streets, and height and weight
limitations. Information about the roundabout design and the safety features
related to one are included in Exhibits 3 and 4 to this Attachment A.
18. Ensure quality control of the construction contract.
• As is standard with capital projects, before the contract is closed out, staff will
perform a “punch list” with the contractor for them to close any loose ends, including
any quality control issues.
19. Put up speed limit signs near the roundabouts (especially Ross and E Meadow) to express
the speed you want people to travel at, especially if it is lower than the regular 25mph
residential street speed.
• Additional signage, as needed on the approaches to the two roundabouts, will be
installed as part of this Project.
20. Several comments regarded the verification of the Project design elements.
• On April 23, staff convened an Engineering Roundtable to review the design
concerns raised by some residents. Alta Planning + Design, Inc. (Project engineer),
TJKM (Peer-reviewer), Toole Design Group, Municipal Resource Group (independent
third-party), and staff professional engineers attended the roundtable. Attendees
reviewed elements of the construction plans, details, and specifications and made
recommendations for design changes on the remaining segments, as well as some
modifications at the Ross Road and East Meadow Drive roundabout. A memorandum
from Alta Design summarizing the results of this Engineering Roundtable was
included in the June 12 Study Session staff report.
21. Several comments about the use of too many street elements.
• The number, type, and placement of the elements was intended to achieve the
desired results of calming traffic and providing for a safer environment for all users
of the street. It is possible that a different plan with a different set of devices could
have been implemented. This will be considered in future projects, including phased
implementation.
22. What would be the cost to rip up all of the changes?
• A cost estimate is not available at this time.
23. If roundabouts are the right design, why are we removing roundabouts from the Plan?
• There are three locations where roundabout designs, as shown on the Phase 1 Plan,
were removed. At the intersection of Amarillo Avenue and Greer Road the public
feedback following the installation of a temporary device was considered, along with
unanticipated higher construction costs. At Bryant Street and Palo Avenue a close
review of the intersection geometrics was considered. And at Bryant Street and
Campesino Avenue the effect of the roundabout was determined to be negligible.
Page 5
For these reasons it was concluded that the roundabouts should be removed from
the plans.
24. At Ross Road and Colorado Avenue and Ross Road and Loma Verde Avenue, there is
concrete on a storm drain from the contractor’s work.
• The debris will be removed.
25. Bus routes should be factored into the design of bicycle boulevards.
• Bus routes and stops, both existing and planned, are considered in the design of all
roadway capital improvement projects.
26. The slots in the speed humps place the bicyclist and motorist across the centerline of the
travelway.
• The slot in the center of the roadway is intended for emergency response vehicles
who have the right-of-way to use both lanes as needed. A bicyclist may choose to
use the slot if safe, or otherwise stay in the travel lane and go over the speed hump
like any other normal vehicle.
27. Install speed limit signs on Ross Road between East Meadow Drive and Louis Road.
• To avoid the clutter of unnecessary traffic control signs in residential areas, 25 MPH
Speed Limit signs are generally not installed on local residential streets, except as
needed at the entrance to that street from an arterial or collector street with a
higher speed limit. Exceptions to this guideline are if it is not obvious that the street
qualifies as a residential district, or if the Police Department feels signage will benefit
its enforcement efforts. As an effort to reduce speeds all throughout Palo Alto (in
response to the recent speed survey conducted), the City will be posting “Welcome
to the City of Palo Alto; Speed Limit 25 MPH Unless Otherwise Noted” signs in many
places in the city.
28. Why were bricks used in the roadways?
• The treatment of the pavement surface was intended to enhance the appearance of
the roadway and compliment the attractiveness of the neighborhood.
29. Use yield signs in the roundabouts.
• The need for yield signs will be monitored and adjusted until roadway users are
comfortable with the device.
P L A N N I N G & C O M M U N I T Y E N V I R O N M E N T - T R A N S P O R TAT I O N
Roundabouts
Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevards
Center Island
The center island contains a
mountable curb to help large
vehicles navigate the
roundabout.
The center of the island includes
drought tolerant plantings.
Median Islands
Median islands help to moderate
vehicle speeds as they enter the
roundabout. Median islands are
designed to be mountable to
help large vehicles traverse the
roundabout
Vehicles approaching the
roundabout must yield to
pedestrians in the crosswalk and
to bicyclists and vehicles in the
roundabout. Vehicles should
proceed into the roundabout
when their path is clear
Yield Signs & Markings
Bike in the Lane
Sharrows (shared lane markings)
help identify proper bike
positioning. Bicyclists should ride
in the center of the travel lane,
and should never ride side-by-
side with vehicles. Vehicles may
not pass in the roundabout.
12
The approach lane width is
set to 12’ to moderate vehicle
speeds as they enter the
intersection. The median
islands create ‘deflection’
which help reduce speeds.
The roundabouts are
designed for 10 MPH travel.
