HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-07-09 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting
Council Chambers
July 9, 2012
5:30 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the
Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting.
1 July 9, 2012
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.
Call to Order
Closed Session
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene,
Pamela Antil, Lalo Perez, David Ramberg, Kathryn Shen, Sandra
Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray)
Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union,
(SEIU) Local 521
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
City Manager Comments
Oral Communications
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Consent Calendar
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
2. Approval of Utilities Enterprise Fund Contract with Precision
Engineering Inc. in the Amount of $3,987,034 for Sanitary Sewer
Rehabilitation Capital Improvement Program Project WC-09001/WC-
10002, (Wastewater Rehabilitation and Augmentation Project 22/23 -
Crescent Park and Baylands)
3. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the 2010 Association of Bay Area
Governments Report "Taming Natural Disasters" and Local Annex as
the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
4. Adoption of a Resolution Approving Revisions to the City of Palo Alto
Energy Risk Management Policy
2 July 9, 2012
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.
5. Approval of Contract with Green Earth Engineering & Construction Inc.
in the Amount of $388,000 for Demolition and Construction Work for
the Cowper/Webster (Lot J) Parking Garage Structure Repair Project
(CIP PF-10002)
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of
the public have spoken.
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be
limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker.
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
6. Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan Incorporating the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan and Approval of a Negative Declaration
(continued from May 21, 2012)
7. Public Hearing: Review of Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element and
Authorization to Submit to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD)
8. Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Approving the 2012 Rail Corridor Study Report and Amending
the Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to
Incorporate Certain Findings of the Report (continued from June 25,
2012) (Staff requests item be continued to September 17, 2012)
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to
address the Council/Committee 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/Committee,
but it is very helpful.
3 July 9, 2012
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
Supplemental Information
Standing Committee Meetings
City Council Brown Act Training 07/10/12
Policy & Services Committee Meeting 07/10/12
City Council Meeting-Closed Session 07/11/12
Regional Housing Mandate Committee Meeting 07/12/12
City Council Meeting-Closed Session 07/12/12
Action Minutes
Action Agenda
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Public Letters to Council
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2917)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/9/2012
July 09, 2012 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 2917)
Summary Title: Wastewater CIP Project 22/23
Title: Approval of Utilities Enterprise Fund Contract with Precision Engineering
Inc. in the Amount of $3,987,034 for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Capital
Improvement Program Project WC-09001/WC-10002, (Wastewater
Rehabilitation and Augmentation Project 22/23 - Crescent Park and Baylands)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the
attached contract with Precision Engineering Inc. (Attachment A) in a not to exceed amount of
$3,987,034 for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Capital Improvement Program Project 22/23
(WWC Project 22/23 – Crescent Park and Baylands).
Staff also recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Precision Engineering
Inc. for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total
value of which shall not exceed $398,703.
Background
This project is a part of the Utilities’ plan to address areas that were identified in the
Wastewater Capital Improvement Project 17: Cleaning and Video Inspection of the Collection
System. The planned areas were prioritized based on system maintenance needs, the 2004
Wastewater Master Plan, Public Works ‘Target Work Zones’ (TWZ), and the goals of the
Sanitary Sewer Management Plan. TWZs are areas where utility work will precede needed
street maintenance on a regional basis. The work covered under this contract is primarily
located in the Crescent Park TWZ (see Attachment C). Staff coordinated this project with the
other underground work, to minimize interference with other contractors and their schedules.
This work will be complete prior to any planned paving activity in the construction area.
Annual wastewater capital improvement project expenditure, design and construction, is about
$3 million to replace about 18,000 LF of mains, 300 laterals and 50 manholes. This represents
July 09, 2012 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 2917)
approximately 2% of our system or a 50-year replacement cycle. Since 1991 about a third of
the City’s wastewater collection system has been replaced.
Upon approval of this contract staff will send the affected customers notification of the planned
activities. In addition, contract specifications require 7 day and 24 hour notice to affected
customers. Staff will provide regular updates to the community on progress and schedules.
Discussion
Project Description
The work to be performed under the contract is for the replacement of approximately 33,497
linear feet of sanitary sewer mains of various sizes, 102 sewer manholes, and 649 sewer service
laterals. The project is primarily located in the Crescent Park and Oregon Avenue areas with
some of the work in non-contiguous areas by the Baylands Ranger Station and Baylands
Interpretive Center. The size of this project significantly exceeds our in-house construction
resources making it necessary to contract out the work.
Summary of Bid Process
Bid Name/Number Project 22/23 Sanitary Sewer Rehab./145809
Proposed Length of Project 450 calendar days
Number of Bids Mailed to
Contractors
22
Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s
Exchanges
13
Total Days to Respond to Bid 21
Pre-Bid Meeting? Yes (Non-Mandatory)
Number of Company Attendees at
Pre-Bid Meeting
4
Number of Bids Received: 8*
Bid Price Range From a low of $3,987,034 to a high of $5,670,520
*Bid summary provided in Attachment B.
Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $3,987,034 submitted by
Precision Engineering, Inc. be accepted and that Precision Engineering, Inc. be declared the
lowest responsible bidder. The bid is 5 percent below the engineer's estimate of $4,200,000.
The bids received are consistent with the current state of the economy which has caused a
reduction in the number of projects available to contractors. This has forced contractors to
compete in a highly competitive market place. Contractors are extending bids for work at or
near cost to keep their workforces employed. The engineer’s estimated price was very close to
the bids received because it was based on historical pricing in previous contracts during a
similar economic situation. At the end of the project, any remaining budget funds will be
returned to the Wastewater Fund reserves.
July 09, 2012 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 2917)
The change order amount of $398,703, which equals 10 percent of the total contract, is
requested for unforeseen, additional work that may develop during the project.
Staff confirmed with the Contractor's State License Board that the contractor has an active
license on file. Staff checked references supplied by the contractor for previous work
performed and found no significant complaints.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds for this project are available in the Wastewater Collection Funds Capital Improvement
Program budgets WC-09001 (Project 22) and WC-10002 (Project 23).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with the Council approved Utilities Strategic Plan Key
Strategy #2, “invest in utility infrastructure to deliver reliable service.”
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to CEQA Guideline Sections 15301 (repair, maintenance of existing facilities) and 15302
(replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Contract (PDF)
Attachment B: Bid Summary CMR-P22_23 SSR (PDF)
Attachment C: Maps (PDF)
Prepared By: Robert Item, Project Engineer
Department Head: Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. May 1, 2012
PART 3 – SAMPLE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. C13145809
City of Palo Alto
and
Precision Engineering, Inc.
PROJECT
“Project 22/23 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation”
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. May 1, 2012
PART 3 – SAMPLE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS……………………………….. ....................5
1.1 Recitals ................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Definitions ........................................................................................................... 5
SECTION 2. THE PROJECT………………………………………………………………………………..............................5
SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS…………………………………………………………. .........................5
3.1 List of Documents …………………………………………………………………………………………......5
3.2 Order of Precedence ……………………………………………………………………………................6
SECTION 4. THE WORK …………………………………………………………………………………..............................7
SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM …………………………………………………………………………...............................7
SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION …………………………………………………………………............................7
6.1 Time Is of Essence........................................................................................……… 7
6.2 Commencement of Work..................................................................................... 7
6.3 Contract Time....................................................................................................... 7
6.4 Liquidated Damages............................................................................................. 7
6.4.1 Entitlement……………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
6.4.2 Daily Amount…………………………………………………………………………………………. 8
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
6.4.4 Other Remedies…………………………………………………………………………………... 8
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time........................................................................... … 8
SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR………………………………………………………………………... 8
7.1 Contract Sum ………………………………………………………………………………………………………8
7.2 Full Compensation …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work …………………………………………………………….9
7.3.1 Self Performed Work…………………………………………………………………………………9
7.3.2 Subcontractors………………………………………………………………………………………….9
SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE...................................................................................................9
SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION......................................................................................................10
9.1 Hold Harmless ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..10
9.2 Survival ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
SECTION 10. NONDISCRIMINATION ..............................................................................................10
SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS ..........................................................................................10
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. May 1, 2012
PART 3 – SAMPLE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS..........................................................................11
SECTION 13. NOTICES....................................................................................................................11
13.1 Method of Notice ………………………………………………………………………………………………..11
13.2 Notice Recipients ................................................................................................. 11
13.3 Change of Address ............................................................................................... 12
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes........................................................................... 12
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes ............................................................................... 12
14.2.1 Non‐Contract Disputes …………………………………………………………………………………….12
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election …………………………………………………………...........................13
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute …………………………………………………………………………..13
14.3.1 By Contractor …………………………………………………………………………………………. 13
14.3.2 By City ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process...............................................................…… 13
14.4.1 Direct Negotiation…………………………………………………………………………………….13
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes ………………………………………………………………… 14
14.4.3 Mediation …………………………………………………………………………..14
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration ………………………………………………………………..15
14.5 Non‐Waiver …………………………………………………………………………………………………………16
SECTION 15. DEFAULT...................................................................................................................16
15.1 Notice of Default.................................................................................................. 16
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default ................................................................................ 16
SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES..................................................................................16
16.1 Remedies Upon Default ....................................................................................... 16
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services …………………………………………………………...........................16
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ……………………………………………………………………………. 16
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract ………………………………………………………….16
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default ……………………………………..17
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond ………………………………………………………………….17
16.1.6 Additional Provisions ……………………………………………………………………………….17
16.2 Delays by Sureties................................................................................................ 17
16.3 Damages to City................................................................................................... 17
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default …………………………………………………………………………..17
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses ………………………………………………………………………….17
16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience..................................................................... 18
16.6 Termination Without Cause ................................................................................. 18
16.6.1 Compensation ………………………………………………………………………………………….18
16.6.2 Subcontractors …………………………………………………………………………………………18
16.7 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination................................................................. 19
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. May 1, 2012
PART 3 – SAMPLE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES...................................................................19
17.1 Contractor’s Remedies......................................................................................... 19
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage …………………………………………………………………………………..19
17.1.2 For City's Non‐Payment …………………………………………………………………………… 19
17.2 Damages to Contractor ........................................................................................ 19
SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS............................................................................................19
18.1 Financial Management and City Access..........................................................……. 19
18.2 Compliance with City Requests ........................................................................ …. 20
SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES.............................................................................................20
SECTION 20. NUISANCE.................................................................................................................20
SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES............................................................................................20
SECTION 22. WAIVER....................................................................................................................20
SECTION 23. GOVERNING LAW .....................................................................................................20
SECTION 24. COMPLETE AGREEMENT ...........................................................................................21
SECTION 25. SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT..........................................................................................21
SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES..................................................................................................21
SECTION 27. NON APPROPRIATION ..............................................................................................21
SECTION 28. GOVERNMENTAL POWERS........................................................................................21
SECTION 29. ATTORNEY FEES........................................................................................................21
SECTION 30. COUNTERPARTS........................................................................................................21
SECTION 31. SEVERABILITY ...........................................................................................................21
5 Rev. May 1, 2012
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on July 9, 2012 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY
OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and Precision Engineering, Inc.
("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following:
R E C I T A L S:
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of
California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the
State of California and the Charter of City.
B. Contractor is a corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California,
Contractor’s License Number 880266. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of
California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set
forth in this Construction Contract.
C. On May 9, 2012, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the “Project 22/23
Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation” (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a bid.
D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other
services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS.
1.1 Recitals.
All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
1.2 Definitions.
Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the
General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and
in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail.
SECTION 2 THE PROJECT.
The Project is the construction of the “Project 22/23 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation” ("Project").
SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
3.1 List of Documents.
The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist
of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
1) Change Orders
2) Field Change Orders
6 Rev. May 1, 2012
3) Contract
4) Project Plans and Drawings
5) Technical Specifications
6) Special Provisions
7) Notice Inviting Bids
8) Instructions to Bidders
9) General Conditions
10) Bidding Addenda
11) Invitation for Bids
12) Contractor's Bid/Non‐Collusion Affidavit
13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents
14) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and
updated from time to time
15) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated 2005
and updated from time to time
16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements
17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations
18) Notice Inviting Pre‐Qualification Statements, Pre‐Qualification Statement, and Pre‐
Qualification Checklist (if applicable)
19) Performance and Payment Bonds
20) Insurance Forms
3.2 Order of Precedence.
For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the
provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the
preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City
shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best
interests of the City.
7 Rev. May 1, 2012
SECTION 4 THE WORK.
The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all other
things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including, without
limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all Applicable
Code Requirements.
SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM.
In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide
professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project requires
that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of
the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project.
SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION.
6.1 Time Is of Essence.
Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents.
6.2 Commencement of Work.
Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed.
6.3 Contract Time.
Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be
completed within Four Hundred Fifty calendar days (450) after the commencement date specified
in City’s Notice to Proceed.
6.4 Liquidated Damages.
6.4.1 Entitlement.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and
satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result of
Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and
impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants.
(ii) Loss of public use of public facilities.
(iii) Extended disruption to public.
8 Rev. May 1, 2012
6.4.2 Daily Amount.
City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual
damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the
entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to all
other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the event
Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the
Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of $500 per
day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until Contractor
achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated damages amount is
not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City
will suffer by delay in completion of the Work.
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision shall
be City’s only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor’s failure to achieve
Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.4.4 Other Remedies.
City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where
City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve
Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time.
The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to by
Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the
Contract Documents.
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the
Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Three Million Nine Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand
Thirty Four Dollars ($3,987,034).
[This amount includes the Base Bid and Add Alternates.]
9 Rev. May 1, 2012
7.2 Full Compensation.
The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor
and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover
all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen
difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until
its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to
suspension or discontinuance of the Work. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change
Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in accordance with the requirements of the
Contract Documents.
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work.
The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work involving
Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be selected by
City:
1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor,
which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and
Subcontractor/Sub‐subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section.
2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable
Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance
with this Section.
3. Contractor’s Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups
applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section.
Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub‐subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full
amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that is
attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its Subcontractors
and Sub‐subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment methodology, Contractor
Markup and Subcontractor/Sub‐subcontractor Markups, which shall not be compounded, shall be
computed as follows:
7.3.1 Markup Self‐Performed Work.
10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by Contractor with its own forces.
7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors.
15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by a first Tier Subcontractor.
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.
Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well‐supervised
personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a
manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in
providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.
10 Rev. May 1, 2012
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.
9.1 Hold Harmless.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its
City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers
(hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City,
from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in any manner relating to
any of, the following:
(i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐
subcontractors, of any tier;
(ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐
subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents;
(iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐subcontractors, of
any tier, either on the Site or on other properties;
(iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or
Sub‐subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project; and
(v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated with
the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐
subcontractors of any tier, of the Work.
However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses
resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor
shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract
Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor
against City or any other Indemnitee.
9.2 Survival.
The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION.
As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of
this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color,
gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status,
familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands
the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section
2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.
On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance
and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions.
Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract.
11 Rev. May 1, 2012
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.
City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of the
Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign,
hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by
operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or
transfer without said consent shall be null and void.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of
Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor
is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co‐tenancy shall result in changing the control of
Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than
fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.
SECTION 13 NOTICES.
13.1 Method of Notice.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in
writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following:
(i) On the date delivered if delivered personally;
(ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and
addressed as hereinafter provided;
(iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission;
(iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or
(v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail.
13.2 Notice Recipients.
All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City
shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be
addressed to City at:
To City: City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Copy to: City of Palo Alto
Public Works Administration
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn:
Or
12 Rev. May 1, 2012
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Engineering
1007 Elwell Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Robert Item
In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided
to the following:
Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, California 94303
All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:
Robert Item
13.3 Change of Address.
In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the change
of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any
individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided.
SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this
Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights adjudged
by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process
set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive recourse of Contractor and City for such
Contract Disputes.
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes.
14.2.1 Non‐Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following:
(i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a
governmental agency;
(ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating to
any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐subcontractors
of any tier;
(iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et. seq.;
(iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to
Contractor;
(v) Stop notices; or
(vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel
performance of any provision of the Contract Documents.
13 Rev. May 1, 2012
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.
Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall not
be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City reserves the
right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as Contract Disputes.
Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the preceding sentence, such
dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided pursuant to the Contract
Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for Contract Disputes, including,
without limitation, City’s right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to defer resolution and final
determination until after Final Completion of the Work.
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.
14.3.1 By Contractor.
Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's written
response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10 of the
General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract Dispute (as
set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a portion of
Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of Contract Dispute in a
timely manner shall result in City’s decision by City on the Claim becoming final and
binding. Contractor’s Statement of Contract Dispute shall be signed under penalty of
perjury and shall state with specificity the events or circumstances giving rise to the
Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the asserted effect on the Contract
Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of Contract Dispute shall include adequate
supporting data to substantiate the disputed Claim. Adequate supporting data for a
Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of the Contract Time shall include both of the
following:
(i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the
Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the
Contract Time and
(ii) A detailed, event‐by‐event description of the impact of each event on
completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract Dispute
involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the following:
(a) A detailed cost breakdown and
(b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and
other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for
submission of Change Order Requests and Claims.
14.3.2 By City.
City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any time
following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute.
City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted by Contractor.
A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the events or
circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the
damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events.
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process.
The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution
Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in good
faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith effort shall
be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next step in the
process.
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.
Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but not
later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a good
14 Rev. May 1, 2012
faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be
represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge of
the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the negotiations,
and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there, subject only to
City’s obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval of any agreed
settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion of a right or claim
by a Subcontractor or Sub‐subcontractor, of any tier, against Contractor that is in turn
being asserted by Contractor against City (“Pass‐Through Claim”), then the Subcontractor
or Sub‐Subcontractor shall also have a
representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as
described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not
resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare
negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all
documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential and
privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.
Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all
unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the Project,
subject to City’s right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the Contract
Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract Disputes that
have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a reasonable time
after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant to this Contract
Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal negotiations of Contract
Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations shall not be alter the
provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and resolution of unresolved
Contract Disputes until after Final Completion.
14.4.3 Mediation.
If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph
14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non‐binding mediation before a
mutually acceptable third party mediator.
.1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator who
is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in
public works construction contract law and in mediating public works
construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty (20)
hours of formal training in mediation skills.
.2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating
mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party
of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a
mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then
the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in
accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules.
.3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of City.
The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The mediator
shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the Contract Dispute
and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that occur during the
mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of the mediation
shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code
Sections 1119 and 1152.
15 Rev. May 1, 2012
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration.
If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the
Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of California
Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator therein shall be
final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction. Such
arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following:
.1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint in
arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to
California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5.
.2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all parties.
The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years
of experience in public works construction contract law and in arbitrating public
works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall have at least
twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the event the parties
cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California Public Contract
Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an arbitrator possessing the
qualifications required herein.
.3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices of
City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the arbitrator,
be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or
continuance.
.4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good
cause shown.
.5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by a
certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City and
Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award.
.6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in accordance
with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract Code; provided,
however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the following:
(i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses per
party.
Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of
permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall, for
purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed an
expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in
accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including
initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as
evidence.
.7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear
dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards.
16 Rev. May 1, 2012
.8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to a
jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4.
Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors
who provide any portion of the Work.
14.5 Non‐Waiver.
Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or compromise
any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the assertion that the
rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were previously waived by
Contractor due to Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents, including, without
limitation, Contractor’s failure to comply with any time periods for providing notice of requests
for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for submission of Claims or supporting
documentation of Claims.
SECTION 15 DEFAULT.
15.1 Notice of Default.
In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to
perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any
provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the
manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract.
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.
Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under
the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require)
after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such
time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as
City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to
completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after
receipt of such written notice.
SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
16.1 Remedies Upon Default.
If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth
above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including,
without limitation, the following:
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the
Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the
Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and
withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself
all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights
to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as
17 Rev. May 1, 2012
long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which
event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall
have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work.
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.
City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon
the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15. City’s
election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by
giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of
notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by
City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein.
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond.
City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all
rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond.
16.1.6 Additional Provisions.
All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and
shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity.
Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive
the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to
terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the
Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there has
been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of
its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on
all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice
any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract
Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover
all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City.
16.2 Delays by Sureties.
Without limiting to any of City’s other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the
performance of the Work by Contractor’s sureties in the event of any of the following:
(i) The sureties’ failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to insure
full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time;
(ii) The sureties’ abandonment of the Work;
(iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties’ Work is unnecessarily or unreasonably
delaying the Work;
(iv) The sureties’ violation of any terms of the Construction Contract;
(v) The sureties’ failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or
(vi) The sureties’ failure to follow City’s instructions for completion of the Work within the
Contract Time.
16.3 Damages to City.
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.
City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of
Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents.
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses.
In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract
Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor
until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor’s default,
then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the
amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor or
18 Rev. May 1, 2012
its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City exceed
the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall
promptly remit same to City.
16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience.
City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to
suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an
aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as
a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s
expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the
Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if
any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered
by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume
and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the
Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order
shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work.
16.5 Termination Without Cause.
City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or
in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed under
this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such
termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not
limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential,
direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause.
16.5.1 Compensation.
Following such termination and within forty‐five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from
Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay the
following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work :
.1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion
of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination,
less sums previously paid to Contractor.
.2 For Close‐out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors and
Sub‐subcontractors for:
(i) Demobilizing and
(ii) Administering the close‐out of its participation in the Project (including,
without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including
attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days
after receipt of the notice of termination.
.3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the
Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.
16.5.2 Subcontractors.
Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other
contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are
consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery
against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section.
19 Rev. May 1, 2012
16.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination.
Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the
notice directs otherwise, do the following:
(i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice;
(ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities,
except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not
discontinued;
(iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the
notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are
outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes,
payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of
the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or
modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine
necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to
terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract;
(iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms
reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof,
that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and
(iii) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already
in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in
transit thereto.
SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
17.1 Contractor’s Remedies.
Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the
following:
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage.
The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any
Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of
an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of
government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This
provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension
notice issued either for cause or for convenience.
17.1.2 For City's Non‐Payment.
If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of
notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a
second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract.
17.2 Damages to Contractor.
In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided
for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive
compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not
limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential,
direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind.
SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
18.1 Financial Management and City Access.
Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary
for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally
20 Rev. May 1, 2012
accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business
hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take‐offs, cost reports,
ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase
orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these
documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) final payment or (ii) final resolution
of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by
law.
18.2 Compliance with City Requests.
Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a condition
precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City
and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many
enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred
to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent
mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such
court, without the necessity of oral testimony.
SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES.
Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’
of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or
its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth.
SECTION 20 NUISANCE.
Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in
connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract.
SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES.
Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall
provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government
jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses
for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation
shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non‐City inspectors or conditions set
forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies.
SECTION 22 WAIVER.
A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition
contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW.
This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of
California.
21 Rev. May 1, 2012
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all
prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended
only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.
The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction
Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment
obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect
after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract.
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES.
This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the
performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a chartered
city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City invokes the
exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the Project is
funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION.
This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto
Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds
for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a
conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 28 AUTHORITY.
The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and
authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES.
Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees through the completion of mediation. If the
claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2,
the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its
reasonable costs and attorney’s fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be
entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys
employed by it as well as any attorney’s’ fees paid to third parties.
SECTION 30 COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties,
constitute a single binding agreement.
SECTION 31 SEVERABILITY.
In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity,
legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.
22 Rev. May 1, 2012
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the
date and year first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PRECISION ENGINEERING, INC.
By:___________________________
Name:_________________________
Title:________________________
Bid Summary
PROJECT 22/23 SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATIONIFB #145809 (Bid Open 5/29/12)
13786245
Item Quantity Unit Description Unit Extension Unit Extension Unit Extension Unit Extension Unit Extension Unit Extension Unit Extension Unit Extension Unit Extension
Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price PriceA. Base Bid1 1 LS Sheeting/Shoring $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 177,000 $ 177,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $358,000 $ 358,000 $ 62,532 $ 62,532 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $230,391 $ 230,391 $ 15,000 $ 15,000
2 1 LS Recycle AC, Conc $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 48,000 $ 48,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 3 512 LF 4 to 8 PB $ 60 $ 30,720 $ 50 $ 25,600 $ 77 $ 39,424 $ 58 $ 29,696 $ 112 $ 57,344 $ 100 $ 51,200 $ 50 $ 25,600 $ 50 $ 25,600 $ 49 $ 25,088 4 18,384 LF 6 or 8 to 8 PB $ 60 $ 1,103,040 $ 50 $ 919,200 $ 75 $ 1,378,800 $ 59 $ 1,084,656 $ 112 $ 2,059,008 $ 90 $ 1,654,560 $ 78 $1,433,952 $ 40 $ 735,360 $ 79 $ 1,452,336
5 8,377 LF 8 to 10 PB $ 65 $ 544,505 $ 55 $ 460,735 $ 83 $ 695,291 $ 61 $ 510,997 $ 118 $ 988,486 $ 100 $ 837,700 $ 80 $ 670,160 $ 50 $ 418,850 $ 81 $ 678,537
6 2,303 LF 6 or 8 to 8 OC (alt) $ 100 $ 230,300 $ 125 $ 287,875 $ 150 $ 345,450 $ 175 $ 403,025 $ 160 $ 368,480 $ 180 $ 414,540 $ 145 $ 333,935 $ 162 $ 373,086 $ 160 $ 368,480 7 569 LF 8 to 10 OC (alt) $ 110 $ 62,590 $ 130 $ 73,970 $ 160 $ 91,040 $ 185 $ 105,265 $ 170 $ 96,730 $ 200 $ 113,800 $ 150 $ 85,350 $ 173 $ 98,437 $ 167 $ 95,023 8 1,677 LF 10 to 12 OC $ 125 $ 209,625 $ 150 $ 251,550 $ 170 $ 285,090 $ 195 $ 327,015 $ 180 $ 301,860 $ 210 $ 352,170 $ 160 $ 268,320 $ 173 $ 290,121 $ 168 $ 281,736
9 954 LF 6" CIPP $ 80 $ 76,320 $ 48 $ 45,792 $ 55 $ 52,470 $ 32 $ 30,528 $ 35 $ 33,390 $ 41 $ 39,114 $ 28 $ 26,712 $ 60 $ 57,240 $ 45 $ 42,930
10 721 LF 8" CIPP $ 90 $ 64,890 $ 55 $ 39,655 $ 57 $ 41,097 $ 35 $ 25,235 $ 40 $ 28,840 $ 44 $ 31,724 $ 30 $ 21,630 $ 61 $ 43,981 $ 48 $ 34,608 11 13 EA Chemical Grout Spot Repairs $ 3,000 $ 39,000 $ 1,200 $ 15,600 $ 1,165 $ 15,145 $ 1,400 $ 18,200 $ 2,000 $ 26,000 $ 1,100 $ 14,300 $ 1,025 $ 13,325 $ 4,800 $ 62,400 $ 1,100 $ 14,300 12 688 LF Grout Abandoned mains $ 3 $ 2,064 $ 20 $ 13,760 $ 18 $ 12,384 $ 19 $ 13,072 $ 6 $ 4,128 $ 7 $ 4,816 $ 2 $ 1,376 $ 20 $ 13,760 $ 7 $ 4,816
13 262 EA 4 LAT PB (1,2) $ 1,200 $ 314,400 $ 1,200 $ 314,400 $ 1,000 $ 262,000 $ 1,300 $ 340,600 $ 700 $ 183,400 $ 325 $ 85,150 $ 1,000 $ 262,000 $ 1,800 $ 471,600 $ 1,050 $ 275,100 14 98 EA 4 LAT OC (3) $ 1,000 $ 98,000 $ 2,400 $ 235,200 $ 1,000 $ 98,000 $ 2,950 $ 289,100 $ 850 $ 83,300 $ 800 $ 78,400 $ 1,200 $ 117,600 $ 1,900 $ 186,200 $ 1,275 $ 124,950 15 280 EA 4 LAT OC (ACP) (2,5) $ 1,500 $ 420,000 $ 2,400 $ 672,000 $ 1,000 $ 280,000 $ 2,950 $ 826,000 $ 850 $ 238,000 $ 900 $ 252,000 $ 1,200 $ 336,000 $ 1,900 $ 532,000 $ 1,300 $ 364,000
16 1 EA 6 LAT PB $ 1,300 $ 1,300 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 2,750 $ 2,750 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 1,200 $ 1,200
17 8 EA 6 LAT OC (alt) $ 2,000 $ 16,000 $ 2,400 $ 19,200 $ 2,750 $ 22,000 $ 3,500 $ 28,000 $ 1,200 $ 9,600 $ 2,200 $ 17,600 $ 1,300 $ 10,400 $ 1,900 $ 15,200 $ 1,500 $ 12,000 18 45 EA 4 RECON (4) $ 1,000 $ 45,000 $ 100 $ 4,500 $ 750 $ 33,750 $ 375 $ 16,875 $ 600 $ 27,000 $ 200 $ 9,000 $ 800 $ 36,000 $ 290 $ 13,050 $ 700 $ 31,500 19 1 EA 6 RECON $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 100 $ 100 $ 2,370 $ 2,370 $ 800 $ 800 $ 700 $ 700 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 850 $ 850 $ 500 $ 500 $ 850 $ 850
20 2 EA Install 48" MH (alt) $ 4,000 $ 8,000 $ 3,500 $ 7,000 $ 2,500 $ 5,000 $ 6,300 $ 12,600 $ 4,000 $ 8,000 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 $ 4,000 $ 8,000 $ 9,000 $ 18,000 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 21 92 EA Rem/Repl 48" MH $ 4,500 $ 414,000 $ 3,500 $ 322,000 $ 2,500 $ 230,000 $ 6,900 $ 634,800 $ 4,000 $ 368,000 $ 5,500 $ 506,000 $ 4,000 $ 368,000 $ 9,500 $ 874,000 $ 6,500 $ 598,000 22 8 EA Rem LH Install MH $ 4,200 $ 33,600 $ 3,500 $ 28,000 $ 2,500 $ 20,000 $ 7,100 $ 56,800 $ 4,000 $ 32,000 $ 4,800 $ 38,400 $ 4,000 $ 32,000 $ 8,900 $ 71,200 $ 4,500 $ 36,000
23 1 EA Rem/Repl LH/CO on main $ 500 $ 500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 1,050 $ 1,050 $ 2,000 $ 2,000
24 1 EA Rem LH $ 250 $ 250 $ 500 $ 500 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 200 $ 200 $ 300 $ 300 $ 500 $ 500 $ 200 $ 200 $ 525 $ 525 $ 250 $ 250 25 7 EA Rem MH $ 1,500 $ 10,500 $ 1,000 $ 7,000 $ 1,500 $ 10,500 $ 1,500 $ 10,500 $ 500 $ 3,500 $ 1,000 $ 7,000 $ 300 $ 2,100 $ 1,750 $ 12,250 $ 1,200 $ 8,400 26 1 EA Drop Manhole Connection $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,370 $ 2,370 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,800 $ 2,800 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 650 $ 650 $ 2,500 $ 2,500
27 200 EA Install Structure Cleanouts $ 500 $ 100,000 $ 250 $ 50,000 $ 767 $ 153,400 $ 900 $ 180,000 $ 800 $ 160,000 $ 400 $ 80,000 $ 500 $ 100,000 $ 500 $ 100,000 $ 850 $ 170,000
28 50 EA Abandon 4 " lateral $ 200 $ 10,000 $ 50 $ 2,500 $ 125 $ 6,250 $ 240 $ 12,000 $ 100 $ 5,000 $ 50 $ 2,500 $ 100 $ 5,000 $ 235 $ 11,750 $ 50 $ 2,500 29 140 CY ACP Storage and Disposal $ 400 $ 56,000 $ 50 $ 7,000 $ 55 $ 7,700 $ 220 $ 30,800 $ 30 $ 4,200 $ 40 $ 5,600 $ 50 $ 7,000 $ 75 $ 10,500 $ 100 $ 14,000
30 33,497 LF Clean/Video $ 2 $ 66,994 $ 1 $ 33,497 $ 2 $ 66,994 $ 3 $ 100,491 $ 2 $ 66,994 $ 2 $ 66,994 $ 1 $ 33,497 $ 2 $ 66,994 $ 1 $ 33,497
31 1 EA Spot Repair $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 5,300 $ 5,300 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,100 $ 3,100 32 694 EA Clean/Video Laterals $ 50 $ 34,700 $ 50 $ 34,700 $ 75 $ 52,050 $ 190 $ 131,860 $ 40 $ 27,760 $ 100 $ 69,400 $ 100 $ 69,400 $ 71 $ 49,274 $ 100 $ 69,400 33 5 EA Rehab Existing MH $ 1,000 $ 5,000 $ 3,000 $ 15,000 $ 2,175 $ 10,875 $ 3,000 $ 15,000 $ 2,000 $ 10,000 $ 2,800 $ 14,000 $ 3,300 $ 16,500 $ 8,900 $ 44,500 $ 2,200 $ 11,000
34 1 LS GPS Survey $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 5,550 $ 5,550 $ 8,500 $ 8,500 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 14,000 $ 14,000
Base Bid Total $ 4,110,298 $ 3,983,034 $ 222,049 $ 4,416,050 $115,847 $ 5,309,315 $ 5,590,520 $ 4,856,000 $4,333,607 $4,849,369 $ 4,812,101
Add Alt 1 1 LS GPS Survey Open Hole $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ 8,500 $ 8,500 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Grand Total
California Trenchless
$4,150,298.00 $4,878,000.00 $4,822,101.00
K.J. WoodsEngineer Estimate Precision Engineering Valentine
$4,854,369.00$3,987,034.00
Howard Engineering
$4,423,550.00
Pacific Underground
$5,314,315.00
D'Arcy & Harty
$5,670,520.00
Ranger Pipelines
$4,342,107.00
Attachment "B"
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2946)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/9/2012
July 09, 2012 Page 1 of 2
(ID # 2946)
Summary Title: Reso-Approval re ABAG-Natural Disasters
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the 2010 Association of Bay Area
Governments Report "Taming Natural Disasters" and Local Annex as the City's
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Fire
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt a Resolution approving the 2010 Association of Bay Area
Governments report “Taming Natural Disasters” as its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan with a City
of Palo Alto Annex ("Annex" is ABAG's term for a jursidiction's sub-plan that is integrated into
the regional plan set.).
Background
The Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) requires all cities, counties, and special
districts to have adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to receive disaster mitigation
funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The DMA provides that a
local agency may adopt a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan or participate in the preparation of and
adopt a Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) received funds from FEMA to serve as the lead agency in the creation of a Multi-
Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan for the nine-county Bay Area. With participation from the
City of Palo Alto and other local agencies, ABAG created an umbrella Hazard Mitigation Plan
entitled “Taming Natural Disasters.” In 2005, the City of Palo Alto adopted an Annex to the
2005 ABAG Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. In 2010, ABAG announced that all jurisdictions in
Santa Clara County would annex their LHMPs to the County LHMP, which would, in turn, annex
to the ABAG LHMP.
Discussion
The City's LHMP Annex (attached) was updated in 2011 through the regional planning process
coordinated by ABAG and the local planning process coordinated by Santa Clara County Office
of Emergency Services. In recent months, staff has worked with the County to finalize Palo
Alto’s portion of this plan and made several key edits including providing a list of soft story
July 09, 2012 Page 2 of 2
(ID # 2946)
structures in the City (pg. 18-46) and updated language in Section 18.4.2.2.16 regarding
exposure of Critical City Facilities to hazardous materials threats (pg. 18-58). In addition, the
City of Palo Alto previously notified residents and businesses of the hazard mitigation planning
process by distributing promotional announcements regarding the public opportunity to
respond to an online survey.
The LHMP planning process not only helps local areas identify hazards, but also provides a
regional framework for understanding risk and interdependencies. Such a process is either
required or recommended as a best practice in emergency management.
Resource Impact
Participating in the ABAG regional plan is far more cost effective than creating a stand-alone,
Palo Alto-specific LHMP and does not obligate the City to any financial commitment. In
addition, having a plan is necessary to receive certain types of grant funding.
Policy Implications
This recommendation is consistent with existing policies and supports the existing Council
priority of Emergency Preparedness.
Environmental Review
Adoption of the County LHMP and local annex is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15061 because it can be seen with certainty that the annex will not have a
significant effect on the environment. The plan is designed to minimize damage that might
result from natural disasters. Not all of the potential mitigation actions identified in the City’s
Local Annex are required; however, the City will be proposing to adopt these updated
mitigation strategies as part of the Natural Resources Element of the next Comprehensive Plan
and any potential environmental impacts of those strategies will be included in the
environmental review for that plan.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Resolution (PDF)
Attachment B - Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (PDF)
Prepared By: Ken Dueker, Director of Emergency Services
Department Head: Dennis Burns, Police Chief
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
* NOT YET APPROVED *
120222 sh 8261827 1
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Annex to
the Santa Clara County, CA Annex to the 2010 Association
of Bay Area Governments Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
“Taming Natural Disasters”
WHEREAS, the Bay Area is subject to various earthquake-related hazards such as
ground shaking, liquefaction, landsliding, fault surface rupture, and tsunamis; and
WHEREAS, the Bay Area is subject to various weather-related hazards including
wildfires, floods, and landslides; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto recognizes that disasters do not recognize city,
county, or special district boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto seeks to maintain and enhance both a disaster-
resistant City of Palo Alto and region by reducing the potential loss of life, property damage, and
environmental degradation from natural disasters, while accelerating economic recovery from
those disasters; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto is committed to increasing the disaster resistance
of the infrastructure, health, housing, economy, government services, education, environment,
and land use systems in the City of Palo Alto, as well as in the Bay Area as a whole; and
WHEREAS, the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires all cities, counties,
and special districts to have adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to receive disaster
mitigation funding from FEMA; and
WHEREAS, ABAG has approved and adopted the ABAG report Taming Natural
Disasters as the multi-jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the San Francisco Bay
Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. That the City of Palo Alto adopts, and adapts with its local annex, this
multi-jurisdictional plan as its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
//
//
//
* NOT YET APPROVED *
120222 sh 8261827 2
SECTION 2. That the City of Palo Alto commits to continuing to take those actions
and initiating further actions, as deemed appropriate by its City Council, officers, and employees,
identified in the City of Palo Alto Annex of that multi-jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan by proposing to adopt the mitigation strategies listed therein as part of the Natural
Resources Element of its 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ _____________________________
Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Fire Chief
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-1
Contents
Section 18 City of Palo Alto ........................................................................................................ 18-3
18.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 18-3
18.2 Internal Planning Process ................................................................................................ 18-10
18.3 Capability Assessment ..................................................................................................... 18-19
18.3.1 Mitigation Progress .................................................................................................. 18-19
18.3.2 Staff and Organizational Capabilities ...................................................................... 18-19
18.3.3 National Flood Insurance Program .......................................................................... 18-32
18.3.4 Resource List: .......................................................................................................... 18-34
18.4 Vulnerability Assessment ................................................................................................ 18-34
18.4.1 Critical Facilities ...................................................................................................... 18-34
18.4.2 Exposure Analysis .................................................................................................... 18-36
18.5 Mitigation Actions ........................................................................................................... 18-59
18.5.1 Primary Concerns ..................................................................................................... 18-59
18.5.2 Mitigation Actions ................................................................................................... 18-59
18.6 Plan Maintenance............................................................................................................. 18-61
18.6.1 Monitoring, evaluating, updating the plan ............................................................... 18-61
18.6.2 Point of Contact ....................................................................................................... 18-61
18.7 City of Palo Alto Appendix ............................................................................................. 18-62
18.7.1 Palo Alto Attachment 1: Palo Alto Outreach Materials ........................................... 18-62
18.7.2 Palo Alto Attachment 2: Repetitive Loss Letter ...................................................... 18-64
18.7.3 Palo Alto Attachment 3: Palo Alto Exposure Analysis ........................................... 18-66
Figure 18-1: Inventory of Soft-First Story Multi-Family Dwellings-City of Palo Alto ................. 18-45
Table 18-1: Hazards of Most Concern ............................................................................................ 18-11
Table 18-2: Items Readily Available to Respondents ..................................................................... 18-12
Table 18-3: Adequate Homeowners Insurance ............................................................................... 18-15
Table 18-4: Earthquake Insurance .................................................................................................. 18-15
Table 18-5: Flood Insurance ........................................................................................................... 18-15
Table 18-6: Property Changes to Reduce Damage from Hazards .................................................. 18-16
Table 18-7: Place of Work in Hazard Areas ................................................................................... 18-16
Table 18-8: Key Departments in the City of Palo Alto ................................................................... 18-20
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-2
Table 18-9: Technical Capability Matrix ........................................................................................ 18-21
Table 18-10: Financing Mechanisms .............................................................................................. 18-24
Table 18-11: Availability of Ordinances that Support Hazard Mitigation ..................................... 18-31
Table 18-12: City of Palo Alto Critical Facilities ........................................................................... 18-34
Table 18-13: Critical Facilities at risk to Sea Level Rise ............................................................... 18-55
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-3
SECTION 18 CITY OF PALO ALTO
18.1 INTRODUCTION
This City of Palo Alto Annex serves as an annex to the Santa Clara County Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan which is an annex to the 2010 Association of Bay Area Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Taming
Natural Disasters. Pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, a signed adoption resolution
confirms the City Council adopted this annex.
This annex is an update to the City’s annex to the 2005 Association of Bay Area Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan, Taming Natural Disasters, as adopted on December 12, 2005.
Part of the metropolitan San Francisco Bay Area and the Silicon Valley, Palo Alto is located within
Santa Clara County and borders San Mateo County.
The City’s boundaries extend from San
Francisco Bay on the east to the Skyline
Ridge of the coastal mountains on the west,
with Menlo Park to the north, and Mountain
View to the south. The City encompasses an
area of approximately 26 square miles, of
which one-third is open space. The city
shares its borders with East Palo Alto, Los
Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, Menlo
Park, Mountain View, Portola Valley, and
portions of unincorporated San Mateo
County and Santa Clara County (including
the unincorporated areas of Cupertino and
Saratoga in the foothills). It is named after
a redwood tree called El Palo Alto. The
city includes portions of Stanford University and its affiliates, is headquarters to a number of
Silicon Valley high-technology companies, including Hewlett-Packard, VMware, Tesla Motors,
and IDEO, and has served as an incubator to several other high-technology companies, such as
Google, Facebook, Logitech, Intuit, Sun Microsystems, and PayPal. As of the 2010 census, the
City had a total population of 64,403 residents.
A blend of business and residential neighborhoods, anchored by a vibrant downtown, defines Palo
Alto’s unique character. A charming mixture of old and new, Palo Alto’s tree-lined streets and
historic buildings reflect its California heritage. At the same time, Palo Alto is recognized worldwide
as a leader in cutting-edge development, as a quintessential part of Silicon Valley.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-4
Utilities
Unlike surrounding communities, electric, water, gas and wastewater service within city limits
are provided by the City of Palo Alto. A minor exception is a rural portion of the city limits in
the foothills area, west of Interstate 280, which gets gas and electric service from Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (PG&E).
The Water, Gas and Wastewater Division (WGW) operates water, gas, and wastewater
distribution networks within the city limits. Natural gas is purchased from third parties and
delivered to Palo Alto via PG&E's gas transmission pipeline network. The city operates gas
meters and the distribution pipelines. Water is supplied by the San Francisco Public Utility
Commission’s Hetch Hetchy system through 5 interconnection points. Emergency water is
available through interconnects to adjacent systems and through wells located within the City
limits.
The City operates its own electric power distribution network and telemetry cable network. The
City is connected to PG&E's electric transmission system, which brings power from several
sources to the City. Palo Alto is a member of a joint powers authority (the Northern California
Power Agency), which cooperatively generates electricity for government power providers such
as the Cities of Santa Clara, Lodi, Lompoc, Alameda and Healdsburg.
Transportation
Palo Alto is served by two major freeways, Highway 101, and Interstate 280, and is traversed by
the Peninsula’s main north-south boulevard, El Camino Real (SR 82).
The city is also served indirectly by State Route 84, which traverses the Dumbarton Bridge to the
north. Palo Alto has only one major cross-town arterial, Page Mill Road / Oregon Expressway,
which completely connects the two freeways.
Palo Alto is served by Palo Alto Airport of Santa Clara County (KPAO), one of the busiest
single-runway general aviation airports in the country. In addition to private pilot use, the Airport
is a refueling and service hub for air ambulance helicopters such as Life Flight and CalStar and is
also used for patient transport and related support for Stanford Hospital, the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation, and other such charitable or medical entities.
Train service is available via Caltrain, with service between San Francisco and San Jose and
extending to Gilroy. Caltrain has two regular stops in Palo Alto, one at University Avenue (local
and express), and the other at California Avenue (local only). A third, the Stanford station,
located beside Alma Street at Embarcadero Road, is used to provide special services for
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-5
occasional sports events (generally football) at Stanford Stadium. The University Avenue stop is
the second most popular (behind 4th and King in San Francisco) on Caltrain's entire line.
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) provides primary bus service through
Palo Alto with service to the south bay and Silicon Valley. The San Mateo County Transit
District (SamTrans) provides service to San Mateo County to the north. The Stanford University
Free Shuttle (Marguerite) provides a supplementary bus service to and from the campus, which
circulates frequently, and provides service to major points in Palo Alto.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-6
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-7
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-8
This page left blank pending the 2012 resolution.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-9
This page left blank pending the 2012 resolution.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-10
18.2 INTERNAL PLANNING PROCESS
The City of Palo Alto participated in the regional planning process coordinated by ABAG and the
local planning process coordinated by Santa Clara County OES as noted in Section 3 of this plan.
Kenneth Dueker, J.D., Director, Emergency Services for the City of Palo Alto, assumed management
of this internal process, subsequent to numerous retirements and staff changes in the city during the
drafting of this plan.
The City of Palo Alto’s internal planning team included the following individuals:
Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager, City Manager's Office
Linda Clerkson, Public Information Officer, City Manager's Office
Dennis Burns, Police Chief and Interim Fire Chief
Mark Venable, A/Assistant Chief, Palo Alto Police Department
Charles Cullen, Director of Technical Services, Palo Alto Police Department
Catherine Capriles, A/Deputy Chief, Palo Alto Fire Department
Curtis Williams, Director, Planning Community & Environment Dept.
Larry Perlin, Chief Building Official, Planning Community & Environment Dept.
Steven Turner, Planning Manager, Planning Community & Environment Dept.
Valerie Fong, Director, City of Palo Alto Utilities Dept.
Dean Batchelor, Assistant Director, Ops., City of Palo Alto Utilities Dept.
Tom Kaiser, Safety & Security Coord., City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
Tomm Marshall, Assistant Director, Engineering, City of Palo Alto Utilities Dept.
Jane Ratchye, Assistant Director, Resource Management, City of Palo Alto Utilities Dept.
Greg Betts, Director, Community Services Department
Mike Sartor, Director, Public Works Dept.
James Allen, Manager, Wastewater Quality Plant, Public Works Dept.
Paul Dornell, Management Spec., Public Works Dept.
Phil Bobel, Interim Assistant Director, Public Works Dept.
Joe Teresi, Sr. Eng., Public Works Dept. (flood and drainage)
Melissa Tronquet, Sr. Deputy Attorney, City Attorney’s Office
Public Outreach
The City of Palo Alto notified residents and businesses of the hazard mitigation planning process by
distributing promotional announcements regarding the public opportunity to respond to the online
survey discussed in Section 3.2.6. A copy of the survey is included in County Attachment 7: Survey
Outreach Materials, found in Section 9.7. The following media was utilized:
• Press Release distributed to all local media
• City Website (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org)
• Email to 700 city Emergency Services Volunteers (incl. former volunteers)
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-11
Copies of these outreach announcements are included in Section 18.7, Palo Alto Attachment 1: Palo
Alto Outreach Materials.
Survey Results
On November 1, 2010, the Local Planning Team released an online survey to solicit public input
regarding concerns for hazard risk. The Local Planning Team also used this survey to gauge the level
of public preparedness for emergencies. The survey responses received from the City of Palo Alto
residents are summarized below:
1. 50 out of 541 survey respondents were from the City of Palo Alto.
2. Respondents were asked which five hazards, out of the 31 hazards the LPT identified, are of
most concern to their neighborhood or home. Below are responses from the City of Palo
Alto (in order of most responses):
Table 18-1: Hazards of Most Concern
Hazard
Number of
Responses
Infrastructure: Water System Disruption (no potable water) 40
Earthquake: Ground Shaking 37
Infrastructure: Electrical System Disruption (no power) 32
Infrastructure: Energy System Disruption (no gas) 18
Flood 17
Infrastructure: Transportation Disruption (blocked roads / failed bridges) 16
Infrastructure: Wastewater System Disruption (sewer backup) 15
Hazardous Materials Spills (chemical/biological) 13
Infrastructure: Telecommunication System Disruption (no phone / cell
service) 11
Additional Hazard * 10
Earthquake: Liquefaction 9
Disease and Outbreak 8
Drought 6
Earthquake: Surface Rupture 5
Wildfire 5
Solar Storm 2
Agricultural Pests and Diseases 1
Delta Levee Failure 1
Expansive Soils 1
Heat (extreme heat) 1
Land Subsidence (soil compaction due to subsurface water removal) 1
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-12
Hazard
Number of
Responses
Wind (high winds) 1
Bay Area Silting 0
Dam Failure 0
Earthquake: Landslides 0
Freeze 0
Hailstorm 0
Landslide and Debris flow 0
Thunder/Lightning Storms 0
Tornado 0
Tsunami 0
Volcano 0
* Respondents noted the following additional hazards: Sea level rise, hazardous materials spills and
toxic fume releases caused by earthquakes, lack of street light, speeding vehicles, terrorism, EPA
levee failure, urban fire, and the releases of toxic chemicals from businesses in town
3. Respondents were asked if a severe hazard event occurred today, such that all services were cut
off from their home and they were unable to leave or access a store for 72 hours, which items they
would have readily available. Below is a summary of responses from the City of Palo Alto
respondents:
Table 18-2: Items Readily Available to Respondents
Item that is Readily Available Responses
Flashlight (with batteries) 50
First Aid Kit 46
Blanket(s) 45
Canned / Non-perishable Foods (ready to eat) 44
Portable AM/FM Radio (solar powered, hand crank,or batteries) 44
Potable Water (3 gallons per person) 40
Extra Medications 36
Cash 35
Handheld "Walkie-Talkie" Radios (with batteries) 29
What else is in your emergency kit? * 24
Important Family Photos/Documentation in a water and fire proof
container 21
* Respondents noted the following additional items in their emergency kits: tools, fuel, tarps, tents,
sleeping bags, plastic sheeting and a staple gun to cover broken windows, camping gear, gloves, hard
hat, shovel, wire, tree cutters, water purification tablets, filter masks, cooking supplies, fire
extinguisher, Amateur (ham) radio, propane stove, generator, shoes, clothes, matches, gas shutoff
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-13
tool, safety glasses, flares, candles, ARES/RACES Go Kit, rope, garbage bags, duct tape, cooking
coals, standard military issued survival kit, flash drive with important photos and documents, paper
and pens, books, extra old cell phones, and family/emergency contact list
4. Respondents were asked if they were familiar with the special needs of their neighbors in the event
of a disaster situation.
• 29, or 60.4% of respondents, answered that they are not familiar with the special
needs of their neighbors.
• 19, or 39.6% of respondents, answered that they are familiar with the special needs
of their neighbors.
5. Respondents were asked if they are trained members of their Community Emergency Response
Team (CERT).
• 35, or 71.4% of respondents indicated that they are part of CERT.
• 2, or 4.1% of respondents, indicated that they are not part of CERT, but would like to
learn more about CERT.
• 12, or 24.5% of respondents, indicated that they are not part of CERT and are not
interested in being a trained CERT member.
• 1 respondent skipped this question.
Respondents were asked to share why they are a trained CERT member or why they are not part of
CERT. The received responses are listed below:
• First responders focus on the big problems that only they can address. CERT attempts to fill
the gap by training and equipping residents to safely respond to less intensive emergencies
where the professionals are too overwhelmed to respond.
• We live in earthquake country.
• I am a member of CERT so that I am aware and informed and so I can contribute to helping
my neighbors.
• To be prepared for a disaster and to help my neighbors and community
• CERT, to give back to the community and build personal skills
• Helps meet a critical need
• I was trained in CERT many years ago and I have forgotten a lot
• Not part because I am already overwhelmed with family responsibilities.
• My husband is a CERT HAM radio member
• I have limited time, but I have received advanced first aid training and have participated in
the amateur radio emergency communications program.
• In April 2007, we had a power outage at 10pm. Ten of our neighbors went running around
trying to find out what happened. We decided after the power outage cause was known that
we should get prepared. At a safety fair, we signed up for CERT training (CERT).
• To be knowledgeable, prepared, and assist myself and others in the event of an emergency
• CERT is not the best use of citizen’s time for training. I am trained in Personal Emergency
Preparedness (PEP) and I am SEMS/NEMS trained. Citizens should be trained to take care
of themselves and neighbors for 72 hours and not be utilized to assist first responders.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-14
6. Respondents were asked what the most important thing local government can do to help
communities be more prepared for a disaster. The following summarizes the 34 responses received:
• Promote emergency preparedness and ensure that citizens have water and food for 72 hours
and have an emergency plan for their family
• Invest in infrastructure resiliency
• Seismic strengthening of infrastructure
• Citizen and City training/education and exercises (drills)
• City Emergency Communication
• Promote emergency awareness (through events and mailings)
• Create a disaster plan and make sure communities within City know of plan
• Create a Block Coordinator Program and identify block captains to carryout emergency
response plans
• Help coordinate CERT, PAN, CERT, and other organizations in Palo Alto
• Fund and support CERT and CERT programs
• Create stockpiles (food, water, etc) in case of emergency
• Encourage police/fire/utilities personnel to live in Palo Alto or within 5 miles
• Regionalize EOC operations for local agencies and give the lead to the Santa Clara County
Fire department
7. Respondents were asked if they live in an apartment building or home with a living space above a
garage or parking area.
• 43 or 87.8% of respondents indicated that they do not live in an apartment or home
with living space above a garage or parking area.
• 6, or 12.2% of respondents, indicated that they do live in an apartment building or
home with living space above a garage or parking area.
• One respondent skipped this question.
Those respondents who indicated that they do live in an apartment building or home with living
space above the garage or parking area were asked to describe their level of concern for the building
to collapse in a large earthquake event. 1 respondent indicated “Extremely Concerned”, 6 indicated
“Moderate Concern”, and 1 respondent indicated “Very Little Concern”.
8. Respondents who are homeowners were asked if they have adequate homeowners insurance to
cover the hazards that could impact their home. Below is a summary of responses:
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-15
Table 18-3: Adequate Homeowners Insurance
Answer Responses
Yes, my insurance coverage should be adequate 30
No, I don't believe my insurance coverage would be adequate for a major disaster 14
Unsure 4
I do not have an insurance policy 0
Not applicable, I rent my current residence 2
9. Respondents were asked if they have earthquake insurance. Below is a summary of responses:
Table 18-4: Earthquake Insurance
Answer Responses
Yes, I own my home and have earthquake insurance. 23
Yes, I rent my home and have earthquake insurance. 0
No, but I am interested in reviewing earthquake insurance options. 1
No, earthquake insurance is too expensive. 22
No, I do not need earthquake insurance. 1
10. Respondents were asked if they have flood insurance. Below is a summary of responses:
Table 18-5: Flood Insurance
Answer Responses
Yes, I own my home and have flood insurance. 11
Yes, I rent my home and have flood insurance. 0
No, but I am interested in reviewing flood insurance options. 2
No, I do not need flood insurance 33
11. Respondents indicated the following as additional insurance listed for their home or property:
• Comprehensive insurance
• Renter’s insurance
• Fire
• Umbrella liability
• Theft
• Homeowners
• Worker’s compensation insurance
12. Respondents were asked what they are doing to their property or within their home to reduce
future damage from the hazards identified above. Below is a summary of responses:
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-16
Table 18-6: Property Changes to Reduce Damage from Hazards
Property Mitigation Responses
Roof retrofit using fire resistant material 20
Seismic retrofit of the structure and/or foundation 18
Other * 10
Defensible space landscaping (clear vegetation around house to reduce wildfire risk) 9
Installed backflow prevention device(s) 7
Strengthened openings to reduce high hazard wind risk 7
House elevation or first floor modification to prevent flood damage 3
*The responses to “Other” were: “Re-enforcing foundation attachments and cripple walls”, “seismic
inspection of house”, “Cabinets bolted to walls and frame of house bolted to foundation”, and “home
has been checked for structure in earthquakes, do not have flood issues, may purchase a propane
generator.”
13. Respondents were asked if they work in Santa Clara County.
• 27, or 54% of respondents, indicated that they do work in Santa Clara County.
• 23, or 46% of respondents, indicated that they do not work in Santa Clara County.
14. Respondents were asked if their place of work is in an area susceptible to natural hazards.
Below is a list of natural hazards and responses from survey respondents:
Table 18-7: Place of Work in Hazard Areas
Natural Hazard Response
Earthquake fault zone 15
I don't know 9
Liquefaction zone 8
Other * 6
High-risk flood zone 5
Wildland urban interface (wildfire risk area) 3
Landslide risk area 0
* The responses to “Other” were: “It’s a commercial zone with many hazards and chemicals”, “not
employed”, and “retired”
15. Respondents were asked if their employer has a plan for disaster recovery in place.
• 20, or 58.8% of respondents, indicated that their employer does have a disaster
recovery plan in place.
• 8, or 23.5% of the respondents, indicated that their employer does not have a
disaster recovery plan in place.
• 6 respondents were unsure if their employer has a disaster recovery plan in place.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-17
• 16 respondents skipped this question.
16. Respondents were asked if their employer has a workforce communications plan to implement
following a disaster so they may contact their employees.
• 15, or 45.5% of respondents indicated that their employer does have a workforce
communications plan.
• 12, or 36.4% of respondents indicated that their employer does not have a workforce
communications plan.
• 6, or 18.2% of respondents indicated that they are unsure if their employer has a
workforce communications plan.
• 17 respondents skipped this question.
17. Respondents were asked to list any studies that they are aware of being conducted within their
community or the county regarding the risk to future hazard events. 7 respondents replied to this
question. These answers are summarized below. 43 respondents skipped this question.
• Earthquake and ground shake study
• Flood, creeks, and levees
• Pandemic
• CERT risk assessment inventories
• USGS study of 7.0 earthquake, 60% chance in the next 30 years
• Emergency potable water locations
• Most vulnerable buildings
18. Respondents were asked what recommendations they have for Santa Clara County and the
incorporated cities to improve identification, prioritization, and implementation of actions intended to
reduce future damage and increase resiliency. The following recommendations were received:
• Improve and harden all critical lifeline infrastructure: water delivery, communications, roads
and bridges, hospitals and clinics, health and sanitation services.
• Require local companies to have minimum disaster preparedness plans in place
• Require retrofit over a period of time of soft story/unsafe buildings (mostly apartments in
Palo Alto)
• Encourage the Water District to improve infrastructure
• Inspect older homes to see if they should be updated to meet current earthquake codes
• Inventory critical infrastructure
• Create a plan for CERT/CERT to observe infrastructure to save first responders for higher
value work during an emergency
• Provide retrofit assistance (loans)
• Educate and train citizens through CERT or BPC Program
19. Respondents were asked to recommend any companies or local associations that should be
involved in the Santa Clara County hazard mitigation planning process. The recommended
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-18
organizations are listed below and were given the opportunity to review the draft plan as noted in the
following section.
• NASA Ames
• Barron Park Association
20. Respondents were asked if they would like to review and comment on a draft of their
jurisdictions annex to the Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
• 17, or 45.9% of respondents said they would like to review and comment on the
draft plan.
• 20, or 54.1% of respondents said they would not like to review and comment on the
plan draft.
• 13 respondents skipped this question.
14 respondents who said they would like to review and comment on the draft plan included their
contact information and were given the opportunity to review the draft plan as noted in the following
section.
21. Respondents were asked to provide any additional comments/suggestions/questions. The
responses are summarized below:
• Each city needs a disaster plan and implementation by communication with the local
neighborhoods of that City. It is essential that the plan be in-place and ready to go when the
disaster hits.
• I live near an industrial area and there is no coordination between the emergency response
programs at those companies and those in the neighborhood
• More public reminders about disaster procedures in the community, more practice drills.
Post and communicate information regarding what to keep on hand, when to replace the
items, etc. Provide discounted emergency preparedness items that are recommended.
Provide training for HAM radio. Basically, make it cheap and easy for people to get what
they need to have on hand!
• I would love to understand what the contingency plan is for the breaking of the Hetch Hetchy
pipeline which I understand from the maps crosses several fault lines. I would also love to
understand what planning is in place for a wide outbreak of disease.
Review Opportunities
A review draft of this plan was submitted to Cal EMA on August 16, 2011, and subsequently
forwarded to FEMA for review and comment regarding compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act
of 2000. During this time the review draft was available for public review on the websites of the
Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services and the Association of Bay Area Governments.
No comments were received on the review draft, other than one from a community member in
response to the City Council's initial attempt to adopt the resolution in March 2012.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-19
On March 5, 2012, the Palo Alto City Council requested minor edits to the review draft prior to
adopting the plan. Those edits have been incorporated.
18.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
18.3.1 Mitigation Progress
The City’s primary objective is to protect human life through corrective action and measures to
mitigate the risks, to the extent practicable, identified in the plan. New mitigation actions the City of
Palo Alto has identified are discussed in Section 18.5.
18.3.1.1 Completed projects
In the past 5 years, electrical, mechanical, and information system upgrades have been made to a
number of city buildings, making their occupants better able to deal with emergency situations.
Seismic improvements have been completed on two libraries. Street resurfacing and traffic light
improvements have been made, allowing for better response to emergencies and more robust
evacuation routes.
A new storm water pump station was constructed adjacent to San Francisquito Creek downstream of
Highway 101 in 2007. Operation of the pump station decreases the likelihood of street flooding in a
1,250-acre area of northeastern Palo Alto.
18.3.1.2 Current projects
Currently, a project is underway to rebuild Mitchell Park Library and Mitchell Park Community
Center. The resulting buildings will be better able to withstand earthquakes and other emergencies.
Upgrades, which will make seismic and other improvements to the Main Library and the Arts Center,
are in the design phase. Electrical and mechanical upgrades are being made to City Hall and will be
completed in the summer of 2011.
The City has formed an Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) tasked with identifying
critical buildings, facilities, and related resources in need of improvement.1 The Public Safety
Building is one of their current projects.
18.3.2 Staff and Organizational Capabilities
18.3.2.1 Departmental Responsibilities
1 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/infrastructure_blue_ribbon_commission.asp
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-20
The City of Palo Alto operates several departments with capabilities for implementing hazard
mitigation strategies. These departments and their roles and responsibilities are summarized in the
following table.
Table 18-8: Key Departments in the City of Palo Alto
Key Departments in the City of Palo Alto (alphabetical order)
Departments
Community Services Department
The Community Services Department operates the Cubberley Community Center along with various
parks and other facilities, many of which are identified for use as shelters, evacuation points or have other
functions in a disaster. Further, the CSD Open Space Rangers are trained in wildland firefighting and
also support the Police Department in patrolling parks and the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI).
Fire Department
The City of Palo Alto Fire Department provides services to the city and to Stanford University. The large
number of high-technology businesses and the Stanford University campus increase the daytime
population to over twice the residential baseline population. The Fire Marshal and fire inspector staff
perform plan checks and other such functions to maintain the safety of buildings, as well as certain special
events.
Planning and Community Environment Department
Building Division
The mission of the Building Division is to ensure construction quality by reviewing construction plans for
conformance to building codes, permit processing, and inspecting projects while under construction.
Planning Section
The Planning Section provides staff support for the Planning & Transportation Commission, the
Architectural Review Board, the Historic Resources Board, and administers the City's housing programs
as well as preparing and monitoring the Comprehensive Plan and providing long-range planning studies.
This division also processes applications for planning entitlements. Code Enforcement Program
The Code Enforcement Program promotes maintaining a safe and desirable living and working
environment. We help improve the quality of our community
Police Department
The Palo Alto Police Department is committed to providing exceptional public safety services and taking
a leadership role in building community partnerships. The Police Department is responsible for
maintaining a core asset for emergency operations: the Communications Center, which provides dispatch
for Palo Alto Police Department, the Stanford Department Public Safety (DPS) police, the Palo Alto Fire
Department, as well as other government channels. This center serves as the 911 Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP) for the Palo Alto and Stanford communities.
Public Works Department
The Public Works Department is responsible for the approval, construction, maintenance and
management of Palo Alto's public facilities, streets, sidewalks, street trees; parking lots and storm drains.
The Public Works Department is also responsible for the administration and operation of the Palo Alto
Regional Water Quality Control Plant; and administration of the National Flood Insurance Program. In
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-21
addition, Public Works maintains the entire City fleet with full equipment replacement, preventative
maintenance and fueling.
Utilities Department
The Utilities Department is responsible for the approval, construction, maintenance and management of
Palo Alto's public electric, fiber, water, gas, and wastewater collection facilities. The Utilities Department
is also responsible for the maintenance and operation of the street light and traffic signal programs. In
addition to having the responsibility for the infrastructure, the Utilities Department purchases all of the
water, gas and electricity commodities used within the City.
With a clear hazard mitigation strategy, as outlined in this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City’s
departments are able to implement their ongoing policies and programs with consideration of the
identified hazard risks. In addition, these departments become aware of priority mitigation actions
and can offer resources (financial or staffing) to assist with the implementation of those actions.
18.3.2.2 Technical Capability
For a successful mitigation program, it is necessary to have a diverse breadth of staff and technical
capabilities. Planners, engineers, building inspectors, emergency managers, floodplain managers,
people familiar with Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and grant writers are all essential to
implementing mitigation actions. The following table summarizes the staffing capabilities available
within the City of Palo Alto.
Table 18-9: Technical Capability Matrix
Technical Capability Matrix
Land Use Planners Planning Section
Emergency manager Office of Emergency Services
Civil or Building Engineers Building Division
Floodplain manager Public Works
Staff knowledgeable about
hazards
Public Works, Community
Services, Utilities, Police, Fire
GIS staff Information Technology (IT)
Dept.
Grant writers
OES, Public Works, Utilities,
Police, Fire (no full-time,
however)
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-22
18.3.2.3 Fiscal Capability
The following summarizes Palo Alto’s fiscal capabilities in terms of the City’s financial resources
and allocated spending. Property Tax and Charges for Services are the primary sources of Palo Alto’s
financial resources. The City has allocated the majority of financial resources to Police, Fire and
Community Services. These three categories are all relevant for implementing hazard mitigation
actions.
In Utilities, the city collects, through our rates charged to customers, funds for maintaining or our
improving our infrastructure and to fund our reserves in the event of damage or failure to key
components of our infrastructure (such as a major water reservoir, or damage to electric substation
equipment.) Utilities maintains Emergency Plant Replacement Reserves for each fund (electric, gas,
water, wastewater collection, and fiber) that can be used to repair or replace key infrastructure
components up to the City’s insurance deductible amount (currently, $1 million). Additionally,
Utilities has bond financed the $33 million emergency water supply project to increase the City’s
water storage volume, groundwater supplies, and pumping capacities for emergency response
purposes.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-23
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-24
Table 18-10: Financing Mechanisms
Financing Mechanisms
Sa
l
e
s
T
a
x
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
T
a
x
Tr
a
n
s
i
e
n
t
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
Ta
x
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
U
s
e
r
s
T
a
x
Ot
h
e
r
T
a
x
e
s
a
n
d
Fi
n
e
s
Ch
a
r
g
e
s
f
o
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Pe
r
m
i
t
s
a
n
d
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
s
Re
t
u
r
n
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
Re
n
t
a
l
I
n
c
o
m
e
Fr
o
m
o
t
h
e
r
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
Ch
a
r
g
e
s
t
o
O
t
h
e
r
Fu
n
d
s
Ot
h
e
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
TO
T
A
L
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
Op
e
r
a
t
i
ng
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
-
In
TO
T
A
L
S
O
U
R
C
E
OF
F
U
N
D
S
18
,
2
1
8
25
,
9
0
7
7,
0
2
1
11
,
4
2
9
5,
8
6
8
19
,
9
5
0
4,
4
9
2
1,
6
4
6
13
,
7
1
6
15
6
10
,
6
2
2
1,
4
9
1
12
0
,
5
1
6
18
,
6
8
4
13
9
,
2
0
0
18.3.2.4 Policy or Program Capability
The City of Palo Alto has several plans and ordinances in place which provide ample opportunities
for implementing the hazard mitigation strategy outlined in this plan.
18.3.2.4.1 Summary of Plans that Support Hazard Mitigation
Emergency Operations Plan
The Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), dated 2007, identifies the City’s emergency
planning, organization, and response policies and procedures. The EOP also addresses the
integration and coordination with other governmental levels and volunteer agencies when required.
It is meant to be considered as a preparedness document, intended to be read and understood before
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-25
an emergency occurs. The major purposes of the plan are to distinguish who is in charge, to ensure
essential jobs are accomplished, to provide for the continuity of government, to help citizens and City
staff understand the City’s emergency organization, to provide guidance for disaster education and
training, and to provide for the proper transfer of command during an emergency. The Plan consists
of two parts: the Basic Plan and the Annexes.
The Basic Plan outlines how the City of Palo Alto fulfills its mandated requirements for emergency
management. It addresses how the City will respond to disaster emergencies, from preparation
through recovery. A hazard analysis and matrix are included in the plan. The responsibilities of each
department are identified in the matrices, which are based on each identified hazard. Although the
EOP lists several natural and man-made hazards that have the potential to affect Palo Alto, the City
has focused its disaster planning efforts on nine of these hazards: earthquake, hazardous materials
incident, flooding/dam failure/severe winter storm, wildland fires, urban fires, terrorism/nuclear
attack/act of war, airplane accident, and public health/pandemic. Maps of hazard areas are included
in the Plan.
One flood mitigation strategy that the City has implemented includes installing creek monitoring
devices to ensure the most accurate and up-to-date information regarding potential flooding is made
available. These devices provide creek level information. The images generated from the data can
be monitored by residents though the City’s website. City staff also monitor weather information to
receive advance warning and prepare for upcoming storms. Another flood mitigation strategy
described in this Plan is the seismic upgrading of the Boronda Lake dam.
Mitigation strategies for wildland and urban fires are also described in the Plan. Fire department
response times, staffing and service levels, water supply, public education, code enforcement, and
funding are the significant fire safety policy issues. Efforts to establish an emergency water supply
system are underway and the system should be in place and operational in 2012. The emergency
water supply project will provide Palo Alto with a self-sustaining emergency water supply.
The Basic Plan section of the EOP prescribes four phases of emergencies and disasters:
Preparedness, Prevention, Response, and Recovery.
Preparedness: Preparedness entails any actions taken in advance of an emergency/disaster to develop
operational capabilities and help communities respond to and recover from a disaster. Such measures
include the construction and equipping of EOCs with warning and communications systems,
recruitment and training of emergency management personnel, development of plans, procedures,
arrangements, and agreements, and drill exercises of personnel and systems. Training for emergency
response should be scheduled and conducted on an ongoing basis.
Mitigation/Prevention: Mitigation efforts include making adjustments to zoning variances, the
building code, and reviewing mitigation plans, seismic safety elements, and other land use planning
techniques. Within declared areas, management of non-profit special districts and the Palo Alto
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-26
Office of Emergency Services are responsible for identifying future projects that will substantially
reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, loss, or suffering from a disaster. Identification of these
projects occurs through updates to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Response: The City’s emergency response efforts follow the NIMS/SEMS based organization
structure. The activation of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) occurs during this phase.
Alerts to the public also occur during this phase. Alerts can be conducted through the City’s
Emergency Services website, through phone and e-mail lists, and through radio and broadcast
stations.
Recovery: Recovery refers to those measures undertaken by an entity following a disaster that will
return all systems (utilities, phones, government offices, etc.) to normal levels of service. Short term
recovery includes debris removal, utility restoration, health services, and the abatement and
demolition of hazardous structures. Long term recovery includes hazard mitigation activities,
reconstruction of public facilities, and improved EOP and land use planning, and the effective
integration of mitigation strategies into recovery planning operations.
The annexes contain details and supporting information on how Palo Alto will implement its
emergency preparedness, response, and recovery operations. Operational checklists by emergency
organization function, a Council Procedures Guide, hazard response checklists, and Palo Alto’s Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan are each given their own location in the annexes. State, County, and City
organizational charts, hazard emergency evacuation maps, a glossary of key definitions and
acronyms, and sample proclamations and ordinances are also included.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan is the primary tool for guiding the future development of the City. On a
daily basis the City is faced with choices about growth, housing, transportation, neighborhood
improvement, and service delivery. A Comprehensive Plan provides a guide for making these
choices by describing long-term goals for the City's future as well as policies to guide day-to-day
decisions. The 1998-2010 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) is the current
document that guides land use decision in the City. City staff is preparing an amendment to the
Comp Plan that, once adopted by City Council, will extend the current document through at least
2020. Discussions of local hazards, including goals, policies and programs to address these hazards,
are contained within the Natural Resources, Land Use and Housing Elements of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-27
Natural Resources Element
Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials are handled and stored on a number of properties in Palo Alto, primarily in the
East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore corridor, the University Avenue/Downtown Area,
the South of Forest Area, and at Stanford Research Park. The City will continue to work towards
remediation of contaminated sites and will prevent future contamination by following Best
Management Practices. Palo Alto will also continue City permitting procedures for commercial and
industrial storage, use, and handling of hazardous materials. Presently, to obtain a City permit
requires the verification that the facility meets applicable City code requirements for the storage and
handling of hazardous materials.
Earthquake
Past land use decisions in Palo Alto have not always taken hazards into consideration. Moreover,
older buildings and infrastructure reflect the construction and engineering standards of their era,
which in most cases fall short of current standards for seismic safety. As a result, a significant portion
of the City would be at risk in the event of a major earthquake. The greatest hazards are associated
with fault rupture and groundshaking, although liquefaction hazards are significant in the area east of
Highway 101 due to the porous nature and high water content of the soil. Landslides, a hazard that is
common in the foothills of Palo Alto, may result from heavy rain, erosion, removal of vegetation, or
human activities. Settlement and subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal has historically been a
problem in South and East Palo Alto, but has been largely halted by groundwater recharge efforts and
reduced pumping. Seismically-induced flooding is a hazard due to the possibility of dam failure at
Felt Lake, Searsville Lake, and Lagunita Reservoir, and the potential for levee failure near the Bay.
To help mitigate the damages that may result from a potential earthquake, Palo Alto will strictly
enforce uniform building code seismic safety restrictions and provide incentives for seismic retrofits
of structures in the University Avenue/Downtown area. The City will also allow development rights
achieved through seismic upgrading of specified sites to be transferred to designated eligible receiver
sites. Some parts of Palo Alto are at greater risk in a natural disaster than others. These areas could
be zoned or otherwise regulated to reduce their development potential and require detailed geologic
and engineering studies prior to development. The City already requires geologic and soils
investigations for development southwest of Interstate 280. Similar requirements should be explored
in other areas of the City prone to high geologic hazards.
Flooding
Flood hazards, including saltwater flooding from the Bay and freshwater flooding from creeks
overflowing their banks, are also likely to occur in Palo Alto. The City would like to minimize
exposure to flood hazards by adequately reviewing proposed development in flood prone areas and
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-28
by implementing the requirements of FEMA relating to construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas,
as illustrated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Another policy the City would like to establish includes
creating a standardized process for upgrading and evaluating the impacts of development on the
City’s storm drain system.
Fire
It is the City’s goal to minimize exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards through rapid
emergency response, a sufficient water supply, a proactive fire code enforcement, public education
programs, and adequate emergency management preparation. Wildfires are primarily associated with
homes built in the foothills. Fire hazard prevention in this area can be achieved through low-density
zoning, design reviews of development, and vegetation management.
Emergency Management
Palo Alto minimizes exposure to all hazards through emergency management planning. As part of
the preparedness process, various locations throughout the City are designated for shelter and
emergency operations. Palo Alto also encourages public education that strongly encourages each
household in the City to be prepared to be self-sufficient for at least 72 hours (2 weeks, preferred)
after a major earthquake. The city has partnered with the Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN)
organization to develop a Personal Preparedness 90-minute training for the general public, largely
modeled on existing FEMA and Red Cross curricula. PAN's Block Preparedness Coordinator
Program, in conjunction with the City's Emergency Services Volunteer Program (which includes
ARES/RACES and CERT), works with the City to prepare residents and businesses for all hazards,
ranging from crime to earthquakes. The City has held two annual citywide exercises, called
Quakeville, to bolster these efforts. Neighborhood Watch and crime prevention are included in the
BPC program.
Land Use Element
The amount of urban land in Palo Alto in 2010 will remain essentially the same as it was when the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998, with growth occurring through infill and redevelopment.
New non-residential growth will be limited (a limit of 3,257,900 square feet for commercial
development), as well as the growth of Stanford University and the Lands Within the Airport
Influence Area. Palo Alto would like to promote more mixed-use development, similar to the South
of Forest Area (SOFA). It is the City’s goal to retain undeveloped land west of the Foothill
Expressway, west of the Junipero Serra, and in the baylands northeast of Highway 101 as open space.
Palo Alto recognizes that utility and other City infrastructure improvements need to be carefully
designed to minimize negative environmental impacts. This applies throughout the City with special
attention given to the baylands and foothills, where improvements should generally be located as
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-29
close as possible to access roads. The City should also continue with the undergrounding of utility
wires.
Housing Element
The Housing Element is prepared to ensure that the population of Palo Alto has access to safe and
affordable housing. To promote safe housing, the City has a housing code inspection and
enforcement program. The City also enacts development regulations that encourage retention and
rehabilitation of historic residential buildings, older multifamily buildings, and smaller single family
residences. The City believes it is critical to use the development review process as a way to reduce
exposure to hazards for new housing projects. The design and operation of new projects in risk-prone
areas must consider relevant geologic, seismic, flood, and fire hazards.
Floodplain Management Ordinance
In an effort to reduce the risk of loss of life, health, and property due to periodic flood inundation, the
In an effort to reduce the risk of loss of life, health, and property due to periodic flood inundation, the
City of Palo Alto has adopted a Flood Hazard Regulations Ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 16.52. The ordinance is designed to minimize loss of life, damage to private land
development, public facilities and utilities, the need for rescue and relief efforts, business
interruptions, and future blighted areas caused by flooding. The ordinance also ensures that property
owners construct new and substantially-improved buildings in the Special Flood Hazard Area in a
manner that protect the improvements from flood damage. The City Engineer is responsible for
enforcing this ordinance.
To reduce flood losses, the ordinance includes methods and provisions to control the alteration of
natural floodplains, stream channels, and protective barriers; to control filling, grading, dredging and
other development that can increase flood damage; to regulate the construction of flood barriers
which can divert flood waters or increase flood hazards in other areas; and to require that uses
vulnerable to floods be protected against flood damage at the time of their construction. One of the
provisions of this ordinance is that a development permit must be obtained before any construction or
development begins and that certain construction standards such as; anchoring, building with flood
resistant materials, and elevating and floodproofing, are required within an area of special flood
hazard. The ordinance also enforces that new and replacement water and sanitary sewage systems
should be designed to minimize flood water infiltration and discharge into flood waters. Standards
are also included for subdivisions, manufactured homes, and recreational vehicles. Since floodways
are extremely hazardous, no new development is permitted to be constructed in these areas unless
certification by a professional engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that the development
will not increase base flood elevations. This ordinance also has special regulations for new
development within a coastal high hazard area. These regulations ensure that new construction is
located on the landward side of the reach of mean high tide, the space below the lowest floor is free
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-30
of obstructions or constructed with breakaway walls and is not used for human habitation, there is no
manmade alteration of sand dunes, and that fill is not used as structural support of a building.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-31
18.3.2.4.2 Summary of Ordinances that Support Hazard Mitigation
Table 18-11: Availability of Ordinances that Support Hazard Mitigation
Availability of Ordinances that Support Hazard Mitigation
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
Fl
o
o
d
Pl
a
i
n
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
Or
d
in
a
n
c
e
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Po
s
t
-di
s
a
s
t
e
r
Re
d
/
R
e
c
.
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
Fi
r
e
C
o
d
e
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l
Fl
o
o
d
In
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
NF
I
P
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ra
t
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
City of
Palo Alto Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
The City of Palo Alto identified several ordinances and policies currently utilized for hazard
mitigation in the matrix of regional mitigation strategies prepared by ABAG as part of the 2010 plan
update. Below is a summary of these key ordinances and policies.
Flood Plain and NFIP: Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.52, Flood Hazard Regulations, was
adopted by the City in order to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and
federal regulations. The ordinance is designed to minimize loss of life, damage to private land
development, public facilities and utilities, the need for rescue and relief efforts, business
interruptions, and future blighted areas caused by flooding. The ordinance also ensures that property
owners construct new and substantially-improved buildings in the Special Flood Hazard Area in a
manner that protect the improvements from flood damage.
Zoning: The zoning ordinance includes floodplain regulations, special requirements for hazardous
waste facilities, instructions on the permit and approval process, and requirements for nonconforming
uses.
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$
fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca
Fire: Fire prevention in Palo Alto is regulated by the California and International Fire Code. Both of
these codes have been adopted by the City.
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$
fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-32
18.3.3 National Flood Insurance Program
For decades, the national response to flood disasters was simply to provide disaster relief to flood
victims. Funded by citizen tax dollars, this approach failed to reduce losses and didn't provide a way
to cover the damage costs of all flood victims. To compound the problem, the public generally
couldn't buy flood coverage from insurance companies, because private insurance companies
consider floods too costly to insure. In the face of mounting flood losses and escalating costs of
disaster relief to U.S. taxpayers, Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The goals of the program are to reduce future flood damage through floodplain management, and to
provide people with flood insurance. Community participation in the NFIP is voluntary.
The City of Palo Alto has participated in the National Flood Insurance Program since 1974. All
residents of the City are eligible to purchase federal flood insurance. The City continues to maintain
full compliance with the NFIP.
Since the previously-approved Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) converted the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of Palo Alto from a paper
format to a digital format and converted the vertical datum from NGVD29 to NAVD88. No new
properties were added to the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as a result of the map update. City
staff has imported the digital floodplain map data into the City's Geographic Information System
(GIS).
City staff continues to regulate development activity in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) in
order to ensure that new construction and substantial improvements are constructed with their lowest
floor at or above the Base Flood Elevation. The City's flood hazard regulations are contained in
Chapter 16.52 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
In order to facilitate the enforcement of the flood hazard regulations, City staff has incorporated
FEMA's digital floodplain data into its Geographic Information System (GIS). This has resulted in
more accurate identification of the properties located within the Special Flood Hazard Area and the
Base Flood Elevations associated with those properties.
The City of Palo Alto continues to implement its floodplain management program and is in good
standing with the Region IX Office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The City
received good evaluations during audits conducted on its floodplain management program and for its
participation in the Community Rating System in 2010.
The primary hurdle to effectively implementing the regulatory elements of the National Flood
Insurance Program is public education and gaining public recognition of flood risk. Staff conducts
public outreach on flood preparedness and provides adequate resources to answer public inquiries
and to review land development applications in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of
the National Flood Insurance Program.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-33
18.3.3.1 Community Rating System (CRS)
The CRS is a voluntary part of the National Flood Insurance Program that seeks to coordinate all
flood-related activities, reduce flood losses, facilitate accurate insurance rating, and promote public
awareness of flood insurance by creating incentives for a community to go beyond minimum
floodplain management requirements. The incentives are in the form of insurance premium
discounts. CRS ratings are on a 10-point scale (from 10 to 1, with 1 being the best rating), with
residents of the community who live within FEMA’s Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) receiving
a 5% reduction in flood insurance rates for every Class improvement in the community’s CRS rating.
The City of Palo Alto joined the Community Rating System in October 1991 and has a current class
rating of 7. Properties within FEMA’s Special Flood Hazard Areas in Palo Alto receive a 15%
reduction in flood insurance rates. Properties outside the SFHA within Palo Alto receive a 5%
discount in flood insurance rates.
18.3.3.2 Repetitive Loss Properties
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) insures properties against flooding losses
in the Bay Area through the National Flood Insurance Program.
(http://www.fema.gov/about/programs/nfip/index.shtm)
As part of the process to reduce or eliminate repetitive flooding to structures across the United
States, FEMA has developed an official Repetitive Loss Strategy. The purpose behind the
national strategy is to identify, catalog, and propose mitigation measures to reduce flood losses to
the relatively few number of structures that absorb the majority of the premium dollars from the
national flood insurance fund.
A repetitive loss property is defined by FEMA as “a property for which two or more
National Flood Insurance Program losses of at least $1,000 each have been paid within any 10-
year period since 1978.”
The City of Palo Alto has five repetitive flood loss properties. The following is a table
summarizing repetitive losses in the City.
City and
County
Total
Payments ($)
Average
Payment ($) Losses Properties Properties (as of
2004)
Palo Alto 692,067.82 40,709.87 17 5 6
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-34
There are 5 Repetitive Loss Properties in the City of Palo Alto, as listed below:
1020 Amarillo Avenue, Single-family residential
438 Chaucer Street, Single-family residential
419 Palm Street, Single-family residential
1141 Colorado Avenue , Multi-family residential
2023 E. Bayshore Road, Commercial
In order to minimize the flood risk to these properties, the City of Palo Alto annually sends a letter to
the property owner of each Repetitive Loss Property educating the owner as to their flood risk and
potential actions that they can take to reduce their risk of flood damages. The letter can be found in
Palo Alto Attachment 2: Repetitive Loss Letter.
Source: http://quake.abag.ca.gov/mitigation/floodloss/
18.3.4 Resource List:
Documents used in the assembly of this Capability Assessment include: City website, FY11
Proposed Operating Budget, Capital Improvements Budget, Comprehensive Plan, Floodplain
Management Ordinance, and Capital Improvements Plan.
18.4 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
18.4.1 Critical Facilities
During the development of this 2011 annex, the City identified numerous critical facilities and
provided this list to ABAG in participation with the regional planning process. A summary listing of
these facilities is shown in Table 18-12.
Table 18-12: City of Palo Alto Critical Facilities
Facility Name Address Critical Function
Montebello Reservoir 1250 Montebello Rd
Potable Water
Reservoir
Corte Madera Reservoir 1521 Arastradero Rd
Potable Water
Reservoir
Corte Madera Booster St 1521 Arastradero Rd
Potable Water
Booster St
Cubberley Comm Ctr 4000 Middlefield Shelter
Fire Station #4 3600 Middlefield Rd Fire Station
Adobe Pump Station 1196 East Meadow Dr
Storm Water
Pump Station
Park Blvd. Substation 3291 Park Blvd Electric Substation
Gas Station 2 Alma & Colorado
Natural Gas
Station
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-35
Facility Name Address Critical Function
Colorado Substation 1040 Colorado Ave Electric Utility
Matadero Pump Station* 1082 Colorado
Storm Water
Pump Station
Fire Station #1 301 Alma Street Fire Station
Quarry Substation 281 Quarry Rd Electric Substation
City Hall 250 Hamilton Ave OFFICE
Airport Pump Station 1925 Embarcadero Rd
Storm Water
Pump Station
Utility Engineering 1007 Elwell Ct Recovery
Colorado Pump Station 2999 W Bayshore Rd,
Storm Water
Pump Station
Water Quality Control Plant 2501 Embarcadero Way
Regional
Wastewater
Treatment
Utility Control Center 3241 East Bayshore
Similar to Utility
EOC
Gas Station 4 3241 East Bayshore
Natural Gas
Station
Municipal Services Ctr 3201 East Bayshore Rd Recovery
Gas Station 3 1961 Old Page Mill Rd
Natural Gas
Station
Fire Station #8 3300 Page Mill Rd
Fire Station
(Seasonal)
Quarry Booster Station 1961 Page Mill Rd.
Potable Water
Booster St
Park Reservoir 3640 Page Mill Rd
Potable Water
Reservoir
Park Booster Station 3640 Page Mill Rd
Potable Water
Booster St
Boronda Reservoir 2962 Page Mill Rd
Potable Water
Reservoir
Maybell Substation 527 Maybell Electric Substation
California Turnout 500 California
Potable
Water/Fluoride
Hansen Way Substation 950 Hansen Way Electric Substation
Embarcadero Pump Station 1199 Alma
Storm Water
Pump Station
Gas Station 1 1735 Embarcadero
Natural Gas
Station
Development Center 285 Hamilton Ave Recovery
San Francisquito Pump
Station* 2027 East Bayshore Road
Storm Water
Pump Station
University Pump Station 97 University Ave
Storm Water
Pump Station
Sand Hill Turnout 50 El Camino Real
Potable
Water/Fluoride
Police Station 275 Forest Ave
PD/EOC/Comm
Center
Fire Station #5 600 Arastradero Rd Fire Station
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-36
Facility Name Address Critical Function
Arastradero Turnout 694 Arastradero
Potable
Water/Fluoride
Mayfield Reservoir 1711 Stanford Ave
Potable Water
Reservoir
Mayfield Booster Station 1711 Stanford Ave
Potable Water
Booster St
Fire Station #2 2675 Hanover St Fire Station
Hanover Substation 3350 Hanover Electric Substation
Dahl Reservoir 3920 Page Mill Rd
Potable Water
Reservoir
Dahl Booster Station 3920 Page Mill Rd
Potable Water
Booster St
Fire Station #6 711 Sierra St, Stanford Univ Fire Station
Page Mill Turnout 1899 Page Mill Rd
Potable
Water/Fluoride
Boronda Booster Station 3570 Page Mill Rd
Potable Water
Booster St
Fire Station #3 799 Embarcadero Fire Station
Hopkins Substation 1350 Hopkins Electric Substation
Fire Station #7 2575 Sand Hill Rd. SLAC Fire Station
Lytton Turnout 315 El Camino Real
Potable
Water/Fluoride
This list of critical facilities and available information for them is available digitally in an excel
spreadsheet from the City. A complete printing of the critical facilities data is included in Palo Alto
Attachment 3: Palo Alto Exposure Analysis.
*These facilities (San Francisquito Creek and Matedero Creek pumping stations) were added to the
critical facilities list during final review of this draft and after the completion of the exposure
analysis. These facilities should be added to the GIS mapping for inclusion in future exposure
analyses and updates to this plan.
18.4.2 Exposure Analysis
Exposure analyses are used to quantify assets which are “exposed” to risk. This is the first step
towards understanding the complete value of assets at risk to identified hazards. This section includes
an exposure analysis (discussion of assets at risk) for the profiled hazards in Section 4.
Overlay analyses (using GIS) were conducted for the mappable hazards such as wildfire, flood, and
the earthquake related hazards. These analyses compare the location of the critical facilities with the
mapped hazard area (i.e. floodplains, wildfire threat zones, shaking potential areas, etc.) and result in
a listing of which facilities are at most risk to which hazard. Not all hazards are mappable and some
hazards, such as drought, are equally likely throughout the entire County. For these hazards, a
general exposure summary is presented in Section 18.4.2.1.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-37
18.4.2.1 General Exposure
ABAG’s website (http://quake.abag.ca.gov/mitigation/landuse/) presents the results of the regional
exposure analysis through a searchable online database. Users can view the summaries of land use
and infrastructure exposed to the mappable hazards. This section presents the general summary of
land use and infrastructure in the City of Palo Alto. These should be considered at risk to the hazards
of equal likelihood throughout the entire County geography (i.e. drought, extreme heat,
thunderstorm, etc). Acre totals are rounded.
JURISDICTION:
COUNTY:
HAZARD:
BASIS:
Palo Alto
Santa Clara
Land Use
Existing Land Use, 2005 using 2009 hazard mapping
Total Acres
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL LAND [excluding mixed use]: 3,952
1 unit/1-5 acre lot (Rural Residential) 207
1-3 units/acre 826
3-8 units/acre 2,395
>8 units/acre 524
Mobile Home Parks 1
TOTAL MIXED RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL: 23
Within a Land Area 0
Within a Building 0
Mixture of Above or Unknown 23
TOTAL MIXED COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL: 6
TOTAL INDUSTRIAL [excluding mixed]: 394
Light Industrial 50
Heavy Industrial 254
Salvage/Recyling, Mixture or Unknown 61
Food Processing, Warehousing 29
TOTAL MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE: 1,683
Roads, Highway and Related Facilities 1,523
Rail Stations, Yards and Related Facilities 17
Airports 120
Ports 0
Power Facilities 3
Municipal Wastewater Facilities 0
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-38
Municipal Water Supply Facilities 0
Communication Facilities 19
Infrastructure--Other, Unknown 0
TOTAL MILITARY: 3
Military Residential 0
Military Hospital 3
Military Communications 0
Military Airport or Port 0
General Military 0
Open Military Lands 0
Closed Military Facilities 0
TOTAL COMMERCIAL/SERVICES [excluding mixed]: 1,552
Subtotal-Commercial: 1,042
Retail/Wholesale 282
Research/Office 660
Comm. Outdoor Recreation 17
Other, Mixture or Unknown 83
Subtotal-Education: 243
Educational Offices and Day Care 4
Elementary/Secondary 208
Colleges/Universities 28
Stadium Facilities 0
University Housing 0
Day Care Facilities 4
Subtotal-Hospitals and Health Care 177
Trauma Center Hospitals 58
Community or Local Hospitals 117
Surgery Centers 0
State Prisons 0
State Mental Health Facilities 0
Clinics and Long-Term Care 3
Subtotal-Public Institutions: 89
Convention Centers 0
Sports Stadiums 0
Churches/Synagogues/Other 67
City Halls/County Administration 4
Local Jails 0
Local Police/Fire/Emergency 3
Other-Comm. Centers/Libraries 14
2,237
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-39
TOTAL URBAN OPEN:
Golf Courses 329
Racetracks 0
Campgrounds and Other 41
Cemeteries
72
Parks 1,650
Vacant--Cleared for Redevelopment 0
Vacant--Undeveloped 102
Mixed Urban Open, Including Parks 43
TOTAL AGRICULTURE: 0
Cropland and Pasture 0
Orchards/Groves/Vineyards 0
Greenhouses 0
Confined Feeding 0
Farmsteads and Inactive 0
TOTAL RANGELAND: 3,925
Herbaceous Range 2,942
Shrub and Brush 109
Mixed Range 875
TOTAL WETLANDS [Based on USGS Mapping]: 422
Forested 0
Non-Forested 363
Salt Evaporators 60
Wetlands--Unknown 0
TOTAL FOREST LAND: 1,049
Deciduous 51
Evergreen 812
Mixed Forest 186
TOTAL SPARSELY VEGETATED: 9
Beaches 0
Other Sand 0
Bare Rock 2
Mines/Quarries 6
Transitional--Landfills 0
Transitional--Other 0
Transitional--Mixture 0
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-40
Mixed Sparsely Vegetated 0
=========
Total Acres
TOTAL URBAN LAND: 9,849
TOTAL NON-URBAN LAND: 5,406
GRAND TOTAL: 15,255
Source:
Association of Bay Area Governments, 2009.
Note: Because of independent rounding, subcategories may not add to totals.
JURISDICTION:
COUNTY:
HAZARD:
BASIS:
Palo Alto
Santa Clara
Land Use
Existing Infrastructure, 2009
Total Miles
ROADS: 258
Interstate Highway 5
Primary US/State Highway 10
Secondary State/Co Highway 57
Local Road 169
Misc Ramp/Road 18
TRANSIT: 4
Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) 0
Amtrak 0
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) 0
Caltrain 4
San Francisco Muni Metro 0
Santa Clara VTA 0
RAIL: 5
All Railroads 5
PIPELINES: 226
Pipelines Under Roads 226
=========
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-41
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, 2009.
Miles of pipeline is an approximation based on miles of road within water service area
boundaries and does not include major aqueducts.
Miles of pipeline is miles of water pipelines. Miles of sewer pipelines should be
approximately the same.
Note: Because of independent rounding, subcategories may not add to totals.
18.4.2.2 Critical Facilities Exposure by Hazard
ABAG’s website (http://quake.abag.ca.gov/mitigation/cf2010/) presents the results of the regional
facilities exposure analysis through a searchable online database. Users can view the summaries of
how many facilities are exposed to the mappable hazards by category: health care facilities, schools,
critical facilities, and bridges/interchanges. For the purposes of developing a City specific mitigation
strategy, this section identifies which of the City’s critical facilities are located in the mapped hazard
areas.
The complete results from ABAG’s exposure analysis are available digitally in an excel spreadsheet
from the City. A complete printing of these results is included in Palo Attachment 3: Palo Alto
Exposure Analysis.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-42
18.4.2.2.1 Earthquake Related Hazards
Ground Shaking
Source: CA Department of Conservation
Critical
Facility
Peak
Acceleration
(%G)
Perceived
Shaking
Potential
Damage
Instrumen
tal
Intensity
Bldg
Insured
Value
Contents
Insured
Value
Corte Madera
Reservoir 135 Extreme
Very
Heavy X+
Corte Madera
Booster St 135 Extreme
Very
Heavy X+
Fire Station #7 135 Extreme
Very
Heavy X+
Park Blvd.
Substation 125 Extreme
Very
Heavy X+
Gas Station 2 125 Extreme Very X+
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-43
Critical
Facility
Peak
Acceleration
(%G)
Perceived
Shaking
Potential
Damage
Instrumen
tal
Intensity
Bldg
Insured
Value
Contents
Insured
Value
Heavy
Mayfield
Reservoir 125 Extreme
Very
Heavy X+
Mayfield
Booster
Station 125 Extreme
Very
Heavy X+
Lytton Turnout 125 Extreme
Very
Heavy X+
Montebello
Reservoir 115 Violent Heavy IX
Cubberley
Comm Ctr 115 Violent Heavy IX
Fire Station #4 115 Violent Heavy IX $369,480 $38,474
San
Francisquito
Pump Station 115 Violent Heavy IX
Colorado
Substation 115 Violent Heavy IX
Matadero
Pump Station 115 Violent Heavy IX
Fire Station #1 115 Violent Heavy IX
$1,357,26
8 $137,484
Quarry
Substation 115 Violent Heavy IX
Utility
Engineering 115 Violent Heavy IX
Colorado
Pump Station 115 Violent Heavy IX
Water Quality
Control Plant 115 Violent Heavy IX
Utility Control
Center 115 Violent Heavy IX
Gas Station 4 115 Violent Heavy IX
Municipal
Services Ctr 115 Violent Heavy IX
$7,295,08
1 $1,843,113
Gas Station 3 115 Violent Heavy IX
Fire Station #8 115 Violent Heavy IX $121,279 $19,133
Park Reservoir 115 Violent Heavy IX
Park Booster
Station 115 Violent Heavy IX
Boronda 115 Violent Heavy IX
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-44
Critical
Facility
Peak
Acceleration
(%G)
Perceived
Shaking
Potential
Damage
Instrumen
tal
Intensity
Bldg
Insured
Value
Contents
Insured
Value
Reservoir
Maybell
Substation 115 Violent Heavy IX
California
Turnout 115 Violent Heavy IX
Hansen Way
Substation 115 Violent Heavy IX
Embarcadero
Pump Station 115 Violent Heavy IX
Gas Station 1 115 Violent Heavy IX
Development
Center 115 Violent Heavy IX
University
Pump Station 115 Violent Heavy IX
Sand Hill
Turnout 115 Violent Heavy IX
Police Station 115 Violent Heavy IX
Fire Station #5 115 Violent Heavy IX $434,301 $41,925
Fire Station #2 115 Violent Heavy IX
$1,107,29
0 $107,164
Hanover
Substation 115 Violent Heavy IX
Dahl Reservoir 115 Violent Heavy IX
Dahl Booster
Station 115 Violent Heavy IX
Fire Station #6 115 Violent Heavy IX
Boronda
Booster
Station 115 Violent Heavy IX
Adobe Pump
Station 105 Violent Heavy IX
Airport Pump
Station 105 Violent Heavy IX
Quarry
Booster
Station 105 Violent Heavy IX
Page Mill
Turnout 105 Violent Heavy IX
Fire Station #3 105 Violent Heavy IX $383,804 $39,938
Hopkins
Substation 105 Violent Heavy IX
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-45
Critical
Facility
Peak
Acceleration
(%G)
Perceived
Shaking
Potential
Damage
Instrumen
tal
Intensity
Bldg
Insured
Value
Contents
Insured
Value
Arastradero
Turnout 95 Violent Heavy IX
Soft Story Multi-Family Dwellings
In 2003, the Collaborative for Disaster Mitigation at San Jose State University completed an
“Inventory of Soft-First Story Multi-Family Dwellings in Santa Clara County”. At that time, the City
of Palo Alto had 130 soft-first story multi-family buildings including 1,263 residential units housing
3,158 occupants. Figure 18-1 below identifies the locations of these buildings. Refer to the City's
Comprehensive Plan and building regulations regarding unreinforced masonry buildings.
Figure 18-1: Inventory of Soft-First Story Multi-Family Dwellings-City of Palo Alto
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-46
Subsequently, the City surveyed soft story structures and developed the following list of addresses:
1851 Alma
3043 Alma
3053 Alma
3065 Alma
3079 Alma
3087-3095 Alma
3297 Alma
3353 Alma
3357 Alma
4157 Byron
4160 Byron
4170 Byron
4171 Byron
4180 Byron
4185 Byron
4190 Byron
720 California
750 California
780 California
122/124/126/128 Channing
460 Channing
634 College
657 College
664 College
811 College
819 College
827 College
725 Cowper
825 Cowper
936 Cowper
220 Curtner Bldg 1 & 2
241 Curtner Bldg 1 & 2
242 Curtner
250 Curtner Bldg 1 & 2
301 Curtner
320 Curtner
322 Curtner
330 Curtner
350 Curtner
380 Curtner Bldg 1 & 2
385 Curtner
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-47
391 Curtner
3943 El Camino Real
518 Everett
528 Everett
600-619 Forest
628 Forest
640 Forest
660-666 Forest
668-674 Forest
446-456 Grant
456-464 Grant
630-640 Hamilton
403-407 James
409-419 James
420 James
562 Kendall
630 Los Robles Bldg 1 & 2
559 Matadero
4211 McKellar Bldg 1 & 2
4217 McKellar
801 Middlefield
3903 Middlefield
575 Middlefield
759 Middlefield
3909 Middlefield
570 Oxford
3833 Park
3860 Park
3875 Park
1072 Tanland
1080 Tanland
1090 Tanland
1091 Tanland
1093 Tanland
1094 Tanland
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-48
696 Towle
800 University
812 University Bldg 1 & 2
831 University
836 University Bldg 1 & 2
220 Ventura
290 Ventura
310 Ventura
330 Ventura Bldg 1 & 2
382/384/386/388 Ventura
392/394/396/398 Ventura
438 Ventura
443 Ventura
557 Vista Bldg 1 & 2
925 Waverly
355 Webster Bldg 1 & 2
440 Webster
889 Webster
2051 Wellesley Bldg 1 & 2
4290 Wilkie
4292 Wilkie
4292 Wilkie
4296 Wilkie
4298 Wilkie
2134 Williams
2145 Williams
2175 Williams
2259 Williams Bldg 1 & 2
2305 Yale
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-49
Earthquake Induced Liquefaction
Source: Santa Clara Planning Office
Critical Facility
Liquefaction Hazard
Zone
Bldg Insured
Value
Contents Insured
Value
Airport Pump Station Very High
Utility Engineering Very High
Colorado Pump Station Very High
Water Quality Control
Plant Very High
Utility Control Center Very High
Gas Station 4 Very High
Municipal Services Ctr Very High $7,295,081 $1,843,113
Cubberley Comm Ctr High
Fire Station #4 High $369,480 $38,474
San Francisquito High
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-50
Critical Facility
Liquefaction Hazard
Zone
Bldg Insured
Value
Contents Insured
Value
Pump Station
Adobe Pump Station High
Matadero Pump Station
Surface Rupture
Source: CA Geological Survey, State of CA Department of Conservation
There are no critical facilities located in a fault rupture hazard zone in Palo Alto, CA.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-51
Earthquake Induced Landslides
Source: Santa Clara Planning Office, CA State Department of Conservation
Critical Facility
Within Landslide Hazard
Zone
Bldg Insured
Value
Contents Insured
Value
Montebello
Reservoir Yes
Quarry Booster
Station Yes
Page Mill Turnout Yes
18.4.2.2.2 Infrastructure Failure
Palo Alto does not have any additional unique concerns or vulnerabilities regarding the hazard of
infrastructure failure as presented in Section 4.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-52
18.4.2.2.3 Wildfire
Source: CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Critical Facility
Fire Hazard
Zone
Bldg Insured
Value
Contents Insured
Value
Montebello Reservoir High
Corte Madera
Reservoir High
Corte Madera Booster
St High
Park Reservoir High
Park Booster Station High
Boronda Booster
Station High
Fire Station #8 High $121,279 $19,133
Boronda Reservoir High
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-53
Critical Facility
Fire Hazard
Zone
Bldg Insured
Value
Contents Insured
Value
Quarry Booster Station High
Page Mill Turnout High
Airport Pump Station High
18.4.2.2.4 Flooding
Source: FEMA- Santa Clara County DFIRM, 2009
Critical Facility
Flood Zone (%
annual chance)
BLDG Insured
Value
Contents Insured
Value
Adobe Pump Station 1%
Utility Engineering 1%
Colorado Pump Station 1%
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-54
Critical Facility
Flood Zone (%
annual chance)
BLDG Insured
Value
Contents Insured
Value
Water Quality Control
Plant
1%
Utility Control Center 1%
Gas Station 4 1%
Municipal Services Center 1% $7,295,081 $1,843,113
Matadero Pump Station 1%
Airport Pump Station 1%
San Francisquito
Pump Station 1%
Montebello Reservoir .2%
Corte Madera Reservoir .2%
Corte Madera Booster St .2%
Cubberley Comm Ctr .2%
Fire Station #4 .2% $369,480 $38,474
Park Blvd Substation .2%
Gas Station 2 .2%
Colorado Substation .2%
Matadero Pump Station .2%
Fire Station #1 .2% $1,357,268 $137,484
Quarry Substation .2%
Maybell Substation .2%
California Turnout .2%
Hansen Way Substation .2%
Embarcadero Pump
Station
.2%
Gas Station 1 .2%
Development Center .2%
University Pump Station .2%
Sand Hill Turnout .2%
Police Station .2%
Fire Station #5 .2% $434,301 $41,925
Arastradero Turnout .2%
Fire Station #2 .2% $1,107,290 $107,164
Hanover Substation .2%
Dahl Reservoir .2%
Dahl Booster Station .2%
Page Mill Turnout .2%
Boronda Booster Station .2%
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-55
Critical Facility
Flood Zone (%
annual chance)
BLDG Insured
Value
Contents Insured
Value
Fire Station #3 .2% $383,804 $39,938
Hopkins Substation .2%
Fire Station #7 .2%
Lytton Turnout .2%
Sea Level Rise
Several facilities may be impacted by sea level rise as shown in Table 18-13.
Table 18-13: Critical Facilities at risk to Sea Level Rise
Facility Name Address
16 inch
rise
55 inch
rise
Adobe Pump Station
1196 East Meadow
Dr X X
Airport Pump Station
1925 Embarcadero
Rd X
Utility Engineering 1007 Elwell Ct X X
Matadero Pump Station 1082 Colorado Ave. X X
San Francisquito
Pump Station
2027 East Bayshore
Rd.
X X
Colorado Pump Station
2999 W Bayshore
Rd,
X X
Water Quality Control
Plant
2501 Embarcadero
Way
X X
Utility Control Center 3241 East Bayshore X
Gas Station 4 3241 East Bayshore X
Municipal Services Ctr
3201 East Bayshore
Rd X
18.4.2.2.5 Drought
All populations, facilities, and assets are equally at risk to impact from drought. The City of Palo
Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of drought as presented in Section 4.
18.4.2.2.6 Solar Storm
All populations, facilities, and assets are equally at risk to impact from solar storm events. The City
of Palo Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of solar storm as presented in
Section 4.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-56
18.4.2.2.7 Dam Failure
Source: ABAG, 1995. Dam data from State of California Office of Emergency Services
Critical Facility
Dam
Failure
Inundation
Area Bldg Insured Value Contents Insured Value
Fire Station #3 2 $383,804 $39,938
Hopkins Substation 2
Colorado Substation 1
Colorado Pump Station 1
Matadero Pump Station 1
San Francisquito Pump Station 1
Fire Station #1 1 $1,357,268 $137,484
Quarry Substation 1
Airport Pump Station 1
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-57
Critical Facility
Dam
Failure
Inundation
Area Bldg Insured Value Contents Insured Value
Water Quality Control Plant 1
Municipal Services Center 1 $7,295,081 $1,843,113
Embarcadero Pump Station 1
Gas Station 1 1
Development Center 1
University Pump Station 1
Sand Hill Turnout 1
Police Station 1
Fire Station #7 1
Lytton Turnout 1
18.4.2.2.8 Disease Outbreak
All populations, facilities, and assets are equally at risk to impact from disease outbreak. The City of
Palo Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of disease outbreak as presented in
Section 4.
18.4.2.2.9 Freeze
All populations, facilities, and assets are equally at risk to impact from freeze occurrences. The City
of Palo Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of freeze as presented in
Section 4.
18.4.2.2.10 Wind
All populations, facilities, and assets are equally at risk to impact from high winds. The City of Palo
Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of wind as presented in Section 4.
18.4.2.2.11 Heat
All populations, facilities, and assets are equally at risk to impact from extreme heat events. The City
of Palo Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of heat as presented in Section
4.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-58
18.4.2.2.12 Agricultural Pest
The City of Palo Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of agricultural pest as
presented in Section 4.
18.4.2.2.13 Thunder and Lightning
All populations, facilities, and assets are equally at risk to impact from thunder and lightning events.
The City of Palo Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of thunder and
lightning as presented in Section 4.
18.4.2.2.14 Siltation – Bay Area
The City of Palo Alto has ordinances and an inspection program that require the use of appropriate
Best Management Practices (BMPs) (particularly during construction activities) to control the
amount of sediment in storm water runoff in order to prevent siltation in local creeks and the Bay.
Based upon the effectiveness of these existing ongoing programs, creek/Bay siltation is not a
significant issue for the City of Palo Alto.
18.4.2.2.15 Tornado
All populations, facilities, and assets are equally at risk to impact from tornado occurrences. The City
of Palo Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of tornado as presented in
Section 4.
18.4.2.2.16 Hazardous Materials
Hazardous Materials spills are not of particular concern for Critical City Facilities in the City of Palo
Alto. In Palo Alto, a limited number of industrial facilities are located in close proximity to
residential or other properties with sensitive receptors. This is of particular concern in one portion of
the Barron Park residential area adjacent to the Stanford Research Park. The City adopted zoning
changes in 2006 to ensure that any new facility with large amounts of hazardous materials maintains
appropriate separation from residential or other properties with sensitive receptors. Additional
zoning and other regulatory changes are being studied to further enhance the safety of residential and
other sensitive sites.
18.4.2.2.17 Landslide and Debris Flow
Landslide and Debris Flow is not of particular concern to the City of Palo Alto.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-59
18.4.2.2.18 Other Hazards
Land Subsidence is not of particular concern to the City of Palo Alto.
Expansive Soils are not of particular concern to the City of Palo Alto.
Hailstorms are not of particular concern to the City of Palo Alto.
Tsunami is not a hazard of concern for the City of Palo Alto.
Volcano eruptions are not a hazard of concern for the City of Palo Alto.
18.5 MITIGATION ACTIONS
18.5.1 Primary Concerns
Based on the exposure analysis, the most critical facilities are exposed to potential ground shaking.
Almost all of the critical facilities are at risk to flooding with several in potential dam inundation
areas. Several are exposed to liquefaction risk and a few are located in a landslide hazard zone.
Several critical facilities are located in a wildfire threat zone.
18.5.2 Mitigation Actions
The City of Palo Alto incorporates by reference herewith the Mitigation Priorities and Actions
identified in Chapter 7 and elsewhere in the Santa Clara County LHMP. This section adds some
further steps of relevance to the Palo Alto area.
As identified above, the city’s essential facilities and infrastructure are at risk. To mitigate the
potential loss of the Civic Center (City Hall) complex, which houses the Police Department, the Fire
Department, the 911 Dispatch Center, the legacy Emergency Operations Center, and other essential
operations, the Palo Alto Police Department acquired and has now deployed a Mobile Emergency
Operations Center (MEOC) vehicle, capable of sustaining 911 PSAP, Dispatch, EOC, and other
command functions for a sustained period, even with the loss of the Civic Center. However, the need
to replace critical infrastructure and facilities, such as the public safety building, remains.
To further and more completely understand the risk to city facilities and the general built
infrastructure, the city plans to seek grant funding and other sources of funds to conduct
comprehensive, all-hazards risk and vulnerability assessments, including Hazus, through a process
known as Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA). The city plans to include
crime and terrorism risks (homeland security) in this process, which is consistent with the National
Response Framework.
The city plans to seek grant funding and is spending current budget on mitigation measures in the
foothills Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), both for fire as well as law enforcement missions.
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-60
In any major disaster, communications is always among the top issues discussed in the after action
report. The city is beginning work on exploring new off-the-grid (solar powered, etc.) data
communications systems and related technologies that would 1) support the continuity of key
government functions and 2) would also tie-in community entities (businesses, neighborhoods,
NGOs). Augmentation of existing GIS and computer aided dispatch (CAD) systems are also
envisioned.
In addition to technological interoperability, the city also is supporting human and organizational
cooperation and coordination through some novel structures. For example, the Palo Alto/Stanford
Citizen Corps Council (CCC)2 has been established to represent diverse stakeholders and to ensure
each entity has a role to play in all phases of emergency management.
In addition, the city, in partnership with the Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) organization, developed
the Block Preparedness Coordinator Program to link each neighborhood with the city’s Incident
Command System.3
Utilities is currently undertaking two initiatives to address threats posed by natural or manmade
disasters. To improve the chances of maintaining adequate water supply and ensuring fire fighting
capabilities following a major earthquake, the city has added two new wells and will be performing
seismic upgrades to its existing reservoirs, rehabilitating 5 existing wells, and is building a new 3.5
million gallon reservoir in El Camino Park.
The City is also negotiating with PG&E and other parties to establish an additional electric
transmission feed to the city. Existing connections to the city are vulnerable to being impacted by
aircraft from the local airport. The new electric transmission feed will provide an alternate source in
case the existing connections are interrupted.
Utilities maintains Emergency Response Plans for its electric, gas, water and wastewater functions.
These plans will be implemented in case of an emergency event to mitigate the impacts of the event
and to begin the recovery efforts.
The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA), which has authority over the San
Francisquito Creek, is a government agency formed in 1999 by the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park
and East Palo Alto, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District and San Mateo County Flood Control
District. The JPA, in partnership with the US Army Corps of Engineers, is developing a
comprehensive flood control plan for San Francisquito Creek to minimize the risk of flooding. The
plan will also identify potential improvements to protect Palo Alto and surrounding communities
from the risk of tidal flooding from San Francisco Bay, including the impacts of future sea level rise.
2 www.cityofpaloalto.org/ccc
3 www.paneighborhoods.org/ep
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-61
18.6 PLAN MAINTENANCE
18.6.1 Monitoring, evaluating, updating the plan
The City of Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services will be responsible for ensuring that this annex
is monitored on an on-going basis. However, the major disasters affecting Palo Alto’s community,
legal changes, notices from ABAG (as the lead agency in this process), notices from Santa Clara
County (lead agency for the County-wide Annex), and other triggers will be used as well.
Finally, the Annex will be a discussion/work item on the City’s Emergency Operations Center
agenda each year, and department heads and other emergency preparedness staff, who serve in the
City’s Emergency Operations Center, will focus on evaluating the Annex in light of technological
and political changes that may occur during the year or other significant events. This group, in
collaboration with Santa Clara County, will be responsible for determining if the plan should be
updated.
The City of Palo Alto is committed to reviewing and updating this plan annex at least once every five
years, as required by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The City’s OES will contact ABAG four
years after this plan is approved to ensure that ABAG plans to undertake the plan update process. If
so, the City plans to participate in the multi-jurisdictional plan. If ABAG is unwilling or unable to
act as the lead agency in the multi-jurisdictional effort, other agencies will be contacted, including
the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services. The jurisdictions within Santa Clara County
should continue to work together on updating this multi-jurisdictional plan.
The public will continue to be involved whenever the plan is updated and as appropriate during the
monitoring and evaluation process. Prior to adoption of updates, the City will provide the opportunity
for the public to comment on the updates. A public notice will be published prior to the meeting to
announce the comment period and meeting logistics. Moreover, the City will engage stakeholders in
community emergency planning through the Palo Alto/Stanford Citizen Corps Council (CCC).
18.6.2 Point of Contact
Comments or suggestions regarding this plan may be submitted at any time to Kenneth Dueker, J.D.,
Director, Emergency Services: kenneth.dueker@cityofpaloalto.org or 650.617.3100 x1281.
City of Palo Alto: EOC
275 Forest Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-62
18.7 CITY OF PALO ALTO APPENDIX
18.7.1 Palo Alto Attachment 1: Palo Alto Outreach Materials
The City of Palo Alto notified residents and businesses of the hazard mitigation planning process by
distributing promotional announcements regarding the public opportunity to respond to the online
survey. This attachment includes those outreach materials.
TEXT VERSION
SEARCH FOR:
LIVING IN PALO ALTO BUSINESS IN PALO ALTO VISITING PALO ALTO ENVIRONMENTIN PALO ALTO ARTS, PARKS& RECREATION KNOW ZONE CITY DEPARTMENTS EMERGENCYINFORMATION
This Month in
Palo Alto
[more]
Press Releases
City to Host Two Community
Meetings for Input on
Remaining Eucalyptus Trees
near Children's Play Area at
Eleanor Pardee Park
City to Adjust Development
Center Hours to Reinvent
Work Processes
Interim Coordinator Hired to
Manage City's Office of
Emergency Services
New "Faces" for Palo Alto’s
FREE Shuttle Buses to be
Unveiled November 22
Public Cautioned About
Robberies
Library Advisory Commission
Meeting
9/80 Friday
City Council HSR Committee
Meeting
CHSRA Board Meeting
Household Hazardous Waste
Day
City Council Meeting
Finance Committee Meeting
3788 people have read what 546
have written on Open City Hall.
READ MORE
NEWS FOCUS
Meeting on December 1 - Consulting Arborist
Evaluates Ten Eucalyptus Trees at Eleanor
Pardee Park
Several recommendations are made, including the eventual removal
of the remaining ten mature eucalyptus trees.
[more]
City Staff Investigates Tree Trimming by
Contractor on California Avenue
Trimming done to remove eye-level branch hazards to pedestrians on
the street and sidewalks.
[more]
Change in Hours for Development Center on
December 1
Learn more about the Development Center's Blueprint for Enhanced
Service
[more]
City Working with Santa Clara County to
update Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Please take a few moments to complete the brief survey at
www.surveymonkey.com/s/2010SCCHMP.
[more]
Be Prepared for Winter Storms
There are currently no weather-related emergencies in Palo Alto.
[more]
New "Faces" for Palo Alto’s
FREE Shuttle Buses Unveiled on
November 22
Creative design effort led by former Mayor will
promote awareness and ridership.
[more]
December 11 - Holiday photos with Santa
Claws!
Make holiday memories with your pet on Saturday, December 11.
( View PDF )
[more]
Update on HSR Activities
Current information about Palo Alto and the High Speed Rail Project.
[more]
November 22 - 24: Expect Traffic Delays on
Embarcardero at E. Bayshore
The right turn lane on northbound Embarcadero at East Bayshore will
be closed during utility work, 9AM - 4PM.
[more]
Quick Links
Select a Destination
What's New
BUDGET - Adopted FY 2011
HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECT
Library Facility Projects
Project Safety Net
Rail Corridor Task Force
Stanford Medical Center Project
City Government
Agendas/Minutes/Reports for
Committees/Boards/Commissions
City Council and Mayor
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS -
AGENDAS/MINUTES/WEBCASTS
City Manager's Reports
City Meetings Schedule
Comprehensive Plan and
Amendment
Council Priorities/PA "See-It" Site
Municipal Code
OPEN CITY HALL
Phone Directory
Other Resources
CREEK MONITOR
Employment
Family Resources
Foothills Fire Camera at Station 8
Online Services
Purchasing/Current Solicitations
Sign-up Now - AlertSCC for
Emergency Notifications
Page 1 of 2City of Palo Alto Website - Home Page
11/24/2010http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/default.asp
TEXT VERSION
SEARCH FOR:
Home Living in Palo Alto Business in Palo Alto Visiting Palo Alto Environment in Palo Alto Arts, Parks & Recreation Know Zone Departments Emergency Information
Previous Page
City Working with Santa Clara County to update Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City of Palo Alto is collaborating with Santa Clara County to update our local hazard mitigation plan. This plan outlines mechanisms for increasing our community’s resiliency to natural hazard events
(earthquake, flood, wildfire, etc.).
Hazard Mitigation is defined as “sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property form natural, human-caused, and technological hazards and their effects.”
Our Update local hazard mitigation plan will be an annex to the regional plan titled “Taming Natural Disasters: Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area.”
Your feedback is critical to increasing local resiliency. Please take a few moments to complete the brief
survey at www.surveymonkey.com/s/2010SCCHMP. (The survey will be available online through
Friday, December 3, 2010.)
Please encourage your neighbors and friends in Santa Clara County and incorporated cities to complete the brief online survey. If you have any questions regarding the survey or opportunities to
participate in the plan update, you may contact Corinne Bartshire at 510-834-3326 or
cbartshire@dewberry.com. We sincerely appreciate your time and cooperation in helping our community become more resilient.
Thank you for your participation.
Acceptable Use Policy Accessibility Your Privacy Site Map Search Engine A-Z Index Comment Form Missing Content
City of Palo Alto City Hall - 250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 | Main Telephone Number 650-329-2100 8am-5pm M-Th, Alt Fridays
Page 1 of 1City of Palo Alto Website - City Working with Santa Clara County to update Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
11/24/2010http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1692&TargetID=268
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-64
18.7.2 Palo Alto Attachment 2: Repetitive Loss Letter
A letter sent to residents who live in repetitive loss areas that describes ways to mitigate flood and
damages to their properties.
December 7, 2010
Name
Address
Palo Alto, CA
Dear:
The City of Palo Alto is participating in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's (FEMA) flood insurance Community Rating System (CRS). The
CRS is a program whereby owners of property in a community receive a
reduction in flood insurance premiums based on community actions which
have the potential to reduce the financial risk of the federal flood insurance
program. Based upon the City's participation in the CRS, all holders of flood
insurance policies in Palo Alto receive a discount of fifteen percent off the
standard premiums, effective October 1, 2001.
One of the community actions required under the CRS program is an
evaluation of any properties classified as "repetitive loss" because more than
one claim for flood damages has been paid on the property. Your property is
one such repetitive loss property within the City of Palo Alto. FEMA has
suggested that we contact you to encourage you to take steps to protect the
structure from flood damage, such as raising the house so that the lowest floor
is above the predicted flood level. As you know from past experiences,
flooding poses a genuine threat to your property. If you are interested, a
number of government publications describing various flood protection
techniques have been placed in the reference section of the Main Library at
1213 Newell Road near Embarcadero Road. Since flood insurance may not
cover all of your damages in a flood, you may find it cost-effective to
implement some of these protective measures.
You may be interested to know that the Santa Clara Valley Water District
maintains a stockpile of filled sandbags for public use during each winter
season at a site adjacent to the Palo Alto Airport terminal building at the end of
Embarcadero Road. For further information and to receive helpful flood
preparedness tips, you may call the District at (408) 265-2600. The City of
Palo Alto maintains a stockpile of sand and empty bags at Mitchell Park, 600
E. Meadow Drive. In addition, personnel from the City and the Santa Clara
Valley Water District may be available to respond to flooding incidents
affecting your property, dependent upon other emergency needs. City
maintenance personnel can be reached at 496-6974 (after hours and weekends,
call 329-2413). Santa Clara Valley Water District maintenance personnel can
be contacted at (408) 265-2600.
Please find enclosed some Public Works Engineering publications which may
be of interest to you. Your property lies within one of the FEMA-designated
Special Flood Hazard Areas. We suggest that you take note of the
requirements pertaining to Substantial Improvement. If the structure on your
property is replaced or substantially improved, the lowest floor will be required
to be elevated above the projected base flood elevation.
If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to call
Public Works Engineering at 329-2295.
Sincerely,
Joe Teresi
Senior Engineer
Engineering Division
Enclosures: “Is Your House in a Flood Zone?”
“Special Building Requirements for Residential Structures in a
Special Flood Hazard Area”
"Flood Zone Descriptions"
"Things You Should Know About Flood Insurance"
File 47702.9210
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
May 1, 2012 Page | 18-66
18.7.3 Palo Alto Attachment 3: Palo Alto Exposure Analysis
This list includes all information on Palo Alto’s critical facilities and identifies which of the City’s
critical facilities are located in the mapped hazard areas.
City of Palo Alto Exposure Analysis
ID Critical Facility Address Type Occupancy Own/Lease Structure Type
1 Adobe Pump Station 1196 East Meadow Dr Storm Water Pump Station N/A own N/A
2 Airport Pump Station 1925 Embarcadero Rd Storm Water Pump Station N/A own N/A
3 Utility Engineering 1007 Elwell Ct Recovery N/A lease PC1 (TU)
4 Colorado Pump Station 2999 W Bayshore Rd,Storm Water Pump Station N/A own N/A
5 Water Quality Control Plant 2501 Embarcadero Regional Plant N/A own WTP
6 Utility Control Center 3241 East Bayshore Similar to Utility EOC N/A own Wood-frame building > 5,000 SQFT
7 Gas Station 4 3241 East Bayshore Natural Gas Station N/A N/A N/A
8 Municipal Services Ctr 3201 East Bayshore Rd Recovery N/A own PC1 (TU)
9 Montebello Reservoir 1250 Montebello Rd Potable Water Reservoir N/A N/A N/A
10 Corte Madera Reservoir 1521 Arastradero Rd Potable Water Reservoir N/A N/A N/A
11 Corte Madera Booster St 1521 Arastradero Rd Potable Water Booster St N/A N/A N/A
12 Cubberley Comm Ctr 4000 Middlefield Shelter N/A lease RM2
13 Fire Station #4 3600 Middlefield Rd Fire Station N/A own Light wood-frame building <= 5,000 SQFT
14 Park Blvd. Substation 3291 Park Blvd Electric Substation N/A own Substation
15 Gas Station 2 Alma & Colorado Natural Gas Station N/A N/A N/A
16 Colorado Distribution 1040 Colorado Ave Electric Utility N/A own N/A
17 Matadero Pump Station 1082 Colorado Storm Water Pump Station N/A own N/A
18 Fire Station #1 301 Alma Street Fire Station N/A own RM2
19 Quarry Substation 281 Quarry Rd Electric Substation N/A own Substation
20 City Hall 250 Hamilton Ave OFFICE N/A own C1
21 Gas Station 3 1961 Old Page Mill Rd Natural Gas Station N/A N/A N/A
22 Fire Station #8 3300 Page Mill Rd Fire Station (Seasonal)N/A own Light wood-frame building <= 5,000 SQFT
23 Quarry Booster Station 1961 Page Mill Rd.Potable Water Booster St N/A N/A N/A
24 Park Reservoir 3640 Page Mill Rd Potable Water Reservoir N/A N/A N/A
25 Park Booster Station 3640 Page Mill Rd Potable Water Booster St N/A N/A N/A
26 Boronda Reservoir 2962 Page Mill Rd Potable Water Reservoir N/A N/A N/A
27 Maybell Substation 527 Maybell Electric Substation N/A own Substation
28 California Turnout 500 California Potable Water/Fluoride N/A N/A N/A
29 Hansen Way Substation 950 Hansen Way Electric Substation N/A own Substation
30 Embarcadero Pump Station 1199 Alma Storm Water Pump Station N/A own N/A
31 Gas Station 1 1735 Embarcadero Natural Gas Station N/A N/A N/A
32 Development Center 285 Hamilton Ave Recovery N/A lease C1
33 University Pump Station 97 University Ave Storm Water Pump Station N/A own N/A
34 Sand Hill Turnout 50 El Camino Real Potable Water/Fluoride N/A N/A N/A
35 Police Station 275 Forest Ave PD/EOC/Comm Center N/A own C1
36 Fire Station #5 600 Arastradero Rd Fire Station N/A own Light wood-frame building <= 5,000 SQFT
37 Arastradero Turnout 694 Arastradero Potable Water/Fluoride N/A N/A N/A
38 Mayfield Reservoir 1711 Stanford Ave Potable Water Reservoir N/A N/A N/A
39 Mayfield Booster Station 1711 Stanford Ave Potable Water Booster St N/A N/A N/A
40 Fire Station #2 2675 Hanover St Fire Station N/A own RM2
41 Hanover Substation 3350 Hanover Electric Substation N/A own Substation
42 Dahl Reservoir 3920 Page Mill Rd Potable Water Reservoir N/A N/A N/A
43 Dahl Booster Station 3920 Page Mill Rd Potable Water Booster St N/A N/A N/A
Page 1
City of Palo Alto Exposure Analysis
ID Critical Facility Address Type Occupancy Own/Lease Structure Type
44 Fire Station #6 711 Sierra St, Stanford Univ Fire Station N/A own N/A
45 Page Mill Turnout 1899 Page Mill Rd Potable Water/Fluoride N/A N/A N/A
46 Boronda Booster Station 3570 Page Mill Rd Potable Water Booster St N/A N/A N/A
47 Fire Station #3 799 Embarcadero Fire Station N/A own Light wood-frame building <= 5,000 SQFT
48 Hopkins Substation 1350 Hopkins Electric Substation N/A own Substation
49 Fire Station #7 2575 Sand Hill Rd. SLAC Fire Station N/A own N/A
50 Lytton Turnout 315 El Camino Real Potable Water/Fluoride N/A N/A N/A
ID Critical Facility Structure Information Irregularities- Plan View
Irregularities-
Vertical
Structural
Assessment Retrofit
1 Adobe Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 Airport Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 Utility Engineering N/A N/A No N/A N/A
4 Colorado Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 Water Quality Control Plant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 Utility Control Center N/A No No N/A N/A
7 Gas Station 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
8 Municipal Services Ctr N/A N/A N/A N/A Added exterior bracing
9 Montebello Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
10 Corte Madera Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
11 Corte Madera Booster St N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
12 Cubberley Comm Ctr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
13 Fire Station #4 N/A No N/A
Scheduled for
Replacement N/A
14 Park Blvd. Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
15 Gas Station 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
16 Colorado Distribution N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
17 Matadero Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
18 Fire Station #1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
19 Quarry Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
20 City Hall N/A High Rise No N/A Added shear walls & steel bracing
21 Gas Station 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
22 Fire Station #8 N/A No N/A N/A N/A
23 Quarry Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
24 Park Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
25 Park Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
26 Boronda Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
27 Maybell Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
28 California Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
29 Hansen Way Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
30 Embarcadero Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
31 Gas Station 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
32 Development Center N/A Soft Story N/A N/A N/A
33 University Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Page 2
City of Palo Alto Exposure Analysis
ID Critical Facility Structure Information Irregularities- Plan View
Irregularities-
Vertical
Structural
Assessment Retrofit
34 Sand Hill Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
35 Police Station
Attached to Council
Chamber N/A No N/A Added shear walls & steel bracing
36 Fire Station #5 N/A No N/A N/A N/A
37 Arastradero Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
38 Mayfield Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
39 Mayfield Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
40 Fire Station #2 N/A No N/A N/A N/A
41 Hanover Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
42 Dahl Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
43 Dahl Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
44 Fire Station #6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
45 Page Mill Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
46 Boronda Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
47 Fire Station #3 N/A No N/A
Scheduled for
Replacement N/A
48 Hopkins Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
49 Fire Station #7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
50 Lytton Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
ID Critical Facility Anchored Equipment Alternate Power Sprinklers Roof Material Year Built
1 Adobe Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 Airport Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 Utility Engineering N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 Colorado Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 Water Quality Control Plant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 Utility Control Center no yes yes Tar/gravel 1987
7 Gas Station 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
8 Municipal Services Ctr no yes yes Tar 1966
9 Montebello Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
10 Corte Madera Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
11 Corte Madera Booster St N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
12 Cubberley Comm Ctr N/A no N/A N/A N/A
13 Fire Station #4 no yes no Wood Shingle 1954
14 Park Blvd. Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
15 Gas Station 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
16 Colorado Distribution N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
17 Matadero Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
18 Fire Station #1 no yes no Tar 1965
19 Quarry Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
20 City Hall yes yes yes tar 1970
21 Gas Station 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Page 3
City of Palo Alto Exposure Analysis
ID Critical Facility Anchored Equipment Alternate Power Sprinklers Roof Material Year Built
22 Fire Station #8 no no yes
Asphalt
Shingle 1986
23 Quarry Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
24 Park Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
25 Park Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
26 Boronda Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
27 Maybell Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
28 California Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
29 Hansen Way Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
30 Embarcadero Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
31 Gas Station 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
32 Development Center N/A N/A N/A Tar N/A
33 University Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
34 Sand Hill Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
35 Police Station yes yes yes tar 1970
36 Fire Station #5 no yes no Tar 1962
37 Arastradero Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
38 Mayfield Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
39 Mayfield Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
40 Fire Station #2 no yes no Tar 1965
41 Hanover Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
42 Dahl Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
43 Dahl Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
44 Fire Station #6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
45 Page Mill Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
46 Boronda Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
47 Fire Station #3 no yes no Tar 1942
48 Hopkins Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
49 Fire Station #7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
50 Lytton Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
ID Critical Facility Stories Capacity
Bldg Insured
Value
Contents
Insured Value
1 Adobe Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 Airport Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 Utility Engineering N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 Colorado Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 Water Quality Control Plant N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 Utility Control Center 1 5488 N/A N/A
7 Gas Station 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
8 Municipal Services Ctr N/A 71097 7295081 1843113
9 Montebello Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A
10 Corte Madera Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A
Page 4
City of Palo Alto Exposure Analysis
ID Critical Facility Stories Capacity
Bldg Insured
Value
Contents
Insured Value
11 Corte Madera Booster St N/A N/A N/A N/A
12 Cubberley Comm Ctr N/A N/A N/A N/A
13 Fire Station #4 1 2659 369480 38474
14 Park Blvd. Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A
15 Gas Station 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
16 Colorado Distribution N/A N/A N/A N/A
17 Matadero Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A
18 Fire Station #1 2 13800 1357268 137484
19 Quarry Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A
20 City Hall N/A 356401 58861650 8942789
21 Gas Station 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
22 Fire Station #8 1 1451 121279 19133
23 Quarry Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A
24 Park Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A
25 Park Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A
26 Boronda Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A
27 Maybell Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A
28 California Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A
29 Hansen Way Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A
30 Embarcadero Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A
31 Gas Station 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
32 Development Center N/A N/A N/A N/A
33 University Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A
34 Sand Hill Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A
35 Police Station N/A N/A N/A N/A
36 Fire Station #5 1 3666 434301 41925
37 Arastradero Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A
38 Mayfield Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A
39 Mayfield Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A
40 Fire Station #2 1 8131 1107290 107164
41 Hanover Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A
42 Dahl Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A
43 Dahl Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A
44 Fire Station #6 2 N/A N/A N/A
45 Page Mill Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A
46 Boronda Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A
47 Fire Station #3 1 3032 383804 39938
48 Hopkins Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A
49 Fire Station #7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
50 Lytton Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A
Page 5
City of Palo Alto Exposure Analysis
ID Critical Facility # of Dams
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)
Fire Threat
Wildfire
Threat
FEMA Flood
Zone Tsunami
1 Adobe Pump Station 0 Fire-threatened area Moderate 100 Year Not Affected
2 Airport Pump Station 1 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate
100 Year with
Velocity
Hazard (wave
action)Not Affected
3 Utility Engineering 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 100 Year Not Affected
4 Colorado Pump Station 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 100 Year Not Affected
5 Water Quality Control Plant 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 100 Year Not Affected
6 Utility Control Center 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 100 Year Not Affected
7 Gas Station 4 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 100 Year Not Affected
8 Municipal Services Ctr 1 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 100 Year Not Affected
9 Montebello Reservoir 0 Outside WUI hazard area Little/No 500 Year Not Affected
10 Corte Madera Reservoir 0 Fire-threatened area High 500 Year Not Affected
11 Corte Madera Booster St 0 Fire-threatened area High 500 Year Not Affected
12 Cubberley Comm Ctr 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
13 Fire Station #4 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
14 Park Blvd. Substation 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
15 Gas Station 2 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
16 Colorado Distribution 1 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
17 Matadero Pump Station 1 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
18 Fire Station #1 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
19 Quarry Substation 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
20 City Hall 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 100 Year Not Affected
21 Gas Station 3 0 Outside WUI hazard area High Undetermined Not Affected
22 Fire Station #8 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate Undetermined Not Affected
23 Quarry Booster Station 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate Undetermined Not Affected
24 Park Reservoir 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate Undetermined Not Affected
25 Park Booster Station 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate Undetermined Not Affected
26 Boronda Reservoir 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate Undetermined Not Affected
27 Maybell Substation 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
28 California Turnout 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
29 Hansen Way Substation 0 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
30 Embarcadero Pump Station 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
31 Gas Station 1 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
32 Development Center 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
33 University Pump Station 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
34 Sand Hill Turnout 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
35 Police Station 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
36 Fire Station #5 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
37 Arastradero Turnout 0 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
38 Mayfield Reservoir 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate Undetermined Not Affected
39 Mayfield Booster Station 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate Undetermined Not Affected
Page 6
City of Palo Alto Exposure Analysis
ID Critical Facility # of Dams
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)
Fire Threat
Wildfire
Threat
FEMA Flood
Zone Tsunami
40 Fire Station #2 0 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
41 Hanover Substation 0 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
42 Dahl Reservoir 0 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
43 Dahl Booster Station 0 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
44 Fire Station #6 0 Fire-threatened area Moderate Undetermined Not Affected
45 Page Mill Turnout 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
46 Boronda Booster Station 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
47 Fire Station #3 2 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
48 Hopkins Substation 2 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
49 Fire Station #7 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
50 Lytton Turnout 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected
ID Critical Facility Existing Landslide Areas EQ-Induced Landslide
EQ Shake
Potential
Liquefaction
Susceptibility EQ-Induced Liquefaction
1 Adobe Pump Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone
2 Airport Pump Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone
3 Utility Engineering Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very High Liquefaction Hazard Zone
4 Colorado Pump Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very High Liquefaction Hazard Zone
5 Water Quality Control Plant Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very High Liquefaction Hazard Zone
6 Utility Control Center Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very High Liquefaction Hazard Zone
7 Gas Station 4 Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very High Liquefaction Hazard Zone
8 Municipal Services Ctr Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very High Liquefaction Hazard Zone
9 Montebello Reservoir Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
10 Corte Madera Reservoir Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
11 Corte Madera Booster St Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
12 Cubberley Comm Ctr Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone
13 Fire Station #4 Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone
14 Park Blvd. Substation Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone
15 Gas Station 2 Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone
16 Colorado Distribution Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone
17 Matadero Pump Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone
18 Fire Station #1 Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone
19 Quarry Substation Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone
20 City Hall Surficial Deposits Mapping in Progress 85 Moderate Mapping in Progress
21 Gas Station 3 Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
22 Fire Station #8 Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
23 Quarry Booster Station Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
24 Park Reservoir Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
25 Park Booster Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
26 Boronda Reservoir Mostly Landslide Area Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
27 Maybell Substation Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
28 California Turnout Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
29 Hansen Way Substation Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
Page 7
City of Palo Alto Exposure Analysis
ID Critical Facility Existing Landslide Areas EQ-Induced Landslide
EQ Shake
Potential
Liquefaction
Susceptibility EQ-Induced Liquefaction
30 Embarcadero Pump Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
31 Gas Station 1 Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
32 Development Center Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
33 University Pump Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
34 Sand Hill Turnout Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
35 Police Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
36 Fire Station #5 Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
37 Arastradero Turnout Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
38 Mayfield Reservoir Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
39 Mayfield Booster Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
40 Fire Station #2 Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
41 Hanover Substation Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
42 Dahl Reservoir Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
43 Dahl Booster Station Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
44 Fire Station #6 Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
45 Page Mill Turnout Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
46 Boronda Booster Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone
47 Fire Station #3 Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone
48 Hopkins Substation Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone
49 Fire Station #7 Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very High Liquefaction Hazard Zone
50 Lytton Turnout Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Very High Liquefaction Hazard Zone
ID Critical Facility Sea Level Risk 16"Sea Level Rise 55"
1 Adobe Pump Station Affected Affected
2 Airport Pump Station Not Affected Affected
3 Utility Engineering Affected Affected
4 Colorado Pump Station Affected Affected
5 Water Quality Control Plant Affected Affected
6 Utility Control Center Not Affected Affected
7 Gas Station 4 Not Affected Affected
8 Municipal Services Ctr Not Affected Affected
9 Montebello Reservoir Not Affected Not Affected
10 Corte Madera Reservoir Not Affected Not Affected
11 Corte Madera Booster St Not Affected Not Affected
12 Cubberley Comm Ctr Not Affected Not Affected
13 Fire Station #4 Not Affected Not Affected
14 Park Blvd. Substation Not Affected Not Affected
15 Gas Station 2 Not Affected Not Affected
16 Colorado Distribution Not Affected Not Affected
17 Matadero Pump Station Not Affected Not Affected
18 Fire Station #1 Not Affected Not Affected
19 Quarry Substation Not Affected Not Affected
20 City Hall Not Affected Not Affected
Page 8
City of Palo Alto Exposure Analysis
ID Critical Facility Sea Level Risk 16"Sea Level Rise 55"
21 Gas Station 3 Not Affected Not Affected
22 Fire Station #8 Not Affected Not Affected
23 Quarry Booster Station Not Affected Not Affected
24 Park Reservoir Not Affected Not Affected
25 Park Booster Station Not Affected Not Affected
26 Boronda Reservoir Not Affected Not Affected
27 Maybell Substation Not Affected Not Affected
28 California Turnout Not Affected Not Affected
29 Hansen Way Substation Not Affected Not Affected
30 Embarcadero Pump Station Not Affected Not Affected
31 Gas Station 1 Not Affected Not Affected
32 Development Center Not Affected Not Affected
33 University Pump Station Not Affected Not Affected
34 Sand Hill Turnout Not Affected Not Affected
35 Police Station Not Affected Not Affected
36 Fire Station #5 Not Affected Not Affected
37 Arastradero Turnout Not Affected Not Affected
38 Mayfield Reservoir Not Affected Not Affected
39 Mayfield Booster Station Not Affected Not Affected
40 Fire Station #2 Not Affected Not Affected
41 Hanover Substation Not Affected Not Affected
42 Dahl Reservoir Not Affected Not Affected
43 Dahl Booster Station Not Affected Not Affected
44 Fire Station #6 Not Affected Not Affected
45 Page Mill Turnout Not Affected Not Affected
46 Boronda Booster Station Not Affected Not Affected
47 Fire Station #3 Not Affected Not Affected
48 Hopkins Substation Not Affected Not Affected
49 Fire Station #7 Not Affected Not Affected
50 Lytton Turnout Not Affected Not Affected
Page 9
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2916)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/9/2012
July 09, 2012 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 2916)
Summary Title: Resolution to Approve Revisions to the City of Palo Alto Energy
Risk Management Policy
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Approving Revisions to the City of Palo Alto
Energy Risk Management Policy
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Executive Summary
The City of Palo Alto’s Energy Risk Management Policy (ERMP) serves as the overriding
document for the monitoring, measurement, and control of risks associated with electric and
gas commodity transactions. This Policy is reviewed annually by the Council. On January 18,
2011, staff requested that the Council review and approve this Policy (CMR 101:11). At that
meeting, the Council continued the item and directed staff to return with an ERMP that
referenced updated long-term electric and gas purchasing strategies. After including these
references as well as other changes, staff met with the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) on
June 6, 2012 to discuss the revised policy. The UAC reviewed the policy and recommended that
the Council approve it. Likewise, staff recommends that the Council approve it as well.
Background
The Council last approved the ERMP on September 14, 2009 (CMR 359:09). On January 18,
2011 (CMR 101:11), the Council deferred policy approval until after the Gas Utility Long-Term
Plan (GULP) had incorporated a market-based purchasing strategy. The City’s ERMP requires
that staff update it annually, but with staffing and GULP changes this process has been delayed.
Discussion
Electricity and gas prices have displayed significant volatility over time and purchasing
electricity and gas can carry inherent financial risks. The ERMP is the overarching document for
the management of the City’s risks associated with purchasing electric and gas commodities. In
addition to the ERMP, there are two more detailed sets of documents that support it and are
used to mitigate risk: the Energy Risk Management Guidelines (Guidelines) and the Energy Risk
Management Procedures (Procedures). The Guidelines are prepared by Administrative Services
staff in concert with Utilities staff. The Procedures are prepared by the Front, Middle, and Back
Offices. As a whole, the ERMP, Guidelines, and Procedures document for staff a variety of
July 09, 2012 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 2916)
principles and activities designed to minimize risks by, for example, ensuring transparent and
appropriate purchasing procedures, segregating duties, establishing acceptable risk parameters
and limits, and instituting multiple review processes. The ERMP and Guidelines are reviewed
and approved by the Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC), which
consists of the Directors of Utilities, Administrative Services, Public Works, and a representative
from the City Managers’ Office. The Procedures are approved by the Utilities and
Administrative Services Directors.
The ERMP clearly delineates that all contract transactions, whether carried out under
purchasing Master Agreements or not, must fully comply with the Municipal Code.
Transactions with the Northern California Power Agency, including scheduling, are covered
under a separate Member Services Agreement.
Compared to the existing ERMP, the proposed 2012 ERMP reflects the following changes:
Elimination of specific gas purchasing strategy references
Addition of references to the Long-Term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) and Gas Utility
Long-Term Plan (GULP) documents
Inclusion of how and when to report a conflict of interest in the Conflict of Interest
section
Clarification of time periods in which Risk Manager reports information
Clarification of text
Based on the Council’s direction to eliminate the former gas laddering strategy, update the
GULP to reflect a market based procurement objective, and insert references to GULP in the
ERMP, the updated Policy eliminates specific gas portfolio management references. Instead,
the updated ERMP Objective now references the strategic documents that guide or implement
commodity purchases. These include: the Utilities Strategic Plan, the Long-Term Electric
Acquisition Plan (LEAP), and Gas Utility Long-Term Plan (GULP).
The Conflict of Interest section was revised to provide additional direction to an employee and
his/her supervisor on how and when to report a conflict of interest. The text now reads,
“Should an employee become aware of a conflict of interest during the course of fulfilling his or
her responsibilities, he or she shall report it, without delay, to the Director, or her or his
designee, who shall resolve the conflict.” References to the Form 700 or disclosure of interests
form have been eliminated since it is already a City requirement.
The updated ERMP added language to the Risk Management Reporting Policy section clarifying
the time in which the Risk Manager must alert the UROCC and Council of an exception to
portfolio limits. The UROCC is now to be notified within one business day and the Council in the
next quarterly report.
July 09, 2012 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 2916)
Finally, there have been a number of edits to clarify or clean-up text and to make the ERMP
easier to use. The UAC can follow changes to the existing ERMP in the “redlined” version of the
update or Attachment A. The UROCC has reviewed and approved the attached, updated ERMP.
Board/Commission Review and Recommendation
The UAC discussed the proposed Energy Risk Management Policy at its June 6, 2012 meeting.
Notes for this meeting are provided in Attachment C. There were two questions asked by the
UAC commissioners. First, Commissioner Keller noted that gas storage is listed as a product,
and asked if that will change due to the laddering strategy change. Senior Resource Planner
Karla Dailey responded that we do not plan to purchase gas storage, and purchasing gas storage
was taken out of the GULP, but it was retained in the policy to keep the list broad in case of a
change in strategy.
Commissioner Hall asked if there was any tension between the approved product list and the
anti-speculation policy. Commissioner Eglash stated that speculation means that staff would
not to engage in betting on movements in the market direction and making transactions to try
to make money, rather than to meet load.
Following additional discussion the UAC took the following action: Commissioner Melton made
a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Energy Risk Management
Policy. Chair Foster seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0) with
Commissioner Waldfogel absent.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Energy Risk Management Policy - Redlined Version (PDF)
Attachment B: Energy Risk Management Policy (PDF)
Attachment C: Energy Risk Management Policy UAC Minutes (PDF)
Attachment D: Resolution for Energy Risk Management Policy (PDF)
Prepared By: Mary Figone, Senior Financial Analyst
Department Head: Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto
Energy Risk Management
Policy
May 2012
Deleted: August 10, 2009 ¶
<sp><sp>
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy May 2012
i
City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy
Table of Contents
A. OBJECTIVE............................................................................................................................ 1
B. APPLICABILITY...................................................................................................................1
C. RISK MANAGEMENT ROLES, RESPONSIBILITES, AND ORGANIZATION......... 2
1. CITY COUNCIL....................................................................................................................... 2
2. UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION........................................................................................ 2
3. CITY MANAGER..................................................................................................................... 3
4. UTILITIES RISK OVERSIGHT AND COORDINATING COMMITTEE.............................................. 3
5. MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT.................................................................................................... 3
a. Front Office – Planning and Procurement..................................................................... 3
b. Middle Office – Risk Management Controls and Reporting...........................................4
c. Back Office – Settlement and Recording ........................................................................5
D. TRANSACTING POLICY.....................................................................................................5
1. ANTI-SPECULATION........................................................................................................5
2. MAXIMUM TRANSACTION TERM............................................................................................5
3. COMPETITIVE PROCESS..........................................................................................................6
E. COUNTERPARTY CREDIT POLICY................................................................................ 6
F. RISK MANAGEMENT REPORTING POLICY................................................................ 6
G. AUTHORIZED PRODUCTS POLICY................................................................................7
H. TRANSACTING AUTHORITY POLICY...........................................................................8
I. CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY .................................................................................8
GLOSSARY OF TERMS ..................................................................................................................9
4. COMPETITIVE PROCESS....................................................................................................................................6
VIII. COUNTERPARTY CREDIT POLICY..........................................................................................................6
IX. COMMODITY PRICING POLICY..............................................................................................................II
X. RISK MANAGEMENT REPORTING POLICY..........................................................................................6
XI. AUTHORIZED PRODUCTS POLICY..........................................................................................................7
XII. TRANSACTING AUTHORITY POLICY.....................................................................................................8
XIII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY...........................................................................................................8
Formatted
Formatted
Field Code Changed
Formatted
Field Code Changed
Field Code Changed
Field Code Changed
Formatted
Formatted
Field Code Changed
Field Code Changed
Field Code Changed
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Field Code Changed
Field Code Changed
Formatted
Field Code Changed
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Field Code Changed
Field Code Changed
Formatted
Field Code Changed
Field Code Changed
Field Code Changed
Field Code Changed
Formatted
Field Code Changed
Field Code Changed
Field Code Changed
Formatted
Field Code Changed
Formatted
Formatted
Field Code Changed
Field Code Changed
Formatted
Deleted: I.INTRODUCTION
Deleted: 1
Deleted: II.
Deleted: 1
Deleted: III.ENERGY…PHILOSO
Deleted: 2
Deleted: IV.ENERGY RISK
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 1.RETAIL RATE STABILITY
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 2.PRESERVE A SUPPLY COST
Deleted: 3
Deleted: 3.EFFICIENT AND COST
Deleted: 3
Deleted: V.OVERSIGHT BODIES
Deleted: 3
Deleted: 1.City Council
Deleted: 3
... [7]
... [38]
... [37]
... [16]
... [10]
... [4]
... [8]
... [9]
... [13]
... [20]
... [6]
... [19]
... [39]
... [12]
... [3]
... [5]
... [41]
... [24]
... [42]
... [25]
... [43]
... [26]
... [44]
... [27]
... [21]
... [15]
... [28]
... [14]
... [29]
... [11]
... [30]
... [17]
... [31]
... [18]
... [1]
... [32]
... [2]
... [33]
... [45]
... [34]
... [46]
... [35]
... [47]
... [22]
... [36]
... [40]
... [23]
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy May 2012
ii
XIV. GLOSSARY OF TERMS.................................................................................................................................9
Deleted: Section Break (Next Page)
<#>INTRODUCTION¶It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto
Utilities to provide reliable and affordable
energy and energy services to its industrial, commercial and residential
customers in an environmentally
sustainable manner. Furthermore, this policy is consistent with the City’s
business objectives of making financially
sound and timely investments in the
capital infrastructure of the Utilities to
ensure the reliable delivery of energy and
energy services to its customers.¶
¶The City of Palo Alto’s Energy Risk
Management Policy (“Policy”) details the
key control structures and policies for
prudent risk management processes based
on sound energy risk management
principles while ensuring adherence to
financial requirements set forth by City Council and Director of Administrative
Services as well as all pertinent legal
requirements. The control structures and policies are focused on the following
issues:¶
¶
<#>Clearly defined segregation of duties
and delegation of authority¶
<#>Organizational structure for risk
management controls¶<#>Policies related to setting acceptable
risk parameters and risk limits.¶
<#>Policies for risk reporting.¶<#>Permitted transaction and product
types.¶
¶
The Energy Risk Management Policy
serves as the key policy level document
on energy risk management. This Policy
is supported by more detailed operational-level documents: the Energy
Risk Management Guidelines and the
Energy Risk Management Procedures for the Front, Middle and Back Offices.¶
¶
<#>APPLICABILITY¶
¶This Energy Risk Management Policy
applies to all City of Palo Alto employees
engaged directly or indirectly in transacting in the energy markets. The
first objective of this Policy is to build
risk awareness within the City.
Consistent with the City Council’s desire for the City to be an active manager of
risk, the organization must maintain
awareness of the risks faced. It is critical that all members of the organization have
awareness that participation in the energy ... [50]
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy May 2012
1
A. OBJECTIVE
The City of Palo Alto (City), Department of Utilities (CPAU) purchases and sells gas and
electricity to meet the needs of its customers. The City’s Energy Risk Management
(ERM) Policy (ERM Policy) describes the management organization, authority, and
processes to monitor, measure, and control market risks, which include price risk, credit
risk, and operational risk, to which the City is exposed in the normal course of managing
the gas and electric utilities.
The ERM Policy describes the key policies and control structures for prudent energy risk
management processes. This occurs while ensuring adherence to financial requirements
set forth by the Council and the Director of Administrative Services as well as all
pertinent legal requirements. The control structures and policies are focused on the
following areas:
Segregation of duties and delegation of authority
Organizational structure for risk management controls to include the front,
middle, and back offices
Transacting
Counterparty credit
Reporting
Permitted transaction and product types
Conflict of interest
The ERM Policy serves as the key policy level document on energy risk management.
This Policy is supported by policy/implementation-level and operations-level documents,
including, the Energy Risk Management Guidelines (ERM Guidelines), Energy Risk
Management Procedures (ERM Procedures) for the Front, Middle, and Back Offices, and
the Long-Term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP), Gas Utility Long-Term Plan (GULP),
and the Utilities Strategic Plan. Together these three documents serve to meet the
requirements set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.30 Contracts and
Purchasing Procedures (“PAMC”) as they relate to Wholesale Commodity Contracts,
Authority, and Transactions.
B. APPLICABILITY
The ERM Policy applies to all City employees engaged in the decision-making process
for transacting in the energy markets. It is critical that all members of the City are aware
that participation in the City’s energy procurement business entails a host of risks and
Formatted: Top: 0.75"
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy May 2012
2
that all members participating in the process must have knowledge of the ERM Policy
and use it during such participation.
The ERM Policy applies to the electric and natural gas supply business units. The
electric and natural gas supply business units are the part of the electric and natural gas
enterprise funds that deal with the acquisition of energy supply resources.
The ERM Policy describes the management, organization, authority, processes, tools and
systems to monitor, measure, and control risks to which CPAU is exposed related to the
acquisition and management of wholesale electric and gas commodity products and
services to meet load.
The City is a member of the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), which executes
transactions on the City’s behalf. The NCPA Commission approves its own energy risk
management policies and procedures for the acquisition of energy supply resources. The
City’s energy risk management staff, however, will be actively involved in NCPA’s Risk
Oversight Committee and meetings to monitor possible risk exposures resulting from the
City’s membership in the NCPA Joint Powers Agency even where the City is neither a
project nor a program participant and to ensure best practices are observed.
The ERM Policy does not address general CPAU business risks such as fire, accident,
casualty, worker health and safety, and general liability. Neither does the policy cover
the water fund, the electric and natural gas distribution business units, nor the
telecommunications business unit.
C. RISK MANAGEMENT ROLES, RESPONSIBILITES, AND
ORGANIZATION
1. City Council
The Council reviews and adopts the ERM Policy as developed and recommended by the
Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee and delegates its implementation to
the City Manager. The Council will, at a minimum, review the Policy annually.
Additionally, the Council shall receive quarterly updates from the City Manager
regarding energy risk management activities.
2. Utilities Advisory Commission
The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) is responsible for advising the Council on
long-range planning and policy matters relating to the electric and gas utilities. While it
has no formal responsibility in energy risk management, the UAC shall receive copies of
the quarterly reports sent to the Council regarding energy risk management activities.
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy May 2012
3
3. City Manager
The City Manager has overall responsibility for executing and ensuring compliance with
policy adopted by the Council. The City Manager reports quarterly to the City Council
regarding energy risk management activities.
4. Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee
The Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC) consists of the
following four voting members: the Director of Utilities (designated as the Chairperson),
the Director of Administrative Services, the Director of Public Works, and a
representative from the City Manager’s Office. The staff City Attorney assigned to
Utilities and the City Auditor serve as non-voting advisors to the UROCC. In
accordance with 2007 Government Auditing Standards, the City Auditor’s participation
as an advisor to the UROCC is not considered an audit service and does not impair the
City Auditor’s objective ability to audit CPAU. The Energy Risk Manager serves as the
Secretary to the UROCC. A quorum, consisting of at least three voting members of the
UROCC, may take action on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the
UROCC.
The UROCC is responsible for monitoring compliance with the ERM Policy. The
UROCC is the primary body responsible for approving and implementing the ERM
Guidelines consistent with the Council-approved ERM Policy.
5. Management Oversight
Risk management oversight at an operational level is accomplished through supervisory
review and approval and appropriate separation of duties. The separate functions of the
Front Office, Middle Office, and Back Office are described in the ERM Guidelines. Risk
management functions are separated, as follows:
a. Front Office – Planning and Procurement
In reporting to the Director of Utilities, the Front Office representative is primarily
responsible for resource planning and procuring energy supplies and services. The Front
Office, by delegation of the City Manager, has a critical role in risk management through
its transacting operations. The Front Office has the authority to commit the financial
capital of the City to energy transactions with counterparties. As such, the Front Office is
a central clearing point for risk assumption and risk mitigation.
The Front Office’s roles in energy risk management include:
Developing and implementing the Utilities Director-approved Front Office
procedures consistent with the Council-approved ERM Policy and the
UROCC-approved ERM Guidelines;
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy May 2012
4
Developing and implementing energy portfolio management plans,
strategies and guidelines in support of CPAU’s objectives and in
accordance with the City’s ERM Policy and legal and regulatory
requirements;
Developing and recommending for annual approval retail rates and financial
plans, including appropriate levels of gas and electric utility reserves in
support of CPAU’s objectives;
Ensuring adherence to the ERM Policy, the ERM Guidelines and the ERM
Procedures, including the proper recording of transactions, monitoring, and
valuation of risk;
Reporting position, valuation and market conditions, and energy portfolio
risk to the UROCC; and
Ensuring the proper reporting of contractual commitments in the City’s
financial reporting system.
The Front Office’s Procedures are developed by staff, approved by the Utilities Director,
and provided to the UROCC for information.
b. Middle Office – Risk Management Controls and Reporting
In reporting to the Director of Administrative Services, the Middle Office representative
provides the primary independent oversight role. The Middle Office consists of the Risk
Manager, and she or he shall institute, supervise, and review all energy risk management
activities, including portfolio exposure, credit exposure, transaction compliance, and
ongoing approval of counterparties and transacting limits.
The Middle Office’s energy risk management responsibilities include:
Monitoring CPAU’s risk exposures and ensuring compliance with the ERM
Policy, the ERM Guidelines, and the ERM Procedures;
Reporting to the UROCC on risk management issues, and making
recommendations which may relate to the temporary or permanent cessation of
transactions with one or more counterparties, citing exceptions to rules and
procedures, other operational exceptions, or any other topic the Risk Manager
believes represents an unacceptable risk exposure; and
Recommending, as necessary, updates to the ERM Policy, the ERM
Guidelines, and the ERM Procedures.
The Middle Office’s Procedures are developed by staff, approved by the Director of
Administrative Services, and provided to the UROCC for information.
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy May 2012
5
c. Back Office – Settlement and Recording
The Back Office is primarily responsible for settlement of bills, recording transactions,
bookkeeping and accounting, and contract administration. Functions within the Back
Office are performed by both Administrative Services Department (ASD) and CPAU
staff and are detailed in the ERM Guidelines.
The Back Office roles in risk management oversight include:
Ensuring that bills reflect trade orders;
Independently monitoring and recording transactions into a tracking database;
and
Verifying and reporting on compliance with procedures as reflected in the deal
tracking documentation.
Back Office Procedures are collectively developed by ASD and CPAU staff, jointly
approved by the Director of Administrative Services and the Utilities Director, and
provided to the UROCC for information.
D. TRANSACTING POLICY
The Transacting Policy ensures transactions executed under the Electric Master
Agreements and the Gas Master Agreements (collectively, Master Agreements) are
executed in a manner consistent with the authority granted by the Council to the City
Manager to transact under these contracts and the PAMC. The Transacting Policy also
ensures such transactions are carried out to manage risk inherent to the electric and gas
supply portfolio without exposing the City to unnecessary risk. The policy has three key
elements:
1. Anti-speculation
Speculative buying and selling of energy products are prohibited. Speculation is defined
as buying energy not needed for meeting forecasted load or selling energy that is not
owned. Additionally, in no event shall transactions be entered into in order to speculate
on market conditions. The ERM Guidelines shall prescribe volume and sales dollar
amount limits for forward purchases and sales.
2. Maximum Transaction Term
The maximum term of any supply resource transaction (purchase or sale) is three years,
unless approved by the City Council.
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy May 2012
6
3. Competitive Process
CPAU will endeavor to obtain three or more quotations from eligible counterparties and
select the best price. The ERM Guidelines include trade capture guidelines to ensure the
proper execution of transactions.
E. COUNTERPARTY CREDIT POLICY
The Counterparty Credit Policy is designed to minimize the potential adverse financial
impacts, and credit exposure to the City in the event of a defaulting counterparty.
Specifically, the policy seeks to minimize credit exposure related to wholesale
commodity transactions by:
Establishing a credit risk management governance and oversight structure within
the existing ERM program;
Providing a framework to enable the City to qualify energy suppliers and transact
with eligible counterparties;
Providing counterparty transacting parameters (limits) to control and measure the
City’s exposure to any one supplier;
Implementing a mechanism to monitor and report on supply portfolio-related
counterparty credit exposures; and
Managing counterparty credit requirements from the City.
Furthermore, the PAMC Section 2.30.340 sets forth creditworthiness standards and
certain contractual provisions applicable to contracts for wholesale utility commodities.
As such, transactions carried out under the Master Agreements are limited to
counterparties with a Standard and Poor’s issuer rating of BBB- or better, or a Moody’s
Investor Services issuer rating of Baa3 or better. Only the Council can approve
exemptions to this requirement.
The ERM Guidelines shall set forth specific counterparty credit limits for volume, term
and credit exposure, and counterparty reporting requirements.
F. RISK MANAGEMENT REPORTING POLICY
Key to ERM is the monitoring of risks and the accurate and timely information that must
be provided to all parties involved in any aspects of energy risk management to allow
them to perform their functions appropriately. Quarterly reports will be distributed to the
UROCC, the UAC, and the Council; those reports shall provide sufficient details on the
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy May 2012
7
City’s forward contract purchases, market exposure, credit exposure, counterparty credit
ratings, transaction compliance, and other relevant data.
The Front and Middle Offices’ staffs shall prepare performance reports containing an
analysis of physical and financial positions of all electric and gas commodity contracts.
The frequency and content of performance reports for each oversight body shall be
prescribed in the ERM Guidelines. Should the risks associated with the portfolio or a
specific transaction within the portfolio fall outside of the risk limits prescribed in the
ERM Guidelines, the Risk Manager will report this fact to the UROCC within one
business day via email and will evaluate the risk of holding any of the contracts in the
portfolio to delivery along with reporting to the Council in the next quarterly energy risk
management report.
G. AUTHORIZED PRODUCTS POLICY
The Council has delegated to the City Manager the authority to transact under Council-
approved Master Agreements. The purpose of the Authorized Products Policy is to
ensure that products transacted under the Master Agreements are consistent with the
needs of CPAU and fall within the authority granted by the Council to the City Manager.
The following products and/or transactions are approved to be executed under the Master
Agreements:
A. Purchase of physical fixed price, index-based price, call options, capped-price or
collar-priced energy, natural gas, capacity, transportation, basis and transmission
products to meet load requirements;
B. Sale of physical fixed price or index-based price energy, natural gas, capacity,
storage, and transmission incidental to load;
C. Purchase of electric heat rate products to meet load;
D. Purchase and Sale of Renewable Energy Credits with or without bundled energy;
E. Purchase of Gas storage;
F. Purchase and Sale of Electric Ancillary Services;
G. Purchase and sale of local and system capacity to meet the City’s resource adequacy
requirement;
H. Fixed price or index-priced purchases and sales to substitute the use of higher cost
resources with lower cost market alternatives;
I. Fixed price or index-priced forward purchases and sales of transmission and
transmission rights to meet contractual obligations or to dispose of surplus capacity;
and
J. Purchase of physical call options and physical collars.
Deleted: <#> Financial transactions
related to the nomination, purchasing and
selling of Congestion Revenue Rights¶
¶
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy May 2012
8
H. TRANSACTING AUTHORITY POLICY
In accordance with PAMC section 2.30.270(a), the City Manager has the authority to
purchase and sell wholesale energy commodities for terms of up to three years under
open purchase contracts. PAMC section 2.30.270(b) governs the City Manager’s
delegation of authority. Delegation of authority for and on behalf of the City Manager
shall be established in the ERM Guidelines. The City Clerk maintains the list of CPAU
individuals who are authorized to engage in wholesale utility commodity transactions.
I. CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY
In accordance with Chapter 2.09 of the PAMC and applicable California law, the City’s
personnel who are involved in transacting and exercising oversight of CPAU’s supply
resource acquisition, contract negotiation, risk management, and back office programs
may not participate in decisions in which they have a conflict of interest. Should an
employee become aware of a conflict of interest during the course of fulfilling his or her
responsibilities, he or she shall report it, without delay, to the Director, or her or his
designee, who shall resolve the conflict.
Formatted: No bullets ornumbering
Formatted: No bullets or
numbering
Deleted: The
Deleted: City Manager authorities may
be delegated by
Deleted: Manager to the Director of
Utilities. Purchases and sales are subject
to signature
Deleted: limits as defined
Deleted: Municipal Code. Currently,
energy purchases exceeding $250,000 per
year and exceeding a three-year term
require City Council approval (Municipal
Code Sec 2.30.210 (l)). Authority to
enter into transactions must be based on
City Council approved contracts such as
master agreements, purchase agreements,
or other contractual forms. In all cases the Municipal Code provides the final authorization rules and regulations for
energy purchases.¶
¶
Authorization levels for City staff as
delegated are maintained in the Risk
Management
Deleted: by the Middle Office.
Deleted: make
Deleted:
Deleted: Municipal Code
Deleted: and
Deleted: the City of Palo Alto Utilities
Deleted: financial
Deleted: All personnel are required to
complete, on
Deleted: annual basis, the Form 700
Disclosure forms and submit these forms
to the City Clerk. Each staff member
engaged in energy transacting, risk
management, or energy back office
operations has the sole responsibility of identifying and reporting any potential conflict of interest, and ensuring that he
or she does not participate in decisions
when a financial
Deleted: exists. If the employee has a
reportable interest, it is their
responsibility to disclose the interest and
have their supervisor sign-off on the form
Deleted: supervisor of the potential
conflict. If questions remain after talking
... [51]
... [52]
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy May 2012
9
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Back Office A set of business functions in Utilities and Administrative Services
Departments including trade confirmation, accounting, and other
processes that support the transaction of commodities.
Call Options An option that allows the owner the right to purchase energy at the
specified strike price.
Cap Price A structured product that contains a strip of multiple call option
contracts with identical, but staggered expirations.
Carbon Offsets A way for a company or person to reduce the level of carbon dioxide
for which they are responsible by paying money to an organization
that works to reduce the total amount produced in the world.
Collar A combination of a price with a maximum and minimum value.
Congestion Revenue Rights
(CRRs)
A hedging tool or a financial instrument that entitles the holder to a
CRR payment. This occurs when congestion (a characteristic of the
transmission system produced when constraints on the system
prevent the optimum economic dispatch of generation to meet
demand) is in the direction of the CRR Source (a node or a trading
hub where generation is scheduled into the electric grid) to the CRR
Sink (a node or a trading hub specified as the point of withdrawal
for consumption).
Credit Risk The probable change in the value of a contract due to a counterparty
defaulting.
Electric Ancillary Services Those services necessary to support the transmission of electric
power from seller to purchaser given the obligations of control areas
and transmitting utilities within those control areas to maintain
reliable operations of the interconnected transmission system.
Electric Heat Rate Product A contract based on how efficiently a generator uses heat energy in
fuel (i.e., natural gas) to generate electricity.
Front Office The sector of energy procurement operations in utilities where
trading (purchasing or selling of a commodity) occurs.
Hydro Risk The risk that altered precipitation patterns result in less than normal
hydro electric generation.
Index-based Price A price that varies based on published index prices.
Market Risk The probable change in value of (or sensitivity to) a contract,
position, or portfolio due to general changes in market conditions.
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted Table
Formatted Table
Deleted: <#>Page Break<#>Glossary of Terms¶
Deleted: options
Deleted: price
Deleted: CRR is a
Deleted: Congestion
Deleted: risk
Deleted: Electric heat rate product
Deleted: Financial Position
Deleted: The total dollar amount of
contracts that setting with counterparties
exchanging cash.
Deleted: Front Office
Deleted: The sector of energy
procurement operations in utilities where
trading occurs.
Deleted: Hydro risk
Deleted: The risk that altered
precipitation patterns result in less than
normal hydro electric generation.
Deleted: Index-based price
Deleted: A price that varies based on
published index prices.
Deleted: Market risk ... [53]
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy May 2012
10
Master Agreement A standardized agreement for the purchase and sale of energy.
Middle Office The set of business functions in Administrative Services Department
that carries out energy risk management activities.
Physical Fixed Price A contract for a fixed price which settles when one counterparty
delivers the commodity to another counterparty and pays a cash
settlement.
Physical Position The volumetric sum of all physical transactions.
Portfolio Exposure The monetary sum of all positions that are subject to change.
Risk Management The set of skills and processes for measuring, controlling, and
hedging risk.
Supply Portfolio The composition and amount of all purchased power.
Transmission Product The sale or purchase of a non-energy asset to transport energy.
Volume Risk The risk of the volume of a contract or position changing from
current expectations.
Weather Risk The risk of weather changing from current expectations and causing
changes to expected load or generation.
Formatted Table
Deleted: to which other agreements
Deleted: purchases are referred.
Deleted: the
Deleted: including measuring,
controlling and hedging market, credit,
hydro and other risks
Deleted: fixed price
Deleted: who
Deleted: exposure
Deleted: product
Deleted: risk
Deleted: risk
City of Palo Alto
Energy Risk Management
Policy
July 2012
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy July 2012
i
City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy
Table of Contents
A. OBJECTIVE............................................................................................................................ 1
B. APPLICABILITY................................................................................................................... 1
C. RISK MANAGEMENT ROLES, RESPONSIBILITES, AND ORGANIZATION......... 2
1. CITY COUNCIL ....................................................................................................................... 2
2. UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION........................................................................................ 2
3. CITY MANAGER ..................................................................................................................... 3
4. UTILITIES RISK OVERSIGHT AND COORDINATING COMMITTEE.............................................. 3
5. MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT.................................................................................................... 3
a. Front Office – Planning and Procurement..................................................................... 3
b. Middle Office – Risk Management Controls and Reporting........................................... 4
c. Back Office – Settlement and Recording ........................................................................ 5
D. TRANSACTING POLICY..................................................................................................... 5
1. ANTI-SPECULATION........................................................................................................ 5
2. MAXIMUM TRANSACTION TERM............................................................................................ 5
3. COMPETITIVE PROCESS .......................................................................................................... 6
E. COUNTERPARTY CREDIT POLICY................................................................................ 6
F. RISK MANAGEMENT REPORTING POLICY................................................................ 6
G. AUTHORIZED PRODUCTS POLICY................................................................................ 7
H. TRANSACTING AUTHORITY POLICY........................................................................... 8
I. CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY ................................................................................. 8
GLOSSARY OF TERMS............................................................................................................. 9
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy July 2012
1
A. OBJECTIVE
The City of Palo Alto (City), Department of Utilities (CPAU) purchases and sells gas and
electricity to meet the needs of its customers. The City’s Energy Risk Management
(ERM) Policy (ERM Policy) describes the management organization, authority, and
processes to monitor, measure, and control market risks, which include price risk, credit
risk, and operational risk, to which the City is exposed in the normal course of managing
the gas and electric utilities.
The ERM Policy describes the key policies and control structures for prudent energy risk
management processes . This occurs while ensuring adherence to financial requirements
set forth by the Council and the Director of Administrative Services as well as all
pertinent legal requirements. The control structures and policies are focused on the
following areas:
Segregation of duties and delegation of authority
Organizational structure for risk management controls to include the front,
middle, and back offices
Transacting
Counterparty credit
Reporting
Permitted transaction and product types
Conflict of interest
The ERM Policy serves as the key policy level document on energy risk management.
This Policy is supported by policy/implementation-level and operations-level documents,
including, the Energy Risk Management Guidelines (ERM Guidelines), Energy Risk
Management Procedures (ERM Procedures) for the Front, Middle, and Back Offices, and
the Long-Term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP), Gas Utility Long-Term Plan (GULP),
and the Utilities Strategic Plan. Together these three documents serve to meet the
requirements set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.30 Contracts and
Purchasing Procedures (“PAMC”) as they relate to Wholesale Commodity Contracts,
Authority, and Transactions.
B. APPLICABILITY
The ERM Policy applies to all City employees engaged in the decision-making process
for transacting in the energy markets. It is critical that all members of the City are aware
that participation in the City’s energy procurement business entails a host of risks and
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy July 2012
2
that all members participating in the process must have knowledge of the ERM Policy
and use it during such participation.
The ERM Policy applies to the electric and natural gas supply business units. The
electric and natural gas supply business units are the part of the electric and natural gas
enterprise funds that deal with the acquisition of energy supply resources.
The ERM Policy describes the management, organization, authority, processes, tools and
systems to monitor, measure, and control risks to which CPAU is exposed related to the
acquisition and management of wholesale electric and gas commodity products and
services to meet load.
The City is a member of the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), which executes
transactions on the City’s behalf. The NCPA Commission approves its own energy risk
management policies and procedures for the acquisition of energy supply resources. The
City’s energy risk management staff, however, will be actively involved in NCPA’s Risk
Oversight Committee and meetings to monitor possible risk exposures resulting from the
City’s membership in the NCPA Joint Powers Agency even where the City is neither a
project nor a program participant and to ensure best practices are observed.
The ERM Policy does not address general CPAU business risks such as fire, accident,
casualty, worker health and safety, and general liability. Neither does the policy cover
the water fund, the electric and natural gas distribution business units, nor the
telecommunications business unit.
C. RISK MANAGEMENT ROLES, RESPONSIBILITES, AND
ORGANIZATION
1. City Council
The Council reviews and adopts the ERM Policy as developed and recommended by the
Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee and delegates its implementation to
the City Manager. The Council will, at a minimum, review the Policy annually.
Additionally, the Council shall receive quarterly updates from the City Manager
regarding energy risk management activities.
2. Utilities Advisory Commission
The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) is responsible for advising the Council on
long-range planning and policy matters relating to the electric and gas utilities. While it
has no formal responsibility in energy risk management, the UAC shall receive copies of
the quarterly reports sent to the Council regarding energy risk management activities.
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy July 2012
3
3. City Manager
The City Manager has overall responsibility for executing and ensuring compliance with
policy adopted by the Council. The City Manager reports quarterly to the City Council
regarding energy risk management activities.
4. Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee
The Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC) consists of the
following four voting members: the Director of Utilities (designated as the Chairperson),
the Director of Administrative Services, the Director of Public Works, and a
representative from the City Manager’s Office. The staff City Attorney assigned to
Utilities and the City Auditor serve as non-voting advisors to the UROCC. In
accordance with 2007 Government Auditing Standards, the City Auditor’s participation
as an advisor to the UROCC is not considered an audit service and does not impair the
City Auditor’s objective ability to audit CPAU. The Energy Risk Manager serves as the
Secretary to the UROCC. A quorum, consisting of at least three voting members of the
UROCC, may take action on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the
UROCC.
The UROCC is responsible for monitoring compliance with the ERM Policy. The
UROCC is the primary body responsible for approving and implementing the ERM
Guidelines consistent with the Council-approved ERM Policy.
5. Management Oversight
Risk management oversight at an operational level is accomplished through supervisory
review and approval and appropriate separation of duties. The separate functions of the
Front Office, Middle Office, and Back Office are described in the ERM Guidelines. Risk
management functions are separated, as follows:
a. Front Office – Planning and Procurement
In reporting to the Director of Utilities, the Front Office representative is primarily
responsible for resource planning and procuring energy supplies and services. The Front
Office, by delegation of the City Manager, has a critical role in risk management through
its transacting operations. The Front Office has the authority to commit the financial
capital of the City to energy transactions with counterparties. As such, the Front Office is
a central clearing point for risk assumption and risk mitigation.
The Front Office’s roles in energy risk management include:
Developing and implementing the Utilities Director-approved Front Office
procedures consistent with the Council-approved ERM Policy and the
UROCC-approved ERM Guidelines;
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy July 2012
4
Developing and implementing energy portfolio management plans,
strategies and guidelines in support of CPAU’s objectives and in
accordance with the City’s ERM Policy and legal and regulatory
requirements;
Developing and recommending for annual approval retail rates and financial
plans, including appropriate levels of gas and electric utility reserves in
support of CPAU’s objectives;
Ensuring adherence to the ERM Policy, the ERM Guidelines and the ERM
Procedures, including the proper recording of transactions, monitoring, and
valuation of risk;
Reporting position, valuation and market conditions, and energy portfolio
risk to the UROCC; and
Ensuring the proper reporting of contractual commitments in the City’s
financial reporting system.
The Front Office’s Procedures are developed by staff, approved by the Utilities Director,
and provided to the UROCC for information.
b. Middle Office – Risk Management Controls and Reporting
In reporting to the Director of Administrative Services, the Middle Office representative
provides the primary independent oversight role. The Middle Office consists of the Risk
Manager, and she or he shall institute, supervise, and review all energy risk management
activities, including portfolio exposure, credit exposure, transaction compliance, and
ongoing approval of counterparties and transacting limits.
The Middle Office’s energy risk management responsibilities include:
Monitoring CPAU’s risk exposures and ensuring compliance with the ERM
Policy, the ERM Guidelines, and the ERM Procedures;
Reporting to the UROCC on risk management issues, and making
recommendations which may relate to the temporary or permanent cessation of
transactions with one or more counterparties, citing exceptions to rules and
procedures, other operational exceptions, or any other topic the Risk Manager
believes represents an unacceptable risk exposure; and
Recommending, as necessary, updates to the ERM Policy, the ERM
Guidelines, and the ERM Procedures.
The Middle Office’s Procedures are developed by staff, approved by the Director of
Administrative Services, and provided to the UROCC for information.
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy July 2012
5
c. Back Office – Settlement and Recording
The Back Office is primarily responsible for settlement of bills, recording transactions,
bookkeeping and accounting, and contract administration. Functions within the Back
Office are performed by both Administrative Services Department (ASD) and CPAU
staff and are detailed in the ERM Guidelines.
The Back Office roles in risk management oversight include:
Ensuring that bills reflect trade orders;
Independently monitoring and recording transactions into a tracking database;
and
Verifying and reporting on compliance with procedures as reflected in the deal
tracking documentation.
Back Office Procedures are collectively developed by ASD and CPAU staff, jointly
approved by the Director of Administrative Services and the Utilities Director, and
provided to the UROCC for information.
D. TRANSACTING POLICY
The Transacting Policy ensures transactions executed under the Electric Master
Agreements and the Gas Master Agreements (collectively, Master Agreements) are
executed in a manner consistent with the authority granted by the Council to the City
Manager to transact under these contracts and the PAMC. The Transacting Policy also
ensures such transactions are carried out to manage risk inherent to the electric and gas
supply portfolio without exposing the City to unnecessary risk. The policy has three key
elements:
1. Anti-speculation
Speculative buying and selling of energy products are prohibited. Speculation is defined
as buying energy not needed for meeting forecasted load or selling energy that is not
owned. Additionally, in no event shall transactions be entered into in order to speculate
on market conditions. The ERM Guidelines shall prescribe volume and sales dollar
amount limits for forward purchases and sales.
2. Maximum Transaction Term
The maximum term of any supply resource transaction (purchase or sale) is three years,
unless approved by the City Council.
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy July 2012
6
3. Competitive Process
CPAU will endeavor to obtain three or more quotations from eligible counterparties and
select the best price. The ERM Guidelines include trade capture guidelines to ensure the
proper execution of transactions.
E. COUNTERPARTY CREDIT POLICY
The Counterparty Credit Policy is designed to minimize the potential adverse financial
impacts, and credit exposure to the City in the event of a defaulting counterparty.
Specifically, the policy seeks to minimize credit exposure related to wholesale
commodity transactions by:
Establishing a credit risk management governance and oversight structure within
the existing ERM program;
Providing a framework to enable the City to qualify energy suppliers and transact
with eligible counterparties;
Providing counterparty transacting parameters (limits) to control and measure the
City’s exposure to any one supplier;
Implementing a mechanism to monitor and report on supply portfolio-related
counterparty credit exposures; and
Managing counterparty credit requirements from the City.
Furthermore, the PAMC Section 2.30.340 sets forth creditworthiness standards and
certain contractual provisions applicable to contracts for wholesale utility commodities.
As such, transactions carried out under the Master Agreements are limited to
counterparties with a Standard and Poor’s issuer rating of BBB- or better, or a Moody’s
Investor Services issuer rating of Baa3 or better. Only the Council can approve
exemptions to this requirement.
The ERM Guidelines shall set forth specific counterparty credit limits for volume, term
and credit exposure, and counterparty reporting requirements.
F. RISK MANAGEMENT REPORTING POLICY
Key to ERM is the monitoring of risks and the accurate and timely information that must
be provided to all parties involved in any aspects of energy risk management to allow
them to perform their functions appropriately. Quarterly reports will be distributed to the
UROCC, the UAC, and the Council; those reports shall provide sufficient details on the
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy July 2012
7
City’s forward contract purchases, market exposure, credit exposure, counterparty credit
ratings, transaction compliance, and other relevant data.
The Front and Middle Offices’ staffs shall prepare performance reports containing an
analysis of physical and financial positions of all electric and gas commodity contracts.
The frequency and content of performance reports for each oversight body shall be
prescribed in the ERM Guidelines. Should the risks associated with the portfolio or a
specific transaction within the portfolio fall outside of the risk limits prescribed in the
ERM Guidelines, the Risk Manager will report this fact to the UROCC within one
business day via email and will evaluate the risk of holding any of the contracts in the
portfolio to delivery along with reporting to the Council in the next quarterly energy risk
management report.
G. AUTHORIZED PRODUCTS POLICY
The Council has delegated to the City Manager the authority to transact under Council-
approved Master Agreements. The purpose of the Authorized Products Policy is to
ensure that products transacted under the Master Agreements are consistent with the
needs of CPAU and fall within the authority granted by the Council to the City Manager.
The following products and/or transactions are approved to be executed under the Master
Agreements:
A. Purchase of physical fixed price, index-based price, call options, capped-price or
collar-priced energy, natural gas, capacity, transportation, basis and transmission
products to meet load requirements;
B. Sale of physical fixed price or index-based price energy, natural gas, capacity,
storage, and transmission incidental to load;
C. Purchase of electric heat rate products to meet load;
D. Purchase and Sale of Renewable Energy Credits with or without bundled energy;
E. Purchase of Gas storage;
F. Purchase and Sale of Electric Ancillary Services;
G. Purchase and sale of local and system capacity to meet the City’s resource adequacy
requirement;
H. Fixed price or index-priced purchases and sales to substitute the use of higher cost
resources with lower cost market alternatives;
I. Fixed price or index-priced forward purchases and sales of transmission and
transmission rights to meet contractual obligations or to dispose of surplus capacity;
and
J. Purchase of physical call options and physical collars.
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy July 2012
8
H. TRANSACTING AUTHORITY POLICY
In accordance with PAMC section 2.30.270(a), the City Manager has the authority to
purchase and sell wholesale energy commodities for terms of up to three years under
open purchase contracts. PAMC section 2.30.270(b) governs the City Manager’s
delegation of authority. Delegation of authority for and on behalf of the City Manager
shall be established in the ERM Guidelines. The City Clerk maintains the list of CPAU
individuals who are authorized to engage in wholesale utility commodity transactions.
I. CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY
In accordance with Chapter 2.09 of the PAMC and applicable California law, the City’s
personnel who are involved in transacting and exercising oversight of CPAU’s supply
resource acquisition, contract negotiation, risk management, and back office programs
may not participate in decisions in which they have a conflict of interest. Should an
employee become aware of a conflict of interest during the course of fulfilling his or her
responsibilities, he or she shall report it, without delay, to the Director, or her or his
designee, who shall resolve the conflict.
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy July 2012
9
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Back Office A set of business functions in Utilities and Administrative Services
Departments including trade confirmation, accounting, and other
processes that support the transaction of commodities.
Call Options An option that allows the owner the right to purchase energy at the
specified strike price.
Cap Price A structured product that contains a strip of multiple call option
contracts with identical, but staggered expirations.
Carbon Offsets A way for a company or person to reduce the level of carbon dioxide
for which they are responsible by paying money to an organization
that works to reduce the total amount produced in the world.
Collar A combination of a price with a maximum and minimum value.
Congestion Revenue Rights
(CRRs)
A hedging tool or a financial instrument that entitles the holder to a
CRR payment. This occurs when congestion (a characteristic of the
transmission system produced when constraints on the system
prevent the optimum economic dispatch of generation to meet
demand) is in the direction of the CRR Source (a node or a trading
hub where generation is scheduled into the electric grid) to the CRR
Sink (a node or a trading hub specified as the point of withdrawal
for consumption).
Credit Risk The probable change in the value of a contract due to a counterparty
defaulting.
Electric Ancillary Services Those services necessary to support the transmission of electric
power from seller to purchaser given the obligations of control areas
and transmitting utilities within those control areas to maintain
reliable operations of the interconnected transmission system.
Electric Heat Rate Product A contract based on how efficiently a generator uses heat energy in
fuel (i.e., natural gas) to generate electricity.
Front Office The sector of energy procurement operations in utilities where
trading (purchasing or selling of a commodity) occurs.
Hydro Risk The risk that altered precipitation patterns result in less than normal
hydro electric generation.
Index-based Price A price that varies based on published index prices.
Market Risk The probable change in value of (or sensitivity to) a contract,
position, or portfolio due to general changes in market conditions.
CPA Energy Risk Management Policy July 2012
10
Master Agreement A standardized agreement for the purchase and sale of energy.
Middle Office The set of business functions in Administrative Services Department
that carries out energy risk management activities.
Physical Fixed Price A contract for a fixed price which settles when one counterparty
delivers the commodity to another counterparty and pays a cash
settlement.
Physical Position The volumetric sum of all physical transactions.
Portfolio Exposure The monetary sum of all positions that are subject to change.
Risk Management The set of skills and processes for measuring, controlling, and
hedging risk.
Supply Portfolio The composition and amount of all purchased power.
Transmission Product The sale or purchase of a non-energy asset to transport energy.
Volume Risk The risk of the volume of a contract or position changing from
current expectations.
Weather Risk The risk of weather changing from current expectations and causing
changes to expected load or generation.
EXCERPTED DRAFT MINUTES OF UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
Meeting of June 6, 2012 ITEM 2: ACTION: City of Palo Alto’s Energy Risk Management Policy (ERMP)
Mary Figone, Senior Financial Analyst, provided a brief presentation in support of the Energy Risk
Management Policy report. She highlighted the four main areas of revision. First, generally
throughout the policy the language has been clarified and streamlined; this update was focused
more specifically in addressing risk and now references the Utilities Strategic Plan, Gas Utility
Long-Term Plan (GULP), and Long-Term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) (In 1/11, City Council
directed staff to add the LEAP and GULP as references in the Policy); the conflict of interest
section was modified to add a specific process to deal with these types of situations; and the time
periods were clarified that the Risk Manager reports information to the UROCC and to the City
Council (within one business day by email to the UROCC and in the next quarterly report to
Council).
Commissioner Keller noted that gas storage is listed as a product, and asked if that will that
change due to the laddering strategy change. Senior Resource Planner Karla Dailey responded
that we do not plan to purchase gas storage, and purchasing gas storage was taken out of the
GULP, but it was retained in the policy to keep the list broad in case of a change in strategy.
Commissioner Hall asked if there was any tension between the approved product list and the anti-
speculation policy. Commissioner Eglash stated that speculation means that staff would not to
engage in betting on movements in the market direction and making transactions to try to make
money, rather than to meet load.
ACTION:
Commissioner Melton made a motion to recommend that the UAC approve the proposed Energy
Risk Management Policy. Chair Foster seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-
0) with Commissioner Waldfogel absent.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
120618 dm 00710045 1
Resolution No. _______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Revisions
to the City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy
A. The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) has adopted a policy governing the
management, monitoring and hedging of risks associated with electric and natural gas
commodity transactions effected by the Department of Utilities. That policy is
memorialized in the document entitled “Energy Risk Management Policy” (the “Policy”),
which the City intends to updated annually.
B. As of May, 2012, the Policy has been amended to account for general
updating of language in the Policy, including clarifications and streamlining. The Policy
has been updated to more specifically address risk. It now includes references to the
Utilities Strategic Plan, Gas Utility Long-term Plan, and the Long-term Electric Acquisition
Plan, the conflict of interest provision has been updated, and the time periods in which
the Energy Risk Manager must report information has been clarified.