The center lane width is set
to 14’ to allow enough room
for all vehicles to use the
mini roundabout, while
discouraging vehicles from
traveling next to bicyclists or
other users.
The roundabout design was tested for
large vehicles, including trucks, buses,
and emergency response vehicles. In
some cases, the roundabouts restrict
left or right turns by buses and trucks.
14
The center island is planted. This is
the one item that varies from FHWA
guidance (which recommends a fully
traversable median). This change was
made based on community input and
does not change the operation of the
mini-roundabout.
varies
The center island width
varies, depending on the
dimensions of the
intersection. The size is
adjusted to make the
operation of each
mini-roundabout similar.
What are the
Appropriate Dimensions
of a Mini-Roundabout?
The Federal Highway Administration provides
guidance on roundabout design based on actual
installations across the United States. The following
dimensions were used for the mini roundabouts on
these bicycle boulevards.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A
8 8
Roundabout
Vehicle
Conflicts
Pedestrian
Conflicts3224
Four Way Stop
Vehicle
Conflicts
Pedestrian
Conflicts
EMERGENCY ACCESS
The Fire Department was
part of the design process,
and we have tested our
apparatus on the completed
roundabouts and traffic
calming devices. The
community is being served
well, and we continue to
exceed our emergency
response performance target
of 8 minutes or less 90
percent of the time.
- CITY OF PALO ALTO
INTERSECTION CONFLICT POINTS
P L A N N I N G & C O M M U N I T Y E N V I R O N M E N T - T R A N S P O R TAT I O N
Roundabouts and Safety
Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevards
Exhibit 2 to Attachment A
Door Zone
The 4 feet adjacent
to a parked car where
an opening door can
hit and seriously
injure a cyclist.
12-27%
OF COLLISIONS
According to a
summary of national
research on bicycle
crash types.Be Predictable
Ride in a straight line.
Avoid weaving
between parked cars
to remain visible and
predictable.
Be Visible to Cross Tra c
Drivers have limited sight lines
at intersections. Biking near
the curb can take you out of
drivers site lines.
Riding in the lane also makes
you more visible to drivers
turning across trašc who
may not look to the side.
3’
Give 3 Feet When Passing
Drivers should provide at least
3’ of clearance to bicyclists
when they pass. Vehicles may
use the other side of the road
to pass, except over a double
yellow line.
10’ SHARED TRAVEL LANE10’ SHARED TRAVEL LANE8’ PARKING 8’ PARKING
Allow 4’ to
stay clear of
the door
zone
CA law -
3’ safe
passing
distance
Riding 12-16feet from the curb makes you
more visible and encourages safe passing
P L A N N I N G & C O M M U N I T Y E N V I R O N M E N T - T R A N S P O R TAT I O N
Sharing the Road
Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevards
Exhibit 3 to Attachment A
E xisting conditions
are optimal for Bike
Boulevard
Conditions
appropriate for
Bike Boulevard with
enhanced features
E xisting conditions
are not optimal for
Bike Boulevard
INTERSECTION
REPORTED
COLLISIONS
# WITH
INJURIES
BIKE
RELATED
PED
RELATED
East Meadow Road 4 2 0 0
Moreno Avenue 2 0 0 0
Other Locations 3 2 2 0
Oregon Expressway 3 2 0 0
Total 12 6 2 0
SEGMENT
85TH PERCENTILE
SPEED (MPH)
AVERAGE
DAILY
VEHICLES
AVERAGE
DAILY
BICYCLISTS
Amarillo (Tanland - Greer)30.2 1,261 82
Amarillo (Greer - Louis)27.7 1,412 73
Moreno (Rosewood - Middlefield)22.6 1,179 30
Greer (N Tulip - S Tulip)32.2 1,832 86
Greer (Colorado - Maddux)24.6 2,733 128
Greer (Maddux - Morris)32.7 535 122
Greer (Janice - Thomas)29.5 606 18
Ross (Clara - Wintergreen)25.5 2,063 121
Ross (Ames - Stone)28.2 2,703 116
Bicycle boulevards are
appropriate when actual
speeds are less than 30
MPH and there are fewer
than 3,000 vehicle trips
on an average day
ROSS ROAD
AUTOMOBILE COLLISIONS
from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2016
3 of 4 collisions
were broadside
(or “T”) collisions
1 bike collision was
from changing
lanes, 1 was with
a parked vehicle
P L A N N I N G & C O M M U N I T Y E N V I R O N M E N T - T R A N S P O R TAT I O N
Ross Road: Speed, Volume & Safety Data
Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevards
SAFETY DATA
SPEED & VOLUME DATA
Exhibit 4 to Attachment A
Page 1
Attachment B
Further Details on Project Work to Be Completed and Project Work to Be Deferred:
A. Modifications/Adaptations to Already Installed Road Treatments:
1. YMCA Driveways: Rebuild the YMCA driveways on Ross Road to be rounded curb-
return style, instead of current apron style. This will make it easier for motorists to turn
in and out of the driveway, while preserving the curb extensions, which enhances safety
and includes green stormwater infrastructure.