C. On June 6, 2012, the Utilities Advisory Commission recommended
approval of the Policy, as amended, and also recommended the Council’s adoption of
the Policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby RESOLVES, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the City of Palo Alto Energy Risk
Management Policy, as amended, which is attached to this Resolution.
//
//
//
//
*NOT YET APPROVED*
120618 dm 00710045 2
SECTION 2. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a
project under the California Environmental Quality Act and no environmental assessment is
required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_____________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________
City Manager
_____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney _____________________________
Director of Utilities
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2800)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/9/2012
July 09, 2012 Page 1 of 5
(ID # 2800)
Summary Title: Cowper/Webster (Lot J) Garage Structure Repairs Contract
Title: Approval of Contract with Green Earth Engineering & Construction Inc. in
the Amount of $388,000 for Demolition and Construction Work for the
Cowper/Webster (Lot J) Parking Garage Structure Repair Project (CIP PF-10002)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the
attached contract (Attachment A) with Green Earth Engineering &
Construction Inc. in the amount of $388,000 for demolition and
construction work for the Cowper/Webster (Lot J) Structure Repair Project
(CIP PF-10002); and
2. Authorize the City Manager or designee to negotiate and execute one or
more change orders to the contract with Green Earth Engineering &
Construction Inc. for related additional, but unforeseen work which may
develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed
$38,800.
Background
Site Information
The Cowper-Webster, Lot J, public parking garage is located on a 60,000 square
foot parcel in Downtown Palo Alto in the center of a commercial block and can be
accessed from Cowper and Webster Streets. The existing parking garage was
originally constructed in 1984 with four floors above grade and one floor below
grade. Two additional levels were constructed in 1990. The site is surrounded on
July 09, 2012 Page 2 of 5
(ID # 2800)
four sides by various commercial uses and building types.
The proposed project is primarily a maintenance project that brings the railings up
to the current Building Code and removes deteriorating wood trellis elements on
the garage facades. The wood trellis and railing systems cantilevering from the
structure have deteriorated as a result of exposure to the elements. A structural
engineering firm, Hohback-Lewin Inc., was retained to evaluate the existing
conditions and make recommendations for repair. Hohbach-Lewin, in turn,
teamed with Stoecker and Northway Architects, Inc., to develop an architecturally
pleasing solution.
Project Description
Based upon the problems inherent in the cantilevered design of the trellises, the
team agreed that it would be prudent to eliminate these elements. In recognition
of the challenges associated with maintaining wood trim suspended several
stories above the ground and related safety issues, it was also determined that
the existing dimensional lumber elements of the guardrails should be removed.
The design proposed for the new railing system is a traffic cable, similar to the
cable railing system used for the garage on High/Alma Streets (Parking Lot R).
On September 15, 2011, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the
proposed project in a Study Session forum. The ARB was generally very
supportive of the project and there was minimal discussion on the project with
little to no issues raised by the individual board members.
On February 2, 2012 the ARB recommended approval of the proposed design, and
the Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the project on
February 2, 2012.
Typically costs associated with maintenance of University Avenue parking
structures are paid from the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund. However,
because this particular structure was added to the parking district in part to
enhance the City’s Downtown economic development opportunities and the fact
that the current façade structure had unique City approved design elements
(wooden trellis) that now need to be removed staff recommends that the General
Fund bear 50% of the costs with 50% reimbursement from the University Avenue
Parking Permit Fund. Due to the total of the costs it has been determined that
July 09, 2012 Page 3 of 5
(ID # 2800)
the City can spread the reimbursement over two years to not burden Parking
Permit reserves and allow a sufficient fund balance.
Discussion
The work to be performed under this contract is the demolition of the
deteriorated cantilevered wood trellis system on all four sides. The rain gutter
system shall be cleaned and repainted to match the existing steel railing. A new
traffic cable railing system will be installed to comply with the current Building
Code requirement. This new railing system will increase the natural light into the
parking garage and improve safety. The parking garage will remain in operation
during the construction project.
July 09, 2012 Page 4 of 5
(ID # 2800)
Summary of Bid Process
Bid Name
IFB Number 145807
Lot J Cowper-Webster Street Parking Garage
Structure Repairs
Proposed Length of Project 90 calendar days
Number of Bids Mailed to
Contractors
15
Number of Bids Mailed to
Builder’s Exchanges
1
Total Days to Respond to Bid 21
Pre-Bid Meeting? 04/23/2012
Number of Company
Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting
5
Number of Bids Received: 7
Bid Price Range From a low of $388,000 to a high of $577,000
*Bid summary provided in Attachment B.
Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $388,000
submitted by Green Earth Engineering & Construction, Inc., be accepted and that
Green Earth Engineering & Construction, Inc., be declared the lowest responsible
bidder. Staff confirmed with the Contractor's State License Board that the
contractor has an active license on file.
Resource Impact
Funding for this work is available in Capital Improvement Program projects PF-
10002, Lot J Structure Repair with a 50% reimbursement to the Infrastructure
Reserve to be allocated over fiscal years 2013 and 2014 from the University
Avenue Parking Permit Fund.
Policy Implications
This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies.
Timeline
The project is scheduled to start in August 2012 and be completed in November
2012.
Environmental Review
Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
July 09, 2012 Page 5 of 5
(ID # 2800)
the project is categorically exempt from CEQA, per Section 15301.
Attachments:
A: Construction Contract C13145807 Green Earth Engineering (PDF)
B: Bid Summary Lot J Cowper Webster Street Parking Garage Structure Repairs (XLS)
Prepared By: Dennis Huebner, Manager Maintenance Operations
Department Head: J. Michael Sartor, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
1 Rev. May 1, 2012
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. C13145807
City of Palo Alto
and
Green Earth Engineering & Construction
PROJECT
“Lot J Cowper Webster Street Parking Garage Structure
Repairs”
2 Rev. May 1, 2012
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS……………………………….. ....................5
1.1 Recitals ................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Definitions ........................................................................................................... 5
SECTION 2. THE PROJECT………………………………………………………………………………..............................5
SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS…………………………………………………………. .........................5
3.1 List of Documents …………………………………………………………………………………………......5
3.2 Order of Precedence ……………………………………………………………………………................6
SECTION 4. THE WORK …………………………………………………………………………………..............................6
SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM …………………………………………………………………………...............................7
SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION …………………………………………………………………............................7
6.1 Time Is of Essence........................................................................................……… 7
6.2 Commencement of Work..................................................................................... 7
6.3 Contract Time....................................................................................................... 7
6.4 Liquidated Damages............................................................................................. 7
6.4.1 Entitlement……………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
6.4.2 Daily Amount…………………………………………………………………………………………. 8
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
6.4.4 Other Remedies…………………………………………………………………………………... 8
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time........................................................................... … 8
SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR………………………………………………………………………... 8
7.1 Contract Sum ………………………………………………………………………………………………………8
7.2 Full Compensation …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work …………………………………………………………….9
7.3.1 Self Performed Work…………………………………………………………………………………9
7.3.2 Subcontractors………………………………………………………………………………………….9
SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE...................................................................................................9
SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION......................................................................................................10
9.1 Hold Harmless ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..10
9.2 Survival ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
SECTION 10. NONDISCRIMINATION ..............................................................................................10
SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS ..........................................................................................10
SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS..........................................................................11
3 Rev. May 1, 2012
SECTION 13. NOTICES....................................................................................................................11
13.1 Method of Notice ………………………………………………………………………………………………..11
13.2 Notice Recipients ................................................................................................. 11
13.3 Change of Address ............................................................................................... 12
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes........................................................................... 12
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes ............................................................................... 12
14.2.1 Non‐Contract Disputes …………………………………………………………………………………….12
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election …………………………………………………………...........................13
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute …………………………………………………………………………..13
14.3.1 By Contractor …………………………………………………………………………………………. 13
14.3.2 By City ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process...............................................................…… 13
14.4.1 Direct Negotiation…………………………………………………………………………………….13
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes ………………………………………………………………… 14
14.4.3 Mediation …………………………………………………………………………..14
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration ………………………………………………………………..15
14.5 Non‐Waiver …………………………………………………………………………………………………………16
SECTION 15. DEFAULT...................................................................................................................16
15.1 Notice of Default.................................................................................................. 16
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default ................................................................................ 16
SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES..................................................................................16
16.1 Remedies Upon Default ....................................................................................... 16
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services …………………………………………………………...........................16
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ……………………………………………………………………………. 16
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract ………………………………………………………….16
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default ……………………………………..17
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond ………………………………………………………………….17
16.1.6 Additional Provisions ……………………………………………………………………………….17
16.2 Delays by Sureties................................................................................................ 17
16.3 Damages to City................................................................................................... 17
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default …………………………………………………………………………..17
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses ………………………………………………………………………….17
16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience..................................................................... 18
16.6 Termination Without Cause ................................................................................. 18
16.6.1 Compensation ………………………………………………………………………………………….18
16.6.2 Subcontractors …………………………………………………………………………………………18
16.7 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination................................................................. 19
SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES...................................................................19
17.1 Contractor’s Remedies......................................................................................... 19
4 Rev. May 1, 2012
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage …………………………………………………………………………………..19
17.1.2 For City's Non‐Payment …………………………………………………………………………… 19
17.2 Damages to Contractor ........................................................................................ 19
SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS............................................................................................19
18.1 Financial Management and City Access..........................................................……. 19
18.2 Compliance with City Requests ........................................................................ …. 20
SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES.............................................................................................20
SECTION 20. NUISANCE.................................................................................................................20
SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES............................................................................................20
SECTION 22. WAIVER....................................................................................................................20
SECTION 23. GOVERNING LAW .....................................................................................................20
SECTION 24. COMPLETE AGREEMENT ...........................................................................................21
SECTION 25. SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT..........................................................................................21
SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES..................................................................................................21
SECTION 27. NON APPROPRIATION ..............................................................................................21
SECTION 28. GOVERNMENTAL POWERS........................................................................................21
SECTION 29. ATTORNEY FEES........................................................................................................21
SECTION 30. COUNTERPARTS........................................................................................................21
SECTION 31. SEVERABILITY ...........................................................................................................21
5 Rev. May 1, 2012
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on July 2, 2012 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY
OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and Green Earth Engineering &
Construction ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following:
R E C I T A L S:
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of
California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the
State of California and the Charter of City.
B. Contractor is a corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California,
Contractor’s License Number 657129. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of
California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set
forth in this Construction Contract.
C. On May 16, 2012, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the “Lot J Cowper
Webster Street Parking Garage Structure Repairs” (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted
a bid.
D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other
services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS.
1.1 Recitals.
All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
1.2 Definitions.
Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the
General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and
in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail.
SECTION 2 THE PROJECT.
The Project is the construction of the “Lot J Cowper Webster Street Parking Garage Structure Repairs “.
SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
3.1 List of Documents.
The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist
of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
1) Change Orders
2) Field Change Orders
6 Rev. May 1, 2012
3) Contract
4) Project Plans and Drawings
5) Technical Specifications
6) Special Provisions
7) Notice Inviting Bids
8) Instructions to Bidders
9) General Conditions
10) Bidding Addenda
11) Invitation for Bids
12) Contractor's Bid/Non‐Collusion Affidavit
13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents
14) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and
updated from time to time
15) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated 2005
and updated from time to time
16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements
17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations
18) Notice Inviting Pre‐Qualification Statements, Pre‐Qualification Statement, and Pre‐
Qualification Checklist (if applicable)
19) Performance and Payment Bonds
20) Insurance Forms
3.2 Order of Precedence.
For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the
provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the
preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City
shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best
interests of the City.
SECTION 4 THE WORK.
The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all other
things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including, without
7 Rev. May 1, 2012
limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all Applicable
Code Requirements.
SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM.
In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide
professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project requires
that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of
the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project.
SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION.
6.1 Time Is of Essence.
Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents.
6.2 Commencement of Work.
Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed.
6.3 Contract Time.
Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be
completed within ninety calendar days (90) after the commencement date specified in City’s
Notice to Proceed.
6.4 Liquidated Damages.
6.4.1 Entitlement.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and
satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result of
Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and
impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants.
(ii) Loss of public use of public facilities.
(iii) Extended disruption to public.
8 Rev. May 1, 2012
6.4.2 Daily Amount.
City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual
damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the
entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to all
other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the event
Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the
Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of $500 per
day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until Contractor
achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated damages amount is
not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City
will suffer by delay in completion of the Work.
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision shall
be City’s only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor’s failure to achieve
Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.4.4 Other Remedies.
City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where
City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve
Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time.
The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to by
Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the
Contract Documents.
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the
Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Three Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars
($388,000).
9 Rev. May 1, 2012
7.2 Full Compensation.
The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor
and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover
all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen
difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until
its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to
suspension or discontinuance of the Work. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change
Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in accordance with the requirements of the
Contract Documents.
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work.
The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work involving
Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be selected by
City:
1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor,
which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and
Subcontractor/Sub‐subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section.
2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable
Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance
with this Section.
3. Contractor’s Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups
applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section.
Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub‐subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full
amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that is
attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its Subcontractors
and Sub‐subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment methodology, Contractor
Markup and Subcontractor/Sub‐subcontractor Markups, which shall not be compounded, shall be
computed as follows:
7.3.1 Markup Self‐Performed Work.
10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by Contractor with its own forces.
7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors.
15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by a first Tier Subcontractor.
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.
Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well‐supervised
personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a
manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in
providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.
10 Rev. May 1, 2012
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.
9.1 Hold Harmless.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its
City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers
(hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City,
from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in any manner relating to
any of, the following:
(i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐
subcontractors, of any tier;
(ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐
subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents;
(iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐subcontractors, of
any tier, either on the Site or on other properties;
(iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or
Sub‐subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project; and
(v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated with
the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐
subcontractors of any tier, of the Work.
However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses
resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor
shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract
Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor
against City or any other Indemnitee.
9.2 Survival.
The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION.
As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of
this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color,
gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status,
familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands
the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section
2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.
On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance
and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions.
Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract.
11 Rev. May 1, 2012
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.
City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of the
Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign,
hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by
operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or
transfer without said consent shall be null and void.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of
Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor
is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co‐tenancy shall result in changing the control of
Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than
fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.
SECTION 13 NOTICES.
13.1 Method of Notice.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in
writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following:
(i) On the date delivered if delivered personally;
(ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and
addressed as hereinafter provided;
(iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission;
(iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or
(v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail.
13.2 Notice Recipients.
All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City
shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be
addressed to City at:
To City: City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Copy to: City of Palo Alto
Public Works Administration
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Dennis Huebner
12 Rev. May 1, 2012
In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided
to the following:
Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, California 94303
All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:
Raymond Leung
Green Earth Engineering & Construction
968 Hanson Court
Milpitas, CA 95055
13.3 Change of Address.
In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the change
of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any
individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided.
SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this
Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights adjudged
by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process
set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive recourse of Contractor and City for such
Contract Disputes.
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes.
14.2.1 Non‐Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following:
(i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a
governmental agency;
(ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating to
any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐subcontractors
of any tier;
(iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et. seq.;
(iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to
Contractor;
(v) Stop notices; or
(vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel
performance of any provision of the Contract Documents.
13 Rev. May 1, 2012
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.
Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall not
be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City reserves the
right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as Contract Disputes.
Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the preceding sentence, such
dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided pursuant to the Contract
Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for Contract Disputes, including,
without limitation, City’s right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to defer resolution and final
determination until after Final Completion of the Work.
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.
14.3.1 By Contractor.
Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's written
response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10 of the
General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract Dispute (as
set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a portion of
Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of Contract Dispute in a
timely manner shall result in City’s decision by City on the Claim becoming final and
binding. Contractor’s Statement of Contract Dispute shall be signed under penalty of
perjury and shall state with specificity the events or circumstances giving rise to the
Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the asserted effect on the Contract
Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of Contract Dispute shall include adequate
supporting data to substantiate the disputed Claim. Adequate supporting data for a
Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of the Contract Time shall include both of the
following:
(i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the
Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the
Contract Time and
(ii) A detailed, event‐by‐event description of the impact of each event on
completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract Dispute
involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the following:
(a) A detailed cost breakdown and
(b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and
other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for
submission of Change Order Requests and Claims.
14.3.2 By City.
City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any time
following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute.
City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted by Contractor.
A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the events or
circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the
damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events.
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process.
The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution
Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in good
faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith effort shall
be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next step in the
process.
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.
Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but not
later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a good
14 Rev. May 1, 2012
faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be
represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge of
the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the negotiations,
and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there, subject only to
City’s obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval of any agreed
settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion of a right or claim
by a Subcontractor or Sub‐subcontractor, of any tier, against Contractor that is in turn
being asserted by Contractor against City (“Pass‐Through Claim”), then the Subcontractor
or Sub‐Subcontractor shall also have a
representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as
described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not
resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare
negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all
documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential and
privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.
Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all
unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the Project,
subject to City’s right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the Contract
Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract Disputes that
have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a reasonable time
after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant to this Contract
Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal negotiations of Contract
Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations shall not be alter the
provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and resolution of unresolved
Contract Disputes until after Final Completion.
14.4.3 Mediation.
If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph
14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non‐binding mediation before a
mutually acceptable third party mediator.
.1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator who
is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in
public works construction contract law and in mediating public works
construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty (20)
hours of formal training in mediation skills.
.2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating
mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party
of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a
mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then
the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in
accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules.
.3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of City.
The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The mediator
shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the Contract Dispute
and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that occur during the
mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of the mediation
shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code
Sections 1119 and 1152.
15 Rev. May 1, 2012
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration.
If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the
Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of California
Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator therein shall be
final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction. Such
arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following:
.1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint in
arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to
California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5.
.2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all parties.
The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years
of experience in public works construction contract law and in arbitrating public
works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall have at least
twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the event the parties
cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California Public Contract
Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an arbitrator possessing the
qualifications required herein.
.3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices of
City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the arbitrator,
be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or
continuance.
.4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good
cause shown.
.5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by a
certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City and
Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award.
.6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in accordance
with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract Code; provided,
however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the following:
(i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses per
party.
Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of
permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall, for
purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed an
expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in
accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including
initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as
evidence.
.7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear
dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards.
16 Rev. May 1, 2012
.8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to a
jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4.
Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors
who provide any portion of the Work.
14.5 Non‐Waiver.
Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or compromise
any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the assertion that the
rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were previously waived by
Contractor due to Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents, including, without
limitation, Contractor’s failure to comply with any time periods for providing notice of requests
for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for submission of Claims or supporting
documentation of Claims.
SECTION 15 DEFAULT.
15.1 Notice of Default.
In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to
perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any
provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the
manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract.
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.
Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under
the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require)
after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such
time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as
City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to
completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after
receipt of such written notice.
SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
16.1 Remedies Upon Default.
If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth
above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including,
without limitation, the following:
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the
Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the
Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and
withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself
all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights
to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as
17 Rev. May 1, 2012
long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which
event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall
have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work.
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.
City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon
the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15. City’s
election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by
giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of
notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by
City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein.
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond.
City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all
rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond.
16.1.6 Additional Provisions.
All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and
shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity.
Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive
the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to
terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the
Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there has
been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of
its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on
all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice
any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract
Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover
all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City.
16.2 Delays by Sureties.
Without limiting to any of City’s other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the
performance of the Work by Contractor’s sureties in the event of any of the following:
(i) The sureties’ failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to insure
full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time;
(ii) The sureties’ abandonment of the Work;
(iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties’ Work is unnecessarily or unreasonably
delaying the Work;
(iv) The sureties’ violation of any terms of the Construction Contract;
(v) The sureties’ failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or
(vi) The sureties’ failure to follow City’s instructions for completion of the Work within the
Contract Time.
16.3 Damages to City.
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.
City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of
Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents.
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses.
In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract
Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor
until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor’s default,
then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the
amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor or
18 Rev. May 1, 2012
its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City exceed
the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall
promptly remit same to City.
16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience.
City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to
suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an
aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as
a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s
expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the
Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if
any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered
by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume
and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the
Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order
shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work.
16.5 Termination Without Cause.
City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or
in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed under
this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such
termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not
limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential,
direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause.
16.5.1 Compensation.
Following such termination and within forty‐five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from
Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay the
following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work :
.1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion
of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination,
less sums previously paid to Contractor.
.2 For Close‐out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors and
Sub‐subcontractors for:
(i) Demobilizing and
(ii) Administering the close‐out of its participation in the Project (including,
without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including
attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days
after receipt of the notice of termination.
.3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the
Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.
16.5.2 Subcontractors.
Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other
contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are
consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery
against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section.
19 Rev. May 1, 2012
16.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination.
Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the
notice directs otherwise, do the following:
(i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice;
(ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities,
except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not
discontinued;
(iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the
notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are
outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes,
payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of
the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or
modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine
necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to
terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract;
(iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms
reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof,
that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and
(iii) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already
in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in
transit thereto.
SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
17.1 Contractor’s Remedies.
Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the
following:
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage.
The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any
Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of
an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of
government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This
provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension
notice issued either for cause or for convenience.
17.1.2 For City's Non‐Payment.
If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of
notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a
second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract.
17.2 Damages to Contractor.
In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided
for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive
compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not
limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential,
direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind.
SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
18.1 Financial Management and City Access.
Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary
for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally
20 Rev. May 1, 2012
accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business
hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take‐offs, cost reports,
ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase
orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these
documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) final payment or (ii) final resolution
of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by
law.
18.2 Compliance with City Requests.
Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a condition
precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City
and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many
enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred
to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent
mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such
court, without the necessity of oral testimony.
SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES.
Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’
of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or
its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth.
SECTION 20 NUISANCE.
Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in
connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract.
SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES.
Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall
provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government
jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses
for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation
shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non‐City inspectors or conditions set
forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies.
SECTION 22 WAIVER.
A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition
contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW.
This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of
California.
21 Rev. May 1, 2012
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all
prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended
only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.
The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction
Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment
obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect
after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract.
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES.
This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the
performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a chartered
city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City invokes the
exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the Project is
funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION.
This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto
Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds
for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a
conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 28 AUTHORITY.
The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and
authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES.
Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees through the completion of mediation. If the
claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2,
the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its
reasonable costs and attorney’s fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be
entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys
employed by it as well as any attorney’s’ fees paid to third parties.
SECTION 30 COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties,
constitute a single binding agreement.
SECTION 31 SEVERABILITY.
In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity,
legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.
22 Rev. May 1, 2012
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the
date and year first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
___________________________
Public Works Director
GREEN EARTH ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION
By:___________________________
Name:_________________________
Title:________________________
Attachment B
Lot J Cowper Webster Street Parking Garage Structure Repairs
IFB NO. 145807
BID SUMMARY
Gonsalves &Omni Romkin Ashron Rodan Kuehne Green
BASE BID:Stronck Earth
BID DESCRIPTION BID Bid BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT
ITEM QTY UNIT PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE
1 Removing Wood Trellis 1 LS $391,000 $133,000 $55,000 $195,796 $180,000 $208,550 $120,000
2 Install New Cable Railing System 1 LS $127,000 $325,000 $305,000 $190,686 $247,000 $214,420 $238,000
3 Rain Gutters and Downspouts 1 LS $49,000 $30,000 $68,000 $22,406 $40,000 $20,080 $20,000
4 Allowance for Cabling and Hardware 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Total $577,000 $498,000 $438,000 $418,888 $477,000 $453,050 $388,000
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2742)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 7/9/2012
July 09, 2012 Page 1 of 10
(ID # 2742)
Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning
Summary Title: Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Adoption
Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan Incorporating the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan and Approval of a Negative Declaration (continued from
May 21, 2012)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt a Negative Declaration (Attachment B) and
adopt the Resolution (Attachment A) amending the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan.
Executive Summary
The existing Bicycle Transportation Plan serves as the City’s guide for identifying
and setting priorities for bicycle transportation projects and programs in the
community. The last update to the Bicycle Transportation Plan occurred in 2003.
The current update includes a Pedestrian element for the first time. The new
format will provide an opportunity to include more robust projects and programs
that benefit additional transportation modes, including trail projects for
recreational and commute use. An up-to-date Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is also
essential for acquiring funding from regional grant sources.
In December, 2009, City Council directed staff to proceed with the update to the
2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan with the added pedestrian element. In 2010,
staff contracted with Alta Planning and Design and began the process of updating
July 09, 2012 Page 2 of 10
(ID # 2742)
the Plan and spent the past 18 months reaching out to the community to develop
the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The document was released for
public comment on July 26, 2011, and again on March 2, 2012. A negative
declaration was circulated for public review beginning in September 2011.
On November 7, 2011, City Council considered adoption of an initial draft of the
plan and directed staff to modify the report and conduct additional outreach to
various residents and groups, particularly in south Palo Alto (City Council Staff
Report with Attachments
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=29268). In
addition, Council directed staff to return to the Parks and Recreation Commission
(PARC) and to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) with the revised
report. Staff has incorporated many changes to the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan based on input from City Council, PARC, PTC, PABAC, as well
as several community groups and members. A copy of the plan was distributed to
each councilmember as part of the agenda packet for this meeting but the full
report is also available for viewing online at: www.cityofpaloalto.org/bike.
Major comments collected from City Council, various commissions and
committees, and the public since the November 2011 hearing are summarized
with responses in Attachment C.
Background
The Draft Final Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 includes an
evaluation of Existing Conditions and Deficiencies of the current bicycle network
and provides a Needs Assessment and Recommended Network in response. The
document also includes a Best Practice and Design Standards Tool Kit within the
report that includes various treatments for bicycle facilities and bicycle parking
standards. To ensure successful implementation of the plan, an Implementation
Strategies section is provided that includes suggested high-priority categories and
projects for the City to focus resources over the next five years before another
update to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan is pursued.
The intent of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 is to
recommend improvements to the City’s transportation network to better
integrate bicycle and pedestrian accessibility through the City. The Plan provides
a Recommended Network Map (Figure 6.1 of the report) that shows how the
July 09, 2012 Page 3 of 10
(ID # 2742)
various shared, dedicated and exclusive facilities tie together and connect varying
land uses including open space areas and schools. Top Priority Projects are
recommended by Categories including:
Across Barrier Connections
Trails
Bike Lane/Sharrow Roadway Striping Projects
Bicycle Boulevards
Intersection Spot Improvements
Programmatic (Infrastructure)
System Rehabilitation Preservation
Design, Feasibility, and Planning
Non-Infrastructure (Education, Encouragement)
The Plan also provides for flexible implementation to accommodate the desire
and tolerance of various neighborhoods and available funding.
Discussion
Community Outreach Summary
City staff and Alta Planning + Design held several public meetings throughout the
development of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan in 2011 including
focused meetings with the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), the
Parks and Recreation Commission, and working group meetings of the City-School
Traffic Safety Committee. Two citywide community workshop meetings were
held on March 24, 2011 and July 26, 2011 to highlight the project and solicit
public input on recommended projects and to solicit community-preferred
improvements. July 26, 2011 also marked the start of the first public comment
period for the Draft Report.
After the November 2011 City Council meeting where the plan was previously
considered for adoption, an additional community workshop was held on
December 7, 2011 at the Council’s request, and focused on south Palo Alto
neighborhoods (Monroe Park and Greendell) with specific connections to
Mountain View and Los Altos. Due to the most recent revisions to the Draft
Report, a second 30-day public comment period was advertised and held
beginning on March 2, 2012 and ended on April 2, 2012.
July 09, 2012 Page 4 of 10
(ID # 2742)
Areas that have received multiple comments and recommendations since the
November 2011 Council hearing include:
Connections through the Monroe Park Neighborhood
Barron Park Neighborhood (lack of sidewalks, narrow streets, Bol Park path)
San Antonio Road Area and connections to Mountain View
Improve connections to:
o Routes within Stanford and west of Palo Alto (Foothills)
o Town and Country and connections to downtown
o Connections to Mountain View, Los Altos, and East Palo Alto
Concerns of overly impacting vehicle traffic
Accessibility for pedestrians as well as mobility impaired
Provide more East-West connections to link the Baylands with Foothills
Park
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
Over the past year, PABAC has provided on-going detailed comments on the Draft
Plan. Since the November 2011 City Council hearing, PABAC has provided
additional comments (Attachment D). Focused discussions have been held each
month at the regularly scheduled PABAC meetings. The more detailed comments
from PABAC as well as comments from individual members are included in
Attachment C. Some of the primary comments from PABAC include:
De-emphasis of “Innovation” as a major scoring criteria when judging
projects
Emphasize and provide a stronger endorsement for a network of Bicycle
Boulevards
Define and justify the need for a “Civic Loop” that includes enhanced
bicycle facilities through downtown
Recommend new project to remove or replace bollards from entrances to
bicycle paths and bridges
Concerns with many of the innovative treatments promoted by the current
plan in Appendix A.
Staff concurs that tried and true design practices should be used where most
effective and safe and the need for a more pronounced network of bicycle
July 09, 2012 Page 5 of 10
(ID # 2742)
boulevards throughout the City. The innovative treatments identified in the
Appendix A toolkit are intended for locations where typical treatments may not
be the most effective. While some of the techniques are not currently recognized
in State engineering standards, they are in use in other cities throughout the
country, and staff expects to work with others to achieve their formal
certification. Any of these treatments, if used, would need coordination with the
State of California for trial in Palo Alto, including additional community input.
Parks and Recreation Commission
The Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) has also participated and provided
staff with valuable input toward the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
Comments from the PRC emphasized the addition of new Class I (off-street)
bicycle trails, safe connections and wayfinding signage to key recreational
destinations such as open spaces and neighborhood parks, and safety
improvements to existing trails and pathways such as improved gates/bollards
and lighting improvements.
On February 27, 2012 the PARC discussed the most current version of the Draft
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and provided the following additional
input:
Prioritize the Adobe Creek Reach Trail Project to connect E Meadow Drive
to the 101 Underpass
Identify community centers and parks as key destination sites on future
way-finding programs
Participate in future Safe Routes to Parks and Greenway programs
The PARC voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan. The one dissenting vote was due to concerns related to
proposed facilities across school properties, which have since been modified. The
minutes of the February 27 PARC meeting are included in Attachment E. The
PARC also discussed the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 at
its April 24, 2012 meeting and approved a Transportation recommendation to
include two new Bay-to-Ridge alignments within the proposed Bicycle
Transportation Network in the draft plan along on-street routes.
Planning and Transportation Commission
July 09, 2012 Page 6 of 10
(ID # 2742)
In September 2011, the Planning and Transportation Commission voted
unanimously to recommend that City Council adopt the then Draft 2011 Plan,
with the additions of a more established project scoring criteria and to further
define the relation to the Citywide Comprehensive Plan and provide any
recommended changes for the Transportation Element.
On March 28, 2012, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan returned to PTC and was
discussed with several recommendations for staff to follow up with the expressed
public comments and concerns. The PTC unanimously voted for recommendation
to City Council for adoption of the Plan. The minutes of the March 28 PTC
meeting are included in Attachment F.
City Council Hearing Comments
On November 7, 2011, City Council directed staff to coordinate further with
PABAC, PARC, PTC, and specific members of the public to further enhance the
details (City Council Staff Report with Attachments
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=29268). In
addition, specific comments were provided by each of the council members to
further enhance the direction of the Plan. The main highlights from Council’s
comments included:
Increase discussion related to recreational cycling and connections to
recreational destinations (note: two new bay-to-ridge trails have been
proposed and added)
Emphasize the need for east-west corridors and connections across existing
barriers
Strengthen language related to pedestrian conditions (esp. narrow
sidewalks)
Emphasize education and enforcement as well as health benefits
Additional outreach is necessary as each individual project proceeds
The comments received at the November Council hearing as well as comments
received since from various commissions, committees and the public are
presented in Attachment C along with subsequent responses.
Next Steps – Transportation Element Update
July 09, 2012 Page 7 of 10
(ID # 2742)
The City began an update of the Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element
this Fall and will incorporate policy recommendations from the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012. The Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian
Network will be included in the update for coordination with other capital
projects, to help build public-private partnerships with the development
community, and to pursue grant-funding opportunities.
Next Steps – Plan Implementation
The City is already pursuing implementation of the Plan including:
Additional enhanced green bicycle lane facilities on Channing Avenue
between Lincoln Avenue and Guinda Avenue. The City’s completed
installation of the first green bike lanes in Santa Clara County on Channing
Avenue between Middlefield Road and Lincoln Avenue in the Fall 2011
Contra-flow green bicycle facilities on Homer Street between Alma Street
and High Street
Enhanced sharrow marking facilities on Lytton Avenue between Alma
Street and Florence Street with the City’s first green Bicycle Box at Alma
Street and Lytton Avenue
Enhanced bike lane facilities on Fabian Way between East Meadow Circle
and Charleston Road
A new bicycle-focused traffic signal at the intersection of Oregon
Expressway and Ross Road. This improvement also serves as the start of
the implementation of the Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard.
Phase 1 signage implementation of the Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard
between Churchill Avenue and Castilleja Street and Park Boulevard and
Lambert Avenue
Design competition for the Adobe Creek/Highway 101 crossing. This
project also includes completion of a feasibility study to implement a new
bicycle trail along the Adobe Creek levy maintained by the Santa Clara
Valley Water District.
Many more projects are planned over the next two years. The proposed projects
take advantage of active capital improvement projects (CIP) for implementation,
including the Public Work’s resurfacing program. Some of the current CIPs that
are set up to help fund projects identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
include:
July 09, 2012 Page 8 of 10
(ID # 2742)
PL-04010: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation
Project
PO-12001: Curb and Gutter Repairs
PL-00026: Safe Routes to School
PO-89003: Sidewalk Repairs
PO-05054: Street Lights Improvements
PE-86070: Street Maintenance
PO-11001: Thermoplastic Marking and Striping
PL-05030: Traffic Signal and ITS Upgrades
Some of the projects that are currently in progress include:
Adobe Creek Undercrossing Feasibility Study
Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard Project
Oregon Expressway / Ross Road Intersection Traffic Signal Design
Channing Avenue Striping Enhancements
To help expedite implementation, staff recommends that a more refined Priority
List of Projects from the report be developed and presented to the City Council
for the consideration of the use of Community Benefit funds from the Stanford
Medical Center project, when discussions on the use of those funds occur. Staff
also recommends updates to the City Council, Planning and Transportation
Commission, and Parks and Recreation Commission twice a year via informational
reports to help monitor implementation progress of the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan.
Policy Implications
The update to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan is being
implemented at the direction of the City Council and will follow policies consistent
with the most current Comprehensive Plan and/or update the policies identified
in the 2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan. The Plan specifically implements Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan Goals:
T-1, Less Reliance on Single Occupant Vehicles;
T-3, Facilities, Services and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking
and Bicycling;
T-6, a High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians and Bicyclists on Palo
July 09, 2012 Page 9 of 10
(ID # 2742)
Alto streets.
The Plan includes an extensive list of relevant Comprehensive Plan policies and
programs and discussion of how the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
further those objectives. The proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Plan also includes potential policy recommendations and changes that will be
incorporated into the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Update.
Resource Impacts
The update of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan is funded through
capital improvement program fund sources. The City has two main CIP Projects
used to fund bicycle projects:
PL-04010, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation
Project funded with $50,000 annually
PL-12000, Transportation and Parking Improvements funded annually with
$225,000
Additional CIP partnerships occur with the annual street resurfacing program and
the Safe Routes to School program.
The City also pursues grants regularly for the implementation of large scale
projects and has two active funded bike projects using a grant from the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) - Transportation Development
Act (TDA) program ($80,000):
Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard – Phase 1, Signage and Markings between
Churchill Avenue and Castilleja Avenue and Park Boulevard and Lambert
Avenue
Fabian Way Enhanced Bikeways between E Meadow Drive and Charleston
Road
The implementation and related costs of the proposed bicycle and pedestrian
improvements are outlined in Chapter 7 of the Draft Plan, and are summarized
above in the “Implementation” discussion. To summarize, the total cost estimated
to implement the Plan improvements listed in the four primary improvement
categories would be approximately $9.5 million, and major “barrier” crossings,
July 09, 2012 Page 10 of 10
(ID # 2742)
(e.g., Highway 101 at Adobe Creek, South Palo Alto Caltrain undercrossing, etc.)
would likely cost an additional $20-25 million. Staff anticipates that approximately
70-75% of program implementation costs would be leveraged from other sources,
with the remaining 25-30% ($7.5-10 million) coming from the City’s Capital
Improvements Program Infrastructure Reserve, over a 5-10 year timeframe.
Project funding requests would be submitted in the City’s Capital Budget process.
Environmental Review
Environmental review for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan has
been completed. A Negative Declaration (Attachment B) has been prepared,
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and has been
recommended for Council approval by the Planning and Transportation
Commission. In addition, as each individual construction project is implemented,
if required, a supplemental project level environmental review will be prepared.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution to Adopt the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PDF)
Attachment B: Negative Declaration (PDF)
Attachment C: Comments and Revisions Matrix (XLS)
Attachment D: PABAC Bike Ped. Plan Comments - Version 2 (PDF)
Attachment E: February 28, 2012 Parks and Recreation Commission Excerpt Minutes(PDF)
Attachment F: March 28, 2012 Planning and Transportation Commisison Excerpt Minutes
(PDF)
Attachment G: "Power to the Pedalers" Planning Magazine, May/June 2012 (PDF)
Prepared By: Rafael Rius, Traffic Engineer
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Not Yet Approved
120514 jb 0130967
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the
Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to
Incorporate the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan in
1998, including the Transportation Element; and
WHEREAS, Policy T-14 provides that the City shall improve pedestrian and
bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools,
parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers and multi-modal transit
stations; and
WHEREAS, Program T-18 provides that the City shall develop and periodically
update a comprehensive bicycle plan; and
WHEREAS, Program T-19 provides that the City shall develop, periodically
update and implement a bicycle facilities improvement program and prioritize critical
bicycle links to parks, schools, retail centers and civic facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted the Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan in
November 2003; and
WHEREAS, The City Council directed staff to proceed with an update to the
2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan with an added pedestrian element; and
WHEREAS, the City has conducted a public outreach program in developing the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012, (the “Project”), including facilitating
outreach to the community and coordinating with other City departments throughout
2011 and 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission released the document
for public comment from July 26, 2011 through September 7, 2011; and unanimously
recommended the Council approve the plan at its meeting on March 28, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard public comment and reviewed the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 on _____________, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate
the Bicycle and Transportation Plan 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does HEREBY
RESOLVE as follows:
Not Yet Approved
120514 jb 0130967
SECTION 1. Program T-18 is hereby amended to add the following underlined
language:
Develop and periodically update a comprehensive bicycle plan.
In 2003 the City adopted the 2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan. In 2012, the City
Council updated the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, which updates
and supersedes the 2003 Plan. The 2012 Plan also includes an added pedestrian
element.
SECTION 2. The City Council adopted a Negative Declaration for this project in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
_________________________
Senior Asst City Attorney ____________________________
Director of Planning
and Community Environment
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 2 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 4
II. ENVIRONlVIENT AL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMP ACTS ..................... 8
A. . AESTHETICS ................................................... ~ ..................................................... 9
B. AGRIClTLTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES .............................................. 10
C. AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................... 12
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOlJRCES .............................................................................. 13
E. .ClTLTURAL RESOURCES ............... ~ ........................................ ~ ..................... · .... 14
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY ....... ; ..................................................... 15
O. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................... 16
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................. 18
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................... 19
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................ 20
K. MINERAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 21
L. NOISE ................................................................................................................... 22
M. POP~ATION AND HOUSING ......................................................................... 23
N. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................. 24
O. RECREATION ...................................................................................................... 24
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ................................................................ 25
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...................................... · ........................ 26
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .............................................. 27
III. SOURCE REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 29
IV. DETERMINATION ...................................................................................................... 30
Bicyc1e and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 3 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2011 Update
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME ANI) ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Clare Campbell, Planner
City of Palo Alto ..
650-617-3191
4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division
Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
Not Applicable
6. PROJECT LOCATION
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2011 Update applies to the City of Palo Alto,
which is located in the northern part of Santa Clara County, bounded on the west by the San
Francisco Bay, city of Mountain View to the south, city of Meruo Park to the south, and the
Santa Cruz mountains to the west, as shown on Figure 1, Regional Map.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 4 Initial Study
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2011 Update would apply throughout the City
of Palo Alto and, therefore, there is no specific General Plan designation applicable to this
project.
8. ZONING
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2011 Update would apply throughout the City
of Palo Alto and, therefore, there is no specific Zoning designation applicable to this project.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Background
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2011 Update (BPTP) builds on existing goal
statements from the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in an effort to provide direction and
accountability for implementation. The BPTP serves as the City's guide for identifying and
prioritizing bicycle transportation projects, policies, and programs in the community. The last
update to the Bicycle Transportation Plan occurred in 2003. The 2011 update includes
Pedestrian "element-for the first time, providing an opportunity to include more robust projects,
programs, "and" general policies that benefit additional transportation modes including trail
projects for rec~eationa1 and ~ommute use.
The BPTP identifies and prioritizes projects by category (i.e. bicycle boulevards, across barrier
connections, etc.), and provides a framework for a proposed bicycle and pedestrian network
that guides City Staff with building and improving the City's bicycle network. The plan
identifies and recommends technical design guidelines for current and new facilities, and the
use of new and innovative treatments that have been implemented in other jurisdictions.
From planning "citywide networks to reviewing private development proposals, the BPTP is
intended to provide the vision, design toolkit, and specific recommendations that would
increase walking" and biking in Palo Alto now and for years to come. The BPTP expands the
2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan to include coverage of pedestrian issues, priorities, and
design standards in addition to revising the proposed bikeway network and design guidelines.
Proposed Project
The .2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies existing bikeways; analyzes bicycle and
pedestrian accident data; and recommends new bikeways, bicycle education and safety
programs, and bicycle support facilities (including bike parking). The recommended bikeways
network features bicycle boulevards, bike lanes on arterial streets, new bicycle/pedestrian
grade separations, and spot improvements at key intersections. The 2003 Plan also details
recommended best practices for bicycle education and outreach programs, bicycle facilities
design and maintenance, and enforcement.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation flan Page 6 Initial Study
The BPTP updates the 2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan to include a new policy framework,
innovative facility design strategies (such as green bike lanes, cycletracks, and intersection
through-markings), and a revised bikeway network and priority project list arriong other
changes. The BPTP maintains many of the 2003 Plan recommendations and provides
additional project recommendations including Pedestrian facilities ,to help better integrate
facilities such as parks and community trails. The BPTP provides project recommendations by
categories to help prioritize implementation over the next five years, by which time another
update to the BPTP is anticipated to occur.
The recommendations included the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2011 Update
are as follows:
Bicycle Related:
1. . Improve bicycle route wayfinding with improved signage and road markings;
2. Enhance the Bay Trail and the Bay to Ridge Trail;
3. Improve connectivity between on and off-road facilities;
4. Improve time-restricted bike lane corridors and imbalanced bike lanes along the
corridors;
5. Upgrade sidewalks to CI~s I sidepaths and re-striping of roadways to include two-way
cycle tracks;
6. Improve and or extend trails and trail cro&sings;
7. Expand the bike boulevard network;
8. Enhance existing corridors with bike stencil markings carried through intersections,
green colorized pavement indicating potential conflict zones or exclusive bike facilities,
improve bike detection, and conversion of substandard bike lanes to well designed
shared ~oadways;
9. Improve access to neighborhood commercial centers with added bike lanes;
10. Improve bike parking and use the bike corral concept for high demand areas.
Pedestrian Related:
1. New sidewalks should be a minimum of six feet of unobstructed linear space (clear of
street trees, planters, furniture, poles, etc.);
2. Eliminate sidewalk gaps;
3. All curb ramps should be ADA compliant;
4. Consider curb extensions where appropriate;
5. Minimize curb radii to slow vehicle speed and reduce pedestrian crossing distances;
6. Improve pedestrian crossings with more visible crosswalks and pedestrian countdown
signals, and add mid-block crossing on longer blocks;
7. ;Consider intentionally designed shared spaces for pedestrian and vehicle traffic for
optimal usage.
Palo Alto Review Requirements
The implementation of the physical improvements that are recommended within the BPTP,
unless related to maintenance of existing facilities, requires Architectural Review by the City
of Palo Alto. All projects are required to conform to the designated zoning and related
Comprehensive Plan polices.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 7 Initial Study
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The· City of Palo Alto is surrounded primarily by other urban uses, but has two significant
natural and sensitive areas on the most eastern (San Francisco' Bay/Baylands) and western
(Santa Cruz MountainslFoothills) edges of the city. The map provided above shows these
adj acencie~.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED
This list is dependent upon the proposed activity, not all agencies listed are required to review
all elements of the implementation of the BPTP.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• California Department of Fish and Game
• Regional Water Quality Control Board
• California Department of Transportation
• Valley Transportation Authority
• Santa Clara Valley Water District
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except ''No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the infonnation sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A
"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as
general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).)
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicat~ whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or
less than' significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Signifj.cant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorPoration of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant,Irnpacf' to a "Less
than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 8 Initial Study
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation meaSures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following: .
a) EarHer Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
mcorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include' a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources, used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the' discussion. .
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer
and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual 1,2,5 X'
character or quality of the site and its
slUToundings?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1,2-MapL4, X
public view or view corridor? 5
c) Substantially damage scenic resources, 1, 2-Map L4, X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock 5
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic higllway? .
d) Violate'existing Comprehensive Plan 1,2,5 X
policies regarding visual resources?
e) Create a new source of substantiallight or 1,5 X
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 9 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
glare wI,.ich would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
f) Substantially shadow public open space 1,5 X
(other than public streets and adjacent
. sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21 ?
DISCUSSION:
The 2011 BPTP includes recommendations for minor modifications, which include both new elements
and enhancement of existing (e.g. road stencils, wayfinding signage, colorized pavement, etc.), that
would be subject to the City's Architectural Review process (maintenance projects of an existing
facility are exempt from this review). The Architectural Review entitlement is required for all the
exterior improvements to ensure the proj ect is designed with high aesthetic quality and is hannonious
with its surroundings.
The Comprehensive Plan designates Arastradero and Page Mill Road and Skyline Boulevard as scenic
routes; Skyline (Highway 35) is also a State Scenic Highway. The proposed revisions to the BPTP are
not anticipated to significantly degrade the existing visual character of these scenic views.
The proposed revisions to the BPTP will not create any new aesthetic' impacts. All projects that fall
under the BPTP are subject to Architectural Review to address aesthetics, and once fully developed,
all individual components of the BPTP that the City is seeking to implement will be further reviewed
for impacts and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
In detennining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and fannland.
In detennining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest
Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols
. adopted by the CaHfomia Air Resources Board.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless . Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Fannland, 1 X
or Fannland of Statewide Importance
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 10 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
b)
c)
d)
e)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues . Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
(Fannland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agri~ultura1 1,2-MapL9 X
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause 1 X rezoning of, forest land (as defmed in Public
Resources Code,section 12220(g)1) or
timberland (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 45262)1
Result in the loss of forest land or conversion 1 ! X
of forest land to non-forest use?
Involve other changes in the existing 1 X environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Fannlimd, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
DISCUSSION:
The revisions to the BPTP do not impact lands that are located in "Prime Fannland", "Unique
Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The areas affected
(primarily street/sidewalk right-of ways and existing trails) by the BPTP are not zoned for agricultural
use, and are not regulated by the Williamson Act. The are8:s affected are within a developed urbanized
area and have no impacts on forest or timberland.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
1 PRC 1 2220(g): "Forest land" is land that can support IO-percent native tree cover of any species,
including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest
resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiyersity~ water quality, recreation, and
other public benefits.
2 PRC 4526: "Timberland" means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land
designated by-the board as experimental forest land, which is available fOf, and capable of, growing a
crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including
Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the .board on a district basis after
consultation with the district committee.s and others. '
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 11 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto is located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) , the regional agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions from
stationary sources in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority
over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning and review process. All
development in Palo Alto is subject to the BAAQMD regulations. The proposed revisions to the BPTP
will not create any new significant air quality impacts. During constrL!ction activities, related to the
components of the BPTP, it .is expected that temporary minor air quality impacts would occur, b\lt not
to a level of significance. Once fully developed, all individual components of the BPTP that the City is
seeking to implement would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis
will be determined at that time .
. Mitigation Measures: None Required
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOlTRCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would tbe project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 1,2-MapN1, X
directly or through habitat modifications, on 5
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 1,2-MapN1, X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 5 community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, including federally.
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool; coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of 1,8-MapN1~ X
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 5
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,2,3,4,5 X.
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
Bicycle and Pedestrian TrWlsportation Plan Page 13 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially i»oten ti ally Less Than No
e)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Wou~d tbe project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
preservation policy or as defined by the City of
Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.10)?
Conflict with any applicable Habitat 1,5 X Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
It is anticipated that the recommended improvements of the BPTP would cause a less than significant
to no impact to biological resources within the City. The areas primarily affected by the BPTP are
existing streets and sidewalk right-of ways and existing trails, all of which is fully disturbed. Once
fully deyeloped, all indiviq.ual components of the BPTP that the City is seeking to implement would be
further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be detennined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant &ignificant Significant Impact
Would tbe project: Issues Uniess Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural 1,10 X
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolutiQn?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2-MapLS X
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1,2-MapLS X paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2-MapLS X interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 1,2-MapL7, X
eligible for listing on the National and/or 10
California Register, or listed on the City's
Historic Inventory?
Eliminate important examples of major periods 1 X of Cali fomi a history or prehistory?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed revisions to the BPTP recommend minor physical improvements that involve minimal
construction activities within the public right-of-way that is located within a fully developed and or
previously disturbed area. It is not anticipated that the improvements will create any cultural impacts
to the affected area. Once fully developed, all individual components of the BPTP that the City is
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 14 Initial Study
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
g) Expose people or property to major 1,5 X
geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated
through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety techniques?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed revisions to the BPTP recommend minor physical improvements that involve
minimal construction activities within the public right-of-way that is located within a fully
developed and or previously disturbed area. Generally, the City of Palo Alto would experience
a range from weak to very violent shaking in the event of a major earthquake along the San
Andreas or Hayward fault. Although hazards exist, development would not expose people or
property to major geologic hazards that cannot be addressed through" the use of standard
engineering design and seismic safety techniques, as required by building codes. With proper
engineering new development is not expected to result in any significant adverse short or long-
term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity. Once fully developed, all individual
components of the BPTP that the City is seeking to implement would be further reviewed for
potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potenti.lly Less Than No
a)
b)
Significant Significant Sign itieant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either 1,5,9 X
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or 1,5,9 X
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
DISCUSSION:
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainrnent area for
state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards.
SFBAAB's nonattainment status is attributed to the region's development history. Past, present and
future development proj ects contribute to the region's adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative
basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cwnulative impact. No single project is sufficient in
size to, by" itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project's
individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a
project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project's impact on air quality
would be considered significant.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 16 Initial Study
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of
Significance for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a
project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to
reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would
generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would· be considere~ to contribute substantially
to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant.
The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GRG emissions are:
• For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction
Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO~e; or 4.6 MT
C02e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial,
industrial, and public land uses and facilities.
• For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of C02e.
Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that
emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions of
operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate
change.
The BMQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If
a project meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the
screening criteria, then the project's air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. Below
are some screening level examples taken from the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010
(Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes).
Land Use Type Operational GHG Screening Size **
Single-family 56 du
Apartment, low-rise 78 du
Apartment, mid-rise 87 du
Condo/townhouse, general 78 du
City park 600 acres
Day .. care center 11,000 sf
General office building 53,000 sf
Medical office building 22,000 sf
Office park 50,000 sf
Quality restaurant 9,000 sf .. **IfproJect Size IS => screerung Size, then It IS conSidered slgruficant.
The proposed revisions to the BPTP recommend minor physical improvements that involve minimal
construction activities within the public right-or-way that is located within a fully developed and or
previously disturbed area. It is not anticipated that these improvements Will create any new significant
operational GHG emissions. The intent of the plan is to encourage bicycle and pedestrian modes of
transport and it is not anticipated to create any additional vehicle trips beyond what already occurs.
During the related construction activity there may be a temporary increase in emissions; this
discussion is provided in the Air Quality section of this report. Once fully developed, all individual
Bicycle WId Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 17 Initial Study
components of the BPTP that the City is seeking to implement would be further reviewed for potential
impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic he.ading of Public Health and Safety if the
I d b' h h h d . I przmary Issues are re ate to a au ~ect ot er t an azar ous materia use.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5 X environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5 X environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Erriit'hazardous emissions or handle hazardous 1,5 X
or acutely hazardm,ls materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject 1,5 X to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
1,2-MapN9 X
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
t) For a project located within an airport land use 1 X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the prQject area?
g) For a project within the vicinity ofa private 1 X
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the
project area?
h) Impair implementation of or physically 1,2-MapN7 X
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
ofloss, itUury, or death involving wildland
1,2-MapN7 X
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5 X
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 18 Initial Study
environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed revisions to the BPTP reconunend minor physical improvements that involve minimal
construction activities within the public right-of-way that is located within a fully developed and or
previously disturbed area. These improvements do not involve the use, creation or transportation of
hazardous materials. The implementation of the BPTP is anticipated to have no impacts with regard to
public safety, hazards and hazardous materials. Once fully developed, all individual components of the
BPTP that the City is seeking to implement would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and
additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Signincant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,2,5 X
dischal'ge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 2-MapN2. X
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
·in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,5 X
ofthe site or area, including through the
alteration ofthe course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-' or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,5 X
of the site or area, including through the
altemtion of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would 1,5 X
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stonnwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,5 X
g) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard 2-MapN6 X
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 19 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Contlict with any applicable habitat 1,2 X conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,5 X intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,5 X
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
t) Contlict with established residential, 1,5 X recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1,2,3 X farmland of statewide importance (fannland) to
I 'non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed revisions to the BPTP recommend minor physical improvements that involve minimal
construction activities within the public right-of-way that is located within a fully developed and or
previously disturbed area and does not impact the existing land 'uses within the City. The
improvements are intended to compliment and enhance the existing conditions and are not anticipated
to create any land use impacts. Once fully developed, all individual components of the BPTP that the
City is' seeking to implement would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA
analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant
a)
b)
Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Result in the loss of availability of a known 1,2
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-1,2
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local genera] plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC),
Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-l). This designation
signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 21 Initial Study
X
X
other resources. There is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally. or
regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
L. NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources ' Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 1,2,12 X
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise or4inance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 1,2,12 X
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1,2,12 X noise levels in the proj ect vicinity above levels
existing without the prQiect?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2,12 X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels ,existing without the project?
e) For a proj ect located within an airport land use 1 X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people
residing or working in'the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1 X
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1 X
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residentiai area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1 X an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
i) Cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an I X
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1 X development to exceed an Ldn of45 dB?
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1 X
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
I) Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,12 X daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 22 Initial Study
DISCUSSION:
All development, including construction activities, must comply with the City's Noise Ordinance
(P AMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction
activity. Short-term temporary construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in
impacts that are expected to be less than significant. The proposed revisions to the BPTP recommend
minor physical improvements that involve minimal construction activities within the public right-of-
way that is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. Other than elevated
noise during temporary construction activities; development related to the BPTP will not create any
new significant noise impacts. Once fully developed, all individual components of the BPTP that the
City is seeking to implement would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA
analysis will be detennined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Induce substantial population growth in an 1 X
b)
c) .,
d)
e)
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through 'ext~nsion of roads or other
infrastructure)1 .
Displace substantial numbers of existing 1 X
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, 1 X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Create a substantial imbalance between 1 X
emplQyed residents and jobs?
Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1 X
population projections?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed revisions to the BPTP recommend minor physical improvements that involve minimal
construction activities within the public right-of-way that is located within a fully developed and or
previously disturbed area; the plan does not encourage development and therefore will not create any
new population and housing impacts. Once fully developed, all individual components of the BPTP
that the City is seeking to implement would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional
CEQA analysis will be detennined at that ,time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 23 Initial Study
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically,alterec;i governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
fa~i1ities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other perfonnance objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Fire protection? I X
b) Police protection? 1 X
c) Schools? 1 X
d) Parks? I X
. e) Other public facilities? 1 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed revisions to the BPTP recommend minor physical improvements that involve minimal
construction activities within the public right-of-way that is located within a fully developed and or
previously disturbed area; the plan does not encourage growth and development and is not anticipated
to generate significant numbers of new users as to create impacts to the existing public services for the
City. The improvements are intended to encourage residents to better utilize the bike and pedestrian
amenities that are throughout the City. Once fully developed, all individual components of the BPTP
that the City is seeking to implement would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional
CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
o. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potential1y Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incor'porated
a) Would the proj eet increase the use of 1 X
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational 1 X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 24 Initial Study
DISCUSSION:
The proposed revisions to the BPTP recommend minor physical improvements that involve minimal
construction activities within the public right~of-way that is located within a fully developed and or
. previously disturbed area. The plan does not encourage growth and development in the City and it is
not anticipated to generate new users as to create impacts to the existing City recreational facilities.
Once fully developed, all individual components of the BPTP that the City is seeking to implement
would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at
that time. .
Mitigation Measures: None Required·
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Sign ifieant Significant SignifICant
Would the project: Issues Unless Imp~ct
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed the capacity of the existing 1,5 X
circulation system, based on an applicable
measure of effectiveness (as designated in a
general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking
into account all relevant components of the
circulation system, includmg but not limited
to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion 1,5 X
manageinent program, including but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, 1,5 X
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 1,5 X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., fann equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,5 X
1) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,5 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 1,2,5 X
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit &
bicycle facilities)7
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1,5 X
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS)
D and cause an increase in the average
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 25 Initial Study
stopped .delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more and the critical
volume/c~pacity ratio (VIC) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
i) Cause a local intersection already operating at 1,5 .X
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate 1,5 X
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
critical VIC value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F 1,5 X
or contribute traffic in excess of 1 % of
segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
1) Cause any change in traffic that would 1,5 . X
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1,5 X
n)
0)
p)
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue storage
capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at proj ect
access locations; queues at tum lanes at
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spill back queues on ramps.
Impede the development or function of 1,5 X
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,5 X
result of congestion?
Create an operational safety hazard? 1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed revisions to the BPTP recommend minor physical improvements that involve minimal
construction activities within the public right~of-way that is located within a fully developed and or
previously disturbed area. It is not anticipated that the improve.t:nents will .create any new
transportation impacts. The recommended improvements consider safety concerns of the pedestrian,
cyclist, and vehicle driver and an improved bike network is .expected to improve the existing vehicle
congestion. Once fully developed, all individual components of the BPTP that the City is seeking to
implement would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be
determined at that time.
Mitigation: None Required
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Pl"an Page 26 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially I Less Than No Impact
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
Significant Significant Significant
. Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 1,5 X
,the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Require or result in the construction Df new 1,5 X
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion ~f existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
envrronmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new 1,5 X
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
whi~h could cause significant environmental
effects? ~ .
Have sufficient water supplies available to 1,5 X
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,5 X
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient 1,5 X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 1,5 X
and regulations related to solid waste?
Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1,5 X
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed revisions to the BPTP recommend minor physical improvements that invplve minimal
construction activities within the public right-of-way that is located within a fully developed and or
previously disturbed area. The plan does not encourage growth and development in the City and it is
not anticipated to increase the demand· on existing utilities and service systems or impact these
services. Once fully' developed, all individual components of the BPTP that the City is seeking to
implement would be further reviewed for potential 'impacts, and additional CEQAanalysis will be
determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Bicyc1e and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Page 27 Initial Study
Source ID Comment / Revision Response
Public Comment 1 Remove references to Ross-Louis Cubberly BB, replace with Ross
Road Bike Boulevard
Revised references in report (Chapters 6-7);
Public Comment Show future potential connection and/or short-term ideas for
making connection to California Avenue/Newell Road for Ross
Road Bicycle Boulevard.
Added (long-term) recommendation for trail connection through Jordan campus
on proposed bikeway map; reviewed Jordan bond measure plans (no material
impact on trail feasibility). Note: This trail connection would most likely require
ROW aquisition
Shorter-term routing options are either Middlefield or Louis Rd. Unclear what
measures would be appropriate, if any, beyond signage.Parks Commission 2 Add Sterling Canal and Barron Park Connector Trail segments to
Proposed Network
Included to network; revised proposed trail mileage and cost references; added
as a related project to existing relevant priority projects. Added two creek bridge
crossings (at Barron and Matadero) as ABC projects, although not high priority.Parks Commission 3 Add policy statement concerning future potential trail connection
between El Camino Park through Transit Center to Caltrain/Paly
HS path
Include supportive policy language under Objective 3 in Chapter 2; repeat in
Chapter 5 Recommended Policies and Programs; and in Chapter 6 sub-area
discussionParks Commission 4 Add recommendation for lighting Lefkowitz Tunnel as short-term
improvement for park connectivity due to 101 skylight displacement
Included in description of Existing Trail Access Improvements priority project TR-
3; in Chapter 5 discussion on trails; in Chapter 6 sub-area discussion
Parks Commission Include labels of key destinations in Map 6-1, such as….Added destinations to Map 3 (Existing Conditions). Do not recommend adding
info/labels to 6-1 as additional information about specific projects and spot
improvements has been added. Avoiding overcrowding on map.Public Comment 5 Network omissions in Monroe Park neighborhood; general lack of
discussion of issues in neighborhood, including access to San
Antonio Shopping Center
Revised proposed network map now includes the correct location and extents of
the Dinah's/Summerhill/Palo Alto Bowl Class I pathway. Sections of Monroe Drive
and Cesano Court added as a proposed Bicycle Boulevard spur from El Camino
Real.
Alta to Include greater discussion of neighborhood connectivity issues in Priority
Pedestrian Areas (School Zones) and in Sub-Area discussion within Chapter 6.Public Comment 6 Prioritize Wilkie Way segment south of Charleston Road of
proposed Bicycle Boulevard with current BB project
Revise project description for BB-1 to include new segment as part of initial
phase?
Public Comment 7 Barron Park sidewalks -map is "wrong" there are existing sidewalk
segments and we do not want sidewalks
Comment noted. Map in Chapter 3 does not discern which side of the street has
a sidewalk gap. The report/plan is not recommending new sidewalks in Barron
Park, but identifies the gap and potential need for pedestrian improvements
through additional community outreach and creative solutions.PABAC
(Paul Goldstein's
email)
8 In several places, a bike lane with shared parking is mentioned at a
12' width. Although the Cal MUTCD allows lesser width, the VTA
Bicycle Technical Guidelines recommend a minimum 13' width for
low-speed streets, and this should be the Palo Alto minimum
standard. I would rather see sharrows than 12' shared parking
lanes.
Change language in Appendix A to identify preferred sharrow placement 13' from
face of curb where parking exists to comply with VTA Technical Guidelines.
Unclear how to proceed with further emphasizing removal or modification to
existing sub-standard bike lanes. 5' bike lane next to 7' parking lane may be
sufficient/preferred for streets with low parking turnover and/or higher traffic
volumes. May review plan for language and reference that these cases need to
be reviewed by PABAC and CSTSC (when relevent to school commuting) on a
case-by-case basis.PABAC
(Paul Goldstein's
email)
9 Page A-4
A buffered bike lane is further separated from a travel or parking
lane by a striped “shy zone.” The buffered zone can
be demarcated with hatched striping and/or raised pavement
markings (bots dots) or soft hit posts.
Strongly object to delineating bicycle facilities with soft hit posts.
These can be a definite hazard. Likewise, I do not like bots dots on
bike facilities.
Comment noted. Agreed that bot dots are not preferrable and reference can be
removed. Soft hit posts would not automatically be incorporated and would need
further evaluation on case-by-cas basis. Soft hit posts can be a useful tool for
providing greater visual and physical separation from trafficbut is heavily
dependent on context and facility details.
Report will indicate indicating potential as a hazard and a recommendation to
review with PABAC on a case-by-case basis as installation potential emerges.
PABAC
(Paul Goldstein's
email)
10 Page A-38
Trail/Shared Use Path Lighting
Any trail built with transportation funding must be open 24/7 and
should be lighted.
Added language.
PABAC
(Paul Goldstein's
email)
11 Page 6-30
Alma Street: Add Class III signage and markings south of Lytton
Avenue, and provide enhanced
bicycle lanes and/or a Class I trail adjacent to Caltrain north to El
Camino Real.
I would also like specific mention of a continuation of the sharrows
from Homer to Lytton, over the University Ave overpass.
Added language in identified section.
PABAC
(Paul Goldstein's
email)
12 Homer/Channing couplet: Prioritize this corridor with the goal of
implementing enhanced
bikeway facilities; at minimum, consider two-way bicycle travel on
Homer Avenue from Alma
Street to either (a converted two-way) High Street or to Emerson
Street to connect with
downtown.
PABAC is on record as supporting a contra-flow bike lane to High,
and conversion of High to two-way. I would prefer to see the other
alternative removed.
Agreed that doing nothing but the contraflow lane is problematic and that either
extending to Emerson or conversion of High Street to two-way traffic would be
necessary. PABAC is on record as not supporting a contra-flow lane to Emerson,
and prefers conversion of High Street to two-way traffic. Staff will conduct a more
detailed assessment of both alternatives and evaluate sightlines at the parking lot
exit, and finalize the details prior to future implementation.
Attachment C
Draft Final Plan Comments Since Nov 2011 Council Meeting
1
Source ID Comment / Revision Response
Attachment C
Draft Final Plan Comments Since Nov 2011 Council Meeting
Public Comment
(Penny / PTA)
13 Concerned with sharrows for school commutes - not visible
enough. Also, continue to have concerns with potential for
cycletracks and confusion among youth.
Comment noted. No significant changes identified, although case-by-case
implementation should consider shorter spacing standard for sharrows along the
school commute network. Similarly, carefull evaluation of cycletracks is needed.
Both comments can be reviewed more thoroughly at school sites through the
SR2S VERBS Project. Note: No cycletracks are expressly recommended in this
Plan; they are simply an option to consider along several corridors. PABAC
(Paul Goldstein's
email)
14
Page 6-38
Bol Park Path: Improve accessibility at Miranda Road and Laguna
Avenue (removal of existing
trail barriers and curb ramp upgrades). The City should work with
Stanford University to reach
agreement on extending the current month-to-month lease.
There should be specific mention of a connection to the VA
hospital from this path. This connection would serve workers and
at the VA and others. This has been discussed at PABAC many
times, and I believe the VA is on-board with opening up the gate at
their side. This is referenced in project TR-4 on page 7-7, but the
reference in chapter 6 is not consistent with that.
Revised 6-38 to be consistent with comment/priority project description.
PABAC
(Paul Goldstein's
email)
15 Addison Avenue: Once (and if) a dedicated facility is developed on
the Homer/Channing couplet, remove from the bikeway network
along with the proposed Melville Avenue bicycle boulevard further
south (providing better network spacing and connectivity to both
the Homer Avenue and Embarcadero Road undercrossings)...
Addison Ave, as well as several other well-documented streets in
our current network, have sub-standard bike lanes that actually are
hazardous, create the wrong impression for both drivers and
school children, and should be removed. At the very least,
substandard lanes on these streets should be replaced with
sharrows. This has been a long-term priority of PABAC's and I am
surprised it did not make it into the plan in an emphatic way.
Comment noted. Add language to indicate either removal from network (bases on
changes specified) OR modification to comply with preferred cross section.
Whether it's sharrows or a modified cross section with narrower travel lanes and
more balanced bike lanes (see Chapter 5) TBD by SR2S VERBS project or with
direction from City staff.
PABAC
(Paul Goldstein's
email)
16 Page 6-42
Palo Alto High to the Castilleja-Park Bicycle Boulevard: Improve
the unsignalized crossing and
connection to the Embarcadero Road trail.
The bike path should be called the Caltrain bike path, not the
Embarcadero Road trail. The unsignalized crossing, is at Churchill,
I presume.
Add language for improving intersection (an identified spot improvement location).
Review plan for consistent reference to trail as Caltrain bike path.
PABAC
(Paul Goldstein's
email)
17 Page 7-8
The Everett Avenue BicycleBoulevard is on the map, and is
referenced several time, but it is not listed as a priority project.
Given that the other east-west bike routes in the downtown area
are on busy streets with lots of traffic signals, I think this is a high
priority project.
This corridor is not identified as a high Bicycle Boulevard priority project since it
already has several traffic calming elements and bicycle priority treatments, and is
assumed to be "implemented" in large part by BB-2 - Comprehensive Signage
and Wayfinding. That said, it's deteriorated pavement condition makes it a high
priority maintenance project (R-5), and thus should be considered a short-term
priority if the corridor is scheduled for repaving by Public Works.
It's a minor distinction, but I think it's the right one to make. CC - Pat Burt 18 Add language in Chapter 2 on the "Why", including more emphasis
on the wide-ranging benefits of walking and biking
Added section on benefits in Chapter 1
CC - Pat Burt 19 Expand bike parking discussion. Including reference to existing
cost-sharing program
The recommendations section will be expanded to include more detail of parking
types, land use code references and standards, and a refined approach to
implementing citywide. Proposed changes to the Municipal Code are provided in
a new Appendix (Appendix B, all others slide down a letter).
Existing private property cost-sharing program is informal, and a program could
be created and would be great to highlight for commercial shopping center
access improvements.CC - Pat Burt 20 Add recreational value to plan Comment noted. Added language in Chapter 5 to supplement "user types"
discussion with section on importance and value of recreational riding in Palo Alto
area. Also included in benefits discussion in Chapter 1.CC - Pat Burt 21 Reference East Palo Alto gap in facilities Add in Chapter 6 sub-area discussion. Unclear of specific gaps referred to,
although several do exist.
CC - Pat Burt 22 Add specific references to Alpine Road, Stanford/280 gaps and
connections.
Highlight further in Neighboring Community Connections sections in Chapters 3,
5, and 6. Alta needs guidance on what to show or recommend along Apline Road
since the decision by San Mateo County to refuse Stanford mitigation funds.CC - Holman 23 Most comments addressed by previous public speakersCC - Holman 24 More reference to El Camino real narrow sidewalks Comment noted. Language in Chapters 3, 5, and 6 will be strengthened. CC - Schmid 25 Need more emphasize on east-west connectivity, including
consideration of Matadero Creek trail for Bay to Ridge Trail
designation
Agreed. East-west connectivity support will be emphasized in the plan with
recommendations to complete the Bay to Ridge Trail .
A graphic will be included in the revised draft highlighting other potential corridors,
which may likely include:
- the SFJPA trail concept/Sand Hill Road/Alpine Road
- Civic Loop Concept consisting of Channing/Homer/Caltrain path/California Ave
- Existing Bay to Ridge Trail alignment
- Bol Park Path/Hanover Street/Frye's connection/Matadero Creek Trail/Matadero
Creek ABC
- Charleston/Arastradero corridor
2
Source ID Comment / Revision Response
Attachment C
Draft Final Plan Comments Since Nov 2011 Council Meeting
CC - Schmid 26 Wants discussion of "what went wrong in the past" in terms of
funding for creek trails
Comment noted. Do not recommend adding that language, but instead focusing
on strategies (i.e. feasibility studies) that will position the City best to compete for
fundingCC - Schmid 27 Add reference to LEED-ND Comment noted. Will add LEED-ND status and include recommendation to
explore for private/public partnerships in report.CC - Schmid 28 In regard to community survey in Appendix C, not a true cross
section of public. Explore adding a question or two to existing
"Services and Accomplishements" annual survey and report
Comment noted. Can add under recommended programs and policies
(Evaluation) in Chapter 5
CC - Shephard 29 Greater emphasis on Rules of Road enforcement, for bikes and all
roadway users
Reinforce/expand recommendations under Enforcement in Chapter 5,
Recommended Programs and PoliciesCC - Shephard 30 Wondering why Quarry Road ABC is not included in Priority
Projects, since it was discussed in Stanford Hosptital EIR and
previous plan?
Comment noted. Identified as a spot improvement and to coordinate with El
Camino Park and Palo Alto Transit Center to develop "through" access between
Downtown and Stanford Shopping CenterCC - Scharf 31 Agrees with City Council comments mentioned above to improve
bike parking and east/west trails discussions and emphasis.
Agreed. See previous responses.
CC -Scharf 32 Hesitant to approve of "non-motorized" travel mode language in
plan based on potential future of electric bikes
Comment noted, however non-motorized is a well-accepted term and not in the
title of the report. We could remove all references to non-motorized travel, OR
identify first reference and add footnote explaining that it does not nor is meant to
preclude use by electric assist bicycles.CC - Price 33 Commented on need to address relationship with health, potential
for health impact assessments
Added language with further emphasis on comprehensive benefits of walking and
biking
CC - Klein 34 Prefer that you use professional judgement when reviewing and
incorporating comments. Don't include them if you do not think they
are appropriate, just document reasons why.
Agreed and noted. This reference is most applicable to specific treatments and
innovative facility types and guidance under existing CAMUTCD. Alta and Staff
do not propose any changes or specific treatmetns in the plan. Many comments
raise valid concerns which are articulated in the plan. Several facility types
identified are neither straightforward and easy, nor to be completely dismissed
automattically. We anticipate detailed conversation and review with PABAC on all
potential project with non-standardt treatments, but stress that the Plan include
multiple options for consideration and not include direct, blanket
recommendations on specific corridors.CC -Yeh 35 Refine (add nuance) to "Friends of" recommendation. This is
important.
Agree. To include in Chapter 5 Recommended Policies and Programs. Will also
expand discussion in Chapter 7 with regard to private/public partnership
opportunities and specific mechanisms.CC - Espinosa 36 Emphasize that further outreach will be conducted during
implementation. Most other comments already addressed.
Outreach summary to be revised based on additional efforts in 2012 and with
each significant project.City Council 37 Add reference to past Parks Commission meetings in Chapter 1,
Appendix C
Add, along with additional meetings with Parks Commission and PTC meetings.
3
Source ID Comment / Revision Response
Attachment C
Draft Final Plan Comments Since Nov 2011 Council Meeting
Name ID Page #Comment Response
Chapter 2
Paul Goldstein 2 2-2
I would like Objective 3 to be expanded out of its purely
recreational focus, I suggest: Objective 3: Develop a core network
of shared paths, bikeways, and traffic-calmed streets that
connects business and residential districts, schools, parks, and
open spaces and promotes healthy, active living.
Changed to, "Develop a core network of shared paths, bikeways, and traffic-
calmed streets that connects business and residential districts, schools, parks,
and open spaces to promote healthy, active living."
Paul Goldstein 3 2-7
Suggest changing the following sentence: "with innovation also
comes the need for additional education and outreach, which will
be especially important as IF the City introduces new types of
pedestrian and bicycle facilities/designs."
Changed to clarify that the facilities may not be familiar to Palo Alto residents,
independent of how 'new' they are, "which will be especially important as the
City introduces types of pedestrian and bicycle facilities/designs that are new
to Palo Alto residents."
Paul Goldstein 4 2-8
Table 2-1 and Table E-1 seem to be the same table. Remove
duplicate.
Table 2-1 only has information for the Transportation Element. Removed that
section from Table E-1 and referenced Table 2-1 in the appendix.
Chapter 3
Paul Goldstein 5 3-2
What is the extensive trail network "behind a recent development
near Loma Verde Avenue and Matadero Creek"? I am not familiar
with this? Is this correct?Changed to, "planned trail connections in and around Sterling Creek"
PABAC 6 3-3
Map 3-1 "Evergreen Park" should be replaced with "California Ave
Shopping." The "Jewish Community Center" location downtown is
misplaced. It should be moved to the "mixed use" zone at
Charleson-San Antonio.Incorporated
Rafael 32 3-5
Identify pedestrian gap/improvements along West Bayshore
between East Palo Alto and Channing. Sidewalk gap added to Map 3-2 Pedestrian Existing Conditions.
CM Keller 7 3-11 Consider Early Ped Release signal timing features in the future The Plan recommends Leading Pedestrian Interval signals in Section 3.1.3
PABAC 8 3-15
and throughout: Replace "Embarcadero Bike Path" with "Caltrain
Bike Path".Incorporated
Paul Goldstein 9 3-23
Map 3-4 Hanover Street does not have a Class I bike path from
Page Mill to the junction of the Class I path to Matadero.
The east side of Hanover has a wide sidewalk that acts as a bike path, however
will be changed to reflect only the striped bike lane.
Chapter 4
Andrew Boone 10 4-x
Update in-trip from new studies. Update data for children biking
to school for year 2011.
Updated with ACS 2006-2010 data; new data for school commute trips not
available.
Chapter 5
PABAC 11 5-1
The committee strongly endorses the high priority placed on data
collection, and is very pleased to see it in the document. Data
collection is also an essential tool to be used in analyzing the
success of any project, and particularly projects that employ
innovative treatments. More on this may be found in Alan
Wachtel's comments below.
Added, "Data collection, including traffic speeds and volumes, crashes,
compliance, delay, or other factors is also an essential tool for analyzing the
success of any project, particularly projects that employ innovative or new
treatments."
Alan Wachtel 12 5-1
Data collection needs to include more than just counts. Where
safety improvements are implemented, and particularly for
experimental or innovative facilities, it should include any before-
and-after measurements of bicyclist and motorist roadway
position, crashes (if any), compliance, conflicts, delay, aggressive
behavior, or other variables, as appropriate, to determine
whether the installation has produced the desired effect.
Added, "Data collection, including traffic speeds and volumes, crashes,
compliance, delay, or other factors is also an essential tool for analyzing the
success of any project, particularly projects that employ innovative or new
treatments."
CM Fineberg 13 5-1
Traffic tests should be done so we have the ability to understand
what impacts can be. Be careful of social networks and panic
response. Tests will always have opponents so tests can be relied
upon the absence of common sense.
Alan Wachtel 14 5-2
"Similar early coordination within the City has provided for the
equivalent of a future cycletrack facility on San Antonio Road
between Charleston Road and Middlefield Road, planned for
implementation in 2012." What is this all about?Changed to "future bikeway facility"
Chair Martinez 57 5-2 Look at new Comp Plan priority policies for multi-modal streets
Added a note about the City's new focus on MMLOS in Table 2-1 and discussion
about need for data collection in Chapter 5 under Engineering.
Alan Wachtel 15 5-12
"The bicycle network should accommodate…" This is a laudable
sentiment with which no one could disagree. The types of
facilities identified as suitable for less confident bicyclists,
however, in reality often present greater hazards and challenges
than conventional ones.
Modified to highlight that some cyclists are not comfortable riding on streets
with large number of motor vehicles or high vehicular speeds. There is
considerable support that bicycle boulevards are less dangerous than major
streets.
Alan Wachtel 16 5-12
"Recent development in bicycle facility planning and design have
focused largely on one principle: separating bicyclists - visually,
psychologically, and physically-from automobile traffic." It is not
generally possible to separate bicyclists fully from automobile
traffic. Interactions must still occur at intersections and
driveways, and by concentrating these interactions into a
confined space, rather than allowing merging at a safe time and
location, "separation" runs the risk of intensifying the conflict.
Added, ", or on mixing bicyclists with low volumes of traffic traveling at low
speeds." Treatments such as bike boxes and intersection through-markings
improve visibility at intersections and create visually separated space.
Alan Wachtel 17 5-13
"According to the bicycle coordinator with the City of Portland,
OR: 'Riding a bicycle should not require bravery. Yet, all too
often, this is the perception among cyclists and noncyclists
alike…" It is unclear whether the speaker endorses the view that
routine bicycling on streets is a dangerous activity that requires
bravery, or is merely describing a prejudice. But reinforcing this
attitude would certainly be a deterrent to cycling and should not
be part of the plan.
Comment noted. This quotation is intended to indicate that riding a bicycle
should not be a dangerous activity or one that people are scared of, and that
people have a perception that it is dangerous. The recommendations in this
Plan improve facilities for less-confident bicyclists.
Attachment C - Pt. 2
4
Source ID Comment / Revision Response
Attachment C
Draft Final Plan Comments Since Nov 2011 Council Meeting
Alan Wachtel 18 5-13
"Based on a theory developed in Portland and corroborated
elsewhere in the U.S., planners often refer to four types of
bicyclists…" How are these descriptive categories corroborated?
Again, the implication of a 'strong and fearless' category is that
ordinary cycling requires fearlessness or indifference to risk, and
this is an attitude that ought to be discouraged.Comment noted.
PABAC 79 5-13
There are references to "Civic Loop". Please define this
term/concept and justify it. What and Why?
Added text in 5.2.2, "• The Civic Loop. This loop concept would promote a
continuous loop in the city's center, to help people navigate by bicycle. It would
link the existing Embarcadero/Caltrain trail, the Castilleja- Park-Wilkie Bicycle
Boulevard, and the California Avenue Enhanced Bikeway with consistent
wayfinding."
Alan Wachtel 19 5-13
"Cultivating these potential ['interested but concerned'] bicyclists
demands both engineering solutions that reduce motor vehicle
interactions and education/encouragement efforts to proactively
engage and support reluctant populations." 'Separation' is not the
only way to reduce motor vehicle interactions: bicycle boulevards
are an excellent way to do so without the problematic
engineering of 'separated' facilities. Education and
encouragement efforts should attempt to reduce unwarranted
fears and should provide opportunities to increase skills. After all,
the majority of bicycle travel still must take place on streets
without special facilities.
Comment noted. Bicycle boulevards reduce motor vehicle interactions by
promoting bicycling on streets with low traffic speeds and volumes. The Plan
provides a network that serves as an alternative to streets without special
facilities, which improves visibility and drivers' awareness of bicyclists.
Alan Wachtel 20 5-14
"Like most other U.S. cities, however, existing design and funding
constraints have thus far limited opportunities for substantially
expanding trail and protected on-street networks (and
education/encouragement programs) to attract even more
bicyclists." The word "trail" is imprecise, since it is not a defined
type of bicycle facility and carries inaccurate connotations of
rustic seclusion. "Protected" is likewise imprecise, since the
'protection' breaks down at intersections and driveways.
Comment noted. The use of "Trail" here is as an off-street route, such as the Bay
Trail or Bay to Ridge Trail. The protection refers to the continuous element.
Alan Wachtel 21 5-14
"In response to the need for innovation and advocacy…" NACTO is
not a recognized practice-setting body like AASHTO or ITE; I
doubt that many people, including transportation professionals,
have ever heard of it before it developed the Urban Bikeway
Design Guide. That guide was an ad-hoc effort, produced to
provide a rationale for the roadway treatments it describes,
which were specified in the RFP, rather than evaluated
independently. It has been heavily promoted through political and
public-relations efforts.
Comment noted. NACTO was a collaborative process involving cities with direct
experience implementing these types of facilities, which have been used in
Europe for a long time and have established design practices.
Alan Wachtel 22 5-14
"While all have been implemented in the U.S…." In California, it is
the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) and California MUTCD
that govern, by law, regardless of the funding source. In any case,
the statement that "none are expressly prohibited or contrary" to
standards is incorrect. For example, bike boxes require
nonstandard duplicate stop lines and colorization in the travel
lane. Buffered bike lanes employ a nonstandard striping and
hatching scheme whose traffic law implications are murky. The
HDM prohibits physically separated bike lanes. Cycletracks can,
for the most part, be implemented safely only if intersections are
signalized and display separate bicycle phases. The national
MUTCD does not provide for bicycle signal heads. The MUTCD
does, but only under strict warrants that would not necessarily be
met for cycletracks. Cycletracks may also use nonstandard YIELD
TO BIKES signs, whose efficacy has not been investigated.
At
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/mutcd_bike.ht
m, FHWA describes whether certain bicycle facilities, signs, and
markings are permitted by the national MUTCD, experimental,
not allowed, or are not traffic control devices and therefore
outside of its scope. Note that when the FHWA says that
cycletracks, for instance, are consistent with the MUTCS, is not
necessarily endorsing or approving these facilities. It is only
saying that they can be implemented with existing approved
traffic control devices, or that they are not traffic control
devices and therefore not regulated by the MUTCD.
There currently exists a procedure for experimenting with traffic
control devices, by a Request to Experiment (RTW) to the FHWA
and the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC).
There is no procedure for requesting permission from Caltrans to Modified section to discuss pros and cons of non-traditional facility types.
PABAC 23 5-15
5.2.3 Bicycle Boulevards. Please consider changing the first
sentence to a stronger endorsement: A network of bicycle
boulevards is the most direct and cost-effective way to increase
bicycle mode share, safety, and mobility. (Please see also
comments below on Project BB-2).Added recommended sentence
5
Source ID Comment / Revision Response
Attachment C
Draft Final Plan Comments Since Nov 2011 Council Meeting
PABAC 24 5-15
Please replace the purple Bicycle Boulevard and street sign
illustration with standard signs. Rationale: Non-standard purple
signs are inadvisable, and perhaps contrary to California law.
Bicyclists expect green wayfinding signs; purple wayfinding signs
are confusing. Purple street name signs are contrary to the Palo
Alto standard of black lettering on a white background. When a
street sign design changes, it generally means one has crossed
into another city.
Comment noted. Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard signs have since changed to Blue.
All wayfinding signs proposed are standard green. Purple signs are used in
Berkeley and other jurisdictions in the Bay Area and are recognized as being
identification for bicycle boulevards. In some jurisdictions the purple or blue
signs are also used for wayfinding, but that is not proposed for Palo Alto.
Paul Goldstein 25 5-15
I find distasteful, the statement "the City should establish and
brand much of the network quickly…" "Branding" is not something
the City needs to do or should be doing. We need to promote the
network, and we need to provide wayfinding signage, but
establishing a unique "Palo Alto brand" is contrary to our
transportation responsibilities as a member of our region and
partner in the regional transportation network.Removed the recommendation for branding the network.
Alan Wachtel 26 5-17
Enhanced Bikeways
"Enhanced" seems to be code for "nonstandard" and should be
used with care. Bicycle stencil markings through intersections are
inconsistent with the California MUTCD, and would have to be
conducted through an RTE. The reason for dropping or dashing
bike lanes at approaches to intersections is that right-turning
motorists must merge toward the curb at a time and place where
it is safe to do so, and bicyclists my need to merge left to avoid
being to the right of right turns. I don't necessarily object to
these stencils-after all, markers are sometimes used to guide left-
turn lanes through intersections-but I'd like to see more
information about their purpose and implementation.
Comment noted. There are various standard treatments that are intended as
guide lines through intersections. It is not anticipated that an RTE is necessary
for such markings, however, if deemed necessary, the proper testing
procedures will be followed.
Alan Wachtel 27 5-17
Likewise with green colorized pavement, which has received
interim approval from FHWA and the CTCDC, and can be used
provided the proper notices are given and guidelines observed.
How the green color is intended to affect bicyclists and motorist
movements, and how it does affect them, remain unclear. My
concern is precisely that the color will discourage proper merging
movements; Palo Alto has an opportunity to study this question.
Bike boxes are a fundamentally bad idea. As discussed above,
they require nonstandard duplicate stop lines and colorization in
the travel lane. "Promote bicycle priority" means cut to the head
of the line. They are also sometimes presented as providing an
opportunity for less confident bicyclists to merge away from the
curb into the stream of traffic to avoid right-turn conflicts at
intersections, or to position themselves for a left turn. All these
claims may be true when the signal is red. If it is green, however,
or if it is initially red but changes to green during the approach,
the green bike lane marking directs bicyclists along the curb.
Meanwhile, the green bike box and bike lane markings actively
prevent motorists from merging safely to the curb or into the bike
lane to begin a right turn, whether they're approaching on a green
indication or stating up on a new green, in direct conflict with
California traffic law. (I'm assuming that right turns on red are
prohibited and that motorists obey the prohibition, which may be
generous.) This arrangement also seems to guarantee right hook
collisions.
The NACTO Guide recognizes this conflict to the extend to
recommending that a "Yield to Bikes" should (not "shall") be post-
mounted "to reinforce that bicyclists have the right-of-way going
through the intersection." The signs shown are nonstandard
variants of similar signs to yield to pedestrians. But it is not
Comment noted. Disagree about bike boxes being fundamentally a bad idea,
and in some intersection configurations, may be appropriate. Bike Boxes have
been shown in many studies to reduce the incidence of right-hooks by
positioning bicyclists in front of turning vehicles. They are widely used in
Portland and are used in other jurisdictions.
6
Source ID Comment / Revision Response
Attachment C
Draft Final Plan Comments Since Nov 2011 Council Meeting
Alan Wachtel 28 5-18
Time-Restricted Bike Lanes
Full-time parking restrictions would permit a full-time bike lane.
"Dedicated bicycle space to one side of the street" is exactly the
problem. With a one-way cycletrack, you have three destination
movements for vehicles (left, right, through) positioned entirely
to the left of the same three movements for bicyclists in the
cycletrack. If the cycletrack is two-way (as p.5-12 says it would
be), the number of conflicts multiples enormously. (This forms a
striking contrast to more accepted innovations such as
roundabouts, which seek to reduce the number of crossing
conflicts.) These are the same conflicts, of course, that occur on
sidewalks or sidepaths. Cycletracks may have some advantages
compared to sidewalks: they're straight, while sidewalks are not
always, and they're not shared with pedestrians or street
furniture. They are also (sometimes) one-way. But against those
advantages must be weighted bicyclists' higher speed and
expectation of right-of-way at driveways and intersections. These
conflicts can be reliably resolved only if every intersection is
signalized and displays separate signal phases for bicyclists, and
there are no driveways. The separate phases introduce additional
delay for all modes, and right turns on red must be prohibited,
which can lead to compliance problems. Traffic law does not
require bicyclists to use the cycletrack, and those who recognize
its dangers and ride in the street face narrower lanes, possible
harassment by motorists, and confusion about whether to follow
Roundabouts serve a different purpose, and can be quite challenging for
bicyclists, depending on the number of lanes and exits. Cycletracks are
recommended to complement the bike lane system and appeal to biyclists who
are less comfortable riding in a main street with cars. Intersections along
cycletracks must be well-designed individually.
Alan Wachtel 29 5-18
"These facilities are more attractive to novice bicyclists..." Door-
zone bike lanes, sidewalks, and wrong-way riding are also
attractive to novice bicyclists. It is not clear that cycletracks are
an improvement. The survey in Appendix C showing that 61
percent of respondents would feel safe riding on a cycletrack
than in bicycle lane does not validate the design. Recognizing
that they require a limited number of major intersections is
unusual for this plan; there may be no corridors that qualify.
Added need for proper design to reduce safety hazards while encouraging less-
comfortable riders.
Alan Wachtel 30 5-18
"The 2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan..." One of the basic
principles of vehicular cycling (and of traffic law in general) is
that bicyclists should not approach a conflict point from a
direction and at a speed at which motorists cannot see them in
time to avoid a collision. For example, a motorist who is scanning
left before turning right at an intersection cannot see wrong-way
bicyclists approaching from the right on the intersecting street or
sidewalk, and likewise cannot see bicyclists on the motorist's
street or the adjacent sidewalk who overtake in the motorist's
rear blind spot.
The consultants imply that through geometric design, traffic
control devices, and educational outreach, motorists can be
trained to look where they would not normally look and to see
where they could not normally see. But there is little evidence
that this is even cognitively possible, much less that motorists can
be relied on to do it when their attention is necessarily occupied
by traffic approaching from other directions. Facilities that
implicitly rely on such claims need to be examined critically.
A second significant risk from sidewalk riding is that it promoted
wrong-way travel. Some "innovative" facilities also either
If implemented with proper signs and intersection treatments, cycletracks
improve safety and do provide a separated space for bicycling. Bike lanes have
a similar danger from right-hook collisions.
Alan Wachtel 31 5-19
"Understanding reasons for sidewalk riding…" Again the terms
"protected" and "modern" may be misleading. The burden should
be on the consultants to demonstrate why sidepaths, which have
long been known to increase collision rates, and two-way
cycletracks, which not only exacerbate intersection conflicts but
incorporate wrong-way travel, are appropriate and safe at the
recommended locations.
Section 5.2.7 addresses the different design standards of cycletracks vs.
sidepaths and sidewalks.
Sylvia 5-30
Confirm this with City staff, PABAC representatives, and police.
Maybe you have already worked through this with them? [Not sure
we want to propose stings when Palo Alto has locations where
sidewalk riding is allowed by posted signage (Middlefield) and
areas where it is tolerated, even by the police. I may be wrong.Removed recommendation for sting of sidewalk bicycle riding.
Chapter 6
Sylvia 6-1 numbers don't add up.
Table 6.1 has been updated with latest project cost assumptions. However, the
total project cost figure is necessarily an approximation, due to both the
variation in Across Barrier Cost Estimates and the fact that a number of
improvements are represented in multiple categories (i.e. a spot improvement
that is also part of a bicycle boulevard project) and thus double counted. A note
has been added below the table to explain this phenonemon.
Sylvia 6-3
Map 6-1 seems to show Portage as the proposed route, but the
text here designates Lambert. Please clarify in the text and on
the map where the route is. Also, the map shows the proposed
bikeway on Portage as going straight through to Park, but Portage
curves around to Lambert. Not sure if your recommendation is to
do something with the Fry's parking lot on Portage.
Corrected to Portage. Route through parking lot is intentional, as specifics will
be determined in construction plans.
7
Source ID Comment / Revision Response
Attachment C
Draft Final Plan Comments Since Nov 2011 Council Meeting
Bill Courington 33 6-3
Several places, including Map 6-1 (6-3, Table 6-5 (6-10), 6-28, 6-
31. Reroute and extend future Kingsley Bike Boulevard to give
direct access to Lucie Stern and Main Library/Cultural Center,
eliminate the cost of a new signal at Kingsley-Webster-Melville-
Parkinson. New route could be called Kingsley-Parkinson.
While certain corridors have been identified as bicycle boulevards, this does not
exclude short connections from being signed to provide specific access to
nearby destinations. No change.
CM Kellar 34 6-3
Match colors on Proposed Network to legend
Use different color for Further Study Needed Class III Incorporated
CM Kellar 35 6-3
Contraflow bike lane on Homer should include a westbound
connection as well
The Plan recommends allowing two-way bicycle travel on Homer from Alma to
either a converted 2-way High Street or Emerson St.
CM Fineberg 36 6-3
Add in Bike Map the W Bayshore Enhanced Bikeway from
Edgewood Plaza to EPA
Added to 6.4.1, "In addition, a sidewalk or Class I path should be provided along
West Bayshore between East Palo Alto and Channing Avenue to provide access in
the area around Edgewood Plaza."
Alan Wachtel 37 6-5
"multiple sidepath segments are recommended…" If these paths
are to serve bicyclists, what benefits do they offer to offset the
well-known hazards of sidepaths due to intersection conflicts and
wrong-way riding? An earlier draft described the visibility
challenges as "huge". The restriction to "long, unobstructed
frontages" does not seem to have been heeded.
These facilties connect to other sidepath facilities and assume an appropriately
high level of design.
Alan Wachtel 38 6-6
"The BPTP 2011 recommends an emphasis on removal of and
enhancement to existing substandard bike lanes…" What benefit
will these nonstandard markings confer?Added, "that improve bicyclists’ visibility"
Alan Wachtel 39 6-8
There is no virtue in attracting "interested but concerned" riders
to facilities that are promoted as "separated" or "protected," but
that intensify intersection conflicts and encourage wrong-way
riding.
Proper design of these facilities discourages wrong-way riding and improves
safety.
PABAC 40 6-11
Map 6-2 Street closure symbol (black triangle) at Lowell on Bryant
Bicycle Boulevard is missing.Incorporated
Alta 6-18 None
Added shared space/festival street photo simulation and plan concept for
Emerson Street/Ramona Street at surface parking lot N
Rafael 32 6-21
Loosely identify long term pedestrian improvements along West
Bayshore between East Palo Alto and Channing. Added to pedestrian map and to section 6.3.3 and 6.4.1.
Robert Moss 1 6-23
Clarified sidewalk installations in Barron Park. Sidewalks in
Barron Park not allowed without a vote of residents to install
them, 1971. Concerned about bike boulevard on Matadero Road.
El Camino & Matadero intersection improvements - concerned.
Text specifies that. "City staff would work closely with the neighborhood to
develop any proposed changes."
Alan Wachtel 41 6-30
Bike boxes should not be installed at Lytton and Alma, or
anywhere. The Walter Hays/Rinconada sidepath (under "Trails")
crosses only one driveway (at the fire station), but it presents
intersection conflicts at both ends, especially for wrong-way
riders, and it may encourage two-way sidewalk riding at both
ends.
See previous bike box comment response. Cycletrack recommendations include
a sufficiently high level of design.
Alan Wachtel 42 6-30
Homer/Channing couplet. I agree that a contraflow bike lane on
Homer would be workable and desirable, but it isn't currently
allowed by the HDM. If Caltrans adopts a procedure for bikeway
experiments, this would be a good opportunity for one.
Comment noted. The HDM does not explicitly prohibit contraflow bike lanes.
The contraflow lane would be treated as a two-way roadway. There are many
examples of this type of facility nationwide and planning of the facility should
account for cyclists entering and exiting it.
Rob Robinson 43 6-31
Discussion of Park Boulevard and Matadero Avenue should be
moved from NE to the NW detailed discussion.Incorporated
PABAC 44 6-32
The map of southeast Palo Alto is cut off on the north side; it
should extent to Oregon. Compare the quadrants map on page 6-
27.Incorporated
Rob Robinson 45 6-32
Discussion of El Camino should be moved from NE to NW detailed
discussion.Incorporated
Paul Goldstein 46 6-33
Here and in several other places there is a note to "see Appendix
A for additional guidance on retrofitting rolled curbed streets,"
but I do not see such guidance anywhere in Appendix A.
The guidance is on the queuing streets sheet; added reference to citations in
the document.
Pamela Radin 47 6-33
6.4.2 Southeast Palo Alto
Recommended Treatment and Locations
Add - Adobe Creek Bridge Over Crossing The Adobe creek crossing is currently listed under the trails section.
Pamela Radin 48 6-33
6.4.2 Southeast Palo Alto
Re-enter "Stripe sharrow markings on Ames Avenue."
Provides Bicycle access to back entrance of Palo Verde School.
[Ames Sharrow called out in 6.1.3 p. 6-8&6-9. Info not carried
over to above Section 6.4.2.]Incorporated
Pamela Radin 49 6-34
6.4.2 Southeast Palo Alto
Add: …"Provide a safer attractive connection between Midtown
retail and Mitchell Park Library
Provides direct access to Ramos Park and recreational
opportunities to the North of Oregon Expwy.
Added, "These routes provide an attractive connection between Midtown retail
and Mitchell Park Library, as well as direct access to Ramos Park and
recreational opportunities north of Oregon Expressway."
Robert Neff 50 6-35
6.4.3 Southwest Palo Alto, El Camino Way - Meadow to Maybell
The plan should address the connection from the end of Meadow
to Maybell, on El Camino Way. Currently this is a narrow, 2-way
street with parking on both sides. It carries at least half the Gunn
HS traffic that goes up Meadow. I think it could benefit from
sharrows.
My suggestion is to add a bullet for this in the "Bike Lane/Sharrow
Roadway" bullet section on page 6-39 for southwest Palo Alto.
"El Camino Way - Consider Sharrows from Meadow to Maybell to
enhance this safe-routes-to-schools connection."Added a recommendations for a Class III facility in this location.
Rob Robinson 51 6-37 In the first paragraph, there is a missing parenthesis at the end.Incorporated
Rob Robinson 52 6-38 Figure 5-18, the key box is too small to read, please enlarge.Incorporated
8
Source ID Comment / Revision Response
Attachment C
Draft Final Plan Comments Since Nov 2011 Council Meeting
Alan Wachtel 53 6-39
El Camino Way and Los Robles. Why a shared use path, and how
does consolidating bike lanes into a path constitute an
enhancement?
Traffic speeds and volumes indicate a need for higher-order bicycle facilities at
this location. Combining the sidewalks would result in a shared use path, which
could improve visibility of bikes and peds by consolidating users and providing
high-quality crossings. A detailed analysis would be necessary prior to any
significant reconfigureation of bicycle and pedestrian faciltities here.
Rob Robinson 54 6-41
Bullet: Churchill Mall/Road crossing is probably meant to be
"Churchill/Alma Crossing"Incorporated
Alan Wachtel 55 6-43
Class I bikeway on the north side of Churchill Road. What is the
Churchill Mall path? This sidepath would cross major driveways at
Palo Alto High School and the Palo Alto Unified School District
office.
The Churchill Mall Path is within the Stanford recreation fields. It makes a
connection between the Embarcadero Path to the fields, without requiring users
to cross Churchill Avenue twice.
CM Kellar 56 6-43 Consider widening bike lanes and sidewalks along El Camino Real
Section 6.4.3 recommends evaluating Class II bike lanes on El Camino, and 6.4.4
recommends intersection through-markings on the roadway. In addition,
sidewalk improvements and widening are recommended in 6.4.4.
Chapter 7
Alan Wachtel 58 7-1
See my comments to p. 5-10 and to Appendix A. "Innovative" and
"latest" are not equivalent to safe or effective. The reference to
FHWA is misleading. The Secretary of Transportation has
informally recommended the guide in the context of a press
conference. There has been no technical or official approval.Comment noted. See previous responses.
Bill Courington 59 7-2
Innovation criterion
It's hard to understand what the preceding section means. I think
it means: Projects tagged Innovation = yes are those that are
likely to require an extra educational effort to convince the
public and government of their benefits. Examples include green
bike lanes and bike boxes. Innovation = yes does not affect a
project's priority.
Can the section be clarified?
Changed to, "to help identify where innovative projects may require additional
education…"
Bill Courington 60 7-2
Institutional partnerships criterion
This section should say whether Partnerships=High affects
priority, or it's just an "attribute" of a project, similar to
Innovation. It also seems to say that the Partnership attribute can
be good (cost sharing) or bad (need approval) for a project,
which isn't very helpful.
Can the meaning and intent of the Institutional Partnerships
criterion be clarified? Perhaps it should be split - something like
Partner Funding and Inter-agency. Or the values of the criterion
could be changed from Yes/No to Funding/Approval/No.
Clarified that this improves the project ranking, but noted the increased need
for support.
Rob Robinson 61 7-3 ABC-7 Innovation: "Medium" should be changed to "varies"Incorporated
Bill Courington 62 7-3
Project categories. I suggest adding this para after the list of
categories.
The plan does not prioritize project across categories. For
example, it does not assert that a particular bicycle boulevard
project is of higher priority than a cross-barrier connection, or
that bicycle boulevards in general are higher priority than cross-
barrier connections. Those decisions should be made by the City
project by project.
Agreed. The prioritzation is not intended to compare projects across
categories, and these decisions are to be may by the City project by project.
Bill Courington 63 7-3
Adobe Creek Overcrossing is marked Innovation=yes. I don't
understand why. Highway bridges are commonplace. In addition, I
suggest adding the following to the Project Description: In
addition to recreation access, this project gives year-round
access to the Google/Intuit employment center in Mountain View.This depends on the ultimate project, but innovation is a potential. No change.
Alan Wachtel 64 7-4
Project TR-1 is a wide sidepath on Embarcadero Road from
Newell Road to Middlefield Road. This may be the same as the
Walter Hays/Rinconada sidepath discussed on p. 6-30. TR stands
for the perhaps inappropriate "trail."
This is the same path; changed name in Chapter 6. See previous response to
comments on use of "trail."Alan Wachtel 65 7-6 Project TR-5 is the Churchill path discussed on p. 6-43.Changed name in Chapter 6.
PABAC 66 7-8
Project BB-2 Bicycle Boulevard Comprehensive Signage and
Markings. Change title to Signage and Markings for Future Bicycle
Boulevards.Incorporated
PABAC 67 7-8
Change description to: As an interim measure, sign appropriate
segments of the future bicycle boulevard network streets (Map 6-
3, page 6-25) as Class III Bike Routes. Use California standard Bike
Route signs. Some network segments may not be appropriate, for
example. Webster near Embarcadero, which needs a signal for
safe crossing of Embarcadero.
Changed text to, "New text: As an interim measure, sign appropriate segments
of the future bicycle boulevard network streets (Map 6•2 on page 6-11) as Class
III Bike Routes. Use California standard Bike Route signs (CAMUTCD Sign D11-1).
Some network segments may not be appropriate for interim treatments prior to
other bicycle boulevard elements. For example, Webster Street requires a
signal for safe crossing at Embarcadero. Streets developed as bike routes in
anticipation of future bicycle boulevard improvements should follow the
following minimum design standards:- Less than 3,000 cars per day- 85th
percentile speeds of 30 mph or less- Pavement quality of fair or better (as
determined by PCI and field review)- Provides reasonably safe connections
to/from existing bikeways and destinations and across arterials "
Alan Wachtel 68 7-9
Project BB-7, the Amarillo-Moreno Bicycle Boulevard, includes
consideration of a bike box. Project BK-1 for a
Charleston/Arastradero "enhanced bikeway" includes green lanes
and intersection through markings, whose purpose, as previously
discussed, should be defined. Intersection through markings are
nonstandard. It also includes bike boxes, discussed in the
comments to p. 5-17.
These treatments are used in many jurisdictions throughout the country and are
recommended because of their demonstrated benefit to bicyclists. They are
discussed in Appendix A, Design Guidelines.
9
Source ID Comment / Revision Response
Attachment C
Draft Final Plan Comments Since Nov 2011 Council Meeting
Sylvia 7-9
Amarillo - Moreno Bicycle Boulevard: "Consider bike box
westbound on Amarillo Ave at Louis Road and eastbound on
Moreno Avenue" - Please confirm this project. The intersections
of Louis road at Amarillo and at Moreno are unsignalized. Should
bike boxes go in at these intersections?
Changed to, "Consider bicycle boulevard offset intersection treatments such as
signs and pavement markings to assist with wayfinding at Louis Road where the
route jogs."
Alan Wachtel 69 7-10
Project BK-2, the California Avenue enhanced bikeway, suggests a
cycletrack on a business street that has many intersections at
cross streets and alleys, and parking that cannot be removed. The
potential for conflicts is enormous.
These treatments are used in many jurisdictions throughout the country and are
recommended because of their demonstrated benefit to bicyclists. They are
discussed in Appendix A, Design Guidelines.
Alan Wachtel 70 7-10
Project BK-3, the Channing/Newell enhanced bikeway, proposes
unspecified bicycle markings or a potential two-way cycletrack
from the Homer/Channing enhanced bikeway to Jordan Middle
School. What on earth can be the purpose of a two-way
cycletrack, whose physical separation, whatever the details,
would create innumerable turning conflicts at residential
driveways, and whose wrong-way bicycle traffic would be a major
hazard?
This corridor has high motor vehicle speeds and volumes, and requires a higher-
level of facility than standard bike lanes.
Alan Wachtel 71 7-10
Project BK-4, the Lytton Avenue/Alma Street/Sand Hill Road
enhanced bikeway, includes a possible cycletrack along the El
Camino Park or Caltrain frontage. The details are unclear. How
will the wrong-way and intersection issues be handled?
Appendix A provides information about cycletrack at intersections, and the
details will be determined by City engineers.
Alan Wachtel 72 7-11
Project BK-7 proposes yet another potential cycletrack on Los
Robles/El Camino Way between La Donna and West Meadow
Drive, giving rise to the usual questions.Comment noted. See previous responses.
Alan Wachtel 73 7-12
Project BK-9: another potential cycletrack on Fabian Way. What
is the need?Comment noted. See previous responses.
Alan Wachtel 74 7-14
Project INT-6, Churchill Avenue at El Camino Real, proposes
another bike box.Comment noted. See previous responses.
PABAC 75 7-16
Please add a project (PR-8?) to remove rigid (e.g., metal)
bollards from entrances to bicycle paths and bridges. If blocking
access to motorized vehicles is a genuine problem at a particular
location, use a mechanism that is not hazardous to cyclists. Refer
to Chapter 1000, Index 1003.1(16), of the Highway Design Manual
for guidance and alternatives. The Manual section is currently in
draft form, but is expected to be adopted around the end of
March.
Added, "Remove rigid bollards from entrances to bicycle paths and bridges. If
blocking access to vehicles is a program at a particular location, a mechanism
that is not hazardous to bicyclists should be used. The Draft Highway Design
Manual, Chapter 1000, Index 1003.1(16) provides guidance and alternatives."
Alan Wachtel 76 7-19
Project F-7 is a general feasibility/design study to assess potential
for cycletrack design in Palo Alto. That should be a prerequisite
to any of the specific cycletrack proposals in the plan.
The Plan recommends data collection and consideration when developing
cycletracks.
Rob Robinson 77 7-21
Table 7- under Bicycle Boulevard, Traffic Calming, Quantity listed
as 30. Should be a 3 (or a range 3-6 to be generous). Using 3 and a
length of Park BB (3.25 miles) results in $115,375 which is close to
stated $150,000 for BB-1 on page 7-7. Also, Bryant BB has three
traffic calming means (two auto barriers, one circle).
This will vary widely. Changed to 3, and added note, "Treatments will vary
based on operational characteristics along the route; cost for planning purposes
only. Treatments will vary based on operational characteristics along the route;
cost for planning purposes only."
Alan Wachtel 78 7-22
Bike boxes should not be included in the cost estimate table or
the plan.See previous responses.
Appendices
PABAC 80 A-x
Background: PABAC has serious concerns with many of the
innovative treatments promoted by the current plan in Appendix
A. Some of these treatments appear to violate known safety
guidelines, such as minimizing the number and intensity of
potential conflicts at intersections. Other might be effective in
large urban environments where there are no driveways and all
intersections are signalized, but unsuitable for locations in Palo
Alto. We recommend that tried-and-true designs be used
whenever feasible, and that innovative, nonstandard measures be
considered only when there is a situation that cannot be treated
by a standard solution or there is a clear expectation that the
innovative treatment will be safer and more effective than a
standard solution.
Incorporating into Appendix A detailed design sheets for buffered
bike lanes, bike boxes, and cycletracks is redundant because
design may be found elsewhere, and the designs might be
improved over the lifetime of the plan. In addition, there is no
mention in Appendix A of bike boulevards, an accepted and
Bicylce boulevard design guidelines added to Appendix A. Other comments - see
previous responses.
PABAC 81 A-x
Retitle the appendix to something like "Options for Innovative
Bicycle Facilities:
The Appendix provides information about a variety of infrastructure; disagree
that everything is innovative or that it needs to be marked in that way.
PABAC 82 A-x
Wherever possible, cross-reference design details to another
document, rather than repeating them verbatim.Incorporated; the guidelines sheets refer to guidance documents.
PABAC 83 A-x
Identify currently unapproved treatments, acknowledge their
potential disadvantages in Palo Alto, and emphasize the need for
approved experimentation.
Projects that are not explicitly allowed in the HDM or CAMUTCD are discussed
and NACTO guidance provided.
PABAC 84 A-x
Specify that Palo Alto should always conform to applicable
federal and state laws and standards.
Comment noted. The Plan discusses the disadvantages of non-traditional facility
types, as well as the benefits of experimentation, but does not provide specific
recommendations for "innovative" treatments and doesn't commit or eliminate
any specific treatments.
10
Source ID Comment / Revision Response
Attachment C
Draft Final Plan Comments Since Nov 2011 Council Meeting
PABAC 85 A-x
Specify that experimentation with currently unapproved facilities
is welcome, provided that standard protocols for experimentation
are observed.
Added, "It should be noted that some treatments may be unsuitable for
locations in Palo Alto, particularly treatments that were designed for large
urban environments with few driveways or unsignalized intersections.
Established facility types are recommended where feasible and appropriate to
the roadway conditions, while innovation may be considered when such
treatments may be safer and more effective than standard solutions. Palo Alto
should collect data to identify whether innovative facilities are appropriate in
the suburban setting. Before and after data about motor vehicle and bicyclist
volume and roadway position, crashes, compliance, conflicts, delay, or other
variables should be collected as appropriate on experimental treatments. "
PABAC 86 A-x
Specify that in any experiment, before/after data on vehicle and
bicycle volume, bicyclist and motorist roadway position, crashes
(if any), compliance, conflicts, delay, aggressive behavior, or
other variables, as appropriate, should be collected, analyzed,
and reported to determine whether the installation has produced
the desired result, and so that others can benefit from Palo Alto's
experiments.
Added, "It should be noted that some treatments may be unsuitable for
locations in Palo Alto, particularly treatments that were designed for large
urban environments with few driveways or unsignalized intersections.
Established facility types are recommended where feasible and appropriate to
the roadway conditions, while innovation may be considered when such
treatments may be safer and more effective than standard solutions. Palo Alto
should collect data to identify whether innovative facilities are appropriate in
the suburban setting. Before and after data about motor vehicle and bicyclist
volume and roadway position, crashes, compliance, conflicts, delay, or other
variables should be collected as appropriate on experimental treatments. "
PABAC 87 A-x
Specify that PABAC should review potential installations, and if
applicable, experimental protocols.Incorporated
Paul Goldstein 88 A-x
Chair of subcommittee that reviewed Draft Plan. Main concerned
with Appendix A and innovative standards. PABAC feels strongly
that Bike Blvd implementation is most effective method of
increasing bicycle activity. Bang for Buck is converting bicycle to
Bicycle Boulevards.
Additional discussion encouraging expansion of Bicycle Boulevard Network and
cost-effectiveness to implement to be added. The identified treatments are
intended to provide additional options. They are discussed in Appendix A,
Design Guidelines and are not intended to replace Bicycle Boulevards.
Alan Wachtel 89 A-1
"However, not all are approved for use by Caltrans…" The last
sentence deserves emphasis, because for certain traffic control
devices and bikeway designs, compliance with Caltrans standards
is mandated by law.See previous responses.
Alan Wachtel 90 A-1
By now it should be clear that claims to be innovative, up-to-
date, separated, protected, modern, widely used, best practice,
and so on should be viewed skeptically. The USDOT Secretary's
casual endorsement was casual and informal. Many of the NACTO
designs appear to violate basic engineering principals or traffic
law by introducing ambiguous or unexpected right-of-way,
impaired sight lines, nonstandard destination positioning, and
unrealistic scanning patterns. The design guidelines and research
cited often overlook or dismiss these issues. Each design should
be evaluated on its own merits, rather than as an authority.
Incorporating detailed design sheets for buffered bike lanes, bike
boxes, and especially cycletracks is redundant and acts primarily
as padding and PR to lend these treatments an undeserved
legitimacy. At a minimum, unapproved treatments should be
identified, their potential disadvantages acknowledged, and the See previous responses.
Alan Wachtel 91 A-?Guidelines for bollard alternatives Added alternatives to bollards sheet in Appendix A.
Rob Robinson 92 A-11 Caption under picture: the word "permits" should be "prohibits".Incorporated
Bill Courington 93 B-1
The Arc Racks installed by the City appear to violate this section.
I don't object to these violations, I'm just pointing out the
discrepancy. Maybe the rules are too restrictive. Would a Lighting
Bolt rack qualify as "two points of contact with frame"?
[Paul] I do not see the need for these statements in the bike plan.
I think the Transportation Division should keep a list of
acceptable bike racks on file, and developers can petition the
Director, if they want to install something not on the list. PABAC
should be consulted in developing the list, and in granting
exceptions. Rack technology is constantly evolving.
Changed to "frame or wheel" and added a footnote about specific frames and
intent to provide stability for the bicycle.
PABAC 94 C-3
Table C-2: Estimate of Current Walking and Bicycling Trips. This
table is hard to understand. For example, how the totals are
derived, why "commuters" are represented in multiple rows,
whether "walk- or bike-to-transit" refers only to bus or also to
Caltrain. If this table is important, please try to clarify it.
Added explanatory text; commuters includes walkers, bikers, and walk- and
bike-to-transit commuters.
PABAC 95 D-1
The URL www.paloalto.org/bike goes to some kind of sample site.
Fix or explain.Removed reference to site.
Bill Courington 96 D-11
Importance of Trail Improvements. For clarity, change title to
Importance of Off-Street Trail Improvements Incorporated
PABAC 97 D-3
Remove Figure D-3 Bicycling Experience which does not show
Experience but repeats in a bar chart the same Confidence data
as D-4's pie chart. If there is data on Experience add it as a new
section.Incorporated
Bill Courington 98 E-10
Table E-1. Explain the significance of gray italicized versus white
policy cells.Grayed boxes are policies; white are Programs.
Bill Courington 99 E-17
I don't understand this sentence: Due to fiscal constraints, the
Police Department does not currently remove abandoned
bicycles on a consistent basis. However, residents may bring
an abandoned bicycle to the Police Department office.The
Police Department released abandoned bicycles every
Wednesday. Should "released" be "releases"?Changed to "releases"
11
Source ID Comment / Revision Response
Attachment C
Draft Final Plan Comments Since Nov 2011 Council Meeting
Bill Courington 100 F-16
There is a suggestion of charging commercial parking businesses a
fee. Are there any such businesses in Palo Alto?Section removed
Pam Radin 101 ?
Oregon Exp Project
- Since this is 100% designed and we’re in the process of finalizing
funding agreements, let’s include a brief description of the
project in the plan.Added information to 6.4.1
Pam Radin 102 ?
Consistent Comments for Signage on Bike Boulevards
Some descriptions of bike boulevards reference signage as part of
them and some don’t, let’s be consistent and include a signage
element on all bike boulevard project descriptions.
Signage has been added to project descriptions and cost estimates for all
bicycle boulevards.
12
3DUWRI3$%$&6XEFRPPLWWHH&RPPHQWVRQ
%LNH3HG3ODQ'UDIW
3DXO*ROGVWHLQ3DPHOD5DGLQ5REHUW1HII5RE5RELQVRQ%LOO
&RXULQJWRQ&HGULFGHOD%HDXMDUGLHUHIHE
7KLVGRFXPHQWFRPSOHWHVWKHVXEFRPPLWWHH¶VUHYLHZRIWKH%LF\FOH3HGHVWULDQSODQ7KH
VXEFRPPLWWHHUHFRPPHQGVWKDW3$%$&UHYLHZDQGDSSURYHWKHVHFRPPHQWVDQGVHQGWKHP
DQGWKHFRPPLWWHH¶VSUHYLRXVFRPPHQWVWRVWDIIDQGFRQVXOWDQWV
$VZLWKWKHSUHYLRXVUHYLHZWKHVXEFRPPLWWHHWULHGWRIRFXVLWVOLPLWHGWLPHRQWKHPRVW
LPSRUWDQWLVVXHV7KHUHYLHZLVDFFRUGLQJO\GLYLGHGLQWRWZRSDUWV
,WHPVGLVFXVVHGDQGDJUHHGWRE\WKHVXEFRPPLWWHH
&RPPHQWVPDGHE\VXEFRPPLWWHHLQGLYLGXDOVEXWIRUODFNRIWLPHQRWIXOO\GLVFXVVHG
RUIRUPDOO\HQGRUVHGE\WKHVXEFRPPLWWHH,QIRUPDOO\KRZHYHUPDQ\PHPEHUVRI
WKHVXEFRPPLWWHHGRDJUHHZLWKWKHVHFRPPHQWVDQGWKHVXEFRPPLWWHHXUJHVWKH
FRQVXOWDQWVWRVHULRXVO\FRQVLGHUWKHP0DQ\RIWKHVHFRPPHQWVDUHQRWFRQWURYHUVLDO
DQGFDQLPSURYHWKHTXDOLW\RIWKHUHSRUW
6XEFRPPLWWHH&RPPHQWV
,QSDJHRUGHUQRWSULRULW\RUGHU
3DJH0DS(YHUJUHHQ3DUNVKRXOGEHUHSODFHGZLWK&DOLIRUQLD$YH6KRSSLQJ
7KH-HZLVK&RPPXQLW\&HQWHUORFDWLRQGRZQWRZQLVPLVSODFHG,WVKRXOGEHPRYHGWR
WKHPL[HGXVH]RQHDW&KDUOHVWRQ6DQ$QWRQLR
3DJHDQGWKURXJKRXW 5HSODFH³(PEDUFDGHUR%LNH3DWK´ZLWK³&DOWUDLQ%LNH3DWK´
3DJH7KHVXEFRPPLWWHHVWURQJO\HQGRUVHVWKHKLJKSULRULW\SODFHGRQGDWDFROOHFWLRQ
DQGLVYHU\SOHDVHGWRVHHLWLQWKHGRFXPHQW'DWDFROOHFWLRQLVDOVRDQHVVHQWLDOWRROWREH
XVHGLQDQDO\]LQJWKHVXFFHVVRIDQ\SURMHFWDQGSDUWLFXODUO\SURMHFWVWKDWHPSOR\LQQRYDWLYH
WUHDWPHQWV0RUHRQWKLVPD\EHIRXQGLQ$ODQ:DFKWHO¶VFRPPHQWVEHORZ
3DJH%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUGV3OHDVHFRQVLGHUFKDQJLQJWKHILUVWVHQWHQFHWRDVWURQJHU
HQGRUVHPHQW $QHWZRUNRIELF\FOHERXOHYDUGVLVWKHPRVWGLUHFWDQGFRVWHIIHFWLYHZD\WR
LQFUHDVHELF\FOHPRGHVKDUHVDIHW\DQGPRELOLW\ 3OHDVHVHHDOVRWKHFRPPHQWVEHORZRQ
3URMHFW%%
3OHDVHUHSODFHWKHSXUSOH%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUGDQGVWUHHWVLJQLOOXVWUDWLRQZLWKVWDQGDUGVLJQV
5DWLRQDOH 1RQVWDQGDUGSXUSOHVLJQVDUHLQDGYLVDEOHDQGSHUKDSVFRQWUDU\WR&DOLIRUQLDODZ
%LF\FOLVWVH[SHFWJUHHQZD\ILQGLQJVLJQV SXUSOHZD\ILQGLQJVLJQVDUHFRQIXVLQJ3XUSOHVWUHHW
QDPHVLJQVDUHFRQWUDU\WRWKH3DOR$OWRVWDQGDUGRIEODFNOHWWHULQJRQDZKLWHEDFNJURXQG
:KHQDVWUHHWVLJQGHVLJQFKDQJHVLWJHQHUDOO\PHDQVRQHKDVFURVVHGLQWRDQRWKHUFLW\
3DJH0DS6WUHHWFORVXUHV\PERO EODFNWULDQJOH DW/RZHOORQ%U\DQW%LNH%RXOHYDUG
LVPLVVLQJ
3DJH7KHPDSRI6RXWKHDVW3DOR$OWRLVFXWRIIRQWKHQRUWKVLGH LWVKRXOGH[WHQGWR
2UHJRQ&RPSDUHWKHTXDGUDQWVPDSRQSDJH
3DJH3URMHFW%%%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUG&RPSUHKHQVLYH6LJQDJHDQG0DUNLQJV
Ⴠ &KDQJHWLWOHWR6LJQDJHDQG0DUNLQJVIRU)XWXUH%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUGV
Ⴠ &KDQJHGHVFULSWLRQWR $VDQLQWHULPPHDVXUHVLJQDSSURSULDWHVHJPHQWVRIWKHIXWXUH
%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUGQHWZRUNVWUHHWV 0DSSDJH DV&ODVV,,,%LNH5RXWHV8VH
&DOLIRUQLDVWDQGDUG%LNH5RXWHVLJQV6RPHQHWZRUNVHJPHQWVPLJKWQRWEHDSSURSULDWH
IRUH[DPSOH:HEVWHUQHDU(PEDUFDGHURZKLFKQHHGVDVLJQDOIRUVDIHFURVVLQJRI
(PEDUFDGHUR
Ⴠ 8SGDWHWKHUHSRUWVHFWLRQVLIDQ\WKDWUHFRPPHQG%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUGVLJQLQJSUHFHGLQJ
RSWLPL]DWLRQRIDURXWHWR%LNH%RXOHYDUGFRQGLWLRQV
5DWLRQDOH 7KLVLQWHULP%LNH5RXWHVLJQLQJSURMHFWYLVLEO\H[SDQGVWKHELNHQHWZRUNDW
ORZFRVWZKLOHSUHVHUYLQJWKHPHDQLQJRI3DOR$OWR¶V³%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUG´GHVLJQDWLRQ
/DWHUZKHQD%LNH5RXWHLVLPSURYHGWRWKH%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUGVWDQGDUGZLWKWUDIILF
FDOPLQJWXUQHGVWRSVLJQVSDYLQJHWFFKDQJHLWVVLJQVIURP%LNH5RXWHWR%LF\FOH
%RXOHYDUG7KHVLJQSRVWVKDYLQJDOUHDG\EHHQLQVWDOOHGWKHFRVWRIFKDQJLQJDVLJQZLOO
EHYHU\ORZHVSHFLDOO\LQFRPSDULVRQWRWKHRWKHULPSURYHPHQWVPDGHWRWKHVWUHHWIRU
SURPRWLRQWR%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUGVWDWXV
3DJH DQGSRVVLEO\HOVHZKHUH 7KHUHDUHUHIHUHQFHVWR³&LYLF/RRS´3OHDVHGHILQH
WKLVWHUPFRQFHSWDQGMXVWLI\LW:KDWDQG:K\"
3DJH3OHDVHDGGDSURMHFW 35" WRUHPRYHULJLG HJPHWDO EROODUGVIURPHQWUDQFHV
WRELF\FOHSDWKVDQGEULGJHV,IEORFNLQJDFFHVVWRPRWRUL]HGYHKLFOHVLVDJHQXLQHSUREOHPDW
DSDUWLFXODUORFDWLRQXVHDPHFKDQLVPWKDWLVQRWKD]DUGRXVWRF\FOLVWV5HIHUWR&KDSWHU
,QGH[ RIWKH+LJKZD\'HVLJQ0DQXDOIRUJXLGDQFHDQGDOWHUQDWLYHV7KLV0DQXDO
VHFWLRQLVFXUUHQWO\LQGUDIWIRUPEXWLVH[SHFWHGWREHDGRSWHGDURXQGWKHHQGRI0DUFK
3DJH$$SSHQGL[$'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHVDQG6WDQGDUGV
%DFNJURXQG 3$%$&KDVVHULRXVFRQFHUQVZLWKPDQ\RIWKHLQQRYDWLYHWUHDWPHQWVSURPRWHG
E\WKHFXUUHQWSODQLQ$SSHQGL[$6RPHRIWKHVHWUHDWPHQWVDSSHDUWRYLRODWHNQRZQVDIHW\
JXLGHOLQHVVXFKDVPLQLPL]LQJWKHQXPEHUDQGLQWHQVLW\RISRWHQWLDOFRQIOLFWVDWLQWHUVHFWLRQV
2WKHUVPLJKWEHHIIHFWLYHLQODUJHXUEDQHQYLURQPHQWVZKHUHWKHUHDUHQRGULYHZD\VDQGDOO
LQWHUVHFWLRQVDUHVLJQDOL]HGEXWXQVXLWDEOHIRUORFDWLRQVLQ3DOR$OWR:HUHFRPPHQGWKDWWULHG
DQGWUXHGHVLJQVEHXVHGZKHQHYHUIHDVLEOHDQGWKDWLQQRYDWLYHQRQVWDQGDUGPHDVXUHVEH
FRQVLGHUHGRQO\ZKHQWKHUHLVDVLWXDWLRQWKDWFDQQRWEHWUHDWHGE\DVWDQGDUGVROXWLRQRUWKHUH
LVDFOHDUH[SHFWDWLRQWKDWWKHLQQRYDWLYHWUHDWPHQWZLOOEHVDIHUDQGPRUHHIIHFWLYHWKDQD
VWDQGDUGVROXWLRQ
,QFRUSRUDWLQJLQWR$SSHQGL[$GHWDLOHGGHVLJQVKHHWVIRUEXIIHUHGELNHODQHVELNHER[HVDQG
F\FOHWUDFNVLVUHGXQGDQWEHFDXVHGHVLJQVPD\EHIRXQGHOVHZKHUHDQGWKHGHVLJQVPLJKWEH
LPSURYHGRYHUWKHOLIHWLPHRIWKHSODQ,QDGGLWLRQWKHUHLVQRPHQWLRQLQ$SSHQGL[$RIELNH
ERXOHYDUGVDQDFFHSWHGDQGZLGHO\DSSOLFDEOHIDFLOLW\WKDWKDVQRDFFHSWHGGHVLJQVWDQGDUG
3$%$&UHFRPPHQGVWKDW$SSHQGL[$EHPRGLILHGDVIROORZV
Ⴠ 5HWLWOHWKHDSSHQGL[WRVRPHWKLQJOLNH2SWLRQVIRU,QQRYDWLYH%LF\FOH)DFLOLWLHV
Ⴠ :KHUHYHUSRVVLEOHFURVVUHIHUHQFHGHVLJQGHWDLOVWRDQRWKHUGRFXPHQWUDWKHUWKDQ
UHSHDWLQJWKHPYHUEDWLP
Ⴠ ,GHQWLI\FXUUHQWO\XQDSSURYHGWUHDWPHQWVDFNQRZOHGJHWKHLUSRWHQWLDOGLVDGYDQWDJHVLQ
3DOR$OWRDQGHPSKDVL]HWKHQHHGIRUDSSURYHGH[SHULPHQWDWLRQ
Ⴠ 6SHFLI\WKDW3DOR$OWRVKRXOGWRDUHDVRQDEOHGHJUHHHQVXUHWKDWIDFLOLWLHVGHYHORSHG
IRUODUJHFLWLHVZLOOEHHIIHFWLYHLQLWVVXEXUEDQVHWWLQJ
Ⴠ 6SHFLI\WKDW3DOR$OWRVKRXOGDOZD\VFRQIRUPWRDSSOLFDEOHIHGHUDODQGVWDWHODZVDQG
VWDQGDUGV
Ⴠ 6SHFLI\WKDWH[SHULPHQWDWLRQZLWKFXUUHQWO\XQDSSURYHGIDFLOLWLHVLVZHOFRPHSURYLGHG
WKDWVWDQGDUGSURWRFROVIRUH[SHULPHQWDWLRQDUHREVHUYHG
Ⴠ 6SHFLI\WKDWLQDQ\H[SHULPHQWEHIRUHDIWHUGDWDRQYHKLFOHDQGELF\FOHYROXPHELF\FOLVW
DQGPRWRULVWURDGZD\SRVLWLRQFUDVKHV LIDQ\ FRPSOLDQFHFRQIOLFWVGHOD\DJJUHVVLYH
EHKDYLRURURWKHUYDULDEOHVDVDSSURSULDWHVKRXOGEHFROOHFWHGDQDO\]HGDQGUHSRUWHG
WRGHWHUPLQHZKHWKHUWKHLQVWDOODWLRQKDVSURGXFHGWKHGHVLUHGUHVXOWDQGVRWKDWRWKHUV
FDQEHQHILWIURP3DOR$OWR
VH[SHULPHQWV
Ⴠ 6SHFLI\WKDW3$%$&VKRXOGUHYLHZSRWHQWLDOLQVWDOODWLRQVDQGLIDSSOLFDEOHH[SHULPHQWDO
SURWRFROV
3DJH&7DEOH& (VWLPDWHRI&XUUHQW:DONLQJDQG%LF\FOLQJ7ULSV7KLVWDEOHLVKDUGWR
XQGHUVWDQG)RUH[DPSOHKRZWKHWRWDOVDUHGHULYHGZK\³FRPPXWHUV´DUHUHSUHVHQWHGLQ
PXOWLSOHURZVZKHWKHU³ZDONRUELNHWRWUDQVLW´UHIHUVRQO\WREXVRUDOVRWR&DOWUDLQ,IWKLVWDEOH
LVLPSRUWDQWSOHDVHWU\WRFODULI\LW
3DJH'7KH85/ZZZSDORDOWRRUJELNHJRHVWRVRPHNLQGRIVDPSOHVLWH)L[RUH[SODLQ
3DJH'5HPRYH)LJXUH'%LF\FOLQJ([SHULHQFHZKLFKGRHVQRWVKRZ([SHULHQFH
EXWUHSHDWVLQDEDUFKDUWWKHVDPH&RQILGHQFHGDWDDV'¶VSLHFKDUW,IWKHUHLVGDWDRQ
([SHULHQFHDGGLWDVDQHZVHFWLRQ
,QGLYLGXDO6XEFRPPLWWHH0HPEHU&RPPHQWV
)URP5REHUW1HII
6HFWLRQ6RXWK:HVW3DOR$OWR
(O&DPLQR:D\0HDGRZWR0D\EHOO
7KHSODQVKRXOGDGGUHVVWKHFRQQHFWLRQIURPWKHHQGRI0HDGRZWR0D\EHOORQ(O&DPLQR
:D\&XUUHQWO\WKLVLVDQDUURZZD\VWUHHWZLWKSDUNLQJRQERWKVLGHV,WFDUULHVDWOHDVWKDOI
WKH*XQQ+6WUDIILFWKDWJRHVXS0HDGRZ,WKLQNLWFRXOGEHQHILWIURPVKDUURZV
0\VXJJHVWLRQLVWRDGGDEXOOHWIRUWKLVLQWKH%LNH/DQH6KDUURZ5RDGZD\EXOOHWVHFWLRQRQ
SDJH IRUVRXWKZHVW3DOR$OWR
(O&DPLQR:D\&RQVLGHU6KDUURZVIURP0HDGRZWR0D\EHOOWRHQKDQFHWKLVVDIHURXWHVWR
VFKRROVFRQQHFWLRQ
,GRQ
WWKLQNWKLVQHHGVWREHFDOOHGRXWLQWKH&KDSWHULWLVSDUWRIWKH6DIH5RXWHVWR6FKRRO
PDSDQGWKDWSURJUDPLVDOUHDG\VXSSRUWHG
)URP5RE5RELQVRQ
3DJH'LVFXVVLRQRI3DUN%RXOHYDUGDQG0DWDGHUR$YHQXHVKRXOGEHPRYHGIURP1(WR
WKH1:GHWDLOHGGLVFXVVLRQ
3DJH'LVFXVVLRQRI(O&DPLQRVKRXOGEHPRYHGIURP1(WR1:GHWDLOHGGLVFXVVLRQ
3DJH,QILUVWSDUDJUDSKWKHUHLVDPLVVLQJSDUHQWKHVLVDWWKHHQG
3DJH)LJXUHWKHNH\ER[LVWRRVPDOOWRUHDGSOHDVHHQODUJH
3DJH6HFRQGSDUDJUDSK 7KHUHGHVLJQRI6WDQIRUG(O&DPLQR,QWHUVHFWLRQ LQ
FRQVWUXFWLRQ «FKDQJHWR FRPSOHWHG
3DJH%XOOHW &KXUFKLOO0DOO5RDGFURVVLQJLVSUREDEO\PHDQWWREH&KXUFKLOO$OPD
&URVVLQJ
3DJH$%&,QQRYDWLRQ 0HGLXPVKRXOGEHFKDQJHGWR9DULHV
3DJH7RPDWFKVLJQLQJODVWIRRWQRWHDWERWWRPVKRXOGUHDG$VVXPHVWHQVLJQVSHUPLOHLQ
HDFKGLUHFWLRQ LQVWHDGRIWZR
3DJH7DEOHXQGHU%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUG7UDIILF&DOPLQJ4XDQWLW\OLVWHGDV6KRXOG
EH RUDUDQJHWREHJHQHURXV 8VLQJDQGOHQJWKRI3DUN%% PLOHV UHVXOWVLQ
ZKLFKLVFORVHWRVWDWHGIRU%%RQSDJH$OVR%U\DQW%%KDVWKUHH
WUDIILFFDOPLQJPHDQV WZRDXWREDUULHUVRQHFLUFOH %LOO&RXULQJWRQILUVWQRWLFHGWKLVHUURU)RU
%% 3DUN%% WUDIILFFDOPLQJFRXOGEHOLPLWHGWRDQGUHTXLUHRQO\VSHHGWDEOHVRQ:LONLH
EHWZHHQ0HDGRZDQG&KDUOHVWRQ
3DJH$&DSWLRQXQGHUSLFWXUH WKHZRUGSHUPLWVVKRXOGEHSURKLELWV
)URP%LOO&RXULQJWRQ
6HYHUDOSODFHVLQFOXGLQJ0DS 7DEOH 5HURXWHDQGH[WHQGIXWXUH
.LQJVOH\%LNH%RXOHYDUGWRJLYHGLUHFWDFFHVVWR/XFLH6WHUQDQG0DLQ/LEUDU\&XOWXUDO&HQWHU
HOLPLQDWHWKHFRVWRIDQHZVLJQDODW.LQJVOH\0LGGOHILHOGZLWKRXWORVLQJFRQQHFWLRQWRIXWXUH
*XLQGD%%1HZURXWHVKRXOGEH.LQJVOH\:HEVWHU0HOYLOOH3DUNLQVRQ1HZURXWHFRXOGEH
FDOOHG.LQJVOH\3DUNLQVRQ
,QQRYDWLRQ7KLVFULWHULRQQRWHVWKHSURMHFW¶VGHSHQGHQFHRQDQGRUSRWHQWLDO
LQFRUSRUDWLRQRILQQRYDWLYHGHVLJQIHDWXUHVWRRYHUFRPHEDUULHUVWRLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ
7KLVFULWHULRQJHQHUDOO\GRHVQRWLQIOXHQFHWKHSURMHFWUDQNLQJEXWLVLQFOXGHGWRKHOS
LGHQWLI\ZKHUHDGGLWLRQDOHGXFDWLRQDQGRXWUHDFKPD\EHUHTXLUHGWREXLOGSXEOLFVXSSRUW
RUHQVXUHSURSHUXVDJHRIWKHIDFLOLW\1RWH 'XHWRWKHLPSUDFWLFDOLW\RIGHWHUPLQLQJ
OHYHOVRILQQRYDWLRQIRUHDFKSURMHFWDWWKLVVWDJHWKLVFDWHJRU\VLPSO\GHQRWHVWKH
SRWHQWLDODEVHQFHRUSUHVHQFHRILQQRYDWLYHIHDWXUHVDQGLVJLYHQD³<HVRU³1R´VFRUH
,W
VKDUGWRXQGHUVWDQGZKDWWKHSUHFHGLQJVHFWLRQPHDQV,WKLQNLWPHDQV
3URMHFWVWDJJHG,QQRYDWLRQ <HVDUHWKRVHWKDWDUHOLNHO\WRUHTXLUHDQH[WUDHGXFDWLRQDOHIIRUW
WRFRQYLQFHWKHSXEOLFDQGJRYHUQPHQWRIWKHLUEHQHILWV([DPSOHVLQFOXGHJUHHQELNHODQHVDQG
ELNHER[HV,QQRYDWLRQ <HVGRHVQRWDIIHFWDSURMHFW
VSULRULW\
&DQWKHVHFWLRQEHFODULILHG"
,QVWLWXWLRQDO3DUWQHUVKLSV7KLVFULWHULRQLGHQWLILHVWKHSURMHFW¶VSRWHQWLDODQGRU
QHHGIRUPXWXDOFRRUGLQDWLRQDQGFRVWVKDULQJEHWZHHQYDULRXVDJHQFLHVMXULVGLFWLRQV
DQGSULYDWHSXEOLFSDUWQHUVKLSV1RWH $³KLJK´VFRUHLQWKLVFDWHJRU\FDQGHQRWH
WKHSRWHQWLDOIRULPSURYHGIHDVLELOLW\ GXHWRFRVWVKDULQJ RULQFUHDVHGSURMHFWULVN
DVVRFLDWHGZLWKJDUQHULQJZLGHVSUHDGVXSSRUWRUDSSURYDOV
7KLVVHFWLRQVKRXOGVD\ZKHWKHU3DUWQHUVKLSV +LJKDIIHFWVSULRULW\RULILW
VMXVWDQDWWULEXWHRI
DSURMHFWVLPLODUWR,QQRYDWLRQ,WDOVRVHHPVWRVD\WKDWWKH3DUWQHUVKLSDWWULEXWHFDQEHJRRG
FRVWVKDULQJ RUEDG QHHGDSSURYDO IRUDSURMHFWZKLFKLVQ
WYHU\KHOSIXO
&DQWKHPHDQLQJDQGLQWHQWRIWKH,QVWLWXWLRQDO3DUWQHUVKLSVFULWHULRQEHFODULILHG"3HUKDSVLW
VKRXOGEHVSOLWVRPHWKLQJOLNH3DUWQHU)XQGLQJDQG,QWHUDJHQF\2UWKHYDOXHVRIWKHFULWHULRQ
FRXOGEHFKDQJHGIURP<HV1RWR)XQGLQJ$SSURYDO1R
3URMHFW&DWHJRULHV,VXJJHVWDGGLQJWKLVSDUDDIWHUWKHOLVWRIFDWHJRULHV
7KHSODQGRHVQRWSULRULWL]HSURMHFWVDFURVVFDWHJRULHV)RUH[DPSOHLWGRHVQRWDVVHUWWKDWD
SDUWLFXODUELF\FOHERXOHYDUGSURMHFWLVRIKLJKHUSULRULW\WKDQDFURVVEDUULHUFRQQHFWLRQRUWKDW
ELF\FOHERXOHYDUGVLQJHQHUDODUHKLJKHUSULRULW\WKDQFURVVEDUULHUFRQQHFWLRQV7KRVHGHFLVLRQV
VKRXOGEHPDGHE\WKH&LW\SURMHFWE\SURMHFW
$GREH&UHHN2YHUFURVVLQJLVPDUNHG,QQRYDWLRQ <HV,GRQ
WXQGHUVWDQGZK\+LJKZD\
EULGJHVDUHFRPPRQSODFH,QDGGLWLRQ,VXJJHVWDGGLQJWKHIROORZLQJWRWKH3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
,QDGGLWLRQWRUHFUHDWLRQDFFHVVWKLVSURMHFWJLYHV\HDUURXQGDFFHVVWRWKH*RRJOH,QWXLW
HPSOR\PHQWFHQWHULQ0RXQWDLQ9LHZ
$SSHQGL[%0XQLFLSDO&RGH%LF\FOH3DUNLQJ5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV
7KH$UF5DFNVLQVWDOOHGE\WKH&LW\DSSHDUWRYLRODWHWKLVVHFWLRQ
LL3HUIRUPDQFH$OOELF\FOHUDFNVSURYLGHGSXUVXDQWWRWKLVRUGLQDQFHVKDOOVXSSRUWD
ELF\FOHE\LWVIUDPHLQDVWDEOHXSULJKWSRVLWLRQZLWKERWKWLUHVRQWKHJURXQGRUIORRU
ZLWKRXWGDPDJHWRWKHELF\FOHZKHHOVIUDPHFRPSRQHQWVRULWVILQLVKDQGSURYLGHWZR
SRLQWVRIFRQWDFWZLWKWKHELF\FOH¶VIUDPH7KHSDUWVRIWKHUDFNWKDWVHFXUHWKHELF\FOH
VKDOOUHVLVWGLVDVVHPEO\DQGFXWWLQJZLWKPDQXDOWRROV%LF\FOHUDFNVVKRXOGSURYLGH
LQGHSHQGHQWDFFHVVWRSDUNHGELF\FOHVZLWKRXWWKHQHHGIRUDZNZDUGPRYHPHQWVHYHQ
ZKHQWKHUDFNLVIXOO\ORDGHG
,GRQ
WREMHFWWRWKHVHYLRODWLRQV,¶PMXVWSRLQWLQJRXWWKHGLVFUHSDQF\0D\EHWKHUXOHVDUHWRR
UHVWULFWLYH:RXOGD/LJKWQLQJ%ROWUDFNTXDOLI\DV³WZRSRLQWVRIFRQWDFWZLWKIUDPH´"
>3DXO@,GRQRWVHHWKHQHHGIRUWKHVHVWDWHPHQWVLQWKHELNHSODQ,WKLQNWKH7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ
'LYLVLRQVKRXOGNHHSDOLVWRIDFFHSWDEOHELNHUDFNVRQILOHDQGGHYHORSHUVFDQSHWLWLRQWKH
'LUHFWRULIWKH\ZDQWWRLQVWDOOVRPHWKLQJQRWRQWKHOLVW3$%$&VKRXOGEHFRQVXOWHGLQ
GHYHORSLQJWKHOLVWDQGLQJUDQWLQJH[FHSWLRQV5DFNWHFKQRORJ\LVFRQVWDQWO\HYROYLQJ
3DJH',PSRUWDQFHRI7UDLO,PSURYHPHQWV)RUFODULW\FKDQJHWLWOHWR,PSRUWDQFHRI2II
VWUHHW7UDLO,PSURYHPHQWV
3DJH(7DEOH(([SODLQWKHVLJQLILFDQFHRIJUD\LWDOLFL]HGYHUVXVZKLWHSROLF\FHOOV
3DJH(,GRQ
WXQGHUVWDQGWKLVVHQWHQFH 'XHWRILVFDOFRQVWUDLQWVWKH3ROLFH
'HSDUWPHQWGRHVQRWFXUUHQWO\UHPRYHDEDQGRQHGELF\FOHVRQDFRQVLVWHQWEDVLV
+RZHYHUUHVLGHQWVPD\EULQJDQDEDQGRQHGELF\FOHWRWKH3ROLFH'HSDUWPHQWRIILFH7KH
3ROLFH'HSDUWPHQWUHOHDVHGDEDQGRQHGELF\FOHVHYHU\:HGQHVGD\
6KRXOG³UHOHDVHG´EH³UHOHDVHV´"
3DJH)7KHUHLVDVXJJHVWLRQRIFKDUJLQJFRPPHUFLDOSDUNLQJEXVLQHVVHVDIHH$UHWKHUH
DQ\VXFKEXVLQHVVHVLQ3DOR$OWR"
)URP3DXO*ROGVWHLQ
3DJH,ZRXOGOLNH2EMHFWLYHWREHH[SDQGHGRXWRILWVSXUHO\UHFUHDWLRQDOIRFXV,VXJJHVW
2EMHFWLYH 'HYHORSDFRUHQHWZRUNRIVKDUHGSDWKVELNHZD\VDQGWUDIILFFDOPHGVWUHHWV
WKDWFRQQHFWVEXVLQHVVDQGUHVLGHQWLDOGLVWULFWVVFKRROVSDUNVDQGRSHQVSDFHVDQGSURPRWHV
KHDOWK\DFWLYHOLYLQJ
3DJH6XJJHVWFKDQJLQJWKHIROORZLQJVHQWHQFH ³:LWKLQQRYDWLRQDOVRFRPHVWKHQHHGIRU
DGGLWLRQDOHGXFDWLRQDQGRXWUHDFKZKLFKZLOOEHHVSHFLDOO\LPSRUWDQWDV,)WKH&LW\LQWURGXFHV
QHZW\SHVRISHGHVWULDQDQGELF\FOHIDFLOLWLHVGHVLJQV
3DJH7DEOHDQGWDEOH(VHHPWREHWKHVDPHWDEOH5HPRYHGXSOLFDWH
3DJH:KDWLVWKHH[WHQVLYHWUDLOQHWZRUN³EHKLQGDUHFHQWGHYHORSPHQWQHDU/RPD9HUGH
$YHQXHDQG0DWDGHUR&UHHN"´,DPQRWIDPLOLDUZLWKWKLV",VWKLVFRUUHFW"
3DJH0DS+DQRYHUVWUHHWGRHVQRWKDYHD&ODVV,ELNHSDWKIURP3DJH0LOOWRWKH
MXQFWLRQRIWKH&ODVVSDWKWR0DWDGHUR
3DJH,ILQGGLVWDVWHIXOWKHVWDWHPHQW³WKH&LW\VKRXOGHVWDEOLVKDQGEUDQGPXFKRIWKH
QHWZRUNTXLFNO\´³%UDQGLQJ´LQQRWVRPHWKLQJWKH&LW\QHHGVWRGRRUVKRXOGEHGRLQJ:H
QHHGWRSURPRWHWKHQHWZRUNDQGZHQHHGWRSURYLGHZD\ILQGLQJVLJQDJHEXWHVWDEOLVKLQJD
XQLTXH³3DOR$OWREUDQG´LVFRQWUDU\WRRXUWUDQVSRUWDWLRQUHVSRQVLELOLWLHVDVDPHPEHURIRXU
UHJLRQDQGSDUWQHULQWKHUHJLRQDOWUDQVSRUWDWLRQQHWZRUN
3DJH+HUHDQGLQVHYHUDORWKHUSODFHVWKHUHLVDQRWHWR³VHH$SSHQGL[$IRUDGGLWLRQDO
JXLGDQFHRQUHWURILWWLQJUROOHGFXUEHGVWUHHWV³EXW,GRQRWVHHVXFKJXLGDQFHDQ\ZKHUHLQ
$SSHQGL[$
)URP3DPHOD5DGLQ
6HFWLRQ6RXWK(DVW3DOR$OWR
5HFRPPHQGHG7UHDWPHQWDQG/RFDWLRQV
$GG$GREH&UHHN%ULGJH2YHU&URVVLQJ
6HFWLRQ6RXWK(DVW3DOR$OWRS
$GG «´3URYLGHDVDIHUDWWUDFWLYHFRQQHFWLRQEHWZHHQ0LGWRZQUHWDLODQG0LWFKHOO3DUN/LEUDU\
3URYLGHVGLUHFWDFFHVVWR5DPRV3DUNDQGUHFUHDWLRQDORSSRUWXQLWLHVWRWKH1RUWKRI2UHJRQ
([SZ\
6HFWLRQ6RXWK(DVW3DOR$OWRS
5H(QWHU³6WULSHVKDUURZPDUNLQJVRQ$PHV$YHQXH´
3URYLGHV%LF\FOHDFFHVVWREDFNHQWUDQFHRI3DOR9HUGH6FKRRO>$PHV6KDUURZFDOOHGRXWLQ
S ,QIRQRWFDUULHGRYHUWRDERYH6HFWLRQ@
6HFWLRQ1RUWK(DVW3DOR$OWRS
$GG ³6LJQPDUNELF\FOHERXOHYDUG´>ELF\FOHERXOHYDUGVLJQLQJLVFDOOHGRXWIRUDOO%LF\FOH%OYG
LQWKLVVHFWLRQLQFOXGH5RVV/RXLV@
6HFWLRQ6RXWKHDVW3DOR$OWR%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUGV7R$PDULOOR0RUHQRDQG5RVV/RXLVDGG
WKH%LNH%RXOHYDUGVVKRZQRQWKHPDSRQDQGHOVHZKHUH0D\YLHZ*UHHU0RQWURVH
%U\DQWH[WHQVLRQ
)URP$ODQ:DFKWHO&KDSWHU
$GGUHVVLQJWKHODFNRIH[LVWLQJELF\FOHDQGSHGHVWULDQFRXQWGDWDDQGXSGDWLQJ
WKHFLW\ZLGHWUDIILFYROXPHGDWD WKHFXUUHQWPDSGDWHVEDFNWR LVRQHRIWKH
KLJKHVWSULRULW\QHHGVLGHQWLILHGLQWKLV3ODQ5HJXODUO\GRFXPHQWLQJDQGDVVHVVLQJ
DFWXDOELF\FOHSHGHVWULDQDFWLYLW\ZLOOKHOS3DOR$OWRWDUJHWLQYHVWPHQWVZKHUHWKH\DUH
PRVWEHQHILFLDODQGPHDVXUHSURJUHVVWRZDUGVDFKLHYLQJVWDWHGJRDOVIRUELF\FOLQJ
DQGZDONLQJUDWHVDVHVWDEOLVKHGLQ&KDSWHU:KHUHSURMHFWVUHFRPPHQGSRWHQWLDO
VLJQLILFDQWFKDQJHVWRURDGZD\FRQILJXUDWLRQDQGRUFLUFXODWLRQSDWWHUQVEHLQJDEOHWR
DVVHVVVSHFLILFWUDIILFFRQGLWLRQV ERWKJHQHUDO³VFUHHQOLQH´YROXPHVDQGNH\WXUQLQJ
PRYHPHQWORFDWLRQV IRUERWKPRGHVLVFULWLFDOWRILQDOGHVLJQDQGDSSURYDO)XUWKHUPRUH
KDYLQJYHULILHGSHGHVWULDQDQGELF\FOHFRXQWVFDQPDNHDQLPSRUWDQWFRQWULEXWLRQIRU
LPSURYLQJIXWXUHDFWLYLW\OHYHOHVWLPDWHV LHQRQPRWRUL]HGGHPDQGPRGHOLQJ
'DWDFROOHFWLRQQHHGVWRLQFOXGHPRUHWKDQMXVWFRXQWV:KHUHVDIHW\LPSURYHPHQWVDUH
LPSOHPHQWHGDQGSDUWLFXODUO\IRUH[SHULPHQWDORULQQRYDWLYHIDFLOLWLHVLWVKRXOGLQFOXGH
EHIRUHDQGDIWHUPHDVXUHPHQWVRIELF\FOLVWDQGPRWRULVWURDGZD\SRVLWLRQFUDVKHV LIDQ\
FRPSOLDQFHFRQIOLFWVGHOD\DJJUHVVLYHEHKDYLRURURWKHUYDULDEOHVDVDSSURSULDWHWR
GHWHUPLQHZKHWKHUWKHLQVWDOODWLRQKDVSURGXFHGWKHGHVLUHGHIIHFW
6LPLODUHDUO\FRRUGLQDWLRQZLWKLQWKH&LW\KDVSURYLGHGIRUWKHHTXLYDOHQWRIDIXWXUH
F\FOHWUDFNIDFLOLW\RQ6DQ$QWRQLR5RDGEHWZHHQ&KDUOHVWRQ5RDGDQG0LGGOHILHOG5RDG
SODQQHGIRULPSOHPHQWDWLRQLQ
:KDWLVWKLVDOODERXW"
7KHELF\FOHQHWZRUNVKRXOGDFFRPPRGDWHDOOW\SHVRIELF\FOLVWVIURPFRQILGDQW>VLF@
H[SHULHQFHGXVHUVZKRZRXOGUDWKHUULGHLQWUDIILFDQGPLQLPL]HWUDYHOWLPHWRRWKHUV
ZKRZRXOGUDWKHUWUDYHODOLWWOHRXWRIGLUHFWLRQRUZDLWORQJHUWRFURVVDVWUHHWLQRUGHU
WRDYRLGULGLQJRQPDMRUVWUHHWV7KLVVHFWLRQLGHQWLILHVW\SHVRIELF\FOLVWVDVZHOODV
VSHFLILFELNHZD\IDFLOLW\DQGVXSSRUWLQJIDFLOLW\W\SHVDSSURSULDWHIRUGLIIHUHQWELF\FOLVWV
7KLVLVDODXGDEOHVHQWLPHQWZLWKZKLFKQRRQHFRXOGGLVDJUHH7KHW\SHVRIIDFLOLWLHVLGHQWLILHG
DVVXLWDEOHIRUOHVVFRQILGHQWELF\FOLVWVKRZHYHULQUHDOLW\RIWHQSUHVHQWJUHDWHUKD]DUGVDQG
FKDOOHQJHVWKDQFRQYHQWLRQDORQHV
5HFHQWGHYHORSPHQWVLQELF\FOHIDFLOLW\SODQQLQJDQGGHVLJQKDYHIRFXVHGODUJHO\RQ
RQHSULQFLSOH VHSDUDWLQJELF\FOLVWV²YLVXDOO\SV\FKRORJLFDOO\DQGSK\VLFDOO\²IURP
DXWRPRELOHWUDIILF
,WLVQRWJHQHUDOO\SRVVLEOHWRVHSDUDWHELF\FOLVWVIXOO\IURPDXWRPRELOHWUDIILF,QWHUDFWLRQV
PXVWVWLOORFFXUDWLQWHUVHFWLRQVDQGGULYHZD\VDQGE\FRQFHQWUDWLQJWKHVHLQWHUDFWLRQVLQWRD
FRQILQHGVSDFHUDWKHUWKDQDOORZLQJPHUJLQJDWDVDIHWLPHDQGORFDWLRQ³VHSDUDWLRQ´UXQVWKH
ULVNRILQWHQVLI\LQJWKHFRQIOLFW
$FFRUGLQJWRWKHELF\FOHFRRUGLQDWRUZLWKWKH&LW\RI3RUWODQG25
³5LGLQJDELF\FOHVKRXOGQRWUHTXLUHEUDYHU\<HWDOOWRRRIWHQWKDWLVWKHSHUFHSWLRQ
DPRQJF\FOLVWVDQGQRQF\FOLVWVDOLNH´
,WLVXQFOHDUZKHWKHUWKHVSHDNHUHQGRUVHVWKHYLHZWKDWURXWLQHELF\FOLQJRQVWUHHWVLVD
GDQJHURXVDFWLYLW\WKDWUHTXLUHVEUDYHU\RULVPHUHO\GHVFULELQJDSUHMXGLFH%XWUHLQIRUFLQJWKLV
DWWLWXGHZRXOGFHUWDLQO\EHDGHWHUUHQWWRF\FOLQJDQGVKRXOGQRWEHSDUWRIWKHSODQ
%DVHGRQDWKHRU\GHYHORSHGLQ3RUWODQGDQGFRUURERUDWHGHOVHZKHUHLQWKH86
SODQQHUVRIWHQUHIHUWRIRXUW\SHVRIELF\FOLVWV
+RZDUHWKHVHGHVFULSWLYHFDWHJRULHVFRUURERUDWHG"$JDLQWKHLPSOLFDWLRQRID³VWURQJDQG
IHDUOHVV´FDWHJRU\LVWKDWRUGLQDU\F\FOLQJUHTXLUHVIHDUOHVVQHVVRULQGLIIHUHQFHWRULVNDQGWKLVLV
DQDWWLWXGHWKDWRXJKWWREHGLVFRXUDJHG
&XOWLYDWLQJWKHVHSRWHQWLDO>³LQWHUHVWHGEXWFRQFHUQHG@ELF\FOLVWVGHPDQGVERWK
HQJLQHHULQJVROXWLRQVWKDWUHGXFHPRWRUYHKLFOHLQWHUDFWLRQVDQGHGXFDWLRQ
HQFRXUDJHPHQWHIIRUWVWRSURDFWLYHO\HQJDJHDQGVXSSRUWUHOXFWDQWSRSXODWLRQV
³6HSDUDWLRQ´LVQRWWKHRQO\ZD\WRUHGXFHPRWRUYHKLFOHLQWHUDFWLRQV ELF\FOHERXOHYDUGVDUHDQ
H[FHOOHQWZD\WRGRVRZLWKRXWWKHSUREOHPDWLFHQJLQHHULQJRI³VHSDUDWHG´IDFLOLWLHV(GXFDWLRQ
DQGHQFRXUDJHPHQWHIIRUWVVKRXOGDWWHPSWWRUHGXFHXQZDUUDQWHGIHDUVDQGVKRXOGSURYLGH
RSSRUWXQLWLHVWRLQFUHDVHVNLOOV$IWHUDOOWKHPDMRULW\RIELF\FOHWUDYHOVWLOOPXVWWDNHSODFHRQ
VWUHHWVZLWKRXWVSHFLDOIDFLOLWLHV
/LNHPRVWRWKHU86FLWLHVKRZHYHUH[LVWLQJGHVLJQDQGIXQGLQJFRQVWUDLQWVKDYHWKXV
IDUOLPLWHGRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUVXEVWDQWLDOO\H[SDQGLQJWUDLODQGSURWHFWHGRQVWUHHW
QHWZRUNV DQGHGXFDWLRQHQFRXUDJHPHQWSURJUDPV WRDWWUDFWHYHQPRUHELF\FOLVWV
7KHZRUG³WUDLO´LVLPSUHFLVHVLQFHLWLVQRWDGHILQHGW\SHRIELF\FOHIDFLOLW\DQGFDUULHV
LQDFFXUDWHFRQQRWDWLRQVRIUXVWLFVHFOXVLRQ³3URWHFWHG´LVOLNHZLVHLPSUHFLVHVLQFH
WKH³SURWHFWLRQ´EUHDNVGRZQDWLQWHUVHFWLRQVDQGGULYHZD\V
,QUHVSRQVHWRWKHQHHGIRULQQRYDWLRQDQGDGYRFDF\RQEHKDOIRIFLWLHVWKH1DWLRQDO
$VVRFLDWLRQRI&LW\7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ2IILFLDOV 1$&72 UHFHQWO\GHYHORSHGWKH8UEDQ
%LNHZD\'HVLJQ*XLGH $SULO 7KLVRQOLQHUHVRXUFHLQFOXGHVVWUDWHJLHVIRU
LQFUHDVLQJVHSDUDWLRQEHWZHHQPRWRUYHKLFOHVDQGELF\FOLVWVXVLQJUHODWLYHO\ORZFRVW
WUHDWPHQWVVXFKDVFRORUL]HGELNHODQHVLQWHUVHFWLRQPDUNLQJVDQGSK\VLFDOO\VHSDUDWHG
ELNHODQHV HJF\FOHWUDFNV
1$&72LVQRWDUHFRJQL]HGSUDFWLFHVHWWLQJERG\OLNH$$6+72RU,7( ,GRXEWWKDWPDQ\
SHRSOHLQFOXGLQJWUDQVSRUWDWLRQSURIHVVLRQDOVKDGHYHUKHDUGRILWEHIRUHLWGHYHORSHGWKH
8UEDQ%LNHZD\'HVLJQ*XLGH7KDWJXLGHZDVDQDGKRFHIIRUWSURGXFHGWRSURYLGHDUDWLRQDOH
IRUWKHURDGZD\WUHDWPHQWVLWGHVFULEHVZKLFKZHUHVSHFLILHGLQWKH5)3UDWKHUWKDQHYDOXDWHG
LQGHSHQGHQWO\,WKDVEHHQKHDYLO\SURPRWHGWKURXJKSROLWLFDODQGSXEOLFUHODWLRQVHIIRUWV
:KLOHDOOKDYHEHHQLPSOHPHQWHGLQWKH86DQGQRQHDUHH[SUHVVO\SURKLELWHGXQGHU
RUFRQWUDU\WRWKHFXUUHQWYHUVLRQVRIWKH$$6+72*XLGHWR%LNHZD\)DFLOLWLHVRUWKH
0DQXDORQ8QLIRUP7UDIILF&RQWURO'HYLFHV 087&' WKHUHDUHEDUULHUVWRLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ
QRQHWKHOHVV±LQFOXGLQJUHVWULFWLRQVRQWKHXVHRIPDQ\VWDWHDQGIHGHUDOIXQGLQJ
VRXUFHV&XVWRPL]HGJXLGDQFHRQUHOHYDQW1$&72DQGRWKHULQQRYDWLYHWUHDWPHQWV
LVLQFOXGHGLQWKLVFKDSWHUDQG$SSHQGL[$RIWKLV3ODQZKLOH&KDSWHULQFOXGHV
UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVWRXWLOL]HORFDOVSHQGLQJIRUELNHZD\IDFLOLWLHVQRWHOLJLEOHIRURWKHU
IXQGV
,Q&DOLIRUQLDLWLVWKH&DOWUDQV+LJKZD\'HVLJQ0DQXDO +'0 DQG&DOLIRUQLD087&'WKDW
JRYHUQE\ODZUHJDUGOHVVRIWKHIXQGLQJVRXUFH,QDQ\FDVHWKHVWDWHPHQWWKDW³QRQHDUH
H[SUHVVO\SURKLELWHGRUFRQWUDU\´WRVWDQGDUGVLVLQFRUUHFW)RUH[DPSOHELNHER[HVUHTXLUH
QRQVWDQGDUGGXSOLFDWHVWRSOLQHVDQGFRORUL]DWLRQLQWKHWUDYHOODQH%XIIHUHGELNHODQHVHPSOR\
DQRQVWDQGDUGVWULSLQJDQGKDWFKLQJVFKHPHZKRVHWUDIILFODZLPSOLFDWLRQVDUHPXUN\7KH+'0
SURKLELWVSK\VLFDOO\VHSDUDWHGELNHODQHV&\FOHWUDFNVFDQIRUWKHPRVWSDUWEHLPSOHPHQWHG
VDIHO\RQO\LILQWHUVHFWLRQVDUHVLJQDOL]HGDQGGLVSOD\VHSDUDWHELF\FOHSKDVHV7KHQDWLRQDO
087&'GRHVQRWSURYLGHIRUELF\FOHVLJQDOKHDGV7KH&DOLIRUQLD087&'GRHVEXWRQO\XQGHU
VWULFWZDUUDQWVWKDWZRXOGQRWQHFHVVDULO\EHPHWIRUF\FOHWUDFNV&\FOHWUDFNVPD\DOVRXVH
QRQVWDQGDUG<,(/'72%,.(6VLJQVZKRVHHIILFDF\KDVQRWEHHQLQYHVWLJDWHG
$WKWWS ZZZIKZDGRWJRYHQYLURQPHQWELNHSHGPXWFGBELNHKWPWKH)HGHUDO+LJKZD\
$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ )+:$ GHVFULEHVZKHWKHUFHUWDLQELF\FOHIDFLOLWLHVVLJQVDQGPDUNLQJVDUH
SHUPLWWHGE\WKHQDWLRQDO087&'H[SHULPHQWDOQRWDOORZHGRUDUHQRWWUDIILFFRQWUROGHYLFHV
DQGWKHUHIRUHRXWVLGHLWVVFRSH1RWHWKDWZKHQWKH)+:$VD\VWKDWF\FOHWUDFNVIRULQVWDQFH
DUHFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH087&'LWLVQRWQHFHVVDULO\HQGRUVLQJRUDSSURYLQJWKRVHIDFLOLWLHV,WLV
RQO\VD\LQJWKDWWKH\FDQEHLPSOHPHQWHGZLWKH[LVWLQJDSSURYHGWUDIILFFRQWUROGHYLFHVRUWKDW
WKH\DUHQRWWUDIILFFRQWUROGHYLFHVDQGWKHUHIRUHQRWUHJXODWHGE\WKH087&'
7KHUHFXUUHQWO\H[LVWVDSURFHGXUHIRUH[SHULPHQWLQJZLWKWUDIILFFRQWUROGHYLFHVE\D5HTXHVWWR
([SHULPHQW 57( WRWKH)+:$DQGWKH&DOLIRUQLD7UDIILF&RQWURO'HYLFHV&RPPLWWHH
&7&'& 7KHUHLVQRSURFHGXUHIRUUHTXHVWLQJSHUPLVVLRQIURP&DOWUDQVWRH[SHULPHQW
ZLWKQRQVWDQGDUGJHRPHWULFGHVLJQVEXWRQHLVOLNHO\WREHLPSOHPHQWHGVRRQ$OOQRQVWDQGDUG
IDFLOLWLHVVKRXOGREWDLQWKHSURSHUH[SHULPHQWDODSSURYDOV
(QKDQFHG%LNHZD\V
7KH%373JHQHUDOO\LGHQWLILHVHQKDQFHPHQWVWRH[LVWLQJFRUULGRUV±LQSDUWLFXODU
ELF\FOHVWHQFLOPDUNLQJVFDUULHGWKURXJKLQWHUVHFWLRQVDVGHVFULEHGLQWKH1$&728UEDQ
%LNHZD\'HVLJQ*XLGH±DVWKHPRVWHIIHFWLYHVWUDWHJ\WRLPSURYHDUWHULDOELF\FOLQJ
FRQGLWLRQVLQ3DOR$OWR7KLVLVLQOLJKWRIWKHIDFWWKDWPDQ\H[LVWLQJELNHODQHVDUH
GURSSHGDWDSSURDFKHVWRPDMRULQWHUVHFWLRQV±OHDYLQJELF\FOLVWVDQGPRWRULVWVZLWK
OLWWOHJXLGDQFHDWWKHSRLQWVRIJUHDWHVWSRWHQWLDOFRQIOLFW6XFKPDUNLQJVGRQRWLPSDFW
WUDIILFFDSDFLW\DUHUHODWLYHO\LQH[SHQVLYHDQGFDQEHLPSOHPHQWHGWKURXJKRXWWKHFLW\
³(QKDQFHG´VHHPVWREHFRGHIRU³QRQVWDQGDUG´DQGVKRXOGEHXVHGZLWKFDUH%LF\FOHVWHQFLO
PDUNLQJVWKURXJKLQWHUVHFWLRQVDUHLQFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH&DOLIRUQLD087&'DQGZRXOGKDYHWR
EHFRQGXFWHGWKURXJKDQ57(7KHUHDVRQIRUGURSSLQJRUGDVKLQJELNHODQHVDWDSSURDFKHV
WRLQWHUVHFWLRQVLVWKDWULJKWWXUQLQJPRWRULVWVPXVWPHUJHWRZDUGWKHFXUEDWDWLPHDQGSODFH
ZKHUHLWLVVDIHWRGRVRDQGELF\FOLVWVPD\QHHGWRPHUJHOHIWWRDYRLGEHLQJWRWKHULJKWRI
ULJKWWXUQV,GRQ¶WQHFHVVDULO\REMHFWWRWKHVHVWHQFLOV²DIWHUDOOPDUNHUVDUHVRPHWLPHVXVHG
WRJXLGHOHIWWXUQODQHVWKURXJKLQWHUVHFWLRQV²EXW,¶GOLNHWRVHHPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKHLU
SXUSRVHDQGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ
2WKHUUHFRPPHQGHGLPSURYHPHQWVWRHQKDQFHGELNHZD\FRUULGRUVLQFOXGHWKHXVHRI
JUHHQFRORUL]HGSDYHPHQWPDUNLQJVWRGHQRWHSRWHQWLDOFRQIOLFW]RQHVRUH[FOXVLYHELNH
IDFLOLWLHVLPSURYHGELF\FOHGHWHFWLRQDQGWKHFRQYHUVLRQRIVXEVWDQGDUGELNHODQHVWR
ZHOOGHVLJQHGVKDUHGURDGZD\V)RUWKHODWWHUOHDGLQELF\FOHER[HV VHH$SSHQGL[$
DUHVWURQJO\HQFRXUDJHGWRSURPRWHELF\FOHSULRULW\ZKHUHWKHUHDUHKHDY\ELF\FOHRU
YHKLFOHWXUQPRYHPHQWV7KHHQKDQFHGELNHZD\GHVLJQDWLRQDOVRVHHNVWRSULRULWL]H
FRUULGRUVIRUSRWHQWLDOFRQYHUVLRQIURPWLPHUHVWULFWHGELNHODQHVWRWZRZD\F\FOHWUDFNV
DQGRUWKHDGGLWLRQRI&ODVV,VLGHSDWKV7KHVHFRUULGRUVDQGWKHLULVVXHVDUHGLVFXVVHG
LQJUHDWHUGHWDLOEHORZ
/LNHZLVHZLWKJUHHQFRORUL]HGSDYHPHQWZKLFKKDVUHFHLYHGLQWHULPDSSURYDOIURP)+:$DQG
WKH&7&'&DQGFDQEHXVHGSURYLGHGWKHSURSHUQRWLFHVDUHJLYHQDQGJXLGHOLQHVREVHUYHG
+RZWKHJUHHQFRORULVLQWHQGHGWRDIIHFWELF\FOLVWVDQGPRWRULVWPRYHPHQWVDQGKRZLWGRHV
DIIHFWWKHPUHPDLQXQFOHDU0\FRQFHUQLVSUHFLVHO\WKDWWKHFRORUZLOOGLVFRXUDJHSURSHU
PHUJLQJPRYHPHQWV 3DOR$OWRKDVDQRSSRUWXQLW\WRVWXG\WKLVTXHVWLRQ
%LNHER[HVDUHDIXQGDPHQWDOO\EDGLGHD$VGLVFXVVHGDERYHWKH\UHTXLUHQRQVWDQGDUG
GXSOLFDWHVWRSOLQHVDQGFRORUL]DWLRQLQWKHWUDYHOODQH³3URPRWHELF\FOHSULRULW\´PHDQVFXW
WRWKHKHDGRIWKHOLQH7KH\DUHDOVRVRPHWLPHVSUHVHQWHGDVSURYLGLQJDQRSSRUWXQLW\IRU
OHVVFRQILGHQWELF\FOLVWVWRPHUJHDZD\IURPWKHFXUELQWRWKHVWUHDPRIWUDIILFWRDYRLGULJKW
WXUQFRQIOLFWVDWLQWHUVHFWLRQVRUWRSRVLWLRQWKHPVHOYHVIRUDOHIWWXUQ$OOWKHVHFODLPVPD\
EHWUXHZKHQWKHVLJQDOLVUHG,ILWLVJUHHQKRZHYHURULILWLVLQLWLDOO\UHGEXWFKDQJHVWR
JUHHQGXULQJWKHDSSURDFKWKHJUHHQELNHODQHPDUNLQJGLUHFWVELF\FOLVWVDORQJWKHFXUE
0HDQZKLOHWKHJUHHQELNHER[DQGELNHODQHPDUNLQJVDFWLYHO\SUHYHQWPRWRULVWVIURPPHUJLQJ
VDIHO\WRWKHFXUERULQWRWKHELNHODQHWREHJLQDULJKWWXUQZKHWKHUWKH\¶UHDSSURDFKLQJRQD
JUHHQLQGLFDWLRQRUVWDUWLQJXSRQDQHZJUHHQLQGLUHFWFRQIOLFWZLWK&DOLIRUQLDWUDIILFODZ ,
P
DVVXPLQJWKDWULJKWWXUQVRQUHGDUHSURKLELWHGDQGWKDWPRWRULVWVREH\WKHSURKLELWLRQZKLFK
PD\EHJHQHURXV 7KLVDUUDQJHPHQWDOPRVWVHHPVWRJXDUDQWHHULJKWKRRNFROOLVLRQV
7KH1$&72*XLGHUHFRJQL]HVWKLVFRQIOLFWWRWKHH[WHQWRIUHFRPPHQGLQJWKDWD³<LHOGWR%LNHV´
VLJQVKRXOG QRW³VKDOO´ EHSRVWPRXQWHG³WRUHLQIRUFHWKDWELF\FOLVWVKDYHWKHULJKWRIZD\JRLQJ
WKURXJKWKHLQWHUVHFWLRQ´7KHVLJQVVKRZQDUHQRQVWDQGDUGYDULDQWVRIVLPLODUVLJQVWR\LHOG
WRSHGHVWULDQV%XWLWLVQRWHQRXJKWRVLPSO\VXEVWLWXWHELF\FOLVWVIRUSHGHVWULDQVRQWKHVLJQ
,W¶VRQHWKLQJWRORRNWKURXJK\RXUZLQGVKLHOGDQGVHHSHGHVWULDQVVWDQGLQJRQRUDSSURDFKLQJ
DFXUE PRUHRYHULQFDVHRIPLVMXGJPHQWSHGHVWULDQVFDQVWRSVXGGHQO\RUVWHSVLGHZD\VRU
EDFN,W¶VDQRWKHUWKLQJHQWLUHO\WR\LHOGWRELF\FOLVWVRYHUWDNLQJLQ\RXUULJKWUHDUEOLQGVSRWDW
PXFKKLJKHUVSHHGDQGH[SHFWLQJWRKDYHULJKWRIZD\7KLVLVH[DFWO\WKHULJKWKRRNJHRPHWU\
WKDWZHNQRZFDXVHVFROOLVLRQVRQERWKURDGVDQGVLGHZDONVDQGWKDWURDGZD\GHVLJQWUDIILF
ODZDQGEHKDYLRUQRUPDOO\VHHNWRDYRLG,¶GYHQWXUHWRVD\WKDW\RX
OOQHYHUVHHDQ\ZKHUHD
ODQHRIULJKWWXUQLQJWUDIILFH[SHFWHGWR\LHOGWRDODQHRIWKURXJKYHKLFXODUWUDIILFRQLWVULJKW RU
WKHPLUURULPDJHLQFRXQWULHVWKDWGULYHRQWKHOHIW
7KH1$&72*XLGHPDUVKDOVDQLPSUHVVLYHDUUD\RIUHVHDUFKVWXGLHVIRUELNHER[HVEXWLQ
WKHPWKLVFRQIOLFWLVDOPRVWXQLYHUVDOO\LJQRUHG7\SLFDOO\ZKDW
VPHDVXUHGLVFRPSOLDQFHZLWK
WKHPDUNLQJVDQGHQFURDFKPHQWRQWKHP7KHRQO\VLJQLILFDQWH[FHSWLRQV,IRXQGDUH+XQWHULQ
(XJHQHDQG'LOOHWDOLQ3RUWODQG+XQWHUZDVORRNLQJDWDELNHER[LQWHQGHGWRKHOSELF\FOLVWV
FURVVIURPRQHVLGHWRWKHRWKHURIDRQHZD\VWUHHW 'LOO
VQXPEHUVZHUHYHU\VPDOO,QERWK
FDVHV2UHJRQWUDIILFODZLVDQRPDORXV LWH[SOLFLWO\SURKLELWVELF\FOLVWVIURPOHDYLQJWKHELNHODQH
WRFRQWLQXHVWUDLJKWDWLQWHUVHFWLRQV XQOHVVWKHODQHWRWKHOHIWLVULJKWWXUQRQO\ DQGLWSURKLELWV
PRWRULVWVIURPPHUJLQJLQWRWKHELNHODQHWRSUHSDUHIRUDULJKWWXUQ
$UJXDEO\ELNHER[HVGRQ¶WPDNHWKHVLWXDWLRQLQ2UHJRQDQ\ZRUVHEXWWKLVLVQRWDPRGHOWREH
IROORZHGHOVHZKHUHDQGWKHUHVXOWVFDQQRWEHJHQHUDOL]HG
,OLNHZLVHGLVFXVVWLPHUHVWULFWHGELNHODQHVEHORZ
7KHVHRSWLRQV>IRUWLPHUHVWULFWHGELNHODQHV@LQFOXGHFRQVLGHUDWLRQRIIXOOWLPHSDUNLQJ
UHVWULFWLRQVLQRUGHUWR³VWDFN´GHGLFDWHGELF\FOHVSDFHWRRQHVLGHRIWKHVWUHHW LH
EXLOGF\FOHWUDFNV
)XOOWLPHSDUNLQJUHVWULFWLRQVZRXOGSHUPLWDIXOOWLPHELNHODQH³'HGLFDWHGELF\FOHVSDFHWRRQH
VLGHRIWKHVWUHHW´LVH[DFWO\WKHSUREOHP:LWKDRQHZD\F\FOHWUDFN\RXKDYHWKUHHGHVWLQDWLRQ
PRYHPHQWVIRUYHKLFOHV OHIWULJKWWKURXJK SRVLWLRQHGHQWLUHO\WRWKHOHIWRIWKHVDPHWKUHH
PRYHPHQWVIRUELF\FOLVWVLQWKHF\FOHWUDFN,IWKHF\FOHWUDFNLVWZRZD\ DVSVD\VLWZRXOG
EH WKHQXPEHURIFRQIOLFWVPXOWLSOLHVHQRUPRXVO\ 7KLVIRUPVDVWULNLQJFRQWUDVWWRPRUH
DFFHSWHGLQQRYDWLRQVVXFKDVURXQGDERXWVZKLFKVHHNWRUHGXFHWKHQXPEHURIFURVVLQJ
FRQIOLFWV 7KHVHDUHWKHVDPHFRQIOLFWVRIFRXUVHWKDWRFFXURQVLGHZDONVRUVLGHSDWKV
&\FOHWUDFNVPD\KDYHVRPHDGYDQWDJHVFRPSDUHGWRVLGHZDONV WKH\¶UHVWUDLJKWZKLOH
VLGHZDONVDUHQRWDOZD\VDQGWKH\¶UHQRWVKDUHGZLWKSHGHVWULDQVRUVWUHHWIXUQLWXUH7KH\
DUHDOVR VRPHWLPHV RQHZD\%XWDJDLQVWWKRVHDGYDQWDJHVPXVWEHZHLJKHGELF\FOLVWV¶
KLJKHUVSHHGDQGH[SHFWDWLRQRIULJKWRIZD\DWGULYHZD\VDQGLQWHUVHFWLRQV7KHVHFRQIOLFWV
FDQEHUHOLDEO\UHVROYHGRQO\LIHYHU\LQWHUVHFWLRQLVVLJQDOL]HGDQGGLVSOD\VVHSDUDWHVLJQDO
SKDVHVIRUELF\FOLVWVDQGWKHUHDUHQRGULYHZD\V7KHVHSDUDWHSKDVHVLQWURGXFHDGGLWLRQDO
GHOD\IRUDOOPRGHVDQGULJKWWXUQVRQUHGPXVWEHSURKLELWHGZKLFKFDQOHDGWRFRPSOLDQFH
SUREOHPV7UDIILFODZGRHVQRWUHTXLUHELF\FOLVWVWRXVHWKHF\FOHWUDFNDQGWKRVHZKRUHFRJQL]H
LWVGDQJHUVDQGULGHLQWKHVWUHHWIDFHQDUURZHUODQHVSRVVLEOHKDUDVVPHQWE\PRWRULVWVDQG
FRQIXVLRQDERXWZKHWKHUWRIROORZYHKLFXODURUELF\FOHVLJQDOKHDGV
7KHVHIDFLOLWLHVDUHPRUHDWWUDFWLYHWRQRYLFHELF\FOLVWVFDQKHOSGHYHORSDFRUHELF\FOH
QHWZRUNLQWHJUDWHGZLWKWUDLOVDQGEDUULHUFURVVLQJVDQGPD\UHGXFHZURQJZD\DQG
VLGHZDONULGLQJ7KH\DOVRUHTXLUHDOLPLWHGQXPEHURIPDMRULQWHUVHFWLRQVDQGFDUHIXO
GHVLJQDWWHQWLRQWRUHGXFHSRWHQWLDOYHKLFOHFRQIOLFWVDQGWKXVPD\EHDSSURSULDWHRQO\
IRUDVPDOOQXPEHURIFRUULGRUV
'RRU]RQHELNHODQHVVLGHZDONVDQGZURQJZD\ULGLQJDUHDOVRDWWUDFWLYHWRQRYLFHELF\FOLVWV
,WLVQRWFOHDUWKDWF\FOHWUDFNVDUHDQLPSURYHPHQW7KHVXUYH\LQ$SSHQGL[&VKRZLQJWKDW
SHUFHQWRIUHVSRQGHQWVZRXOGIHHOVDIHUULGLQJRQDF\FOHWUDFNWKDQLQDELF\FOHODQHGRHVQRW
YDOLGDWHWKHGHVLJQ
5HFRJQL]LQJWKDWWKH\UHTXLUHDOLPLWHGQXPEHURIPDMRULQWHUVHFWLRQVLVXQXVXDOIRUWKLVSODQ
WKHUHPD\EHQRFRUULGRUVWKDWTXDOLI\
7KH%LF\FOH7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3ODQZDVLQVWUXPHQWDOLQKHOSLQJHVWDEOLVKFOHDU&LW\
SROLF\SURKLELWLQJDQGRUGLVFRXUDJLQJULGLQJELF\FOHVRQVLGHZDONVLQPRVWVLWXDWLRQV
VHHDOVR&KDSWHURIWKH0XQLFLSDO&RGH 7KLVSROLF\LVEDVHGLQSDUWRQD
3DOR$OWRVWXG\WKDWFRQFOXGHVRQVWUHHWF\FOLQJLVWZRWLPHVVDIHURQDYHUDJHWKDQ
VLGHZDONULGLQJDVZHOODVIURPVLPLODUILQGLQJVWKHRULHVVXFKDV-RKQ)RUHVWHU¶V
LQIOXHQWLDOERRN³(IIHFWLYH&\FOLQJ´:KLOHWKLVFRQFOXVLRQDQGWKHH[LVWLQJFLW\SROLF\
UHPDLQYDOLGLWLVLPSRUWDQWWRGLVWLQJXLVKVLGHZDONULGLQJIURPQHZHUW\SHVRIIDFLOLWLHV
UHFRPPHQGHGIRUFRQVLGHUDWLRQXQGHUWKLV3ODQ7KHVHLQFOXGHWKHSRWHQWLDOSURYLVLRQRI
WZRZD\F\FOHWUDFNVDQGFRQYHUVLRQRIH[LVWLQJVLGHZDONVLQWR&ODVV,VKDUHGXVHSDWKV
NQRZQDVVLGHSDWKVZKHQUXQQLQJSDUDOOHODQGDGMDFHQWWRURDGZD\V
7KHPDLQLVVXHLGHQWLILHGZLWKVLGHZDONULGLQJMXVWDVZLWKF\FOHWUDFNDQGVLGHSDWK
GHVLJQLVWKHLGHQWLILHGVDIHW\ULVNVDWURDGZD\FURVVLQJV LQWHUVHFWLRQVDQGWRDOHVVHU
H[WHQWGULYHZD\V :LWKRXWSURSHUJHRPHWULFGHVLJQVWDQGDUGVVLJQDOFRQWUROVVLJQDJH
PDUNLQJVRUDVVRFLDWHGHGXFDWLRQDQGRXWUHDFKWRPRWRULVWVH[LVWLQJLQWHUVHFWLRQV
ZKHUHVLGHZDONULGLQJRFFXUVDUHRIWHQLOOHTXLSSHGWRKDQGOHFRQIOLFWVZLWKWXUQLQJ
YHKLFOHV0RGHUQJXLGDQFHRQWKHGHVLJQRIF\FOHWUDFNDQGVLGHSDWKIDFLOLWLHVFRQVLGHUV
DQXPEHURIVXLWDELOLW\FULWHULDDQGLQFOXGHVPHDVXUHVWKDWUHGXFHSRWHQWLDOLQWHUVHFWLRQ
FRQIOLFWV0RUHLQIRUPDWLRQRQF\FOHWUDFNDQGVLGHSDWKGHVLJQJXLGDQFHLVSURYLGHGLQ
&KDSWHUDQGLQ$SSHQGL[$
2QHRIWKHEDVLFSULQFLSOHVRIYHKLFXODUF\FOLQJ DQGRIWUDIILFODZLQJHQHUDO LVWKDWELF\FOLVWV
VKRXOGQRWDSSURDFKDFRQIOLFWSRLQWIURPDGLUHFWLRQDQGDWDVSHHGDWZKLFKPRWRULVWVFDQQRW
VHHWKHPLQWLPHWRDYRLGDFROOLVLRQ)RUH[DPSOHDPRWRULVWZKRLVVFDQQLQJOHIWEHIRUHWXUQLQJ
ULJKWDWDQLQWHUVHFWLRQFDQQRWVHHZURQJZD\ELF\FOLVWVDSSURDFKLQJIURPWKHULJKWRQWKH
LQWHUVHFWLQJVWUHHWRUVLGHZDONDQGOLNHZLVHFDQQRWVHHELF\FOLVWVRQWKHPRWRULVW¶VVWUHHWRUWKH
DGMDFHQWVLGHZDONZKRRYHUWDNHLQWKHPRWRULVW¶VULJKWUHDUEOLQGVSRW
7KHFRQVXOWDQWVLPSO\WKDWWKURXJKJHRPHWULFGHVLJQWUDIILFFRQWUROGHYLFHVDQGHGXFDWLRQDO
RXWUHDFKPRWRULVWVFDQEHWUDLQHGWRORRNZKHUHWKH\ZRXOGQRWQRUPDOO\ORRNDQGWRVHHZKHUH
WKH\FRXOGQRWQRUPDOO\VHH%XWWKHUHLVOLWWOHHYLGHQFHWKDWWKLVLVHYHQFRJQLWLYHO\SRVVLEOH
PXFKOHVVWKDWPRWRULVWVFDQEHUHOLHGXSRQWRGRLWZKHQWKHLUDWWHQWLRQLVQHFHVVDULO\RFFXSLHG
E\WUDIILFDSSURDFKLQJIURPRWKHUGLUHFWLRQV)DFLOLWLHVWKDWLPSOLFLWO\UHO\RQVXFKFODLPVQHHGWR
EHH[DPLQHGFULWLFDOO\
$VHFRQGVLJQLILFDQWULVNIURPVLGHZDONULGLQJLVWKDWLWSURPRWHVZURQJZD\WUDYHO
6RPH³LQQRYDWLYH´IDFLOLWLHVDOVRHLWKHUIDFLOLWDWHRUDFWXDOO\LQFRUSRUDWHZURQJZD\WUDYHO
8QGHUVWDQGLQJUHDVRQVIRUVLGHZDONULGLQJDVZHOODVWKHGLIIHUHQFHVEHWZHHQQHZHU
SURWHFWHGIDFLOLW\W\SHVLVLPSRUWDQWIRUGHYHORSLQJFRPPXQLW\VXSSRUWIRUSURWHFWHG
IDFLOLWLHV±DQGXOWLPDWHO\FRPPXQLFDWLQJWKHLUSURSHUIXQFWLRQWRXVHUVDQGPRWRULVWV
:KHUHRSSRUWXQLWLHVPD\H[LVWWRPHHWPRGHUQJXLGHOLQHVWKH%373UHFRPPHQGV
FRQVLGHUDWLRQRIVLGHZDONXSJUDGHVWR&ODVV,VLGHSDWKVDQGUHVWULSLQJRIURDGZD\VWR
LQFOXGHWZRZD\F\FOHWUDFNV
$JDLQWKHWHUPV³SURWHFWHG´DQG³PRGHUQ´PD\EHPLVOHDGLQJ7KHEXUGHQVKRXOGEHRQWKH
FRQVXOWDQWVWRGHPRQVWUDWHZK\VLGHSDWKVZKLFKKDYHORQJEHHQNQRZQWRLQFUHDVHFROOLVLRQ
UDWHVDQGWZRZD\F\FOHWUDFNVZKLFKQRWRQO\H[DFHUEDWHLQWHUVHFWLRQFRQIOLFWVEXWLQFRUSRUDWH
ZURQJZD\WUDYHODUHDSSURSULDWHDQGVDIHDWWKHUHFRPPHQGHGORFDWLRQV
&KDSWHU
)LUVWPXOWLSOH³VLGHSDWK´VHJPHQWVDUHUHFRPPHQGHGE\ZLGHQLQJH[LVWLQJVLGHZDONV
EHKLQGWKHIDFHRIWKHFXUE7KHVHVHJPHQWVZRXOGH[WHQGH[LVWLQJWUDLOVWRZDUG(O
&DPLQR5HDODORQJERWK&KXUFKLOODQG3DJH0LOO5RDGVDQGDORQJ(PEDUFDGHUR5RDG
QHDUWKH&RPPXQLW\&HQWHUFDPSXVDQGRXWQHDUWKH3DOR$OWR*ROI&RXUVH$VVLGHSDWKV
FDQKDYHYLVLELOLW\FKDOOHQJHVDWLQWHUVHFWLRQVWKH\DUHLGHQWLILHGIRUDUHDVZLWKORQJ
XQREVWUXFWHGIURQWDJHVDQGPXVWEHZHOOGHVLJQHG
,IWKHVHSDWKVDUHWRVHUYHELF\FOLVWVZKDWEHQHILWVGRWKH\RIIHUWRRIIVHWWKHZHOONQRZQ
KD]DUGVRIVLGHSDWKVGXHWRLQWHUVHFWLRQFRQIOLFWVDQGZURQJZD\ULGLQJ"$QHDUOLHUGUDIW
GHVFULEHGWKHYLVLELOLW\FKDOOHQJHVDV³KXJH´7KHUHVWULFWLRQWR³ORQJXQREVWUXFWHGIURQWDJHV´
GRHVQRWVHHPWRKDYHEHHQKHHGHG
7KH%373UHFRPPHQGVDQHPSKDVLVRQUHPRYDORIDQGHQKDQFHPHQWWRH[LVWLQJ
VXEVWDQGDUGELNHODQHV SDUWLFXODUO\WKRVHWKDWSRVHSRWHQWLDO³GRRULQJ´LVVXHVDGMDFHQW
WRSDUNHGFDUVRUZKHUHJXWWHUSDQVDIIHFWWKHIXQFWLRQDOLW\RIFXUEVLGHELNHODQHV
DQGWKHFRQWLQXDWLRQRIELF\FOHODQHVDFURVVLQWHUVHFWLRQVWKURXJKLQQRYDWLYHJUHHQ
FRORUL]DWLRQDQGURDGZD\PDUNLQJV
:KDWEHQHILWZLOOWKHVHQRQVWDQGDUGPDUNLQJVFRQIHU"
:KHUHFRQGLWLRQVLQGLFDWHSRWHQWLDOVXLWDELOLW\DQGGHPDQGWKH3ODQSULRULWL]HV
DGGLWLRQDODQDO\VLVRIJUHHQFRORUDWLRQEXIIHUHGELNHODQHVRUWZRZD\F\FOHWUDFNVWR
DWWUDFW³LQWHUHVWHGEXWFRQFHUQHG´ULGHUVZKRPD\RWKHUZLVHDYRLGDUWHULDOELNHZD\
ULGLQJRIDQ\NLQG
7KHUHLVQRYLUWXHLQDWWUDFWLQJ³LQWHUHVWHGEXWFRQFHUQHG´ULGHUVWRIDFLOLWLHVWKDWDUHSURPRWHG
DV³VHSDUDWHG´RU³SURWHFWHG´EXWWKDWLQWHQVLI\LQWHUVHFWLRQFRQIOLFWVDQGHQFRXUDJHZURQJZD\
ULGLQJ
%LNHER[HVVKRXOGQRWEHLQVWDOOHGDW/\WWRQDQG$OPDRUDQ\ZKHUH7KH:DOWHU+D\V
5LQFRQDGDVLGHSDWK XQGHU³7UDLOV´ FURVVHVRQO\RQHGULYHZD\ DWWKHILUHVWDWLRQ EXWLW
SUHVHQWVLQWHUVHFWLRQFRQIOLFWVDWERWKHQGVHVSHFLDOO\IRUZURQJZD\ULGHUVDQGLWPD\
HQFRXUDJHWZRZD\VLGHZDONULGLQJDWERWKHQGV
+RPHU&KDQQLQJFRXSOHW 3ULRULWL]HWKLVFRUULGRUZLWKWKHJRDORILPSOHPHQWLQJHQKDQFHG
ELF\FOHIDFLOLWLHV DWPLQLPXPFRQVLGHUWZRZD\ELF\FOHWUDYHORQ+RPHU$YHQXHIURP
$OPD6WUHHWWRHLWKHU DFRQYHUWHGWZRZD\ +LJK6WUHHWRUWR(PHUVRQ6WUHHWWRFRQQHFW
ZLWKGRZQWRZQ
,DJUHHWKDWDFRQWUDIORZELNHODQHRQ+RPHUZRXOGEHZRUNDEOHDQGGHVLUDEOHEXWLWLVQ¶W
FXUUHQWO\DOORZHGE\WKH+'0,I&DOWUDQVDGRSWVDQDSURFHGXUHIRUELNHZD\H[SHULPHQWVWKLV
ZRXOGEHDJRRGRSSRUWXQLW\IRURQH
(O&DPLQR:D\DQG/RV5REOHV (QKDQFHELNHODQHV SRWHQWLDOO\FRQVROLGDWHZLWK
VLGHZDONVLQWRDVKDUHGXVHSDWK DSSURDFKLQJDQGDFURVV(O&DPLQR5HDOWR/D'RQQD
$YHQXH
:K\DVKDUHGXVHSDWKDQGKRZGRHVFRQVROLGDWLQJELNHODQHVLQWRDSDWKFRQVWLWXWHDQ
HQKDQFHPHQW"
&ODVV,ELNHZD\RQWKHQRUWKVLGHRI&KXUFKLOO5RDG /LQNWKH(PEDUFDGHURDQG&KXUFKLOO
0DOOSDWKVYLDDZLGHQHGVLGHZDONDQGUHFRQILJXUHG(O&DPLQR5HDOLQWHUVHFWLRQ
:KDWLVWKH&KXUFKLOO0DOOSDWK"7KLVVLGHSDWKZRXOGFURVVPDMRUGULYHZD\VDW3DOR$OWR+LJK
6FKRRODQGWKH3DOR$OWR8QLILHG6FKRRO'LVWULFWRIILFH
&KDSWHU
$SSHQGL[$ 'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHVSUHVHQWVLQQRYDWLYHELF\FOHDQGSHGHVWULDQIDFLOLWLHVWKDW
FDQFRPSOHPHQWH[LVWLQJVWDQGDUGVDQGJXLGHOLQHV'HVSLWHWKHH[SHULPHQWDOQDWXUH
RIVRPHRIWKHUHFRPPHQGHGWUHDWPHQWVDOOLQFOXGH86H[DPSOHVDQGPDQ\KDYH
EHHQDGRSWHGE\WKH1DWLRQDO$VVRFLDWLRQRI&LW\7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ2IILFLDOV 1$&72
7KHGHVLJQJXLGHOLQHVDUHLQWHQGHGWREHDWRRONLWWKDWDOORZVWKH&LW\IOH[LELOLW\IRU
LPSOHPHQWLQJDOOIXWXUHSURMHFWV,WLQFRUSRUDWHVWKHODWHVWWKLQNLQJIURP1$&72 ZKLFK
KDVEHHQRIILFLDOO\HQGRUVHGE\WKH)+:$ DQGUHIOHFWVUHFHQW6WDWHSROLFLHVVXFKDV
&RPSOHWH6WUHHWV
6HHP\FRPPHQWVWRSDQGWR$SSHQGL[$³,QQRYDWLYH´DQG³ODWHVW´DUHQRWHTXLYDOHQWWR
VDIHRUHIIHFWLYH7KHUHIHUHQFHWR)+:$LVPLVOHDGLQJ7KH6HFUHWDU\RI7UDQVSRUWDWLRQKDV
LQIRUPDOO\UHFRPPHQGHGWKHJXLGHLQWKHFRQWH[WRIDSUHVVFRQIHUHQFH7KHUHKDVEHHQQR
WHFKQLFDORURIILFLDODSSURYDO
3URMHFW75LVDZLGHVLGHZDONRQ(PEDUFDGHUR5RDGIURP1HZHOO5RDGWR0LGGOHILHOG5RDG
7KLVPD\EHWKHVDPHDVWKH:DOWHU+D\V5LQFRQDGDVLGHSDWKGLVFXVVHGRQS75VWDQGV
IRUWKHSHUKDSVLQDSSURSULDWH³WUDLO´
3URMHFW75LVWKH&KXUFKLOOSDWKGLVFXVVHGRQS
3URMHFW%%WKH$PDULOOR0RUHQR%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUGLQFOXGHVFRQVLGHUDWLRQRIDELNHER[ 3URMHFW%.IRUD&KDUOHVWRQ$UDVWUDGHUR³HQKDQFHGELNHZD\´LQFOXGHVJUHHQODQHVDQG
LQWHUVHFWLRQWKURXJKPDUNLQJVZKRVHSXUSRVHDVSUHYLRXVO\GLVFXVVHGVKRXOGEHGHILQHG
,QWHUVHFWLRQWKURXJKPDUNLQJVDUHQRQVWDQGDUG,WDOVRLQFOXGHVELNHER[HVGLVFXVVHGLQWKH
FRPPHQWVWRS
3URMHFW%.WKH&DOLIRUQLD$YHQXHHQKDQFHGELNHZD\VXJJHVWVDF\FOHWUDFNRQDEXVLQHVV
VWUHHWWKDWKDVPDQ\LQWHUVHFWLRQVDWFURVVVWUHHWVDQGDOOH\VDQGSDUNLQJWKDWFDQQRWEH
UHPRYHG7KHSRWHQWLDOIRUFRQIOLFWLVHQRUPRXV
3URMHFW%.WKH&KDQQLQJ1HZHOOHQKDQFHGELNHZD\SURSRVHVXQVSHFLILHGELF\FOHPDUNLQJV
RUDSRWHQWLDOWZRZD\F\FOHWUDFNIURPWKH+RPHU&KDQQLQJHQKDQFHGELNHZD\WR-RUGDQ0LGGOH
6FKRRO:KDWRQHDUWKFDQEHWKHSXUSRVHRIDWZRZD\F\FOHWUDFNZKRVHSK\VLFDOVHSDUDWLRQ
ZKDWHYHUWKHGHWDLOVZRXOGFUHDWHLQQXPHUDEOHWXUQLQJFRQIOLFWVDWUHVLGHQWLDOGULYHZD\VDQG
ZKRVHZURQJZD\ELF\FOHWUDIILFZRXOGEHDPDMRUKD]DUG"
3URMHFW%.WKH/\WWRQ$YHQXH$OPD6WUHHW6DQG+LOO5RDGHQKDQFHGELNHZD\LQFOXGHVD
SRVVLEOHF\FOHWUDFNDORQJWKH(O&DPLQR3DUNRU&DOWUDLQIURQWDJH7KHGHWDLOVDUHXQFOHDU+RZ
ZLOOWKHZURQJZD\DQGLQWHUVHFWLRQLVVXHVEHKDQGOHG"
3URMHFW%.SURSRVHV\HWDQRWKHUSRWHQWLDOF\FOHWUDFNRQ/RV5REOHV(O&DPLQR:D\EHWZHHQ
/D'RQQDDQG:HVW0HDGRZ'ULYHJLYLQJULVHWRWKHXVXDOTXHVWLRQV
3URMHFW%. DQRWKHUSRWHQWLDOF\FOHWUDFNRQ)DELDQ:D\:KDWLVWKHQHHG"
3URMHFW,17&KXUFKLOO$YHQXHDW(O&DPLQR5HDOSURSRVHVDQRWKHUELNHER[
3URMHFW)LVDJHQHUDOIHDVLELOLW\GHVLJQVWXG\WRDVVHVVSRWHQWLDOIRUF\FOHWUDFNGHVLJQLQ3DOR
$OWR7KDWVKRXOGEHDSUHUHTXLVLWHWRDQ\RIWKHVSHFLILFF\FOHWUDFNSURSRVDOVLQWKHSODQ
%LNHER[HVVKRXOGQRWEHLQFOXGHGLQWKHFRVWHVWLPDWHWDEOHRUWKHSODQ
$SSHQGL[$
$ 7KLVVHFWLRQSUHVHQWVLQQRYDWLYHELF\FOHDQGSHGHVWULDQIDFLOLWLHVWKDWEXLOGXSRQDQG
LPSURYH3DOR$OWR¶VH[LVWLQJQRQPRWRUL]HGQHWZRUN$OORIWKHIDFLOLWLHVSUHVHQWHGKDYH
EHHQLPSOHPHQWHGLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV+RZHYHUQRWDOODUHDSSURYHGIRUXVHE\&DOWUDQV
RUWKH$VVRFLDWLRQRI$PHULFDQ6WDWH+LJKZD\7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ2IILFLDOV $$6+72
7KHODVWVHQWHQFHGHVHUYHVHPSKDVLVEHFDXVHIRUFHUWDLQWUDIILFFRQWUROGHYLFHVDQGELNHZD\
GHVLJQVFRPSOLDQFHZLWK&DOWUDQVVWDQGDUGVLVPDQGDWHGE\ODZ
0DQ\RIWKHELF\FOHIDFLOLWLHVDUHIURPWKH1DWLRQDO$VVRFLDWLRQRI&LW\7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ
2IILFLDOV 1$&72 8UEDQ%LNHZD\V'HVLJQ*XLGHZKLFKKDVGHYHORSHGGHVLJQJXLGHOLQHV
IRULQQRYDWLYHELF\FOHIDFLOLWLHVDQGLVWKHPRVWXSWRGDWHVRXUFHIRULQIRUPDWLRQDQG
JXLGDQFHIRURQVWUHHWELF\FOHIDFLOLWLHV7KH'HVLJQ*XLGHLVPHDQWWRFRPSOHPHQWQRW
VXSHUVHGHJXLGDQFHIURP$$6+72DQG087&'DQGZDVUHFHQWO\HQGRUVHGE\WKH86
6HFUHWDU\RI7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ1$&72LVDQDVVRFLDWLRQRIPDMRUXUEDQFLWLHVZKRDPRQJ
RWKHULQLWLDWLYHVKDYHEDQGHGWRJHWKHUWRIRUP&LWLHVIRU&\FOLQJ
%\QRZLWVKRXOGEHFOHDUWKDWFODLPVWREHLQQRYDWLYHXSWRGDWHVHSDUDWHGSURWHFWHGPRGHUQ
ZLGHO\XVHGEHVWSUDFWLFHDQGVRRQVKRXOGEHYLHZHGVNHSWLFDOO\7KH86'276HFUHWDU\¶V
HQGRUVHPHQWZDVFDVXDODQGLQIRUPDO0DQ\RIWKH1$&72GHVLJQVDSSHDUWRYLRODWHEDVLF
HQJLQHHULQJSULQFLSOHVRUWUDIILFODZE\LQWURGXFLQJDPELJXRXVRUXQH[SHFWHGULJKWRIZD\
LPSDLUHGVLJKWOLQHVQRQVWDQGDUGGHVWLQDWLRQSRVLWLRQLQJDQGXQUHDOLVWLFVFDQQLQJSDWWHUQV
7KHGHVLJQJXLGHOLQHVDQGUHVHDUFKFLWHGRIWHQRYHUORRNRUGLVPLVVWKHVHLVVXHV(DFKGHVLJQ
VKRXOGEHHYDOXDWHGRQLWVRZQPHULWVUDWKHUWKDQDVDQDXWKRULW\
,QFRUSRUDWLQJGHWDLOHGGHVLJQVKHHWVIRUEXIIHUHGELNHODQHVELNHER[HVDQGHVSHFLDOO\
F\FOHWUDFNVLVUHGXQGDQWDQGDFWVSULPDULO\DVSDGGLQJDQG35WROHQGWKHVHWUHDWPHQWV
DQXQGHVHUYHGOHJLWLPDF\$WDPLQLPXPXQDSSURYHGWUHDWPHQWVVKRXOGEHLGHQWLILHG
WKHLUSRWHQWLDOGLVDGYDQWDJHVDFNQRZOHGJHGDQGWKHQHHGIRUDSSURYHGH[SHULPHQWDWLRQ
HPSKDVL]HG
DRAFT
February 28, 2012 Draft Minutes 3
The Commission provided their comments.