B. Finish Work Already Started:
1. Louis Road Enhanced Intersections: Complete the installation of stamped asphalt,
koi fish artwork, and decorative steel bollards along Louis Road at Moreno Avenue and
Amarillo Avenue/Fielding Drive. This work is nearly complete and will improve safety for
pedestrians and bicyclists traveling along the Amarillo-Moreno Bicycle Boulevard to and
from Ohlone Elementary School, Greer Park, and the Midtown Shopping Center.
C. Remaining Contractual Work to Be Completed:
1. Bryant Street Signing and Marking: Install bicycle boulevard branding and
wayfinding signs, BIKE BLVD stencils, and marked crosswalks along Bryant Street
between Menlo Park and East Meadow Drive. These are relatively low-impact features
that assist bicyclists with positioning and navigation and notify motorists that they are
travelling along a bicycle boulevard. The branding signs will also be standardized to
read “Ellen Fletcher Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard.” Currently, the signage is
inconsistent and irregular. Installation of the wayfinding signs will also allow the City to
install the “Peninsula Bikeway” sign toppers consistent with other cities. The “Peninsula
Bikeway,” a portion of which follows the Ellen Fletcher Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard,
is a cooperative effort of Redwood City, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and
Stanford University.
2. Amarillo Avenue Shared-use Path and Crosswalks: Pending direct outreach to the
abutting residents, implement a revised plan to install select project elements during the
month of August (note: the elements do not include new roundabouts or planted curb
extensions). The select project elements include a) shared-use path along the south
side of Amarillo Avenue between the new Louis Road enhanced intersections and
Ohlone Elementary School bicycle cage and internal sidewalk network; and b) high-
visibility crosswalks connecting the north side of Amarillo Avenue to Greer Park at the
two Tanland Drive intersections. The shared-use path will provide students with a safe,
protected route to walk and bicycle from Louis Road directly to the sidewalk leading to
the school building and the school bicycle parking, which helps during congested arrival
and dismissal periods. The high-visibility crosswalks will provide a connection from the
north side of Amarillo Avenue to Greer Park. This increases pedestrian safety to the
park.
3. Louis Road Bicycle Lane Improvements: Pending direct outreach to the abutting
residents and a community meeting, convert existing substandard bicycle lanes along
Louis Road between East Charleston Road and Ross Road to standard bicycle lanes
(e.g., at least six-feet-wide adjacent to on-street parking and at least four-feet-wide
adjacent to curb). The bicycle lane on the south side is currently part-time, with
overnight parking permitted between 7:00pm and 7:00am. This bicycle lane will be
converted to a full-time bicycle lane, which will require the removal of overnight
Page 2
parking, which has very low utilization. A similar bicycle lane reconfiguration was
completed along North California Avenue between High Street and Middlefield Road in
2016 and opposition was very limited. The Louis Road approach to East Charleston
Road will be restriped to work in conjunction with intersection improvements included in
the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project, which is currently under construction.
4. Montrose Avenue Signing and Marking: Pending direct outreach to the abutting
residents and a community meeting, install bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs, BIKE
BLVD stencils, and marked crosswalks along Montrose Avenue between Middlefield
Road and East Charleston Road. These are relatively low-impact features that assist
bicyclists with positioning and navigation and notify motorists that they are travelling
along a bicycle boulevard. High-visibility crosswalks and bicycle lane approaches will be
added to the Middlefield Road intersection, which is a high-collision location as state in
the most recent 2017 Traffic Safety and Operations Report. The approach to East
Charleston Road will be restriped to work in conjunction with intersection improvements
included in the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project, which is currently under
construction.
D. Project Work to Be Deferred:
1. Curb Extensions:
• Amarillo Avenue at Ohlone Elementary School (2)
• Amarillo Avenue at Tanland Drive west
• Amarillo Avenue at Tanland Drive east
• Bryant Street at Everett Avenue
2. Raised Intersections:
• Bryant Street at Homer Avenue
• Bryant Street at Channing Avenue
3. Roundabouts:
• Amarillo Avenue at Greer Road
• Bryant Street at Palo Alto Avenue
• Bryant Street at Addison Avenue (rebuild)
• Bryant Street at Kingsley Avenue
• Bryant Street at North California Avenue
• Bryant Street at Campesino Avenue
• Louis Road at Ross Road
• Louis Road at East Meadow Drive
• East Meadow Drive at East Meadow Circle
4. Speed Humps:
• Amarillo Avenue between Greer Road and Tanland Drive
• Bryant Street between El Verano Avenue and East Meadow Drive (2)
5. Other Elements to be Deferred:
• Median and chicanes on Amarillo Avenue at West Bayshore Road
• Medians on Lowell Avenue at Bryant Street
• Enhancements on Bryant Street at Matadero Creek Bridge
• Medians on El Verano Avenue at Bryant Street