Commissioner Losch commented on page 3 Goal 2 – Not sure how we would tackle
this strategically specifically with private partnerships.
Commissioner Crommie commented on page 12 - expressing her concern on making
sure the language covers identifying an area for new parks for the equal distribution of
facilities within the community.
Commissioner Hetterly commented on page 17, C4.7.3 would like to make sure the
word athletic facility was included somehow. On page 13 C3.2.5 would like to include
the word “ongoing” in the sentence “Conduct ongoing comprehensive analyses…”
Page 14 C3.4 – insert the word and athletic with existing park facilities.
Commissioner Ashlund commented on page 14-15 accessibility, would like to see the
language revised and on C3.9.2 – change it to read “increase the percentage of
accessibility”
Commissioner Walsh commented on wanting more information included on expanding
opportunities within parks. Possible area would be C4 “Planning for the future”
Staff de Geus encouraged the Commissioners to email him with other comments if they
weren’t included in this discussion.
5. Review and comment on the revised Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan update – Jaime
Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Officer for the City spoke on the latest updates to the
Draft Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan which incorporated the comments and suggestions
from the last time the Plan came before the PARC. It also included comments from the
other stakeholders, PAYBAC, Planning and Transportation Commission, and from the
outreach meetings. He also informed the commission that Planning and Transportation
plan on holding another Public meeting in March to allow the public a whole month to
provide input to the Plan.
Public Comment
Heather Rosmarin – Spoke to the Commission on the concern over the safety of
bicyclists and pedestrians who use West Bayshore Road between San Francisquito
Creek Bridge and Edgewood Plaza. She came before the Commission to encourage
Planning and Transportation to include this area in the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan.
Commissioner Crommie and Hetterly members of the Urban Creeks and Trails ad
hoc committee presented their feedback on the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
to the Commission and Chief Transportation Office Jaime Rodriguez. After reviewing
the document they had some questions that needed some clarification (see attached) Mr.
Rodriguez answered what he could and said he would look into what he didn’t have
answers to.
The Commission then was given time for questions and comments.
DRAFT
February 28, 2012 Draft Minutes 4
Commissioner Ashlund commented on a concern about a path that enters Mitchell Park
from Charleston that has had some vehicles mistake it for a road.
Commissioner Losch provided his input on ensuring that it is important to have
connectivity within surrounding communities. He also added that when prioritizing
Planning and Transportation should consider focusing on the higher density traffic
areas.
Commissioner Markevitch commented that it would have been helpful to have a
summary of what changes occurred to the Plan from last year to now. She also
suggested that the word “traffic calming” should stay consistent throughout the
document, as there were different words used meaning the same. She had
concerns about the potential connectivity though or around Jordan Middle School to
Newell Rd.
Council Liaison Espinosa reiterated what Commissioner Markevitch had said on
providing a summary. With documents of this size it is helpful to have a direct form of
information to help with understanding the changes for Council and the public.
Commissioner Walsh entertained a motion to approve the plan. Commissioner
Markevitch remarked that she would not be voting “Yes” on the plan due to the fact that
in her reading of the large document she had found too many things that needed
clarification for her to vote with a “Yes”.
Motion: The Parks and Recreation Commission recommend to Council that they
approve the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan as revised and presented to
the Commission on February 28, 2012. Approved: 6:1 (Markevitch)
6. Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Committee Updates –
1. Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course reconfiguration project –
Chair Lauing spoke on the item – Next step: Finance committee on March 6th. A
summary was provided on what had transpired from the study session that occurred
with the Council by staff de Geus. An expansive outreach has taken place related to
this project staff de Geus said. There was strong support for the Golf Course. Staff
de Geus added that the presentation and questions are available online at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/golf. There were 4 options A, D, F, and G that were
presented for review, the cost ranged from 3.5million – 8 million. Council Liaison
Espinosa provided information on the Council’s position, and remarked that the
timeline to make a decision in fast approaching.
2. Evaluate staff recommendations to place limits on amplified sound at Lytton Plaza.
Chair Lauing reported that there is another upcoming meeting to discuss this issue and
that it will probably be coming back to the Commission next month.
3. Urban Creeks and Trails
Page 1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Verbatim Minutes 2
March 28, 2012 3
4
DRAFT EXCERPT 5
6
Review and Recommendation to Council for Adoption of the Revised Draft Bicycle and 7
Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Mitigated Negative 8
Declaration has been prepared. 9
10
Chair Martinez: Welcome back. We shall resume with Item 2, which is Review and 11
Recommendation on the Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan. We will begin with a Staff 12
Report. 13
14
Mr. Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official: Good evening Chair Martinez and 15
Members of the Commission. My name is Jaime Rodriguez. I am the Chief Transportation 16
Official for the City of Palo Alto and if I may before we start this item I want to introduce a 17
couple of key Staff members who have been involved in this project. First Casey Hildreth, he’s 18
the Lead Consultant on this project from Alta Planning and Design. Rafael Ruis is here from our 19
transportation team as well and I want to introduce Kimberley Leung in the audience. Kimberly 20
just joined us on the transportation team and will be working on design plans and the 21
implementation of the Draft Bike and Ped Plan that is before you tonight so welcome Kimberly 22
and you’ll be seeing more of her in the next near future. 23
24
So what I’d like to do first is give you a short recap of how we got to where we are today and 25
highlight the rest of the presentation on changes within the bike plan since the last time you saw 26
this back in October. We started this project off a little over a year ago and had a very extensive 27
community outreach process to solicit community input regarding the community’s preferences 28
and thoughts regarding bicycle pedestrian facilities throughout Palo Alto. We had a very 29
innovative online survey that generated 500 responses online and we used a lot of those online 30
responses to generate recommendations that are in the plan before you tonight. 31
32
We took this Draft Bike and Ped Plan to you back in October for consideration of 33
recommendation to the City Council for adoption and we did in fact receive that 34
recommendation from you so thanks again for that and what we’ve done since then is when we 35
went to City Council in November of last year the City Council asked us to take a step back from 36
the Bike and Ped Plan work we had done and asked us to go back into the community and focus 37
a little more input with the South Palo Alto Community to make sure there were enough facility 38
improvements within that area and asked us to make sure we highlighted a lot of input we 39
received from the Parks and Rec Commission when we went to the City Council as well as some 40
additional input we received from our Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Commission as well. 41
42
In response to that input from the City Council we held a South Palo Alto open house workshop 43
on January 12th and received a lot of positive feedback from the community regarding the plan 44
and they did in fact look for us to try to tighten our connections with the Safe Rides to School 45
side with the project and the town of Los Altos and they also had some minor improvements, 46
Page 2
corridor improvements along Wilkie Way, along Monroe Street, comments about the Charleston 1
Arastradero Road project and that core area, the connection along the Wilkie Way bridges and 2
then we advanced our presentation with the Parks and Recreation Commission in February as 3
well and this was before you guys for consideration last month. 4
5
Some of the comments we received from the Parks and Rec Commission at that time was to 6
strengthen the east west connections along the corridor which was consistent with comments of 7
the City Council, asked us to advance way finding projects, to build connections to parks, safe 8
routes to parks along with implementation of the plan. 9
10
To talk a little bit about the plan itself, when we typically talk about transportation projects and 11
public works projects we build them around the five Es of projects, Engineering, Education, 12
Encouragement, Enforcement and Evaluation. When we kicked this off with Alta, Alta came up 13
with a very innovative concept to rather than build a project around the five Es, they came up 14
with a brand new framework around the five Is. That included looking to identify projects and 15
prioritize implementation of projects based upon integration opportunities to link bike and ped 16
projects together, looking for ways to include pedestrians within projects for construction areas, 17
to be innovative in the types of projects proposed for consideration in the community, to try to 18
identify and try to build an institution of partnerships with VTA for bike share programs and to 19
make sure we tie the program around investments that the City is already making so that when 20
we are trying to advance the program the CIP programs for the bike projects are taking 21
advantage of other programs such as the resurfacing program. 22
23
When we came to you last, the Planning Commission had a few very specific recommendations. 24
Some of those were to actually evaluate how this would actually fit into the Comprehensive 25
Transportation Plan Element Update and we did in this Draft before you include a brand new 26
table, 2-1 which looked at every policy program within the transportation element of the current 27
plan and made an evaluation to make sure that anything within the draft plan was consistent with 28
the transportation plan at that time and included notes whether it was or was not and that was a 29
direct change in response to input from the PTC. 30
31
The Commission here also asked us to refine our cost estimates for the projects and that’s 32
included in Table 7.1 of the project itself. The last comment from you guys was to also make 33
sure we are trying to advance into jurisdictional projects, like Page Mill to 80, Page Mill to Sand 34
Hill, Page Mill Alpine Road and San Francisquito Creek. We’re looking at bridge opportunities 35
happening in East Palo Alto area and Mountain View area to make sure those paths we are 36
proposing and that those other districts are integrate together for the betterment of the 37
community. At that time you did provide a recommendation that this be recommended to the 38
City Council. 39
40
The Parks and Rec Commission, I gave you a brief summary earlier but when they saw this plan 41
they gave a recommendation to City Council for adoption and asked us to prioritize a few 42
different projects. They asked us to prioritize the Adobe Creek Reach Trail Phase 1 project. 43
That is a new trail project that would take advantage of an existing Santa Clara Valley Water 44
District frontage road along the creek to provide a connection along East Meadow and the 45
existing Lefkowitz Tunnel or the future Adobe Highway 101 project. That’s a project we’re 46
Page 3
currently working with Public Works to advance into the feasibility stage starting in the May 1
June timeframe. 2
3
A big priority for the Parks and Rec Commission was way finding. They asked that we try to 4
advance that as an element within the program so we build connections for Safe Routes to Parks. 5
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Commission has been extremely instrumental in the development of 6
the plan to date and held a monthly feedback session during 2011 to review and provide 7
comments back to Staff and to Alta Planning and Design and probably the most important 8
comment we got from them is to make sure we do lots of data collection and data collection is 9
something we’re beginning to advance this year. We’re taking advantage of grant projects to 10
deploy microwave detectors along our existing bike corridors along Bryant Street and other key 11
corridors where bike boulevards are planned for deployment such as Oregon and Ross. We’re 12
going to begin that data collection there on a daily basis once those systems go in. 13
14
We’re also looking at taking advantage of our partnerships through our Safe Routes to School 15
programs which Alta is helping us with to deploy counting stations around the City so we can 16
track that bicycle usage and pedestrian usage throughout the community. PABAC also wanted 17
us to focus on clear definitions within bicycle boulevards. In previous drafts of the plan we had 18
two types of classifications for bicycle boulevards and PABAC wanted us to include one 19
definition which is not included in the plan. Another important element for PABAC was they 20
wanted us to look at advanced conversions on High Street either to the north of Forest or up to 21
University as part of the implementation of the plan contraflow bike plan on Homer Street for the 22
one block between Alma and High Street. That’s a Condition of Approval of the mixed use 23
project that’s currently under construction at the corner across from the Homer Tunnel so they 24
wanted to make sure that contraflow bike lane was implemented they wanted to make sure 25
bicyclists could get into town via High Street. 26
27
The PABAC also wanted us to focus on some of the regional connections specifically around the 28
San Francisquito Creek area and focus on improvements for the public right of way and not take 29
advantage of valuable open land space within the creek itself and was also wanting us to not 30
consider innovation as too high a priority in the programs that we implement to try to focus first 31
if we’re trying proven methodologies that we know work to try to put those in the program as 32
priorities first. 33
34
We also spoke about education within the community and we’re taking advantage of that right 35
now as part of our Safe Routes to School Program. We’re advancing education programs within 36
the middle schools, and developing brand new adult based bicycle education programs that will 37
be launched later this year. 38
39
Just to summarize some of the City Council comments, we’re again to focus on east west 40
connections, specifically connections that would take advantage of non-roadway space such as 41
Matadero Creek and look for opportunities to provide connections there and access so vehicles 42
and bicycles would not need to mix. There was a strong request for education and reach to that 43
South Palo Alto community which again we had done and to focus again on areas that we know 44
are of importance to the community. Specifically Page Mill to 80 is an area that has continually 45
come up from the City Council as an area of concern and we have actually kicked off already a 46
Page 4
feasibility study with the County of Santa Clara and Cal Trans to try to identify opportunities to 1
actually reconfigure that interchange and we have been working with the State. They are going 2
to move forward with some traffic signal improvements at that interchange later next year. 3
4
Some of the other community comments we received from the community focused around the 5
pedestrian connections and in response to those concerns we have been implementing things 6
such as dismount zones to encourage where bicycle zones and pedestrians do need to mix that 7
we’re encouraging bicyclists to adhere to the rules of the road where there are sidewalks itself 8
and to actually look at identifying gap closures in our sidewalk system so you here saw the 9
Edgewood Plaza project as an example about a month ago and one of the concerns that came out 10
of that project was that there was a gap closure that needed to happen on West Bay Shore Road 11
from Channing up to the north to the East Palo Alto city limits. That’s a project we’ve noted 12
here within this plan and is shown here in this particular spot so that is something we committed 13
to do to the plan at that meeting and I wanted to make sure we highlighted that here tonight. 14
15
Again I do want to focus on some of the regional institutional projects we want to pursue within 16
the plan because there has been a lot of interest from the community and the Council. These are 17
specific changes that were added to the plan since you received the Draft a month or two again. 18
These are the interchange improvements at 280 at Sand Hill Road, Alpine, improvements at Page 19
Mill 280, introducing connections at the San Francisquito Creek area for improvement, at the 20
Geng Road area and highlighting the Matadero connection with the Santa Clara Water District. 21
22
Another institutional project we want to highlight tonight is our potential Bike Share program 23
with the VTA. The VTA just closed an RFP process about a week ago to hire a vendor to 24
actually deploy bike share stations within Santa Clara County, 100 of which would be located 25
here in the City of Palo Alto at Stanford, downtown and in the Cal Ave. business district. 26
27
Very quickly just to recap what we’ve done with CEQA so far, you reviewed the Negative 28
Declaration back in October when you saw this plan last and as part of the update that we’ve 29
done since you last saw this project there have been no substantial changes to the actual 30
description of the project itself. So with that I’m available to ask any questions or Casey is as 31
well. 32
33
Chair Martinez: Thanks. We’re going to open the Public Hearing. We have six speakers from 34
the public and you’ll each have three minutes to speak. Vice Chair. 35
36
Vice Chair Fineberg: First speaker to be Robert Moss followed by Paul Goldstein. 37
38
Mr. Robert Moss: Thank you Chair Martinez and Commissioners. First I want to make some 39
corrections. On the Council minutes that you have on Page 3 where I’m quoted, its incorrect. 40
First thing Bol Park is spelled b-o-l. Second I didn’t say that the consultant map showing 41
sidewalks was inadequate, I said it was wrong and I also strongly opposed the proposal to put 42
sidewalks along Los Robles between El Camino and La Donna. Sidewalks shall not and will 43
not be installed in Barron Park by the Planning Commission or by the City Council. That is 44
forbidden. When Barron Park mixed in 1975 one of the agreements made was that the sidewalks 45
would not be put in unless and until the people in Barron Park voted specifically to add them. 46
Page 5
Mayor Norton then sent a letter in 1975 to all of the people in Barron Park promising sidewalks 1
would not be added so the proposal to put sidewalks along Los Robles is off the table. 2
3
Secondly there is a comment that you have to have sidewalks or people won’t walk. On an 4
average day I see between 125 and 150 people walking past my house. Walking dogs, pushing 5
strollers, jogging. People walk in Barron Park. We don’t need sidewalks. Second in the 6
specifics of the Bike Plan I’m kind of puzzled as to why it’s considered important to call 7
Matadero a Bike Boulevard. That street is approximately 24 by 26 feet wide. It is not the 8
busiest street in Barron Park. The busiest street is Los Robles and I noticed on Los Robles 9
you’re talking about enhanced bike paths. Los Robles is 26 feet wide and that includes the bike 10
lanes. Where are you going to put enhanced bikes? 11
12
I also thought it was interesting that at the end of Los Robles it shows a shared roadway. That 13
section of Los Robles is 16 feet wide. You barely can get two cars passing on it. You’re going 14
to put that through as bikes? Bikes use it anyway. Nobody needs anything to tell them you can 15
bike through Barron Park. I see hundreds of people biking past everyday so I think a lot of this 16
needs to be rethought, especially when you talk about putting shared bikes on narrow streets 17
which is all we have at Barron Park so some of this I think should be reconsidered so the last 18
think is talk about changing or improving the intersection at El Camino and Matadero. My 19
understanding was that that meant prohibiting left turns from Marguerite onto El Camino. That 20
would be a disaster. You don’t want to prevent people from getting onto El Camino. 21
22
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 23
24
Vice Chair Fineberg: Paul Goldstein to be followed by Irvin Dawid. 25
26
Mr. Paul Goldstein: Hi I’m Paul Goldstein. I live in Palo Alto. I am a member of PABAC and I 27
was Chair of the Subcommittee that was called upon to make comments on the Bike Plan. At the 28
regular March 7th meeting you should all have copies of this letter. I’m sorry we didn’t get it to 29
you before but I made copies and they should have been at your places. At the regular March 7th 30
meeting of the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, PABAC, the Committee endorsed the 31
recommendations of its Subcommittee regarding the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. 32
Unfortunately, Staff did not include these recommendations in your packet and therefore I’ve put 33
the most salient ones here. Although these were summarized in the Staff memo I don’t think you 34
have the intensity or the context of our recommendations. Probably the most significant one is 35
on Appendix A. PABAC has had serious concerns with many of the innovative treatments 36
promoted by the current plan in Appendix A. We feel that although innovation is generally a 37
good thing, the plan gives over emphasis to innovation in contrast to some tried and true 38
accepted measures that work extremely well in Palo Alto. Palo Alto has a very fine network of 39
low volume streets that could easily be turned into Bicycle Boulevards and PABAC feels very 40
strongly that Bicycle Boulevards are the best and most effective way to improve bicycle 41
conditions and improve mode share. 42
43
If you look at one of the goals of the Bike Plan, it says that we want to improve bicycle mode 44
share, we want to get more people on their bikes and at the last meeting of the Planning 45
Commission, you recommended that we look at bang for the buck. Bang for the buck is 46
Page 6
converting local streets into Bicycle Boulevards allowing bicycles, giving them priority over 1
other streets and I see in the plan that there will be a better definition of what Bicycle Boulevards 2
are but you can just look on Bryant Street, see how many people use it and know if we had other 3
streets like that you would have more people biking in Palo Alto. 4
5
I’m not going to go over the rest of the memo but you have the points here. We feel quite 6
strongly that innovation can be a good thing but that it’s not the first place to go when you’re 7
looking at improving bicycle mode share. Thanks very much. 8
9
Vice Chair Fineberg: Irvin Dawid to be followed by Mike Aberg. 10
11
Mr. Irvin Dawid: Thank you Planning Commissioners. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma. I think above 12
all it’s the time to adopt and then implement. That’s my strongest message to you now. I just 13
wanted to touch a few things that were said but first I want to express my appreciation to Staff 14
and to the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee for the superb work. I think this plan is really 15
quite good. I really don’t recall the previous bike plans but now we hopefully will soon have a 16
real bike plan and we can be able to refer to it. 17
18
Jaime mentioned the contraflow lane that is going to be on Homer Avenue even though it’s just 19
going to be on one block. I think that’s huge. It’s true I happen to live right on the corner there 20
but I am really looking forward to seeing a contraflow lane go up there. That’s an innovative 21
facility but its not just innovative, its really very necessary. After all, that Homer Bike Tunnel 22
lets off people there and what are they faced as soon as they get out from the tunnel going out 23
from El Camino? A one way street going the wrong way so we need to do something and the 24
contraflow lane fixes it. 25
26
In terms of one of the things that Paul just mentioned, in terms of the best bang for your buck, I 27
always think the best bang for your buck is just infrastructure. I respect all the cyclists in Barron 28
Park but the more infrastructure you get up, the better it is. It attracts people. One form of 29
infrastructure that Staff is doing a great job on now is bicycle parking. The more you see them, 30
they have done a beautiful job with these new corrals with the sign on the top, I think it’s great. 31
It helps to get people biking. I’ve said this before but if you have a chance, please visit the cities 32
that I know of that are super bike friendly which are Davis and San Luis Obispo. When you go 33
and you walk through their downtown you are flooded with bicycle parking. It’s incredible. 34
35
Also generally speaking of Davis, they have a much wider sidewalk. They have much more 36
room to put those racks. We don’t always have that wide sidewalk. In fact, I was just at Phil’s 37
Coffee and I was sitting in one of the new tables that is fronting on Alma and its not really that 38
wide there and sure enough because its Alma Street and a lot of bicyclists still bike on the 39
sidewalk, some cyclists were just zooming by and I thought they were going the wrong way and 40
it was dangerous. The reality is that’s a tight sidewalk so thank you for all your work and I look 41
forward to coming back and speaking about the implementation of what’s in the Bike Plan. 42
43
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 44
45
Vice Chair Fineberg: Mike Aberg to be followed by Pamela Radin. 46
Page 7
1
Mr. Mike Aberg: Hi. I’m Mike Aberg. I’m a midtown resident in the sometimes forgotten 2
section of Southeast Palo Alto in terms of a lot of bike improvements. I have three young boys 3
who all love to ride their bikes and I also like to ride my bike. I just want to say first of all 4
thanks for all your work and to pretty much everyone in this room. I think implementing this 5
bike plan is going to make a big difference. 6
7
I want to speak for my little area near midtown. I think the biggest improvement we can see is 8
the quick implementation of the Ross Road Bike Boulevard. It is right near my house and it 9
would allow us north south access to a lot of areas of Palo Alto including Mitchell Park and its 10
one of the closest and friendliest spots that we could use, me and my three boys. I just want to 11
add quickly that the Ross Road bike light, there’s a bike light crossing that’s at Ross and Oregon 12
and will be implemented this year. It would be nice to get Ross Road signed in time to coincide 13
with that bike light being implemented. The only other thing I have to say is not to just look at 14
Ross Road but there are a few other arterials such as Middlefield Road right in the midtown 15
section that might also be looked at. I think that arterial could be improved quite a bit with 16
maybe some small changes to make Middlefield Road a little bit more bikeable right through the 17
midtown area so thanks again you guys. I appreciate all your work and let’s get this thing 18
implemented. Thank you. 19
20
Vice Chair Fineberg: Pamela Radin to be followed by Andrew Boone. 21
22
Ms. Pamela Radin: Hi I’m Pam Radin. I’m a member of PABAC but tonight I’m speaking for 23
myself and I’d really like to say again or repeat what Mike Aberg just said that we just really 24
want to see Ross Road go ahead with planning and engineering and signage while Park Bike 25
Boulevard is being designed so it matches up with the light implementation at Oregon and Ross. 26
It’s so important to us, I can’t tell you enough. Also, I sent in a letter earlier and I hope you had 27
time to review that and maybe consider more enhancements to Middlefield Road. Also, thanks 28
for the great plan Jaime and Alta. I really appreciate it. 29
30
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 31
32
Vice Chair Fineberg: Andrew Boone to be followed by Jo Ann Zausen. 33
34
Mr. Andrew Boone: Good evening Commissioners. My name is Andrew Boone and I live near 35
the Main Library. I ride my bike almost every single day unless I have nowhere to go. It’s my 36
only means of transportation except walking for short trips and taking the train for long trips and 37
I agree with the previous speakers Paul Goldstein and Irvin Dawid on what should be the highest 38
priorities for implementing the Bike Plan, that’s Bicycle Boulevards and bike parking. We have 39
really only one Bicycle Boulevard now and there is a limit to how useful that is. We need a 40
network of Bicycle Boulevards that were identified in the old plan nine years ago. That should 41
be the highest priority to build Park Boulevard as a Bicycle Boulevard, Ross Boulevard, all of 42
them. 43
44
Other cities such as Portland, Oregon that the Council admires for their promotion of bicycling 45
has built a network of Bicycle Boulevards meaning interconnected grid of streets that are all 46
Page 8
Bicycle Boulevards. I usually bicycle on the busiest streets, the arterials, El Camino Real, 1
Embarcadero, Alma Street, Oregon Expressway because they are the fastest for me to get to 2
where I’m going. My concerns in the beginning of this process were mostly about bicycling on 3
the arterial streets and those have been addressed for the most part. There is some language in 4
the draft now so my comments are quite minor. 5
6
The plan refers to on Page 4-1 statistics for how many Palo Altoans bike to work but these 7
statistics now are out of date since the plan has taken so long to write. They refer to the 2005 to 8
2009 American Community Survey. Now there is data available from the 2008 to 2010 9
American Community Survey which has a 1.5% increase of biking to work from the old number 10
so the new number should be put in the plan which is 8.6%. Also there should be updated data 11
for the children biking to school also for the year 2011 that Staff should be able to get from 12
Kathy Durham. That’s all thank you. 13
14
Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. That’s the last speaker. Okay Commissioners, let’s do a 15
round of questions or comments starting with Commissioner Keller on the left. 16
17
Commissioner Keller: First some simple things to get out of the way, in this nice chart and 18
thanks for giving this big enough so we can easily read it, the colors under existing don’t match 19
the colors in the actual diagram itself. They are lighter. So it’s a little hard to match the colors 20
so if you can make all the colors match that would be helpful. 21
22
Secondly I notice that Class 3 are Shared Arterial or further study needed seem to be coalesced 23
into the same diagram and I would suggest that you use different symbols for further study 24
needed and for where you’ve already decided that you should have a Class 3 Shared Arterial, in 25
particular while I’m supportive of the idea of bike lanes on Alma Street south of Charleston 26
where the right of way is pretty wide, north of there is problematic and probably fits under the 27
category of for further study rather than the category of we’ve already decided to put Class 3 28
Shared Arterials considering the traffic volumes that are on the chart elsewhere there so I’m a 29
little concerned about that and the distinction would be make it clear as to what you mean. 30
31
Next there is an interesting distinction of some other cities have the idea of putting the bicycles 32
between parked cars and the curb as opposed to putting them between the parked cars and the 33
street and in particular we didn’t take advantage of that opportunity to think about it on 34
Arastradero when we did that and I think it would be worthwhile thinking about safety on that 35
and I’ve seen other cities do that and that is something worthwhile if it considers safety and it 36
means that the bicyclists aren’t further out when there are cars there. 37
38
With the notion of the contraflow lane on Homer, there should be a connection between Homer 39
through Alma and Channing so people who use the Homer Street Tunnel and then take the 40
contraflow lane on Homer can then go south on High and east on Channing and so that 41
connection makes sense to make because otherwise you have to head through downtown when 42
you’re really trying to bypass it if you want to make a bike so that would be a worthwhile 43
improvement. 44
45
Page 9
I was in Washington D.C. not long ago and one of the things they have and other cities have is 1
early pedestrian crossings at light, in other words delay traffic green. It gives the pedestrians and 2
bicyclists an opportunity to start crossing the street before cars start making a right or left turn so 3
the pedestrians or bicyclists get the right of way and as you start providing more traffic signals 4
where you have the pedestrian count down it might be useful to coordinate that with a delayed 5
green at the same time because that’s going to require reworking of the traffic signal and thereby 6
enhance bicycles and pedestrians getting across the intersections, not being blocked by cars who 7
are not following the right of way. 8
9
There was a mention by Jaime Rodriguez, our Traffic Official, about the connection on Greer to 10
help with the Edgewood Plaza however that connection on Greer ends in the middle of there and 11
does not connect all the way to the West Bayshore path to the creek and I thought that that’s 12
what was being proposed to support the people in East Palo Alto coming to shop in our 13
neighborhood was that there would be some sort of pedestrian crossing there and I don’t see that 14
being marked here so in some sense I’m not sure how you would mark that but some sort of 15
pedestrian path along West Bayshore from the creek to Edgewood Plaza seems to be missing 16
from there and I’m not sure how you annotate that. 17
18
There are some places in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan where it refers to BPTP 2011 versus 19
2012 and that probably should be consistently 2012. 20
21
This might be an opportunity to think about widening the sidewalks on El Camino Real to the El 22
Camino Real design guidelines if we’re trying to increase that use of pedestrians. They are 23
having more setbacks so the buildings are further away from the street and this is something that 24
should be in this plan. I think the comments on Ross Road are worthwhile in terms of the 25
timeliness of that and making that in coincident across the Oregon bike lane. 26
27
With respect to Middlefield Road in the midtown shopping district I think that’s worthwhile 28
considering but caution needs to be done in that particular area because I’m sure you’ve heard 29
about the story of one day when a former Transportation Official decided to put cones there and 30
narrow it to one lane and there was a revolt and there was a traffic jam that was caused with it so 31
I would suggest doing appropriate traffic analysis and studies there to proceed with caution. 32
33
In summary, I think this is a really good plan. I think there are a lot of great improvements here 34
but where we have high traffic volume arterials, we have to consider how best to have the 35
bicycles coexist with the cars and in particular it may make sense to encourage bicyclists where 36
it is feasible to use lower traffic things like Bike Boulevards. I know there are some people who 37
feel it’s a good idea to bike on Alma Street all the way but I think that that’s for most of Alma 38
Street would not be very safe and it will never, no matter what we do, sharrows are not, would 39
not be a safe proposition. I think it’s going to be hard in a lot of places to narrow from multiple 40
lanes to take drop off lanes to add where there is a high volume of cars to add bike lanes or 41
remove traffic lanes so I think that that should be considered as a balance and to the extent that 42
we could have more bikes flowing through our neighborhoods, we are trying to discourage 43
through traffic and encourage through bicycles. I think that would be a good thing. 44
45
Page 10
Commissioner Tanaka: First let me thank Staff and also our Consultants as well as PABAC and 1
the members of the public that came tonight. This plan seems to be very comprehensive and 2
looks like it addresses a lot of the issues that were brought up. A few of the speakers mentioned 3
sidewalks in Barron Park and a few other issues. I was wondering if Staff could quickly address 4
some of the public comments because I think some of those were good points. 5
6
Mr. Rodriguez: What we do within the plan is identify sidewalk gap locations. Those aren’t 7
necessarily locations we want to propose sidewalk installations but we did feel it was important 8
to identify those areas in the City where that was a deficiency. I think the improvements we can 9
do on those areas in the future as part of the implementations of Bike Boulevards can include 10
improvements that will be done in Barron Park where we add valley gutters and sidewalk areas 11
fluxed with the rest of the roadway. The intent of the plan was to just highlight those facilities. 12
There are opportunities within Barron Park where the streets begin to meet El Camino Real and 13
those are areas where sidewalk improvements may be appropriate for less than 100 feet entering 14
the neighborhood. That was the intent of the plan, not to recommend sidewalks in the 15
neighborhoods. 16
17
Commissioner Tanaka: I can’t remember if it was I who said bang for the buck but I’m a big fan 18
of that concept because I think what’s great about the plan is that it is comprehensive and I think 19
that’s one of the challenges and there are more projects than we have money and trying to 20
prioritize them for the implementation part is going to be the key to finding the maximum 21
amount of our dollars at work and so one thing is, I like what Staff has done here is really try and 22
get some measurements going on bikes, pedestrians. They are really trying to figure out what 23
projects are going to help the most number of people and that’s a good thing and I like that kind 24
of thinking and the process that you guys are trying to do to make this happen so keep it up and 25
this way we have good metrics as to what’s supposed to happen. 26
27
Three weeks ago I had a business trip to Barcelona and it was actually my first time there and 28
one thing I saw was that they have a really active Bike Share program. It was everywhere. A lot 29
more people rode the Bike Share program than rode bikes. People would take them casually and 30
use it all the time and so I think if we had that here in Palo Alto what would happen. The Bike 31
Share program was called Bicing. They had them stationed all over the mass transit areas and 32
public areas and it seemed to be a program that could really change how things happen so I’m 33
glad to see that moving forward and we’ll have a hundred or so here in Palo Alto. If its 34
successful we can try and get more of that happening. 35
36
In regards to narrow roads and bikes, that’s definitely a challenge and another interesting thing I 37
saw in Barcelona is people were biking on the sidewalks and it was legal and encouraged which 38
for me was interesting because I’m not really used to that and so I was walking in Barcelona in 39
the bike lane on the sidewalk thinking why are these bikes on the sidewalk. That’s kind of an 40
interesting approach where they have super wide sidewalks, more than we have in Palo Alto so 41
that’s a problem. Sidewalks are made really wide, that’s another possibility where you can get 42
wider sidewalks or have a bike lane that’s part of that so the bikes are safe on those busy 43
arterials. 44
45
Page 11
My last point is its kind of back to City Council comments, kind of like the park let. I think 1
those kind of things actually make streets much more interesting. I think what Staff is trying to 2
do and encourage is a good thing and I think it makes Palo Alto a nicer place to live so I think 3
this is a really nice concept and something that I hope can be developed further. Thank you. 4
5
Commissioner Michael: I’m coming to this process late and it’s very impressive. I also want to 6
extend my appreciation to PABAC and the members of the community who have commented 7
and to Staff for their work so as I’ve heard all these comments and gone through the plan and 8
looked at the diagrams, I’m reacting not so much as a Commissioner but just as a resident of the 9
City. I’ve been a cyclist for 56 years and I think I rode about 3,000 miles last year and I’m on 10
track to ride 4,000 miles this year and I’m thinking how does this affect me and my children 11
because we’re pretty avid cyclists. 12
13
I think the comments about the priority of the Bike Boulevards are really really important just 14
from my personal experience. Particularly, Mr. Goldstein noted the identification of streets with 15
low car traffic volume. I just instinctively search those streets out and those are the streets I use 16
and interconnecting the Bike Boulevards with other natural ways to get across town is pretty 17
significant. 18
19
Just analytically the curiosity how this plan will evolve over time probably relates to the different 20
communities, school children, how people commute to work on their bike, maybe more 21
experienced cyclists who would be more safe on an arterial road that will get them a longer 22
distance in the shortest amount of time, people who are recreational or competitive cyclists who 23
will hop on their carbon turbo bike and head to the coast for an 80 mile loop, how they get out of 24
the City safely, people who want to go shopping so you want to get into the shopping districts. 25
26
I think the issue of assuming that a cyclist will always stay in a bike lane or will be able to use a 27
Bike Boulevard exclusively, you’re always going to be transitioning off to different roadways to 28
get to your actual destination and to get to my house off the Bryant Bike Boulevard off 29
Embarcadero I get off onto the sidewalk because then I go off onto Melville because that gets 30
you to my house so you’re always going to have those interconnections and in general this is 31
profoundly impressive and a big step forward. I think it will continue to evolve and the safety 32
and health benefit to the City, the multimodal business of transportation is all good and I’m very 33
pleased to see it. 34
35
Commissioner Tuma: So this is one where I tend to leave it to the experts meaning you all and 36
the folks from PABAC and the community that has been involved more. Along those lines I 37
wanted to ask Jaime if you would be in a position to address the issues that were raised by the 38
two memos we had from members of the public. One was an email dated today I guess from 39
Pam Radin and the other one is the memo from Mr. Goldstein. 40
41
Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you. I don’t have the email from Ms. Pam Radin but I do have a copy of 42
the letter from Paul Goldstein and his specific concern as Paul mentioned during his presentation 43
here was the concern regarding innovation and potentially using that as a method to prioritize 44
projects. One of the changes we actually made within the plan over the last few months was 45
initially when we took this plan to you there were recommendations for within the Bike Plan in 46
Page 12
Table 7.1 we tried to tie back each project to those five Is I described to you at the beginning of 1
our presentation and try to make a connection in each project towards Integration or Inclusion or 2
Innovation. Initially we had this project before you and innovation as kind of high, medium or 3
low and that was a specific concern from PABAC and one of the things we did to emphasize 4
innovation within a category for selecting project we noted whether innovation was part of the 5
project was a yes or no category so that’s how we addressed that concern. 6
7
Within the Bike Plan on Appendix A we wanted to make sure we had an extremely robust 8
Appendix that we could look at for best practice within the United States and other parts of the 9
country so we didn’t want to limit ourselves in removing innovative options. Whether they 10
applied to Palo Alto didn’t really matter to us. We just wanted to document the fact that there 11
are innovative communities that are out there, whether they are appropriate or not for use within 12
Palo Alto, that would be dependent upon the comments from the community and we will begin 13
implementing projects within those specific neighborhoods. For example on a street like Homer 14
and Channing with couplets there are ways to do cycle tracks or bicycle lanes. We don’t know 15
the right thing to do, that’s really community driven but we wanted to highlight those. What we 16
ended up doing in the Bike Plan as part of our update is we called them enhanced bikeway option 17
and then included the label such as the cycle track or other types of facilities. That was our 18
method to respond to those concerns because the plan is built around concepts for enhanced 19
bikeways within our legend so we wanted to stick to that legend and not change it from what we 20
had already done in the previous plan. We thought that would be a step backwards. 21
22
Some of the other comments are very good comments so if we did implement an experimental 23
type of a treatment we would need to follow the state process and it would cover us from a 24
liability perspective from the state to do an experimental task. The methods would include 25
reaching out to what’s called a California Traffic Controlled devices community. We actually 26
started that process and began to implement it on our own and so we definitely would agree with 27
Paul on those comments that if we wanted to implement those types of treatments we would need 28
to outreach to the community and follow those external processes. 29
30
Commissioner Tuma: If you look at the bottom there are some items highlighted or bolded that 31
carry over to the back so there are six areas that I’m reading as the areas of concern if that helps. 32
33
Mr. Rodriguez: It does, thank you. We talked a lot about the signage at Arastradero Blvd. and 34
other meetings and all the Bicycle Boulevards within Palo Alto. We do have a lot of very good 35
candidate low volume streets as Paul and other members of community really called Bike 36
Boulevards but in this particular case we strongly agree with PABAC that even though it’s a low 37
volume street that alone shouldn’t allow us to go in and assign that facility. There will always be 38
treatments that would be necessary to ensure that those low volumes also turn into low speeds. 39
Treatments along bicycle routes will always be necessary and more important for Bicycle 40
Boulevards we want the community outreach to say do you have any concerns with your street 41
becoming a Bicycle Boulevard and educating them to what that means and they will see a change 42
to the character on the street with increased bicycle activity so we’ve been hesitant and reserved 43
to deploy Bicycle Boulevards on any street until we begin that CEQA process, that outreach 44
process and that’s what we plan to do. We do agree with a lot of the concerns you heard tonight 45
that there needs to be more premise to Middlefield Road and what we did in transportation just 46
Page 13
last year when the Valley Transportation Authority was beginning developments on Valley 1
Transportation Plan 2040, we implemented some new projects and programs that were not there 2
before. One of them was specifically midtown districts transportation improvements and that 3
was for us to begin to look at how can we best treat the midtown district of Middlefield Road to 4
be more Bicycle and Pedestrian friendly. I don’t know what the answer is but I do know that 5
anything that we do do right now without any improvement will result in a significant loss of 6
parking and we can’t support that type of change today so I can say we hear the comments of the 7
community. I can’t say we strongly agree with those comments but we need to be cautious and 8
reserved on how we implement improvements to make sure they won’t have a negative impact 9
on the community as well. Did I miss anything? 10
11
Add diverters and road narrowing to the tool box. We can definitely do that. 12
13
Commissioner Tuma: Okay and then just one other quick bit of information would be helpful 14
and obviously this is a plan that takes significant time to roll out to implementation. Can you 15
give us some idea of what we might expect to see within the next couple of years in terms of 16
percentage of completion if there is a way to talk about that easily and then probably more 17
importantly than that the plan for education as these things happen, its been talked about a lot in 18
the public but how does the average person begin to find out now there is connectivity from my 19
house or where I’m going to work. What’s the education program there? 20
21
Mr. Rodriguez: I’ll start with the implementation. I think a lot of people called last year the year 22
of the bike. I was always saying the year of the bike should be 2012 and I say that because we 23
have a lot of things we planned in 2011 that we are implementing now in 2012 and specifically, 24
I’ll highlight projects because I can’t really put a percentage to them but some of the projects that 25
are already designed and going into construction include enhanced bikeways on San Antonio 26
Road from the 101 border out towards Middlefield Road that will lead to future connections for 27
bicycle lane extensions on North Field Road itself. We’re looking at extensions of bike lanes on 28
Charleston Road to Fabian to the southern part of the City with Mountain View. We’re looking 29
at starting a community outreach process in the next few months on Fabian Road itself and that 30
would potentially include lane reduction projects to go from four lanes to three lanes and we’ve 31
outreached to members of the mobile residences and other space to be supportive of those 32
concepts. 33
34
Again the feasibility studies we talked about for the Reach Train project at Adobe Creek. I 35
highlight those projects specifically because we’re trying to build a message in South Palo Alto 36
that we want to make sure we get a brand new bridge crossing at Highway 101 and all those 37
projects that I described to you create that link to the South Palo Alto community towards 38
Mountain View to make sure that when people are in that area they can get to that bridge and so 39
that’s something we’re emphasizing a lot within that community. We’re definitely trying to 40
partner with existing CIP programs so you will have already seen some recent bike 41
enhancements on Channing Road. We did our first green bike lane facilities at Center Road and 42
at Newell. We will be doing the second phase of that program this year and that will include 43
Lincoln out toward Guinda and set this up for future studies to look at one way conversion type 44
projects for enhanced projects on Channing and Homer west of Middlefield Road and then we’re 45
also looking at enhanced bikeways on Lytton Avenue within the downtown corridor to look at 46
Page 14
other issues such as early release ped signal timing on that corridor as well and just a bunch of 1
things in the queue so I can’t put a percentage to it but there is definitely a lot of planning in the 2
parks as well and the connections with the Safe Routes to School. The second part of your 3
question? 4
5
Commissioner Tuma: How do you plan to let everyone know that they can ride their bikes in 6
various areas? 7
8
Mr. Rodriguez: Definitely what we would want to do is as we are kicking off the design phases 9
for a lot of these different projects we’ll want to encourage the types of marketing events we did 10
last year where we invite the community to ride with us and emphasize those types of rides. 11
That’s something we heard from the community during this process is that they learned from this 12
process and we advertised it and rode it with them and the people are appreciative of that type of 13
input and wanted more of those as we kick of design projects. 14
15
We’re actually promoting a lot of these facilities in our Safe Routes to School program as we’re 16
working with the community and working with parents to let them know good alternatives for 17
their students to get to school and we’re referring them back to the Bike Plan and ensuring them 18
there is integration between the two. The other way is education through the Safe Routes to 19
School program and highlighting rules of the road for parents so when they are driving they 20
know what to look for when kids are on the roads themselves. Things like that. 21
22
Vice Chair Fineberg: I’d like to echo other Commissioners comments to thank Staff and 23
members of the public who have worked long and hard to bring this plan to where it is. It’s not 24
perfect. There are things in it that probably shouldn’t be in it. There are things in it that maybe 25
need to be tweaked. There are things in it that need to be added but it is such a quantum 26
improvement over the plan we have in place from 2003 and it is such a significant improvement 27
that it gets us most of the way to being where we need to be. We need to get it approved and in 28
place and Staff I believe is already doing something but I would like it to be quite formalized. 29
We need to keep a list of all the improvements suggested and changes, corrections, tweaks, 30
brilliant ideas, bad ideas, whatever and then we can incorporate them as amendments if they are 31
significant or hold onto them until our next revision whether that be three, five, seven or ten 32
years but I’d like in the process on this to try to describe what a live paramecium looks like and 33
the instant you’ve done it it’s different. The instant a day in Palo Alto goes by there is a different 34
need. There is something that Council says is important. There is something a member of the 35
public says that’s important. There is something somebody decides they don’t like and that’s 36
going to continue to happen as it does on many of our projects so I’d like to see that we have this 37
adopted. It’s going to allow us to accomplish a lot of projects throughout the City in getting 38
grants and working with other agencies to have improvements that we can’t and that we need this 39
tool for. It also helps us prioritize. It gives us the ability to get guidance from where we should 40
be spending our money so I think it’s a good thing and we need to approve it without finessing it 41
until the paramecium has changed its shape again. 42
43
I want to just talk about a couple specific things. Regarding some earlier comments about traffic 44
tests, I agree that traffic tests should be done so that we have the ability to understand what the 45
impacts and trials are good however I would also like to caution that even the test on Middlefield 46
Page 15
was subject to I don’t know what to call it other than possible manipulation due to social media. 1
I was on two lists that sent out these, individual members on the Yahoo groups sent out panic 2
messages. The world is coming to an end, get in your car and drive down that street so it fails 3
the test. There is always the potential for that to happen and its hard for Staff to conduct a test 4
and not have opponents either support it or make it fail. So tests can’t be relied on in the absence 5
of common sense and some of the data if the data makes sense. 6
7
The other thing I’d like to talk about, why I believe its important for us to get this in place, this 8
isn’t quasi-judicial and I don’t know if I need to disclose it but I had a conversation with Penny 9
Ellson and she just said something that it was amazing to think about our youth learning to bike 10
and navigate through town and I’d always thought about it in terms of my own kids, that they 11
would have a level of independence and confidence but she drove it home even to a greater point 12
and I’ll have to rely on Penny to provide the scientific citations but she talked about there being a 13
number of studies where our children develop neural networks in their brains and linguistic 14
words in their language when they are allowed to find their way around at a young age. When 15
we protect our kids and don’t let them out on bikes and don’t let them walk because the 16
sidewalks and bike lanes or biking areas are dangerous, the kids don’t develop as advanced 17
neural pathways for way finding. They don’t develop the words to describe the directions they 18
are going in so we are making their functioning as adults smaller by overprotecting them and that 19
to me was astounding because I never thought about by having my children ride to school, my 20
daughter who is going to be subject to all the classic constraints of not being able to have spatial 21
relationships in math in high school because she’s a girl, I’m holding her back if I don’t let her 22
figure out if she turns right or turns left, gets lost and figures out where she wants to go so if I 23
can help her with her high school math by letting her ride her bike on a safer street, go for it. So 24
that’s enough of theory. 25
26
In answer to Commissioner Keller’s comment about the sidewalk closure gap north of 27
Edgewood that Council recommended addition, I’m not trying to wordsmith their Motion but 28
this document we have in front of us was a Final Draft as of January 2012 and items like that one 29
and some others have come forward that didn’t exist as of January 2012 so my understanding is 30
that the maps and this draft will add that list of items and then what goes to the Council as final 31
will include those items so do you have a list or is it only two or three items that we know are 32
being added to this draft? Can we just know what they are so that we know its in good hands 33
and then I don’t know, do we need a Motion or is Staff already doing this but is this list of future 34
suggestions, is that something that could be on the City’s website so people know it’s not getting 35
lost? 36
37
Mr. Rodriguez: That is something we can definitely do. We can go ahead and create a running 38
list of the improvements we know we’ve added in specifically the sidewalk gap closure along 39
West Bayshore. It actually is shown within the plan and the gap closure map we talked about 40
earlier. As I’m hearing you talk it would be a good idea to show on this plan some sort of 41
enhanced bikeway so it’s shown on the gap closure map and the post bikeway network itself 42
which is originally put in there because it’s a bikeway network, not necessarily the sidewalk but 43
its okay to do that, to show it in. Then when we’re addressing the sidewalk concerns in the 44
future, we try to make sure there is some sort of a bicycle connection that makes sense into East 45
Palo Alto as well so we can make that change. 46
Page 16
1
Vice Chair Fineberg: Thank you. 2
3
Chair Martinez: Jaime can you show us the slide with the five Is? I think I would suggest one 4
more. Inflation. Because every time you go to a public meeting there are more good ideas to 5
add to the plan so when does the plan stop planning and complete as what this document is 6
supposed to be or is it supposed to be like the Winchester House and just never ending? Can you 7
respond to that? 8
9
Ruis or Aldreth?: Our plan is to get through this evening and hopefully with a positive, I think 10
we’re on good track but then we’ve been collecting all the comments and are going to do a final 11
revision after this evening for City Council with tracking those changes. Some of the typo 12
changes I won’t track but significant changes we’ve been tracking along since our initial 13
outreach after the Council meeting last November so all of those, some of them have already 14
been made that we’re just holding off on publishing but then this is going to be the significant 15
revision cycle that will go to Council presumably. 16
17
Mr. Rodriguez: If I may Chair Martinez I just have one other comment in response to your 18
comment about inflation. It’s a good point because one of the things we heard a lot from the 19
community is that it’s a great plan. I’d love to see Bike Boulevards here, bike lanes here, but one 20
of the comments echoed from the community is to make sure the pavement is in good condition 21
and that ties back to inflation and investment and its why we want to be cautious when we assign 22
facilities such as Bike Boulevards and bike lanes. We don’t want to add in bike lanes as an 23
example on a street where the pavement is in poor condition and it has a low pavement index. 24
We can wait a year if we have to, wait until the street gets resurfaced and then do the 25
improvement at that time because then the improvement has value so that’s back to your 26
inflation comment. 27
28
Chair Martinez: Good segway for me. As you know we are in the process of reviewing the CIP 29
for the coming year. It would be very helpful if you looked at that document and highlighted 30
those proposed improvements that relate to the Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan because 31
that would answer some of our questions about which projects are going forth in the next five 32
years, what are the priorities that we should be looking for in terms of this plan that I think we’re 33
about to recommend and it gets those Planners in the mode of thinking about the Comp Plan and 34
the plans that the City is adopting and how they fit into the CIP so it would be really helpful to us 35
and also it would be helpful not to us but just to the whole plan itself is to really, I know you did 36
a great job of finding all the policies and programs in the Comp Plan that this supports but it 37
would do great benefit to the plan to see a couple of new ones that said you know, it’s a high 38
priority for multimodal streets and in that when we see a project coming through we can look at 39
it in that regard and we can look for why isn’t that present on Lytton or whatever street the 40
project is on so I think it really behooves us all and to our Subcommittee on transportation to 41
take this plan and help all of you really come to some really innovative, not innovative in the 42
way you are proposing here but innovative ideas about what it is that should go into our future 43
planning about bicycles and pedestrian circulation that really makes it a priority for us and when 44
it comes before the Council we could say, this is what the 2020 or the 2075 or whatever we’re 45
shooting for, Comp Plan says we really are supporting and so I’m happy with all the citations 46
Page 17
you made of the Comp Plan and how its supportive but I didn’t see the innovation and how we’re 1
thinking about really what’s in this document and how it could go forward and maybe our 2
Commissioners that are working on this with you can really put some thought into it because I’d 3
really like to see us push it as much as we can and I’d like to thank you myself for a good job. 4
5
Are we ready for some action? Commissioner Fineberg? 6
7
MOTION 8
9
Commissioner Fineberg: I’d like to move that we recommend Staff’s recommendation that the 10
City Council adopt the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan including the revisions 11
that Chief Transportation Official Jaime Rodriguez has mentioned are in progress. 12
13
Chair Martinez: Okay a Motion by Vice Chair Fineberg, a Second by Commissioner Keller. Do 14
you want to speak to your Motion or are you done? 15
16
Vice Chair Fineberg: Walk and bike. 17
18
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller final words. 19
20
Commissioner Keller: First of all, what’s really important about this plan is that Palo Alto has 21
more people who walk to work or bike to work than take all forms of public transit combined 22
and that means this is a really, really important document for Palo Alto besides the people who 23
also take bike and walk for recreation, for shopping, for other purposes so I think that 24
underscores the importance of this document. 25
26
I was quite pleased and distressed to see Map 3-5. I was distressed about how much stuff was 27
there in the blue range and I was pleased to actually see a map and it might help to update this 28
map annually and include it as part of the CIP document we get and I’m not sure how hard it 29
would be to do that but it’s Map 3-5 which is on Page 3-31 and so that’s something that it’s a 30
great piece of data, lots of wonderful data in here and so I appreciate the work of Staff, of the 31
Consultants, of PABAC which for the benefit for the person who types this up is PABAC not 32
payback. To the other members of the public who’ve participated today and at other points in 33
the process of development of this plan. Thank you. 34
35
VOTE 36
37
Chair Martinez: With that, let’s call for the Vote. All those in favor of the Motion say Aye. 38
Aye. None opposed. The Motion passes unanimously with Commissioner Keller, Tanaka, 39
Martinez, Fineberg, Michael and Tuma voting in support. Thank you all. Good job. 40
41
MOTION PASSED 42
43
1
Planning — May/June 2012
Power to the Pedalers
A variety of innovations is making bicycling safer than ever.
By Adam Regn Arvidson
Sometimes I take my son to preschool by bicycle. It's about a mile round-trip, and there are no
trails between my house and our destination. I ride in the street until I reach a highway
intersection; then I switch to a sidewalk and pedestrian crosswalk. Two more blocks on a busy
unmarked roadway and I turn onto a bicycle lane leading to the preschool. I'm always on the
lookout for opening doors and cars making right turns in front of me.
On the way home after school, part of the trip involves a new bicycle lane on a wide concrete
gutter integrated with the curb. The city banished parking along one side of this street just last
year and striped lanes in each direction all the way to my street (this is part of a cross-city
bicycle boulevard). A few blocks short of my street, I merge with traffic crossing the highway
and pedal as fast as I can, my son usually whooping with glee at the sudden speed. At my street,
I turn left, ride the quiet roadway to my alley, and park the bike back in the garage.
It's lucky for me that most of this route is quite bicycle-friendly. The bicycle lanes help, but I
admit that I don't feel completely safe, especially when the trailer is full of preschooler. This bike
trip occurs once or twice a week, and only in good weather. Roger Geller, the bicycle
coordinator in Portland, Oregon, would call me an "interested but concerned" bicyclist. This is the third in a continuum of types that range from "the strong and the fearless" to "the enthused
and the confident" to me to "no way no how." Bicyclists like me are the sweet spot for bicycle
planners like Geller. He says they (we) constitute about three-fifths of the total population and, if
convinced to bicycle regularly, could transform transportation in the U.S. (as in Europe).
Portland's city traffic engineer, Rob Burchfield, puts the group in context: Potential bicyclists
want bicycle facilities with fewer cars or with greater separation from motor vehicles.
Cities across the nation are working to provide exactly those types of riding experiences, mainly
by improving on-street facilities. Transportation planners everywhere say they would love to
build separated paths wherever they could, but in fact there is neither space nor money to do that
in today's cities. So we are left with existing roadways.
2
On road
In 2006 New York City announced that it would implement 200 miles of new bicycle infrastructure within three years. It succeeded, by building a combination of vehicle-free bike
paths (separated trails), on-street bicycle lanes, and signed routes. New York's approach covers
the range of options for accommodating bicyclists. Signed routes typically use local streets with
minimal traffic, while the separated trails are the marquee (and often expensive) backbones of
any citywide system.
In the middle are the on-street facilities, which are catching on nationwide. These include the
typical striped bicycle lanes that exist in most cities, as well as more innovative, European-
inspired designs like cycle tracks, buffered lanes, and colorful intersection treatments with
unusual shapes and signage (more on those later).
Emerging between the signed route and the bicycle lane is the bicycle boulevard, sometimes called a neighborhood greenway. This hybrid typically uses quiet local streets and makes them
even less attractive to cars by blocking automobile through-traffic at major intersecting streets
and sometimes by reducing speed limits. According to city staff and bicycle advocates in
Portland, this is where most facility development is taking place. These boulevards appeal to
"interested but concerned" bicyclists like me because they have hardly any car traffic. Bicyclists
like me are most concerned about the inexpensive, easy-to-implement bicycle lane. Am I safe there? What about pulling kids in trailers? What about kids on their own little bikes? How can
we encourage the next generation of cyclists when we don't feel completely comfortable on the
roads? Are my safety fears founded?
3
New York's 2006 initiative was driven by an earlier study that tracked bicycle injuries and
fatalities in the city between 1996 and 2005. During that time, 225 bicyclists died in New York
— only one of them in a bike lane.
New York also publishes a "Cycling Safety Indicator," which considers fatalities and serious
injuries. Between 2000 and 2010, injury risk there dropped by 72 percent. Even more notable:
The risk number stayed relatively stable between 2003 and 2007, then dropped by 29 percent in 2008 and by another 30 percent in 2009. All this was happening as the city was completing its
bike lane blitz.
What the numbers say
These New York data are some of the most compelling available on the safety of bike lanes. According to Carl Sundstrom of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, a Federal
Highway Administration-funded clearinghouse at the University of North Carolina, bicycle crash
data are notoriously hard to study. "The state of the [research] right now," he says, "is that we
don't have a lot of crashes, which is good, but we also don't have a large sample size."
A key early study of bike lane safety was completed by the Federal Highway Administration in
1999. This comparison of user practices on bike lanes and wide curb lanes (a type of on-road facility that provides space for cyclists to mix with traffic in one lane of a multilane roadway)
used video and questionnaires to gauge how cyclists were using both facility types in three
selected cities. Although the study's official stance is that both facility types are generally safe
and could increase bicycling, data indicate that bicyclists are more likely to do something unsafe (such as riding the wrong way) in wide curb lanes than in bike lanes.
Joseph Perez, Phoenix's bicycle coordinator, says the FHWA study is a tacit endorsement of
bicycle lanes — and that this stance led to a surge in bike lane construction after 2000. His city
performed a safety study of its own in 2000, written by the traffic engineering supervisor at the
time, Michael Cynecki. The city had more than 200 miles of bicycle lanes then. The study found
that the bicyclist was at fault in more than half of the 682 bicycle-motor vehicle crashes that year. It also found that 95 percent of crashes occurred on streets with no bicycle facilities at all.
Only 13 (about two percent) occurred in a bicycle lane. Perez, who has been with Phoenix for
five years, references a 2007 bicycle collision study that shows a steady decline in bicycle
crashes, even as bicycle use has increased. No comprehensive study has been undertaken since then, but Perez notes that crashes between 2006 and 2010 hovered around 450 per year,
compared with the more typical 750 to 800 per year before 2000. Because the 2000 study
spurred Phoenix to continue to build bicycle lanes, Perez suggests that the precipitous drop in
crashes could be attributed to new facilities.
4
Safe and sound
The Phoenix study also found that more than half of all crashes occurred when a bicyclist was
crossing a street. Intersections are scary. So is dooring: being clipped by a parked car opening its door into the bicycle lane. Officials, researchers, and bicycling advocates across the nation say
that these are exactly the two realms where the most innovation is taking place.
Many cities are trying to minimize dooring and the fear of it by creating more exclusive space
for bicycles. There are several ways to do this. The bicycle lane can be widened from four or five
feet (typical widths) to six. Alternatively, planners can consider the total width from the curb to
the outer edge of the bike lane and provide up to 14.5 feet for parking and bicycle facility. Wider
lanes allow a bicyclist room to get around an open door without entering traffic lanes.
Another way to make space between doors and bicyclists is to create a striped buffer between
parking and the bike lane. Buffered bike lanes allow for a driver "loading zone" that does not
conflict with through-riding bicyclists. A cycle track takes the buffering concept one step further by placing the bicycle facility at the very edge of the roadway, separated from the traveled lanes
by a raised curb, a planted median, or parking. Cycle tracks can be one- or two-way. They
essentially create a trail at the side of the roadway. When a cycle track is located between
parking and the curb, the thinking goes, it is safer from dooring because many cars lack
passengers.
5
Intersections can be difficult for bicyclists, especially those turning left. Historically,
transportation engineers, fearful of liability, abandoned bike lanes short of major intersections —
to let bicycles flow with the vehicular traffic. The nation is peppered with signs saying "bike lane
ends," which might as well say "you're on your own now." The major roadway crossing on the striped-lane bicycle boulevard I use on my way home from preschool is like this. I must contend
with four lanes of traffic in all four directions, plus a free right-turn lane.
Lessons from Europe Bicycle transportation planners are now taking cues from Europe by providing specific facilities
for bicycles at intersections. Some of these look quite strange to the uninitiated, but the general
idea is to give bicyclists a way to stay within their designated space and keep out of cars' designated spaces. The simplest of these is the through bike lane, which features dashed striping
or repeating icons across the intersection linking bike lanes on either side. This system shows
bicyclists where to ride and alerts motorists to the likely presence of bikes. To aid in turning
movements, many cities are beginning to implement bike boxes: exclusive bicycle waiting areas
located ahead of vehicle stop bars at signalized intersections. A bike box lets a cyclist literally
get out ahead of traffic and move to the left during a red light.
Even stranger to American drivers is the two-stage turn queue. Bicyclists can have a difficult
time turning left from a cycle track or buffered lane located on the right side of the street. They
are blocked from moving into traffic and must often resort to pedestrian crosswalks or making a
very long left through the middle of the vehicular intersection. A two-stage turn queue creates a special bicycle waiting zone right out in the intersection. First, a bicyclist moves from the bike
lane or cycle track straight ahead on the green light, ending in the waiting zone, which is a
colored box located in front of traffic on the cross street. The cyclist stays there until the
opposing signal turns green, then proceeds across the intersection, ahead of the cross-street
traffic. Though rare in the U.S. (there are examples in Portland and New York), this design is
fairly common in northern Europe. Biking through a two-stage turn queue is sometimes called a
"Copenhagen left."
Some cities are also experimenting with bicycle-oriented signals at intersections, adapting some
of the improvements in pedestrian signals for bikes. Some examples give bikes a head start into
the intersection, others offer bike-only phases.
Far more noticeable at intersections and in bike lanes in general, though, is color. Turn queues,
bike boxes, through bike lanes, and entire cycle tracks are being painted green. Blue and red
have been used, too, but green has become the standard — mainly, according to Carl Sundstrom,
because the other two colors already had designated purposes in the all-powerful Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
New York City painted its entire Prospect Park West cycle track green. Madison, Wisconsin, and Chicago recently added green paint to their most conflict-prone intersections. Madison's
pedestrian and bicycle coordinator, Arthur Ross, says the green paint serves the dual purpose of
getting cars to watch for cyclists and getting cyclists to be extra careful. Green, he says, "helps to
make sure people are watching for each other."
6
Pedaling onward
Do these innovations make cycling safer and more comfortable? Ross says that in Madison the
city has gotten requests for bike lanes even on streets with wide curb lanes. He believes people
see bike lanes as "an invitation, as an encouragement to bike." A few recent projects seem to
prove Ross's point. In 2009 Portland installed two different facilities on downtown streets: a cycle track on Southwest Broadway through the Portland State University campus and a pair of
buffered bike lanes on adjacent one-way streets in the heart of downtown. Portland State
University completed a study of both facilities in January 2011.
Like the 1998 FHWA study, this one used video and questionnaires to determine bicyclists' use and preferences, but the Portland study also questioned motorists and pedestrians. Cyclists
overwhelmingly liked the cycle track, with 70 percent saying it made cycling safer and easier on
SW Broadway, which previously had a bicycle lane next to parking. The new project eliminated
one lane of traffic and created a buffered track between parking and curb, with queue boxes at
cross streets. Only 35 percent of bicyclists were concerned about being doored, compared to 95
percent in the conventional bike lane. However, bicyclists don't have a good grasp of intersection treatments, and there has been an increase in pedestrian-bicycle conflicts. Forty percent of
cyclists and 12 percent of pedestrians reported being in a near collision on the cycle track.
On SW Oak and SW Stark, Portland removed one lane from each one-way roadway (leaving just
one each) and installed on each street a six-foot bike lane with a two-foot buffer against the parking bays. The Portland State study found that bicycling has almost tripled in some spots.
Ninety percent of cyclists said they preferred a buffered bike lane over a standard one, and 70
7
percent said they would go out of their way to ride on a buffered lane. On the other hand,
motorists and local businesses have expressed some concerns about increased travel times,
confusion about crossing the bike lanes to park or turn right, and managing deliveries and
customer parking.
In June 2010, New York City built a two-way cycle track on Prospect Park West. The project
converted a three-lane one-way street with parking on both sides to a two-lane one-way street with two parking bays and a two-way cycle track between parking and the curb on one side. This
project has been controversial (residents sued the city over loss of parking and other issues,
though the suit was dismissed), but its functional success is nearly beyond dispute.
Since cycle track implementation, weekday bicycling on the street has nearly tripled, according to a New York City Department of Transportation study, while weekend cycling has doubled.
Motor vehicle volume on the street has been unaffected, but speeds have dropped. The
proportion of vehicles breaking the speed limit has dipped from 75 percent to 20 percent. Vehicle
travel times have remained stable (within 10 seconds of existing).
Perhaps most illuminating is the crash data. In the project's first year, crashes of all types were
down almost 16 percent and crashes with injury were down more than 60 percent. It appears that the cycle track has not only increased bicycling, it has made the entire roadway safer. According
to Rob Sadowsky, executive director of Oregon's Bicycle Transportation Alliance, "bike lanes
are a traffic calming option." Intersections are still a concern, though, he says.
The new standard The next big step is standardizing these innovative on-road bicycle facilities. Drawing on 20
years of municipal experiments, the National Association of City Transportation Officials' 2011
Urban Bikeway Design Guide is meant to fill a gap in the standards offered by other national
transportation guides. The NACTO document provides detailed guidance on urban bicycle
infrastructure, illustrated with easy-to-understand sections and renderings.
The innovations described in this article appear in the guide, and the standards and recommendations are currently at various stages of approval by the Federal Highway
Administration. NACTO has found a key ally in U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood,
who has repeatedly endorsed the guide as a way to increase bicycling and diversify
transportation options. Many of the most innovative ideas have been pushed by city transportation planners (often bicyclists themselves) based on precedents from Europe. That
worldwide cross-pollination has led to a book of standards, which will offer some clarity and
support to other cities. Chicago and Missoula, Montana, have already adopted the standards for
their future improvements.
At the same time, funding for these facilities is evaporating. The loss of the transportation
enhancements program in the most federal recent transportation bill may significantly decrease the mileage of bike lanes, cycle tracks, and bicycle boulevards implemented in the near future.
Adam Arvidson is a Minneapolis-based writer and a fellow of the American Society of
Landscape Architects.
8
Sidebars: "5 Essential Elements of a Bicycle-Friendly Community" and "Safer Bike Lanes
Coming to Cape Cod"
Resources
Images: Top — A one-way cycle track in New York City, where biking injuries have been dropping dramatically. Middle — Weekday bicycling has tripled since the 2010 installation of a
CYCLE TRACK on Prospect Park West in Brooklyn. Bottom — To create the TWO-WAY
TRACK, vehicles gave up one lane of travel. The move has helped to keep cars within the speed
limit. Images courtesy NYC DOT.
NACTO's Urban Bikeway Design Guide can be downloaded for free at http://nacto.org.
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center is at www.pedbikeinfo.org and
www.bicyclinginfo.org.
To find the 1998 FHWA study on bike lanes and wide curb lanes, visit www.fhwa.dot.gov and
search for "1998 bike lane study."
The Portland State study of a cycle track and buffered bike lanes is at http://bikeportland.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/02/PSUCycleTrackBBLReportFINAL.pdf.
Information on New York City's Prospect Park West cycle track is at
www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/prospectparkwest.shtml.
Controversy about Prospect Park West can be found on the New York Streetsblog. Visit
www.streetsblog.org and search "Prospect Park West."
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2724)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 7/9/2012
July 09, 2012 Page 1 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Summary Title: Housing Element Update
Title: Public Hearing: Review of Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element and
Authorization to Submit to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council review and comment on the draft Housing
Element and authorize staff to submit the draft Housing Element, as amended by
recommended changes from the Regional Housing Mandate Committee (as
reflected on pages 13-16 of the staff report and text changes in Attachment A), to
the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review.
Executive Summary
The City of Palo Alto is required to update its 2007-2014 Housing Element per
State Housing Element Law. The State deadline to complete the update process,
which concludes with the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) certification, was June 30, 2009, but cities may continue to
request review and certification through the end of the planning period. Based
on Council direction, staff developed the Housing Inventory Sites (HIS) list to
identify sites to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(identification of 2,860 units on potential housing sites) and policies and programs
to encourage developers in the production of housing. Per prior Council direction,
the sites selected are concentrated in the Downtown, the California Avenue area,
and the El Camino Real corridor. The Housing Element emphasizes providing
incentives for housing development using existing zoning rather than up-zoning
single family and low density residential parcels or converting commercial or
retail uses to residential. In addition, the Housing Element encourages smaller
July 09, 2012 Page 2 of 22
(ID # 2724)
units to provide both for the City’s aging population as well as the single
employee households who are attracted to the concentration of start-up
technology companies in Palo Alto. Per the proposed Housing Element programs,
some City owned parking lots may also be considered for rezoning to allow for
residential uses (though the Council’s Regional Housing Mandate Committee has
recommended against this action). Extensive public outreach was conducted in
the preparation of the Housing Element. A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) with
representatives from the Palo Alto Unified School District, neighborhood groups,
both affordable and market rate housing developers, and interested residents all
served on the TAG. In addition, multiple meetings were held to educate the
public about the Housing Element and public hearings were conducted by the
Planning and Transportation Commission. The Planning and Transportation
Commission recommended forwarding the draft to HCD on May 9, 2012 and the
Council’s Regional Housing Mandate Committee recommended the same on June
26, 2012.
Background
California State Housing Element law requires each city and county to update its housing
element every five years to ensure that all localities provide adequate development
sites for sufficient new housing to be built to meet their fair share of the regional
housing need. As part of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process
overseen by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the City of Palo Alto was
assigned a quantified goal of 2,860 units, which represents the City’s “fair share” of
projected housing need for the 2007–2014 planning period, distributed among the
following income groups: very low (690 units), low (543 units), moderate (641 units) and
above moderate (986 units) income categories.
Housing element law is the State’s primary strategy to increase housing supply, choice
and affordability. The housing element identifies the existing and projected housing
needs of all economic segments of the community, including the homeless and persons
with disabilities, and promotes a variety of housing types, including multifamily rental
units, transitional and other types of supportive housing. The housing element also
defines the policies and programs that the community will implement to achieve its
housing goals and objectives developed to address its housing needs.
It is important to note that Housing Element law only requires the City to provide
residential zoning opportunities to accommodate its RHNA allocation. It does not
require the City to approve or construct such housing. Cities and counties without
compliant housing elements may be faced with legal challenges pursuant to housing
July 09, 2012 Page 3 of 22
(ID # 2724)
element law and/or fair housing law. Menlo Park, for example, was recently sued by a
coalition of housing advocates for failing to comply with Housing Element law. An
analysis of this lawsuit and the resulting Settlement Agreement (as discussed in the City
of Menlo Park staff report) is included in Attachment E. Also, if the City fails to identify
or make available adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA assignment, the City may be
required to carry those units over into the next planning cycle, thus increasing the
number of sites required to be identified in the upcoming cycle. In addition, many State
housing, transportation and infrastructure funding programs available to local
governments require a certified housing element as one of the eligibility criteria. The
State’s sustainable communities law (known as SB 375) to reduce greenhouse gases
contains further incentives for cities to submit compliant housing elements by
conditioning key transportation grants to compliant elements and by extending the
housing cycle for cities with certified elements.
Discussion
In accordance with State law, a housing element must include:
An analysis of existing housing needs, including the number of people living in
substandard or overcrowded housing, the number of people paying more for
their housing that they can sustainably afford, the number of people with special
housing needs and the number of affordable housing units at risk of converting to
market rate;
An analysis of projected needs, including the allocation of income-specific
housing needs based on income categories pursuant to the assigned allocation
developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG);
A site inventory identifying the sites needed to accommodate the City’s share of
the regional housing allocation;
An analysis of both non-governmental and governmental constraints to provide
and maintain housing, and
Programs, policies and objectives that the City will adopt to assist the
development of housing for different income and special needs groups, to ensure
equal housing opportunity and to preserve and improve the existing housing
stock.
The draft Housing Element (Attachment F, and available to the public at:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/advance_planning/comprehensive_plan_amen
dment.asp) is divided into five chapters which are summarized individually below.
The Housing Element addresses the required topics listed above. It is anticipated
that Chapters 3 (Housing Resources and Inventory) and 5 (Goals, Policies and
Programs) will provide the focus for Council discussion since they provide policy
July 09, 2012 Page 4 of 22
(ID # 2724)
direction while the other three chapters provide the data which drive those
policies. Given the City’s constraints on land supply, the proposed Housing
Element focuses on infill development. The overall intent of the Housing Element
is to enable an adequate variety of housing to be accommodated in appropriate
locations (particularly near transit) and at densities that ensure neighborhood
compatibility. An emphasis is also placed on encouraging smaller units that
minimize community and school impacts and reflect the City’s changing
workforce and demographics.
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter provides a short overview of Palo Alto, identifies the process and
data sources for developing a housing element consistent with State law, and
describes the extent of the community involvement in developing the draft
Housing Element.
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Assessment
This chapter evaluates the City’s existing housing needs as a community and is
based on demographic data including the overall condition and status of the City’s
housing stock. Housing supply and demand is evaluated through a demographic
profile of the City population and population changes over time, employment
characteristics and trends, household characteristics and trends, and focuses on
the provision of housing for special needs groups that oftentimes have lower
incomes and/or have more difficulty obtaining adequate housing. This chapter
also projects the need in Palo Alto for housing to accommodate extremely low-
income households. The number, type, tenure, cost and condition of the housing
stock in Palo Alto are also characterized. The Housing Needs Assessment
identifies the nature and extent of the City’s housing needs that in turn provide
the basis for new housing policies and programs.
Findings
Palo Alto demographics indicate an aging population with the senior cohort
continually growing over the past three decades. Since seniors are considered a
special needs group, the provision of senior housing should be an objective for
new housing in the future and facilitated though Housing Element policy. Data
also indicates that the City does not have sufficient emergency shelters to house
its homeless. In order to comply with state law, the City must either rezone
sufficient sites for emergency shelter use or modify allowed uses in certain zoning
July 09, 2012 Page 5 of 22
(ID # 2724)
districts to accommodate the housing needs of the homeless within the City.
Programs have been included to address these issues. Some of the programs
include:
H2.1.5 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that
encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units, including
units for seniors.
H3.5.1 PROGRAM Enter into discussions with local churches participating in the
City’s year round Hotel de Zink emergency shelter program to establish a
permanent emergency shelter in each church within a year of Housing Element
adoption.
Chapter 3: Housing Resources and Inventory
This chapter analyzes the resources available for development, rehabilitation and
preservation of housing in Palo Alto and includes a parcel-specific inventory of
sites that are suitable to provide sufficient housing to meet the City’s share of the
need for housing for all income groups. The chapter also includes an evaluation
of the resources available to the City to support housing activities.
Council Direction
In May 12, 2010, the City Council provided direction for staff by outlining criteria
for identifying sites to meet the City’s assigned RHNA. Council supported the
following housing site criteria:
Sites within one half mile radius of transit stations or within a quarter mile
of El Camino Real if served by existing or future transit;
All sites should provide accessibility to services and jobs with mixed use
potential;
Smaller sized units for inventory sites and higher density development to
minimize housing impacts on schools and other public facilities, including
units for seniors, particularly for the two transit-oriented areas (California
Avenue and Downtown);
Areas zoned for single family or two family uses should generally not be
identified for new multi-family housing;
Do not allow rezoning of commercial to residential, but allow mixed use
with no decrease of retail sites throughout the City, and
July 09, 2012 Page 6 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Authorized staff to evaluate the potential to allow limited exceptions for
building heights in excess of 50 feet when proximate to fixed rail.
Proposed Housing Inventory Sites
The Housing Inventory Sites (HIS) included in the element identify land in Palo
Alto that is zoned to accommodate residential development, including
underutilized sites with the potential for redevelopment. For this Housing
Element, the City has targeted areas for the inventory sites that are appropriate
for multi-family housing, encouraging mixed uses (residential over retail) in close
proximity to public transportation and amenities. The City’s approach to
accommodate its share of housing needs is based on the following combination:
A. Housing units built or with building permits issued since January 2007;
B. Housing currently in process (discretionary review completed but
building permit not yet issued);
C. Potential housing in existing residentially zoned sites primarily, within
the transit areas;
D. Potential housing in commercial zoning districts that could
accommodate mixed use development within the transit oriented areas,
and
E. Potential housing over City owned surface parking lots in commercial
districts (note this has been eliminated by the Council’s Regional
Housing Mandate Committee (RHMC) and replaced with potential hotel
condominium units).
For purposes of identifying specific parcels suitable for potential housing
redevelopment in the near future in either existing residential or commercial
districts, the following criteria were generally used:
Improvements on the sites are at least 20 years of age; sites were not
significantly redeveloped since 1990;
Sites have a lot area greater than 10,000 square feet with a potential yield
of at least 5 residential units at a density calculation of 20 dwelling units per
acre;
Sites are considered underdeveloped with 1-2 story structures (based on
“windshield survey”);
Residential capacity remains on the site, and
July 09, 2012 Page 7 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Sites generally have an assessed value (A/V) ratio of 1.5 or less. The A/V
ratio is the ratio of the assessed value of the improvements to the assessed
value of the land.
Meeting the RHNA Goal
Using the criteria listed above, staff used a “bottom up” methodology in developing the
housing inventory. In other words, the list begins with sites already developed or
approved or in process during the current housing period (2007-2014). The next “layer”
is those sites in multi-family residential districts. The following “layer” would comprise
commercial districts that allow mixed use, excluding those constrained by date of the
structure, size, etc. The final layer is allowing housing as part of hotel development.
Attachment B outlines this approach in a “Building Block” diagram.
The proposed HIS could potentially yield approximately 1,784 housing units. The table
below shows the updated numbers compared to the regional housing need identified by
ABAG.
CATEGORY
Units
( as of 6/14/12)
Regional Housing Need 2,860
A. Housing built or with building permit issued since January 2007 921
B. Housing currently in process (in planning entitlement process or in building permit
process)
271
SUBTOTAL (Built, Building Permit Issued, Entitled, Entitlement or in Building Permit
Process)
1,192
C. Potential housing in existing residentially zoned sites 264
D. Potential housing in commercial zoning districts that could accommodate mixed use
development (including SOFA sites, Mayfield Development Agreement sites)(w/some
zoning cleanup amendments required)
1,335
E. Potential Housing on City owned surface parking lots around University and California
Avenue (need rezoning)
185
SUBTOTAL 1,784
TOTAL 2,976
With the exception of Categories D and E, all of the above housing sites can be
accommodated within existing zoning. Category D could require some minor
zoning code cleanup to accommodate 20 units per acre on some housing
inventory sites, and Category E would require a zone change of certain parking
lots in order to allow for housing (note again that the hotel residential units,
recommended by the RHMC, would not require rezoning).
If the Council believes the suggested sites are not adequate, some options could
include:
July 09, 2012 Page 8 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Assuming higher densities on existing RM-30 or RM-40 parcels.
Designating limited rezoning on some commercially zoned sites on El
Camino Real.
Reviewing additional sites that are not entirely consistent with Council
direction.
During the discussion by the Council’s Regional Housing Mandate Committee,
adjustments were made to the Housing Inventory Sites list, with the primary
recommended changes including: a) deleting the parking lots from the listing, b)
adding the potential for hotels to include residential condominiums, as allowed by
zoning, and c) adding a few other sites not previously included or modifying
densities on some sites to exceed 20 units per acre. The modifications would still
result in zoning for an adequate number of units to meet the RHNA targets.
Details of the suggestions are outlined in the discussion of the Committee’s
actions below and are summarized in Attachment A.
Incentives
As an incentive for developing mixed use in addition to commercial development
on the commercially designated sites listed on the HIS, the draft Housing Element
includes a new program that would eliminate the Site and Design process under
specific limited conditions.
H2.2.2 PROGRAM Implement an incentive program within a year of Housing
Element adoption for properties identified as a Housing Inventory Site to
encourage housing production on those sites. The incentive eliminates Site and
Design Review if the project meets the following criteria:
The project has 9 residential units or fewer
A residential density of 20 dwelling units per acre or higher
Maximum unit size of 900 sq. ft.
Only Architectural Review would be required for those inventory sites proposing
mixed use development that meets those specific density and size requirements.
This concept still allows property owners to develop any uses allowed under the
existing zoning, consistent with all current development requirements.
Staff originally proposed the inclusion of additional incentives if needed to
encourage mixed use development. The Planning and Transportation
July 09, 2012 Page 9 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Commission (PTC) indicated that concessions provided by the State density bonus
law would be available to address any code requirements not conducive to
developing mixed use, such as height and parking requirements. Furthermore, a
new program in the draft Housing Element calls for exploring limited exceptions
to the 50-foot height policy for HIS properties within a quarter mile of fixed rail.
The proposed program is as follows:
H2.1.1 PROGRAM Consider allowing high density residential in mixed use projects
in commercial areas within half a mile of fixed rail stations. Explore limited
exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Inventory Sites within a quarter
mile of fixed rail stations to encourage higher density residential development.
Minimal zoning ordinance changes would be required for HIS sites in specific zone
districts.
The Public Facilities (PF) zone would need to be amended to allow for residential
units on parking lots, though the Regional Housing Mandate Committee (RHMC)
recommended against that proposal. Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoning
would need to be revised to allow those parcels in the HIS to increase their
density from the current 15 units per acre to 20 units per acre if compliant with
the provision of the smaller units, to be consistent with the proposed programs.
The RHMC also recommended that Site and Design Review be required for any
development proposed at over 50 feet in height, even if compliant with other
incentive criteria.
Smaller Units
The City Council provided clear direction to develop policies with a greater
emphasis towards smaller residential units. Smaller units are generally more
affordable and typically generate fewer impacts to many of the City’s
infrastructure and services, including roads, water, sewer and schools. As Palo
Alto’s senior population continues to increase, the need for smaller senior units is
important as many senior households have become “empty nesters” and would
prefer to downsize. In addition, the proximity to Stanford University and the City’s
concentration of startup/incubator companies creates a unique demand for
smaller, more affordable units. There is also a growing demand for multifamily
units near services and transit, by both seniors and young urban professionals,
who are choosing to live closer to services, thus reducing traffic impacts. Some
programs encouraging smaller units are listed below.
July 09, 2012 Page 10 of 22
(ID # 2724)
H2.1.5 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that
encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units, including
units for seniors.
H2.2.1 PROGRAM Adopt an ordinance for density bonus concessions to promote
more flexible concessions and incentives to projects that propose smaller units at a
higher density, to encourage development of suitable housing sites currently
planned and zoned for non-residential use with mixed use projects to contribute to
the City’s fair share of the region’s housing needs.
H2.2.2 PROGRAM Implement an incentive program within a year of Housing
Element adoption for properties identified as a Housing Inventory Site to
encourage housing production on those sites. The incentive eliminates Site and
Design Review if the project meets the following criteria:
The project has 9 residential units or fewer
A residential density of 20 dwelling units per acre or higher
Maximum unit size of 900 sq. ft.
Another alternative to encourage smaller units could include eliminating density
limits (but retaining floor area ratio requirements) for a) projects with all units
less than 900 square feet in size, and/or b) 100% affordable housing projects.
Chapter 4: Housing Constraints
This chapter evaluates both non-governmental and governmental constraints to
housing in the community. These are factors that can hinder the production of
new affordable housing. These types of non-governmental constraints generally
relate to the housing market and involve variables beyond the control of the City.
These include the lack of available land, high development costs, and lack of
accessible financing both for the builder and the homeowner.
The City is essentially a built-out city with vacant parcels constituting less than
0.5% of city land. There was considerable housing activity in Palo Alto during the
last planning period (1999-2006) due to the redevelopment of underutilized land
and available financing. However, due to the housing market decline coupled
with the reduced amount of available land, very few new units were added to
Palo Alto’s housing stock in the last few years.
July 09, 2012 Page 11 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Both land and development costs continue to increase, making housing
development more difficult. And due to federal reform of the lending industry,
both builders and potential homeowners have had difficulty obtaining loans to
construct or purchase housing. In addition, the Palo Alto Unified School District is
near or at capacity with its facilities and new housing would certainly strain their
existing resources.
Government constraints to affordable housing relate to local regulations and fees.
These include land use regulations, permit processing time, development fees,
and development requirements such as parking. Proposing to eliminate, or at
least limit, the Site and Design process for development of sites on the Housing
Inventory Sites list should be viewed by HCD as a reduction in constraints for
developing housing sites listed on the inventory.
Chapter 5: Past Accomplishments and New Housing Goals, Policies and Programs
The final chapter of the draft Housing Element assesses how effective the past
Housing Element was in accomplishing its goals through implementation of it
adopted policies and programs. This chapter also identifies appropriate policies
and programs for the planning period. A significant revision to this Housing
Element update is reflected in the Vision Statement. Previously, the City’s long-
term policy was to allow multifamily residential uses on commercially zoned
parcels. That policy supported the entitlement and construction of more than
1,000 residential units on sites with prior commercial uses within the past
Housing Element cycle. However, this policy has jeopardized the economic
viability of some commercial areas, resulting in zoning changes in 2007 to restrict
such conversions.
As a result, the City has targeted areas in the updated Housing Element that are
more appropriate for multi-family housing by providing incentives and outlining
housing sites as described above.
The draft 2007–2014 Housing Element is more focused at targeting appropriate
locations for new housing to meet the City’s housing needs including housing for
seniors and shelter space for the homeless, but it retains most of the overall goals
from the 1999–2006 Housing Element of preserving the neighborhood character
of Palo Alto and providing sufficient housing opportunities for a diverse
July 09, 2012 Page 12 of 22
(ID # 2724)
population. New programs that reinforce the City’s commitment to providing
affordable, higher density housing in appropriate locations include the following:
PROGRAM H2.1.1 Consider allowing high density residential in mixed use
projects in commercial areas within half a mile of major transit stations. Explore
limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Inventory Sites within a
quarter mile of fixed rail stations to encourage higher density residential
development.
PROGRAM H2.1.5 Revise the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district to allow
residential uses on parking lots in commercial districts listed on the Housing
Inventory Sites as long as there is no loss in public parking (note this program was
eliminated by the Regional Housing Mandate Committee).
PROGRAM H2.1.6 Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that
encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units, including
units for seniors.
PROGRAM H2.1.9 Develop a small residential unit overlay district to allow higher
densities in areas designated Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD).
PROGRAM H2.1.10 Explore developing a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
program to encourage higher density housing in appropriate locations.
PROGRAM H2.2.2 Implement an incentive program within a year of Housing
Element adoption for properties identified as a Housing Inventory Site to
encourage housing production on those sites. The incentive eliminates Site and
Design Review and only requires Architectural Review for some mixed use projects
if the project meets the following criteria:
The project has 9 residential units or fewer; and
A residential density of 20 dwelling units per acre or higher; and
Maximum average unit size of 900 sq. ft.
PROGRAM H3.1.1 Amend the City’s BMR ordinance to lower the BMR
requirement from projects of five or more units to three or more units and to
modify the BMR rental section to be consistent with recent court rulings related to
inclusionary rental housing.
July 09, 2012 Page 13 of 22
(ID # 2724)
PROGRAM H3.1.2 Evaluate revising the BMR calculation to base the required
number of BMR units on maximum density allowable on the site rather than the
total number of proposed units in the development.
PROGRAM H3.1.12 Consider conducting a study to assess the impacts of limiting
market rate housing development to the City’s “Above Moderate” allocation of
the current RHNA planning cycle. Report the results to the Planning and
Transportation Commission and City Council (note this program was eliminated by
the Regional Housing Mandate Committee).
PROGRAM H3.5.1 Enter into discussions with local churches participating in the
City’s year round Hotel de Zink emergency shelter program to establish a
permanent emergency shelter in each church within a year of Housing Element
adoption.
Approximately 85% of the policies and programs from the previous Housing
Element remain applicable, although in some cases they were revised or
combined with other programs.
As discussed below, the Council’s Regional Housing Mandate Committee (RHMC)
suggested modifications to some of the programs, including elimination of
programs H2.1.4 (parking lots) and H3.1.12 (above market rate study), and
assuring Site and Design review applies to any project in excess of 50 feet in
height (Program H2.1.1).
At the end of Chapter 5 is an Appendix that lists all the programs from the 1999-
2006 Housing Element, identifies if the program was implemented, if it was an
effective program and whether it should be retained in the 2007–2014 Housing
Element. Staff has also provided a disposition table entitled Goals, Policies and
Programs Disposition (Attachment C) that cross references the 1999-2006 Goals,
Policies and Programs with the 2007–2014 Housing Element. The 1999-2006
Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs can be accessed online
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/inc/displayblobpdf2.asp?BlobID=26924).
The Disposition table identifies if the previous goal policy or program was
unchanged, revised, merged with another goal, policy or program or deleted.
July 09, 2012 Page 14 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Relationship to Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS)
With the passage of SB 375, metropolitan regions are now responsible for the
development of a Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS). The goal of the SCS is to
create a 25-year land use strategy while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions through an integrated transportation plan. As part of the SCS process,
new RHNA numbers will be assigned to each jurisdiction for the next 2015-2022
planning cycle. Palo Alto has tentatively been assigned 2,192 units for the next
cycle. However, as the 2007-2014 RHNA cycle is coming to a close, those sites
identified in this Housing Element update may be included in the new SCS cycle
unless they are approved for development in the next two years. The proposed
2007-2014 Housing Element is not related directly to the current SCS effort,
however.
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Review
Since the summer of 2008, staff has been working on updating the City’s Housing
Element covering the 2007-2014 planning period. Beginning in June of 2009, staff
has met ten times with the PTC to discuss the Housing Element; three of those
meetings focused on only the Housing Inventory Sites (HIS). The other meetings
were discussions about the specific goals, policies and programs to be included in
the updated Housing Element.
On April 11, 2012, staff presented the complete draft Housing Element for PTC
review. While PTC had some comments about the “technical” chapters, a
majority of the comments were focused on Chapter 5, “Goals, Policies and
Program”. The main comments from the PTC focused on the following programs:
Program 2.1.1 - Consider allowing high density residential in mixed use
projects in commercial areas within half a mile of major transit stations.
Explore limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Inventory
Sites within a quarter mile of fixed rail stations to encourage higher density
residential development.
Program 2.1.4 - Revise the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district to allow
residential uses on those parking lots in commercial districts listed on the
Housing Inventory Sites as long as there is no loss in public parking.
Program 2.2.1 – Identify incentives that encourage development of suitable
housing sites currently planned and zoned for non-residential use with
July 09, 2012 Page 15 of 22
(ID # 2724)
mixed use projects to contribute to the City’s fair share of the region’s
housing needs.
Program 2.2.2 - Implement an incentive program within a year of Housing
Element adoption for properties identified as a Housing Inventory Site to
encourage housing production on those sites. The incentive eliminates Site
and Design, requiring only Architectural Review for mixed use project for
residential projects with a residential density of 20 residential units or
higher and a maximum average unit size of 1,250 sq.ft.
The PTC directed staff to work with the Regional Housing Element subcommittee
to address all the comments and return on May 9, 2012 with revised program
language for the four programs. In working with the Housing Element
subcommittee, staff revised three of the programs.
At the May 9, 2012 meeting, staff presented the PTC with some technical changes
and revised program language for the three programs. The revisions to the
programs are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Revised Programs
Proposed Program Commission Comments Revised Program
Program 2.1.4 - Revise the Public
Facilities (PF) zoning district to allow
residential uses on parking lots in
commercial districts listed on the
Housing Inventory Sites as long as there
is no loss in public parking.
Evaluate parking lots for
appropriateness for housing
opportunities
Do not rezone but create a
100% AH overlay zone
Evaluate parking lots in commercial districts
to determine which of the lots are most
appropriate for residential housing
opportunities and revise the Public Facilities
(PF) zoning district to allow higher density
residential uses on those parking lots listed
on the Housing Inventory Sites as long as
there is no loss in public parking.
Proposed Program Commission Comments Revised Program
Program 2.2.2 - Implement an incentive
program within a year of Housing
Element adoption for properties
identified as a Housing Inventory Site to
encourage housing production on those
sites. The incentive eliminates Site and
Design Review requiring only
Architectural Review for mixed use
projects with a residential density of 20
dwelling units per acre or higher and a
maximum average unit size of 1,250 sq.
ft.
Eliminate Proposed Program
Bad idea to waive Site and
Design.
Essential to keep Site and
Design
Unwise to remove
1250 sq. ft. is not a small unit
Other incentives may be
better (FAR, density, etc.)
Implement an incentive program
within a year of Housing Element
adoption for properties identified as
a Housing Inventory Site to
encourage housing production on
those sites. The incentive eliminates
Site and Design Review if the project
meets the following criteria:
The project has 9 residential
units or fewer
A residential density of 20
dwelling units per acre or higher
Maximum unit size of 900 sq. ft.
July 09, 2012 Page 16 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Program 2.2.1-Identify incentives,
including the promotion of density
bonus, that encourage development of
suitable housing sites currently planned
and zoned for non-residential use with
mixed use projects to contribute to the
City’s fair share of the region’s housing
needs.
Eliminate program.
Provide incentives for
affordable rental unit
Adopt an ordinance for density bonus
concessions to promote more flexible
concessions and incentives to projects that
propose smaller units at a higher density, to
encourage development of suitable housing
sites currently planned and zoned for non-
residential use with mixed use projects to
contribute to the City’s fair share of the
region’s housing needs.
The Housing Element Subcommittee reviewed Program 2.1.1 and recommended
that the PTC review the program and its merits at the May 9, 2012 meeting. After
further discussion, the PTC recommended not to the revise that program. The
PTC recommended the City Council forward the Housing Element to HCD. The
minutes of the April 11 and May 9 meeting have been included as Attachment D.
The PTC changes are reflected in the Draft Housing Element.
Regional Housing Mandate Committee Review
On June 14, 2012, the Council’s Regional Housing Mandate Committee (RHMC)
reviewed the draft Housing Element. The Committee provided feedback primarily
relating to the proposed Housing Inventory Sites and programs. Many of the comments
from the RHMC were similar to the PTC concerns.
The RHMC requested that staff add programs or revise the proposed programs as
follows:
Add a program to encourage the acquisition and conversion of
existing multifamily developments to affordable housing to help
meet the City’s RHNA numbers.
Revise programs to strengthen the proposed language to protect
existing R-1 and low density neighborhoods.
Assure that Site and Design review is required for all developments
that exceed the 50 foot height limit.
The RHMC also discussed the potential for creating a Grocery Overlay district to
help preserve existing retail grocery uses, given the inclusion of a couple of
grocery stores on the HIS.
The RHMC recommended the following actions:
July 09, 2012 Page 17 of 22
(ID # 2724)
1. Include a program that would incentivize the attainment and
conversion of existing multifamily apartments to affordable housing
apartments, including incentives;
2. Eliminate City owned parking lots and the Creekside Inn parking lot
parcel from the Housing Inventory Sites list;
3. Strengthen language to protect R-1 and low density residential
districts;
4. Require Site and Design review for any development over 50 feet and
clarify the relationship between Density Bonus and Housing Element
incentives;
5. Review the housing overcrowding data and text and potential
conflicts with the Housing Element emphasis on smaller units and
revise the text accordingly; also adjust text for the senior housing
section to better emphasize the specific Palo Alto needs;
6. Include hotel condominium units towards the RHNA requirements;
and
7. Create a proposed program to adopt a Grocery Overlay zoning.
The RHMC directed staff to address the recommendations and return on June 26
to present staff responses to the seven recommendations. Below is a brief
synopsis of staff’s responses and proposed changes.
1. Create a program to incentivize the conversion of existing multifamily
developments to affordable housing apartments.
Staff Response: Staff will include a new proposed program that encourages
looking at existing multifamily units to convert to long term affordable
units. The new program would read:
Program 3.4.4 The City will work with affordable housing developers to
pursue opportunities to acquire, rehabilitate and
convert existing multi-family developments to long term
affordable housing units to contribute to the City’s fair
share of the region’s housing needs.
2. Eliminate City owned parking lots and Creekside Inn from the HIS.
July 09, 2012 Page 18 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Staff Response: Since the RHMC recommended eliminating City owned
parking lots and the Creekside Inn parking lot parcel, this recommendation
created a deficit of 78 units in addressing the City’s RHNA requirements.
Therefore staff proposed: a) adding alternative sites that could support 20
dwelling units per acre and higher density of 30 du/ac (likely requiring
rezoning on one site already on the HIS, and b) adding hotel site residential
unit potential as well. This effort yielded 194 new units, thus creating a
surplus of 116 units. Note that all CN zoned and RM zoned sites on the HIS
that require zoning to 20 dwelling units per acre will be addressed during
the zoning ordinance update after certification of the HE. The added and
revised sites are shown in Tables 2 and 3 below:
Table 2: Added Sites to HIS
Added Housing Sites Current Zoning Acreage
Potential
Yield with
Current
Zoning
Potential
Yield @ 20
du/acre
Net
Yield Note
587 Maybell
Ave. (Clemo) RM-15/R-2 2.47 34 49 45 Existing 4
units on site
3707 El Camino Real CN 0.18 2 3 3
Purchased by
PAHC with
3705 ECR
4151 Middlefield Rd. RM-15 .93 13 18 18 Existing Office
Building
Hotel Condos* 113
Total 179
* Please see subsequent discussion regarding hotel condominiums.
Table 3: Revisions to Proposed HIS Parcels
Housing Sites
Current
Zoning Acreage
Potential
Yield with
Current
Zoning
Yield
with
Increase
Density
Net
Yield Note
4146 El Camino Real RM-15 .77 11 15 4 Assumed 20du/acre
130 Sheridan Ave. GM/PTOD 1.13
23
(at 20
du/acre)
34 11 Assumed 30du/acre;
requires PTOD
Total 15
July 09, 2012 Page 19 of 22
(ID # 2724)
3. Strengthen language to protect the existing R-1 and low density residential
neighborhoods.
Staff Response: Staff will include a new policy to read:
Policy H1.4 Assure that new development provides appropriate transitions
from higher density development to single family and low
density residential districts in order to preserve neighborhood
character.
4. Require Site and Design Review for any development exceeding the 50 foot
height limit.
Staff Response: Program 2.1.1 would be revised to include language that
all developments that exceed the 50 ft. height limit will require Site and
Design review.
The revised Program 2.1.1 would then read: “Consider allowing high
density residential in mixed-use projects in commercial areas within a half
mile of fixed rail stations. Explore limited exceptions to the 50-foot height
limit for Housing Inventory Sites within a quarter mile of fixed rail stations
to encourage higher density residential development. In all instances
where the height limit exceeds 50 feet, Site and Design Review is required.”
5. Revise the Housing Needs chapter to revise the text and conclusions
regarding overcrowding data and senior housing to be consistent with the
proposed housing policies and programs.
Staff Response: Staff reviewed the existing narratives and the proposed
language is included in Attachment A.
6. Include hotel condominiums toward the RHNA requirements.
Staff Response: Current zoning allows that up to 25% of new hotel FAR and
25% of the units may be developed for residential use. Under RHMC
direction, staff has added the potential yield of a 113 housing units from
July 09, 2012 Page 20 of 22
(ID # 2724)
the approved Hilton Homewood (Palo Alto Bowl), Hilton Gardens and
Ming’s hotel developments to the Housing Inventory Sites list.
7. Create a proposed Grocery Overlay District.
Staff Response: A Grocery Overlay District or zoning would likely take the
form of limiting mixed use development on an existing grocery site (e.g.,
Whole Foods, Molly Stone’s, etc.) such that a residential component would
not be allowed unless a grocery use of at least the same square footage is
provided. Staff noted that the City could not generally require only a
grocery use in a commercial zone, but could preclude mixed use without
the grocery.
At the June 26 meeting, the RHMC accepted staff’s proposals to its June 14
recommendations with a few other minor changes (see Attachment A). The RHMC
recommended that the Council forward to PTC a recommendation for initiation of
a Grocery Overlay Zone for grocery stores on designated sites with the intent that
housing be permitted only where the existing grocery (or a similar sized store) is
retained. This would apply to any application submittal after June 26, 2012. Staff
will accept that direction from Council as effectively initiating the zoning revision,
although that item was not specifically noticed for this agenda. The Housing
Element will not reflect the zoning ordinance change.
The RHMC unanimously recommended that the Housing Element be forwarded
with the above changes to the City Council for its review. A list of the
recommended text revisions for Chapter 2 and a few other minor edits to
programs are included in Attachment A of the report.
Timeline
On May 9, 2012, the PTC recommended that the City Council forward the draft
Housing Element to the State Office of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) for a compliance review with state law. The Council’s Regional Housing
Mandate Committee reviewed and suggested revisions to the draft on June 14
and June 26, 2012. If approved by the Council, the Housing Element will be sent
to HCD for review. HCD has 60 days to provide comments on the adequacy of the
City’s draft Housing Element. If revisions of the document are required, which is
likely, staff will draft revisions. The PTC will then be asked to make a formal
July 09, 2012 Page 21 of 22
(ID # 2724)
recommendation to the City Council to adopt the 2007-2014 Housing Element
and to adopt appropriate environmental clearance. After the City Council adopts
the Housing Element, it will be returned to HCD for final review and certification.
Resource Impact
The preparation of the Housing Element has been included in the Department of
Planning and Community’s Comprehensive Plan Amendment budget. Staff time,
including the retention of consultants, has already been identified in the
departmental workplan. As previously mentioned, the State is now requiring a
certified Housing Element to be eligible for many State housing, transporation or
infrastructure funding grants (including the recently enacted One Bay Area
Transportation Grant Program). The failure to enact a certified Housing Element
could impact the City’s ability to compete for this State funding.
Policy Implications
The proposed updated Housing Element is consistent with existing City Policy,
particularly the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Housing Element update
process enables the Housing Element to be updated to focus on current City
policy and to adequately reflect the City’s vision consistent with or modfied from
the goals of the existing Housing Element. Many of the proposed Housing
Element goals, policies and programs have been retained from the current
Housing Element. The updated Housing Element is intended to provide an
effective guide in meeting the State HCD requirements.
Environmental Review
It is anticipated that an Initial Study would support preparing and adopting a
Negative Declaration for the Housing Element Update, particularly given that
nearly all of the potential units could be accommodated under current zoning.
The environmental review would be completed prior to City adoption of the
Housing Element after the City receives comments from the State regarding the
adequacy of the draft Housing Element and makes any requisite changes.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Regional Housing Mandate Committee Recommended Text Changes to
Housing Element (DOCX)
Attachment B: Building Block Diagram of Tiers to Meet City RHNA Numbers (DOC)
Attachment C: Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs Disposition Table (PDF)
July 09, 2012 Page 22 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Attachment D: April 11 and May 9, 2012 Planning and Transportation Excerpt Minutes
(PDF)
Attachment E: Menlo Park Housing Element Settlement Staff Report Excerpt, May 22, 2012
(PDF)
Attachment F: Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element Update (Hardcopies to Councilmembers
and Libraries only). (DOCX)
Prepared By: Tim Wong, Senior Planner
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
1
Regional Housing Mandate Committee Text Changes
Recommended to Council June 26, 2012
At the June 26, 2012 meeting of the Regional Housing Mandate Committee, the RHMC
recommended revisions to the text in Chapter 2 and minor revisions to a few policies, in
addition to the more substantive changes noted in the Council’s July 9, 2012 staff
report. These following changes should be approved for incorporation into the
document prior to forwarding to the State:
In addition to the recommendations, the RHMC made other noted changes. They are
listed as follows:
1. Include language in Section 1.2, page 2, at the end of the second paragraph,
stating that: “The City of Palo Alto notes, however, that ABAG’s housing
projections were 84% higher than actual growth during this planning period,
resulting in overstated housing (RHNA) targets for the City (and other cities
throughout the Bay Area).”
2. The top two paragraphs on page 25, in the section about Overcrowding, will be
revised to read as follows:
“There are units in some of the assisted housing developments in the City that
are both larger size and affordable. As an example, the Arastradero Park
development includes fourteen three-bedroom units and four four-bedroom
units. However, given the rapid rise in the rents of large apartments, more
family sized apartments are needed to help keep rental costs down as well as
reduce overcrowding. Additionally, 50 family units are under construction at 801
Alma Street (Eden Housing and Community Working Group).
The most obvious need for over crowded households in Palo Alto is, of course,
large housing units that are adequately sized for large families. Typically there is
a need for three, four and five-bedroom housing units for households that are
overcrowded due to family size. Although dDevelopers in the City of Palo Alto
are building morein the past decade have typically built three and four-bedroom
units, thosethough these units are usually expensive to rent or buy. ;
overcrowded households are in need of affordable and large housing units with
assisted rental programs. Small households in Palo Alto are sometimes also
overcrowded because of the high cost of housing. Therefore, Aaffordable
housing, primarily affordable rental housing, is needed tocan help further reduce
overcrowded households. This need is becoming more critical given the near
doubling of rents for all units between 1990 and 2001. The City of Palo Alto,
however, experiences a relatively small percent of overcrowding compared to
the County, Statewide and in nearby cities.”
2
3. The last two paragraphs on page 28, in the section about Senior Households, will
be revised to read as follows:
“The supportive living facilities for Palo Alto’s elderly include nursing care
facilities as well as non-profit and for-profit residential care facilities. Lytton III
provides skilled nursing care for approximately 145 elderly persons. Lytton III is
part of the Lytton Gardens complex (Lytton I, II, III and IV [Lytton Courtyard]),
which is the only development in Palo Alto that provides a full range of living
options for lower income elderly ranging from independent living to assisted
living to skilled nursing care.
The Fabian Way Senior Housing project at 901 San Antonio Road has 56
subsidized units for seniors. Additionally, the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish
Life at 899 Charleston Road has 24 Below Market Rate Units currently under
construction. Table 2-26 lists the existing residential care facilities available
currently for seniors. Although the City has been active in the creation of
additional senior housing facilities, there still is a great need for senior housing.
As the senior population continues to increase, coupled with the fact that 38% of
Palo Alto seniors earn less than $50,000, the demand will continue to increase.
Many of the Housing Element’s programs are focused on this escalating need.”
4. The last paragraph on page 33, in the section about Large Households, will be
revised to read as follows:
“The majority of Palo Alto’s owner-occupied housing stock (43 percent) has
three bedrooms and approximately 38 percent contain four or more bedrooms.
Most of the rental housing, however, contains one or two bedrooms (71
percent). Because Palo Alto has a limited supply of larger rental units to
accommodate large family households, most large families face an above-
average level of difficulty in locating adequately sized, affordable housing. Even
when larger units are available, the cost is generally higher than that of smaller
units. The lack of supply, compounded with the low-incomes of larger families,
results in many large families living in overcrowded conditions.”
5. The following draft Housing Element policies or programs will be deleted. They
are as follows:
H2.3 POLICY Discourage the conversion of lands designated as
residential to non-residential uses and the use of multiple family residential
lands by non-residential uses, such as private schools and churches, unless there
is no net loss of housing potential on a community-wide basis.
H2.3.1 PROGRAM Change the Zoning Code to clarify exclusive “non-
3
residential” uses in a multiple-family residential zone are not permitted unless
the project can demonstrate an overriding benefit to the public or the project
results in no net planned or existing housing loss. Planning Commission and City
Council approval would be required in such instances.
H3.1.12 PROGRAM Consider conducting a study to assess the impacts of
limiting market rate housing development to the City’s “Above Moderate”
allocation of the current RHNA planning cycle. Report the results of the study to
the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council.
H3.3.2 PROGRAM Allow the construction of affordable housing on surplus
sites that are near both transit and community services and are designated
Major Institution/Special Facilities under the Comprehensive Plan.
6. Several programs will be revised. The revisions appear as underline and/or
strikethrough text.
Current Program Revised Program
H2.2.2 PROGRAM Implement an incentive
program within a year of Housing Element
adoption for properties identified as a
Housing Inventory Site to encourage
housing production on those sites. The
incentive eliminates Site and Design
Review if the project meets the following
criteria:
The project has 9 residential units or
fewer
A residential density of 20 dwelling
units per acre or higher
Maximum unit size of 900 sq. ft.
H2.2.2 PROGRAM Implement an
incentive program within a year of
Housing Element adoption for
properties identified as a Housing
Inventory Site to encourage housing
production on those sites. The
incentive eliminates Site and Design
Review if the project meets all the
following criteria:
The project has 9 residential
units or fewer
A residential density of 20
dwelling units per acre or higher
Maximum unit size of 900 sq. ft.
H3.1.6 PROGRAM Encourage the use of
flexible development standards including
floor area ratio limits, creative
architectural solutions and natural
resource conservation, in the design of
projects with a substantial BMR
component.
H3.1.6 PROGRAM Encourage the use of
flexible development standards
including floor area ratio limits, creative
architectural solutions and natural
resource conservation, consistent with
the provisions of the Density Bonus
Ordinance, in the design of projects
with a substantial BMR component.
H3.1.14 PROGRAM Annually monitor
the City’s progress in the construction of
H3.1.14 PROGRAM Annually monitor
the City’s progress in the construction
4
Current Program Revised Program
housing for all income levels including the
effectiveness of housing production in
mixed use developments.
or conversion of housing for all income
levels including the effectiveness of
housing production in mixed use
developments.
ATTACHMENT B
“Building Block” Approach to Meet City
RHNA Number of 2,860 Units
2,976 Total
Housing Units
331 Potential Units
In Existing Residentially Zoned Sites
959 Units
Units Built or Building Permits Issued
233 Units
In Entitlement or Building Permit Process
1,340 Potential Units
In Commercially Zoned Sites
113 Potential Units
Hotel Condominiums
1996-2006
Housing Element
NO
CHANGE REVISED MERGED REMOVED 2007-14 Housing Element
See H2.1
Policy H-1:X See Goal H-1
Policy H-2:X See H2.1
Program H-1 X See H2.1.1
Program H-2 X See H2.1.2 and H3.3.1
Program H-3 X See H2.2.1
Program H-4 X See H2.1.2
Program H-5 X See H2.1.1
Program H-5-A X See H2.1.1
Program H-5-B X X See H.2.1.1 and H2.1.8
Program H-5-C X See H3.3.2
Program H-5-D X See H.2.1.1 and H2.1.8
Program H-5-E X Deleted
Program H-5-F X Completed
Program H-5-G X See H2.1.2
Program H-5-H X See H2.1.3
Program H-5-I X Completed
Program H-5-J X See H3.1.6
Program H-5-K X Completed (SEE 2.1.3 AND 2.1.9)
Program H-5-L X Deleted
Program H-6 X See H2.1.5
Program H-7 X Completed
Program H-8 X Completed
Program H-9 X H1.1.2
Program H-10 X Completed
Program H-11 X Completed
Program H-12 X Completed
Policy H-3:X See Policy H2.2
Program H-13 X See H.2.2.1
Program H-13-A X See H.2.2.2
Program H-13-B X See H.2.2.2
Program H-13-C X See H.2.2.3
Program H-14 X See H.21.4
Program H-15 X Deleted
Policy H-4:X See Policy H2.1 and Program H2.2.1
Program H-16 X See H2.1.11
Program H-17 X See H2.2.4
Program H-18 X See H2.1.4
Program H-19 X Completed
Policy H-5:X Deleted
Program H-20 X Deleted
Policy H-6:X See H3.3
Program H-21 X See H3.3.1
Program H-22 X See H3.3.3
Program H-23 X See H3.3.1
Policy H-7:X See H3.1.14
Program H-24 X See H3.1.14
See H1
Policy H-8: X See H1.1
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS DISPOSITION
GOAL H-1: A Supply of Affordable and Market Rate Housing That
Meets Palo Alto’s Share of Regional Housing Needs
GOAL H-2: Conservation and Maintenance of Palo Alto’s Existing
Housing Stock and Residential Neighborhoods.
Page 1 of 3
1996-2006
Housing Element
NO
CHANGE REVISED MERGED REMOVED 2007-14 Housing Element
Program H-25 X See H1.1.1
Program H-26 X Completed
Policy H-9: X See H1.2
Program H-27 X See H.3.1.13
Program H-28 X See H3.1.3
Program H-29 X See H1.2.1
Policy H-10: X See H1.1.3
Program H-30 X See H1.1.3
Policy H-11: X See Policy H1.3
Program H-31 X See H1.3.1
Program H-32 X See H1.3.1
See H3
Policy H-12: X See H3.1
Program H-33 X See H3.1.5
Program H-34 X See H3.3.1
Policy H-13: X See H4.1.3
Program H-35 X See H4.1.7
Program H-36 X See H3.1.2
Program H-37 X Completed
Program H-38 X See H3.1.10
Program H-39 X See H3.1.6
Program H-40 X See H3.1.2.g
Program H-41 X See H3.1.11
Policy H-14: See Policy H3.1 and Program 3.3.7
Program H-42 X See H3.3.4
Program H-43 X See H3.2.2
Program H-44 X See H3.3.5
Policy H-15: X See H3.1 and Program H3.4.2
Program H-45 X See H3.4.1and H3.4.2
Program H-46 X See H3.4.2
Program H-47 X Deleted
Program H-48 X See H3.4.1
Program H-49 X See H3.4.2
Program H-50 X See H3.1.8
Program H-51 X See H3.4.3
Policy H-16: X See H3.1.7
Program H-52 X See H3.1.7
Program H-53 X See H3.1.9
Policy H-17: X See H3.1.9
Policy H-18: X See H4.2
Program H-54 X See H2.1.5
Program H-55 X See H4.2.1
Policy H-19: X See H2.1.2
Program H-56 X See H2.1.2
Policy H-20: X Deleted
Policy H-21: X See H3.5
Program H-57 X See H3.5.1
Program H-58 X See H3.5.1
Policy H-22: X Deleted
Policy H-23: X See H3.3.7
Program H-59 X See H3.3.6
Program H-60 X See H3.3.7
GOAL H-3: Housing Opportunities for a Diverse Population,
Including Very low-, Low- and Moderate-Income Residents, and
Persons with Special Needs.
Page 2 of 3
1996-2006
Housing Element
NO
CHANGE REVISED MERGED REMOVED 2007-14 Housing Element
See H4
Policy H-24:X See H4.1
Program H-61 X See H4.1.1
Program H-62 X See H4.1.2
Program H-63 X See H4.1.3
Program H-64 X See H4.1.4
Program H-65 X See H4.1.4
Program H-66 X See H4.1.5
Program H-67 X See H4.1.6
See Goal H5 and Policy H3.2
Policy H-25:X See Policy H5.1
Program H-68 X See H5.1.2
Program H-69 X See H5.1.4
Program H-70 X See H5.1.5
Program H-71 X See H5.1.6
Policy H-26: X See H3.2.1
Program H-72 X See H3.2.1
GOAL H-5: Reduced Housing Expenses for Energy
GOAL H-4: An End to Housing Discrimination on the Basis of Race,
Religion, National Origin, Age, Sex, Sexual Orientation, Marital
Status, Physical Handicap, or Other Barriers that Prevent Choice in
Housing.
Page 3 of 3
Page 1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Verbatim Minutes 2
April 11, 2012 3
4
EXCERPT 5
6
Review and Recommendation to Council of Proposed Draft Comprehensive Plan Housing 7
Element. 8
9
Our topic tonight is the consideration of the Draft Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan 10
Amendment. We are going to structure our conversation so that we spend the first half of our 11
meeting more or less reviewing what I call the technical aspects of the document. That’s 12
basically Chapters one through four. If this discussion goes to 8:30 p.m. we are going to stop 13
and assess how much longer we need to take on that part of the Housing Element and if it is 14
more than, I don’t know, if we are nearing completion of that discussion we will take on the 15
housing policies and programs Chapter five. If not we will continue until our next PTC meeting, 16
which is April 25, I believe. So Commissioners if you are good to go with that and you can hold 17
off on your comments or questions about chapter five policies and programs, we will begin with 18
a Staff report. 19
20
Mr. Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: Good evening Chair Martinez and 21
Commissioners, I am Steven Turner the Advance Planning Manager and on behalf of the 22
Department I am pleased to present the Commission with the Draft Housing Element. This is a 23
very important night in that there have been a significant amount of work and effort over 24
unfortunately many years to get to this point, but Staff is very proud of the document that we are 25
able to present to you tonight and that effort was led primarily by the two gentlemen to my right, 26
Tim Wong, our Housing Senior Planner, and Roland Rivera, Senior Planner also in the Planning 27
Division who did a lot of work with regards to the data analysis within the Housing Element. 28
There’s been many people who have worked on this draft document including Cara Silver, from 29
the Attorney’s office providing legal support, our Consultant, Vivian Kahn, who helped us make 30
sure that the document would meet the requirements of the State, and finally Julie Caporgno, our 31
former Chief Planning Official who retired a year ago and just completed her work in advising 32
Staff on the development of the Housing Element. We certainly could not have done this job 33
without her and the rest of Staff participating. So a few thank you’s before we get started 34
tonight. Tim Wong and Roland Rivera will lead the Commission through the Housing Element 35
focusing on the more salient points of the document. That will be followed by Cara Silver from 36
the Attorney’s office will talk a little bit about the environmental review and perhaps some of the 37
timing pressures that we are under for adopting this document, and after that we would be happy 38
to take any questions that you may have. So with that, I think we’re going to be starting off with 39
Tim Wong. 40
41
Mr. Tim Wong, Senior Planner: Good evening Commissioners, I would like to start off by 42
providing a brief background about the Housing Element. It is a State requirement that the 43
Housing Element gets updated every five years, and it’s the only Housing Element of the seven 44
mandated elements that requires State approval. As part of their review they will look into how 45
the City accommodates their RHNA numbers. In other words, the regional housing needs 46
Page 2
allocation. The approval deadline for the Housing Element was June 30, 2009, so we are a little 1
bit beyond that date, but still moving forward. Lastly, the City of Palo Alto is the only 2
jurisdiction in the County that has not submitted a Housing Element at this date. 3
4
There has been significant public outreach in the preparation of the Housing Element. There 5
were two citywide Housing Community Outreach meetings done in late 2010. There was a 6
developer focus group meeting, that’s solely with developers, a non-profit organization group 7
meeting, and there were also two property owner meeting as part of the formulation of the 8
Housing Inventory Sites. There were 14 technical assistant group meetings; the last one being 9
March 19, 2012, in which they were able to review the Draft Housing Element in front of you. 10
There have been 10 Planning and Transportation Commission meetings as you all know. Of 11
those there were two joint City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission meetings. 12
In the May 2010 joint City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission meeting the 13
Council provided direction on where to focus the Housing Inventory Sites. They provided a 14
number of points, some of them including: the sites should be a half a mile of transit stations or 15
well served by transit, not to include parcels zoned R1, R2, or RMD. Lastly, to focus on existing 16
sites zoned for housing or mixed use in proximity to those transit and other services. They also 17
provided direction on the types of housing and that the emphasis was more on smaller units 18
including senior housing and to also again focus smaller units in higher density settings along the 19
California Avenue and Downtown areas. 20
21
Some of the highlights of the Housing Element. Of the goals, policies and programs, 22
approximately 80% of them have come from the existing or the current Housing Element. Based 23
on Council direction there are no rezoning of sites except for the proposed public facility or 24
parking lots and a few CN zones to be compatible with Staff proposed incentives. Lastly, the 25
subcommittee has been working with Staff from June 2010 to April 2011 approximately working 26
on these goals, polices, and programs. As stated many of them were carried over from the 27
previous Housing Element and all the goals and policies do reflect the City Council’s direction 28
for higher density and smaller units. The City Staff has proposed a number of incentives when 29
there are higher densities and smaller units involved. And last, also, of the new programs that 30
have been proposed, a number have been focused on the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) 31
program. Those policies stem from the March 2008 Council meeting in which they reviewed the 32
City’s BMR program and from that meeting they provided direction to the BMR program, and so 33
these programs have wrapped in that Council direction. I would like to now pass over the mike 34
to Roland to explain about the Housing Inventory Sites. 35
36
Mr. Roland Rivera, Senior Planner: Thanks to Tim. Good evening, Commissioners. I’m just 37
going to briefly talk about the Housing Inventory Sites and sort of the evolution of how we got to 38
where we are now. As Tim mentioned, Staff went ahead and had a joint City Council and PTC 39
meeting last May of 2010 and from that the Council gave specific direction on where to focus 40
our search for Housing Inventory Sites. After that meeting we went ahead and met with the full 41
PTC on August and September of 2010 with some Draft Housing Inventory Sites and again, 42
Planning Commission gave us direction and refinement to the inventory. The last meeting we 43
had on the Housing Inventory Sites was December of 2011 and at that point we determined that 44
we can meet the RHNA number of 2,860. 45
46
Page 3
Just to highlight some of the Council direction, they wanted us to focus on commercial sites that 1
currently allow mixed use development and half mile radius around the fixed transit stations, 2
specifically University Avenue and Cal Ave. Also, they wanted us to focus our search on a 3
quarter of a mile buffer from El Camino Real Transit Corridor. Some of the direction that we 4
got from the two property owner meetings that we held with the potential Housing Inventory 5
Sites also gave us more direction on refinement of the inventory. Particularly we focused on 6
sites that were not significantly remodeled or rebuilt in the last 20 years. We also focused on 7
sites that are over 10,000 square feet in size, at which at the calculation of 20 dwelling units per 8
acre will yield approximately five dwelling units per acre. 9
10
A couple of refinements from the December 14, 2011, meeting. We did eliminate one site from 11
that list because we found out that particular site had been redeveloped in the last 20 years. Also, 12
we calculated the site on Sand Hill that’s owned by Stanford right now at a higher yield. Right 13
now it’s zoned RM 40. We originally calculated at 20 dwellings per acre, we calculated now at 14
30 dwelling units per acre. 15
16
Some of the other criteria we did to refine the inventory was focus on sites that have one to two 17
story structures. We believe that anything over that the likelihood of it redeveloping into a 18
residential mixed use was not very likely. Also, based on the two property owner meetings that I 19
mentioned earlier, they recommended that we go ahead with an incentive program as opposed to 20
a required mandatory mixed use requirement on their sites. We came up with an incentive 21
program which we presented last December 2011. If a site is to redevelop with a residential 22
mixed use component at 20 dwellings per acre and an average size of 1,250 square feet that we 23
proposed to go ahead and waive the site and design review. 24
25
Here is the map of the sites. As you can see most of the sites are either in the downtown area 26
near the University Ave. Caltrain station, along El Camino Real, the site right here along Page 27
Mill, Upper Cal Ave., I should say, is part of the Mayfield development agreement site so we 28
went ahead and included that because that will become residential due to the development 29
agreement. As you can see we went ahead, and focused our sights on a quarter of mile of El 30
Camino Real and within the Cal Ave./University Ave. Transit Stations. I will have Tim talk 31
about the next steps. 32
33
Mr. Wong: Ok, thank you Roland. So the next step is that after consideration by the Planning 34
and Transportation Committee it will go to the City Council for their review and their approval. 35
Once it goes to the City Council and hopefully get their blessing, it will be sent off to HCD 36
where they have 90 days to review the Draft Housing Element. Then during that time, Staff will 37
initiate environmental review, which Cara will talk a little bit more about during her 38
presentation. Then after the 90 days the comments will return to the City and then Staff will 39
address those comments. Once Staff addresses those comments it will come back to the 40
Planning and Transportation Committee and then to the City Council for one last go through. 41
Those are the next steps. I would like to turn it over to Cara. 42
43
Ms. Cara Silver, Senior Asst. City Attorney: Thank you. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City 44
Attorney. I wanted to amplify on two points that were made in the presentation. First is the 45
environmental review. This of course is a planning level document that requires environmental 46
Page 4
review. We have not yet preformed that environmental review. It will likely be a negative 1
declaration or a mitigated negative declaration. It possibly could be an EIR, but that is very 2
unlikely. We will look at primarily the traffic impacts associated with siting some of the new 3
housing in the areas that were identified as additional sites on the parking lot areas. So I think 4
that’s the primary focus of that environmental review. That will be done concurrently once the 5
draft has been submitted to HCD, then Staff will start the environmental review process so that it 6
will be underway by the time we receive the comments back from HCD and then the document 7
will come back to the Planning Commission and then the City Council for one final review. We 8
will be in a position for that document to be adopted. 9
10
The other point that I wanted to amplify on and we have discussed this in the past, is the 11
ramifications for not having a Housing Element in place. Since we are very near the tail end of 12
this Housing Element cycle, you may think, well, why don’t we just forgo this and start fresh 13
with the new cycle? There are some problems with that approach. The first problem is that there 14
are some grants as we have talked about in the past that are dependent on having an effective 15
Housing Element on file. We don’t want to lose that opportunity in the next year or two to 16
receive that grant funding. Second, as the economy begins to pick up and we will expect more 17
residential development there is a process in the Housing Element law that allows developers to 18
sue the City for not having an effective Housing Element and can actually require that the City 19
issue permits regardless of zoning or entitlements in place. The grounds for that drastic remedy 20
is the fact that there is not a Housing Element that has been certified by the State. So there are 21
some serious ramifications with not having a certified Housing Element. 22
23
Also, when we look at our Housing Element RHNA number for the next cycle, one of the 24
penalties for not having a current Element on file is what’s called the carryover effect. So any of 25
the unmet RHNA allocation in the current cycle that has not been built will actually carry over to 26
the subsequent cycle and so our RHNA allocation will be increased by the units that have not 27
been built in the previous cycle. Finally, there is a new provision in State law which provides 28
actually an incentive for having an effective Housing Element. That is the period of time to go 29
through the whole Housing Element process again and the time period is shortened to five years 30
if you do not have an effective Housing Element, but it is increased to eight years if you do have 31
a certified Element. So it provides an incentive to get a Housing Element on file even though 32
there is only a small window left of this current housing cycle. I will be happy to answer any 33
questions. 34
35
Chair Martinez: Planning Director, did you have some comments? 36
37
Mr. Curtis Williams, Planning Director: Yes, thank you Chair Martinez and Commissioners. I 38
just wanted to add a couple things to what the City Attorney just mentioned. One is in terms of 39
some of the implications of not having a Housing Element. One of the things we found a little 40
more than a year ago was one of our non-profit housing groups could not get funding from the 41
state that they had anticipated because the criteria included having a certified Housing Element 42
for the City. They managed to make the project work ultimately, but I think it was a million 43
dollar State grant that they were in line for and didn’t meet that criteria so weren’t able to get 44
that. 45
46
Page 5
I just wanted to reinforce what Ms. Silver said, that since we’re only a couple years away from 1
the end of this cycle, what you are looking at tonight is really covering through that 2014 time 2
frame. I know there can be concerns in looking at a document like this that we’re sort of paving 3
the path for the future of housing in Palo Alto and certainly some of the policies that are in here 4
do I think begin to push that way, but as far as some of the specifics in here and housing sites and 5
all that, we’re looking at the next two to three years essentially. So, your ongoing Comp Plan 6
amendment work is really defining from a land use standpoint where different types of 7
development are appropriate and work that’s going to be coming out of the Sustainable 8
Community Strategy. 9
10
Next housing cycle, which will begin shortly after this one ends, probably in 2014, will define 11
that next eight year period in terms of housing. So just be aware that we are essentially adopting 12
or recommending adopting a document that focuses on the next two to three years of housing 13
opportunities. Again, it’s zoning and as you’ve seen, planning and zoning that would 14
accommodate a certain number of units. It does not commit the City to construct those and then 15
we’ll be into the next cycle. If you have questions later on we can talk about sort of what that is 16
looking like right now because those deliberations are going on in terms of setting numbers for 17
that cycle. Thank you. 18
19
Chair Martinez: Commissioners, before we open the public hearing, do you have questions on 20
what the Staff just presented? Specifically, yes, Commissioner Tuma? 21
22
Commissioner Tuma: Question for the City Attorney, a follow up on these next steps that were 23
on slide 10, the last step here says, “City evaluates and responds to HCD comments.” I guess the 24
question here is to meet the legal requirement, that we have a certified Housing Element, what do 25
we have to do and how long do you anticipate it is going to take from that last next step to 26
getting it done? Getting it certified, and can that be done before our whole Comp Plan is done? 27
28
Ms. Silver: I’ll take the last question first. We do anticipate that the Housing Element will 29
precede the Comp Plan update. Legally that’s fine. With respect to how much time it will take 30
HCD to review, legally they have 90 days. I believe they have been making those comments 31
within the 90 days. I don’t know if planning Staff has any more information on that, but I 32
believe that they typically do make those comments within 90 days and then it all depends on 33
how extensive the comments are. Hopefully they will be minor and we can quickly turn around 34
another draft or final. 35
36
Commissioner Tuma: It doesn’t sound like I asked that question very well. There’s the 37
comments that come back to us, there’s what we do with it, but then what is the step for 38
certification? In other words, for putting that to bed? The reason I’m asking that is because the 39
follow up question is going to be, and Planning Director said something about, “Oh we’d start 40
looking at the Housing Element again maybe sometime around 2014.” But, other than Housing 41
Element fatigue, why wouldn’t we start looking at the Housing Element sooner than that in order 42
to try to get it done by 2014 or 2015, or are we anticipating that the certification process is going 43
to take us until 2014? 44
45
Page 6
Mr. Williams: Yeah, that’s a good question. Hopefully we could look at it before then. The 1
Housing, HCD’s process is pretty unpredictable. I’ve been through several of these before in 2
different cities and you know sometimes it’s an issue of after that initial 90 day review how long 3
they take on subsequent reviews. Depending on the nature of their comments to us, how long we 4
take to try to address their comments, if at some point in time during that process we come back 5
to the Commission or Council that adds time to it. Ultimately we obviously do have to come 6
back to the Commission and Council before adoption so it’s kind of unpredictable. 7
8
There is a new Director at HCD; the longtime Director has left, so we don’t know whether that is 9
going to maybe speed up the process or slow down the process or what, at this point. Typically 10
you get assigned a person on their staff that reviews your Housing Element, they frankly aren’t 11
consistent and who you get is sometimes important. Some of them are very helpful and some 12
maybe less so. So, there’s just a lot of unpredictability there and it would be hard to say without 13
knowing the nature of their comments on how long it would take us to get back, but it could take 14
a while after we get that initial. Like Cara said, I think we’ll get the initial comments back 15
within 90 days. They are pretty much statutorily obliged to do that and I think they have 60 days 16
isn’t it, after another, you know, if we resubmit something to them. So generally the way it 17
works is there is a lot of negotiation back and forth between Staff and HCD staff and then again 18
if there is something really substantive in there that we need to come back to Commission or 19
Council for direction we would do that. Otherwise it’s just a lot of back and forth until we get to 20
a point where we’re pretty comfortable and they sort of say, “That looks like, yes, we would 21
certify that if you adopt it,” then we would come back and go through that. So it could be 22
another 90 days after we get those comments, it could be six months before we are finaled. 23
24
Commissioner Tuma: One last closing thing is that I think there is some wisdom in trying to 25
begin the next Housing Element fairly soon on the tail end of this one. If we do that then at least 26
we will have sort of the benefit of all the thinking that we have been doing and try to get that on 27
the plate quickly because that way we won’t run these various different risks that City Attorney 28
has outlined for us and the thinking won’t have changed that much. I mean it always changes, 29
but if we wait another two or three years and then we get new Council and new direction that 30
will tend to prolong the process. 31
32
Chair Martinez: Maybe I missed it, but did we hear an estimated date when we would have a 33
certified Housing Element considering the environmental review and Council approval and all 34
that? What are we looking towards? 35
36
Mr. Williams: Well, let’s say that if Council approves this document, or directs us to send this 37
draft to the State in June, with 90 days that’s September. We get comments back and 38
optimistically it’s probably 90 days to get everything sort of ironed out and then come back early 39
in 2013 for final approval. So maybe by March of 2013 it will all be buttoned up. 40
41
Chair Martinez: So almost a year from now? 42
43
Mr Williams: Is that unrealistic? Tim, you’ve done this. 44
45
Mr. Wong: Best case scenario that sounds realistic. 46
Page 7
1
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 2
3
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So, I take it that the process is somewhat iterative? So after 4
we submit this we get feedback, we then show them things that they… you sort of negotiate, and 5
then you give them another draft and they either accept it or give you more comments? 6
7
Mr. Williams: Yeah, it can be pretty informal as far as getting back to them. Here’s language 8
that we would use to address the comment that you have brought up, we don’t have to create the 9
whole draft, usually they’ll concur with certain language and then we’d put that language in the 10
draft to come back to you with for your adoption. 11
12
Commissioner Keller: And with respect to Commissioner Tuma’s comment about doing the 13
next iteration of the Housing Element, I assume that we can’t do that until we augment the 14
housing inventory sites based on new RHNA allocation, is that right? 15
16
Mr. Williams: Yeah, we can’t do it until we have our RHNA allocation and then we have to as 17
part of that assess, right. You can’t just take this one and basically adopt it over again. We have 18
to have our new numbers and see what the increment is, but a lot of the sites in here, in this 19
document, should still be available. 20
21
Commissioner Keller: The un-built ones will still be available, but the ones that were built that 22
we are counting as built ones, we have to find new sites for that. 23
24
Mr. Williams: Right. 25
26
Commissioner Keller: And so, give us a timeline of when the new RHNA expects to come out. 27
28
Mr. Williams: The draft RHNA numbers will probably be out in June of this year and then there 29
will be a process though early 2013 of cities being able to review those, appeal them, object to 30
them, etcetera, etcetera, and a formal appeal process that will take us again into early Spring of 31
2013. 32
33
Commissioner Keller: So we will get the final numbers basically in the spring of 2013? Thank 34
you. One last question and that is, I understand that when we do a Housing Element or the 35
Comp Plan if you will, the only time we can consider school impacts and that we can’t consider 36
school impacts for any individual development project. Will the CEQA process evaluate school 37
impacts, and in particular will they evaluate the traffic impacts and the capacity impacts of 38
schools, or is the timeframe so short that there’s nothing to study? 39
40
Ms. Silver: The Statute that you are referring to that limits the City’s ability to look at school 41
impacts has been amended to include all legislative acts, so that would include not only projects, 42
but legislative acts such as the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element. So it’s actually now, 43
it really isn’t possible to evaluate school impacts as part of the Housing Element process. 44
45
Page 8
Commissioner Keller: So our hands are tied. We can’t even look at school impacts ever, in a 1
legislative act, except as a study session? 2
3
Ms. Silver: Well, you know, obviously school impacts are something that’s addressed by the 4
School District, and there are certain compatibility issues that you can look at, but you can’t in a 5
Housing Element limit units due to impacts on the schools. 6
7
Commissioner Keller: But if we reach capacity and that requires new schools, which requires 8
more traffic, which has land use implications and environmental implications, are those fair 9
game for a CEQA analysis for a Housing Element? 10
11
Ms. Silver: Yes, you can look at that. 12
13
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 14
15
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg. 16
17
Vice Chair Fineberg: Perfect segue. When will the MND or more environmental analysis be 18
conducted, be prepared? You talked about going to Council in June, so does that mean the MND 19
is going to happen sometime between now and Council or after Council and before the State? 20
21
Ms. Silver: I think we would want to wait until June to begin the environmental review to make 22
sure that what is in the Housing Element is an acceptable policy direction. So we would want to 23
get both the Planning and Transportation Commission input and the City Council input on the 24
actual sites that have been designated on the inventory and once they are sort of in review at that 25
level then the environmental review would begin, so I imagine it will begin shortly after the City 26
Council reviews the draft Element. 27
28
Vice Chair Fineberg: But before it goes to the State then, or concurrently? 29
30
Ms. Silver: Concurrently. 31
32
Vice Chair Fineberg: Ok. Would it be appropriate given that we cannot consider impacts at the 33
project level, impacts of new housing on schools, and now you’re saying there is some new 34
legislation that we cannot consider it at the comprehensive plan level, but we can consider the 35
secondary impacts of new construction of schools triggered by the new housing? Would it be 36
appropriate, and will this Housing Element consider the construction projects that are happening 37
at 13 elementary school sites, 3 middle school sites, 2 high school sites and potentially 3 new 38
sites over Cubberley? Are we at the point where the impacts trigger looking at all 21 of those 39
construction projects? 40
41
Ms. Silver: The School District has already done environmental review on those projects, so 42
they’re the lead agency on those construction projects. 43
44
Vice Chair Fineberg: So none of the impacts on those projects is analyzed in either our Housing 45
Element or in the Comprehensive Plan, when we look at cumulative impacts? 46
Page 9
1
Ms. Silver: It serves as a baseline that those projects have already gone through environmental 2
clearance, and so the expanded schools will serve as the baseline for the environmental analysis 3
that we do for our Housing Element. 4
5
Vice Chair Fineberg: I guess the place I’m losing the thread here is, we had an old Comp Plan, it 6
said if we build 2,500 units there is going to be significant unavoidable impact and Council said 7
save their overriding considerations, the benefit is so valuable to the community we will live 8
with those negative impacts and the good outweighs the bad. We’ve come along 10 years or so. 9
We’ve had 19 construction projects. We haven’t ever looked at those when we look at our Comp 10
Plan. We’ve looked at them as you’re saying, the School District has looked at them on the 11
individual school projects, but when we look at our citywide environmental analysis in the 12
Housing Element and in the Comp Plan it hasn’t looked at the past projects, you’re saying it’s 13
not going to look at the future projects, so when do we ever look at the impact? When does the 14
City and the Comp Plan ever look at the impact of those new construction projects? Just because 15
it’s a different agency that has the authority, it sounds to me like it’s not coming into the Comp 16
Plan or the Housing Element. 17
18
Mr. Williams: My comment would be that the construction of the schools as Cara said, have 19
been addressed and the School District is the lead agency responsible for addressing those to the 20
extent that there are, that that feeds into the overall traffic impacts for the City or something like 21
that. I think that’s part of what our Comp Plan EIR needs to consider, so it needs to look at all of 22
those factors as well as other development, private development that’s happening in the City as 23
well in that context. We’re not looking at individual construction sites, school construction sites 24
to see what impacts are there. That’s the responsibility of the School District to do that, and then 25
relative to the Housing Element I would just make the distinction that what we’ve really focused 26
on doing here, and going back to the current Comp Plan and overriding considerations that 27
included a lot of potential and likely rezoning and new designations and all that kind of stuff. 28
This Housing Element, and maybe the next Housing Element does something like that too, but 29
this Housing Element is essentially relying 90 plus percent on existing zoning, so the only zoning 30
changes that we’re talking about, and using the ground up type of approach of trying to identify 31
sort of what could already be done so what we would really be focusing on here with the 32
Housing Element is the increment of what new might be done. Like on the parking lot sites, 33
which would require rezoning or maybe some small increment of the incentives that we’ve 34
provided to get a few more units on some of these sites, but again it’s a very small increment 35
which is why we think that a negative declaration probably would work for here, negative 36
declaration isn’t going to work for the Comp Plan. Because we know that the Comp Plan has 37
much broader implications and much more potential for growth. 38
39
Vice Chair Fineberg: Thank you. You touched on my last question. You talked about the time 40
frame for the implementation of this Housing Element. It’s going to have a life ending in 2014, 41
so is the environmental analysis conducted with a view that if everything that is being 42
recommended in the Housing Element is built over any period of time, what impact would that 43
have, or is it only what is likely to get built in the limited time of the life of the document? Or 44
maybe there’s some other way, but could you talk a little bit about how the impact is determined 45
based on the very short timeframe, the short life of the document? 46
Page
10
1
Ms. Silver: You know frankly we haven’t addressed that issue yet. I think that we could take 2
both either approach and we need to think that through a little bit more. Obviously you want 3
environmental coverage for the maximum build out in the Housing Element. On the other hand, 4
you want a document that really addresses realistic build out, and so I think there are pros and 5
cons to both approach. 6
7
Vice Chair Fineberg: Ok, because I don’t know what the right answer is right now, but I see a 8
danger in if we take the position that we’re only going to analyze the impact of what gets built in 9
the short two years after adoption, then there is the potential for huge impacts to hit in the five 10
years following it. When we might be in this, forgive me but, the window that Commissioner 11
Tuma referred to where, if 2014 it takes us four or five more years to get a Housing Element 12
we’re not going to be doing additional new environmental analysis and then we’re going to be 13
building the things that we said, “Oh, we don’t have to analyze, because they weren’t going to 14
happen before 2014.” And then we’re going to be in this perpetual state of not having analyzed 15
what’s getting built in the next cycle but then it counts. So I’d like us to not go to that weird 16
place. 17
18
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 19
20
Commissioner Keller: Two quick follow up things. One is a distinction. I understand that the 21
projects, where there is a project that for which the environmental analysis was done by the 22
School District, then obviously the impact has been considered. That provides the capacity of 23
the School District, if you will. To the extent that housing production means that there are more 24
students that exceed that established capacity, for example, the three schools that I’ve considered 25
for Cubberley have not been studied by any CEQA process. Then those would be fair game for 26
study here because that’s over and above whatever the School District has already studied. Does 27
that make sense? 28
29
Ms. Silver: If the housing units that are contemplated in this Housing Element would trigger 30
those additional schools, then yes, that would make sense. If not, then it would be outside of the 31
scope of the environmental analysis here. 32
33
Commissioner Keller: So in other words those things have already been studied are considered 34
within the scope of what, if you will, is about to exist and anything that exceeds that, that means 35
that the capacity that’s being increased beyond that whether it’s an existing school sites or new 36
school sites, is a consequent that has to be studied. 37
38
Ms. Silver: Yes. 39
40
Commissioner Keller: And the second thing, very quick, is in follow up to one other thing that 41
Commissioner Tuma said about starting the next Housing Element right after we get the RHNA, 42
if you will, there are some places in this where we talk about doing studies and things like that. 43
It would be nice to get the results of those studies to incorporate into the next Housing Element 44
so that we could update it to reflect those. Thank you. 45
46
Page
11
Chair Martinez: I want to go from the worst case scenario to the Sustainable Community 1
Scenario (“SCS”). Planning Director Williams, you touched on the SCS, but what is the 2
relationship, the connection to the Housing Element that we are adopting at this time to the SCS 3
strategy? 4
5
Mr. Williams: Thank you for that question. In many respects there isn’t a relationship, this 6
period ends before the Sustainable Community Strategy begins, which is the next housing 7
period, which basically is the beginning of the Sustainable Community Strategy implementation. 8
So mid-2014 to 2022 time period is the beginning of the implementation of the Sustainable 9
Community Strategy. The vision, the scenarios that you have seen before, we’ve got an item on 10
your agenda next meeting to update you on the latest version, which is called the Draft Preferred 11
Scenario. So that has specific housing numbers in there, most housing numbers have come down 12
very substantially since we saw them last. The RHNA period, the next 8 year period, will be 13
lower than even those numbers. We don’t have final numbers yet but right now it’s looking like 14
it’s around 2,000 units for Palo Alto. That’s in the next period. All of that is geared towards 15
starting with that Housing Element period. This one is essentially they have assumed that 16
obviously for most cities it’s true that Housing Elements are in place and plans are developed up 17
through the 2014 cutoff period. 18
19
Chair Martinez: Commissioners, it’s going on 7:00, we’re not even out of the gate yet. So let’s 20
open the public hearing. We have four speaker cards and we welcome more, so if there is 21
anyone else that cares to speak. Each speaker will have three minutes 22
23
Commissioner Keller: Can they talk about both topics, or are they talking twice? 24
25
Chair Martinez: It would be too complicated. The public is welcome to speak on any topic 26
related to the Housing Element that they choose at this time. Yes, both the policies and 27
programs, Chapter five and Chapter one through four or any other comments you have on the 28
Housing Element, you are welcome to speak on. Vice Chair Fineberg. 29
30
Vice Chair Fineberg: First speaker, Mr. Douglas Moran, second speaker to follow will be Elaine 31
Meyer. 32
33
Mr. Douglas Moran: No green light yet. Hi, I’m Douglas Moran of Matadero Avenue in the 34
Barron Park neighborhood. I’m a member of the Technical Advisory Group, the “TAG,” one of 35
the representatives of neighborhood groups. This process has been extremely frustrating. The 36
question of what Palo Alto needs and what is good for Palo Alto has been almost entirely 37
missing from the considerations. Instead it has focused almost entirely on satisfying the wildly 38
unreasonable demands of ABAG. 39
40
None of the concerns I’ve brought to the process were addressed by these recommendations. 41
First, Palo Alto has a long history of seemingly well intentioned policies having produced the 42
opposite effect and this draft exacerbates those problems. It stands to decrease the jobs/housing 43
imbalance have been used to create large amounts of office space with only small amounts of 44
housing, thereby making the problem worse. Programs H2.1.1 and H2.2.2 seem designed to be 45
abused. Those are the ones about eliminating design review and other incentives. When the 46
Page
12
issue of abuse of incentives and unintentional consequences was raised in the TAG meetings, 1
they were dismissed by statements that this Housing Element represented what the City hoped 2
would be done. Reminders that hope is not a strategy fell on deaf ears. A persistent fallacy of 3
these considerations is that increasing housing supply increases affordability. This observation 4
doesn’t work if you are driving up demand even faster than you are increasing supply, but again 5
that fell on deaf ears. 6
7
The proposal continues the fallacy that locating housing near some form of transit confuses that 8
with the distinction of it being usable transit. If transit takes three, four or more times longer 9
than driving, it’s the equivalent of not being there, but this is not considered in this. This 10
proposal continues the City’s hostility to retail, especially retail at walkable destinations that’s 11
affordable or within a short trip. The City’s prior decision to effectively expel Fry’s Electronics 12
with hostile zoning is an example. 13
14
The desired housing will generate 5 to 10 Caltrain riders, but you are losing hundreds or 15
thousands of daily customers going there who will now have to drive out of the City, generating 16
far more greenhouse gasses. This is not a sustainable community, but this is what Palo Alto 17
looks for. The City has been told time after time the importance of surface parking lots for retail 18
with confirming studies, yet H2.1.5, the city continues to target the elimination of these lots for 19
conversion to housing. This proposal calls for rapid redevelopment targeting commercial 20
buildings that are merely 20 years old, that haven’t been redeveloped in 20 years, and ones that 21
are one to two stories. This is going to increase the cost of retail by having higher and higher 22
rents and creating more and more small ones. The vision here is of two Palo Altos, one for 23
residents for whom price is no object, and another for residents who need to be subsidized in 24
order to live here. Thank you. 25
26
Vice Chair Fineberg: Elaine Meyer, to be followed by Phyllis Cassel. 27
28
Ms. Elaine Meyer: Good evening Chair Martinez and members of the Commission. I’m hoping 29
the Planning Commission will listen to the people who live here and not just to those for whom 30
Palo Alto is a cash cow. Our schools are overcrowded; our roads are jammed and unsafe. You 31
don’t have enough playing fields or enough child care. You know all that. So what can you be 32
thinking when you propose more development? Unfortunately the answer is a few people can 33
make a lot of money by building more and bigger. So what if we don’t get some transportation 34
grants? Our success in proposing road changes is, to say the least, not very good. 35
36
The weekly newspaper had a story about this Housing Element and I printed off the comments 37
today in the thread on the weekly’s town square. By noon today, 20 different people wrote to the 38
online story about these proposals, every writer except 1 is opposed to the densification and 39
removing the 50 foot height limit. For as long as I have time I am going to read little excerpts 40
from the different people because you know what I think, but you need to pay attention to what 41
everybody else thinks as well. 42
43
Ok, one person, “Why would one want to ask the seniors or the needy to live in this expensive 44
area?” Another person, “Smaller units will just mean that families will cram themselves into 45
smaller spaces to get into our schools. Accordingly, are we going to see an improvement in 46
Page
13
transit?” Another person, “I bet these assumptions are all nonsense. If the intent is for the 1
seniors, then they should plan to build more parks and golf courses.” Later on someone 2
mentioned, “If it’s for seniors you should build health facilities.” Another person, “Who gets to 3
pay for the infrastructure? We do. We just raised $76 million for the library. What’s next, more 4
school bonds?” Another person, “It’s been the same policies and strategies for the last 30 years, 5
more high density housing near the train stations. Unfortunately, the train ridership has not 6
increased in proportion to the amount of high density,” and so forth. “At our elementary school, 7
the probability of getting into an elementary school has gone down and has gotten worse.” The 8
last one I’ll read because you can read them yourself online, “Other Cities have told ABAG 9
where to go, ABAG has close ties with the building industry and those developing mass transit. 10
Do the research and find out, it’s all there led by developers and we are the sheep being 11
planned.” And there’s more. Thank you. 12
13
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 14
15
Vice Chair Fineberg: Phyllis Cassel, to be followed by Robert Moss. 16
17
Ms. Phyllis Cassel: I am Phyllis Cassel and I’m reading a letter from The League of Women 18
Voters of Palo Alto, signed by Mary Alice Thornton. The League of Women Voters of Palo 19
Alto has reviewed the latest draft of the Housing Element that is before you tonight. As we have 20
said previously in our testimony before you, we approve most of the proposed new Housing 21
Element. Goal H1 supports a major league housing goal, maintain the quality and vitality of 22
both the immediate and larger neighborhoods, and goal H2 and its policies and programs, as we 23
advocate a diverse housing supply with emphasis on economic diversity. As it is difficult to 24
build affordable units, it is appropriate to place special attention to mechanisms that will support 25
affordable housing. We are glad to see the variety of programs to support goal H2 and to note 26
that the possibility exceeding the 50 foot high limit is still included. Our land shortage requires 27
such measures. We also approve goal H3 with its measures to strengthen our BMR program and 28
goal H4, emphasizing continued efforts against housing discrimination. 29
30
We do have some serious concerns. We still believe that the vision statement of a Housing 31
Element should clearly mention that the community seeks to provide an adequate supply of 32
diverse housing opportunities. Not only has the goal that the City meets its fair share of regional 33
housing need not been included, it is not now included in even a policy or a program. It is 34
vaguely mentioned in program H2.2.1 that perhaps some initiatives might help contribute to the 35
City’s fair share. The League recommends a stronger statement. 36
37
We also believe that it is necessary to encourage an increase in the supply of housing by 38
instituting minimum density requirements for multiple family units. The League of Women 39
Voters of Palo Alto believes it is important to have a valid Housing Element. Without an 40
approved Housing Element it will be difficult to set up appropriate controls on development and 41
the State could limit funds. We urge you to move the Housing Element forward quickly. Thank 42
you. 43
44
Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. 45
46
Page
14
Vice Chair Fineberg: Robert Moss to be followed by Adam Montgomery. 1
2
Mr. Robert Moss: Thank you Chair Martinez and the Commissioners. I have to agree with the 3
comments that Doug Moran and Elaine Meyer presented. I think there are some real problems 4
with this particular version of the housing plan and I have some specifics I want to talk about. 5
6
First of all on schools, several of you raised that point, you should be aware of the fact School 7
District is already talking about having to build three new schools to accommodate the housing 8
already built or approved and underway. So, this additional 2,900 housing units is going to crush 9
the School District, no ifs, ands, or buts. Specifics, there is absolutely no reason to have an 10
incentive program for housing in Palo Alto, specifically program H2.2. You do not drop site and 11
design review for projects in Palo Alto. Some of the biggest complaints I’ve had about housing 12
built in Palo Alto is how ghastly many of them look. So we don’t want to drop that. Some of the 13
other programs that are inappropriate, H1.1.2, an amnesty program to legitimize illegal second 14
units. Terrible idea. I could cite a number of places around the City where I have seen garages 15
and outbuildings converted illegally into housing. You don’t want to legalize people who are 16
criminals. Bad idea. 17
18
Second, there is a proposal to encourage, and I think this is appalling, duplexes in the R1 zone. 19
Been there, done that, it was a disaster. That’s why it was removed. Because it caused 20
tremendous problems with parking, congestion, and traffic. So you’re going back to something 21
that was found out to be a mistake 20 years ago. Bad idea. 22
23
Finally, when you’re talking about looking at commercial buildings that are 20 years old or older 24
and identifying them for redevelopment I think it’s totally inappropriate to pick on those 25
buildings and try to encourage their removal because those are the buildings, especially along El 26
Camino, which provide most of our retail and make our neighborhoods walkable. So anything 27
you do to encourage people to remove or replace them is going to end up raising rents and 28
making retail unaffordable. So, ignore how old they are. If you want to point to the CN and CS 29
zones and say in theory if somebody wanted to come along and build housing on top of them 30
they can do that, and they’ve done that in six or seven locations along El Camino in the last 35 31
years, put that in, but don’t do anything to encourage it. We don’t need to lose any more retail 32
vitality in Palo Alto and we don’t need to have additional housing in places where it doesn’t 33
belong. 34
35
Chair Martinez: Thank you Mr. Moss. 36
37
Vice Chair Fineberg: Adam Montgomery to be followed by Herb Borock. 38
39
Mr. Adam Montgomery: Good evening Chair Martinez and Commissioners, Adam Montgomery 40
representing The Silicon Valley Association of Realtors. I first of all just wanted to thank Staff 41
for putting our letter into the record for today as well as including our organization and myself in 42
the Technical Advisory Group meetings over the last several years. I think it’s been going on for 43
almost four years now, meeting sporadically and we’ve either had our members or myself attend 44
those meetings. 45
46
Page
15
I just wanted to quickly comment that when we started this process the landscape of affordable 1
housing and how affordable housing is paid for has completely changed over the last five years. 2
One of the biggest changes has not only been the redevelopment agencies going away from other 3
cities, but that one change of this City impacts is the Palmer decision happened, I think it was 3 4
years ago and the impact of the Palmer decision really hasn’t been reflected in this document. 5
The biggest change, it has in one of the policies and I’ll address that in a second, biggest change 6
is the inclusionary zoning or BMR mandates cannot apply to rental housing development. There 7
is a policy in there; I think its H3.1.2 J that talks about creating an impact fee for affordable 8
housing that will apply to rental housing. Mountain View tried this a few months ago and they 9
weren’t able to get it through the Council. The reason, why is the Nexus study said the only way 10
we can apply the fee is if we say the increase in supply of rental housing creates a higher demand 11
for rental housing and it increases the cost of rent. And that those two, you’re saying increasing 12
supply increases demand increases rent. There’s a conflict there with some key economic 13
principles of supply and demand. And, so there’s, that way when I look at that out of the City 14
Council, so they’re still working on that now. There’s an issue there. Our concern dragged over 15
a 10 to 15 year process is developers coming in for rental projects will have an advantage over 16
individuals wanting to build ownership housing. We don’t want to see the homeownership rate 17
drop over the next 10 to 15 years. So, that’s one of our major concerns is all these aggressive 18
policies for inclusionary zoning is not going to be applied evenly to both ownership and rental 19
housing. 20
21
A second main issue is there is a pretty big change to inclusionary zoning policy included in this 22
draft and we are opposing H3.1.2 I, because it’s going to apply the rules for inclusionary to 23
zoning and not to the number of units built. This is a huge change and there are a lot of problems 24
that I don’t think really have been talked about or really gone through on this. The main one it 25
was, it’s either going to force the hand of the Planning Commission or City Council to approve 26
the max zoning for development or if they take it down, it’s going to really impact the cost of the 27
developer not being able to finish the project. This is something new, and that definitely needs 28
to be a discussion about this one policy because it’s a pretty big change. With that, thank you 29
very much for your time. Hopefully this meeting doesn’t go all night. 30
31
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 32
33
Vice Chair Fineberg: Herb Borock to be followed by the final speaker, Irvin Dawid. 34
35
Mr. Herb Borock: Good evening Chair Martinez and Commissioners. This meeting on this 36
agenda item violates the California Environmental Quality Act that requires you to be making 37
recommendations on an environmental document at the same time you make a recommendation 38
on the project. As Senior Assistant City Attorney said, this process at this point is going to be 39
choosing housing inventory sites. That is a project on the CEQA. So, oth this Commission and 40
the Council need to have the environmental document at this stage in the process so the public 41
can review it as well. 42
43
In regard to inclusionary zoning I have two suggestions. I’m not sure which one at this time is 44
preferable. One is that you should only have inclusionary zoning for projects that come into you 45
on the government code Section 65915. The second suggestion is that if you want to have an 46
Page
16
inclusionary zoning required in all Palo Alto projects, that it be a percentage of total floor area, 1
so the amount of floor area for affordable housing is a percentage of the total floor area rather 2
than doing it by number of units. 3
4
In regard to the regional housing allocation, I believe there should be a quota system established 5
for each income category. In that once the number of units for that income category is reached 6
during this period of time, that you don’t have any more in that income category unless they 7
come in under the State governing code section that I’ve already cited. 8
9
In regard to housing on parking lots, these are assessment district parking lots and of course we 10
still need to keep the same number of assessment district parking spaces, but I don’t think there 11
should be any parking for any of those housing units because I believe they should be 100% 12
subsidized housing. These are probably low income or very low income units and they are in 13
areas where you don’t need a car. So we could get more units out of that. 14
15
In terms of the reproduction black and white copy that I have of the report, it’s hard to read the 16
column headings because of the shading on the heading. I suggest black and white so for 17
reproduction the public can actually read what the titles are of those headings. In terms of the 18
tables with housing sites, they show only parcel numbers. They should also show street address, 19
the site address, and in the case of parking lots, the parking lot letter designation. There should 20
be maps, so that you can link the tables to the site addresses, or in the case of the parking lots, the 21
parking lot letter designation. Most people don’t look at sites and think of them as a parcel 22
number, they think of it as a site address and they think of it in the parking lot as the parking lot 23
letter designation, and that’s how the table should be and there should be maps that are of 24
adequate size that people can read them. 25
26
In regards to the comments of the previous speaker, I say call their bluff. Let them build rental 27
housing. I don’t think they will, but give them a chance. 28
29
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 30
31
Vice Chair Fineberg: Irvin Dawid. 32
33
Mr. Irvin Dawid: Thank you Planning and Transportation Commissioners. Irvin Dawid, 753 34
Alma. I came in a little late and I just wanted to first comment the first thing that got me was 35
when Director Williams indicated that one of the downfalls of not having an approved Housing 36
Element is that, if I heard correctly, you may not be able to get State housing grants and that can 37
have pretty serious implications. As a recipient myself of subsidized or affordable housing at 38
Alma Place in Palo Alto, I would hate to think that because we don’t have a Housing Element 39
that others will not be able to enjoy the affordable housing that I myself have had. 40
41
A prior person referred to two Palo Alto’s and I think he mentioned it as one in which people 42
who come in here purchasing a home or renting are using the market and the others who are, I 43
guess perhaps like me, who are subsidized, the amount receiving subsidized housing is so pitiful, 44
I don’t really think there is much of that second Palo Alto. However, I think there really is two 45
Palo Alto’s and that is the amount of people who would like to live here and the people here, 46
Page
17
who I think to some extent are doing everything possible to prevent them from moving here. I 1
think you heard some of those comments. I think it’s very important that we not just think of 2
ourselves, that we do think of the future. And that is the definition of sustainability. 3
4
I thought that the question, Mr. Chairman that you asked about the relationship of the 5
Sustainable Community Strategy to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation was very good. As 6
Director Williams said the timing is still off for this current one, but I really would urge you to 7
go to the, and members of the audience as well, to go to onebayarea.org. That’s where you can 8
see the two regional documents that have just come out. One was since March the jobs/housing 9
connection scenario and then one that just came out in April is the draft Bay Area Transportation 10
Investment Strategy. I think because of Senate Bill 375, we are finally seeing that merging of 11
regional planning and perhaps State and local. Although how much the local gets in, it’s all 12
carrots. There really are no sticks. So I’m really hoping that we do everything possible to get an 13
improved Housing Element. 14
15
I will just say going back to that two Palo Alto paradigm, if you will; it’s my understanding that 16
Menlo Park has not had an approved Housing Element since the early 1990’s. It’s just really not 17
a priority for them. I hope we don’t go in that direction, that we are the City that does think of 18
all income strata. Thank you. 19
20
Chair Martinez: Thank you for that. Commissioners, before we close the public hearing, I think 21
if you have questions for any members of the public that spoke it’s a good time that we engage 22
with them. Ok. I’m going to close the public hearing forum now. Commissioners let us start 23
with a round of questions regarding the Chapters one through four. Commissioner Keller. 24
25
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Can I just go ahead and make comments, or do I need to ask 26
questions first? 27
28
Chair Martinez: No, you’re free to do your comments. We’re going to give you five minutes to 29
start. We’ll have a second round. 30
31
Commissioner Keller: So, firstly, a technical issue and that is we should not be modifying the 32
PF zone to allow for affordable housing. Rather what we should do is create affordable housing 33
overlay district that we assign to specific parcels within the PF zone. Otherwise we cause 34
ourselves problems with, for example the Post Office. If it’s bought by a private entity then that 35
could have housing on it, or for example, the El Palo Alto Park, which belongs to Stanford. It 36
reverts back to Stanford, its PF zone; they could put housing on it. So we have to be very careful 37
that we assign which sites have this overlay, not just blanket for the whole district. 38
39
On the next thing, and I’ve said this before is the concept that no good deed goes unpunished. 40
To the extent that housing is built based on the housing inventory sites then all we have to do the 41
next Housing Element is find more sites. To the extent that housing is not built on these sites we 42
can reuse them. So there is no reason to incentivize the creation of housing on those sites. Let 43
the market do its work, we don’t have to help it any further. That means that the housing density 44
bonus law is enough. That has the incentives we need. We don’t need to remove site design, we 45
don’t need to do other things, although I have a wording change if we do keep that, but we’ll talk 46
Page
18
about that later. We don’t need to provide additional incentives over what the State mandates us 1
to have. 2
3
No matter how much housing we build in Palo Alto, I probably would be willing to bet my 4
bottom dollar that we’re not going to have any increased VTA transit in Palo Alto from any kind 5
of housing. The increase in housing in San Jose and thereabouts is going to soak up all the 6
available increase of transit that VTA wishes to provide anywhere in the City. They continually 7
try to cut our transit. So we’re not going to see anymore transit. That being said, Caltrain is a 8
bright spot and in fact in 2012 Caltrain reached a new peak. It has surpassed the old peak. It 9
went down and came back up. So we have a new peak in present use in Caltrain and Palo Alto in 10
fact has gone up dramatically in the last few years, including last year’s, the highest it’s ever 11
been. 12
13
An adequate supply of housing is just not possible in Palo Alto. The demand greatly outstrips 14
supply and any amount of supply you have is a drop in a bucket. So the question is how many 15
drops in a bucket do you provide, but it’s not going to make that much of a difference. Except it 16
will make a big difference of impacting our schools. 17
18
Now we do need to provide housing for seniors because there are people who live in Palo Alto 19
who want to stay in Palo Alto when they get old. So senior housing especially is a need for 20
skilled nursing and assisted living and such, that’s the kind of housing that will allow people to 21
age in our community that we do need to have. There is a need for small units, not just 1,250 22
square feet as the average size. That’s a pretty big unit, but small units for 20 and 30 23
something’s that want to live here and work here so that they don’t have to commute into our 24
City to work at our local high tech businesses. Those are the real needs. That’s what’s not been 25
satisfied from the market. That’s what we need to do. It’s not a matter of the market doing its 26
thing, it’s a matter of us providing structures that create the kind of housing we want and 27
discourage the kind of housing we don’t want. 28
29
I think that we are required to provide a Housing Element, there are problems if we don’t provide 30
a Housing Element and Palo Alto has a big red target painted on its back if we don’t have a 31
Housing Element and people decide to sue us. We’re wonderful targets people like to make an 32
example out of. So we should have a Housing Element. We should create a housing inventory 33
sites to the extent it’s possible to satisfy the requirements, but we shouldn’t bend over backwards 34
to have those sites being built, because as I said no good deed goes unpunished. It will just make 35
our life harder later on. Thank you. 36
37
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 38
39
Commissioner Tanaka: So first I wanted to thank Staff for putting this together. I realize it’s 40
been a lot of work. I also want to thank the subcommittee as well as all of the members of the 41
public and members of the TAG for going through all the different years and putting this all 42
together. I think we’re getting closer. I had a quick question for Staff. I didn’t realize this. So 43
Menlo Park doesn’t have a Housing Element; and I guess how can that be if it’s true? Can 44
someone respond? 45
46
Page
19
Mr. Williams: They have not adopted one; I think the speaker is correct, since the early ’90’s. 1
They just haven’t at this point. They haven’t suffered any repercussions from that I presume. 2
They certainly could be sued for that and I don’t know if they are concerned about it now being 3
tied to transportation grant funding and not being able to get that or not, maybe not. To this 4
point they haven’t done that. 5
6
Just to clarify one thing too, because Tim mentioned that all other cities in Santa Clara County 7
have submitted, that’s the case, but not all other cities in Santa Clara have certified Housing 8
Elements. So there are a couple that either did not get it in… this goes back to the issue of, you 9
know, going back and forth with the State, the City of Santa Clara went back and forth with the 10
State for a long time, maybe still is, did not get it and just said, “Okay, we’re adopting it as it is, 11
and we think that’s good enough.” I don’t know whether a court would uphold that or not, but 12
they did it. Mountain View, I don’t know if theirs is certified yet. I know they have been 13
working with the State. It is certified now? 14
15
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. Well I just found it interesting that our neighboring city has had a 16
long standing effort of no Housing Element. Kind of an interesting strategy. I’m just going to 17
go through some of these items until my time is up and then I’ll pass it on. I also do agree with 18
my fellow Commissioner that more senior housing is needed and more smaller units are needed. 19
So I think the Housing Element is actually headed in the right direction. I think small units is the 20
key, right? Some of these numbers are actually pretty big units. So to keep them small and 21
affordable is the right way of doing it versus trying to create a lot of different incentives. 22
23
I think we reviewed one senior housing project where I think each unit was only 200 square feet 24
but had a lot of common areas. So I think these units do not have to be very large to be effective. 25
There’s maybe a central kitchen. These are more just rooms or suites that people have. So I 26
think that kind of thinking actually makes a lot of sense and encouraging more smaller units I 27
think is probably the right way of trying to meet the Housing element versus trying to create a lot 28
of new single family homes. Which I think doesn’t make a lot of sense given impact to schools. 29
30
I think one of the speakers mentioned APN numbers and I actually had the same thought as well. 31
Definitely having good maps and having the addresses of the parcels would be really helpful 32
because I had a lot of trouble actually trying to figure it out myself. For instance, one comment 33
that I think Mr. Keller and myself made last time was 195 Page Mill. Is that still on the Housing 34
Element? I couldn’t tell by looking at the parcel numbers. 35
36
Mr. Rivera: 195 Page Mill is included, not as a housing inventory site, but as one of the projects 37
that we included in the end process. 38
39
Commissioner Tanaka: Oh, I see, Ok. The other thing is I also agree with the idea that site 40
design is kind of essential especially when you’re having really dense projects and so making 41
that a bonus, which I don’t think there needs to be a bonus, doesn’t seem to be the right idea. I 42
think there should still be site design review; I don’t think there should be an incentive for 43
people, so I’m agreeing with Commissioner Keller’s comments as well. On Page 133, I saw that 44
it was talking about the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. I guess one question I have is, first of 45
all because I can’t tell by the APN numbers, is this on the housing inventory list as well? 46
Page
20
1
Mr. Rivera: No, it’s not. 2
3
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, it’s not. I know that this is being encouraged to be preserved, but if 4
you wanted to actually improve the quality of life, this could be a denser area. So did Staff 5
consider that in terms of maybe having that as a possible housing inventory site? I think you 6
could probably have a pretty high density there of smaller units that are more affordable instead 7
of trailer homes. If not, what was the rationale behind that? 8
9
Mr. Turner: Well, the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park is recognized actually in program 10
H3.1.11, and it recognizes that area as providing low and moderate income housing opportunities 11
and that any redevelopment of the site must be consistent with the City’s Mobile Home Park 12
Conversion Ordinance that was designed to preserve those existing units. So I think what the 13
City is trying to do with that program is to find ways to retain those existing units, but if there’s a 14
way that they could be rehabilitated, get funds to make perhaps more amenities or a perhaps just 15
upgrade the facilities that is a program the City should be focusing on. 16
17
Commissioner Tanaka: I guess my point is more efficient land use. You have trailers versus 18
maybe condos. If there’s an area that could actually possibly benefit from being on the housing 19
inventory list, I think this one is a site for that. So that’s my recommendation. Director? 20
21
Mr. Williams: If I could just clarify, you know the housing inventory list and looking toward the 22
housing numbers and the RHNA specifications is important, but, the State also is very focused 23
on preserving existing affordable units. 24
25
Commissioner Tanaka: I’m not saying build a mansion here, I’m talking about smaller 26
affordable units that probably a lot of the people that live here now could actually afford. I’m 27
not advocating turning this into you know, some luxury condominiums, I’m talking about… 28
29
Mr. Williams: I understand, but I think the way the State looks at it is these are units that exist 30
now, there are people in there that are accommodated there, that even if you built something with 31
the intent that say it’s 100% affordable housing units, they are going to be displaced by that. 32
Maybe some of them will be able to move back in, a lot of them won’t because it’s going to be 33
two years of construction going on out there. We kind of have to balance between the programs 34
that are intended to preserve and conserve existing lower income housing. It’s certainly is a 35
prerogative of the Commission and the Council to say let’s put that in the housing inventory 36
instead and that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily going to turn over anyway, but to look at it from 37
that perspective as well. I just want you to know that in the other components of the Housing 38
Element that the State looks at, that’s a key element because that’s the only mobile home park 39
we have. You’re right there are detriments to it from terms of the impacts of that and the 40
aesthetics of that and such that are tended to it, but that’s why it’s not on the inventory list. 41
42
Commissioner Tanaka: Well, I think it should be considered because I think there are more 43
efficient ways of using the land to keep it affordable. I think it could also possibly improve the 44
people’s lives that live there. I think that’s something that should be considered. Thanks. 45
46
Page
21
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Michael. 1
2
Commissioner Michael: Echoing Commissioner Tanaka’s comments, I want to thank the Staff 3
and all the members of the community for hard work which has gone on for several years it 4
would seem and I’m only into this for several weeks. I’m going to be very modest in my 5
comments. 6
7
The introduction goes into some of the context that Palo Alto has as a City which doesn’t have a 8
lot of vacant land, with 99.5% of the land developed needing sort of infill development. Then 9
whether or not one agrees with ABAG, it seems that there will be changes in the demographics 10
and the population so there will have to be some increase in, I understand there is a lot of, 11
attention on questions of density and height, but it seems to me that these are questions that 12
shouldn’t be addressed as absolutes. Perhaps as that, as we go into the future and change is 13
inevitable with the site design review and the notion of proximity to transportation services and 14
other aspects of the living experience of residents and visitors try to optimize what seems to be 15
inevitable. I’m going to continue to try to understand this more and be attentive to the 16
comments, but I would generally favor being open to accepting that this will be part of our 17
future. 18
19
The implications of the Palo Alto Housing Element in relationship to the regional needs, as I 20
recall we were looking at that issue awhile back, there were a number of different scenarios that 21
were considered as a basis for what the regional housing and job patterns might be over the next, 22
I think, 20 years. I wonder if even though Palo Alto has some unique or special kind of 23
characteristics, if we are not immune from those patterns. Which scenario we think would be 24
most likely or which would have the most relevance to our housing planning. If there is no 25
answer to that, just consider that an open question. 26
27
I had a chance to attend a community workshop put on by San Mateo this morning at Facebook 28
that was primarily related to commuter solutions. There were a number of things which were 29
surprisingly relevant to the jobs/housing imbalance. One that I thought was fairly provocative 30
and I haven’t really had a chance to reflect upon what the implications might be, was the 31
Assistant County Manager for San Mateo suggested they had had a recent project quite 32
successful with one of the employers in San Mateo County, which was Accenture, and evaluated 33
the needs for certain office space, not housing, in relationship to having increased teleworking 34
and whatnot. They actually found that they could successfully use half the office space if they 35
were clever about teleworking and all the different aspects of doing that. So it occurs to me that 36
the implication for housing is that there would be more people sort of working remotely, more 37
home office behaviors, and that will probably be good in terms of reducing greenhouse gasses 38
and sustainability and a lot of the transportation demands and so forth. And really will be 39
something highly relevant to the people who do live or would like to live in Palo Alto and the 40
nature of businesses that seem to spring up here because of our innovation and all that. I 41
wondered if this anticipation of smaller and smaller housing units makes sense in terms of 42
demographic pressures, considers the possibility that the utilization of housing will increasingly 43
be home office teleworking and that this would be a good thing. 44
45
Page
22
On Page 30 there was a statistic and on Page 31 there was another statistic about the percentage 1
of the population that had a disability and one of those numbers is wrong. So just figure out 2
which one it is and fix it. On Page 30 it says that 19% are disabled and 31 says that 93% are not 3
disabled, so figure that one out. I think I’ll stop for now. 4
5
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma. 6
7
Commissioner Tuma: A couple of comments and then a couple of questions. The first is I 8
would agree with fellow Commissioners this notion of eliminating site and design review as an 9
incentive to me doesn’t seem to make sense. I’m all for incentives. We have them for a variety 10
of other techniques that we’ve used, giving bonuses, increased density, FAR, etcetera. 11
Eliminating site design review while maybe certainly an incentive because it’s less expensive for 12
the developer to go through the process, we’re more likely to wind up with a project that we’re 13
not happy with. I would support not having that as an incentive but coming up with different 14
incentives. 15
16
I was curious about; given the chart on Page 5 of the Staff report that says essentially we were 17
able to designate more sites than we need in order to meet the RHNA allocation, whether it 18
makes sense to continue to include surface parking lots in this go round. We’re going to need 19
sites down the road, I don’t think given the life of this plan that we’re necessarily going to get 20
into that, so I would just question whether we need that 185 units. If you take it out of there 21
we’re still ok. So I question whether that’s necessary. 22
23
Word of caution, which I seem to recall that I raise every time we have this discussion about 24
smaller units and senior housing units, that doesn’t necessarily translate into no impact on 25
schools. I think we’ve seen over and over where seniors move out of their single family homes 26
into these smaller units and who moves into the single family homes is new young families with 27
children. We’ve seen that over and over, so I don’t think that the building of small units is the 28
panacea to not having impacts on schools. 29
30
I have a question for the Planning Director, and I don’t want to talk about a specific project 31
which is still pending, but as a matter of public record, recently the City Council looked at the 32
Gateway project, for lack of a better term, replacing the Shell. I wasn’t present. I’ve heard and 33
read different things, but my understanding is that their recommendation or direction was to 34
come back and essentially eliminate the floor that would have the extra BMR units on it. Is that 35
a sort of fair characterization of what their direction was? 36
37
Mr. Williams: Yes, it was to eliminate the top floor which had not only the BMR but all the 38
residential units on it. I think a lot of the reasoning there was that those were very expensive to 39
construct, and being very valuable being on the top floor as they were, and that perhaps it would 40
be better for them to as a public benefit contribute dollars that would then go into providing more 41
affordable units elsewhere in the City. They have yet to come back with a proposal, but I know 42
they are working on that. 43
44
Commissioner Tuma: I hear it on this dais from time to time and I hear it from City Council 45
where people say, “Well, geez, we’re just going to build a couple of BMR units here and a 46
Page
23
couple of BMR units there, and so one or two people win the lottery and they get lucky.” But 1
that sort of talk and discussion seems terribly inconsistent with what we’re trying to do here, 2
which is create incentives and meet these requirements, and so I think as we go through projects 3
and we look for opportunities for BMR units we shouldn’t dismiss them as readily as we 4
sometimes do as not being that terrific because it’s only a handful. To use Commissioner 5
Keller’s term, it may be a drop in the bucket, but a bunch of drops in the bucket begin to create a 6
puddle or something like that. 7
8
Then the last question that I have is we received a letter from Dr. Skelly at the School District 9
today. We saw it today; I’m not sure when it was dated. It said essentially that there was, don’t 10
put housing in certain places, put it in other places, because that’s better for the School District. 11
That letter and then City Attorney Silver’s comments about sort of how much we can consider 12
school impacts has me all very confused. Maybe this is a discussion for another day. We’ve had 13
these study sessions over time about how we can or can’t include impacts on schools in our 14
discussions and our considerations, but how should we be thinking about the input from the 15
School District, which, quite frankly, seems like a relatively limited input given the scope of 16
what’s going on here. A very focused input, but how should we be considering those in the 17
context of what we’re talking about tonight? 18
19
Ms. Silver: I’m not sure if that was a question but I think you made a very important point that I 20
would like to address and that is in terms of the School District’s input, I don’t think that because 21
of the statutory prohibition you can’t as a policy matter decide not to comply with the Housing 22
Element requirements because it will have an impact on schools in and of itself. That’s not a 23
legitimate reason for not designating sites on the inventory. However, in terms of environmental 24
impacts on where to locate particular units, that is something that you can examine. Certainly if 25
the issue of redirecting school children to another district or to another school site, if that is going 26
to have some traffic impacts that is certainly something that you can analyze at the 27
environmental phase of this. That is a legitimate consideration. 28
29
Commissioner Tuma: With the Chair’s indulgence? That sounds like a project specific type of 30
analysis, the impact of putting a particular school in a particular location. We’re at a much 31
higher level at this point talking about our Housing Element and what impacts housing would 32
have on the need for these schools and by putting designating certain sites in certain locations in 33
theory that could cause the School District’s boundaries to have to change. I think that was his 34
point in the letter. So my question is not so much about looking at a specific project and saying 35
what are the environmental impacts and traffic flow about that project but rather looking at what 36
we’re talking about here tonight which is the housing element and what sites to designate and 37
what numbers to have in there. How are we supposed to or are we supposed to take the impacts 38
on schools in account at this stage? Not at the project level about a particular school, but at the 39
Housing Element level about sites to designate? 40
41
Ms. Silver: You certainly do look at it at a very high level, but then when you do, do the 42
environmental analysis as Curtis was saying for this particular Housing Element we would be 43
focusing in on the actual rezoning of actions that this Housing Element would require. So that 44
would be that the change in kind of the existing baseline because you would anticipate, or we’re 45
telling the State that we would be making some rezoning’s. So to the extent those 185 units that 46
Page
24
need to be rezoned are going to have some kind of traffic pattern that is certainly fair game for 1
the environmental analysis. 2
3
Mr. Williams: If I could just add that just taking from Superintendent Skelly’s letter the issue the 4
sort of geographic distribution and also getting back to your issue about smaller units. So I 5
understand the issue that having smaller units doesn’t necessarily mean less impacts, although I 6
think overall it does mean that to some extent. One of the things, his comments related to where 7
these housing units may go, concentrated around Cal Avenue and Downtown, etcetera. To the 8
extent that we are proposing units that are smaller in those areas that should be less in those 9
areas, less of the student generation there, doesn’t necessarily mean, like you’re saying there 10
aren’t going to be more students generated in the other areas. It does to some extent address 11
what he’s bringing up. Which is, if you’re planning for more housing but you are planning 12
smaller units with less generation in school as opposed to planning for three bedroom units 13
everywhere, then you know clearly that starts to have more of an impact. 14
15
I just wanted to say, because I know several of you had made the comment, if you don’t mind, on 16
the site and design and we’re talking about it as incentive and I understand why it gets worded 17
that way. I really would like to be sure that you understand that the reason that is in there is 18
really because we have identified and we know that HCD will identify the site and design review 19
process as a disincentive to housing. It takes longer; it costs more, it’s more uncertain, and 20
almost always drives the number of housing units down. And, so the constraints in terms of our 21
regulations to housing are an impediment to their approval process. So our thought was if we 22
provide a way to #1 streamline that approval process, still requires design review, but not the full 23
site and design review process, and then in conjunction with that if somebody’s doing that then 24
they have to go to smaller units. I’m not saying 1,250 is the magic number. Maybe it’s less than 25
that. That’s where we get to the smaller units as well then we’re sort of accomplishing a goal 26
with that in both respects. We could send this to the State and not have that in there and our 27
anticipation is they will say, if they see anything in one of the reasons why we wouldn’t include 28
say anything in the industrial areas. They require use permits for any housing. State’s going to 29
say if you require the use permit for housing then we’re not going to count it as a potential 30
housing site. They will go with design review, but we’re thinking they are not going to go for 31
design review when it involves three different boards on that too. That’s that reason it’s in there. 32
It’s more of a potential for overcoming that, and we did talk to the Commission previously about 33
potential FAR and parking incentives and this seemed to be a preferable alternative to that we 34
thought when we had that discussion so that’s what’s here. 35
36
When we visited with the property owners who were on the list they all talked about parking. 37
They appreciated the process issue but they would like to have FAR and parking incentives, 38
probably more than this as well. Anyway, that’s why it’s here. We could send it forward 39
without that in here and see what happens but that’s really the reason why. Correct me if I 40
misstated any of that, but that’s the really the reason why that is in here. 41
42
Chair Martinez: Ok, Sumir, Quickly. 43
44
Page
25
Commissioner Tuma: Very quickly I wanted to respond to that. I think it is horrible policy on 1
behalf of the State or HCD. To sort of force cities into getting out of that business of site and 2
design review, I think it’s terrible and we should have the ability to do that. 3
4
Mr. Williams: It’s not design. There still is a process. 5
6
Commissioner Tuma: Site and design. 7
8
Mr. Williams: Yeah. Three different stages. 9
10
Commissioner Tuma: I understand. If you talk about one of the things that allows Palo Alto to 11
retain the character that it has, I think is that level of control. Some people may call it the Palo 12
Alto process. It is more onerous, I understand all that, but I think as a community the 13
implications of that are significant. 14
15
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg, five minutes. 16
17
Vice Chair Fineberg: Reviewing this Housing Element is an exercise of being pulled in two 18
directions. One, we are attempting to produce a State mandated document and our intention 19
should be to comply with those State mandates as much as possible. The pull in the other 20
direction is balancing that with what we as a community want and what we can afford, and 21
where we prioritize what we need and what we can afford. I think that as a matter of policy, as a 22
matter of how we should govern ourselves, we should have a certified Housing Element. We 23
should move forward with something that can be certified. It’s not good not to have a certified 24
Housing Element. 25
26
I’m not however convinced that the draft as it is now is the document that should move forward. 27
So, I think its incumbent on this body, upon the citizens of Palo Alto, to figure out what it is that 28
we want and what’s going to get moved forward. And, we need to do it sooner rather than later. 29
30
At the low, I shouldn’t say low importance, but at the level of exacting detail on policies and 31
programs we’re going to go into depth at our next meeting. So staying up at the sort of the high 32
policy level, I’m going to go into some specific comments that I think are important for 33
consideration. 34
35
I would agree with several other Commissioners that have said that giving up site and design 36
review as an incentive for affordable housing is an unwise choice. The occurrence of mixed use, 37
PC zoning, the way in which we do architectural review and the elimination of site and design, 38
would be basically no zoning whatsoever. There would be such minimal level of zoning that we 39
would be losing control in any area of the housing inventory. I don’t think that is a risk worth 40
this community experimenting with to achieve affordable housing. 41
42
I also think at a top level, we’ve said this in the past, but it might have been two or three years 43
ago, we are not going to build the affordable housing that we want or need if we’re doing it three 44
and five units at a time. We’ve talked about if we keep building market rate units and we have 45
inclusionary zoning we’ll get a little bit of in lieu money and if we build 5, 10, 15 units, no 46
Page
26
matter how much we try, we’re going to have 200, maybe 300 units in an eight year cycle and a 1
seven year cycle. In order to meet the goals that are out there we need to be building, to generate 2
the money from our in lieu fees, we would need to be building tens of thousands of new homes. 3
We’re not going to get there using the method of generating in lieu fees or BMR units in 4
inclusionary housing. 5
6
I understand that that‘s in conflict with our desires to build this housing. It’s a conflict we will 7
have difficulty navigating as a City and we simply have to have public discussions and decisions 8
of where our values are when this document moves forward. 9
10
I have a couple quick questions for Staff if I can take a step back. Mr. Borock had mentioned 11
that in order for us to take action on this document there needs to be environmental review. At 12
what point does this become a project that requires review and can we after our next meeting 13
make a recommendation that it go forward to Council? And how can we do that in the absence 14
of any knowledge about, yet this may have no impact, or it may be horrific and we don’t know 15
what. So how do we recommend whether it should go forward without any concept of that? 16
17
Ms. Silver: This is just a draft Housing Element at this stage and it will come back to you again 18
with some HCD comments. At that time you will have the environmental review. 19
Environmental review really should be done at a time when the project or the sites have been 20
identified and there’s a clear understanding of the potential sites and that’s what you want to 21
analyze. If we had done environmental review earlier, the environmental review would have 22
been on completely different sites that are not included on the inventory at this stage. If you 23
remember we started with a top down approach and ended up with a bottom up approach, so 24
environmental review recognizes that you really should do it at a stage when the project is well 25
defined enough to really have some meaningful review. It’s completely acceptable to do that at 26
any time before your final recommendation to the Council on the final Housing Element draft. 27
28
Vice Chair Fineberg: So you’re saying after it goes to HCD and it comes back and Staff 29
renegotiates and HCD buys in, we’ll have had the environmental review and then let’s say 30
there’s significant impacts we’re not comfortable with. Then we would actually have the 31
possibility of saying, well, we’re changing our mind, we don’t want to move forward with this? 32
I don’t see that as a process that makes any sense when it’s the 13th hour and oops, we’re waiting 33
to adopt it. We have no sense right now of no impact or medium impact or high impact. We 34
won’t until it’s a hair from being adopted. How do we not get there? 35
36
Ms. Silver: Again the sites on the inventory don’t require any for the most part any rezoning. 37
And so, all of those sites that don’t require rezoning have already had environmental clearance 38
though the EIR that was done in connection with the current Comp Plan. So for the most part 39
there has already been environmental review. So you know you have some sense of what the 40
environmental impacts are with respect to those sites. Really we’re only talking about 185 units 41
on the parking lots and as Commissioner Tuma mentioned, it may even be less than that because 42
we really have an overage at this point. You will have the environmental review on those sites 43
and if you think that there are impacts, that’s what the environmental review process is for and 44
it’s important that you have the opportunity to impose mitigations in connection with any of 45
Page
27
those impacts that are identified. You will have the opportunity to do that as the process moves 1
along. 2
3
Vice Chair Fineberg: I appreciate that. So the last EIR for the Comprehensive Plan said that if 4
we built 2,500 sites there would be significant negative impacts. The School Board wrote a letter 5
that said that it would significantly negatively impact the schools. Council had to issue a 6
statement of overriding considerations. Now I understand that the 2,500 sites analyzed in that 7
probably contained maybe 90% of what’s on this inventory list. A few have been added. Let’s 8
say we drop the 185 that we don’t need. We would have the same conclusion that building 2,000 9
or 2,500 sites when we last analyzed it was a significant negative impact that required overriding 10
considerations from Council. So how do we get to an MND and how do we recommend 11
something that if we’re relying on our last review and the EIR, it’s got a significant negative 12
impact on many, many schools, traffic, community services, parks, I mean the list went on and 13
on. So, we’re not going to have visibility to that till its too late and I’m really concerned about 14
that as a way to run a process. I keep saying this, but it’s one of those things that I don’t want us 15
to go that way. 16
17
Chair Martinez: I want to just go on record saying that I support the Housing Element going 18
forward. Not that I agree with everything in it, but I think that it represents something that we 19
have to do. I do have a couple of comments about things I would like to see. I think the 20
introduction reads a little bit like a travel log and I would like to see us really treat it more like a 21
summary. An executive summary. A little bit more about the challenge of building housing in 22
Palo Alto. I know you touch on it in the analysis section, Chapter 2, but I think one of the 23
constraints is that we’re not a strategically located community. Because, we’re somewhat 24
landlocked. We’re not located right off the freeway; you have to drive through our 25
neighborhoods which are impacted with traffic. It’s not that easy to propose the growth of 26
housing in Palo Alto and I think that needs to be clear, that this is a significant challenge. 27
28
The second part of it is that in our housing inventory we talk about the fact that sites have been 29
chosen that are roughly 10,000 square feet, or that’s the ideal site, yet when we look at the 30
inventory, housing inventory, I would say 75% of the sites we can build fewer than 10 units on. 31
That’s probably the greatest challenge for development to build. I think Vice Chair Fineberg 32
touched on that. To build five, three units on a site, and I think that should also be mentioned in 33
the analysis, that the cost of housing when you are building under ten probably goes up 50%. 34
You still need that same $150,000 elevator and you still need sewer lines and so much that a 35
larger building could prorate among many more units. The cost of housing isn’t only in the land; 36
the cost is in the construction of housing. 37
38
I think that’s a significant point. That it isn’t going to make it easy for us to reach these goals. 39
And I think that has to be clear because I see us now at a point with less than two years to where 40
we are going to start the next cycle of reaching less than half of what our current RHNA goals 41
are now. We’re at 900 and we have to get the adjusted number to a little bit over 2,000, and we 42
may not even get to the halfway point of that. Now some may say that’s good, but I think it’s 43
going to create new obstacles in the next round where HCD may say, “you’re not really serious 44
about this and we’re going to really want to see something more significant.” So I think creating 45
Page
28
the groundwork now for that kind of argument is I think is strategically important. Not that we 1
want to do it, but that it is not the easiest thing to achieve. 2
3
I’m concerned about the “smaller” units because smaller units could be code for not families. 4
And I think that’s not what we want to say. I think we want affordable housing to be affordable 5
to everyone and I know other communities like San Francisco are trying to build smaller units, 6
but they are also including the language “but at least 40% have to be two bedroom units.” That’s 7
a significant acknowledgment that we really also need to include low income families, smaller 8
families, people that can’t afford the houses that are being vacated by seniors. 9
10
I am also concerned about giving away our parking lots, our Downtown surface parking lots, to 11
the housing inventory. I think in some cases that will work. In many cases there are probably 12
better uses for some of those sites including open space, open space above parking. Not all are 13
suitable for housing and I’m concerned about the impact of giving away all of those sites for 14
housing. I’m enamored with Mr. Borock’s suggestion that we should build affordable there. 15
That would be great if we’re going to do it over subsurface parking that’s a huge constraint and 16
I’m not sure it could be done, not with subsidies or finding another way to build parking. So I’m 17
concerned about that resource that the City has and other possibilities for development or use of 18
those sites and if it’s possible to pull back from some of those sites to really take a second look 19
and pull half of them off. I think it would be wise for us to consider or really be prepared for the 20
consequences of what happens in the next round. 21
22
I think I’m going to stop there. We’re doing pretty well in terms of our time. We’re about 8:00, 23
Commissioners you want to take about a 10 minute break? Ok. You want another round of 24
questions for this round and then comments and then we’ll take a break. Yes, Mr. Williams? 25
26
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to make a comment/suggestion about the parking lot issues. I fully 27
agree with you that not all the parking lots should be residential. I think we’ve put a number in 28
there that equates to 20 units per acre on all the parking lots, but we don’t expect that’s the way it 29
would be developed. I think most likely since they are public parking lots we’d have a chance to 30
plan these. It’s not reacting to a development proposal, etcetera. That what we would look for, 31
and I don’t think there’s a program like this in here already, but maybe there should be a 32
program to analyze the parking lots to determine which are appropriate for, this is assuming you 33
keep the parking lots in at all, which are appropriate for residential development and how much. 34
With perhaps a goal of 185 units’ total, but it may be 50 units on one site and 40 units on another 35
and 60 units on another. Some for open space and some for parking garages and whatever mix it 36
should be, but certainly agree that we’re not thinking that every surface parking lot is now going 37
to have 20 units per acre built on it. But it did give us a number sort of to work from. 38
39
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma. 40
41
Commissioner Tuma: Just a comment directly on that. Given that we don’t need those sites to 42
meet the RHNA number and if we took that out of this Housing Element we would be in a 43
situation where all the sites we’re looking at have previously been analyzed for purposes of 44
CEQA. What you just touched on, perhaps having a program in here to analyze that for the 45
future, could that have a significant positive impact in terms of the ability to get this thing 46
Page
29
approved and have us more likely that we could with an MND or something like that? Because 1
we’re not looking at sites that have been reviewed before but nonetheless take the opportunity to 2
look at these sites along the lines of what you’re talking about but actually take them out of the 3
inventory. That seems like perhaps a way to streamline our approval process here. 4
5
Mr. Williams: Our thought on having them in and essentially having this cushion is that most 6
likely HCD is going to find some sites they don’t concur with so we have more now. That’s just 7
a strategic kind of issue and maybe the strategy is we just provide the number that meets our 8
RHNA number. Then when they come back and we see what they do to it, if they reduce it and 9
we’re 50 short after that then we look for 50 units elsewhere or if they do or, maybe they will 10
feel more comfortable with it knowing that we’re doing a study about the parking lots and that 11
kind of thing. It’s just a different way to go on it. 12
13
As far as environmental review goes, definitely. I mean I think as Cara was saying, what we see 14
is that the environmental review is really going to focus on that increment that’s not already 15
zoned for that, because right now on all those other sites you can basically do, you have to go 16
through site design and review, but you can basically do the number of units that we’ve 17
specified. So there really is, should be negligible impact associated then with this because there 18
is really no change in zoning to effectuate the number that we need. 19
20
Chair Martinez: Steven, did you have a comment? Ok. Let’s do a three minute round. 21
Commissioners, I’ve heard a lot of sort of on the negative side of our Housing Element. Why 22
don’t we try to also come up with some recommendations to strengthen it? Incentives perhaps 23
that you would propose instead of those that are currently being proposed and the like. With 24
that, Commissioner Keller, three minutes. 25
26
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I appreciate the invitation to do incentives but I don’t want 27
any incentives. That’s the whole point I have been making. In terms of the parking sites, it is 28
not the case that we don’t need any of the 185 units. We are 116 units ahead and that means we 29
need somewhere in the order of 80 or so of the parking lot sites. We can’t eliminate all of them. 30
We can possibly eliminate 116 of them, but not all of them. 31
32
The second thing is that if Staff really feels that we need site and design review, 1,250 square 33
feet units to my definition is not small. The average size house that was built in the 1950’s and 34
1960’s in the south end of Palo Alto is 1,200 to 1,400 square feet. So therefore those are not 35
small units. Small units is 500 square feet. So if you really want to do it put a maximum average 36
of 500 square feet and consider that as one of the incentives for the density bonus law. So 37
double whammy. If you really want to do it, do it that way. 38
39
Chair Martinez: Excuse me; can you repeat your recommendation? 40
41
Commissioner Keller: Yes. I’m saying if you really want the site and design review to stay 42
there, as the possibility of eliminating it as an incentive, then first of all that incentive counts as 43
one of the incentives for the density bonus law. Secondly, that the maximum average unit size is 44
not 1,250 but 500 square feet. Because that’s small units, 1,250 is not small units. Ok? 45
46
Page
30
Next issue. A member of the public mentioned and I think its Herb Borock, I think the accent is 1
on the first syllable not the second syllable. He had mentioned a quota on market rate housing. I 2
appreciate that. I agree with putting the addresses not just the parcel numbers. In terms of the 3
chart, I believe it was Page 32, not Page 30 that was referenced on chart table 2-27. The problem 4
is that the title on that page has the word “disabled” in it as a percentage of disabled. If you just 5
drop the word percentage, it actually makes sense. It’s the percentage of Santa Clara County 6
residents and not the percentage of the disabled. Or the percentage of Palo Alto residents, not 7
the disabled percentage. That’s what actually makes sense. 8
9
The way we get moderate rate housing, moderate income housing is through our inclusionary 10
zoning law. That is the only way we get moderate income housing essentially. Although it 11
comes in drips and drabs, it does come. I do agree with Commissioner Tuma that drips and 12
drabs makes a puddle when they come together. Drops in a bucket make a puddle. The issue is 13
a small amount that we’re providing but that’s what the State wants us to do is provide some 14
amount of housing. We are not going to get moderate income housing through building projects 15
with City funds. You just don’t get grant money for moderate rate housing. 16
17
On the other hand, low and very low income housing is achieved through projects for which the 18
BMR in lieu fees can be used, for which the grant money can come and the like. The thing is 19
that it’s not necessarily the case that you want to fungibly replace the amount of money that 20
comes from the moderate income housing that is built in inclusionary zoning or in place of the 21
low and very low. It’s a tradeoff that you need to think about. If you really want to satisfy the 22
moderate income housing the only way to do that is through inclusionary zoning. 23
24
We also have to be careful about the ghettoization as you create regions that are all low and very 25
low income housing. That might create some sort of ghetto region of lower income. So we have 26
to be careful about that. What inclusionary zoning does is it creates more of a mixture of people 27
of various income strata in an area and that’s a better environment. 28
29
Finally the thing about parking, building on top of parking, is that the City has control of it. We 30
own the lots; we can decide when it’s done. We can decide who does it. We can decide who to 31
do it with. We can optionally create that if we don’t do it by right, but we do it through an 32
overlay district. Then we have complete control over that and so I don’t necessarily see the 33
problem with that. It certainly has to be studied, but the issue is putting it in there isn’t going to 34
automatically make it happen. We have the most control over those parcels than practically any 35
housing development that happens in the City. Thank you. 36
37
Chair Martinez: Ok, instead of incentives, let us try to put substance in our Housing Element 38
that says we’re serious about building affordable housing. It’s not some kind of dodge or some 39
kind of game, it’s a serious proposal. Site and design might not be the target we want to hit, but 40
what is it that we can do to make our proposal for building housing a serious proposal? 41
Commissioner Tanaka. 42
43
Commissioner Tanaka: I don’t know if I can do that, but I’ll try. Let me go through a rapid fire 44
since I have three minutes here and I think you want this to be the last round. So first of all I do 45
agree with the Chair’s comment that our introduction, and I forgot I mentioned this earlier, I 46
Page
31
think we should talk a little more about why it is hard to build housing in Palo Alto. I think all 1
the reasons Chair mentioned are excellent. I think we’re at a point that could be made, that 2
Commissioner Keller has made quite often, and that is jobs near transit actually cuts down 3
greenhouse gas a lot more than housing near transit. I think that’s another piece in that. 4
5
I also agree with the point that smaller is not 1,250 square feet. That’s actually pretty large. It’s 6
bigger than the house I bought here in Palo Alto. Small is definitely below 500 square feet. In 7
some areas of the world 500 square feet is a whole family. I think the American house, the 8
definition of a house, has gotten a lot bigger over time. I think we should have a reset on what is 9
the definition of small. 10
11
Then in terms of the parking lots, I think one thing that we need to consider carefully is that our 12
Downtown’s both on Cal Ave. as well as University there is actually a lack of parking. I think 13
we have to be careful of that as we plan for converting some of these parking lots to housing we 14
actually need more parking, not less parking. So, I don’t know if the idea is to keep it the same, 15
but I think we should actually increase it. 16
17
I think one of the speakers before made something about giving amnesty for all the second illegal 18
units. I think that’s also not a really great idea. I’m not a big fan of that concept of basically 19
giving everyone amnesty that has illegally converted their garage or things like that. That 20
doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. 21
22
I don’t necessarily agree also with having a minimum zoning requirement for the RM-15, which 23
I guess we’ll get into more in Chapter five. I think also that we don’t want to impact our retail. I 24
think the City right now is in kind of dire fiscal straights and we want to make sure that we have 25
the base of income to actually provide the services to our residents. I think it’s important to 26
make sure we consider that. 27
28
The same thing if you start putting in a lot of housing you also have to consider the impact on 29
existing homeowners and make sure they are not impacted in terms of their own housing values. 30
So I think that’s something we should also consider. That’s it. Thanks. 31
32
Chair Martinez: Great. Commissioner Michael. 33
34
Commissioner Michael: I’ll make my comments brief because I completely don’t have the final 35
solution to offer, nor do I have the most insightful questions. But, I’m curious about, going back 36
to the question posed by Commissioner Tuma at the outset about the timing of submitting this 37
document relative to the period beginning in 2007 and ending in 2012, which will take at least a 38
year it seems to complete the approval process and the environmental impact analysis, if any. 39
Then by the time we get to the period for which this was intended, it may in fact be 40
implemented, it will have some benefit in terms of immunity from frivolous litigation from 41
contractors who might otherwise compel the issuance of a permit that we might not otherwise 42
want to give them. All that suggests to me is that we have a need to have a vision for what we’re 43
going to do with the community and housing is clearly an important part of that vision. Planning 44
is important, but there is something about how the planning relates to market forces. We talk 45
about market rate housing, below market rate housing, the job/housing imbalance. It seems to 46
Page
32
me at a time when sort of around the State of California and the Country there are countless 1
number of communities that don’t have the same bounty that Palo Alto enjoys in terms of so 2
many jobs and such a desirable place to live. What we have here is there is a clear surplus of 3
potential buyers or renters with sufficient funds that no matter how much housing is created it 4
will be snapped up instantly. Whether that’s a public benefit or not, I think that if we have X 5
number of new units, whatever X is, it will just instantly be absorbed by the market. Wherever 6
with the zoning and the site design review we allow them to sort of be existed, they will be 7
snapped up instantly. To me part of what’s maybe missing from this is the vision for the kind of 8
community not only that we’d like to preserve the characteristics that we like that are here now, 9
but again that we would like to sort of evolve it in a way which is positive and progressive. 10
11
The concern about the impact on housing on schools I think is hard for me to kind of see us as 12
providing a solution here tonight. The issue about the impact on parking, again going back to the 13
regional commute solutions workshop this morning, which is part of a continued effort to 14
address issues like parking, it seems to me that it is not a given that we need as much parking as 15
we think we need to the extent that there’s innovative solutions and better transit systems, which 16
is all underway locally and regionally. With that I’ll stop. 17
18
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma. 19
20
Commissioner Tuma: I really only have one additional concept or thought to think about or talk 21
about here. That’s sort of in direct contrast to what the gentleman from SILVAR had to say 22
about rental housing and agreeing with what Mr. Borock had to say, which is if you talk about an 23
affordable way for someone to live in this town, rental housing is the way to do it. Rental 24
housing, market rate rental housing doesn’t work from a developer perspective. So if we could 25
do something here. I can’t pretend to come up with what the right incentives or scheme would 26
be, but I could envision a significant number of relatively small rental rate housing in Palo Alto 27
that would serve a lot of the goals or the things that we talk about in terms of providing 28
economic diversity and in terms of smaller units. 29
30
I look at a project like the Tree House, which I thought was a great project, but it took a very 31
unusual set of circumstances to get there. Maybe there’s a way we can create incentives or 32
bonuses or other things, but focusing on rental housing as opposed to for sale housing. I think 33
that would also go some ways towards alleviating this concern that is expressed from time to 34
time about one or two or five or ten families win the lottery. With rental housing perhaps there’s 35
more people who get that benefit over time. People come, people go. That would be maybe the 36
one other piece here that maybe we’re beginning to talk about in this document but maybe 37
there’s some more ways to incentivize that and make it happen. 38
39
Not to belabor the point, because I understand the concern the HCD has already identified site 40
and design as too much of an impediment but what we’re talking about is… I will point to a 41
specific project which is Hyatt Rickey’s. Hyatt Rickey’s only had to go through ARB and that’s 42
what we’re talking about here. There’s maybe a mixture of opinion, but you don’t hear a lot of 43
good things about how that projects looks from the City’s perspective generally. So I think 44
that’s the kind of risk we run by giving that up. Maybe there are other things we can do to 45
mitigate that with process streamlining or other things that would satisfy the people that we need 46
Page
33
to satisfy. I just think abandoning this process in this town is a recipe for disaster and there’s got 1
to be other ways to do it. 2
3
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg. 4
5
Vice Chair Fineberg: Quick question for Staff on the concept of the waiving site and design as 6
an incentive when there is a density of 20 units an acre. Is the density a measurement of how 7
many actual units are built in the parcel? So for instance, I’m going to make some easy numbers 8
that isn’t real, let’s say it’s a one acre property and it’s a 10 story building with 10 very small 9
units. But if you built more of those units it would be at a density of 20 units an acre. Would 10
that count, or there would actually need to be 20 units on the one acre? 11
12
Mr. Rivera: The calculation would have to be on a 20 dwelling units per acre, so for example a 13
site that’s less than an acre will probably yield less than 20 units. If they build at a density of 20 14
dwellings per acre then they can, with the proposal, take advantage of the waiving of the site and 15
design. 16
17
Vice Chair Fineberg: Ok, let me get real specific. One acre, 10 units, teeny tiny little units, but 18
if I built dozens of them it would be at a density of 20 units an acre, would that count? 19
20
Mr. Williams: Why don’t I give you a specific example? Half an acre site. If on that site they 21
build at least 10 units, that’s when the provision would kick in. That’s 20 units per acre, is 10 22
units on a half-acre. Those units would then have to be smaller than 1,250 at this point. 23
24
Vice Chair Fineberg: So it’s measured by the actual units built on the site, not just that they are 25
teeny tiny little units and if you cloned them and built more, hypothetically they are at a density 26
of 20 units an acre. So it’s the actual units. Not that their size is small? 27
28
Mr. Williams: It’s what you’re building on the site. If you’re not building it, if you theoretically 29
could but you’re not, you don’t have to take advantage of that. 30
31
Vice Chair Fineberg: It doesn’t count against it. Ok, thank you. I have to say one more thing 32
global and then I’ll try to honor Chair Martinez’ request to make constructive suggestions. Right 33
now the way this Housing Element reads appears to exacerbate our jobs/housing imbalance. It 34
appears to continue doing much of the same that we’re doing, that we’re going to favor mixed 35
use buildings with lots of office space, a few houses on the top, more of the pieces that we’ve 36
been seeing and I don’t think that’s a path we should continue. We’re damaging ourselves doing 37
that. 38
39
We need to find ways to accomplish getting the housing we want, satisfying HCD, so I have a 40
couple sort of out of the box solutions. It may well be that these have to wait for the next 41
planning cycle that hopefully Staff will start soon. Strategically, I can’t believe that HCD would 42
turn us down with one year left if we’re 50 units short, or if we come in with what we think is 43
our best effort compliant and they knock out 50. That’s a better strategic position than to come 44
in with a cushion where they’ll take them. So it’s a little bit of a game of strategy there. 45
Unfortunately that’s the realty. I would agree that we take out all the parking lot units and I 46
Page
34
don’t know if there are other sites that there’s potential for higher yields that we can make it up 1
or if the program that will analyze parking lots going forward would satisfy them, but we don’t 2
need to come in with more than the demand. 3
4
The out of the box ideas, one is a concept, and I don’t know the legality as it hasn’t been 5
explored, but co-housing. What’s the difference between four seniors living in a four bedroom 6
house versus four seniors living in four, 400 square foot units? The difference is they have a 7
private bathroom and a private oven. I don’t know if there’s any way that we can tweak that if 8
there’s any program or process that we can have a different zone, maybe an R1? It’s exactly the 9
same as what’s on the ground now, but there’s four unrelated adults living in it. We do it right 10
now and we call it roommates but it counts as one unit. I don’t know if there’s a way that we can 11
do something with that. I’m seeing a head nod and I think it was Phyllis Cassel that talked about 12
this, that sort of planted the seed in my mind for this. She said this at a prior meeting. I don’t 13
know if that’s a way we can build our inventory. I’m not saying to do it in a false way, but a real 14
way. I know we can’t get grant money to do it, but there will be ways that we can generate sites 15
that we might be able to do that. We might have to wait for the next round. 16
17
The second is not going to generate sites but things about general concepts in the plan. On Page 18
140, in Chapter 4, there is a section about fees and exactions. It talks about a program, I’m sorry, 19
I would like to suggest, and it may not be in this round, keep this on your list of forward looking 20
things. We need to have a program to determine nexus and possible fees to pay for new public 21
safety buildings. I know three years ago the City was advertising for a contract for someone to 22
conduct those studies and it stalled. The State gives us the legal right to impose impact fees to 23
cover the incremental costs for public safety created by new dwelling units, new buildings, 24
commercial and residential. We are as a community choosing not to take advantage of that right 25
in a time when we’re about to go out to our voters and ask for money to build those facilities. 26
We’re going to get that money if a bond measure or something pass from the taxpayers and we 27
ought not leave it on the table. I don’t know if that goes in as a program later or if it just needs to 28
go and we talk about that more next week, or if it can go in as descriptive text, simply as a 29
description that we are not currently imposing that impact fee, but have the opportunity to do so 30
after analysis. 31
32
The second thing on Page 142 it continues to talk about that Palo Alto has mid-level impact fee 33
relative to adjacent communities and we have the lowest entitlement fees in surrounding areas. 34
We are struggling to pay for our infrastructure; we are struggling to pay for a number of our 35
essential services. Then I’m reading in the housing element that we’re not collecting fees where 36
we can. So to counter this sense of the community saying this is all impacting us, we have the 37
option to raise those fees. And what that does is it puts the cost on the projects that generate the 38
expenses as well as the other current residents. So there’s a fairness element. So those are my, 39
hopefully they’re positives. 40
41
Chair Martinez: A couple things to wrap up this session. Hopefully the graphics of the report 42
are not, I want to say it positive. I’d like to see them be better. If that could be put in a positive 43
light? I’m taking it that as a draft that goes to the State it can be plain vanilla with maps that are 44
just kind of taken out of the Assessor’s parcel maps, but if we saw a nice graphic of Cal Avenue 45
with the sites that have been identified as part of our housing inventory along Cal Avenue, that 46
Page
35
would have such an easy way to understand the impact, the intention, where we were going with 1
that. That and Downtown, the parking lots. Hopefully when we see the final draft there’s going 2
to be someone that’s empowered to take a look at the graphics of it. 3
4
Related to that I think there’s some analysis that would really help the public and the 5
Commission understand this report better. For example on housing inventory it was mentioned 6
about the addresses. That was kind of a flag that went up I think to everyone who looked at it. 7
Also, if we saw the number of larger sites, versus the number of sites under 10 in some kind of a 8
graphic format we could also understand that challenge that lie ahead and how this is not going 9
to happen overnight. Again we’ve talked about sort of the distribution of these sites. If it could 10
be made really much more graphic? 11
12
The second thing that I want to close with is although there have been several public meetings, 13
it’s really obvious from the public comments tonight that there’s this big chasm between what 14
the intentions of this Housing Element is and the public’s perception. So something more has to 15
be done to engage the public to see sort of that it’s not the intention to change Palo Alto into 16
something it’s not. I think not for, you know, what the current obligation we have to get this to 17
the Council and the State before it’s a final… give me an extra minute like you had. Before it’s 18
in its final form that there really be a serious town hall meeting about it in which we can engage 19
the community to talk about what this report is supposed to achieve. Thank you. 20
21
Commissioners, we’re doing pretty well. A 10 minute break and then we come back, you good 22
with that? Yes sir. 23
24
Commissioner Tuma: What are we doing after the break? 25
26
Chair Martinez: We’re going to talk about the policies and programs section. So you don’t want 27
to take a break? I think our cutoff was 8:30 p.m. I think we’re close enough to that and Staff 28
would like us to continue this discussion to try to complete this portion of the review. 29
30
Commissioner Tuma: So we’re talking about another round of 5 minutes each kind of thing? 31
32
Chair Martinez: Yeah, Probably another couple of hours. So we’re close to being on track. If 33
you feel this has been enough as you want to take on tonight, I’m ok with that. I’d like to keep 34
going. 35
36
Commissioner Tuma: I’m fine to keep going. 37
38
Commissioner Keller: If we get it done we get it done, if not we can continue, but let’s do our 39
college try to get it done. 40
41
Chair Martinez: Ok, then 5 to 10 minute break. 42
43
Break 44
45
Page
36
Chair Martinez: We’ll start on Chapter 5, the Housing Element policies and programs for the 1
proposed Amendment. I’m going to do something a little bit different, I’m going to give 2
Commissioner Keller a little extra time to present his suggestions for the policies and programs 3
and then we’ll do a round of 5 minutes. 4
5
Does everybody have a copy of it? He’s going to go through it, so you can just follow along. 6
Commissioner Keller. 7
8
Commissioner Keller: Yes, thank you and also there are copies in the back of the room for 9
people, members of the public who wish to have one. 10
11
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chair, I’m sorry. I apologize for interrupting so, we all have copies of this 12
and I assume that you’re going to hit sort of the highlights. Because a lot of these things are 13
fairly minor wording changes, so you can let us know, I think, whether you need to have 14
discussion on them or not. The other things we’ll certainly take into account and make wording 15
changes if they are not what you consider to be substantive. 16
17
Commissioner Keller: Certainly I won’t go over the ones that are editorial changes. And some 18
of the things that are substantive they are actually pretty trivial, so I will not go into them in 19
detail on those. Thank you. May I? 20
21
Chair Martinez: Yes, please continue. 22
23
Commissioner Keller: Ok, so the first one is H2.1.4, which is on Page 136. It says, “revise the 24
PF zoning district.” Here’s where I suggested that instead of “revise” we “develop” and I’m not 25
sure whether we want these to be 100% affordable or not, but actually develop in this case 100% 26
affordable housing overlay district. I think that create an overlay is much safer than just 27
modifying the district as a whole. 28
The next thing, H2.1.5 is the controversial one, and I’m assuming that the City Attorney will 29
probably not let me do that. But I have an alternative. Is that correct the City Attorney won’t let 30
me do that? 31
32
Ms. Silver: Yes, that probably would not be advisable. 33
34
Commissioner Keller: Great, so I have an alternative wording, which is instead of the wording I 35
have on this sheet, I have the wording “and locate housing with school children near schools 36
with available capacity.” Will that pass muster? 37
38
Chair Martinez: Commissioner, why don’t you try to go through these? 39
40
Commissioner Keller: Ok, that’s just one for which the Attorney should weigh in because that 41
one may matter. 42
43
Chair Martinez: I think what we’re going to try to do is give our comments afterwards. 44
45
Page
37
Commissioner Keller: Ok. Thank you. The next one is H2.2.1, I don’t think we really need that 1
incentive, that’s “identify incentives and encourage development of suitable housing sites.” I 2
don’t think we need any more incentives. That’s what the density bonus housing law is. There 3
is a couple places where I think the housing we develop, especially in mixed use, should be 4
compatible with surrounding uses, so you’ll see that in several places. 5
6
In terms of H.3.1.2A, there is “may need to provide a 25% component.” That doesn’t make any 7
sense. “May” sort of is ambiguous. So I changed that to similar wordings as the other ones. 8
H.3.1.2, that sentence I think is misplaced so it should be in the previous one, the idea of how 9
that fee works. It really belongs in D, not E. However, E is a technical problem that we don’t 10
explain how to deal with the problem of when you have partially in lieu and partially not in lieu, 11
so I gave a sentence that describes that. 12
13
I deleted a thing that a member of the public complained about, which was in H.3.1.2G, delete 14
the duplexes in the R1 zoning districts. He has talked about that being tried and not working and 15
I agree with that. H3.1.6 talks about encouraging flexible development but that really should be 16
part of 3.1.10, which is the housing density bonus law, so these are ways of implementing that, 17
not a separate program. So just add it to the end of 3.1.10. Again 3.1.7 neighborhoods 18
compatible adjacent uses, at 3.1.8 there is a reference to the nexus study, so that was talking 19
about in 3.4.3. In 3.1.12 the idea says, “Consider conducting a study.” Just conduct a study, 20
considering conducting is too many weasel words. Just conduct the study. 21
22
3.1.13 talks about implementing. I’m not sure if that’s the right word, but anyway. 3.3.2, Again 23
the issue is the overlay district for the housing on surplus sites. So you want to do that and not 24
just by right. In addition 3.6.1, since School District employees are allowed to go to the School 25
district, allowed to have their students go to the School district, I don’t know why we should 26
include workforce housing for the School District as part of this. 27
28
Just a few other comments that came up. One is in terms of 3.1.2J, which is on Page 160. I 29
think that SILVAR has a good reason why that should be dropped, so I would drop that. In 30
terms of 3.1.2I, rather than say “calculate” I would say “evaluate calculating” because we 31
shouldn’t make a policy change like that in this way, we should evaluate doing it. 32
33
In terms of 2.2.2, which I already talked about 500 square feet instead of 1,250 square feet, I 34
would say “treat as a housing bonus density law incentive as well as require that housing be at 35
least 50% of the FAR,” So that you don’t have just a small amount of housing with a couple tiny 36
units and the rest of it being a big project that really should be substantially be housing for this to 37
really work. So the housing is at least 50% of the floor area. Also I’m supportive of the idea of 38
doing something with co-housing and a nexus study for public impact fees. So that explains the 39
gist of the comments that I have here and I think that most of them are… I mean the only one 40
that was controversial was 2.1.5, and I have a better version of that that I think, if the City 41
Attorney agrees, will pass muster. Thank you. 42
43
Chair Martinez: Thank you Commissioner, I appreciate that. Other Commissioners do you have 44
some comments, suggestions, in the policies and programs? Commissioner Tuma. 45
46
Page
38
Commissioner Tuma: I don’t. The only thing that I would say is that I’ve seen this thing I don’t 1
know how many times at this point. I think that this is going to go back to Staff, the 2
Subcommittee is going to sort of try to incorporate… I don’t think we’re going to get to any 3
consensus on all these various edits. I think people can make the comments that they want to 4
make and Staff and Subcommittee are going to have to work through that. Then it’s going to 5
move on to Council. I don’t know, do we take an action tonight? Is that what you’re looking 6
for? 7
8
Mr. Williams: We do need to have an action. It would be an action to move it to Council or if 9
you wanted it to stop at the Subcommittee to make some of the suggested changes and review 10
those before it goes to Council that’s fine too. 11
12
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. So I’m prepared to make a Motion, Chair’s indulgence? 13
14
Chair Martinez: Do you mind holding off, I just want to give the other Commissioners a chance 15
to weigh in on how they feel about what’s… 16
17
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. I won’t do it in the form of Motion, but my suggestion, just 18
procedurally here is that we go through, everyone make all the comments that they want to make 19
and then we recommend that to Council and there’s an opportunity for the Subcommittee and 20
Staff to sort of work it through together to incorporate any of the comments that have been made 21
tonight without having to bring it back. It is going to come back to the Planning Commission 22
again anyway. That’s not a Motion, that’s just a thought. By the way if it’s possible I will cede 23
my extra time to Commissioner Michael as this is his first opportunity to comment on something 24
that we’ve all commented on many times before. 25
26
Chair Martinez: Ok, thank you. We’ll see about that ceding of time. Commissioner Michael, 27
you have five minutes. 28
29
Commissioner Michael: So with profound gratitude to Commissioner Tuma, I don’t have a lot 30
of value to add with respect to how the policies and programs flow from the goals. Because I 31
have I guess the one-time experience to be looking at this for the first time, I did look at the five 32
high level goals and I was struck by the first goal to ensure the preservation of the unique 33
character of the City’s residential neighborhood. And I was also liked to associate my thinking 34
with Chair Martinez in terms of the importance of community engagement and having 35
significant input or a town hall discussion of the implications of this once the Commission then 36
Council have had their way with it. 37
38
To digress, when I started law school I was told that after getting a legal education you would 39
never again read a newspaper in the same way that you did before you had lost your innocence. 40
You would begin to look for facts and principles and analysis and no longer could you simply 41
enjoy the newspaper as you once did. Joining the Planning Commission, I no longer go through 42
the City as I once did. Everywhere I go I’m looking and seeing zoning and variances and 43
character and things that should or should not be preserved. I’m just making this admission 44
because I’m finding that I’m no longer taking for granted that something should be preserved 45
Page
39
just because it currently exists. Some of what we have is not really very attractive or very useful. 1
Whether we grant it amnesty or not, I see a lot of change going on. 2
3
I see a lot of projects which are seemingly quite attractive. A lot of design and thought has gone 4
into it, maybe there’s a lot of money that has been put into these pretty attractive projects. I 5
know that I have personal experience in quite a bit of the City over the last 61 years, but I think 6
the H1 goal of ensuring the preservation of the character to me doesn’t strike the right note of 7
understanding there is a dynamic characteristic to Palo Alto, which is also good. Freezing it in 8
time, that wouldn’t be what, if I just had one vote out of the 63,000 residents, my vote wouldn’t 9
be to paralyze the planning. 10
11
But the other high level goals all seem to be quite sensible. I do wonder what if any goals would 12
be there that are missing, that we’d never had before that we should have? Maybe the other 13
progressive cities express them and we should emulate that. I’ll stop there, even though I have 14
Mr. Tuma’s time. 15
16
Chair Martinez: Good job. Commissioner Tanaka. 17
18
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. I just wanted to say that first of all, I do agree with I guess the other 19
Commissioners about doing some sort of nexus study about the impact fee and making sure they 20
are in line with what the impacts truly are. I do also like what was said earlier in the discussion 21
with BMR’s in terms of rental versus ownership. I think it was Commissioner Tuma that made 22
that comment. I also agree with that as well. Ownership is kind of one lucky person versus 23
rental where a lot of people actually get to benefit. Thing about income is it tends to change over 24
time. Maybe someone who is low income now may be higher income later, so I think rental 25
actually makes sense. With those kind of high level comments I just kind of wanted to blitz 26
through some comments on these programs. 27
28
H1.1.2, I’m not a big fan of legalizing illegal second units. H1.2.2, I’m not sure I necessarily 29
agree with that one. H2.1.3, I said this earlier, but I’m not a big fan of having minimum 30
densities. I think you should let the market decide and have maximum densities. H2.1.3, 31
basically, saying at least eight dwellings per acre. By the way I do agree with having the 32
Subcommittee, I’m just going to throw my comments out there and then I think the 33
Subcommittee could probably figure some of this stuff out. 34
35
H2.1.5 amends the zoning code to create zoning incentives. I think we should allow it, I don’t 36
necessarily know if we need to have additional incentives. H2.2.1, I guess on this one here I 37
think we have to make sure that this is done right in terms of not impacting some of the 38
commercial or retail sites. Then H2.2.2, I think we all talked about site and design, I think we 39
are almost unanimous on that one. We don’t have to beat that on. I also agree with H2.2.3, 40
which is the Staff that the Stanford Research Park should be compatible with the surrounding 41
areas. I made my comment earlier about 3.1.11, about the mobile home. I think the mobile 42
home park should be on the housing inventory list. That’s it. Thank you. 43
44
Chair Martinez: Ok, Vice Chair Fineberg. 45
46
Page
40
Vice Chair Fineberg: I pretty much concur with most of what I’ve heard. I’m troubled at the 1
idea of us just saying ok, fine, a Subcommittee, which I’m not even sure who’s on it is going to 2
go make the final recommendations. I think we as a body need to act and give direction and 3
have a decision on some of the items. Not talking about every last one, but I think we need to do 4
a straw poll on some of the items where one person has mentioned it or people feel differently so 5
we have some clear direction from the majority rather than leaving it for something that is going 6
to be decided in private after the meeting is over. I’d like to see that hopefully the Motion will 7
have some kind of listing of which items we’re in favor of adding or deleting and then possibly 8
some laundry list of what we’re comfortable with Staff figuring out later after the meeting. 9
10
In terms of the ones that I would like to see us voting up or down, there’s one that we really 11
haven’t talked to that’s a biggie. H2.1.1, which is the considering the allowance of high density 12
residential mixed use in commercial areas within a half mile of major transit stations and 13
exploring exceptions to the 50 foot height limit for housing inventory sites within a quarter mile 14
of fixed rail stations to encourage high density residential development. I understand the 15
Council directed Staff to consider that and that wording is reflective of Council’s direction, but 16
I’m not sure that this community… let me word that differently. This community has 17
demonstrated no force of will to abandon the 50 foot height limit, so I don’t know whether that is 18
premature because there has not been a public discussion of whether we’re ready to implement 19
that. So my question for Staff on this one is; does the current Housing Element depend on units 20
that are derived from exceeding the 50 foot height limit? If the proposed Housing Element 21
does… am I seeing a nod from Staff that it is not dependent on that? 22
23
Mr. Williams: That is correct. It’s not dependent on that. 24
25
Vice Chair Fineberg: Ok. So if we can get a compliant or near to compliant Housing Element 26
without breaching the 50 foot height limit then I believe that we need to strike H2.1.1 from the 27
program. We have the option of adding it back in our next cycle that is going to start in 2014. 28
We don’t need it, we don’t know if the public supports it. From recent Council actions it’s not 29
clear whether the current Council supports it, so I think that should be struck. That’s the one I 30
want to make sure of, so far I’m the only one that has talked about that so I want to make sure 31
that we either get head nods or straw poll where the Motion includes clear direction on that so 32
we’re clear to Council what way we want to go. The others I think enough has been said on. 33
34
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller, you see the way in which Commissioner Tuma wants to 35
propose we go forward with the recommendations from the Commission tonight. Do you have 36
any comment on that? 37
38
Commissioner Keller: Yes, I realize that I believe Commissioner Tuma is a member of the 39
Subcommittee, if I remember correctly. Are you? Are you not? Who’s the Subcommittee now? 40
41
Chair Martinez: It’s me. I get to make all the final decisions. 42
43
Commissioner Keller: I think that it is appropriate for this body to make policy decisions. I do 44
not think it’s appropriate for this body to delegate policy decisions to a Subcommittee. It’s ok 45
for this body to delegate drafting to a Subcommittee, and if there are policy decisions to be made 46
Page
41
to come back to this body, but I don’t think that we really want it to come back, I think we want 1
it to go to the Council next. Commissioner Tuma wants to respond to something I just said. 2
3
Chair Martinez: Are you finished with your comment? 4
5
Commissioner Keller: No. I think he wants to respond to something and then I’ll continue. 6
7
Commissioner Tuma: Just very briefly. 8
Chair Martinez: Yes. Commissioner Tuma. 9
10
Commissioner Tuma: This will come back to us, whether we want it to or not. 11
12
Commissioner Keller: I understand that, but it will come back to us after it goes to HCD and 13
after it goes to Council. Therefore whatever this body sends to Council should be the consensus 14
of this body and not the consensus of merely a Subcommittee. And therefore the policy 15
decisions that we want to make should be the policy decisions of the body as a whole where we 16
give direction to the Subcommittee on what changes we want to make in general and the 17
Subcommittee can do the wordsmithing. That I agree with, but we should make decisions. We 18
should have a consensus on what changes we want to make and I don’t think we have that in the 19
form of our comments. So either we make it in the form of a Motion or we make it in the form 20
of straw polls. I would not agree with a blanket, “listen to what we said and make comments on 21
it.” Make changes to the document based on it because it would not have made a clear intent of 22
what changes we want in the form of a Motion or Straw Poll, so I don’t think we have a clear 23
consensus, so, if I may, I would actually like to make a more detailed Motion. 24
25
Chair Martinez: Go ahead and make your Motion. Let’s see where we go. Commissioner 26
Keller. 27
28
Commissioner Keller: Also I would be happy with friendly amendments and I would be happy 29
with any requests for straw polls on any item that I include in here. Ok? May I request for straw 30
polls on some things I might include? 31
32
Chair Martinez: No. Make your Motion and let’s just see where it goes, whether it passes. 33
We’ll go from there. 34
35
MOTION 36
37
Commissioner Keller: Ok, great. So the Motion is to direct the Subcommittee to make changes 38
to the Housing Element before submitting it to the City Council with the following changes, 39
these are changes in general, the Subcommittee is actually going to make the detailed changes. 40
So the first change is to drop Program 3.1.2.J, Paragraph J. The second is to add the word 41
“evaluate” before 3.1.2I. The third is to consider either severely restricting the site and design 42
review potential along the lines of what we talked about or eliminate that. I think that’s 43
something that the Subcommittee can negotiate with Staff. In terms of H2.1.5, two changes. 44
One is instead of amending the zoning code to create zoning incentives that encourage, that 45
should be instead consider how to encourage the development of smaller, more affordable 46
Page
42
housing units, including units for seniors. Then edit end and how to locate housing with school 1
children near schools with student capacity. 2
3
Commissioner Tuma: I’m sorry; could you repeat the number on that one? 4
5
Commissioner Keller: Yes that’s H2.1.5 on Page 156. 6
7
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. 8
9
Commissioner Keller: In addition, add a program with the wording and location to be 10
determined later, which is, add a program to evaluate or study the provision of co-housing. In 11
other words, figure out how to create that. I’m not sure how to word that but that’s the direction 12
of the Subcommittee to do that. 13
14
Finally, the next thing is create a program to create a nexus study for a public safety impact fee. 15
Then the only other change that I’m going to have here, two other changes. One other change is 16
in 2.1.4 and 3.3.2 to create an overlay district instead of a zoning ordinance revision, instead of a 17
change to that zoning. Finally, in terms of 3.1.12, that we actually do the study as opposed to 18
consider conducting a study. 3.1.12, that we actually do the study as opposed to, as it’s drafted 19
now, consider conducting a study. That there’s actually a direction to do the study. That’s the 20
substance of my proposal. 21
22
Chair Martinez. Do we have a Second for that First? 23
24
SECOND 25
26
Chair Martinez: I see no Second, so your Motion fails. Ok, we do have a Second for the 27
Motion. Vice Chair Fineberg. I do have another question for you. 28
29
Commissioner Keller: Sure. 30
31
Chair Martinez: What about the other items on your list? 32
33
Commissioner Keller: The other items on the list are recommendations of things that the 34
Subcommittee can consider and evaluate how to do wordsmithing. They are not really 35
substantive changes, they are really changes in the spirit of what’s already there so I think that 36
those things are things that you can consider but I’m not going to specifically add them to the 37
Motion, unless people want them in the motion. 38
39
Chair Martinez: Ok. Do you want to speak to your Motion? 40
41
Commissioner Keller: I think it is important that the Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Element 42
represent the interests of, the policy statement of the Commission as a whole. I am willing to 43
entertain changes to this if people feel strongly in deleting things or feel strongly about adding 44
things. I am happy to entertain making further changes, but I think that what goes forward from 45
the Subcommittee in order to save time it doesn’t come back to us, but should really represent a 46
Page
43
policy of this group. I think that it would be good to move forward with a Housing Element and 1
I appreciate the work of Staff and the various members of the public and the various other people 2
we had working on this in terms of the various groups that participated in this to try to create a 3
Housing Element that was the best we could have produced considering the constraints. And to 4
get it approved by the State as soon as we can. Thank you. 5
6
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg. 7
8
Vice Chair Fineberg: I seconded this because I think it’s important that we do this detail work 9
even though it’s the eleventh or twelfth time, it keeps evolving and if we can get it as good as 10
we’re going to get it by doing another hour of work tonight I think it will be a much stronger 11
presentation. A much stronger Housing Element going forward to Council. As Seconder, am I 12
allowed to make some friendly amendments? Ok. If I can repeat some that have been 13
mentioned by several other Commissioners that I think, and forgive me if I’m missing on these 14
the nomenclature for the numbers are sometimes hard to follow, so if I’m in error on this, I beg 15
indulgence. I believe that we talked about deleting H.2.1 and H.2.2 that eliminated the site and 16
design review. So if I’ve got those numbers correct, if I could offer a friendly amendment that 17
those policies be deleted. H 2.2.1, so Page 157. H 2.2.1. 18
19
Commissioner Keller: I certainly agree with dropping H2.1.1, I’m sorry, H2.2.1, which is the 20
“identify incentives and encourage development of suitable housing.” 21
22
Vice Chair Fineberg: Then H2.2.2. 23
24
Commissioner Keller: I think in this one I actually addressed it and what I said is that I’m 25
leaving it up to the Subcommittee to either drop it or severely restrict it in conjunction with Staff. 26
I think I prefer dropping it, but if Staff really wants to twist our arm to keep it and they have a 27
good reason, I’m not sure. 28
29
Vice Chair Fineberg: I think if I count noses of everyone, there was a general consensus that 30
eliminating site and design review of mixed use projects that are going to be PC’s is a disaster 31
waiting to happen. I think we as a body have spoken that we don’t want to give up site and 32
design review as an incentive. 33
34
Chair Martinez: I don’t think that’s official. 35
36
Vice Chair Fineberg: Correct. My indications of counting [interrupted by Commissioner 37
Keller]. 38
39
Commissioner Keller: I believe you’re right. Does the Staff want to comment? 40
41
Mr. Williams: May I offer a clarification on that? You said in PC’s. It does not eliminate the 42
full PC review on PC’s. It’s just site and design review is a specific part of the code that applies 43
to certain projects. PC has its own process, so it’s not eliminating full review on PC’s, even 44
though they may be mixed use. The other thing is, I think Commissioner Keller’s option 45
provides some latitude for discussion. I guess I would like to get direction from the Commission 46
Page
44
on whether you would entertain something that perhaps right now mixed use projects in 1
commercial zones that have five or more units require full site and design review. Maybe there’s 2
some flexibility that it’s eight or ten, which is a half-acre site or less that could change for that 3
and be a little bone to throw HCD or something. Anything that’s more than a half-acre site then 4
essentially would require the full. I’m not saying that’s necessarily any magic number, but that’s 5
the difference I see between the two Motions. Is one provides maybe the opportunity to have 6
that kind of discussion and the other is just no. Which is straightforward and easy to do. 7
8
Vice Chair Fineberg: I understand going forward that it might be good to have some kind of 9
incentive program, but the reality is that H.2.2 is a very contentious program that members of the 10
community have commented on as something that causes distress. The reality is if we’re lucky 11
this Element is going to get adopted in 2013 and then if the program itself says implement an 12
incentive program within a year of the Housing Element adoption, so that program won’t even be 13
adopted within the life cycle of this Element, so it’s an absolutely useless piece. So, why burden 14
ourselves with something that is contentious and argumentative and people are going to like it or 15
not like it and it’s going to be smoke and discussion on something that isn’t real. So if we strike 16
it, we simplify it, we get rid of something that’s contentious; we make the review process easier. 17
Now I understand from your comment we lose the carrot that we’re giving to HCD, but if it 18
means that this thing goes through with an easier acceptance by the community I think that has a 19
huge value. 20
21
Commissioner Keller: I will accept the motion of the Amendment to drop H2.2.2, my suggestion 22
on that is if the HCD comes back to us and says we absolutely need it then that come back to us 23
to figure out how we craft one that’s narrow enough not to cause us grief. 24
25
Chair Martinez: I think Director William’s comment really goes to the core of what we’re doing 26
here and that I believe there’s some critical thinking to be done here. We are acting less than as 27
a Committee trying to design this sausage. And I would prefer to see us take these comments 28
back to the Subcommittee, to the Staff, and let them come back at our next meeting with some 29
suggestions that may be more palatable, more creative, that address both concerns of HCD and 30
of the community who has apprehensions about site and design being removed this way. 31
32
I just believe that we are cutting and pasting something that we are kind of losing control of. I 33
don’t think it’s an orderly process for us to be striking this and taking that out and undermining 34
certain parts of the Housing Element without a broader consideration of what we’re doing. 35
Those are fine recommendations for consideration, but not for an adoption at this time of the 36
Housing Element going forward. Commissioner Tuma. 37
38
Vice Chair Fineberg: Well, I’m still making friendly amendments. So, can I finish? 39
40
Commissioner Tuma: If I could just make a comment that’s directly responsive to what the 41
Chair just said. Mr. Chair? 42
43
Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner Tuma. 44
45
Page
45
Commissioner Tuma: I think that’s a great idea. I think we should continue to go through with 1
the friendly amendments, put all the stuff on the table. So far I have 10 items. What I was going 2
to do next was turn to Staff and say, what do you think about each of these 10 items? Because I 3
want your input. This is sort of cherry picking a little bit. As I’ve gone through I don’t actually 4
disagree with that much of the stuff, but I think we should finish this process but perhaps instead 5
of having the vote, because we had talked about this coming back to us at our next meeting 6
anyway. So maybe we put all 10, 12, 14, whatever these suggestions are going to be, on the 7
table, give them to Staff, give them the opportunity to analyze them and then come back with 8
that time having been put into it. But let’s get them all out on the table now. That would be, I’ll 9
tell you right now the way it stands there’s absolutely no way I can support this Motion. It’s not 10
been vetted enough. 11
12
Vice Chair Fineberg: Can I finish? 13
14
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair, can I just make a recommendation that your comments be a 15
recommendation for consideration and we not go forward with it as a Motion? 16
17
Vice Chair Fineberg: My preference would be that my friendly amendments include a Motion 18
that we continue with the straw poll and have Staff make changes reflective of our comments 19
tonight and have it come back to us at our next meeting in two weeks. Would I think be exactly 20
be exactly what Commissioner Tuma and Chair Martinez has just said. 21
22
Chair Martinez: Yeah, proceed with the friendly amendments. 23
24
Vice Chair Fineberg: So, taking a step back… and I have two more programs that I want to 25
make comments on. I’ll come back to those. One friendly amendment would be that instead of 26
it reading that we recommend that the Subcommittee make the changes and have it go to Council 27
that the Subcommittee make the changes based on our straw polls and our votes tonight and then 28
it come back to us in two weeks. 29
30
Commissioner Keller: If the thing comes back to us in two weeks, then I feel comfortable with 31
the idea of doing a series of straw polls where we provide policy direction and/or if it comes 32
back to us in a month I’m not sure exactly how, I don’t think it can come back to us in two 33
weeks, that’s probably too soon. 34
35
Mr. Turner: I mean if it’s possible we’d like to come back in two weeks. I mean if we can 36
synthesize the items down to perhaps a number of five key issues that Staff can work on then we 37
can certainly do that, but if there is a longer list, as what seems to be implied, I don’t think Staff 38
can turn this around in two weeks. We would need to come back to you at a later date. 39
40
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller do you have further comments? 41
42
Commissioner Keller. It seems to me that if we have it come back to us at a date uncertain, 43
rather than a date certain. You want date certain? 44
45
Page
46
Mr. Turner: Not necessarily. I think if we can come back to you in two weeks if the items can 1
be synthetized down into a handful of five specific areas that you’d like Staff to focus on, but if 2
there is a longer list of items that will require additional Staff analysis and consideration it’s 3
going to take longer than two weeks. 4
5
Mr. Williams: I think we need to give you that estimate at the end of your discussion here and 6
let you know whether we think it’s two or four. Worst case I don’t think it would be more than 7
the four. So I think we’d like it to continue to a date certain but we can’t tell you whether that 8
date’s two weeks or four weeks until you get through your direction. 9
10
Commissioner Keller: Then perhaps what we should do is have a slightly different approach, 11
which is first of all the Motion goes from the Commission to the Subcommittee and then on to 12
Council. 13
14
Vice Chair Fineberg: No, back to us. 15
16
Commissioner Keller: The original Motion. So we’re actually modifying…? 17
18
Vice Chair Fineberg: I just made a friendly amendment that would amend your Motion that we 19
will direct the Subcommittee and Staff to make the modifications based on Commission 20
comments, wordsmithing and then come back to the Commission in preferably two weeks, or 21
time uncertain if Staff determines that’s necessary. 22
23
Commissioner Keller: So the idea is that the item instead of going to Council will come back to 24
us for a quick review and the Staff will tell us whether it’s two weeks or four weeks, is that the 25
idea? I would accept that amendment. 26
27
Chair Martinez: Anybody else want to weigh in before we vote on this thing? Commissioner 28
Michael. 29
30
Commissioner Michael: I’m just curious by our process here. I think it’s dysfunctional and it’s 31
not going to produce a clear and good result. I can’t follow the individual points and I’m 32
reasonably intelligent and I’m trying to grasp all the details but I’m totally lost. I would like to 33
see before casting a vote in favor of this, although I may be favorably disposed to support it, a 34
red line version of what the changes are. It’s sufficiently important, that particularly as we get 35
into a combination of minor wordsmithing and some conceptual things about which there may be 36
disagreement. I would really like to see a clean copy of what we’re proposing to approve and 37
move on as the policy and procedures of the City with respect to housing. 38
39
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tuma, comment? 40
41
Commissioner Tuma: I completely agree with that but I also think it needs to be supplemented 42
by the analysis from Staff. In other words, I’m not even prepared for a straw poll at this point on 43
these items. I need Staff’s analysis of what the impacts of these various things are going to be. 44
So I think if we come back in two weeks or four weeks or what have you, with a red line version 45
as well as a Staff report analyzing the impacts of these changes, then we would be in a position 46
Page
47
to move forward with a recommendation. But, I agree and I’ve been at this for 11 meetings. I’m 1
sitting here trying to feverishly take notes and understand what this means and what the impacts 2
are and there’s no way I can in good conscious vote on a policy on any of this stuff tonight. 3
4
Commissioner Keller: Are you suggesting a friendly amendment? 5
6
Chair Martinez: You have to be called on. First I want to agree with that. I’m not comfortable 7
being directed by the Commission on all of this to go out and make these changes. I’m 8
comfortable in spending my time with Staff listening to the pros and cons and what other ways 9
we could tackle this and coming to a recommendation to bring back to the Commission, but not 10
sort of with this mandate that these changes are the wishes of this Commission. Commissioner 11
Keller. 12
13
Commissioner Keller: Since this item is coming back to us, I would be happy to amend the 14
Motion instead of directing the Subcommittee to make these changes, instead to direct the 15
Subcommittee to evaluate these changes. The reason I was thinking of directing the 16
Subcommittee to make these changes was because the original ideas wouldn’t come back to us. 17
As long as it’s coming back to us I’m happy for the evaluation to be done and to consider to have 18
a list of changes that the Subcommittee evaluates in discussion with Staff and then come back to 19
us on why the changes were or were not made and further along those lines. In particular, in that 20
case I would also like to change H2.2.2 instead of dropping it. The recommendation is to figure 21
out whether it should be dropped or whether there is a way of more finely crafting it that is more 22
suitable. 23
24
Chair Martinez: So that’s an amendment to your Motion that you’re proposing. Seconder? Vice 25
Chair. 26
27
Vice Chair Fineberg: I can’t accept that. We have so totally lost the thread. We are the body as 28
a group at public hearings that needs to make recommendations to Council on policy matters. 29
I’m frankly stunned that I’m hearing that we shouldn’t be making policy recommendations for 30
Staff to implement. If we have something like whether or not to have the elimination of site and 31
design review, if after all the meetings we’ve had, if we can’t say it’s good or bad to eliminate 32
site and design review requirements then what are we doing? What is Staff going to give us 33
that’s going to add more or less to that than we already know? We know what happens when we 34
do site and design review. We know what might happen if it doesn’t happen, if we don’t have 35
site and design review. 36
37
I don’t want to go down the path of having Staff having to analyze things. I understand we have 38
to temper it with not having a prudent recommendation tonight, but we need to winnow this 39
down to a final list of what’s in, what’s out, what the modifications, what the considerations are 40
and track it and vote it up or down at our next meeting. If we ask for more analysis it’s just 41
going to be more delays. 42
43
I thought that we had a majority of the body saying it would be imprudent to eliminate site and 44
design review and if we counted noses maybe people have changed their minds and there’s new 45
information or different information, but I don’t think recommending that there be consideration 46
Page
48
is a good path. I think we need to vote it up or down tonight and we need to figure out a way to 1
vote it up or down. 2
3
Chair Martinez: City Attorney, is nose counting in our policies and procedures? I’m going to 4
call for a Vote on the Motion. Those in favor, say aye. 5
6
Commissioner Keller: Point of order. According to our procedures a call for a closure vote, 7
which is a vote to end discussion, requires a separate vote. It’s not simply a Motion to end 8
discussion. 9
10
Chair Martinez: Ok. So anybody care to have further comment on this? Commissioner Tuma. 11
12
SUBSTITUTE MOTION 13
14
Commissioner Tuma: I’m going to make a substitute motion. Substitute Motion be simply that 15
direct Staff to work with a Subcommittee to analyze the items that were put forth in the 16
underlying Motion as well as the amendments thereto and to come back to the Commission at the 17
soonest possible date with that analysis and a redlined version. 18
19
SECOND 20
21
Chair Martinez: Motion by Commissioner Tuma, Second by Commissioner Michael. Question 22
by Vice Chair Feinberg. Do you want to speak to your Motion? 23
24
Commissioner Tuma: Just very briefly I agree with what Commissioner Feinberg said. We need 25
to take a definitive action. I think just to use the one example that she was referring to, on 26
eliminating site design or not elimination site design, I am very uncomfortable with eliminating 27
site design, but what I’ve heard from our Planning Director who is deeply involved in this and 28
has been through this process many, many times is perhaps there’s something else that we can do 29
to mitigate the concern from HCD. So let’s give them the opportunity to come back to us and 30
tell us what that might be. I think they are hearing pretty loud and clear that we don’t necessarily 31
want to eliminate site and design review, but maybe there is something that we can do that will 32
help through the process. By the end of the day, it’s Staff that has to negotiate this thing. So, I 33
think my proposal, allows, I’ve got it 10, maybe 11, the record will show whatever it is, items 34
that have been put on the table in the form of the original Motion and the friendly amendments, 35
let’s let Staff work through those with the Subcommittee and come back to us in two weeks with 36
a red lined version and with their analysis of the impacts of those changes. Then I think we’re in 37
a position to vote on it. That’s why I would do it this way. 38
39
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Michael. 40
41
Commissioner Michael: Yes, I would just add to that that I think the importance of the goals, 42
policies, and programs here are such that we should act with clarity. I think if we go through the 43
process of proposing the revisions which have been suggested by Commissioners Keller and 44
others, which many or most or even all of which may make perfect sense, then we will have a 45
Page
49
clear understanding of what we’re doing and then we will be able to do what we need to do. To 1
act otherwise in haste or confusion would be a miscarriage of our function as a Commission. 2
3
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 4
5
Commissioner Tanaka: I would like to actually make a friendly amendment to the Substitute 6
Motion, which is, I know that there’s been some friendly amendments and some proposals which 7
I don’t necessarily disagree with but there has also been a lot of comment before that amendment 8
that I think should also be incorporated and considered by the Subcommittee. And the red lines, 9
I think having comments from Staff on the red lines would be very useful. I don’t think you 10
should just incorporate just on the policy and programs that we just talked about as part of the 11
amendment. We’ve had 2, 3, 4 hours of discussion which wasn’t captured in those amendments. 12
The Subcommittee needs to think, with Staff, all this holistically together. So I want to make a 13
friendly amendment not to just include the amendments and the Motion that Commissioner 14
Keller proposed, but encompassing our discussion tonight. 15
16
Commissioner Tuma: I’m fine with that. 17
18
Chair Martinez: Seconder? 19
20
Commissioner Michael: I also accept that. 21
22
Chair Martinez: Right on Commissioner Tanaka, I was going to remind Staff of the same things 23
that we had comments on the technical document Chapters one through four, including on the 24
introduction, on adding addresses, on strengthening our argument about why it’s difficult to 25
build housing in Palo Alto and that should also be included. Can we vote on this? 26
27
Vice Chair Feinberg: No 28
29
Chair Martinez: Because? 30
31
Vice Chair Feinberg: I have a question. 32
33
Chair Martinez: Yes, Vice Chair Fineberg. 34
35
Vice Chair Feinberg: Who is on the Subcommittee? I think that we and the public deserves to 36
know that before we refer something back to an unknown group. 37
38
Chair Martinez: I may live to regret this but the Subcommittee is me and the Vice Chair. 39
40
Vice Chair Feinberg: Thank you, I guess. I also want to thank Commissioner Tanaka for his 41
suggestion that the consideration of, I’ll call them “amendments,” also include much of what was 42
discussed earlier because I too had a list that I was desperately trying to get through and now I 43
don’t have to repeat what had already been said because there were so many comments about 44
other items that we hadn’t captured yet in our list of possible amendments. I will be supporting 45
the Motion. 46
Page
50
1
Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner Keller. 2
3
Commissioner Keller: I’m wondering if rather than making it a date uncertain if we could have 4
Staff suggest a date certain? 5
6
Mr. Williams: May 9th, is that the second Tuesday in May? 7
8
Commissioner Keller: May 9th is a date on here. It’s a date that we have just the CIP program 9
going then. 10
11
Mr. Williams: That’s the date. 12
13
Commissioner Keller: So I make a friendly amendment that it be a date certain of May 9th. 14
15
Commissioner Tuma: Yes, that’s fine. 16
17
Chair Martinez: Seconder? 18
19
Commissioner Michael: That’s fine. 20
21
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I suggest that to the extent that the suggestions in the 22
underlying Motion or specific things that we’ve talked about that there was significant support 23
for are not adopted that we sort of have some rationale why they are not adopted. That would be 24
helpful. We know a reason why. 25
26
Chair Martinez: That’s not a friendly amendment, that’s just…. 27
28
Commission Keller: It’s just direction, it’s not an amendment. 29
30
Chair Martinez: I think that’s the intention why we’re doing it this way. 31
32
Commissioner Keller: Great, then I will support the Substitute Motion. 33
34
Chair Martinez: Can we call for a vote? Those in favor of the Substitute Motion say aye. Those 35
opposed? The Motion passes unanimously with Commissioner Keller, Tanaka, Martinez, 36
Fineberg, Michael and Tuma voting in support. Thank you for that. Thanks Staff. 37
38
MOTION PASSED (6-0) 39
40
Page 1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Verbatim Minutes 2
May 9, 2012 3
4
EXCERPT 5
6
7
Housing Element Update: Review and Recommendation to Council of Proposed Draft 8
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. 9
10
Chair Martinez: Ok, welcome back everyone. Second item for our hearing tonight is a review of 11
the draft Housing Element and recommendation to Council. Excuse me. Let me just say that I 12
spent my entire Planning Commission Career working on the Housing Element and we’ve 13
reached a milestone tonight, so I’m looking forward to moving it ahead. Staff, do you have the 14
report? 15
16
Tim Wong, Senior Planner: Good evening, my name is Tim Wong and I’m the Senior Planner. 17
And, just Staff has prepared a brief presentation for the PTC to update them on what has 18
transpired since the April 11, 2012, meeting. 19
20
On April 11, 2012, the PTC reviewed the entire Draft Housing Element for the first time and if 21
you’ll recall at that meeting the PTC broke up that meeting into two parts. The first half of the 22
meeting was to consider the technical aspects of the Housing Element and from that first half the 23
PTC had directed Staff to A) rewrite Chapter 1.1 of the Housing Element, the introduction, if 24
you will, and also to revise the Housing Inventory tables and maps. For example, to include 25
street addresses and to make it a little more user friendly. 26
27
The second half of the meeting was to discuss the Housing Element’s goals, policies, and 28
programs. There were a number of comments made on several Housing Element programs. 29
However, a majority of the comments were focused on four Housing Element programs. 30
Specifically, Program 2.1.1, which is the, to explore limited exceptions to the City’s 50 foot 31
height limit. Program 2.1.4, which is housing on City parking lots. Program 2.2.1, which is 32
incentive, identify incentives for a mixed use development. And finally, Program 2.2.2, which is 33
the waiving of site and design, if a developer would develop at certain densities and have an 34
average unit size of not to exceed 1,250 square feet. 35
36
There were a number of; there were lengthy discussions for that meeting, so after that meeting 37
PTC directed Staff to meet with the Housing Element Subcommittee to analyze the items and to 38
return back to the PTC on May 9th. Staff met twice with the Housing Element Subcommittee to 39
review these four programs along with all the other comments that the PTC had made in regards 40
to programs. And those comments have all been recorded in Attachment A of your Staff Report, 41
along with Staff analysis of those comments. 42
43
So the Subcommittee started off also reviewing Program 2.1.1, in which it allows the in limited 44
exceptions to explore the 50 foot height limit if it’s within a quarter mile of fixed rail. The 45
Subcommittee did discuss, but it did not revise the housing, this particular program and it was 46
Page 2
decided that it would be best served to take it back to the PTC. The full PTC, to get their 1
feedback on this particular program. 2
3
The other three programs were revised significantly, or substantially. Program 2.1.4, which 4
proposes to construct or provide housing on public parking, or City owned parking lots, the 5
originally proposed program is what’s listed on top and the proposed wording, or the revised 6
wording for that program is the underlying portion. So for Program 2.1.4 it proposes to evaluate 7
the parking lots for suitability of residential housing or appropriateness and that is the revision 8
for that particular program. And I can go into the background of the reasoning for the revisions 9
if the PTC would like. 10
11
Program 2.2.1 was also revised. It is the one that identifies incentives for mixed use 12
developments and it was further clarified to say that the incentives would be part of the density 13
bonus program. So if you proposed mixed use, what the City proposes is to promote a density 14
bonus to achieve those mixed use developments, but in addition to that, Staff added wording 15
about consideration of providing more flexible concessions and incentives as part of the Density 16
Program. This stems from the November of 2011 study session with the PTC in regards to the 17
Density Bonus and Concessions. The PTC had directed Staff to provide a Density Bonus 18
Ordinance with a menu of concessions and as part of this menu, if a developer decides to build 19
smaller units at a higher density we could, Staff proposes to put in more flexible concessions or 20
incentives as part of the Density Bonus Ordinance to help incentivize that type of development. 21
22
And lastly, Program 2.2.2 received a number of comments and this proposes the waiving of site 23
and design. Originally it proposed the waiving of site and design if the developer proposed to 24
build at a density of 20 dwelling units per acre or higher and it had a maximum average unit size 25
of 1,250 square feet. But at the last meeting there were a number of comments stating that about 26
waiving of site and design, that 1,250 square feet as an average unit size was too large, therefore 27
it went back to the Subcommittee. And the revision is that the waiving of site and design will 28
now apply to those developments that have a project yield of 9 units or less, or fewer. That they 29
still must build at a density of 20 dwelling units per acre or higher and also, but the unit size, the 30
average unit size has been lowered to 900 square feet. 31
32
There have been other minor changes to the goals, policies, and programs and those have been 33
shown. The revisions have been shown in Attachment C of your Staff Report. It shows the track 34
changes, the underline and strikethroughs. 35
36
And lastly, the PTC had requested to revise the Housing Inventory Site maps and tables. In 37
regards to the Housing Inventory Site tables, what Staff has done is separated the, excuse me, the 38
sites based on their unit yields based on the proposed program 2.2.2. Therefore, on the tables it 39
shows those sites that have a yield of 9 units or less and then those that have a yield of 10 units 40
or more. And those parcels that have a yield of 10 units or more have been noted on the Housing 41
Inventory maps for your review, and also on the HIS maps they’ve been broken down into three 42
areas so you can better see the distribution of sites geographically. 43
44
And to conclude, so this evening Staff is requesting five things from the PTC. Number one is to 45
review and comment on the revisions to Programs 2.2.1, 2.2.2, and Program 2.1.4. Secondly, to 46
Page 3
review and comment on the merits of the Program 2.1.1, regarding adjustments to the 50 foot 1
height limit within a quarter mile of fixed rail stations. And then to also review and comment on 2
the revisions of Program 2.2.2 that could potentially discourage developers from utilizing the 3
incentive. 4
5
Oh, yeah, just to back up. On Program 2.2.2 just in reducing the unit size and the restrictions to 6
the site, or the requirements of the site and design Staff is just noting that that could, to put it, 7
you know, scare away a potential developers from using this particular incentive and maybe 8
pushing them more towards a Density Bonus. The reasoning being if the developer can only 9
design, develop between five to nine units approximately; they may want to be developing with 10
larger units to get a greater return. Yet site and design, the waiving of that is significant; 11
however, to be limited at 900 square feet might be restrictive. So, that is the third request that 12
you look at that program. 13
And then review and comment on the text revisions of Chapter 1.1 and the revised Housing 14
Inventory tables and maps. And lastly, to recommend to the City Council that the Housing 15
Element as edited and revised by Staff and the PTC be forwarded to HCD for review. And so, 16
that concludes Staff’s presentation. I’d be happy to answer any questions that the PTC may 17
have. 18
19
Chair Martinez: Thanks Tim. I think we’ll open the public hearing. We have one speaker card, 20
but there is time for others. Vice Chair. 21
22
Vice Chair Fineberg: Bob Moss to be followed by Herb Borock. 23
24
Bob Moss: You’re pressing it. Thank you Chairman Martinez and the Commissioners. A few 25
suggestions on the program elements you’re discussing. First, I would suggest in H 2.1.1 that 26
you make it a quarter mile, not a half mile for increased density. A quarter mile is what’s 27
required by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and State requirements and if 28
you go a half mile you’re going into areas which are primarily residential even though this talks 29
about in commercial areas. Look at a half mile beyond the California Avenue Train Station and 30
you’re wiping out a number of single family homes, not a good idea. 31
32
On 2.1, 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 the City of Palo Alto does not need incentives to get people to build 33
housing in Palo Alto. There is no reason to have an incentive of any sort. And both these 34
programs should be deleted. There is a massive interest in housing development, more so than in 35
commercial developing Palo Alto to the extent where large commercial areas have been 36
converted to housing. To the point where the City Council finally had to take a stand and say we 37
won’t allow this anymore. So putting in incentives for housing is absurd. Along with that it’s a 38
really bad idea to eliminate site and design review because we will end up getting some 39
absolutely ghastly developments built if that’s done. 40
41
In terms of the, a few other things, on the Chapter 1 Report, on the top of page 2, where it cites 42
median housing prices in 2006, you should be citing the median housing prices in say, 2007, 43
when they were closer to $1.5 million, and in 2011 when they were $1.7 million, and then if you 44
go on to last month they were over $2 million. It would be putting a lot more accuracy into what 45
Page 4
the housing values are in Palo Alto and explaining more about why we’re not going to get a lot 1
of low income housing, because people can’t afford to build it here. 2
3
Now I had some comments on the various locations which were identified especially along El 4
Camino, which I’m extremely familiar with. I was curious why two of the three gas stations 5
were identified as being suitable for housing but not the third one. What’s wrong with Chevron? 6
Why are you identifying motels, like the Creek Side Inn as being identified for redevelopment 7
for housing? And then in some areas you’re identifying some restaurants by sites as being 8
suitable for redevelopment and others eliminated. There’s no logic to the way that the sites are 9
selected so I’d like to know why some of these sites are picked and why some of them were 10
omitted. 11
12
Chair Martinez: Thank you Mr. Moss. Mr. Blala [NOTE—he mispronounced Borock]. 13
14
Herb Borock: I think that’s me. Good evening. The 1978 Comprehensive Plan and zoning 15
permitted housing in all nonresidential zones and then more recently the Council with 16
Commission’s recommendation has prohibited housing in certain nonresidential zones. And now 17
here we are again going back the other way with recommendations and I wish you’d make up 18
your mind. 19
20
On policy H 1.2, Program H 1.2.2, preserving rental housing, the original program when that was 21
first put in the plan required three or four conditions to be met and then it was reduced to two out 22
of three and now you only have one. I prefer going back to the way that it was originally. 23
24
Program H 2.1.7 refers to a Residential Density Bonus Ordinance. I’m not aware that we have 25
one. If this is referring to the ordinance proposed for government code 65915 then just say so. If 26
there really is an ordinance, I’d like the ordinance number if it exists. 27
28
In Policy H 2.3, Program H 2.3.1, proposes prohibiting private schools and churches, and I guess 29
they mean religious institutions not, you know, just churches in multiple family zones. And 30
generally these are the places where we would find them, in residential zones. So does this mean 31
that they can only be in single family zones? That’s typically where you have these kinds of 32
institutions because that’s what they serve. The Below Market Rate (BMR) program further on 33
in that page, since it’s talking now only about a for sale program again due to the court case, that 34
is referred to it should be mentioned that that’s what it is. The continuing on the following page 35
under program paragraph B for that program it mentions profit on the BMR units. Originally 36
there was no profit in the program and I think it should be restored to that. The profit is 37
dependent upon the form, the market rate units for which all the land cost is attributed and should 38
be no profit on the subsidized units. 39
40
On the last page referring to homeless shelters the original idea in 1985 which has continued to 41
today is that churches having shelters are under temporary use permits, which does away with 42
any kinds of hearings and therefore is limited to 30 days, one month out of the year. And I didn’t 43
know what this program was talking about, was it talking about was this the place if there’s some 44
natural disaster all these churches would be the emergency shelters or was it talking about 45
changing one month a year to twelve months a year, multiplying the population using those 46
Page 5
churches and other institutions by 12? I don’t think that’s well explained in here or thought out 1
and I believe the current program should stay as it is and if you want a place for natural disasters 2
for emergency shelters, a place like Cubberley would be much better than individual religious 3
institutions. Thank you. 4
5
Chair Martinez: Ok, thank you very much. We’ll close the public hearing with that. 6
Commissioners, I think we need a little structure, so we’re going to do a round of questions, 7
comments and you’ll be given five minutes each. First round. I haven’t had a chance to really 8
go through it I don’t think others have but Commissioner Keller has a series of comments. Do 9
you want to take those first, five minutes at a time? Really try to highlight the things that are the 10
most, you know, the highest priority for you. 11
12
Commissioner Keller: So, I’m gonna go through these some of them and the ones that are more 13
detailed and more critical in more detail. In terms of 2.1.1, I didn’t say this, but I do agree with 14
the member of the public who mentioned a quarter of a mile rather than half a mile and it’s not in 15
my comments. 16
17
And also, there’s one place where it says “consider” and another place where it says “explore.” 18
I’m wondering if they should both say “consider” rather than “explore,” because “explore” 19
means you do it and “consider” means you evaluate it. So exploring requires that you do at least 20
one place, I think. So that’s why “consider” would be better. 21
22
Also, I’m wondering whether in terms of 2.1.1 whether adding a tiny housing component on an 23
otherwise big nonresidential project should really qualify for 2.1.1 and the 50 foot height limit 24
particularly in the light of the City Council’s direction with respect to 335 to 355 Alma, the first 25
project where we actually explored doing this. So I think that calls into question whether that, 26
the height, the exceptions to the height limit should actually be in there. 27
28
With respect to 2.1.4, I just want to make sure this is clear that it doesn’t apply to PF zoning for 29
uses other than the parking lots. I assume that that’s the case, but I just want to make sure that’s 30
the case. 31
32
There is a typo in my list in terms of 2.2.2, that’s actually 1.2.2. There’s a 1.2.2 but no 1.2, 33
there’s a 1.2.1, so somebody had a numbering problem. So that 1.2.2 should be 1.2.1 as a 34
reference to H 1.2A, so that needs to be corrected. 35
36
In 2.2.1, again there’s an issue here where there’s an incentive and the question is whether that 37
incentive really should apply if you have a small residential component to a large nonresidential 38
component. And so, you know, I’m just asking the question. I’m not sure how to handle that but 39
that’s an issue there. 40
41
In terms of 2.2.2 the wording is kinda funny. It says, “eliminate site and design review and only 42
requires architectural review,” but there’s a whole bunch of things that you require in addition to 43
architectural review, such as, there’s other things that requires zoning approval and stuff like 44
that, so I wouldn’t use the word “only” I’d use the word “but” there. That actually is an 45
interesting thing. And also I would say maximum unit size is 900 square feet, I don’t know we 46
Page 6
have to say maximum average unit size. And I don’t think we need to encourage this, and if we 1
make it more restrictive I think that’s a good thing. 2
3
In terms of 2.2.3 that’s really an editorial comment. In terms of 3.1.1, the wording as it says now 4
is “amend the BMR Ordinance to lower the BMR requirement.” Well we’re not lowering the 5
BMR requirement we’re lowering the BMR threshold. So that word threshold actually makes 6
much more sense. You’re lowering the threshold from 5 to 3 units. 7
8
In terms of 3.1.2 A, we have their component and then you reference H.1.2.2, which is now 9
gonna be H.1.2.1, and that’s why say the 25% component it just really says 25% BMR 10
component makes it a lot clearer to understand. And similarly for D, I made a change there to 11
move that there but that should say “market rate housing” because market unit is not clear. 12
Similarly in 3.1.2 strike the “for sale projects will be paid,” that thing we’ve moved up so you 13
probably want to strike it from E. But I have a paragraph here that describes how to actually 14
compute it when you have partial units or, you know, partial in-lieu, whatever. And without that 15
I’m not sure if it’s clear, you may say that that’s not necessary, but it makes it pretty obvious 16
exactly how to compute it in an ordinance. 17
18
In respect to 3.1.2 I, the TAG and PTC evaluation of this I think was much more cursory at least 19
at Planning Commission did a very cursory evaluation of this. I don’t consider that to be the real 20
evaluation. I would suggest, as was mentioned last time by members of the real estate 21
community that you don’t want to simply say, “revise,” you want to really do an evaluation of 22
that, so I would put back the evaluate the revise. 23
24
In terms of 316… May I finish this one while I’m in the middle of it? Yes. In terms of 3.1.6 I 25
think that this should not be its own program it should be as part of the Housing Density Bonus 26
Ordinance. And so I feel strongly that we should not have stand alone incentives. That the 27
incentives should be as part of the Housing Density Bonus Ordinance and similarly H 2.2.1, 28
should, sorry H 2.2.2 perhaps should be if you eliminate site and design that’s a Bonus Density 29
Ordinance incentive, not an incentive separate from that. So I would add that to the list of, 30
making that a Density Bonus. And I’ll continue with the remaining ones later. Thank you. 31
32
Chair Martinez: Commissioners, I would like us to get through the items that we struggled with 33
last time, namely the items listed in table 1. The first one, which is Program 2.1.4, regarding 34
revising the public facilities zoning to allow housing on the City parking lots. Any 35
Commissioners want to take that up? Any comment about the proposed program change? 36
Commissioner Tuma. 37
38
Commissioner Tuma: I think the proposed program change is spot on. Make it evaluate and I 39
think that solves the concerns that I heard last time. 40
41
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg. 42
43
Vice Chair Fineberg: I have two issues. The first is exactly if you change it from “consider” to 44
“evaluate” so it would read “evaluate allowing high density.” And the second is a technicality of 45
whether it should be the half mile or the quarter mile. As it reads in our draft, I’m sorry. I’m 46
Page 7
sorry, my brain went to 2.1.1. I agree that the “evaluate” is the correct thing. I still don’t think 1
that we ought to include it if we can meet our demand for housing in the inventory list without 2
the program, but I understand that it would be best to leave that in there so that it is properly 3
vetted and it’s there if we need it. But my preference would be for it to be removed if we can 4
meet the demand without needing to rely on those sites. 5
6
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 7
8
Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, generally I like the revised program. The only thing is then some 9
areas I think the status quo of public parking is actually a problem. I think there’s actually, there 10
needs to be an increase in parking in some places. So I don’t think it should be just, reading it as 11
is, as long as there’s no loss in public parking. But I think in some areas we actually have an 12
underage in public parking so, maybe what it should say is as long as there’s no loss in the 13
forecasted need for public parking in that area or something to that effect. I don’t know the exact 14
words, but something along those lines. Because I know some sites there are, there’s really not 15
enough parking. Thanks. 16
17
Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner Keller. 18
19
Commissioner Keller: Yeah, so first of all I agree with this change. So, but I have two questions. 20
One question is if we have a parking lot in the Housing Inventory Sites list and a parking 21
structure is built on that site, does that mean we have to find another site to cover those units in 22
order to, because presumably that would then be removed from the Housing Inventory Site list. 23
24
Mr. Williams: I think that as long as we’ve got this program in here and we’re following through 25
within the time frame and that, no, I mean we’ve identified all of these parking lots in it but 26
we’ve got a program to then zero in on where it’s most appropriate among those units. I don’t 27
think that just putting a parking structure on one of them creates that need in and of itself. 28
29
Commissioner Keller: Thank you and the other thing is that, in response to what Vice Chair 30
Fineberg said, if we were to eliminate all the parking lots from the Housing Inventory Site list we 31
would have a deficit of housing units. We would, because the amount of housing units I believe 32
is like, on these sites is like 170 or some number like that and the surplus we have is 80, so 33
you’re short by 90 or some number like that. I don’t remember the exact number, but you’re 34
short. And I pointed this out at the last meeting when we had all the numbers in front of us. 35
36
Chair Martinez: Commissioners are there further comments on that one? Alright. The next one, 37
which is, let me read it again, Program 2.2.1 implementing an incentive program which would 38
include changes to our current site and design review. 39
40
Several people [not over microphone]: 2.2.2 41
42
Chair Martinez: Yeah. I thought that’s what I said. Commissioner Tuma. 43
44
Commissioner Tuma: So, I mean I think I said last time I don’t think eliminating site and design 45
review is good policy. That said, our Planning Director was somewhat persuasive and we need 46
Page 8
to, we probably should do something here. If I understand this proposal, first of all this would 1
only apply to parcels that are less than a half an acre in size. Right? 2
3
Mr. Williams: That’s correct. That’s correct. 4
5
Commissioner Tuma: Because of the 20 per acre and maximum of 9. 6
7
Mr. Williams: That was one of the considerations in coming to that number. 8
9
Commissioner Tuma: So it’s a relatively small parcel that we’re talking about here that this 10
would apply to. 11
12
Mr. Williams: That’s correct. 13
14
Commissioner Tuma: Ok, so I think that’s actually quite creative, that’s pretty good. I would 15
agree with Commissioner Keller’s comment about not making it be average unit size, but rather 16
just making it the maximum unit size. If we, if we did that and given what you’ve proposed here 17
do you think this is still, and this is a question for the Planning Director, would this sort of satisfy 18
the requirement? 19
20
Mr. Williams: I think it would, you know, the maximum average, we have the 1,250 square feet 21
in SOFA, this would allow some more flexibility. I think the concern would be, you know, 22
someone has a certain allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on their property for residential and if, 23
I guess you could do all 900 square foot units, so you could meet the maximum average that way 24
too. But I don’t know have we looked at the, Tim or Roland, at the how 900 square foot units at 25
certain densities whether it would reach the maximum FAR or is this more, make it more 26
restrictive? 27
28
Commissioner Tuma: You talking about a 22,000 square foot lot maximum here or about maybe 29
even a little less than 20,000 square feet. 30
31
Mr. Williams: Right, so an RM 30 zoning for instance. Or a CS mixed use is 30 units. Is a .5 or 32
.6 FAR is 12,000, yeah. So it probably would be like 20 units all 9 units so it might not quite get 33
there. 34
35
Commissioner Tuma: Right. Ok. 36
37
Mr. Williams: But they could do more units and make it to that FAR if they could park it. 38
39
Commissioner Tuma: Yeah, and this gives them the incentive. The process wise. So that’s a 40
balance. They may not get all the FAR but they don’t have to take advantage of this program 41
either if they want to maximize their FAR. 42
43
Chair Martinez: Excuse me, is this the place where Staff was concerned that developers would 44
feel there’s not an incentive to go this route with smaller units, or was that a reference to a 45
different program? 46
Page 9
1
Mr. Williams: I think the comment that I had made at the first subcommittee meeting in the brief 2
time I was there was, you know, we, I think the intent of the original language was to have a 3
fairly broad effect in terms of encouraging the smaller units and the site and design incentive sort 4
of came hand in hand with the smaller units. To the extent that we’re limiting it to the smaller 5
sites then other sites aren’t going to have that incentive and they likely won’t do the smaller 6
units. So, I think that’s kind of the tradeoff. 7
8
Chair Martinez: Tim? 9
10
Mr. Wong: Chair Martinez if I may add also part of it is, yeah, again they may be able to waive 11
site and design or pass by site and design, but if they are limited to 900 square units they may 12
choose to take the concessions available through density bonus and additional units. So that 13
would sway them more toward the usage of density bonus versus maybe this particular incentive. 14
So that was also part of the reasoning. 15
16
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tuma. 17
18
Commissioner Tuma: But I thought that the reason that we were even considering this wasn’t 19
actually to incentivize the development, but rather to satisfy HCD. Did I misunderstand that 20
from our previous discussions? 21
22
Mr. Williams: That’s why we’re considering incentives but we were hoping that the incentives 23
would also have the effect of resulting in smaller units, which is what we were (interrupted) 24
25
Commissioner Tuma: If any are built at all. 26
27
Mr. Williams: Right. 28
29
Commissioner Tuma: Right. 30
31
Mr. Williams: So we’re trying to tie those, our goal of smaller units with something that HCD 32
would, you know, be happy to see. 33
34
Chair Martinez: Yes. Commissioner Michael. 35
36
Commissioner Michael: So, so I appreciate that I’m relatively new on the Planning Commission 37
and that a huge amount of work has gone into this draft and its current state of completion and it 38
looks to be something that I would wholeheartedly support. But, I have questions and comments 39
which hopefully will be helpful at some point in the process. The, so I want to appreciate, just 40
acknowledge that I got some good answers from Steven Turner and Cara Silver about the reason 41
why we’re going back to the year 2007 to have a Certified Housing Element, which almost 42
seems that it’s sort of a retroactive effort in planning but that for various reasons it actually has 43
importance to the City which, again gets my support. 44
45
Page
10
But I think that we should look at this not as a, as sort of satisfying regulatory hurdles that we 1
want to jump though, HCD, just to, you know, please them. But I think that our real purpose of 2
the Planning Commission should be to encourage zoning that results in good buildings and good 3
use. And so when we talk about the unit size, it’s been a long time since I’ve been an apartment 4
dweller, but I don’t know exactly what’s the size of the average studio apartment? What’s the 5
size of the average one bedroom unit, what’s the size of the average two bedroom unit? Or what 6
kind of use are we hoping to encourage, you know, in these higher density neighborhoods 7
proximate to transit, mixed use? Such that people would want to live there. And that they would 8
live there in a productive way in our community. 9
10
So, I think that the revised program for 2.2.2 is something that I’m willing to support as is. I 11
would prefer that it be the maximum average unit size, because I think a building in which you 12
have sort of cookie cutter units which are all identical isn’t somehow aesthetically pleasing to me 13
as somewhere that I would ever want me or anybody that I cared for to live in. A developer 14
might be more creative with respect to having a mixture of different unit sizes and configurations 15
that would encourage some diversity of beneficial use in that community or that building or that 16
neighborhood. But as such I think the revised program for 2.2.2 is something that I could 17
support. 18
19
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg. 20
21
Vice Chair Fineberg: This is the one program that if I had to say I’m the least sure of all, it’s this 22
one. In learning more about this I came to understand that we already have a program that 23
eliminates site and design and if I say the count correctly it’s for buildings with four or fewer, 24
already aren’t subject to site and design. So this is not a new wavier. It’s simply increasing the 25
threshold at which the waiver is applied. So that gives me some level of comfort, however, the 26
great discomfort I get from this, and it still may be because I don’t understand it, is that if this 27
hits that place where we have mixed use with concessions and we lose site and design I fear we 28
might be losing control that we need. So that’s my first concern and I’m not sure that we’ve 29
thought that through. We know we have a problem with how we apply SB 69, whatever the 30
Housing Density Bonus law is, when it hits mixed use. So, I think we need to better understand 31
how this jives with that. 32
33
Number two, we’ve all been talking about how small unit size will have less impact on the 34
School District. And I have to say, I was thinking of small unit sizes being things that were 35
studios and maybe one bedrooms that were 400 or 500 feet. Good move to bring it down. Well, 36
I’m not sure it’s actually a good move to bring it down from the 2,100 to the 900. I’m sorry, 37
1,200 to the 900 because either of those. Well 900’s a nice, comfortable two bedroom. The 38
1,200 would be a nice sizable two bedroom or even possibly a modest three. And the reason I’m 39
wonder, and I understand it has to be at least something big enough for two bedrooms so we’re 40
not sort of stepping into housing family housing discrimination zones. But my concern is that I 41
don’t think a 900 square foot two bedroom apartment minimizes impact on the schools. It may 42
in fact increase the impact because let’s say we build, let’s call it a 1,000 square foot unit so my 43
math is easier. Say we build one 1,000, I’m sorry, two 1,000 square foot units, so two 2 44
bedrooms. We might have four kids living there. If we build one 2,000 square foot unit, we’ll 45
have two children, two students living there. So we double the impact by having more 46
Page
11
households and the, we would have to do some math calculations, but the property taxes 1
generated on the units are less per unit and that means the contribution to the School District to 2
pay for the education is less per unit but we’re bringing in the same number of kids. If we build 3
a $5 million dollar house they would generate enough of a contribution to the School District to 4
pay for the sales, I’m sorry the property, the property taxes would pay for the education of the 5
kids. The more of these small units we build, the less able the School District is going to be able 6
to pay for the education of the children created in these units. 7
8
I get that that’s all way beyond the scope of what we do, but the reason I bring it up is because 9
I’m not sure that incentivizing a large number of 900 square foot unit gets us where we want to 10
go in terms of minimizing school impacts. It may in fact make it worse. So, I’d like to ask if we 11
can push that size down even further, or that gets us into a legal prohibited space. But I think it, 12
we have a very small one bedroom in Tree House and there’s already a toddler living in that, 13
when people said there wouldn’t be toddlers in Tree House. I think if we build 900 square foot 14
units we’re gonna have kids living in them. So, can Staff comment on whether we can push that 15
size down even further? 16
17
Mr. Williams: Well I think the more we push it down the more subject to attack or criticism from 18
HCD as to what we’re really doing here goes. And I don’t want to speculate about school kids 19
and small things. I think the Tree House is a particularly poor example of the point you’re trying 20
to make. I mean you have one toddler in 35 units. Toddler, it’s not a school kid either and I 21
question whether, you know, when that child is of school age whether they are still gonna be in 22
that facility. 23
24
So, but, you know, I think there’s just a certain level of reasonableness. I don’t know that there’s 25
a, and Cara can answer whether there’s a legal reason it couldn’t be less, but I think you also 26
have to look at what the alternative is. They come though site and design and they build 1,500 27
square foot units, and they build almost as many, maybe, and they do have school impacts. Site 28
and design is not a zoning change. It is not a use issue. It’s a how is the site laid out? You 29
know, what are the impacts of it? Not school impacts, but what are the other, so if they are 30
addressing those issues then it’s not like a zoning change or a Planned Community (PC) where 31
there’s a lot of discretion to say no the use can’t happen. 32
33
So I think it’s that sort of tradeoff to look at, it’s not just a given that, you know, if they don’t do 34
this then they’re not gonna do anything. Or they’re gonna do something that does have less 35
impacts on schools so, I think a 900 square foot maximum is pretty restrictive and, you know, I 36
don’t think that’s an unreasonable place to go, but it’s getting dicier the lower we go with it. 37
38
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 39
40
Commissioner Tanaka: So I think I understand where Vice Chair Fineberg is going. When, I 41
actually had the same thought about first of all getting rid of the average. So I think several other 42
Commissioners mentioned the same thing. But one angle I was thinking about and not 43
necessarily the school angle, for the maximum unit size was more just about affordability. I 44
think one of the goals of this is to actually provide more affordable housing and there’s a direct 45
correlation between the size of unit and affordability. And more small units there are, the more 46
Page
12
affordable it is. And, you know, some of the people that are getting priced out of Palo Alto are 1
the people who are younger, they don’t have families and also some of the elderly, who maybe 2
can’t afford it as much as they used to. So, for that reason perhaps smaller units makes sense as 3
well just in terms of our, I guess just not our goal, but some of the mandated goals of trying to 4
provide more affordable housing. 5
6
And I think if you have smaller units, and I realize in this country 400 or 500 square feet seems 7
small, but in a lot of other countries 400 or 500 square feet, even in Hong Kong, is a family. A 8
family lives there. So it’s not necessarily excluding families per se. And my wife actually told 9
me she, when we first moved into my house and we had to live in an in-law unit, which is about 10
400 or 500 square feet or so, she says “Oh yeah, this is like a whole family used to live in this in 11
Hong Kong.” It’s not Hong Kong, I get that, but just in terms of affordability it’s something to 12
think about if you want to help make Palo Alto accessible to individuals that normally couldn’t 13
afford Palo Alto it’s one way of doing it. So I actually support what Vice Chair was advocating 14
for. Thanks. 15
16
Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner Keller. 17
18
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So firstly I think that there was no controversy about 19
replacing the word “only” with “but,” and so I would suggest that you go ahead and do that 20
because “only” has ambiguities that are problematic. 21
22
Commissioner Tuma: I think actually what you mean is replace the words “and only” with “but.” 23
24
Commissioner Keller: Perhaps “and only” with “but,” but the issue is you don’t want the word 25
“only,” you want the word “but,” or if you wish, delete “and.” So “and only” becomes “but.” I 26
think that that’s a clarification that shouldn’t harm anything. 27
28
The second thing is I had originally suggested last time that we reduce this to 500 square feet and 29
I got shot down. So, as a compromise I’m suggesting that we delete the word “average.” I do 30
think that it would be worthwhile considering how many, the amount in inventory of units in 31
Palo Alto based on number of bedrooms. And I would guess that off the top of my head, you 32
know, that probably 80% of the housing units in Palo Alto have two or more bedrooms. At least 33
80% of the housing units in Palo Alto have two or more bedrooms other than senior residences, 34
if you will. And so, there’s a, there is a definite shortage for studios and one bedrooms in Palo 35
Alto and there’s a demand for them in terms of seniors and there’s a demand for them in terms of 36
20 or 30 something’s without kids. We’re not meeting that demand, but that’s not what 37
developers want to build. Developers want to build multifamily, twenty 2,000 square foot units 38
or large units because they make more profits per square foot and they don’t have to deal with 39
the parking as much. The parking issue is a problem. 40
41
And so, I think and there was a comment and I’ve heard a response that we should let the market 42
do its job. Well if the market did, its, you know, zoning is a way of keeping the market from 43
doing its job in general. And the market is showing what it wants to do based on what’s building 44
in South Palo Alto. So I don’t necessarily agree with the market doing its job. I think that we 45
have, we should incentivize or require that what to be built is what we want. 46
Page
13
1
Chair Martinez: I think that we could argue that there’s a housing need for families that need 2
two bedrooms in Palo Alto and smaller units of that size. It’s the maximum size that a second 3
unit could be in Palo Alto, so we’re not talking about oversized housing. I think it’s also a nice 4
balance to what developers are looking to build now. I know it’s a matter of choice in San 5
Francisco, developers are trying to build smaller units and get as many as they can. I know the 6
demand is different here. If we let them, and by the way the City is trying to get developers to 7
build more larger units for families. 8
9
So I would support this revision as it’s written, perhaps taking out the average, leaving the 10
average to give the developers some means to design the project to fit the site. As an architect I 11
know that’s a huge problem and that you end up really designing some housing units that aren’t 12
really what you would want to live in because you’re trying to make the unit number max out. 13
So giving a little flexibility with saying the average unit size I think is a good thing. 900 square 14
foot unit, whether it’s a large one bedroom or smaller two bedroom, I think is also a good thing. 15
So I would be inclined to support it as it is. 16
17
Let’s move on to the next. Which is this one here? 2.2.1, identify incentives including 18
promotion of density bonus that encourages development of suitable housing sites currently 19
planned and zoned for nonresidential units with mixed use. Comments on that? Commissioner 20
Tuma. 21
22
Commissioner Tuma: First I have a question, the revised language says, “utilize,” right. That’s 23
ok. It says, “Utilize density bonus provisions.” What do we mean by that, density bonus 24
provisions? Is this in fact the density bonus…? Right, but I know that there’s something coming 25
to us that’s gonna define what we’re, if you could just clarify what this language means. 26
27
Mr. Wong: Sure, absolutely. The density bonus provisions per government code 65915 allows 28
for if you provide a certain percentage of affordable units at a certain affordability you get 29
additional units. Or, I guess more importantly concessions or incentives that will help make the 30
development financially feasible. So density bonus hasn’t really been used or that frequently. A 31
number of developments have used them but this would be to promote and as part of it in terms 32
of more flexible concessions that was put in because in the study session that the PTC had they 33
asked for a menu of concessions and so therefore inserting more flexible concessions for those 34
developments that are creating smaller units at a high, higher density. Might help accommodate 35
or incentivize that type of development. 36
37
Mr. Williams: So I do think the implementation of this is through the City’s ordinance 38
implementing State law. So I think that’s what we’re getting at is that as we develop that, that 39
that language can then tie these incentives to again smaller units and that kind of thing. So in 40
some of the menu of items that the Commission had when we talked about it at the study session. 41
42
Commissioner Tuma: So would you anticipate that that ordinance would be adopted before this 43
is finalized? 44
45
Page
14
Mr. Williams: Well, it probably will be adopted before the Housing Element comes back from 1
the State and is adopted, yes. But that’s, yeah, so it might be. I mean if you’re not comfortable 2
with that we could put something in here about adopt our local ordinance implementing density 3
bonus to do these things. 4
5
Commissioner Tuma: Yeah, I mean to me that’s the direction we go here because the way that, I 6
mean if we go that direction then this program itself kind of really doesn’t mean anything in a 7
way until we adopt that ordinance. And that’s where we’ll have the meaningful discussion about 8
what these incentives or bonuses should look like. All this does is give you the vehicle for 9
essentially for implementing it. Is that a fair sort of characterization? 10
11
Mr. Williams: Yes, but that’s just saying, I mean to some extent it’s the same as some of these 12
other ones. Like the site and design thing. Isn’t effective until we adopt an ordinance, the 13
change that somebody can’t come in even after this even after the Housing Element was finally 14
adopted and ask for site and design relief unless we’ve adopted the zoning change to do that. 15
16
Commissioner Tuma: Right, and as I think Commissioner Keller is fond of saying, the Devil will 17
be, or maybe it’s Fineberg, the Devil will be in the details on this one. So I think generally 18
speaking the way that it’s written maybe try to specify or make it “adopt an ordinance” that does 19
these things. So change the language slightly and then I’m fine with it because we’ll decide what 20
that ordinance is later. 21
22
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 23
24
Commissioner Keller: Yes, I was going to suggest language for that, which was “adopt an 25
ordinance for density bonus concessions to encourage” etcetera. You want me to repeat that? 26
“Adopt an ordinance for density bonus concessions to encourage.” And I think that that would 27
satisfy my concerns as well. 28
29
Chair Martinez: Moving on to Program 2.2.1. We’re doing good, and I want to mention that 30
Vice Chair Fineberg has already said that a previous program troubled her more than any of the 31
others, so I think she’s going on record here. Commissioner Tuma you want to start this one 32
again? Now we’re doing 2.1.1, I’m sorry. 33
34
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. So the, I guess I was a little bit confused as to why, because it uses 35
both half mile and quarter mile. Half mile of major transit, quarter mile of fixed rail stations. 36
Was that intentional? 37
38
Mr. Wong: Yes, that was intentional. That was based on Council direction. 39
40
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. 41
42
Mr. Wong: Correct. The half mile radius is to allow for higher densities but yes, the quarter 43
mile within the fixed is the limited exceptions for height, for the 50 foot height. 44
45
Page
15
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. I’m fine with it as drafted, the one thing that I would do, which is the 1
polar opposite of what Commissioner Keller would do, is that I would change the first word 2
“consider” to “explore.” In other words, both of these would be “explore” not both of them 3
“consider.” But outside of that I think it’s perfectly fine as drafted. 4
5
Commissioner Keller: What I would suggest is the following changes. First of all I like the word 6
“consider” starting that. Secondly, I would replace “half mile of major transit stations” to “half 7
mile of fixed rail stations,” because the only other two major transit stations are California 8
Avenue and El Camino and I don’t think we want to incur that around the College Terrace 9
neighborhood that’s within a half a mile, I think that would be a mistake. And I think the other 10
transit station that is not a fixed rail station is Charleston/Arastradero in El Camino and I don’t 11
think we want to encourage the density increase around there either especially since I don’t know 12
anybody who would be really using the Bus Rapid Transit in those locations to get to jobs. I 13
think that’s highly unlikely for most of those people. So I would replace “major transit stations” 14
with “fixed rail stations.” 15
16
The second thing is, I would strike the second sentence. And the reason I would strike the 17
second sentence is that the Council has specifically excluded the project directly across the street 18
from the train station, which was exceeding the 50 foot height limit to build housing and they 19
complained about that being expensive penthouse housing. So, if that site, which is the closest to 20
a fixed rail station feasible in Palo Alto with the exception of the already built complex at the end 21
of South California Avenue, I think that the Council has clearly indicated through their actions 22
that they are no longer really supporting this exploration. So I would basically ask the Council if 23
you don’t want to delete it, I would ask the Council to say whether they really want it or whether 24
they’ve changed their mind and let them take particular, give us particular direction on that. But 25
I, I think that their actions speak louder than their words and their words in the past were maybe 26
we ought to explore this, but their actions are to shut down exploring it. So, 27
28
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tuma. 29
30
Commissioner Tuma: So I think the thing to do is to put, to not delete it and put it in front of 31
them. And the reason is the particular project that you’re referring to was not a high density 32
residential development. Rather, what that project was, was a large office building with a little 33
bit of housing on top of it. And so I’m not convinced, and in fact having spoken with several 34
Council Members who were involved in that discussion I actually further believe that it wasn’t a 35
function of the “penthouse” limited housing, but that it wasn’t a large, high density residential 36
development. 37
38
We can debate that back and forth. I think you’re suggestion about leaving it in there and putting 39
it in front of the Council and let them hash it out is the better way to go because I’m not 40
convinced that they’ve abandoned that idea. I, it’s perhaps that in that particular instance where 41
it was, there was a lack of support for some of the BMR houses, there’s a lot of other issues but it 42
wasn’t a high density residential development as contemplated in this language. 43
44
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair, you ready? 45
46
Page
16
Vice Chair Fineberg: This is the item where the subcommittee couldn’t form a consensus. I 1
believe that this program should be struck from the Housing Element. Council’s directive was to 2
consider it for identifying housing sites and if I can get a confirmation again from Staff we were 3
able to meet our demand without any sites that had to be counting units where we would allow 4
them to be in excess of 50 feet. So if we follow Council’s directive to build the Housing 5
Inventory Sites from the bottom up, we don’t need this. We need to keep the analysis for the 6
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as simple as possible so it can get through. We need to 7
minimize the angst we create in the community for a plan that has a limited amount of life. I 8
understand that this may be smart growth. It may make sense, but if we want to delay the whole 9
process and have a full discussion and members of the community coming out, it can happen in 10
two years when we work on the Housing Element that’s 2014 to 20 whatever the five or seven 11
year review cycle will be next round. 12
13
I think it should be struck, but I think as Commissioner Tuma said, it needs to be Council that 14
makes that decision. So my inclination would be leave it in for now, let Council review it, make 15
their decision and it’s good from there. 16
17
Chair Martinez: I think I agree with everyone here. Yeah, even myself. We saw from the 18
project that Commissioner Keller referred to how really difficult it was for us and for the Council 19
to really come to reckon with this idea of changing a tradition. It’s not that easy to do. It’s not 20
widely popular. It may be smart growth. It may help with our greenhouse gas emissions in a 21
small way, but it’s not something that’s gonna happen up and down El Camino Real or over 22
Mollie Stone’s or wherever you could imagine this to be a candidate for that. It just won’t 23
happen that easily in Palo Alto. I believe that the Council created this interest in exploring this 24
and I think the Council should be the one to put it to rest one way or another. So, I would 25
support leaving the policy program as it is. 26
27
Commissioner Keller, you have a final comment? 28
29
Commissioner Keller: Yes, I’m wondering whether people would at least agree with if this thing 30
is going to be remaining with pointing out to Council that they should consider whether they 31
want to drop it or amend it. I think we should change “major transit stations” in the first 32
sentence to “fixed rail,” and I’m wondering if there’s consensus at least for making that change? 33
34
Chair Martinez: I don’t know. You want to start with a Motion and, because I’d like to see 35
rather than pick it apart that we have a Motion with some recommendations. 36
37
MOTION 38
39
Commissioner Keller: Sure. I will move that we adopt the Housing Element and make a 40
collection of changes to it and the first change that we’re making to it is to amend H 2.1.1 so to 41
the first sentence says, instead of saying, “major transit stations,” says, “fixed rail stations.” 42
43
SECOND 44
45
[people speaking without a microphone at the same time] 46
Page
17
1
Chair Martinez: I’m sorry. Ok, so where was I? We have a Motion by… 2
3
Commissioner Tuma: I think you were saying “good evening, welcome to…” 4
5
Chair Martinez: That sounds about right. Motion by Commissioner Keller, second by 6
Commissioner Tuma. And would you care to speak to your Motion? 7
8
Commissioner Keller: I think I’ve spoken enough with respect to the fixed rail issue. And my 9
suggestion is that we keep this Motion open for a period of time for people to make further 10
suggestions on changes that we might want to make and some of them I’ve already made, but I 11
haven’t made it as part of the Motion. 12
13
Chair Martinez: Good. Commissioner Tuma. 14
15
AMENDMENT 16
17
Commissioner Tuma: Ok, so I would offer the following friendly amendments. That with 18
respect to Program 2.2.1 that we strike, and the new language, strike the language that says 19
“utilize density bonus provisions” and instead add “adopt an ordinance for density bonus 20
concessions to.” 21
22
Commissioner Keller: Yes, I accept that. 23
24
Commissioner Tuma: To provide more flexible concessions, etcetera. 25
26
Commissioner Keller: Is that exactly the wording you said, “adopt?” 27
28
Commissioner Tuma: Yeah, so I was just mirroring your language from before. So, strike from 29
the beginning of that paragraph which is the word “utilize.” 30
31
Commissioner Keller: I think the word is actually “promote,” as revised. 32
33
Commissioner Tuma: I’m on 2.2.1. 34
35
Commissioner Keller: Yes, the word currently says “promote the utilization of density bonus” 36
and that’s being replaced by “adopt an ordinance for density bonus concessions.” And as I 37
originally said it, “to encourage development of” and I think that that still works. 38
39
Commissioner Tuma: We must be looking at different documents because 2.2.1, the very first 40
word is “utilize.” “Utilize density bonus provisions.” 41
42
Commissioner Keller: I’m looking at; I’m looking at the thing back here. Which, I’m not 43
looking at this; I’m looking at the actual description of the language in the back, not the stuff that 44
is in the front, which is a summary table. I’m looking at the actual revised, on page, I don’t even 45
Page
18
notice a page number here but it’s in the back. That’s what I’m trying to amend rather than the 1
stuff in the front. 2
3
Commissioner Tuma: Ah! So they’re different. 4
5
Commissioner Keller: Because I think that’s what matters. Thank you. 6
7
Commissioner Tuma: Should we be working off of the PowerPoint slides or the attachment? 8
9
Mr. Wong: No, my apologies. That, the, for Program 2.2.1, the revised Program about flexible 10
concessions that change should have been made in the, in your attachment of the revised goals, 11
policies, and programs. So my apologies, Program 2.2.1 is in the revised goals, policies, and 12
programs should say “utilize density bonus provisions with consideration” etcetera, etcetera. So 13
my apologies to Commissioner Keller for that confusion. But… 14
15
Commissioner Tuma: It doesn’t matter because we’re getting rid of it anyway. 16
17
Commissioner Keller: So maybe we should go from the one in the back, because that might be 18
easier to amend? If we take the wording that’s in this document and revise it to say “Adopt an 19
ordinance for density bonus concessions to encourage development of suitable housing sites 20
currently planned and zoned for nonresidential use of mixed use projects to contribute to the 21
City’s fair share of the region’s housing needs.” I think that that would work. So see if that 22
makes sense to you and if it does, that’s, then… 23
24
Commissioner Tuma: Let me ask Staff, does that get across what we’re trying to say? 25
26
Mr. Wong: Well as a Staff we’d like to see the wording of the “flexible concessions” be included 27
versus adopting a local ordinance just to encourage or to promote, we’d like to see the “flexible 28
concessions.” 29
30
Commissioner Tuma: I’m gonna continue with my version of my… 31
32
Commissioner Keller: Sure. Please. 33
34
Commissioner Tuma: So, that paragraph would read as follows, “Adopt an ordinance for density 35
bonus concessions to ensure more flexible concessions and incentives to projects that propose 36
smaller units at a higher density to encourage development of suitable housing sites currently 37
planned and zoned for nonresidential use with mixed use projects to contribute to the City’s fair 38
share of the region’s housing needs.” 39
40
Commissioner Keller: If I may can I suggest just a slight simplification of that? 41
42
Commissioner Tuma: Sure. 43
44
Commissioner Keller: And what I would say is, “Adopt an ordinance for the density bonus 45
concessions to increase flexibility in the development of projects.” 46
Page
19
1
Commissioner Tuma: That’s not what I’m proposing. 2
3
Commissioner Keller: Ok. 4
5
Chair Martinez: Commissioners, it was a slight change. Why don’t you just let it go? 6
7
Commissioner Keller: Well, I think that the way that it’s done, what he said is “Adopt an 8
ordinance for density bonus concessions to ensure more flexible.” I don’t know how you ensure 9
more flexible. That’s the problem I have. 10
11
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. Well we’ll use the word “provide,” “promote,” promote is a better 12
word. 13
14
Commissioner Keller: To “promote more flexible.” 15
16
Commissioner Tuma: Yes. 17
18
Commissioner Keller: “Promote more flexible concessions and incentives.” 19
20
Commissioner Tuma: Yeah. If you just work off of the most recent version of the language 21
which is in the PowerPoint presentation that’s what I’m working off of. 22
23
Commissioner Keller: You’re working off PowerPoint I’m working off this, which one is it? Is 24
that the same as? I think the PowerPoint is the same as this one. 25
26
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. 27
28
Commissioner Keller: So what you’re saying, is delete, is this one says “Adopt an ordinance for 29
density bonus concessions to promote more flexible concessions and incentives to projects that 30
propose smaller units at higher density,” etcetera. That’s what you’re saying? 31
32
Commissioner Tuma: Correct. 33
34
Commissioner Keller: Ok, I’ll accept that. 35
36
AMENDMENT 37
38
Commissioner Tuma: And finally for program 2.2.2 in the revised language and this is again off 39
of PowerPoint slide number seven. Delete the words “and only” and put in the word “but,” and 40
in the very last sentence where it says “maximum average unit size of 900 feet” just delete the 41
word “average.” 42
43
Mr. Williams: May I make a suggestion? 44
Commissioner Tuma: Sure. 45
46
Page
20
Chair Martinez: Planning Director. 1
2
Mr. Williams: On that where you put in the, take out “and only” and replace it with “but,” is 3
there a reason maybe we shouldn’t just say take out the whole thing of “and only requires 4
architectural review” and just say “the incentive eliminates site and design review for mixed use 5
projects if the project meets the following criteria.” What I’m thinking is there are other things 6
beside architectural review that could be required too and the implication to some may be that 7
architectural review is all that’s required. Which is maybe why this language is in there because 8
we wanted to show that to HCD, but on the other hand there are PC’s and variances and things 9
like that that may be required separate from the whole site and design issue. So I’m just thinking 10
just eliminate site and design review for it, but it doesn’t eliminate anything else. 11
12
Chair Martinez: Ok. Wait a minute. Vice Chair Fineberg had a question first. 13
14
Vice Chair Fineberg: Could Staff clarify whether it would make sense to say site and design 15
review by the Planning Commission? Would that be better, or, because will some people think 16
that Architectural Review Board (ARB) doesn’t need to do review if they consider ARB as 17
design review a site and design. I’m just trying to figure out how to make it really clear. 18
19
Mr. Williams: Well this is, I mean, this is at a level that’s higher than the specifics of the review 20
process, so I would and I mean that might be unclear if you leave just architectural review in 21
there, if you take that out entirely then that isn’t an issue cause you don’t see the words 22
architectural review and you’re not thinking was that the Commission or is it ARB or who is 23
involved? I don’t know. So, Tim is there a reason we can’t just take out “and only 24
architectural?” And only requires architectural review. 25
26
Mr. Wong: No, that should be fine. 27
28
Mr. Williams: I think that’s just much simpler language and it doesn’t, it doesn’t bring up the 29
question of somebody looking at this and saying, “Well if I don’t have to do site and design 30
review then all I have to do is architectural review,” but they have a variance that’s required due, 31
so. 32
33
Commissioner Keller: Is it fair to say that our ordinances for site and design review are 34
specifically referred to that that occurs by the Planning Commission? 35
36
Mr. Williams: No, I mean the site and design review process specifically outlines the Planning 37
Commission, and Council, and ARB. All three bodies. 38
39
Commissioner Keller: Ok, so we’re simply saying is we’re eliminating site and design review 40
but we’re continuing all the other stuff in this way. 41
42
Mr. Williams: Right. 43
44
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 45
46
Page
21
Chair Martinez: Next time, make sure to be called upon. 1
2
Commissioner Keller: Sorry. 3
4
Chair Martinez: Because Commissioner Michael has been patiently waiting. 5
6
Commissioner Michael: So Chair Martinez I just have a sort of a observation and suggestion 7
about our process. I think that you’ve focused us on the major issues and now we’re setting up 8
to have sort of an up or down vote on a collection of many major issues and it sort of makes it all 9
or nothing if there’s an individual Commissioner who has some concern about a particular detail 10
the only way to register their concern with that would be to vote against the entire Motion. And I 11
think it would be served and would have better quality output if we approved these one by one. 12
13
Chair Martinez: Not so fast, we’re not done yet. I wanted to get through the major items from 14
our previous discussion and which we’ve been trying to deal with through this point. There are 15
some additional items that you’ve brought up that I want to make sure are brought into the 16
discussion before we vote, including some of the comments made by the public. I was troubled 17
by some of the issues brought up and wanted to ask Staff about them when the time comes. So, 18
we shall hold the vote, give you a chance to raise additional concerns and perhaps they can be an 19
amendment to the Motion. Commissioner Tuma you had something else to add. 20
21
AMENDMENT 22
23
Commissioner Tuma: Yeah, I had one last friendly amendment, which I’m sure is not going to be 24
so friendly, but that’s Program 2.1.1 changing the very first word to “explore” from “consider.” 25
26
Chair Martinez: Are we gonna fight over a word tonight? I see no objections to that. 27
Commissioner Keller. 28
[ 29
Commissioner Keller: 2.1.1 which, where is it on our chart? Ok. I’d actually prefer “consider” 30
only because it doesn’t require that we actually do it, it just means we have to consider it. And if 31
you say “explore” I interpret that means that you’re expecting that it will occur. 32
33
Chair Martinez: I don’t see the difference, so. 34
35
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. That’s fine, I will withdraw that. 36
37
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 38
39
Chair Martinez: Ok, I’m gonna [interrupted] 40
41
Commissioner Tuma: So I think that pretty much frames it up and then that’s [doesn’t complete 42
the sentence]. 43
44
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Michael you had some other things to stir up? 45
46
Page
22
Commissioner Tuma: If I might just, by way of explanation I think I know where he’s going and 1
maybe I can clarify something there? Not substantively, just procedurally. 2
Chair Martinez: Ok. 3
4
Commissioner Tuma: So, not that this isn’t necessarily right, but our practice in the past has been 5
to sort of lay out, lay the Motion out in the way that we have where we put all the elements into a 6
single Motion. Not necessarily always the most productive, but it seems to work and then we go 7
back and debate pieces of it. And so, for example if you’re not comfortable with use of, the 8
elimination of the word “average,” you might bring that up in the discussion and we can modify 9
the Motion to take that out if people are persuaded. So we may be able to get to consensus as a 10
single Motion through that type of discussion. That’s just by way of history. Doesn’t mean it’s 11
necessarily right but that’s how we’ve done it sometimes in the past. 12
13
Commissioner Michael: So I’m impressed by the parliamentary acumen of the group and I’m 14
humbled by all that I have to learn. The process of doing complex drafting in a public hearing 15
format strikes me as bizarre in the extreme. And I think that there’s a risk in terms of, you’ve got 16
six very independent, very bright people with, you know, linguistic specificity, just passion to get 17
it exactly right and we’re gonna be here either forever and then we’re gonna start to get tired and 18
then we’re just gonna make mistakes. 19
20
So, I think when you break down the particular issues of great importance eliciting the public 21
input, our comments, when we have agreement and clarity on a particular major point we should 22
vote it up or down. I’m willing to go with the tradition, it just baffles me. 23
24
Chair Martinez: Ok. I did have a question about some of the comments made by the public. For 25
example, I didn’t remember or recall that we had revised the use of churches for homeless 26
shelters on a thirty day period. Can Staff comment on that, whether, what we’re doing with that 27
particular program? 28
29
Mr. Wong: Sure, I believe that policy that the gentleman was referring to was, hold on let me get 30
that specific policy. It’s policy 3.5.1 and it’s talking about entering into discussions with local 31
churches participating in the City’s year round Hotel DeZink emergency shelter program. 32
33
Yes, right now it’s a month program at the 12 churches and they rotate the care, if you will, of 34
the homeless in their shelter for 30 days and it’s about a 15 bed facility in each of the churches. 35
This program is proposed because of the State legislation SB 2 that requires that each jurisdiction 36
zone for a homeless shelter or emergency shelter to meet its unmet homeless need. And so this 37
was to say instead of to approach the churches and saying instead of you caring for or having a 38
15 bed shelter for a month each, that if all twelve churches participated with 15 beds each then 39
there’s a possibility that, that way the City could meet its unmet need for homeless beds. Right 40
now currently I think our unmet need is 97 beds, 94, 97 beds, so by approaching the churches to 41
see if they can go permanent, that would help fulfill the City’s unmet emergency shelter bed 42
requirement. 43
44
Chair Martinez: And on, I’m sorry, my mind’s kind of going blank, but there was some other 45
things that they brought up, did you kind of keep a list of those? 46
Page
23
1
Mr. Williams: A hotel, so the Creek Side and the gas stations. 2
3
Roland Rivera, Senior Planner: Roland Rivera, Senior Planner, Planning Department. The 4
question about whether or not, why are some hotels or motels or lodging facilities included in the 5
housing inventory sites? We did take out several of those types of uses off the Housing 6
Inventory Sites but we did retain some of them only because they either have they are currently 7
zoned for multifamily residential and the land use designation is multifamily residential, or they 8
or a part of their parcel or lot is zoned for multifamily residential. And has land use designation 9
of multifamily residential. 10
11
As far as the gas stations are concerned. Without looking at, you know, the third gas station, my 12
guess would be that the third gas station didn’t meet the lot size requirement. 13
14
Mr. Williams: Thank you. Oh, I’m sorry, Commissioner Tanaka. 15
16
Commissioner Tanaka: I just wanted to ask about Program H 1.12, so 112. And this was about 17
amnesty for illegal second units, and I think Staff said that the program does not reward creation 18
of illegal units. But I seem to remember at the last discussion on this the Commission was 19
actually fully united on this issue in terms of not allowing, or not creating amnesty for second 20
units and maybe Staff could talk about the response and why it should not change? 21
22
Mr. Wong: Well I believe that the program maintained or stayed or wasn’t revised is that 23
although the units may have been created illegally, the program specifies that they must be 24
brought up to current code. In other words, legalized, so therefore, Staff felt it was appropriate 25
to leave this particular program in. 26
27
Commissioner Tanaka: The only thing is just I remember this one being almost fairly, unless my 28
maybe my memory’s wrong but it seemed to be fairly consistent among most Commissioners so 29
I was a little bit surprised to see that one. 30
31
Chair Martinez: I was trying to get them to remove amnesty cause I think that really conveys the 32
wrong message. The idea is more related to public safety. If you have people living in a fire 33
trap, we want to do all we can to try to get those brought up to code, the wiring to be corrected, 34
the, you know, heating and ventilation and those issues and that’s why it’s encouraging people to 35
come forward and try to legitimize their living unit. It has nothing to do with, you know, 36
rewarding them or just turning the other cheek. It had to do with public safety of inadequate 37
living conditions. 38
39
Anything else Commissioner? Ok. Vice Chair Fineberg. 40
41
Vice Chair Fineberg: My final comment is not something that necessarily needs to be part of the 42
Motion, but a number of times in past reviews the Commission has asked for redacted copy of 43
the proposed Housing Element where the original Housing Element and the proposed Housing 44
Element are interlaced on the same piece of paper. So that you can track what was old, if it got 45
moved, if it got modified or deleted, and what’s new. 46
Page
24
1
And I think it’s absolutely imperative that when this goes to Council, Council get a copy of it 2
where, for instance, Goal H1 in our proposal was Goal 2. And Goal 2 is Goal 1, and then within 3
that structure they are then modified. So I sat down and said, “Ok, what happened to old Goal 4
1?” And then I had to go, “Oh! It’s Goal 2 now and we just swapped the order and then we 5
made changes.” And then I found that Goal 3 and Goal 4 were fundamentally the same, but we 6
gave them new names. Instead of “affordable housing” is proposed it used to be called “housing 7
diversity” and then instead of “housing discrimination” it was “fair housing.” But, you really 8
have to work hard to figure that out if you don’t see left column, right column, Ok, it’s a name 9
change as opposed to oh, it’s something new or different. So, I, I don’t know how to say this but 10
it really needs to go to Council where they can read the whole thing old, the whole thing new. 11
See what the changes are, see what’s the same, see what’s new, see what’s old and make it easy 12
for them. 13
14
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 15
16
Commissioner Tanaka: On Program 3.1.2 G, this was about allowing development of duplexes in 17
R1 zoning, and I guess in general I’m just a little bit troubled by having, it’s almost like R2 18
zoning if you increase it, if you allow duplexes in R1 zoning. So maybe can Staff talk a little bit 19
about, I don’t know, if maybe the… Ok, sorry maybe the chart’s not clear? ok. Sorry, never 20
mind about that one. 21
22
Ok. And then the last one is 2.1.3, I guess what’s the rational for not just letting the market 23
decide the densities for the RM 15 zoning versus forcing a minimum zoning? 24
25
Mr. Wong: In that particular program I will say it was a carryover from the previous Housing 26
Element and as about approximately 80% of these policies were carried over from the previous 27
Housing Element so they were just carried forward since they weren’t completed in the past 28
Housing Element. 29
30
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. Well, I mean to me it seems to make sense to let the market set the 31
density because maybe it doesn’t fit the lot or, maybe, so I guess I’d like to make a friendly 32
amendment that for Program 2.1.3 that instead of forcing 8 dwelling units per acre that basically 33
just, maybe actually I guess the easiest thing is to strike out 2.1.3 unless there’s a good reason to 34
keep it. 35
36
Mr. Williams: If I could just mention that, you know, I think it does get back to unit sizes. The 37
market that we’ve seen and one of the reasons we have, you know, have had all these 38
developments that we’ve had have been in multifamily zoning districts or industrial districts that 39
allow you to use multifamily zoning. And one of the reason that we have 2,000, 2,400 square 40
foot units is because we did not impose a minimum density on them and so the market is let’s 41
build bigger units and have families and etcetera in there. So we’ve have this, as Tim said, 42
we’ve had this policy there in our zoning ordinance update back in 2007 or so, what’s one of the 43
items we brought forward and frankly it was shot down pretty quickly. But, I think we’ve, at 44
that time, the same issues weren’t before us. I think now if we’re serious about trying to drive 45
down the size of units this would be a useful tool to do that. So I think that’s the primary benefit 46
Page
25
of it, you know, you know, others may see it as kind of a density, you know, pushing higher 1
densities but I think to the extent that we use it to, you know, reduce the unit size that that’s 2
helpful. But it is a policy determination; it’s not something we have to have in there. 3
4
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg. 5
6
Vice Chair Fineberg: If Staff could correct me if I’m wrong on this, but I remember that one of 7
the other reasons for having that is that if we have a site on the housing inventory list that’s RM 8
15 and let’s say it’s an acre and somebody builds 8 houses and we were expecting 15, we then 9
have to go find in the new Housing Element another site to replace those lost units that weren’t 10
built at the expected density. So it, it keeps us from having to go figure out new places to build 11
more housing in the next cycle if we come closer to the minimum required density. 12
13
Chair Martinez: Ok. Commissioners are we ready to vote on the Motion? A few more, ok. 14
Commissioner Keller. 15
16
Commissioner Keller: So these are things from my list at the beginning of the discussion. So I’m 17
not gonna add this to the Motion but you have to renumber H 1.2.2 to H 1.2.1. That’s just an 18
error. Ok. The second thing is, I’m not gonna make this as part of the Motion but adding the 19
word “are” between “and are compatible surrounding uses” in H.2.2.3 makes sense. And we 20
talked about adding the BMR threshold and requirement. I’m not gonna add that to the Motion, 21
but you’ve got that, right? And I’ll give you this. And then 3.1.2 A, adding “BMR” before 22
“component” is a change. And adding “rate” between “market” and “unit” in H2 1.2.D, 3.1.2 D 23
and H 3.1.2 E, I gave you that information; I think you should do it. I’m not gonna make that 24
formally part of the Motion but I think it’s clear. 25
26
In H2 3.1.2 I, I think this is something that we should evaluate. It’s not something I brought up 27
but we didn’t discuss and that is we have a, and with respect to what was mentioned by 28
Commissioner Michael, I’ve been a fan of straw votes, but this Commission has not chosen to do 29
that. So perhaps this will persuade you to lean towards that direction. But the current thing it 30
says, “revise the method of calculating the number of required BMR units by basing a number of 31
BMR units required on the maximum density allowable on the site instead of the total number of 32
the proposed units in the development.” 33
34
And I’m suggesting that that be “evaluate revising,” rather than “revise.” And the reason for that 35
is because there are interactions such as, does that mean that you’re gonna allow smaller BMR 36
units that are smaller than the other units on the complex? There are some interactions that I 37
don’t think we’ve adequately considered and I don’t think the evaluation as was in the Staff 38
report says that TAG and PTC evaluated it. I don’t consider that a full evaluation, so I’m going 39
to suggest that this one be “evaluate revising” rather than “revise” and ask if there’s any 40
comments about that and then I’ll make it as an Amendment and then the Seconder can consider 41
that. Any comments about that? 42
43
Chair Martinez: So you’re asking that the word “evaluate” be inserted? 44
45
AMENDMENT 46
Page
26
1
Commissioner Keller: I suggested the word “evaluate” be inserted. Instead of “revise” it be 2
“evaluate revising,” and then we get to formally consider it. Do people have objection to that? 3
Ok, then I’m gonna make that as an Amendment. 4
5
SECOND 6
7
Chair Martinez: Ok, and you’re ok with it? Ok. 8
AMENDMENT 9
10
Commissioner Keller: Ok, the next thing, this is 3.1.6. This one says, “encourage the use of 11
flexible development standards for a ratio in architectural solutions,” blah, blah, blah. But it 12
doesn’t explicitly indicate that this is part of a Housing Density Bonus Ordinance. And I think 13
that that matters. So I’m gonna suggest that at the end of H 3.1.6 we say, “, as part of the 14
Housing Density Bonus Ordinance,” and I have an Amendment that I’d like to offer. 15
16
Chair Martinez: Does Staff have any comment on that before we, but is there a reason why it 17
wasn’t made part of the Density Bonus? 18
19
Mr. Wong: And please correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t think that was the initial intent of this 20
particular program that it be considered as part of the Density Bonus Package, but just a separate 21
program to help, another incentive if you will, to attract greater development in residential 22
housing. But I don’t believe it was ever part of, to be part of the Density Bonus Program, or, if 23
you will. 24
25
Commissioner Keller: May I respond to that? 26
27
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 28
29
Commissioner Keller: I think that there’s been a sentiment at least from some members of this 30
Commission that we don’t need additional incentives for housing development and that we want 31
incentives to be part of the Density Bonus rules and then it’s unclear if you have things that are 32
part of the Density Bonus Ordinance and then things that are not part of Density Bonus 33
Ordinance what counts and what doesn’t count. 34
35
Chair Martinez: So Commissioner Keller you’re requesting that be an Amendment to the Motion 36
as well, that it be made part of the Density Bonus Program. Commissioner Tuma? 37
38
Commissioner Tuma: Let me, I’m not necessarily supportive of that in the context of 3.1.6 39
because 3.1.6 specifically doesn’t generally talk about building units. It’s in the design of 40
projects with a substantial BMR component. So what this particular provision is targeted toward 41
is incentivizing projects with substantial BMR components. And so, so, that to me that’s the 42
different then if it wasn’t pointing to specific to BMR or project with substantial BMR 43
components then I would agree with you. But here, this is an incentive targeted specifically at 44
creating more BMR units. 45
46
Page
27
Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner Keller. 1
2
Commissioner Keller: I appreciate what Commissioner Tuma is saying, however, every housing, 3
every for sale development housing development project in the City has a substantial BMR 4
component of at least 15%. Every one, with the exception of in lieu units, and therefore they are 5
entitled to at least one concession. And this basically says that if they have a substantial BMR 6
component they get Floor Area Ratio limits being flexible and to me, that’s a concession. And 7
that’s why I think that this should be explicitly as part of the Bonus Density Ordinance and I 8
would not want to incentivize over and above the Bonus Density Ordinance. 9
10
Commissioner Tuma: Well, I suppose it. I’m sorry. 11
12
Chair Martinez: Yes, Vice Chair Fineberg first. 13
14
Vice Chair Fineberg: My question on this is how do you define substantial? And it sounds like 15
from a chuckle that that’s Commissioner Tuma’s question too. If 15% of every housing 16
development has a substantial component then it’s a freebie in excess of the ones already 17
mandated by the State’s Housing Density Bonus Laws. 18
19
If we have a 100,000 square foot office building with 10 units and 7 of them are BMR’s, is that 20
substantial? Is substantial relative to the whole mass of the building? Even though it’s, you 21
know, a little freckle on a whole body? Or is it that it’s over 100 units, or over 50 units, so, you 22
know, this is, if I can quote Commissioner Tuma maybe quoting me, what’s substantial and the 23
Devil’s in the detail. Can we instead of saying substantial have a number, like in excess of X 24
units? And we’re codifying what we mean as opposed to leaving it for decision project by 25
project and then we always struggle in a project review whereas we should have clear directive 26
from the policy. So what if we say, at least, I’m just throwing out a random number, 25 maybe 27
50? BMR units. 28
29
Chair Martinez: Planning Director, please. 30
31
Mr. Williams: Yeah, actually now in looking at this, is this a carryover from our pervious? Yes, 32
this is a carry from the previous and at that time we really didn’t have the Density Bonus Law in 33
effect. I really, I think that if you had substantial BMR we would then be talking about the 34
Density Bonus being part of it, so I don’t see it as being inconsistent to say something like 35
“consistent with the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance,” or something like that. I don’t know if 36
that’s the language Commissioner Keller was using or not, but I think you’ll find that when we 37
come forward, back to you with the Density Bonus Ordinance we’re gonna provide, you know, a 38
lot more flexibility for 100% affordable housing projects in terms of concessions than for 39
something that’s got the minimum 15% on it. So I think something along those lines is 40
workable. 41
42
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller are you good with that? 43
44
Commissioner Keller: Yeah. What I had said, and I’m not sure this is, I said as part of the 45
Housing Density Bonus Ordinance and the reason I’m saying that is that we would then 46
Page
28
implement this though the Housing Density Bonus Ordinance and rather than right now try to 1
argue about 50% or some other random number let’s just do it through the ordinance and we’ll 2
consider it in detail. 3
4
SECOND 5
6
Commissioner Tuma: That’s fine. 7
8
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 9
10
Chair Martinez: Ok. So we’re adding language about the ordinance? I’m not sure what we’re 11
doing here. 12
Commissioner Keller: what we did is at the end of H 3.1.6 we added at the very end, “, as part of 13
the Housing Density Bonus Ordinance.” And I think that’s what we just did. 14
15
Chair Martinez: Ok. Alright. 16
17
Commissioner Keller: May I continue? 18
19
Chair Martinez: Ok. 20
21
Commissioner Keller: Yeah, so the next thing is in 3.1.7 there’s a question with this and the 22
question is it says now, “SRO units preserving the character of adjacent neighborhoods.” And 23
I’m not sure if it’s necessary to say, “and are compatible with adjacent uses,” or not, but, in some 24
places we say it some places we don’t. It says it’s there’s a comment here about its already 25
obvious in there, but I’m not sure it’s obvious. If people, if people in a neighborhood found out 26
that this was going in there and we didn’t consider compatibility issues, I think there would be a 27
lot of complaints about that. So I would prefer if it actually added after neighborhoods, “and are 28
compatible with adjacent uses.” 29
30
Chair Martinez: Commissioner, I think the point was that we have a policy that states that and 31
under land use that development should be compatible with surrounding neighborhood uses. 32
33
Commissioner Keller: Well some places we added it and some places we didn’t. So… 34
35
Chair Martinez: Well we added it in places like Stanford Research Park where it’s sort of an 36
outlander. 37
38
AMENDMENT 39
40
Commissioner Keller: Ok, I’ll withdraw that. With respect to 3.1.8 the Staff Report made this 41
change, but it wasn’t actually made at the end. And the thing that was missing was it was, as 42
proscribed, proscribed in a nexus impact fee study. However the word proscribed means 43
prohibited. So I think you mean prescribed. So I’m going to suggest that we amend 3.1.8 adding 44
as the Staff Report said, corrected, at the end, “as prescribed in a nexus impact fee study.” 45
Page
29
Because your Staff Report said it, but it didn’t actually make it to the end. Can I offer that as a 1
friendly Amendment? 2
3
Chair Martinez: Hold on a bit. Vice Chair. 4
5
Vice Chair Fineberg: I’m sorry this may be version control. I’m looking at in the Staff Report 6
Attachment C, which is a revised draft, H 3.1.8 and it doesn’t have any of the language you’re 7
talking about. It says, “Require developers of employment generating commercial and industrial 8
developments to contribute to the supply of low and moderate income housing through the 9
provision of commercial in lieu fees.” So is your comment really to something other than 3.1.8? 10
11
Commissioner Keller: I am looking at 3.1.8 in the very back. This stuff here, which is what I’ve 12
been going through the whole time, because this is the actual description of the revised Housing 13
Element policies, and goals, and programs and all of that. So that’s what I’ve been basing it on, 14
and I notice that in [interrupted] 15
Vice Chair Fineberg: Is that Attachment C even though it’s not labeled? 16
17
Commissioner Keller: I don’t know if it’s Attachment C or not, it’s not labeled, it’s the thing 18
that’s labeled “Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs” and then it says “Vision.” And if you 19
look at the section with red print, 3.1.8 says, over here, if you look over here, in this section, 20
there’s before that I’m not sure what attachment this is either, but there’s an attachment which 21
refers to Commissioner Keller’s comments. Or “April 11th Commissioner Comments, Draft 22
Housing Element.” And in that one it adds a language at the end of 3.1.8 as “proscribed in a 23
nexus impact fee study.” But that language was not actually added [interrupted] 24
25
Mr. Wong: Chair Martinez, could I just clarify that real quick? Yes, I believe what 26
Commissioner Keller is referring to is, it’s Attachment B in which Commissioner Keller 27
submitted some comments and there were some responses. It’s Attachment B, it’s the one that 28
April 11th Commission Comments, where the responses from Staff or the subcommittee are in 29
red. So, in that it said that Commissioner Keller did have that comment about Program 3.1.8 and 30
the response does say, “see proposed language added.” So, where it says “as proscribed in the 31
nexus impact fee study,” and so, but, I apologize that was not transferred over to the Attachment 32
C, which is the revised goals, policies, and programs and it will be because that was at the 33
subcommittee direction to add that. So that will be added. 34
35
Commissioner Keller: Great, so I’m just making explicit because I want it prescribed not 36
proscribed. I’m just making that clear as an Amendment. 37
38
Mr. Wong: Correct and that’s noted. 39
40
Commissioner Keller: I think. Ok. 41
42
Chair Martinez: But we’re adding it as a correction, not to the Motion. 43
44
Commissioner Keller: We’re adding it as a correction? That’s fine. You can add that as a 45
correction. Great, just make sure that it’s prescribed. Thank you. 46
Page
30
1
Mr. Wong: Noted. 2
3
Commissioner Keller: In terms of 3.1.2 there were various other places where we considered, we 4
talked about considering ordinance changes. So this is perhaps more substantive. So right now 5
it says, “consider conducting a study to assess the impacts of limiting market rate housing 6
development,” which is very wordy and much more complicated than it needs to be. So how 7
about, “consider modifying the zoning ordinance to limit, etcetera.” And that allows us to 8
consider modifying the zoning ordinance and we either do or we don’t and whatever’s involved 9
in modifying we, so this one is 3.1.2, “consider conducting a study to assess the impacts of 10
limiting market rate housing development to the City’s above market moderate allocation of the 11
current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHND) planning cycle.” And I’m suggesting that 12
rather than “conducting a study to assess the impacts,” we simply say, “consider modifying the 13
zoning ordinance to limit market rate housing.” And we do that as part of a consideration of an 14
ordinance and do whatever is necessary to do that evaluation. 15
16
Chair Martinez: Commissioner, I think that’s a bigger leap than what you had originally asked. 17
Pardon? So, since it’s achieving what you had asked for why don’t we just leave it? 18
19
Commissioner Keller: Ok. Well, I’m not sure it’s achieving because it says you have to do a 20
study when I’m simply saying do it as part of an ordinance. But ok, since my Seconder doesn’t 21
accept that, I will drop that. And in addition, I have some editorial changes at the end and a few 22
comments I’m not gonna go into. 23
24
A few questions, quickly. One is do the unit counts for the items on California Avenue and 25
University Avenue reflect ground floor retail and have you taken into account ground floor retail 26
and calculation of the Unit counts on University Avenue and California Avenue? 27
28
Mr. Rivera: The unit yields that are on the tables reflect what is currently allowed under the 29
development standards under the current zoning for that particular zone. So yes, it does take into 30
consideration the fact that on a mixed use development you’ll have a certain FAR for 31
commercial uses. 32
33
Commissioner Keller: And also the fact that there is a requirement of ground floor retail in those 34
places. 35
36
Mr. Rivera: That’s correct. 37
38
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The next issue, do any of these sites include Fry’s Electronics 39
site? 40
41
Mr. Rivera: No it doesn’t. 42
43
Commissioner Keller: And, ok, I’m not gonna bother asking the rest of the questions after that. 44
It would be helpful when this goes in the final published version if there were a list of Housing 45
Inventory Sites listed by street name and then by street address. Sorted by street name and street 46
Page
31
address, otherwise there’s so many different listings it’s hard to figure out whether your site is on 1
them or not. If it were listed by that as one of the ways it would be clear. 2
3
And lastly, there are three sites or three collections of sites that I would consider; I want us to 4
consider whether we remove. One of those sites is that one of the things on the housing 5
inventory site is Whole Foods Market and parking lot, and I really don’t think we want to 6
encourage Whole Foods being replaced by housing. Secondly, there’s a lot, the same thing is 7
now true about the California Park Boulevard site. California and Park Boulevard site with 8
Mollie Stone’s Market. That’s a site, and I was only able to figure this out by looking at the 9
map. And I really don’t think we want to include Mollie Stone’s Market and encourage that to 10
be replaced by housing. And thirdly is a small part of Encina, off of Encina on the Town and 11
Country site there’s a little piece of land there that’s on this housing inventory. And I don’t think 12
we really want to encourage housing over there behind Town and Country. So I think we have 13
enough Housing Inventory Sites that we can drop these three categories. 14
15
Chair Martinez: Staff can we get your response? 16
17
Mr. Rivera: Those sites were included because they are currently zoned for a mixed use 18
development. So, for example the Mollie Stone’s, it’s in a commercial zone so technically right 19
now somebody can, we’re not necessarily encouraging it, we’re just showing HCD that this 20
particular site can accommodate a certain number of residential units. Technically right now a 21
developer can come in Mollie Stone’s and develop a mixed use development without going 22
through rezoning and I think that’s what we’re trying to show ACD is that this site is capable, 23
has the capacity to accommodate those number of units. 24
25
Commissioner Keller: Well if you ask me since we have enough extra units around on our list, 26
I’d much prioritize having a few parking lots that are major grocery stores. 27
28
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg. 29
30
Vice Chair Fineberg: Would a sort of solution be that we leave those sites in the inventory and 31
make a commitment that this body will bring back the concept of the grocery overlay and would 32
that work then if it were to be redeveloped it either Mollie Stone’s or Whole Foods were to be 33
redeveloped as mixed use with a grocery overlay that it would have to come back with a grocery. 34
And then there could be the additional housing with the retention of a grocery. 35
36
Mr. Williams: Well that isn’t something that we could put into the Housing Element, and I would 37
question the grocery over. I mean I don’t think that we’ve discussed this before that, you know, 38
if you had a shopping center and maybe say that there has to be a grocery in it, that’s one thing. 39
If you have a site and say that site has to have a grocery store, one specific use, I think we’re in 40
difficult legal waters there. So I think it would be hard to do that. But I also, to sort of build on 41
what Roland said, I meant there are a lot of these. I’m not expecting that this designation is 42
going to make any difference on either of those parcels like Roland said, they are already zoned 43
to do that as it is. So if they’re gonna do something with it then they do. It’s not gonna be 44
because of the Housing Element. But, there are getting to be a lot of examples of grocery stores 45
with housing above them too around so and this and the zoning in both of those areas is such that 46
Page
32
it requires retail, retail at least on the ground floor. So you couldn’t come in there and put, just 1
take down the grocery store and put a resident project. A wholly residential project. There still 2
has to be retail ground floor to it. And that’s why we put it on the list. 3
4
I understand the issue of, you know, maybe we’ve got a little bit more than the absolute number, 5
but we’re not so far above that that, you know, a site here or there gets knocked out or like Vice 6
Chair Fineberg said, you know, something doesn’t get developed it gets at less than that density 7
we need to have hopefully a little bit of wiggle room. 8
9
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller is losing his voice. Maybe this is a good time to call for 10
a… 11
12
Commissioner Keller: Sure, let me withdraw that suggestion with reservations. If that ever gets 13
converted and we lose those grocery stores and find mixed use with other stores and housing, 14
don’t say I didn’t warn you. With that I’ll close my Amendment proposals. 15
16
Chair Martinez: Has anyone kept track of the Motion and the Amendments? Can we? Do you 17
want to read it back to us before we vote? 18
19
Commissioner Keller: Yes. The Motion is to recommend to the City Council approving of the 20
Housing Element with the following Amendments. In 2.1.1 replace “major transit” with “fixed 21
rail,” and also call out for the Council 2.1.1 whether the Council should drop it or whether they 22
stand behind it or portions of it, whether they want to drop portions of it. In 2.2.1 we start off 23
with the part that’s in the Staff Report but not the description in the back of the ordinance which 24
is different. It started off with “adopt an ordinance for Density Bonus Concessions to promote 25
more flexible concessions and incentives, etcetera.” In 2.2.2 we delete the phrase “and only 26
requires architectural review,” in the main body and we delete, the third bullet, in third bullet 27
delete the word “average.” In 3.1.6 we add at the ends “as part of the Housing Density Bonus 28
Ordinance.” And also at 3.1.2 I think we agreed to add revising, “and evaluate revising,” instead 29
of just revising. And I think that’s the extent of our changes, and the other ones were just 30
considered editorial that Staff can put into as they as the appropriate. 31
32
Chair Martinez: Tim do you have anything to add to that? 33
34
Mr. Wong: Just to clarify with, I didn’t catch Commissioner Keller, but with Program 2.2.2, just 35
to clarify, we are eliminating that phrase, “and only requires architectural review.” I believe 36
that’s what was agreed upon. To just eliminate that phrase completely. 37
38
Commissioner Keller: Yes. We are eliminating that phrase completely and we’re also 39
eliminating the word “average.” So those are the two changes. Thank you. 40
41
Mr. Wong: Correct. Yeah. I agree, just clarifying that. 42
43
VOTE 44
45
Page
33
Chair Martinez: Ok, we’re good to go. Let’s call for the vote. Those in favor of the Motion, say 1
Aye. Aye. Those opposed? The Motion passed unanimously with… Oh, I’m sorry. Ok. You 2
abstained. Then the Motion passes with Commissioner Keller, Tanaka, Martinez, Fineberg, 3
Tuma voting in support, and Commissioner Michael abstaining. Ok. Thank you very much for 4
that. Thanks Staff, it was really a great job. 5
6
MOTION PASSED (5-0-1, Commissioner Michael abstaining) 7
.. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Council Meeting Date: May 22, 2012
Staff Report #: 12-081
Agenda Item #: F1
REGULAR BUSINESS: Approval of a Settlement Agreement Regarding Housing
Element Litigation; Approval of the Work Program for the
Housing Element Update and Technical Update of the
General Plan; Approval of Overall Budget of $1,150,000
and Adoption of Resolutions Appropriating a Total of
$714,000 from General Fund Reserves for FY 2011-12;
Authorization of the City Manager to Enter Into Contracts
in excess of $50,000; Creation of a Housing Element
Steering Committee and Appointment of Two Council
Members
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve a Settlement Agreement settling lawsuit filed by Peninsula Interfaith
Action, Urban Habitat Program and Youth United for Community Action, San
Mateo County Superior Court Case No. CIV 513882, and Authorize the City
Manager to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City and enter into a
Stipulated Judgment (Attachment C),
2. Adopt a Resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2011-12 budget appropriating
$114,000 from the General Fund Reserve for payment of Petitioner's attorney's
fees as required pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement (Attachment
A);
3. Approve the work program for the Housing Element Update and Technical
Update of the General Plan, which includes a community outreach process and
selection criteria for housing sites (Attachment D);
4. Adopt a Resolution establishing an overall budget of $1,150,000 for the Housing
Element Update and Technical Update of the General Plan and amending the
Fiscal Year 2011-12 budget appropriating $600,000 from the General Fund
Reserve for the consultant services (Attachment B);
5. Authorize the City Manager to enter into various contracts for consulting services
in excess of $50,000 for the Housing Element Update and Technical Update of
341
the General Plan, provided the total amounts of the contracts are less than the
Council-approved budget for the Housing Element Update; and
6. Authorize the creation of a Housing Element Steering Committee comprised of
two Planning Commissioners, two Housing Commissioners, appointed by the
respective chairs, and two Council Members; and appoint two Council Members
to serve on the Housing Element Steering Committee.
BACKGROUND
The housing element is one of seven State-mandated elements of the City's General
Plan, first required by the State in 1969. Housing element law requires local
governments to adequately plan to meet their existing and projected housing needs
including their share of the regional housing need. Housing element law is the State's
primary market-based strategy to increase the supply and diversity of housing. The law
recognizes that in order for the private sector to adequately address housing needs and
demand, local governments must adopt land-use plans and regulatory schemes that
provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. Housing
elements are specifically required to include an assessment of existing and projected
housing needs; a site inventory and analysis of land suitable for residential
development; a plan embodied in goals, policies and implementation strategies to meet
the regional housing needs; an analysis of constraints on housing development;
programs to conserve and improve existing housing stock; and the quantification of new
units to be constructed, rehabilitated or conserved.
The State also requires that housing elements be updated on a schedule set by the
State to account for changes in the local housing market and to identify parcels that can
be rezoned for possible future housing development in order to meet continuing regional
housing needs. The California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) is charged with the review and certification of housing elements and the periodic
updates. Certification of the housing element is a requirement for most State grant and
loan programs.
The City's existing Housing Element was adopted by the City Council in 1992 for the
planning period through 1999. Housing elements are required to be updated within time
periods identified by HCD, generally called "planning periods". Within each planning
period, regional housing needs are identified for each jurisdiction. The regional housing
need as well as other requirements must be met in order for HCD to consider
certification of a jurisdiction's housing element.
For the planning period of 1999 through 2006, Menlo Park was required to plan for 982
units. Although the City commenced an update of the Housing Element, the City
decided to wait to update the Housing Element until the 2007 through 2014 planning
period. For this subsequent planning period, the City was required to plan for 993 units
and complete the update by June 30, 2009. The City did not meet this deadline.
342
On February 28,2012, the CitY Council appropriated $150,000 for fiscal year 2011-12
for legal and consulting services for the Housing Element Update. Jeffery Baird of Baird
+ Driskell Planning, an expert in preparing Housing Elements, has been hired by the
City to assist in analyzing the City's Housing Element and General Plan and preparing a
work plan. On May 8,2012, the City Council held a study session regarding the Housing
Element law and process. The Council received presentations from a panel of experts
in the field.
ANALYSIS
litigation and Settlement Agreement
In January 2012, the City received a letter raising issues with the City's failure to adopt
an updated Housing Element of the General Plan in compliance with State law. The
letter contained a threat of litigation due to this lack of compliance. Subsequently, the
City Council held closed sessions with the City Attorney and City Manager during which
the Council provided direction authorizing negotiations with the parties and their legal
counsel. Consistent with Council direction, the City Attorney negotiated with the legal
counsel for the three housing advocacy organizations, Peninsula Interfaith Action,
Urban Habitat Program and Youth United for Community Action, resulting in a draft
Settlement Agreement. On May 15, 2012, the petitioners filed a Petition for Writ of
Mandate in San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. CIV 513882 suing the City for
failure to adopt an updated Housing Element, failure to rezone sufficient properties to
accommodate the City's allocation of the housing demand and seeking a court order to
compel the City to adopt a legally adequate Housing Element. Attachment C is the
proposed Settlement Agreement pertaining to the lawsuit. (A copy of the lawsuit has
previously been provided to Council.)
The Settlement Agreement includes the following activities and milestones:
• By August 31,2012, the City will prepare an Affordable Housing Analysis which
will include an inventory and analysis of potential housing sites;
• By September 30,2012, the City shall release a Draft Housing Element for public
review;
• By October 31,2012, the City shall submit the Draft Housing Element to the
State Housing and Community Development Department for comment.
• ByMarch 15, 2012, the City shall adopt a Housing Element in compliance with
State law; and
• Within 60 days of adoption of the Housing Element, the City shall adopt
amendments to the remainder of the General Plan to maintain consistency with
the Housing Element and rezone housing sites consistent with the Housing •
Element.
343
The Settlement Agreement also includes terms related to the contents of the Housing
Element, the City's Below Market Housing Program, the City's Permitting Authority and
payment of the litigants' attorney's fees of $114,000, among other terms.
By entering into this Settlement Agreement the City avoids (a) a Court order to adopt a
Housing Element within 120 days, (b) a moratorium on the issuance of non-residential
permits in the City and (c) more costly attorney fees (Pleasanton paid $2 million in
attorney fees as part of their settlement of similar litigation). Through the negotiated
Settlement Agreement, the City has obtained additional time to conduct a more
extensive public outreach process than would otherwise be possible with a court order
to update the Housing Element within 120 days and allows the City to continue issuing
building permits and processing land use applications in the ordinary course of
business.
Housing Element Update and Technical Update of the General Plan Work Program
Attachment Dis the Draft Work Program for the Housing Element Update and the
Technical Update of the General Plan. The Work Program, prepared by Baird + Driskell
Planning in coordination with staff, includes information on the following:
• State Law Requirements;
• Relationship of Current and Future Housing Element Updates;
• Future Comprehensive Update of the General Plan;
• Work Products;
• Key Activities and Responsibilities, including community outreach;
• Key Tasks; and
• Approach to the Available Land Inventory, including criteria for selecting housing
sites.
The Work Program is consistent with the timelines and content contained in the
Settlement Agreement. Given the time constraints of the Settlement Agreement, the
estimated budget for this Work Program is $1,150,000. The Work Program, especially
the Technical Update of the General Plan, will necessitate a number of consultant
contracts to supplement staff resources and provide technical expertise, such as
transportation, noise, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, water, community facilities,
and fiscal impacts and to provide additional legal services. Much of the work associated
with the Technical Updates of the General Plan will better prepare the City to conduct
the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan, which is scheduled to commence in
Fiscal Year 2013-14.
344
Contracting Authority
Given the time constraints associated with the Settlement Agreement, staff
recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into contracts
with various consultants in excess of the current limit of $50,000 per contract. The City
will need to enter into a series of consultant contracts, some of which will be less than
$50,000, but the City will also need to enter into contracts in excess of $50,000. By
granting additional contract authority to the City Manager for this project, the City will be
better prepared to meet the milestones established in the Settlement Agreement. In no
event will overall consultant costs and staff costs exceed the overall approved budget
without additional Council direction and authority.
Formation of Steering Committee
The work program includes the creation of a Housing Element Steering Committee
comprised of the following:
• 2 Council Members
• 2 Planning Commissioners
• 2 Housing Commissioners
The Steering Committee would be a Brown Act body and is expected to have four
meetings in June and July and one meeting toward the end of 2012. Staff recommends
that the Council appoint the two Council members on May 22, 2012. Given the time
constraints associated with the Settlement Agreement, staff also recommends that the
City Council authorize the chairs of the Housing Commission and Planning Commission
to appoint the representatives from the two respective bodies based on an expression
of interest and availability by the members. This appointment process will enable the
Committee to meet in early June. Alternatively, the Committee would not be able to
meet until mid-June if Commissions waited to appoint their members at their next
regularly scheduled meetings. The Housing Commission's next meeting is June 6,
2012, and the Planning Commission's next meeting is June 11, 2012.
IMPACT ON CITY RESOURCES
The terms of the Settlement Agreement require the payment of $114,000 for the
litigant's attorney's fees. This money was not included in the Fiscal Year 2011-12
budget and requires an appropriation. Completion of the Housing Element Update and
Technical Update of the General Plan would require both staff resources dedicated to
the project, as well consultant services. The Council has budgeted $150,000 for Fiscal
Year 2011-12 and $400,000 for Fiscal Year 2012-13. Given the time constraints of the
Settlement Agreement, staff estimates that an additional $600,000 will likely be needed
for the consultant services described above. Staff recommends that the City Council
appropriate these additional funds from the General Fund Reserves for Fiscal Year
2011-12, thus establishing a total project budget of $1,150,000.
345
POLICY ISSUES
The housing element update process will consider a number of policy issues including
issues related to the rezoning of properties and increasing of residential densities in the
city.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Government Code Section 65759 provides in part that the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to any action necessary to bring a city's general plan
or relevant mandatory elements of the plan into compliance with any court order or
judgment under State Housing Element law. As required by this provision, the City will
conduct the environmental assessment, the content of which substantially conforms to
the required content for a draft environmental impact report.
l '. in Murphy ,
Development Services Manager
Report Author
PUBLIC NOTICE
Arlinda Heineck
Community Development Director
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting, with this agenda item being listed. In addition, the City sent an email update to
subscribers to the project page for the proposal, which is available at the following
address: http://www.menlopark.org/projects/comdev heu.htm This page provides up-
to-date information about the project, allowing interested parties to stay informed of its
progress. The page allows users to sign up for automatic email bulletins, notifying them
when content is updated or meetings are scheduled.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution of the City Council of Menlo Park Appropriating Funds for Payment of
the Petitioner's Attorney's Fees to Settle Housing Element Litigation
B. Resolution of the City Council of Menlo Park Appropriating Funds for Consultant
Services for the Housing Element Update
C. Settlement Agreement
D. Work Program for the Revision to the City of Menlo Park Housing Element and
Technical Update of the City of Menlo Park General Plan
v:\staffrpt\cc\2012\052212 -housing element update.doc
346
RESOLU1"ION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK APPROPRIATING
FUNDS FOR PAYMENT· OF PETIONER'S ATTORNEY'S FEES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH
PENISULA INTERFAITH ACTION, URBAN HABITAT PROGRAM and
YOUTH UNITED FOR COMMUNITY ACTION
The City of Menlo Park, acting by and through its City Council, having considered and
been fully advised in the matter and good cause appearing therefore,
NOW BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Menlo
Park that the City Council does hereby approve an appropriation of $114,000 from the
General Fund Reserve in Fiscal Year 2011-12 for attorney's fee pursuant to the terms of
the Settlement Agreement with Peninsula Interfaith Action, Urban Habitat Program and
youth United for Community Action.
I, Margaret S. Roberts, City Clerk of the City of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a
meeting by said Council on the twenty-second day of May, 2012, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of
said City on this twenty-second day of May, 2012.
Margaret S. Roberts, MMC
City Clerk
347
RESOLUTION NO,
RESOLU'riON OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK APPROPRIATING
FUNDS FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE HOUSING
ELEMENT UPDATE PROJECT
The City of Menlo Park, acting by and through its City Council, having considered and
been fully advised in the matter and good cause appearing therefore,
NOW BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Menlo
Park that the City Council does hereby approve an overall budget of $1,150,000 for the
Housing Element Update Project and an appropriation of $600,000 'from the General
Fund Reserve in Fiscal Year 2011-12 to fund consultant services for the Housing
Element Update Project.
I, Margaret S. Roberts, City Clerk of the City of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a
meeting by said Council on the twenty-second day of May, 2012, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of
said City on this twenty-second day of May, 2012.
Margaret S. Roberts, MMC
City Clerk
348
ATTACHMENT C
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue ("Settlement Agreement") is entered into
by and among Petitioners PENISULA INTERFAITH ACTION, URBAN HABITAT
PROGRAM and YOUTH UNITED FOR COMMUNITY ACTION, and Respondents CITY OF
MENLO PARK and CITY COUNCIL OF MENLO PARK.
1. RECITALS
This Settlement Agreement is entered into based upon the following facts:
LIOn or about January 30 and February 23,2012, in letters to the City of
Menlo Park, Petitioners asserted various shortcomings in the City's
compliance with affordable housing laws and requesting that the City take
action to correct those compliance shortcomings by June 15,2012.
1.2 Soon afterwards, the Parties entered into negotiations in an effort to reach
a settlement.
1.3 The Parties have worked in good faith to arrive at this Settlement
Agreement. As reflected herein, the City has an interest in making
housing more available and affordable in Menlo Park, and has worked
with Petitioners to arrive at a resolution of the issues that promotes the
interests of Menlo Park and the surrounding communities by meeting the
housing needs of lower-income families.
1.4 Among, other things, as set forth below, the City has agreed to identify
potential housing sites that will be competitive for affordable housing
funding under the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, zone
those sites with zoning that provides incentives for affordable housing
production, and set aside a portion of local BMR funds for non-profit
development of affordable housing on those sites.
1.5 On or about May 16, 2012, Petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandate
in the San Mateo County Superior Court entitled Peninsula Interfaith
Action, et at. v. City of Mento Park, et at.
1.6 The Parties desire to fully settle and resolve the merits of the petition for
writ of mandate that the Petitioners have filed, as well as potential CEQA
claims, without further litigation, on the terms and conditions set forth
herein.
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 1 of 13 349
350
2. . DEFINITIONS
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
"DATE OF APPROV AL" means the date on which the last of the parties
has executed this Agreement.
"PETITIONERS" means Peninsula Interfaith Action, Urban Habitat
Program and Youth United for Community Action.
"DEFENDANTS" and "CITY" may be used interchangeably herein, and
mean the City of Menlo Park and its City Council.
"PETITIONERS' LITIGATION" means the action filed by Petitioners on
or about May 16, 2012, known as Peninsula Interfaith Action, et al. v. City
of Menlo Park, et al.
"HCD" means the California Department of Housing and Community
Development.
"RHNA" means the Regional Housing Needs Allocation as set
periodically by the Association of Bay Area Governments pursuant to
California Government Code section 65584.
"EXTREMELY -LOW INCOME" means a household with an income up
to 30% of the area median income, pursuant to Health & Safety Code §
50106.
"VERY -LOW INCOME" means a household with an income up to 50%
of the area median income, pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 50105.
"LOW INCOME" means a household with a household income between
50% and 80% of the area median income, pursuant to Health & Safety
Code § 50093.
"LOWER INCOME" includes EXTREMELY-LOW INCOME, VERY-
LOW INCOME and LOW INCOME.
"PRIOR PLANNING PERIOD" means the period covering the third
revision of the housing element, for which the Association of Bay Area
Governments assigned the City, in or about March 2001, a RHNA
comprising 982 total units, including 184 VERY-LOW INCOME units, 90
LOW-INCOME units, 245 moderate-income units, and 463 above-
moderate income units.
"CURRENT PLANNING PERIOD" means the period covering the fourth
revision of the housing element, for which the Association of Bay Area
Governments assigned the City, in or about May 2008, a RHNA
comprising 993 total units, including 226 VERY-LOW INCOME units,
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 2 of 13
163 LOW-INCOME units, 192 moderate-income units, and 412 above-
moderate income units.
2.13 "NEXT PLANNING PERIOD" means the period covering the fifth
revision of the housing element, and expected to begin in or about 2014.
2.14 "AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY OR OTHER ZONING
MECHANISM" means a zoning ordinance that provides a package of
incentives (such as permitting residential use in appropriate non-
residential zones, increased residential density, reduced parking standards,
streamlined andlor accelerated permitting) available only to developers of
projects that will provide a significant percentage of deed-restricted
residential units affordable to EXTREMELY-LOW INCOME, VERY-
LOW INCOME and LOW INCOME households. For purposes ofthis
settlement agreement, "a significant percentage" shall mean substantially
more than 15%.
2.15 "PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS" means the areas surrounding the
E1 Camino Real corridor and downtown Menlo Park, as shown within the
dotted lines in the FOCUS map attached as Exhibit A.
2.16 "LIHTC PROGRAM" means the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
Program established by 26 U.S.C. § 42 and administered in California by
the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee.
2.17 "AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS" means the inventory and
analysis of sites pursuant to Government Code §§ 65583 and 65583.2,
which includes an analysis of the viability and competitiveness of each
site in the site inventory for funding for affordable housing under the
LIHTC Program.
2.18 "BELOW MARKET RATE" or "BMR" program means the program
established in Chapter 16.96 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code with the
purpose of increasing the housing supply for households that have very
low, low and moderate incomes and with the primary objective of creating
actual housing units.
AGREEMENT
3. RECITALS INCORPORATED.
3.1 The above recitals and definitions are incorporated into and made a part of
this Settlement Agreement.
4. AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS
4.1 No later than August 31, 2012, subject to reasonable extension for
unforeseen delays, the City shall prepare and issue publicly a draft
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 3 of 13 351
352
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS which shall include an inventory
and analysis of sites that meets the requirements of Government Code §§
65583 and 65583.2, and shall include an analysis of the viability and
competitiveness of each site in the site inventory for funding for
affordable housing under the LIHTC Program.
4.2 From that AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS, the City shall
designate available sites in the updated Housing Element as appropriate
for affordable housing development, and rezone those sites, as set forth in
Sections 6 and 7, below.
5. HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
5.1 No later than the later of September 30,2012, or 30 days from the public
issuance of the draft AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS, and subject
to reasonable extension for unforeseen delays, the City shall prepare and
issue publicly a draft updated Housing Element in compliance with
California law that accommodates, at a minimum, the City's RHNA for
very-low, low and moderate income households for both the Current
Planning Period and the unmet RHNA share for the Prior Planning Period.
5.2 No later than October 31, 2012, subject to reasonable extension for
unforeseen delays, the City shall submit the draft updated Housing
Element to HCD for its statutory compliance review pursuant to
Government Code §65585, with the goal being to obtain findings and a
determination of substantial compliance by HCD. The City shall use best
efforts to obtain such a determination from HCD for the updated Housing
Element.
5.3 The City Council shall consider HCD's determination or other findings
and adopt a Housing Element that substantially complies with California
law for the CURRENT PLANNING PERIOD (including accommodating
the unmet RHNA share for the Prior Planning Period) and includes the
policies and programs described in Section 6, no later than March 15,
2013, subject to reasonable extension for unforeseen delays.
5.3.1 If no findings are timely received from HCD in accordance with
Government Code Section 65585, the City may still take action
to adopt the updated Housing Element by the aforementioned
date.
5.4 Within 60 days of adopting the updated Housing Element, subject to
reasonable extension for unforeseen delays, the City shall complete any
and all General Plan amendments necessary to make the General Plan
consistent with the updated Housing Element and to accommodate in full
its RHNA at each income level for the CURRENT PLANNING PERIOD
and the unmet RHNA share for the Prior Planning Period.
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 4 of 13
6. HOUSING ELEMENT CONTENTS
6.1 The draft and adopted Housing Element update referenced in Sections 5.2
and 5.3, above, shall include programs, policies and parameters to rezone
adequate sites from the AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS for
affordable housing and to make all necessary zoning changes to
accommodate such development and make the zoning ordinance internally
consistent. Among other things:
6.1.1 The updated Housing Element will include a ministerial
program to adopt, within 60 days of the adoption of the updated
Housing Element, an AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
OR OTHER ZONING MECHANISM to facilitate the
development of the required number of affordable units,
including units affordable to extremely-low, very-low and low
income households.
6.1.2 The updated Housing Element will include a ministerial
program to apply the AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
OR OTHER WNING MECHANISM to adequate sites to
accommodate the lower-income RHNA, including the sites
identified in the AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS as the
most competitive for the LIHTC Program.
6.1.3 The AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY OR OTHER
ZONING MECHANISM would include a package of incentives
(e.g., permitting residential use in appropriate non-residential
zones, increased residential density, reduced parking standards,
streamlined or accelerated permitting) available only to
developers of projects that will provide a significant percentage
(which shall mean substantially more than the City's
inclusionary BMR requirement of 15%) of deed-restricted
residential units affordable to and reserved for extremely-low,
very-low and low income households. The AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OVERLAY OR OTHER ZONING MECHANISM
shall also include incentives (such as higher density) for owners
of smaller sites to assemble them into larger parcels appropriate
for LOWER INCOME residential development.
6.1.4 The updated Housing Element shall include the programs
referenced in Sections 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3, below, relating to the
City's BELOW MARKET RATE program.
7. SITE RE-ZONING
7.1 Within 60 days of adopting the updated Housing Element, subject to
reasonable extension for unforeseen delays, the City shall complete all
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 5 of 13 353
354
actions necessary to implement the ministerial rezoning programs in the
adopted updated Housing Element, which are described in Section 6.1,
above, and include, but are not limited to, rezoning sites appropriate for
development of LOWER INCOME housing.
7.2 A minimum proportion, to be established during the Housing Element
update process but in no event less than 35%, of the site acreage to be
rezoned for affordable housing will be located inside of or within one-half
mile of Menlo Park's PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS.
8. BELOW MARKET HOUSING PROGRAM
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
As part of the update to the Housing Element referenced in Section 5,
above, the City shall study the City's BELOW MARKET RATE program
and the fees associated therewith, compare its BMR fees with those
charged by other surrounding jurisdictions, and analyze the BELOW
MARKET RATE program's efficacy at encouraging the creation of
LOWER INCOME housing. If any changes to the BMR program or fees
are determined to be appropriate, a program to implement those changes
shall be included in the updated Housing Element.
As part of the update to the Housing Element, the City shall include a
program to establish a clear policy and criteria for the allocation of funds
from the City'S BMR housing fund that prioritizes non-profit development
of workforce rental housing affordable to low and very-low income
households on sites the City has determined to be viable for LIHTC
funding by setting aside a substantial portion of the uncommitted BMR
fund balance and of future BMR fees received by the City for such
development.
As part of the update to the Housing Element, the City shall consider the
addition of policies and programs designed to encourage the provision of
LOWER INCOME housing within the City, and include appropriate
policies that meet the requirements of the Housing Element Law. Such
policies and programs shall include, but are not limited to, policies and
programs promoting multifamily housing, promoting extremely low
income housing opportunities, promoting housing for families with
children, promoting affordable senior housing, and prohibiting housing
discrimination. Any policies deemed appropriate shall be included in the
updated Housing Element.
Within 60 days of adopting the updated Housing Element, the City shall
issue a notice of availability of funds to non-profit developers of housing
affordable to EXTREMELY-LOW, VERY-LOW and LOW INCOME
households and not less frequently than every two years thereafter,
provided there is an uncommitted balance of at least $1 million on deposit
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 6 of 13
in the City's BMR fund, with a goal of developing a substantial number of
deed-restricted affordable units within three years.
9. NEXT PLANNING PERIOD
9.1 The City shall use good faith efforts to adopt a timely and compliant
Housing Element for the NEXT PLANNING PERIOD that fully
accommodates the unmet share of the City's RHNA at each income level
for that planning period. The City shall also use good faith efforts to
rezone additional sites in the NEXT PLANNING PERIOD to the extent
necessary to accommodate the affordable portion of the RHNA for that
planning period at each income level. Good faith efforts shall include, but
not be limited to, beginning the update process within a reasonable time
after the new planning period begins, and including the costs of updating
the Housing Element and completing the rezoning in the City's Capital
Improvement Plan and budget for FY 2013-14. Nothing in this paragraph
shall excuse the City's failure to timely adopt an updated housing element
for the NEXT PLANNING PERIOD.
10. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
10.1 The Judgment in this action shall incorporate Government Code Section
65759, which provides in part that the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") "does not apply to any action necessary to bring its general
plan or relevant mandatory elements of the plan into compliance with any
court order or judgment under this article," and the City will conduct the
environmental assessment required by that provision. Pursuant to Section
65759, CEQA does not apply to any discretionary actions necessary to
bring the Housing Element and relevant mandatory elements of the
General Plan into compliance with State Law. The parties further agree
that CEQA does not apply to the implementation of ministerial programs
in the updated Housing Element.
11. REPORTING
11.1 Periodically, at least quarterly, the Parties will meet to discuss the City's
progress in attaining compliance with the terms of this Settlement
Agreement. The City will also collaborate with organizations suggested
by PETITIONERS who are interested in assisting in community outreach
and education in connection with the Housing Element update
contemplated in the settlement agreement for the CURRENT PLANNING
PERIOD.
11.2 The City shall annually submit to HCD an implementation report as
required by Government Code Section 65400, and shall provide a copy of
each such report to Public Advocates within IS days after submitting it to
HCD.
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 7 of 13 355
356
12. JUDGMENT AND ENFORCEMENT
12.1 Contemporaneous with the execution of this Settlement Agreement, the
Parties shall execute a Judgment pursuant to Stipulation, in the form
attached as Exhibit B. This Settlement Agreement (with the exception of
Section 9.1) shall be incorporated into that Judgment pursuant to
Stipulation, and shall be enforceable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 664.6.
12.2 The Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to effectuate the provisions
of the Settlement Agreement and Judgment for three (3) years from the
later of adoption of the updated Housing Element as required pursuant to
Section 5.3 and the adoption of the necessary zoning ordinances/rezoning
pursuant to Section 7.1.
12.3 In the event that any Party believes that another Party is in breach of any
of the terms set forth in this Settlement Agreement, the Party asserting a
breach shall give written notice to the other Party of the breach, which
notice shall set forth with reasonable particularity the alleged breach and
action required to remedy the alleged breach. The Parties shall meet,
confer, and attempt to resolve the alleged breach within thirty (30) days of
such notice. If the Parties cannot resolve the alleged breach within such
time, any party may seek judicial enforcement. The notice in this
subsection shall be effective upon personal service or receipt by overnight
courier or other mailed service providing for evidence of delivery/receipt,
or by facsimile with evidence of completion of transmission, or by email
with acknowledgement of receipt, to the attorney of Party to whom notice
is to be given.
13. CITY PERMITTING AUTHORITY
13.1 The City's permitting authoritY,shall not be suspended by the Court in the
judgment, provided, however, that the Court may suspend the City'S
permitting authority for failure to comply with the terms of Sections 5, 6
or 7 of the stipulated judgment, following notice and opportunity to cure
any such failure.
13.2 Nothing shall preclude Petitioners from seeking the imposition of
permitting restrictions or other enforcement remedies if judicial
enforcement of any provision of this Settlement Agreement is required.
14. NO ADDITIONAL LITIGATION; PETITIONERS' WAIVER AND
RELEASE
14.1 The City shall not pursue an appeal or further litigation from the stipulated
Judgment entered pursuant to Section 11.2.
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 8 of 13
14.2 Except as expressly provided herein, for and in consideration of the
covenants made herein, Petitioners do hereby completely waive, release
and forever discharge the City, and the City'S predecessors and
successors-in-interest, heirs, assigns, past, present, and future, Council
members, staff, principals, agents, officers or directors, managers,
employees, attorneys, insurers and all other persons or entities in any
manner related thereto or acting on their behalf, from any and all claims,
demands, actions, proceedings and causes of action of any and every sort,
whether known or unknown, arising out of or relating to the City'S failure
to timely adopt an updated Housing Element and General Plan, including
any environmental assessment related thereto, for the CURRENT
PLANNING PERIOD. Petitioners covenant not to sue the City with
respect to the Environmental Impact Report in connection with any
Facebook projects and/or any other project/land use proceeding pending in
the City of Menlo Park as of the Date of Approval.
14.3 Petitioners and the City intend this Settlement Agreement to be and
constitute a full general release and to constitute a full and final accord
and satisfaction extending to all claims arising out of or relating to the
PETITIONERS' LITIGATION, whether the same are known, unknown,
suspected or anticipated, unsuspected or unanticipated. Accordingly,
except as expressly provided herein, Petitioners, by signing this Settlement
Agreement, agree and warrant that they have read, understand and
expressly release and waive the provisions of California Civil Code
Section 1542, which reads as follows:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS
WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT
TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF
EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM
OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR
HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.
Petitioners understand and acknowledge that the significance and
consequence of this release and waiver of California Civil Code Section
1542 is that, except as expressly provided herein, even if Petitioners
should eventually suffer additional damages or losses arising out of or
relating to the PETITIONERS' LITIGATION, or should there exist other
undisclosed rights, obligations or liabilities arising out of or relating to the
PETITIONERS' LITIGATION, Petitioners may not make any claim for
those damages, losses or obligations.
14.4 Except as set forth in Section 14.2, this Settlement Agreement shall not
extend to any claim or cause of action arising from any transaction or
occurrence subsequent to the Date of Approval, including without
limitation any claim that Petitioners may assert in connection with the
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 9 of 13 357
358
City's new Housing Element update or other implementation actions
pursuant to this Agreement.
15. ATTORNEYS' FEES
15.1 The City shall pay Public Advocates Inc., on behalf of Petitioners and
Public Advocates' co-counsel, the Public Interest Law Project, the sum of
One Hundred Fourteen Thousand Dollars ($114,000.00) in full settlement
of Petitioners' attorneys' fees and costs through the entry of Judgment
Pursuant to Stipulation in PETITIONERS' LITIGATION. Payment of
this settlement amount shall be made no later than June 30, 2012.
15.2 Except as expressly set forth herein, Petitioners and their attorneys shall
have no other claim or right to, and hereby waive and release the City
from, any and all other or additional consideration or payment of any kind
in connection with or arising from the settlement and obtaining entry of a
stipulated judgment in this matter. This waiver and release shall not apply
to claims for attorneys' fees and costs incurred after the entry of judgment
to enforce this Settlement Agreement or the Judgment, and the Court may
order the City to pay such fees expended by Petitioners' counsel to obtain
the City'S compliance with the terms of the Stipulated Judgment.
16. OTHER PROVISIONS
16.1
16.2
16.3
No Admission of Liability. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement may be
used or construed by the Parties or by any other person or entity as an
admission of liability or fault.
Effective Date: Countemarts. This Settlement Agreement shall be
effective as of the Date of Approval. This Settlement Agreement may be
executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed
shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall
constitute one and the same agreement. Delivery of an executed
counterpart of a signature page to this Agreement by facsimile shall be as
effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Settlement
Agreement.
Integration. This Settlement Agreement embodies the entire agreement
and understanding which exists between the signatories hereto with
respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and
contemporaneous agreements, representations, and undertakings. No
supplement, modification, or amendment of this Settlement Agreement
shall be binding unless executed in writing by all the parties. No waiver
of any of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement shall be deemed, or
shall constitute, a waiver of any other provisions whether or not similar,
nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be
binding unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver.
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 10 of 13
16.4 GenderlTense. Whenever required by the context hereof, the singular
shall be deemed to include the plural, and the plural shall be deemed to
include the singular, and the masculine, feminine and neuter genders shall
each be deemed to include the other.
16.5 Headings. The headings in this Settlement Agreement are inserted for
convenience only and shall not be used to define, limit, or describe the
scope of this Settlement Agreement or any of the obligations herein. All
attachments that are labeled Exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference.
16.6 California Law. This Settlement Agreement shall be construed,
interpreted, and governed by the laws of California without regard to the
choice of law provisions thereof.
16.7 Additional Documents and Good Faith Cooperation. All Parties agree to
cooperate fully in good faith and execute any and all supplementary
documents and to take all additional actions which may be necessary or
appropriate to give full force and effect to the terms and intent of this
Settlement Agreement.
16.8 No Inducement. The Parties acknowledge, warrant and represent that no
promises, inducements or agreements not expressly contained herein have
been made to enter into this Settlement Agreement and that this Settlement
Agreement, including all Releases herein, constitute the entire agreement
between the Parties, are contractual and binding and are not merely
recitals.
16.9 Advice of Counsel. Each Party warrants and represents that prior to
executing this Settlement Agreement, said Party has relied upon the advice
of legal counsel of said Party's choice. The Settlement Agreement, its text
and other consequences and risks have been completely explained to the
Parties by their respective counsel and the Parties warrant and represent
that they understand and accept the terms of this Settlement Agreement
and intend, by their signatures, to enter into and be bound hereby.
16.10 Authority of Signatories. Each signatory to this Settlement Agreement
represents and covenants that he or she possesses the necessary capacity
and authority to sign and enter into this Settlement Agreement and to bind
the Party on whose behalf he or she is a signatory.
16.11 No Waiver. The failure of the Parties, or either of them, to insist upon
strict adherence to any term of this Settlement Agreement on any occasion
shall not be considered a waiver thereof, or deprive that party of the right
thereafter to insist upon strict adherence to that term or any other term of
this Settlement Agreement.
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 11 of 13 359
16.12 Binding On Successors. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon
and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto, and the Parties'
successors, devisees, executors, heirs, administrators, managers, officers,
representatives, assigns, insurers, and employees.
16.13 No Third Party Beneficiaries. The Parties do not intend to create any third
party beneficiary of, or any other rights under, this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned agree and stipulate to the terms and conditions stated
above:
DATED: May __ ,2012
DATED: May __ , 2012
DATED: May __ , 2012
DATED: May __ , 2012
CITY OF MENLO PARK and CITY COUNCIL
OF MENLO PARK
By: ________________________ _
ALEX D. McINTYRE, CITY MANAGER
PENINSULA INTERFAITH ACTION
By: ________________________ _
JENNIFER MARTINEZ,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
URBAN HABITAT PROGRAM
By: ________________________ _
ALLEN FERNANDEZ SMITH,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
YOUTH UNITED FOR COMMUNITY ACTION
By:~-----------------------
ISABEL ANNIE LOY A,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
360 Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 12 of 13
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DATED: May __ ,2012
DATED: May __ , 2012
DATED: May 2012
By:. ____ ------------------~------
RICHARD A. MARCANTONIO
Attorneys for Petitioners PENISULA
INTERFAITH ACTION, URBAN HABITAT
PROGRAM and YOUTH UNITED FOR
COMMUNITY ACTION
By:
---M-I~C-H-AE~L~RA--W--SO-N--------------
Attorneys for Petitioners PENISULA
INTERFAITH ACTION, URBAN HABITAT
PROGRAM and YOUTH UNITED FOR
COMMUNITY ACTION
By:
WILLIAM L. MCCLURE, CITY
ATTORNEY
Attorneys for Respondents CITY OF MENLO
PARK and CITY COUNCIL OF MENLO PARK
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 13 of 13 361
,Planned "and Use
/'I'Mla Pork
_ Professional £, Admlnlslla\lon
_ Retail/Commercial
III Medium Density Residential
Very t..ow Density Residential l1li £1 Caml no Real Professional/Retail Commercial
_ Public Facilities
Pub\ic Transportation
., Coltrain Roll Station
.. -Ill " • .! Priority OeYe!opment Area: Potential
Source: A.6SOClatlonofBay ",rQQ Gclvommoots,
St/. .... ea." Map co 2006 TIllell.t"'" Inc, All 'Ignu; ,....."Od
ABII.G GIS/AlJgUSt 2008
Scote:
ATTACHMENT F
DRAFT 2007-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
(Hardcopies to Councilmembers and Libraries Only)
ALSO AVAILABLE AT:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=31634
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2995)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 7/9/2012
July 09, 2012 Page 1 of 1
(ID # 2995)
Summary Title: Rail Corridor Study
Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Approving the 2012 Rail Corridor Study Report and Amending the
Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to Incorporate
Certain Findings of the Report (continued from 6/25/12) (Staff requests item be
continued to September 17, 2012)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
At the June 25th Council meeting, this item was continued to a date certain of July
9, 2012. Due to a heavy agenda on July 9th, staff requests that this item be
continued to a date certain of September 17, 2012.
Prepared By: Zariah Betten, Administrative Assistant
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager