Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 7863
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7863) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/15/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Comp Plan Update - Natural Environment/Safety/Business and Economics Title: Comprehensive Plan Update: Review of the Draft Natural Environment, Safety, and Business & Economics Elements Recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council review and discuss the draft Natural Environment, Safety, and Business & Economics Elements developed by the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), as well as supplemental comments provided by the CAC and provide comments for incorporation into these elements. Executive Summary The Natural Environment Element, Safety Element, and Business & Economics Elements are the fourth, fifth, and sixth elements of the Comprehensive Plan that the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) has forwarded to the City Council for review. May 15 will be the Council’s first opportunity to review these draft elements. The Natural Environment Element is a mandatory element. It addresses: open space, including connectivity, habitat, and public access; the urban forest and the understory; creeks and riparian areas; water resources, including water quality, water supply, drought, and groundwater; air quality; noise, including impacts from construction, aircraft, and rail; energy, including carbon-neutral energy, conservation and efficiency, and grid improvements; and climate change and climate adaptation. The Safety Element is also a mandatory element. It addresses: community safety, including public awareness, emergency management, and volunteer programs; natural hazards, including City of Palo Alto Page 2 earthquakes, fire, and flood; and human-caused threats, including hazardous materials, solid waste, and cybersecurity. The Business & Economics Element is an optional element. It addresses: the City’s overall economy, including fiscal health and business attraction and retention; compatibility and interdependence between businesses, residential neighborhoods, and the environment; the local culture of innovation and support for small businesses; flexibility and predictability for businesses seeking City approvals; and the physical settings of Palo Alto’s retail centers and business employment districts. All of these draft elements are based on the existing Comprehensive Plan, revised to reflect the City Council’s direction regarding vision and goals, as well as input from the Planning and Transportation Commission’s (PTC) proposed revisions and public input. These draft elements are the product of hundreds of hours of work by the full CAC, CAC subcommittees, staff, and consultants. There were 10 meetings of the full CAC and the CAC subcommittees to develop these elements. Council comments and direction will inform revisions that staff will complete prior to the Council’s referral of the Comp Plan to the PTC (tentatively scheduled for June 12). The Council will have another opportunity to review the revised drafts at that time. In addition, the Council will have a final chance to review these elements after the PTC has completed their review (tentatively scheduled for September 2017) when the Council holds its final set of hearings to adopt the Comp Plan Update. Background On December 9, 2015, Council reviewed the existing Natural Environment and Business & Economics Elements of the Comprehensive Plan and the PTC’s proposed revisions in order to provide guidance on the updated elements’ structures, vision statements, and goals. The agenda, staff report and minutes for this discussion can be found at the following links: Agenda: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50021 Staff Report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50016 Action Minutes: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50456 The Council then adopted motions to revise the vision statement and goals of the Natural Environment Element, to propose a vision statement, goals and policy topics for a new Safety Element, and to revise the vision statement and goals of the Business & Economics Element. That motion can be found at the following link: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- City of Palo Alto Page 3 content/uploads/2016/09/B_CouncilMotion_20151209.pdf The Council recommended that a new Natural Environment Element incorporate a new Goal on Climate Change and Climate Adaption, and that a new Safety Element be created by moving Goals on Natural Hazards (Goal N-2), Hazardous Waste (Goal N-6), and Solid Waste (Goal N-7) to a separate Safety Element. The Council also added language to two goals, and revised the vision statement to address traffic congestion. The Council recommended that the new Safety Element address policy topics such as a safe and secure water supply; the protection and respect for civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy; safety from climate impacts; emergency preparation; and protection from outside threats or terrorism; and include the Natural Hazards, Hazardous Waste, and Solid Waste goals that were removed from the existing Natural Environment Element. The CAC created a Natural Environment subcommittee to review the Natural Environment Element. That subcommittee held four meetings in fall 2016. The Sustainability subcommittee also met to suggest ways to strengthen the links between the Natural Environment Element and the S/CAP. The full CAC met to discuss the Natural Environment Element four times from September to December 2016. In addition, The CAC created a Safety subcommittee to review the Safety Element. The Safety subcommittee held two meetings in fall 2016, and the full CAC reviewed the element during its October 18, November 15 and December 13, 2016 meetings. In addition to CAC review and input, the Natural Environment and Safety Elements were circulated to City staff experts from relevant departments, including the Public Works, Utilities, and Community Services Departments, the Office of Sustainability, the Office of Emergency Services, the Palo Alto Police Department, and the Palo Alto Fire Department. Staff experts from many of these departments also attended CAC subcommittee meetings. The CAC held their final review of the Natural Environment and Safety Elements in November 15, 2016 and at their December 13, 2016 meeting, the CAC voted unanimously to refer both draft elements to the City Council for review. While the CAC and subcommittees spent a great deal of time updating these two elements, there was very little controversy among CAC members. There was, in fact, a great deal of consensus at the CAC. For example, there is only one program in these three elements on which the Council is being asked to choose a preferred option. That program is about setbacks along natural streams in the Natural Environment Element. The draft CAC minutes of the December 13th meeting can be found at the following link: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/12-13-16-CAC-Draft- City of Palo Alto Page 4 Transcript.pdf Regarding the Business and Economics Element, the Council recommended adopting the current Goals and organization of the Element, with updates limited to modifications to the wording of: Goal B-2, Diversity: “The City’s business policies, culture of innovation, balanced economic goals and diverse local and regional serving businesses combine to stimulate and support viable commercial, retail and professional service business opportunities.” Goal B-3, Growth: “Policies to moderate the pace of job growth with priority to businesses that provide needed local services and municipal revenues, contribute to economic vitality, and enhance the City’s physical environment.” The Council also directed CAC and staff consider policies and programs that would mitigate impacts of job growth, such as parking, housing and traffic. The CAC created a Business and Economics subcommittee to review the Business and Economics Element. That subcommittee held two meetings held in winter 2017. The CAC reviewed a draft element in February and at their March 21st meeting voted unanimously, with one abstention, to refer the draft element to the City Council for review. Some CAC members suggested changes to policies at the March CAC meeting, and staff incorporated those changes into the attached draft element. CAC minutes from the March 21st meeting can be found at the following link: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/CAC_March- 21_DraftMinutes.pdf Legal Requirements: Natural Environment and Safety In Palo Alto, the existing Natural Environment Element encompasses four of the seven mandatory elements of a general plan (Open Space, Conservation, Noise, and Safety) and once Safety is separated into a separate element, the updated Natural Environment will still encompass three legally required elements of a general plan. Therefore, the Natural Environment Element must respond to clearly-defined statutory requirements, as well as a number of legislative changes in General Plan law over the past fifteen years since the current Comprehensive Plan was adopted. In addition, both the Natural Environment Element and the Safety Element touch on topics, such as the urban forest, climate change, and emergency response that are addressed in recent City plans and regulations, and this update is an important opportunity to ensure clarity and consistency. A list of relevant City efforts, with links, is provided in Attachment G to this staff report. Finally, the Comprehensive Plan Draft EIR recommends a number of mitigation measures that would be accomplished through policies or City of Palo Alto Page 5 programs in the Natural Environment and Safety Elements. Where the EIR identified policies or programs that should be included in the updated Comp Plan to avoid or mitigate impacts, those appear in the attached drafts of the Natural Environment and Safety Elements. State general plan law says that the conservation element must address the “conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, wildlife, and minerals (Gov. Code, § 65302(d)(1). According to Government Code Section 65560, the open space element should cover any parcel or area of land or water that is essentially unimproved and devoted to either 1) the preservation of natural resources; 2) the managed production of resources (in the case of Palo Alto, this is limited to Williamson Act-contracted lands only) ; 3) outdoor recreation; 4) public health and safety (which is also addressed in the Safety Element); 5) support of the mission of military installations (there are none within the Palo Alto SOI); or 6) the protection of any Native American historic, cultural, burial or sacred site. In the Comprehensive Plan, protection of tribal burial and sacred sites are referenced as archeological resources under Goal L-7 of the Land Use Element. Finally, the noise element is a mandatory element described in Government Code Section 65302(f) that covers the issues and sources of noise relevant to the local planning area. The element should utilize the most accurate and up-to-date information available to reflect the noise environment, stationary sources of noise, predicted levels of noise, and the impacts of noise on local residents, and include measures to address existing or foreseeable noise problems. The Safety Element is a required Element under State general plan law. As noted above, the current Comprehensive Plan presents Safety Element content as part of the Natural Environment Element. Based on Council direction, these two Elements have been separated and the CAC has drafted a standalone Safety Element. According to Government Code Section 65302(g), the Safety Element must address protection from seismic hazards, dam failure, landslides and other geologic hazards, flooding, and fires. There are specific requirements to map, and have policies responding to, flood hazard zones, wildfire hazard areas, and sea level rise, as well as other topics related to climate adaptation and resiliency. Legal Requirements: Business & Economics As noted above, the Business & Economics Element is an optional element. There are no statutory requirements for its contents. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Discussion The following is a summary of the overall organization and key issues addressed in each draft element. Natural Environment Element Organization The organization of this Element has changed from the 1998 Comp Plan. Three goals (Natural Hazards, Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste) were moved from this Element to the new Safety Element and Goal N-8 (Climate Change and Adaption) was added. Goal N-4 (Water Resources) now contains all water-related policies, encompassing not only water quality but also water supply, water conservation, water infrastructure, groundwater, and recycled water. The topic of Creeks and Riparian Corridors has been moved from Goal N-2 to Goal N-3 so that the creeks goal (N-3) and water resources goal (N-4) are adjacent. This resulted in Goal N-3 (Urban Forest and Understory) being moved up to Goal N-2. Natural Environment Element Key Issues Overall, the updated Natural Environment Element continues Palo Alto’s tradition of respecting and managing natural resources. Recommended revisions to this Element were intended to update policies and programs to acknowledge past accomplishments and re-focus on current challenges. A major theme the CAC emphasized was taking a holistic approach to protecting and enhancing Palo Alto’s ecology. CAC members noted that local values and City policies will become even more important in the face of potential weakening of federal regulations under the current administration. Public health: CAC members emphasized the importance of acknowledging the role the natural environment plays in public health, including positive effects on physical health by encouraging exercise and helping to filter air and water; supporting mental health by offering visual and physical access to nature; and supporting social health by enabling formal and informal gathering spaces. References to public health were added to several sections of the background text, as well as to the wording of Goal N-1 (Open Space) and Goal N-2 (Urban Forest) and associated policies and programs. Health was already referenced in the existing wording of Goal N-4 (Water Resources), Goal N-5 (Air Quality), and Goal N-6 (Noise). Connected ecosystems: CAC members added the concept of connected ecosystems in the City and recommended that the Comp Plan acknowledge the role of a continuum of connected landscaped and natural areas, from protected open spaces to the most intensively developed parts of town. This concept is consistent with the Draft Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. The updated Natural Environment Element incorporates a new Figure N- 1, Natural Systems, which is taken from the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. It highlights not only individual parks and open space areas, but also “pollinator pathways,” riparian corridors, and tree canopy “target areas” intended to link these natural City of Palo Alto Page 7 areas. Policies that target these connected ecosystems include Policies N-1.3, N-1.5, N-1.6 and N-1.10, concerning open space; and Policies N-3.3 and N-3.4 pertaining to riparian corridors. Green infrastructure: Related to the idea of connected ecosystem corridors, the updated Natural Environment Element reflects an increased awareness of the value of natural areas as “green infrastructure” providing vital services such as capturing and filtering stormwater and cleaning pollutants from the air. New Program N4.12.2 calls for the City to develop a Green Infrastructure Master Plan. Protecting and expanding the urban forest: The CAC recognized that Palo Alto’s urban forest is a vital resource that should be protected and expanded. The City’s Urban Forester, Walter Passmore, participated in reviewing drafts of the Natural Environment Element and attended CAC subcommittee meetings to discuss policies and programs related to the urban forest and to ensure their consistency with the adopted Urban Forest Master Plan. The policies and programs under Goal N-2 represent a robust approach to recognizing the multiple roles the urban forest plays as part of Palo Alto’s green infrastructure network, maintaining tree health during construction projects and times of drought, expanding canopy cover across the City, and continuing to partner with property owners and local organizations to protect trees and plant more. This section also includes new policies and programs intended to support healthy soils and a healthy understory as critical components of overall urban forest health. Excavations: The trend of basement construction and other types of excavations that require dewatering was a significant concern for both CAC members and members of the public who offered comments at CAC meetings. The CAC discussed the issue of dewatering throughout the Comp Plan update process, including the development of policies to mitigate impacts of basement construction in the Land Use and Community Design Element (see Policy L-3.8) and the Safety Element (see Policy S-2.9). Understanding that the Public Works Department and City Council were considering additional dewatering guidelines during the same period that the Natural Environment Element was being drafted, the CAC recommended new Policy N-4.8 and two new programs to reduce residential basement dewatering and other excavation activities and explore construction techniques and monitoring to mitigate the impacts of dewatering. Particulate matter: Since the existing Comp Plan was adopted, regional, State, and federal regulations and new technologies have succeeded in reducing pollution levels for many pollutants of concern. However, concerns about the potential health impacts of pollutants such as particulate matter remain. Because Palo Alto has limited ability to regulate the most common sources of particulates, such as truck and train traffic, air quality will remain a regional issue. Yet the Comp Plan does include policies and programs that continue support for external regulation, as well as Program N5.1.4 to explore adopting new standards to reduce very fine particulate matter. In addition, the CAC supported a new Program, N5.2.2, to consider adopting and enforcing penalties for drivers that idle longer than 3 to 5 minutes. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Overflight noise: Aircraft are one of the principal noise sources in Palo Alto. Of particular concern is noise from over-flights associated with SFO and how those aircraft operations may have changed over time, resulting in changing/worsening noise effects. Similarly, community concern over noise associated with City-operated Palo Alto Airport has increased since the last Comp Plan Update. Goal N-6, Noise, includes a section on Airports and Aircraft to address regulating land uses near the Palo Alto Airport and to direct ongoing participation in regional forums to address negative noise impacts from all airports. S/CAP consistency: The policies and programs in the attached draft element have been crafted to be consistent with current Sustainability and Climate Adaptation Plan (S/CAP) strategies on the following topics: o Solid Waste o Water Resources o Energy o Climate Change and GHG reductions o Climate Adaptation o Resiliency Natural Environment – Policy Options The CAC drafted two options for a stream setback program in this element and staff is seeking Council direction on which option to include. Previous Program N-7 of the Comprehensive Plan recommended the adoption of a 100-foot setback from the top of creek banks that would prohibit buildings, structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas, or ornamental landscaping. This existing program exempts single family property east of Highway 280 and existing development. Since the time of the last Comp Plan Update, the City’s Stream Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code section 18.40.140) has been created and adopted to “preserve riparian resources, protect improvements from damage caused by potential stream flooding and bank erosion, and minimize storm water pollution.” The current ordinance is based on stakeholder input and applies to areas within 50 feet of the top of a stream bank and establishes requirements for construction, planting, lighting, and irrigation within the stream corridor. The CAC considered 2 options for an updated Program N3.3.1, which recommends updating the Stream Protection Ordinance to adopt larger setbacks along natural creeks west of Foothill Expressway because they could not reach consensus on the size of those setbacks. Some members cited the benefits to the habitat value of riparian corridors of adopting 150 foot City of Palo Alto Page 9 setbacks and noted that other communities use 150 foot setbacks. Other CAC members were hesitant about adding additional development restrictions without understanding the potential impacts and benefits, and supported the retention of 100 foot setbacks from the existing Comp Plan. Safety Element Organization As explained above, the Safety Element was created in response to Council direction to move the Natural Hazards, Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste Goals from the 1998 Comp Plan into a stand-alone element. A series of new policy topics were also incorporated into the following goal structure: Goal S-1, Community Safety, expresses the City’s commitment to community preparedness, with policies related to community education, awareness, emergency management and crime deterrence. Goal S-2, Natural Hazards, contains updated policy topics from the existing Natural Environment Element: seismic safety, fires, and flooding. Goal S-3, Human-Caused Threats, combines hazardous and solid waste policies with policies related to other non-natural dangers, including rail crossings and cybersecurity. The December 2015 Council motion directed the inclusion of a policy about a safe and secure water supply in the Safety Element. However, during the review and revision process of this new Element, the CAC reached consensus that water resource-related policies are more appropriate within the context of Goal N-4: Water Resources, of the updated Natural Environment Element. Safety Element Key Issues The Safety Element was drafted in close collaboration with City staff from the Office of Emergency Services, Palo Alto Police Department, Palo Alto Fire Department, and Public Works Department, as well as substantial input by members of the CAC Safety Subcommittee with extensive involvement in local preparedness issues. These efforts contributed to a high degree of consensus among the full CAC on the policies and programs in the attached draft Safety Element. The Safety Element does not include any policy options requiring Council direction. Crime Enforcement and Civil Liberties: An ongoing discussion among CAC members and contributing Palo Alto Police Department Police Department staff concerned the use of police body cameras, and the sensitive boundary between law enforcement and privacy rights. Policy S-1.6 calls for ongoing development of effective law enforcement through new technologies. Flooding: A number of new policies and programs were added to the Flood Hazard and Mitigation section of Goal S-2. These respond to the State requirements noted above, as well as to community concerns about increased flood hazards resulting from climate change and City of Palo Alto Page 10 habitable basements. For example, CAC members worked to develop consensus on a program to provide 100-year flood protection adjacent to San Francisquito Creek while minimizing impacts to surrounding habitat and ecosystems (Program S2.8.4). Similarly, Programs S2.11.1 and S2.11.2 promote 100-year flood protection along San Francisco Bay while preserving and protecting the natural environment. CAC members discussed the wording of Policy S-2.9 regarding habitable basements in flood zones at some length. While original drafts of the policy were to “prevent habitable basements… within the flood hazard zone,” this Council draft uses the words “prohibit habitable basements… within 100-year flood zones of the FEMA-designated Special Flood hazard Area” to be consistent with the wording of Municipal Code Section 16.52, Flood Hazard Regulations. This Municipal Code section is required by Palo Alto’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. Human Caused Threats. During the CAC Element organization process, the committee agreed to integrate Goal N-6: Hazardous Waste, into new Goal S-3, Human Caused Threats. It was agreed that this larger goal would not only serve as a context for policy related to hazardous materials, but other safety concerns as well, including rail infrastructure, solid waste, and cyber threats. Business & Economics Element Key Issues The Business & Economics Element does not include any policy options requiring Council direction. Background Data: The CAC emphasized the importance of data in formulating effective policies and programs for this element and was provided with extensive data in staff reports. A series of updated graphs and charts have been included in the narrative of the Element, in order to provide context for the Element’s updated policies and programs. New data includes charts and statistics related to employment, sales tax revenues, and City revenues and expenses. Relationship between Businesses and Neighborhoods: The CAC observed that the language in the existing 1998 element assumes conflict, or at least competition, between the needs of businesses and the needs of residents. The CAC reframed this relationship as one of mutual interest in constructive solutions to issues such as traffic congestion, housing affordability, and parking supply. New Policy B-2.3 recognizes the shared values and concerns of both businesses and residents, and new Policy B-2.1 acknowledges the benefits of local-serving retail to local residents. Role of the Office of Economic Development (OED): Members of the CAC supported an active City role in supporting local businesses, particularly small businesses, and stressed that staffing and resources will need to be directed to this office to strengthen its role if policies and programs referring to the Department remain. The Office of Economic Development is referenced in Program B1.1.1, Policy B-1.4, and Policy B-5.3. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Fiscal Responsibility: The CAC discussed the connection between a strong local economy and the City’s fiscal health, as well as the need for careful management of City revenues and costs. The attached draft element proposes a new goal, which reads: “Careful management of City revenues and expenditures so that the fiscal health of the City is ensured and services are delivered efficiently and equitably.” The goal is supported by policies B-3.1, B-3.2 and B-3.3 related to fiscal sustainability and city revenue generation. Business Diversity: The CAC discussed the balance between supporting all local businesss, representing a range of sizes and industries, including major employers that represent national or international corporations and focusing City resources on supporting small businesses, particularly retail and service businesses. CAC members acknowledged that different types of businesses offer different benefits and create different impacts on the community. The policies and programs under Goal B-4 seek to support the full spectrum of Palo Alto’s businesses. New polciies and programs have been added to address the unique needs of small businesses, such as Policy B-4.2, Program B4.2.1, Program B4.2.2, and Policy B-4.3. In addition, new Policy B-4.4 recognizes the role of Stanford Research Park as the home of some of the City’s largest employers. Policy Implications & Relationship to Other City Plans The Comprehensive Plan is the City’s “constitution” when it comes to land use and development issues, including transportation and the protection of the environment. The Comprehensive Plan is also meant to support at a general level other, more specific issue- oriented plans such as: the Urban Forest Master Plan; the Parks, Trails, Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan; the Baylands Master Plan; the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; and the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan. Some of these plans have already been adopted, some are still in progress and all are expected to be amended from time to time over the life of this Comp Plan. This draft of the Comp Plan strives to be consistent with the adopted versions of the city’s more specific issue-oriented plans. It is intended that these specific issue-oriented plans and the Comp Plan will continue to be consistent as they are amended over time. Resource Impact The Comprehensive Plan Update has been a time consuming and costly project for the City. Current contracts are sufficient to complete the project provided in accordance with the current schedule, which envisions completion of the CAC process in May and adoption of an updated plan by the end of the year. Timeline/Next Steps Tonight’s hearing allows for City Council review of three draft elements recommended by Comprehensive Plan CAC. A subsequent meeting on June 12 will provide an opportunity for City of Palo Alto Page 12 review of remaining sections of the plan and for a referral of the entire revised Comp Plan to the Planning and Transportation Commission. The City Council will review a full draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update and a Final EIR following receipt of a recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Upcoming events and next steps are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1: Timeline and Next Steps for Council and PTC Date Topics/Action Requested June 5, 2017 CAC resolution of thanks June 12, 2017 Council Review of draft Introductory Materials/Governance and referral to the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) July/Aug/Sep 2017 PTC Review & Recommendation Regarding the draft Comprehensive Plan Update Oct/Nov/Dec 2017 Council Receipt of the PTC’s recommendation and the Final EIR for consideration and action Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, April 2017 Environmental Review A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being prepared; it will respond to comments on the Draft EIR and the Supplement to the Draft EIR and describe the “preferred scenario” based on the Council’s input on March 27, 2017 and May 1, 2017. The Final EIR must be completed and certified before the City Council can take action to approve the Comprehensive Plan Update. Currently, the Final EIR is anticipated to be published in late July 2017 to be available for PTC hearings in August alongside their review of the draft Comprehensive Plan. The Council would then take action on the EIR as part of their final review and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in fall/winter 2017. Attachments: Attachment A: Natural Environment Element Clean (PDF) Attachment B: Natural Environment Element Tracked Changes (PDF) Attachment C: Safety Element Clean (PDF) Attachment D: Safety Element Tracked Changes (PDF) Attachment E: Business and Economics Element Clean (PDF) Attachment F: Business and Economics Element Tracked Changes (PDF) Attachment G: Relevant City Documents (PDF) Attachment H: CAC Comments on Elements (PDF) Attachment I: CAC Minutes 12.13.16 & 03.21.17 (PDF) NATURAL ENVIRONMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-1 This preliminary draft element was prepared by City staff on the basis of input from the CAC and members of the public received from August 2016 through December 2016. The Element was reviewed by the full CAC on December 13, 2016 and presented as a draft to Palo Alto City Council on May 15, 2017. INTRODUCTION The Natural Environment Element addresses the management of open land and natural resources in Palo Alto, as well as responding to environmental risks such as air pollution and climate change. It is one of the broadest elements of the Comprehensive Plan, encompassing three of the seven elements mandated by the State: Open Space, Conservation, and Noise. The text is organized into eight topics, each with a corresponding goal, policies, and programs: Open Space Urban Forest and Understory Creeks and Riparian Areas Water Resources Air Quality Noise Energy Climate Change The Natural Environment Element does not include policies relating to mineral resources because Palo Alto does not contain any mineral deposits of regional significance. VISION: Palo Alto will meet today’s needs without compromising the needs of future generations. Palo Alto will respect and manage natural resources in a way that sustains the natural environment and protects our foothills, baylands, creeks, parks, wildlife and open space legacy. A substantial portion of the City will remain as open space. Even in built-up areas, the network of parks will provide access to nature and an urban forest will provide ecological benefits and a source of beauty for residents. Palo Alto will strive for clean air and clean water. Policies and programs will foster energy and water conservation. Finally, the City will maintain a sustainable water supply for the future, and facilitate the implementation of climate change adaptation strategies. 4 PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 OPEN SPACE Well over a third of Palo Alto’s land area consists of designated Open Space and Public Conservation Land. Although open spaces in City include privately owned land and neighborhood and district parks, the vast majority of Palo Alto’s Open Space and Public Conservation Land consists of parks and preserves devoted to passive use and ecological health. As shown on Map N-1, these spaces are diverse in size and character, ranging from the 2,100 acres of shoreline that comprise the Palo Alto baylands to the 200-acre Los Trancos Open Space Preserve, nestled in the foothills. Each open space area is defined by a combination of resources and habitats that require different approaches to preservation and coordination with outside entities. Map N-2 illustrates the vegetation and habitat types located in Palo Alto. At the same time, these diverse open spaces comprise an integrated natural network supporting Palo Alto’s livability and resiliency, and are an important recreational resource highly valued by the community. The Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Master Plan provides the City with guidance regarding future renovations and capital improvement needs for parks, trails, open space and recreation facilities. The policies and programs in this Element which focus on open space are consistent with the Master Plan and continue to protect individual open spaces from negative physical impacts, while supporting linkages between those spaces that are vital to the natural balance of the City and encouraging responsible public access. URBAN FOREST AND UNDERSTORY Palo Alto’s urban forest, defined as the trees, plants, soil and associated organisms, has long been a source of civic pride—and current research shows that it also offers an array of tangible benefits: improving public health, cleaning the air, absorbing carbon dioxide, reducing stormwater runoff, and supporting animals and pollinators. The Urban Forest Master Plan seeks to foster a sustainable urban forest in Palo Alto by establishing long-term management goals and strategies. Consistent with the Master Plan, the following policy framework maintains Palo Alto’s longstanding commitment to preserving existing trees, replacing damaged trees and expanding the urban forest with resilient, native species. In addition, new policies in following section have been designed to ensure that the urban forest not only endures, but benefits from, future growth. The section seeks to optimize opportunities presented by new development, while minimizing its negative impacts. It is based on a holistic Pollinator Pathways Community Gardens Wetland Habitat Riparian Connected Parks Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Mean Projected High Water - 3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA) Creeks and Channels Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) Natural System Features City Park City Natural Open Spaces Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Water Bodies Ripari Creek Urban Canopy Target Areas Date: October 2016 Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford Santa ClaraCounty Menlo Park Mountain View Cupertino UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in the Bayland Preserve: Western burrowing owl California seablite Northern coastal salt marsh Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in San Francisquito Creek: Steelhead California red legged frog Western pond turtle Showy rancheria clover Valley oak woodland Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve: Western pond turtle Serpentine bunchgrass Indian Valley bush-mallow Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park: Western Leatherwood Valley oak woodland SSantSSaCou ppppppeerppppeevveveenseeeeekke UpUpppUpppStetteeeeeeCrereeeeeee Regional Habitat Connection Concept "e S an Fra ncisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barro n C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford Mountain View Menlo Park Los Altos Los Altos Hills East Palo Alto Atherton San Mateo County Portola Valley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve Baylands Athletic Center Greer Park Bol Park MitchellPark Esther Clark Preserve El Camino Park Terman Park Hoover Park Eleanor Pardee Park Peers Park Seale Park Robles Park Ramos Park Briones Park Cubberley Community Center Johnson Park Bowden Park Stanford- Palo Alto Playing Fields Heritage Park BowlingGreen Park El Palo Alto Park Werry Park Boulware Park Cameron Park Weisshaar Park Monroe Park Rinconada Park Williams Park Cogswell Plaza Lytton Plaza Sarah Wallis Park Hopkins Creekside Park Palo Alto Golf Course Scott Park Mayfield Park Ventura Community Center PearsonArastradero Preserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y el C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e f i e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charle s t o n R d el C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT MAP N-1 NATURAL SYSTEMS Source: MIG, 2016 and City of Palo Alto, 2016 Source: USDA, 2006; ESRI, Tiger Lines, USGS, 2010; City of Palo Alto, NHD, 2013; PlaceWorks 2015. StanfordLands StanfordUniversity Atherton Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos MountainView Sunnyvale SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 EastPalo Alto OregonExpy ElCaminoReal UniversityAve PageMillRd Alma S t E m b a rca de ro Rd Midd l e f i e l d R d SAN F RAN CIS CQUIT O C REEK MAT A D E R O C R EEK B A R RONCREEK ADOBECRE EK STEVENS CREE K ARASTRAD EROCREEK 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles Creek Lakes and Ponds Railroads City Limit Sphere of Influence Wildlife Habitat Relationship Type Annual Grassland Coastal Scrub Chamise Chaparral Redwood Forest Coastal Oak Woodland Valley Oak Woodland Montane Hardwood - Conifer Forest Montane Hardwood Forest Slough Fresh Emergent Wetland Saline Emergent Wetland Valley Foothill Riparian Cropland Urban Forest P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NN A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T MA P N- 2 V E G E T A T I O N A N D H A B I T A T T Y P E S PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-5 approach to Palo Alto’s “green infrastructure” that recognizes that private property owners, outside agencies, non-profits, and the City itself all impact—and are impacted by—the health of the urban forest, from soil to canopy. CREEKS AND RIPARIAN AREAS As illustrated on Map N-3, a series of creeks and streams pass through City as they drain the local foothills into the San Francisco Bay. Adobe, Barron, Matadero, and San Francisquito Creeks, and their tributaries, interface with the land along their banks to form ecosystems known as riparian corridors. The policies and programs recognize the value and diversity of Palo Alto’s creeks. Where the creeks and corridors generally located west of Foothill Expressway are generally still in a natural or mostly undisturbed state, they support diverse plant and animal life, both as permanent homes and as migratory pathways, and offer recreational opportunities to reconnect with nature. Farther downstream, in the flatter, urbanized parts of Palo Alto, some reaches have been heavily engineered over the past decades and now primarily serve a very important role as flood control channels, while others retain some natural characteristics. All creek segments are valuable opportunities for connection within Palo Alto’s ecological and recreational network and merit protection and enhancement. Map N-4 shows areas where development should be set back from creeks to respect and preserve their natural state and ecological value. Partnerships with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other outside organizations will be key to protecting and improving creeks that cross jurisdictional boundaries. In addition, related policies and programs in the Land Use and Community Design Element highlight the importance of creeks in defining the character of the City and some of its neighborhoods. WATER RESOURCES Maintaining the life-sustaining properties of water as a natural resource is a complex challenge. Water is dynamic, contested, and, increasingly, scarce. The topics addressed in the Water Resources section are as wide-ranging as the needs water itself serves. Policies and programs protect the quality and reliability of the City’s long-term water supply, including during periods of drought. Maintaining the quality of the City’s water supply requires protecting both surface water and groundwater from the impacts of past and future development, through requirements for low- impact development and careful regulation of sub-surface dewatering. The City must support the efforts of regulatory bodies, and partner with the multiple jurisdictions through which Palo Alto’s water resources flow. The policies and programs in the Menlo Park |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 OregonExpy ElCaminoReal UniversityAve PageMillRd Alma S t E mb a rca de ro R d Midd l e f i e l d R d San Francisquito Creek Watershed Matadero CreekWatershed Adobe CreekWatershed San FranciscoBay Watershed Barron Creek Watershed Source: Janet M. Sowers, William Lettis & Associates, Inc.,and the San Francisco Estuarty; PlaceWorks, 2015. 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Creeks Underground culverts & storm drains Engineered channels Historical creeks Tidal marsh, circa 1850 Flood control channels Tidal marsh, now water Freshwater marsh, modern Willow groves, circa 1850 City Limit Artificial bodies of water Bay or slough P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N N A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T MA P N- 3 C R E E K S A N D W A T E R S H E D S Foo t h i l l E x p r e s s w a y Mountain View Los Altos Hills Los Altos §¨¦280 Page MillRoad Stanford Lands §¨¦280 MA P N- 4 A R E A W H E R E N A T U R A L C R E E K S E T B A C K A P P L I E S P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N N A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T 0 1 2 Miles Source: ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; City of Palo Alto, 2016; PlaceWorks, 2016. Creeks Area where Natural Creek Setback Applies Single Family Residential Streamside Open Space City Limit Sphere of Influence PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-8 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Water Resources section also ensure that the City’s water and wastewater infrastructure are efficient and effective and guide future improvements to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant and the purple pipe network to reflect the growing role of recycled water. AIR QUALITY Healthy, breathable air is regional resource, and maintaining air quality is a responsibility shared by each of the local jurisdictions that benefit from it. In the San Francisco Bay Area, federal and State air quality regulations are strengthened by additional programs of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Emerging concerns about specific types of air pollutants, such as particulate matter, cannot be addressed by a single city, but Palo Alto is committed to monitoring and understanding these risks and participating in regional solutions. The policies and programs in this section also promote education and lifestyle choices that benefit public health within and outside the City, from adopting low emission alternatives to wood burning stoves to avoiding prolonged automobile idling. NOISE Palo Alto’s bustling urban environment generates noise from traffic, trains, airports, construction, and yard maintenance, among other sources. Existing and future noise contours within Palo Alto are shown on Maps N-5 and N-6, respectively. The Comprehensive Plan addresses these diverse noise sources and provides the policy foundation for much more rigorous requirements established in the City’s Noise Ordinance. The policies and programs in this section regulate the placement of future “sensitive receptors”—homes, schools, medical clinics, and the like—in compatible noise environments, and acknowledge the importance of quiet environments in public open space and conservation areas. This section also guides the analysis and design of proposed new development to avoid creating new noise impacts on existing sensitive receptors. In addition, this section supports the City’s ongoing efforts to coordinate with regional, State, and federal authorities on noise issues of concern to the Palo Alto community, such as overflights into and out of Bay Area airports (e.g., San Francisco International and Palo Alto airport) and the proposed High Speed Rail project. ! ! FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D ALM A S T SEAL E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y EL C A M I N O R E A L QUA R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y PASTEUR D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D Mountain View East Palo Alto Stanford University Menlo Park S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y Los Altos§¨¦280 |ÿ82 £¤101 MI D D L E F I E L D R O A D PAG E M I L L R O A D Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; US Geological Survey Open File Report 06-1037, 2006; PlaceWorks, 2015. 0 0.5 10.25 Miles N A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T MA P N- 5 E X I S T I N G N O I S E C O N T O U R S !Caltrain Stations Highways Railroads City Limit Sphere of Influence 70 dBA CNEL contour 65 dBA CNEL contour 60 dBA CNEL contour Note: Map includes estimated contributions for CalTrain operations from available information at www.CalTrain.com. Railway noise contours generally overlap roadway noise contours from the adjacent and parallel Alma Street traffic flows. P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NN A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T ! ! FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D ALM A S T SEAL E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y EL C A M I N O R E A L QUA R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y PASTEUR D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D Mountain View East Palo Alto Stanford University Menlo Park S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y Los Altos§¨¦280 |ÿ82 £¤101 MI D D L E F I E L D R O A D PAG E M I L L R O A D Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; US Geological Survey Open File Report 06-1037, 2006; PlaceWorks, 2015. 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Notes: Map includes estimated contributions for CalTrain operations from available information at www.CalTrain.com. Railway noise contours generally overlap roadway noise contours from the adjacent and parallel Alma Street traffic flows. 70 dBA CNEL contour 65 dBA CNEL contour 60 dBA CNEL contour!Caltrain Stations Highways Railroads City Limit Sphere of Influence P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NN A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T MA P N- 6 F U T U R E N O I S E C O N T O U R S PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-11 ENERGY The City of Palo Alto provides electric service through the Utilities Department. As the negative impacts of fossil fuel extraction and consumption escalate, the City is committed to developing a sustainable, carbon-neutral, cost-effective energy supply. This refers to an energy portfolio that decreases the City’s reliance on fossil fuels, thus reducing the release of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, by supporting the production of energy from carbon-free, renewable sources. Achieving these goals requires carefully balancing the benefits and liabilities of diverse energy sources and strategies, educating the public on home- and business-based renewable energy and energy efficiency strategies, and encouraging and incentivizing widespread implementation of those strategies. CLIMATE CHANGE AND CLIMATE ADAPTATION Palo Alto is committed to meaningful action to slow global warming and adapt to changes in the climate that are already underway. The policies and programs under this goal were developed in parallel with the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, or S/CAP, and will support the City’s efforts to achieve the Council-adopted goal of reducing City- and community-based GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. Similarly, a diverse range of adaptive improvements will ensure that the City’s built environment and infrastructure are resilient to climate change related impacts such as sea level rise. GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS OPEN SPACE GOAL N-1 Protect, conserve and enhance Palo Alto’s citywide system of open space, including connected and accessible natural and urban habitats, ecosystems, and natural resources, providing a source of public health, natural beauty and enjoyment for Palo Alto residents. CONNECTIVITY AND ECOLOGY Policy N-1.1 Preserve, protect and enhance public and private open space and ecosystems of Palo Alto from the foothills to the baylands. Respect the role that natural and landscaped areas within the urbanized part of the City play in a resilient ecological continuum, as illustrated on Map N-1. [Previous Policy N-4] [N1] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-12 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Develop Comprehensive Resource Conservation Program N1.1.1 Plans for the Pearson Arastradero Preserve, Esther Clark Preserve, and Foothills Park to steward the protection of local ecosystems. [(NEW PROGRAM)(PTC)] [N2] Promote and support ecosystem protection and Program N1.1.2 environmental education programs in Palo Alto. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N3] Policy N-1.2 Maintain a network of parks and urban forest from the urban center to the foothills and Baylands that provide ecological benefits and access to nature for all residents. [NEW POLICY] [N4] Policy N-1.3 Encourage the management of private open space areas, including agricultural land, golf courses, private residential yards, and other land that provides habitat for wildlife in a manner that protects and enhances habitat and reinforces natural wildlife corridors, consistent with the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan and Urban Forest Master Plan, as periodically amended. [Previous Policy N-1, per PTC] [N5] Work to maintain Williamson Act agricultural Program N1.3.1 preserve contracts within the City. [Previously Program N-5] [N6] Provide information and support programs that Program N1.3.2 encourage residents to enhance their private yards with native plant species and low impact landscaping. [NEW PROGRAM] [N7] Policy N-1.4 Protect special-status species and plant communities, including those listed by State and federal agencies and recognized organizations from the impacts of development and incompatible activities. [Previous Policy N-3] [N8] Periodically review CEQA thresholds of significance Program N1.4.1 regarding special status species to identify changes in listed species recommended by professionally recognized scientific experts. Sources may include the California Natural Diversity Database, as updated in accordance with federally- and State- PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-13 recognized organizations, including the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, as well as the California Native Plant Society and the Audubon Society. [NEW PROGRAM] [N9] Explore the feasibility of expanding the use of Program N1.4.2 overlay tools such as the Site and Design (D) Review Combining District or similar development review and restriction tools to protect special-status species and their habitats from development. [NEW PROGRAM] [N10] Assess opportunities to expand habitats of special –Program N1.4.3 status species within publicly-owned open spaces. [NEW PROGRAM] [N11] Policy N-1.5 Preserve and protect the Bay, marshlands, salt ponds, sloughs, creeks, and other natural water or wetland areas as open space, functioning habitats, and elements of a larger, interconnected wildlife corridor, consistent with the Baylands Master Plan, as periodically amended, which is incorporated here by reference. [Previous Policy N-8, [L189]] [N12] Maintain the value of local wetlands as habitats by Program N1.5.1 ensuring adequate flow from the Bay and minimizing effluent. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N13] Policy N-1.6 Preserve and protect the foothills and hillside areas, recognizing their unique value as natural ecosystems and interconnected wildlife corridors. [NEW POLICY] [N14] Continue to coordinate City review, particularly by Program N1.6.1 Planning, Public Works and Community Services Departments, of projects that might impact the City’s foothills and hillside areas. [NEW PROGRAM] [N15] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-14 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 ACCESS AND RECREATION Policy N-1.7 Carefully manage access and recreational use of environmentally sensitive areas, including the baylands, foothills and riparian corridors, in order to protect habitats and wildlife from the impacts of humans and domesticated animals. [(Previous Program N-3)(PTC)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure PS-7)] [N16] Examine and improve existing management Program N1.7.1 practices including the provision of access to open space for City vehicles and equipment, to ensure that natural resources are protected. [Previous Program N-2] [N17] Protect wildlife in public open space areas by Program N1.7.2 improving litter collection, restricting the use of non-recyclable plastics, prohibiting the feeding of wild and domestic animals in open space, and enforcing dog leash laws. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N18] Provide information about responsible behavior in Program N1.7.3 environmentally-sensitive areas through signage, pamphlets and documents on the City’s website. [NEW PROGRAM] [N19] Review and map existing easements and Program N1.7.4 maintenance roads for potential trails and trail connections. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N20] NATURAL CHARACTER OF THE FOOTHILLS Policy N-1.8 Minimize impacts of any new development on the character of public open space r and the natural ecology of the hillsides. [Previous Policy N-6] [N21] Policy N-1.9 All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area (i.e., above Junipero Serra Boulevard) should visually blend in with its surroundings and minimize impacts to the natural environment. As such, development projects should: Not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-15 Be located away from hilltops. Be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding to reduce conspicuousness minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. Include built forms and landscape forms that mimic the natural topography. Retain existing vegetation as much as possible. Utilize natural materials and earth tone or subdued colors. Include landscaping composed of native species that require little or no irrigation. Include exterior lighting that is low-intensity and shielded from view. Include access roads of a rural rather than urban character. [Previous Policy N-7] [N22] EXPANSION OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Policy N-1.10 Support regional and sub-regional efforts to acquire, develop, operate, and maintain a seamless open space system, including habitat linkages and trail connections extending north-south and east-west from Skyline Ridge to San Francisco Bay. [Previous Policy N-2] [N23] Use City funds and seek additional sources of Program N1.10.1 funding, including State and federal programs, to finance open space acquisition, maintenance or conservation. [Previous Program N-4] [N24] Pursue dedication of undedicated publicly-owned Program N1.10.2 recreation, open space and conservation areas, such as Renzel Wetlands and the Gamble House and Gardens as public parks to preserve the community serving purpose of these areas into the future. [NEW PROGRAM] [N17] [N25] Create mechanisms to monitor, assess and respond Program N1.10.3 quickly to land acquisition opportunities that would expand or connect the City’s system of parks and open spaces, and establish a long-term funding strategy for acquisition that would enable the City to move quickly when opportunities arise. [NEW PROGRAM] [N26] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-16 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Explore ways to dedicate a portion of in-lieu fees Program N1.10.4 towards acquisition of parkland, not just improvements. [[NEW PROGRAM] [N27] Pursue opportunities to create linear parks over the Program N1.10.5 Caltrain tracks in the event the tracks are moved below grade. [NEW PROGRAM moved from Land Use] [L152] Encourage dedication of new land for parks Program N1.10.6 through regulations and incentives for new development and programs to solicit bequests of land within the city. [NEW PROGRAM moved from Land Use] [L151] Policy N-1.11 Work with Stanford University, Santa Clara County, Santa Clara Valley Water District and regional organizations to create multi-use trail connections between urban areas and open space, including creeks and rights-of-way, while ensuring that the natural environment is protected. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N28] Policy N-1.12 Work with Stanford and Santa Clara County to preserve Stanford’s foothill property northeast of Highway 280. Act as an advocate to Santa Clara County to preserve open space links between Stanford, the urban area, and the foothills. [Previous Policy N-5] [N29] URBAN FOREST AND UNDERSTORY GOAL N-2 A thriving urban forest that provides public health, ecological, economic, and aesthetic benefits for Palo Alto. ROLE OF THE URBAN FOREST Policy N-2.1 Use the Urban Forest Master Plan, as periodically amended, to guide City decisions related to all elements of Palo Alto’s urban forest, from its understory habitat to canopy cover. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N30] Periodically update the Urban Forest Master Plan Program N2.1.1 and Tree Protection Ordinance to ensure policies and regulations remain relevant. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N31] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-17 Policy N-2.2 Recognize the importance of the urban forest as a vital part of the City’s green infrastructure network that contributes to public health, resiliency, habitat values, appreciation of natural systems and an attractive visual character which must be protected and enhanced. [NEW POLICY] [N32] Explore ways to prevent and ameliorate damage to Program N2.2.1 trees and tree roots by above and below ground infrastructure and buildings. [NEW PROGRAM] [N33] Policy N-2.3 Enhance the ecological resilience of the urban forest by increasing and diversifying native species in the public right-of-way, protecting the health of soils and understory vegetation, encouraging property owners to do the same, and discouraging the planting of invasive species. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N34] Policy N-2.4 Protect soils in both urban and natural areas as the foundation of a healthy urban forest. Recognize that healthy soils are necessary to filter air and water, sustain plants and animals, and support buildings and infrastructure. [[NEW PROGRAM] [N35] Promote landscape design that optimizes soil Program N2.4.1 volume, porosity, structure and health, as well the location, shape and configuration of soil beds. [NEW PROGRAM] [N36] PROTECTION AND EXPANSION Policy N-2.5 Enhance tree health and the appearance of streets and other public spaces through regular maintenance as well as tree and landscape planting and care of the existing canopy. [(Previous Policy L-70) (Moved from Land Use Element, May 1 Draft] [L166] Policy N-2.6 Improve the overall distribution of Citywide canopy cover, so that neighborhoods in all areas of Palo Alto enjoy the benefits of a healthy urban canopy. [NEW POLICY] [N37] Policy N-2.7 Strive toward the aspirational, long-term goal of achieving a 50 percent tree canopy cover across the City. [NEW POLICY] [N38] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-18 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 , Maintain and irrigate healthy trees in parks, open Program N2.7.1 space, parking lots, and City rights-of-way, while identifying and replacing unhealthy trees in those areas. [Previous Program N-17] [N39] Continue to invest in the care, irrigation and Program N2.7.2 monitoring of street trees during drought conditions. [NEW PROGRAM] [N40] Actively pursue funding for tree planting to increase Program N2.7.3 canopy cover significantly across the city, avoid a net loss of canopy at the neighborhood level, and attain canopy size targets in parks, open space, parking lots, and City rights-of-way. [Previous Program N-18] [N41] Policy N-2.8 Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single-family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. [Previous Policy N-15] [N42] Policy N-2.9 Minimize removal of, and damage to, trees due to construction-related activities such as trenching, excavation, soil compacting, and release of toxins. [NEW POLICY] [N43] Increase awareness, severity and enforcement of Program N2.9.1 penalties for tree damage. [NEW PROGRAM] [N44] Develop a program for using the City’s Urban Program N2.9.2 Forestry Fund to replace trees lost to public improvement and infrastructure projects, with replanting occurring onsite or as close to the original site as is ecologically appropriate. [NEW PROGRAM] [N45] Policy N-2.10 Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, such as native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees approved as part of a development review process and consider strategies for expanding tree protection in Palo Alto. [Previous Policy N-17] [N46] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-19 Continue to require replacement of trees, including Program N2.10.1 street trees lost to new development. [Previous Program N-16] [N47] As part of the update of the Tree and Landscape Program N2.10.2 Technical Manual, consider expanding tree protections to include additional mature trees and provide criteria for making site-specific determinations of trees that should be protected. [NEW PROGRAM] [N48] Consider revisions to the permit process to increase Program N2.10.3 transparency regarding tree removals and expanded opportunities for community members to appeal the removal of trees. [NEW PROGRAM] [N49] Policy N-2.11 Coordinate City review by the Urban Forester, Planning, Utilities, and Public Works Departments, of projects that might impact the urban forest. [Previous Program N-20] [N50] Develop a transparent and publicly accessible street Program N2.11.1 tree removal and replacement schedule. [NEW PROGRAM] [N51] Develop a program to replace unhealthy public Program N2.11.2 trees over time. [NEW PROGRAM] [N52] PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE URBAN FOREST Policy N-2.12 Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto’s urban forest through public education, sensitive regulation and a long-term financial commitment that is adequate to protect this resource. [Previous Policy N-14] [N53] Explore ways to leverage the fact that Palo Alto’s Program N2.12.1 urban forest alleviates climate change by capturing and storing carbon dioxide. [NEW PROGRAM] [N54] Policy N-2.13 Partner and coordinate with organizations and individuals dedicated to the health of Palo Alto’s urban forest.[NEW POLICY, ADAPTED FROM PTC PROGRAM N3.3.7] [N55] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-20 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Work with local nonprofits to establish one or more Program N2.13.1 tree planting programs that are consistent with the UFMP, and rely on locally native, resilient species. Review existing tree planting guidelines to ensure they achieve these objectives. [Previous Program N-19] [N56] Provide on-going education for City staff, residents, Program N2.13.2 and developers regarding landscape, maintenance, and irrigation practices that protect the urban forest and wildlife species. [PTC] [Previous Policy N-16] [N57] Involve tree owners in tree maintenance programs. Program N2.13.3 [NEW PROGRAM (Moved from Land Use Element May 1 Draft)] [L168] Cooperate with the Palo Alto Unified School District, Program N2.13.4 Stanford University, Caltrain, Caltrans, PG&E, and other public and private entities to ensure that their tree planting, tree removal, and maintenance practices are consistent with City guidelines. [NEW PROGRAM] [N58] Policy N-2.14 In order to protect, enhance and augment the urban forest along El Camino Real, Page Mill Road and Oregon Expressway, periodically revisit existing maintenance agreements with Caltrans and the County of Santa Clara. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N59] CREEKS AND RIPARIAN AREAS GOAL N-3 Conservation of both natural and channelized creeks and riparian areas as open space amenities, natural habitat areas, and elements of community design. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-21 Policy N-3.1 All creeks are valuable resources for natural habitats, connectivity, community design, and flood control, and need different conservation and enhancement strategies. Recognize the different characteristics along creeks in Palo Alto, including natural creek segments in the City’s open space and rural areas, primarily west of Foothill Expressway; creek segments in developed areas that retain some natural characteristics; and creek segments that have been channelized. [NEW POLICY] [N60] Policy N-3.2 Prevent the further channelization and degradation of Palo Alto’s creeks. [NEW POLICY] [N61] CREEK SETBACKS Policy N-3.3 Protect the City’s creeks from the impacts of future buildings, structures, impervious surfaces and ornamental landscaping and preserve their function as habitat connectivity corridors by establishing a range of setback requirements that account for existing creek conditions, land use characteristics, property ownership, and flood control potential. [NEW POLICY] [N62] Update the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Program N3.3.1 to adopt a setback along natural creeks in open space and rural areas west of Foothill Expressway that prohibits the siting of buildings and other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas, and ornamental landscaped areas within 100 feet [program option: within 150 feet] of the top of a creek bank. Allow passive or intermittent outdoor activities and pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle pathways along natural creeks where there are adequate setbacks to protect the natural riparian environment. Within the setback area, provide a border of native riparian vegetation at least 25 feet along the creek bank. Updates should reflect that: Single-family property is exempt from the 100- foot [program option: 150-foot] setback. Undeveloped parcels west of Foothill Expressway are not exempt and appropriate PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-22 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 setbacks and creek conservation measures should be established. Existing development within the 100-foot setback will be considered legal and nonconforming. With the 100-foot setback as a goal where feasible, redevelopment of such sites must be designed consistent with basic creek habitat objectives and make a significant net improvement in the condition of the creek.[Previous Program N-7] [N63] Examine the development regulations of the Program N3.3.2 Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance, with stakeholder involvement to establish appropriate setback requirements that reflect the varying natural and channelized conditions along creeks east of Foothill Expressway. [NEW PROGRAM] [N64] For all creeks, update the Stream Corridor Program N3.3.3 Protection Ordinance to minimize impacts on wildlife by: Limiting the development of recreational trails to one side of natural riparian corridors. Requiring careful design of lighting surrounding natural riparian corridors to maximize the distance between nighttime lighting and riparian corridors and direct lighting away from the riparian corridor. [NEW PROGRAM] [N65] MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT Policy N-3.4 Recognize that riparian corridors are valued environmental resources whose integrity provides vital habitat for fish, birds, plants and other wildlife, and carefully monitor and preserve these corridors. [NEW POLICY] [N66] Develop a community creek stewardship program Program N3.4.1 to promote existing creek clean-up days, organize new events, and increase appreciation of riparian corridors. [NEW PROGRAM] [N67] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-23 Policy N-3.5 Preserve the ecological value of creek corridors by preserving native plants and replacing invasive, non-native plants with native plants. [Previous Policy N-12] [N68] Policy N-3.6 Discourage bank instability, erosion, downstream sedimentation, and flooding by minimizing site disturbance and nearby native vegetation removal on or near creeks and by reviewing grading and drainage plans for development near creeks and elsewhere in their watersheds. [Previous Policy N-13] [N69] Review and update the Grading Ordinance to Program N3.6.1 ensure that it adequately protects creeks from the erosion and sedimentation impacts of grading. [Previous Program N-12] [N70] Policy N-3.7 Avoid fencing, piping, and channelization of creeks when flood control and public safety can be achieved through measures that preserve the natural environment and habitat of the creek. [Previous Policy N-9] [N71] Policy N-3.8 Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and other relevant regional and non- governmental agencies to enhance riparian corridors, provide compatible low-impact recreation, and ensure adequate flood control. [Previous Policy N-10] [N72] Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to Program N3.8.1 develop a maintenance, restoration and enhancement program that preserves flood protection while preserving riparian habitat, and identifies specific stretches of corridor to be restored or daylighted, standards to be achieved, and sources of funding. Include provisions for tree and vegetation planting to enhance natural habitat and shade cover. [Previous Program N-10 and N-11, combined] [N73] Participate cooperatively in the San Francisquito Program N3.8.2 Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to achieve increased flood protection, habitat preservation, enhancement and improved recreational PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-24 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 opportunities along San Francisquito Creek. [Previous Program N-9] [N74] WATER RESOURCES GOAL N-4 Water resources and infrastructure that are managed to sustain plant and animal life, support urban activities, and protect public health and safety. WATER SUPPLY AND SAFETY Policy N-4.1 Maintain a safe, clean, and reliable long-term supply of water for Palo Alto. [Previous Policy N-19] [N75] Policy N-4.2 Maintain cost-effective citywide water conservation and efficiency programs for all customers, including low income customers, through education, rebates, assistance programs, and building requirements. [Previous Program N-24] [PTC] [N76] Educate customers on efficient water use (indoor Program N4.2.1 and outdoor), tree care, and landscaping options. [NEW PROGRAM] [N77] Policy N-4.3 Encourage owners of existing residential and commercial property to conserve water by modeling best practices including replacing inefficient plumbing fixtures in buildings, installing drought tolerant landscape and harvesting rainwater. [NEW POLICY] [N78] Policy N-4.4 Manage water supply and water quality to reflect not only human use but also the water needed to sustain plant and animal life. [NEW POLICY] [N79] DROUGHT Policy N-4.5 Support the development a multi-faceted approach to ensure resilient supply and management of water in Palo Alto, during significant periods of drought. [NEW POLICY] [N80] Study the supply and quality of local groundwater Program N4.5.1 aquifers to better understand their utility as natural water storage. [NEW PROGRAM] [N81] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-25 Work with local public agencies to educate Program N4.5.2 residents regarding the public health, fire, and overall quality of life risks associated with long-term drought. [NEW PROGRAM] [N82] Policy N-4.6 Retain and utilize rainwater on site to the extent possible. [NEW POLICY] [PTC] [N83] Encourage residents to use rain barrels or other Program N4.6.1 rainwater reuse systems. [NEW PROGRAM] [N84] GROUNDWATER Policy N-4.7 Ensure regulation of groundwater use to protect it as a natural resource and to preserve it as a potential water supply in the event of water scarcity. [NEW POLICY] [N85] Advocate for Santa Clara Valley Water District to Program N4.7.1 prepare a high-quality groundwater management plan that will address groundwater supply and quality, including, as appropriate: An understanding of subsurface hydrology. Strategies to reduce depletion. Opportunities to recharge groundwater, including through use of recycled water and extracted groundwater. Methods to ensure that uncontaminated, toxin-free groundwater is used in a manner that benefits the community, for example in irrigation of parks, street cleaning, and dust suppression. An approach to metering extracted groundwater. [NEW PROGRAM] [N86] Work with neighboring jurisdictions and regional Program N4.7.2 agencies to protect groundwater. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N87] Support the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Program N4.7.3 the Regional Water Quality Control Board to implement their mandate to protect groundwater PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-26 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 from the adverse impacts of urban uses. [PTC] [Previous Policy N-18] [N88] Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Program N4.7.4 Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to identify and map key groundwater recharge and stormwater management areas for use in land use planning and permitting and the protection of groundwater resources. [Previous Program N-22] [N89] Policy N-4.8 Conserve and maintain subsurface water resources by reducing residential basement dewatering and other excavation activities. [NEW POLICY] [N90] Research and promote new construction Program N4.8.1 techniques and recharge strategies developed to reduce subsurface and surface water impacts and comply with City dewatering policies. [EIR Mitigation Measure HYD-2] [NEW PROGRAM] [N91] Explore appropriate ways to monitor dewatering for Program N4.8.2 all dewatering and excavation projects to encourage maintaining groundwater levels and recharging of the aquifer where needed. [EIR Mitigation Measure HYD-2] [NEW PROGRAM] [N92] WATER QUALITY AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Policy N-4.9 Reduce pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. [Previous Policy N-21] [N93] Monitor and implement practices for reducing Program N4.9.1 water pollution. Examples include state-of-the-art best management practices (BMPs), land use planning approaches, and construction of modern stormwater management facilities. [Previous Program N-27] [N94] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-27 Continue public education programs on water Program N4.9.2 quality issues, including best management practices for residents, businesses, contractors, and City employees. [Previous Program N-28] [N95] Implement swift and rigorous spill response, Program N4.9.3 cleanup, and follow-up investigation procedures to reduce the impacts of toxic spills on the City’s creeks and San Francisco Bay. [Previous Program N-31] [N96] Increase monitoring and enforcement of existing Program N4.9.4 prohibitions on materials and practices known to impact local water quality, such as use of copper, in the design and construction industries. [NEW PROGRAM] [N97] Policy N-4.10 Conduct regular street-sweeping to collect trash and road surface pollutants before they enter stormwater runoff. [Previous Program N-30] [N98] Evaluate neighborhoods where parking controls Program N4.10.1 may hinder street sweeping and recommend any changes that are needed. [NEW PROGRAM] [N99] Policy N-4.11 Promote sustainable low water and pesticide landscaping practices on both public and private property. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N100] Implement the City’s Integrated Pest Management Program N4.11.1 Policy with periodic assessments of pesticide use and use of Best Management Practices to reduce pesticide applications and toxicity, and maximize non-chemical control. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N101] Revise the City’s Tree and Landscape Technical Program N4.11.2 Manual to include stronger requirements for least- toxic practices in the landscape permitting process. [NEW PROGRAM] [N102] Promote the value of toxin-free landscape Program N4.11.3 management, and educate residents about the PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-28 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 impacts of common fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, and pesticides on local water quality. [NEW PROGRAM] [N103] Policy N-4.12 Encourage Low Impact Development (LID) measures to limit the amount of pavement and impervious surface in new development and increase the retention, treatment and infiltration of urban stormwater runoff. Include LID measures in major remodels, public projects and recreation projects where practical. [Previous Policy N-22] [N104] Promote the use of permeable paving materials or Program N4.12.1 other design solutions that allow for natural percolation and site drainage through a Stormwater Rebate Program and other incentives.[Previous Program N-34] [N105] Develop and implement a green stormwater Program N4.12.2 infrastructure plan with the goal to treat and infiltrate stormwater. [NEW PROGRAM] [N106] Mitigate flooding through improved surface Program N4.12.3 permeability or paved areas, and stormwater capture and storage. [EIR Mitigation Measure] [NEW PROGRAM] [N107] Policy N-4.13 Improve storm drainage performance by constructing new system improvements where necessary. [Previous Policy N-24] [N108] Establish a standardized process for evaluating the Program N4.13.1 impacts of development on the storm drainage system, including point source discharge, base flow and peak flow.[Previous Program N-75] [N109] Complete improvements to the storm drainage Program N4.13.2 system consistent with the priorities outlined in the City's 1993 Storm Drainage Master Plan, as amended. . [Previous Program N-36] [N110] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-29 WASTEWATER TREATMENT Policy N-4.14 Reduce the discharge of toxic materials into the City’s sanitary sewer collection system by promoting the use of Best Management Practices and reducing pollutant levels in City wastewater discharges. [Previous Policy N-25] [N111] Work with commercial and industrial dischargers to Program N4.14.1 identify and implement pollution prevention measures and Best Management Practices to eliminate or reduce the discharge of metals and other pollutants of concern. [Previous Program N-35] [N112] Encourage commercial dischargers to consistently Program N4.14.2 go beyond minimum requirements of the Clean Bay Business Program. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N113] Policy N-4.15 Provide, maintain, and operate wastewater treatment facilities, including maintaining adequate capacity at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant located in Palo Alto, to accommodate projected economic and population growth. Ensure that the plant operates in compliance with applicable local, State, and federal clean water, clean air, and health and safety regulatory requirements. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N114] Implement approved recommendations based on Program N4.15.1 the Long-Term Facilities Plan prepared for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N115] Develop a plan to address ongoing operations of Program N4.15.2 the Regional Water Quality Control Plant taking potential sea level rise and growth in surrounding communities into account. [NEW PROGRAM] [N116] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-30 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 RECYCLED WATER Policy N-4.16 Improve source control, treatment, and distribution of recycled water, including reducing the salinity of recycled water, to maximize its use. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N117] Evaluate the expansion of existing recycled water Program N4.16.1 infrastructure to serve a larger area. Develop a plan to install “purple pipe” when streets are opened for other infrastructure work. [NEW PROGRAM] [N118] Evaluate the possibility of using recycled water as Program N4.16.2 an emergency water supply. [NEW PROGRAM] [N119] Investigate ways to reuse non-traditional water Program N4.16.3 sources including recycled, gray, black, and stormwater. [NEW PROGRAM] [N120] Policy N-4.17 Require large new projects to provide systems that can accept recycled water for landscape irrigation and toilet and urinal flushing, consistent with the City’s Recycled Water Ordinance, as amended. [PTC] [Previous Program N-26] [N121] AIR QUALITY GOAL N-5 Clean, healthful air for Palo Alto and the San Francisco Bay Area. Policy N-5.1 Support regional, State, and federal programs that improve air quality in the Bay Area because of its critical importance to a healthy Palo Alto. [(Previous Policy N-26) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1)] [N122] Provide City input on significant proposals for air Program N5.1.1 quality legislation and state implementation plans. [Previous Program N-38] [N123] Support the Bay Area Air Quality Management Program N5.1.2 District (BAAQMD) in its efforts to achieve compliance with existing air quality regulations by continuing to require development applicants to PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-31 comply with BAAQMD construction emissions control measures and health risk assessment requirements. [Previous Program N-39] [N124] Implement BAAQMD recommended standards for Program N5.1.3 the design of buildings near heavily traveled roads, in order to minimize exposure to auto-related emissions. [NEW PROGRAM] [N125] Explore adopting new standards that target the Program N5.1.4 reduction of very fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which is associated with increased impacts on health. [NEW PROGRAM] [N126] Policy N-5.2 Support behavior changes to reduce emissions of particulates from automobiles. [(NEW POLICY)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1)] [N127] Promote understanding of the impacts of extended Program N5.2.1 idling on air quality, for residents, auto-dependent businesses, and schools. [NEW PROGRAM] [N128] Consider adopting and enforcing penalties for Program N5.2.2 drivers that idle for longer than 3-5 minutes. [NEW PROGRAM] [N129] Policy N-5.3 Reduce emissions of particulates from, manufacturing, dry cleaning, construction activity, grading, wood burning, landscape maintenance, including leaf blowers, and other sources. [(Previous Policy N-27) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1)] [N130] Cooperatively work with Santa Clara County and Program N5.3.1 the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to ensure that mining and industrial operations mitigate environmental and health impacts. [NEW PROGRAM] [N131] Monitor particulate emissions at local California Air Program N5.3.2 Resources Board monitoring stations and make the information easily available to citizens. [NEW PROGRAM] [N132] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-32 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Promote understanding of the health impacts of Program N5.3.3 particulate emissions and provide information to residents and businesses about steps they can take to reduce particulate emissions, such as reducing or eliminating wood burning or using low emission alternatives to wood-burning stoves and fireplaces.. [Previous Program N-43] [N133] Explore feasible and cost-effective opportunities to Program N5.3.4 reduce concrete and asphalt use by the City, in parks and other public projects. [NEW PROGRAM] [N134] Policy N-5.4 All potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants should be adequately buffered, or mechanically or otherwise mitigated to avoid odor and toxic impacts that violate relevant human health standards. [Previous Policy N-29] [N135] NOISE GOAL N-6 An environment that minimizes the adverse impacts of noise. INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR AMBIENT NOISE AND PROJECT DESIGN Policy N-6.1 Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the guidelines in Table N-XX to evaluate the compatibility of proposed land uses with existing noise environments when preparing, revising, or reviewing development proposals. Acceptable exterior, interior and ways to discern noise exposure include: The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB. This level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, 60 Ldn is a guideline which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the constraints of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single-family housing developments, and recreational areas in multiple family housing projects). Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-33 60 dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close to the standard as feasible through project design. Interior noise, per the requirements of the State of California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25), must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB in all habitable rooms of all new dwelling units. [N136] Policy N-6.2 Noise exposure(s) can be determined from (a) the noise contour map included in this plan, (b) more detailed noise exposure studies, or (c) on area-specific or project-specific noise measurements, as appropriate. [(Previous Policy N-39)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a)] [N137] Policy N-6.3 Protect the overall community and especially sensitive noise receptors, including schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, senior and child care facilities, and public conservation land from unacceptable noise levels from both existing and future noise sources, including construction noise. [Previous Policy N-43] [N138] Continue working to reduce noise impacts created Program N6.3.1 by events and activities taking place in communities adjoining Palo Alto. [Previous Program N-58] [N139] Evaluate the feasibility of adopting noise criteria in Program N6.3.2 the purchase of new City vehicles and equipment. [Previous Program N-59] [N140] Update the Noise Ordinance, as needed, to provide Program N6.3.3 for clear interpretation of the regulations, to review the appropriateness of existing standards, and to ensure that regulations address contemporary issues. [EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a] [NEW PROGRAM] [N141] Policy N-6.4 Minimize roadway noise through prudent street, flow, and right-of-way design. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N142] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-34 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 NEW PERMANENT NOISE SOURCES Policy N-6.5 Protect residential and residentially-zoned properties from excessive and unnecessary noise from any sources on adjacent commercial or industrial properties. [NEW POLICY] [N143] Policy N-6.6 Apply site planning and architectural design techniques that reduce overall noise pollution and reduce noise impacts on proposed and existing projects within Palo Alto and surrounding communities. [Previous Policy N-40] [N144] Policy N-6.7 While a proposed project is in the development review process, the noise impact of the project on existing residential land uses, public open spaces, and public conservation land should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels and potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. If an area is below the applicable maximum noise guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed. [Previous Policy N-41] [N145] Update noise impact review procedures to address Program N6.7.1 appropriate requirements for analysis and thresholds for impacts on residential land uses and publicly-owned conservation land. [NEW PROGRAM] [N146] Policy N-6.8 The City may require measures to reduce noise impacts of new development on adjacent properties through appropriate means including, but not limited to, the following: Orient buildings to shield noise sensitive outdoor spaces from sources of noise. Construct noise walls when other methods to reduce noise are not practical and when these walls will not shift similar noise impacts to another adjacent property.. Screen and control noise sources such as parking lots, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment, including HVAC equipment. Increase setbacks to serve as a buffer between noise sources and adjacent dwellings. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-35 Whenever possible, retain fences, walls or landscaping that serve as noise buffers while considering design, safety and other impacts. Use soundproofing materials, noise reduction construction techniques, and/or acoustically rated windows/doors. Include auxiliary power sources at loading docks to minimize truck engine idling. Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts. [Previous Policy N-42] [N147] Policy N-6.9 Continue to require applicants for new projects or new mechanical equipment in the Multifamily, Commercial, Manufacturing, or Planned Community districts to submit an acoustical analysis demonstrating compliance with the Noise Ordinance prior to receiving a building permit. [(NEW POLICY) (Comp Plan EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a)] [N148] Policy N-6.10 Continue to regulate noise from leaf blowers and residential power equipment. [NEW POLICY] [N149] Evaluate changes to the Noise Ordinance to further Program N6.10.1 reduce the impacts of noise from leaf blowers and residential power equipment. [Previous Program N-60] [N150] CONSTRUCTION NOISE Policy N-6.11 Continue to prioritize construction noise limits around sensitive receptors, including through limiting construction hours and individual and cumulative noise from construction equipment. [(NEW POLICY)(PTC)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-8)] [N151] For larger development projects that demand Program N6.11.1 intensive construction periods and/or use equipment that could create vibration impacts, such as the Stanford University Medical Center or major grade separation projects, require formal, ongoing monitoring and reporting of noise levels throughout the entire construction process. The monitoring plan should identify hours of operation and could include information on the monitoring PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-36 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 locations, durations and regularity, the instrumentation to be used, and appropriate noise control measures to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. [(NEW PROGRAM)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-8)] [N152] AIRPORTS AND AIRCRAFT Policy N-6.12 Ensure compliance with the airport related land use compatibility standards for community noise environments, shown in Table N-XX, by prohibiting incompatible land use development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of the Palo Alto airport. [NEW POLICY] [EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1b] [N153] Continue working to reduce noise associated with Program N6.12.1 operations of the Palo Alto Airport. Ensure compliance with the land use compatibility standards for community noise environments, shown in Table N-XX, by prohibiting incompatible land use development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of the airport. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N154] Participate in appropriate public forums to ensure Program N6.12.2 that future activities at airports in the region do not negatively affect noise levels in Palo Alto. [Previous Program N-56] [N155] RAIL Policy N-6.13 Minimize noise spillover from rail related activities into adjacent residential or noise-sensitive areas. [NEW POLICY] [N156] Encourage the Peninsula Corridors Joint Powers Program N6.13.1 Board to pursue technologies and grade separations that would reduce or eliminate the need for train horns/whistles in communities served by rail service. [Previous Program N-57] [N157] Evaluate changing at-grade rail crossings so that Program N6.13.2 they qualify as Quiet Zones based on Federal PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-37 Railroad Administration (FRA) rules and guidelines in order to mitigate the effects of train horn noise without adversely affecting safety at railroad crossings. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N158] Participate in future environmental review of the Program N6.13.3 California High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project, planned to utilize existing Caltrain track through Palo Alto, to ensure that it adheres to noise and vibration mitigation measures. [NEW PROGRAM] [N159] Policy N-6.14 Reduce impacts from noise and ground borne vibrations associated with rail operations by requiring that future habitable buildings use necessary design elements such as setbacks, landscaped berms and soundwalls to keep interior noise levels below 45 dBA Ldn and ground-borne vibration levels below 72 VdB. [NEW POLICY] [N160] ENERGY GOAL N-7 A clean, efficient energy supply that makes use of cost- effective renewable resources. Policy N-7.1 Continue to procure carbon neutral energy for both long-term and short-term energy supplies, including renewable and hydroelectric resources, while investing in cost-effective energy efficiency and energy conservation programs. [(Previous Policy N-44)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17)] [N161] Meet customer electricity needs with least total cost Program N7.1.1 resources after careful assessment of environmental cost and benefits. [NEW PROGRAM] [N162] Policy N-7.2 Advance the development of a “smart” energy grid, a diverse energy resource portfolio, and technologically advanced public utilities as a key part of a smart and connected city. (S/CAP Strategy) [NEW POLICY] [N163] Promote the adoption of cost-effective, renewable Program N7.2.1 energy technologies from diverse renewable fuel sources by all customers. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N164] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-38 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Assess the feasibility of using life cycle analysis and Program N7.2.2 total cost of ownership analysis for public and private projects in order to minimize the consumption of energy, the production of greenhouse gases, and costs over the life of the project. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N165] Policy N-7.3 Prioritize the identification and implementation of cost-effective, reliable and feasible energy efficiency and demand reduction opportunities. [Previous Policy N 46] [N166] Policy N-7.4 Maximize the conservation and efficient use of energy in new and existing residences and other buildings in Palo Alto. [(Previous Policy N-47) (PTC Edits)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17)] [N167] Continue timely incorporation of State and federal Program N7.4.1 energy efficiency standards and policies in relevant City codes, regulations, and procedures, and higher local efficiency standards that are cost-effective. [(Previous Program N-66) (PTC Edits) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17)] [N168] Implement cost effective energy efficiency Program N7.4.2 programs for all customers, including low income customers. [NEW PROGRAM] (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17) [N169] Incorporate cost-effective energy conservation Program N7.4.3 measures into construction, maintenance, and City operation and procurement practices.[(Previous Program N-65) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17)] [N170] Implement gas and electric rates that encourage Program N7.4.4 efficient use of resources while meeting State law requirements that rates be based on the cost of service. [Previous Program N-62] [N171] Continue to provide public education programs Program N7.4.5 addressing energy conservation and efficiency. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-39 [(Previous Program N-64)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17)] [N172] Policy N-7.5 Encourage energy efficient lighting that protects dark skies and promotes energy conservation by minimizing light and glare from development while ensuring public health and safety. [NEW POLICY] [N173] Monitor professional and medically-sound research Program N7.5.1 and studies on light-emitting diodes (LEDs). [NEW PROGRAM] [N52] [N174] Policy N-7.6 Support the maximum economic use of solar electric (photovoltaic) and solar thermal energy, both as renewable supply resources for the Electric Utility Portfolio and as alternative forms of local power generation. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N175] Explore changes to building and zoning codes to Program N7.6.1 incorporate solar energy, energy storage, and other energy efficiency measures into major development projects, including City owned projects. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N176] Promote use of the top floors of new and existing Program N7.6.2 structured automobile garages for installation of photovoltaic panels and green roofs. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N177] Promote solar energy in individual private projects. Program N7.6.3 [NEW PROGRAM] [N178] Policy N-7.7 Explore a variety of cost-effective ways to reduce natural gas usage in existing and new buildings in Palo Alto in order to reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions. (S/CAP Strategy NG-GAS-1) [NEW POLICY] [N179] Evaluate the potential for a cost-effective plan for Program N7.7.1 transitioning to a completely carbon-neutral natural gas supply. [(NEW PROGRAM)(PTC)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIl-17)] [N180] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-40 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Explore the transition of existing buildings from gas Program N7.7.2 to electric or solar water and space heating. [NEW PROGRAM] [N181] Policy N-7.8 Support opportunities to maximize energy recovery from organic materials such as food scraps, yard trimmings and residual solids from sewage treatment. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N182] Evaluate energy efficient approaches for the Program N7.8.1 treatment and reuse of organic waste that maximize resource recovery and reduce greenhouse gas generation at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant located in Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Landfill. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N183] CLIMATE CHANGE AND CLIMATE ADAPTATION GOAL N-8 Actively support regional efforts to reduce our contribution to climate change while adapting to the effects of climate change on land uses and city services. Policy N-8.1 Take action to achieve target reductions in greenhouse gas emission levels from City operations and the community activity of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. (S/CAP Strategy) [NEW POLICY] [N184] Participate in cooperative planning with regional Program N8.1.1 and local public agencies, including on the Sustainable Communities Strategy, on issues related to climate change, such as greenhouse gas reduction, water supply reliability, sea level rise, fire protection services, emergency medical services, and emergency response planning. [(NEW PROGRAM)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure GHG-3)] [N185] Pursue or exceed State goals of achieving zero net Program N8.1.2 carbon for residential buildings by 2020 and commercial buildings by 2030, without compromising the urban forest. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N186] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 N-41 Policy N-8.2 With guidance from the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) and its subsequent updates and other future planning efforts, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from City operations and from the community. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N187] Periodically update the Sustainability and Climate Program N8.2.1 Action Plan (S/CAP) consistent with the update schedule in the approved S/CAP; this update shall include an updated greenhouse gas inventory and updated short, medium, and long-term emissions reduction goals. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N188] Policy N-8.3 Prioritize infrastructure improvements that address adaptation of critical facilities to climate change in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) five-year plan. (S/CAP Strategy) [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N189] Protect the Municipal Services Center, Utility Program N8.3.1 Control Center, and Regional Water Quality Control Plant from the impacts of sea level rise. (S/CAP Strategy) [NEW POLICY] [N190] Policy N-8.4 Continue to work with regional partners to build resiliency policy into City planning and capital projects, especially near the San Francisco Bay shoreline, while protecting the natural environment. (S/CAP Strategy) [NEW POLICY] [N191] Prepare response strategies that address sea level Program N8.4.1 rise, increased flooding, landslides, soil erosion, storm events and other events related to climate change. Include strategies to respond to the impacts of sea level rise on Palo Alto’s levee system. (EIR Mitigation Measure GHG-3) [NEW PROGRAM] [N192] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-42 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-1 This preliminary draft element was prepared by City staff on the basis of input from the CAC and members of the public received from August 2016 through December 2016. The Element was reviewed by the full CAC on December 13, 2016 and presented as a draft to Palo Alto City Council on May 15, 2017. INTRODUCTION The Natural Environment Element addresses the management of open land and natural resources in Palo Alto, as well as responding to environmental risks such as air pollution and climate change. It is one of the broadest elements of the Comprehensive Plan, encompassing three of the seven elements mandated by the State: Open Space, Conservation, and Noise. The text is organized into eight topics, each with a corresponding goal, policies, and programs: Open Space Urban Forest and Understory Creeks and Riparian Areas Water Resources Air Quality Noise Energy Climate Change VISION: Palo Alto will meet today’s needs without compromising the needs of future generations. Palo Alto will respect and manage natural resources in a way that sustains the natural environment and protect sprotects our foothills, baylands, creeks, parks, wildlife and open space legacy. A substantial portion of the City will remain as open space. Even in built-up areas, athe network of parks will provide access to nature and an urban forest will provide ecological benefits and a source of beauty for residents. Palo Alto will strive for cleanerclean air and cleanerclean water. Its Policies and programs will foster energy and water conservation, reduced solid waste generation, and cleanup of contaminated sites.. Finally, the City will be well preparedmaintain a sustainable water supply for natural disasters and will grow andthe future, and facilitate the implementation of climate change in a way that minimizes public exposure to hazards like fire, flood, and earthquakeadaptation strategies. 4 PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 The Natural Environment Element does not include policies relating to mineral resources because Palo Alto does not contain any mineral deposits of regional significance. OPEN SPACE Well over a third of Palo Alto’s land area consists of designated Open Space and Public Conservation Land. Although open spaces in City include privately owned land and neighborhood and district parks, the vast majority of Palo Alto’s Open Space and Public Conservation Land consists of parks and preserves devoted to passive use and ecological health. As shown on Map N-1, these spaces are diverse in size and character, ranging from the 2,100 acres of shoreline that comprise the Palo Alto baylands to the 200-acre Los Trancos Open Space Preserve, nestled in the foothills. Each open space area is defined by a combination of resources and habitats that require different approaches to preservation and coordination with outside entities. Map N-2 illustrates the vegetation and habitat types located in Palo Alto. At the same time, these diverse open spaces comprise an integrated natural network supporting Palo Alto’s livability and resiliency, and are an important recreational resource highly valued by the community. The Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Master Plan provides the City with guidance regarding future renovations and capital improvement needs for parks, trails, open space and recreation facilities. The policies and programs in this Element which focus on open space are consistent with the Master Plan and continue to protect individual open spaces from negative physical impacts, while supporting linkages between those spaces that are vital to the natural balance of the City and encouraging responsible public access. URBAN FOREST AND UNDERSTORY Palo Alto’s urban forest, defined as the trees, plants, soil and associated organisms, has long been a source of civic pride—and current research shows that it also offers an array of tangible benefits: improving public health, cleaning the air, absorbing carbon dioxide, reducing stormwater runoff, and supporting animals and pollinators. The Urban Forest Master Plan seeks to foster a sustainable urban forest in Palo Alto by establishing long-term management goals and strategies. Consistent with the Master Plan, the following policy framework maintains Palo Alto’s longstanding commitment to preserving existing trees, replacing damaged trees and expanding Pollinator Pathways Community Gardens Wetland Habitat Riparian Connected Parks Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Mean Projected High Water - 3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA) Creeks and Channels Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) Natural System Features City Park City Natural Open Spaces Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Water Bodies Ripari Creek Urban Canopy Target Areas Date: October 2016 Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford Santa ClaraCounty Menlo Park Mountain View Cupertino UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in the Bayland Preserve: Western burrowing owl California seablite Northern coastal salt marsh Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in San Francisquito Creek: Steelhead California red legged frog Western pond turtle Showy rancheria clover Valley oak woodland Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve: Western pond turtle Serpentine bunchgrass Indian Valley bush-mallow Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park: Western Leatherwood Valley oak woodland SSantSSaCou ppppppeerppppeevveveenseeeeekke UpUpppUpppStetteeeeeeCrereeeeeee Regional Habitat Connection Concept "e S an Fra ncisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barro n C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford Mountain View Menlo Park Los Altos Los Altos Hills East Palo Alto Atherton San Mateo County Portola Valley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve Baylands Athletic Center Greer Park Bol Park MitchellPark Esther Clark Preserve El Camino Park Terman Park Hoover Park Eleanor Pardee Park Peers Park Seale Park Robles Park Ramos Park Briones Park Cubberley Community Center Johnson Park Bowden Park Stanford- Palo Alto Playing Fields Heritage Park BowlingGreen Park El Palo Alto Park Werry Park Boulware Park Cameron Park Weisshaar Park Monroe Park Rinconada Park Williams Park Cogswell Plaza Lytton Plaza Sarah Wallis Park Hopkins Creekside Park Palo Alto Golf Course Scott Park Mayfield Park Ventura Community Center PearsonArastradero Preserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y el C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e f i e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charle s t o n R d el C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT MAP N-1 NATURAL SYSTEMS Source: MIG, 2016 and City of Palo Alto, 2016 Source: USDA, 2006; ESRI, Tiger Lines, USGS, 2010; City of Palo Alto, NHD, 2013; PlaceWorks 2015. StanfordLands StanfordUniversity Atherton Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos MountainView Sunnyvale SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 EastPalo Alto OregonExpy ElCaminoReal UniversityAve PageMillRd Alma S t E m b a rca de ro Rd Midd l e f i e l d R d SAN F RAN CIS CQUIT O C REEK MAT A D E R O C R EEK B A R RONCREEK ADOBECRE EK STEVENS CREE K ARASTRAD EROCREEK 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles Creek Lakes and Ponds Railroads City Limit Sphere of Influence Wildlife Habitat Relationship Type Annual Grassland Coastal Scrub Chamise Chaparral Redwood Forest Coastal Oak Woodland Valley Oak Woodland Montane Hardwood - Conifer Forest Montane Hardwood Forest Slough Fresh Emergent Wetland Saline Emergent Wetland Valley Foothill Riparian Cropland Urban Forest P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NN A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T MA P N- 2 V E G E T A T I O N A N D H A B I T A T T Y P E S PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-5 the urban forest with resilient, native species. In addition, new policies in following section have been designed to ensure that the urban forest not only endures, but benefits from, future growth. The section seeks to optimize opportunities presented by new development, while minimizing its negative impacts. It is based on a holistic approach to Palo Alto’s “green infrastructure” that recognizes that private property owners, outside agencies, non-profits, and the City itself all impact—and are impacted by—the health of the urban forest, from soil to canopy. CREEKS AND RIPARIAN AREAS As illustrated on Map N-3, a series of creeks and streams pass through City as they drain the local foothills into the San Francisco Bay. Adobe, Barron, Matadero, and San Francisquito Creeks, and their tributaries, interface with the land along their banks to form ecosystems known as riparian corridors. The policies and programs recognize the value and diversity of Palo Alto’s creeks. Where the creeks and corridors generally located west of Foothill Expressway are generally still in a natural or mostly undisturbed state, they support diverse plant and animal life, both as permanent homes and as migratory pathways, and offer recreational opportunities to reconnect with nature. Farther downstream, in the flatter, urbanized parts of Palo Alto, some reaches have been heavily engineered over the past decades and now primarily serve a very important role as flood control channels, while others retain some natural characteristics. All creek segments are valuable opportunities for connection within Palo Alto’s ecological and recreational network and merit protection and enhancement. Map N-4 shows areas where development should be set back from creeks to respect and preserve their natural state and ecological value. Partnerships with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other outside organizations will be key to protecting and improving creeks that cross jurisdictional boundaries. In addition, related policies and programs in the Land Use and Community Design Element highlight the importance of creeks in defining the character of the City and some of its neighborhoods. WATER RESOURCES Maintaining the life-sustaining properties of water as a natural resource is a complex challenge. Water is dynamic, contested, and, increasingly, scarce. The topics addressed in the Water Resources section are as wide-ranging as the needs water itself serves. Policies and programs protect the quality and reliability of the City’s long-term water supply, including during periods of drought. Maintaining the quality of the City’s water supply requires protecting both surface water and groundwater Menlo Park |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 OregonExpy ElCaminoReal UniversityAve PageMillRd Alma S t E mb a rca de ro R d Midd l e f i e l d R d San Francisquito Creek Watershed Matadero CreekWatershed Adobe CreekWatershed San FranciscoBay Watershed Barron Creek Watershed Source: Janet M. Sowers, William Lettis & Associates, Inc.,and the San Francisco Estuarty; PlaceWorks, 2015. 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Creeks Underground culverts & storm drains Engineered channels Historical creeks Tidal marsh, circa 1850 Flood control channels Tidal marsh, now water Freshwater marsh, modern Willow groves, circa 1850 City Limit Artificial bodies of water Bay or slough P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N N A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T MA P N- 3 C R E E K S A N D W A T E R S H E D S Foo t h i l l E x p r e s s w a y Mountain View Los Altos Hills Los Altos §¨¦280 Page MillRoad Stanford Lands §¨¦280 MA P N- 4 A R E A W H E R E N A T U R A L C R E E K S E T B A C K A P P L I E S P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N N A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T 0 1 2 Miles Source: ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; City of Palo Alto, 2016; PlaceWorks, 2016. Creeks Area where Natural Creek Setback Applies Single Family Residential Streamside Open Space City Limit Sphere of Influence PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-8 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 from the impacts of past and future development, through requirements for low- impact development and careful regulation of sub-surface dewatering. The City must support the efforts of regulatory bodies, and partner with the multiple jurisdictions through which Palo Alto’s water resources flow. The policies and programs in the Water Resources section also ensure that the City’s water and wastewater infrastructure are efficient and effective and guide future improvements to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant and the purple pipe network to reflect the growing role of recycled water. AIR QUALITY Healthy, breathable air is regional resource, and maintaining air quality is a responsibility shared by each of the local jurisdictions that benefit from it. In the San Francisco Bay Area, federal and State air quality regulations are strengthened by additional programs of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Emerging concerns about specific types of air pollutants, such as particulate matter, cannot be addressed by a single city, but Palo Alto is committed to monitoring and understanding these risks and participating in regional solutions. The policies and programs in this section also promote education and lifestyle choices that benefit public health within and outside the City, from adopting low emission alternatives to wood burning stoves to avoiding prolonged automobile idling. NOISE Palo Alto’s bustling urban environment generates noise from traffic, trains, airports, construction, and yard maintenance, among other sources. Existing and future noise contours within Palo Alto are shown on Maps N-5 and N-6, respectively. The Comprehensive Plan addresses these diverse noise sources and provides the policy foundation for much more rigorous requirements established in the City’s Noise Ordinance. The policies and programs in this section regulate the placement of future “sensitive receptors”—homes, schools, medical clinics, and the like—in compatible noise environments, and acknowledge the importance of quiet environments in public open space and conservation areas. This section also guides the analysis and design of proposed new development to avoid creating new noise impacts on existing sensitive receptors. In addition, this section supports the City’s ongoing efforts to coordinate with regional, State, and federal authorities on noise issues of concern to the Palo Alto community, such as overflights into and out of Bay ! ! FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D ALM A S T SEAL E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y EL C A M I N O R E A L QUA R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y PASTEUR D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D Mountain View East Palo Alto Stanford University Menlo Park S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y Los Altos§¨¦280 |ÿ82 £¤101 MI D D L E F I E L D R O A D PAG E M I L L R O A D Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; US Geological Survey Open File Report 06-1037, 2006; PlaceWorks, 2015. 0 0.5 10.25 Miles N A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T MA P N- 5 E X I S T I N G N O I S E C O N T O U R S !Caltrain Stations Highways Railroads City Limit Sphere of Influence 70 dBA CNEL contour 65 dBA CNEL contour 60 dBA CNEL contour Note: Map includes estimated contributions for CalTrain operations from available information at www.CalTrain.com. Railway noise contours generally overlap roadway noise contours from the adjacent and parallel Alma Street traffic flows. P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NN A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T ! ! FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D ALM A S T SEAL E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y EL C A M I N O R E A L QUA R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y PASTEUR D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D Mountain View East Palo Alto Stanford University Menlo Park S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y Los Altos§¨¦280 |ÿ82 £¤101 MI D D L E F I E L D R O A D PAG E M I L L R O A D Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; US Geological Survey Open File Report 06-1037, 2006; PlaceWorks, 2015. 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Notes: Map includes estimated contributions for CalTrain operations from available information at www.CalTrain.com. Railway noise contours generally overlap roadway noise contours from the adjacent and parallel Alma Street traffic flows. 70 dBA CNEL contour 65 dBA CNEL contour 60 dBA CNEL contour!Caltrain Stations Highways Railroads City Limit Sphere of Influence P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NN A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T MA P N- 6 F U T U R E N O I S E C O N T O U R S PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-11 Area airports (e.g., San Francisco International and Palo Alto airport) and the proposed High Speed Rail project. ENERGY The City of Palo Alto provides electric service through the Utilities Department. As the negative impacts of fossil fuel extraction and consumption escalate, the City is committed to developing a sustainable, carbon-neutral, cost-effective energy supply. This refers to an energy portfolio that decreases the City’s reliance on fossil fuels, thus reducing the release of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, by supporting the production of energy from carbon-free, renewable sources. Achieving these goals requires carefully balancing the benefits and liabilities of diverse energy sources and strategies, educating the public on home- and business-based renewable energy and energy efficiency strategies, and encouraging and incentivizing widespread implementation of those strategies. CLIMATE CHANGE AND CLIMATE ADAPTATION Palo Alto is committed to meaningful action to slow global warming and adapt to changes in the climate that are already underway. The policies and programs under this goal were developed in parallel with the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, or S/CAP, and will support the City’s efforts to achieve the Council-adopted goal of reducing City- and community-based GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. Similarly, a diverse range of adaptive improvements will ensure that the City’s built environment and infrastructure are resilient to climate change related impacts such as sea level rise. GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS OPEN SPACE GOAL N-1 A Citywide Open Space System that ProtectsProtect, conserve and Conservesenhance Palo Alto’s Natural Resourcescitywide system of open space, including connected and Providesaccessible natural and urban habitats, ecosystems, and natural resources, providing a source of public health, natural beauty and enjoyment for Palo Alto residents. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-12 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 CONNECTIVITY AND ECOLOGY Policy N-1.1 Preserve, protect and enhance public and private open space and ecosystems of Palo Alto from the foothills to the baylands. Respect the role that natural and landscaped areas within the urbanized part of the City play in a resilient ecological continuum, as illustrated on Map N-1. the foothill area as predominantly open space [Previous Policy N-4] [N1] Develop Comprehensive Resource Conservation Program N1.1.1 Plans for the Pearson Arastradero Preserve, Esther Clark Preserve, and Foothills Park to steward the protection of local ecosystems. [(NEW PROGRAM)(PTC)] [N2] Promote and support ecosystem protection and Program N1.1.2 environmental education programs in Palo Alto. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N3] Policy N-1.2 Maintain a network of parks and urban forest from the urban center to the foothills and Baylands that provides ecological benefits and access to nature for all residents. [NEW POLICY] [N4] Policy N-1.3 Manage existing public open space areas and eEncourage the management of private open space areas, including agricultural land, golf courses, private residential yards, and other land that provides habitat for wildlife in a manner that protects and enhances habitat and meets habitat reinforces natural wildlife corridors,protection goals public safety concerns, and low impact recreation needs consistent with the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan and Urban Forest Master Plan, as periodically amended. [Previous Policy N-1, per PTC] [N5] Work to maintain Williamson Act agricultural Program N1.3.1 preserves contracts within the City. [Previously Program N-5] [N6] Provide information and support programs that Program N1.3.2 encourage residents to enhance their private yards with native plant species and low impact landscaping. [NEW PROGRAM] [N7] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-13 Policy N-1.4 Protect special-status sensitive plant species and plant communities, including those listed by State and federal agencies and recognized organizations resources from the impacts of development and incompatible activities. [Previous Policy N-3] [N8] Periodically review CEQA thresholds of significance Program N1.4.1 regarding special status species to identify changes in listed species recommended by professionally recognized scientific experts. Sources may include the California Natural Diversity Database, as updated in accordance with federally- and State- recognized organizations, including the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, as well as the California Native Plant Society and the Audubon Society. [NEW PROGRAM] [N9] Explore the feasibility of expanding the use of Program N1.4.2 overlay tools such as the Site and Design (D) Review Combining District or similar development review and restriction tools to protect special-status species and their habitats from development. [NEW PROGRAM] [N10] Assess opportunities to expand habitats of special –Program N1.4.3 status species within publicly-owned open spaces. [NEW PROGRAM] [N11] Policy N-1.5 Preserve and protect the Bay, marshlands, salt ponds, sloughs, creeks, and other natural water or wetland areas as open space, functioning habitats, and elements of a larger, interconnected wildlife corridor, consistent with the Baylands Master Plan, as periodically amended, which is incorporated here by reference. [Previous Policy N-8, [L189],] [N12] Maintain the value of local wetlands as habitats by Program N1.5.1 ensuring adequate flow from the Bay and minimizing effluent. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N13] Policy N-1.6 Preserve and protect the foothills and hillside areas, recognizing their unique value as natural ecosystems and interconnected wildlife corridors. [NEW POLICY] [N14] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-14 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 Continue to coordinate City review, particularly by Program N1.6.1 Planning, Public Works and Community Services Departments, of projects that might impact the City’s foothills and hillside areas. [NEW PROGRAM] [N15] ACCESS AND RECREATION Policy N-1.7 Carefully manage access and use recreational use Review the need for access controls inof environmentally sensitive areas, including the baylands, foothills and riparian corridors, in order to protect habitats and wildlife from the impacts of humans and domesticated animals. [(Previous Program N-3)(PTC)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure PS-7)] [N16] Examine and improve existing management Program N1.7.1 practices for natural habitat and open space areas, including the provision of access to open space for City vehicles and equipment, to ensure that natural resources are protected. [Previous Program N-2] [N17] Protect wildlife in public open space areas by Program N1.7.2 improving litter collection, restricting the use of non-recyclable plastics, prohibiting the feeding of wild and domestic animals in open space, and enforcing dog leash laws. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N18] Provide information about responsible behavior in Program N1.7.3 environmentally-sensitive areas through signage, pamphlets and documents on the City’s website. [NEW PROGRAM] [N19] Review and map existing easements and Program N1.7.4 maintenance roads for potential trails and trail connections. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N20] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-15 NATURAL CHARACTER OF THE FOOTHILLS Policy N-1.8 Through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space zone district regulations, mMinimize impacts of any new development on views of the hillsides, on the character of public open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. [Previous Policy N-6] [N21] Review and update as needed the Open Space (OS) zoning district regulations to ensure consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies. Previous Program N-1, per PTC] Policy N-1.9 All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area (i.e., above Junipero Serra Boulevard) should be consistent with the following criteria visually blend in with its surroundings and minimize impacts to the natural environment. As such, development projects should: City of Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria The development should Nnot be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view. Development should beBe Llocated away from hilltops. and designed to not extend above the nearest ridge line. Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring properties. Development should be Be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to reduce conspicuousness make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. Include Builtbuilt forms and landscape forms should that mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance. Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Retain eExisting vegetation should be retained as much as possible. Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-16 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading. To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. Buildings should Utilize natural materials and earth tone or subdued colors. Include landscaping should be composed of native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique. Include eExterior lighting should bethat is low-intensity and shielded from view. so it is not directly visible from off-site. Include aAccess roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foot- hills environment.) For development in unincorporated areas, ground coverage should be in general conformance with Palo Alto’s Open Space District regulations. [Previous Policy N-7] [N22] As part of the design review process for proposed development in the Open Space zone district that exceeds 6,500 square feet, require that “story poles” be erected with outlining tape depicting the building’s location, bulk and height to aid in assessing the potential visual impacts of the proposed project. [Previous Program N-6] EXPANSION OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Policy N-1.10 Support regional and sub-regional efforts to acquire, develop, operate, and maintain a seamless open space system, including habitat linkages and trail connections extending north-south and east-west from Skyline Ridge to San Francisco Bay. [Previous Policy N-2] [N23] Use City funds, and sSeek additional sources of Program N1.10.1 funding, including Sstate and federal programs, to finance open space acquisition, maintenance or conservation. and development [Previous Program N-4] [N24] Pursue dedication of undedicated publicly-owned Program N1.10.2 recreation, open space and conservation areas, such as Renzel Wetlands and the Gamble House PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-17 and Gardens as public parks to preserve the community serving purpose of these areas into the future. [NEW PROGRAM] [N17] [N25] Create mechanisms to monitor, assess and respond Program N1.10.3 quickly to land acquisition opportunities that would expand or connect the City’s system of parks and open spaces, and establish a long-term funding strategy for acquisition that would enable the City to move quickly when opportunities arise. [NEW PROGRAM] [N26] Explore ways to dedicate a portion of in-lieu fees Program N1.10.4 towards acquisition of parkland, not just improvements. [[NEW PROGRAM] [N27] Pursue opportunities to create linear parks over the Program N1.10.5 Caltrain tracks in the event the tracks are moved below grade. [NEW PROGRAM moved from Land Use] [L152] Encourage dedication of new Program N1.10.3Program N1.10.6 land for parks through regulations and incentives for new development and programs to solicit bequests of land within the city. [NEW PROGRAM moved from Land Use] [L151] Policy N-1.11 Work with Stanford University, Santa Clara County, Santa Clara Valley Water District and regional organizations to create multi-use trail connections between urban areas and open space, including creeks and rights-of-way, while ensuring that the natural environment is protected. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N28] Policy N-1.12 Work with Stanford and Santa Clara County to pPreserve Stanford’s lower foothill property northeast of Highway 280. predominantly within the City, Act and act as an advocate to Santa Clara County to preserve open space links between Stanford, the urban area, and the foothillsfor the preservation of the open space link between the urban area and the foothills. [Previous Policy N-5] [N29] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-18 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 URBAN FOREST AND UNDERSTORY GOAL N-2 A thriving “urban forest” that provides public health, ecological, economic, and aesthetic benefits for Palo Alto. ROLE OF THE URBAN FOREST Policy N-2.1 Use the Urban Forest Master Plan, as periodically amended, to guide City decisions related to all elements of Palo Alto’s urban forest, from its understory habitat to canopy cover. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N30] Periodically update the Urban Forest Master Plan Program N2.1.1 and Tree Protection Ordinance to ensure policies and regulations remain relevant. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N31] Policy N-2.2 Recognize the importance of the urban forest as a vital part of the City’s green infrastructure network that contributes to public health, resiliency, habitat values, appreciation of natural systems and an attractive visual character which must be protected and enhanced. [NEW POLICY] [N32] Explore ways to prevent and ameliorate damage to Program N2.2.1 trees and tree roots by above and below ground infrastructure and buildings. [NEW PROGRAM] [N33] Policy N-2.3 Enhance the ecological resilience of the urban forest by increasing and diversifying native species in the public right-of-way, protecting the health of soils and understory vegetation, encouraging property owners to do the same, and discouraging the planting of invasive species. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N34] Policy N-2.4 Protect soils in both urban and natural areas as the foundation of a healthy urban forest. Recognize that healthy soils are necessary to filter air and water, sustain plants and animals, and support buildings and infrastructure. [[NEW PROGRAM] [N35] Promote landscape design that optimizes soil Program N2.4.1 volume, porosity, structure and health, as well the location, shape and configuration of soil beds. [NEW PROGRAM] [N36] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-19 PROTECTION AND EXPANSION Policy N-2.5 Enhance tree health and the appearance of streets and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system.through regular maintenance as well as tree and landscape planting and care of the existing canopy. [(Previous Policy L-70) (Moved from Land Use Element, May 1 Draft] [L166] Policy N-2.6 Improve the overall distribution of Citywide canopy cover, so that neighborhoods in all areas of Palo Alto enjoy the benefits of a healthy urban canopy. [NEW POLICY] [N37] Policy N-2.7 Strive toward the aspirational, long-term goal of achieving a 50 percent tree canopy cover across the City. [NEW POLICY] [N38] Develop and implement a plan for maintenance, Program N2.7.1 irrigation, and replacement of Maintain and irrigate healthy trees in parks, open space, parking lots, and City rights-of-way, while identifying and replacing unhealthy trees in those areas. [Previous Program N-17] [N39] Continue to invest in the care, irrigation and Program N2.7.2 monitoring of street trees during drought conditions. [NEW PROGRAM] [N40] Actively pursue funding for tree planting to increase Program N2.7.3 canopy cover significantly across the city, avoid a net loss of canopy at the neighborhood level, and attain canopy size targets in parks, open space, parking lots, and City rights-of-way. [Previous Program N-18] [N41] Policy N-2.8 Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single- family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. [Previous Policy N-15] [N42] Policy N-2.9 Minimize removal of, and damage to, trees due to construction-related activities such as trenching, excavation, soil compacting, and release of toxins. [NEW POLICY] [N43] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-20 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 Increase awareness, severity and enforcement of Program N2.9.1 penalties for tree damage. [NEW PROGRAM] [N44] Develop a program for using the City’s Urban Program N2.9.2 Forestry Fund to replace trees lost to public improvement and infrastructure projects, with replanting occurring onsite or as close to the original site as is ecologically appropriate. [NEW PROGRAM] [N45] Policy N-2.10 Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, heritage trees, including such as native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees approved as part of a development review process and consider strategies for expanding tree protection in Palo Alto. [Previous Policy N-17] [N46] Continue to require replacement of trees, including Program N2.10.1 street trees lost to new development., and establish a program to have replacement trees planted offsite when it is impractical to locate them onsite. [Previous Program N-16] [N47] As part of the update of the Tree and Landscape Program N2.10.2 Technical Manual, consider expanding tree protections to include additional mature trees and provide criteria for making site-specific determinations of trees that should be protected. [NEW PROGRAM] [N48] Consider revisions to the permit process to increase Program N2.10.3 transparency regarding tree removals and expanded opportunities for community members to appeal the removal of trees. [NEW PROGRAM] [N49] Policy N-2.11 Establish procedures to Coordinate City review, particularly by the Urban Forester, Planning, Utilities, and Public Works Departments, of projects that might impact the urban forest. [Previous Program N-20] [N50] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-21 Develop a transparent and publicly accessible street Program N2.11.1 tree removal and replacement schedule. [NEW PROGRAM] [N51] Develop a program to replace unhealthy public Program N2.11.2 trees over time. [NEW PROGRAM] [N52] PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE URBAN FOREST Policy N-2.12 Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto’s urban forest through public education, sensitive regulation and a long-term financial commitment that is adequate to protect this resource. [Previous Policy N-14] [N53] Explore ways to leverage the fact that Palo Alto’s Program N2.12.1 urban forest alleviates climate change by capturing and storing carbon dioxide. [NEW PROGRAM] [N54] Policy N-2.13 Partner and coordinate with organizations and individuals dedicated to the health of Palo Alto’s urban forest.[NEW POLICY, ADPATED ADAPTED FROM PTC PROGRAM N3.3.7] [N55] Work with local nonprofits to establish one or more Program N2.13.1 tree planting programs that are consistent with the UFMP, and rely on locally native, resilient species that seek to achieve the following objectives: a 50 percent tree canopy for streets, parks, and parking lots; the annual tree planting goals recommended by the Tree Task Force and adopted by the City Council. Review existing tree planting guidelines to ensure they achieve these objectives. [Previous Program N-19] [N56] Provide on-going education for City staff, Program N2.13.2 homeowners, residents, and developers regarding landscape ing and , maintenance, and irrigation practices that protect the urban forest and wildlife species. [PTC] [Previous Policy N-16] [N57] Involve tree owners in tree maintenance programs. Program N2.13.3 [NEW PROGRAM (Moved from Land Use Element May 1 Draft)] [L168] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-22 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 Cooperate with the Palo Alto Unified School District, Program N2.13.4 Stanford University, Caltrain, Caltrans, PG&E, and other public and private entities to ensure that their tree planting, tree removal, and maintenance practices are consistent with City guidelines. [NEW PROGRAM] [N58] Work cooperatively with the Palo Alto Unified School District so that their tree planting and maintenance practices are consistent with City guidelines. [Previous Program N-21] Policy N-2.14 In order to protect, enhance and augment the urban forest along El Camino Real, Page Mill Road and Oregon Expressway, periodically revisit existing maintenance agreements with Caltrans and the County of Santa Clara. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N59] Implement the recommendations of the Tree Task Force.[Previous Program N-14] Continue celebration of Arbor Day in Palo Alto.[Previous Program N-15] CREEKS AND RIPARIAN AREAS GOAL N-3 Conservation of both natural and channelized creeks and riparian areas as open space amenities, natural habitat areas, and elements of community design. Policy N-3.1 All creeks are valuable resources for natural habitats, connectivity, community design, and flood control, and need different conservation and enhancement strategies. Recognize the different characteristics along creeks in Palo Alto, including natural creek segments in the City’s open space and rural areas, primarily west of Foothill Expressway; creek segments in developed areas that retain some natural characteristics; and creek segments that have been channelized. [NEW POLICY] [N60] Policy N-3.2 Prevent the further channelization and degradation of Palo Alto’s creeks. [NEW POLICY] [N61] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-23 CREEK SETBACKS Policy N-3.3 Protect the City’s creeks from the impacts of future buildings, structures, impervious surfaces and ornamental landscaping and preserve their function as habitat connectivity corridors by establishing a range of setback requirements that account for existing creek conditions, land use characteristics, property ownership, and flood control potential. [NEW POLICY] [N62] Update the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Program N3.3.1 to Aadopt a setback along natural creeks in open space and rural areas west of Foothill Expressway that prohibits the siting of buildings and other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas, and ornamental landscaped areas within 100 feet [program option: within 150 feet] of the top of a creek bank. Allow passive or intermittent outdoor activities and pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle pathways along natural creeks where there are adequate setbacks to protect the natural riparian environment. Within the setback area, provide a border of native riparian vegetation at least 25 feet along the creek bank. Updates should reflect that: Exceptions to the 100- foot setback are as follows: Single- family property is exempt from the 100-foot [program option: 150-foot] setback. , except that uUndeveloped parcels southwest of Highway 280west of Foothill Expressway are not exempt and A creek ordinance and guidelines will be prepared addressing appropriate setbacks and creek conservation measures should be established. Existing development within the 100-foot setback will be considered legal and nonconforming. With the 100-foot setback as a goal where feasible, redevelopment of such sites must be designed consistent with basic creek habitat objectives and make a significant PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-24 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 net improvement in the condition of the creek.[Previous Program N-7] [N63] Examine the development regulations of the Program N3.3.2 Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance, with stakeholder involvement, to establish appropriate setback requirements that reflect the varying natural and channelized conditions along creeks east of Foothill Expressway. [NEW PROGRAM] [N64] For all creeks, update the Stream Corridor Program N3.3.3 Protection Ordinance to minimize impacts on wildlife by: Limiting the development of recreational trails to one side of natural riparian corridors. Requiring careful design of lighting surrounding natural riparian corridors to maximize the distance between nighttime lighting and riparian corridors and direct lighting away from the riparian corridor. [NEW PROGRAM] [N65] MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT Policy N-3.4 Recognize that riparian corridors are valued environmental resources whose integrity provides vital habitat for fish, birds, plants and other wildlife, and carefully monitor and preserve these corridors. [NEW POLICY] [N66] Preserve the integrity of riparian corridors. [Previous Policy N-11] Develop a community creek stewardship program Program N3.4.1 to promote existing creek clean-up days, organize new events, and increase appreciation of riparian corridors. [NEW PROGRAM] [N67] Policy N-3.5 Preserve the habitat ecological value of creek corridors through theby preservingation of native plants and the replacing ement of invasive, non-native plants with native plants. [Previous Policy N-12] [N68] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-25 Policy N-3.6 Discourage creek bank instability, erosion, downstream sedimentation, and flooding by minimizing site disturbance and nearby native vegetation removal on or near creeks and by carefully reviewing grading and drainage plans for development near creeks and elsewhere in the their watershedscreeks. [Previous Policy N-13] [N69] Review and update the Grading Ordinance to Program N3.6.1 ensure that it adequately protects creeks from the erosion and sedimentation impacts of grading. [Previous Program N-12] [N70] Establish public education programs regarding the conservation of creeks and riparian areas. [Previous Program N-13] Policy N-3.7 Avoid fencing, piping, and channelization of creeks when flood control and public safety can be achieved through measures that preserve the natural environment and habitat of the creek. [Previous Policy N-9] [N71] Policy N-3.8 Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and other relevant regional and non- governmental agencies to enhance riparian corridors, provide compatible low-impact recreation, and ensure adequate flood control by use of low impact restoration strategies. [Previous Policy N-10] [N72] Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to Program N3.8.1 establish guidelines for creek channel develop a comprehensive riparian corridor maintenance, restoration and enhancement program that encourage preservation of preserves flood protection while preserving riparian habitat, and identifies specific stretches of corridor to be restored or daylighted, standards to be achieved, and sources of funding. Include provisions for tree and vegetation planting to enhance natural habitat and shade cover, including vegetation that provides shade to creek bottoms. [Previous Program N-10 and N-11, combined] [N73] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-26 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 Participate cooperatively in a San Francisquito Creek Program N3.8.2 Coordinated Respource Management and Planning Process (CRMP) process with adjacent cities the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to achieve increased flood protection, habitat preservation, enhancement and improved recreational opportunities along San Francisquito Creek. [Previous Program N-9] [N74] Develop and adopt a creek ordinance that establishes new development regulations for properties abutting creeks, establishes an exception process, and provides incentives to achieve maximum creek setbacks, such as reduced front yard setbacks and reduced on-site par king requirements.[Previous Program N-8] WATER RESOURCES GOAL N-4 Water resources and infrastructure that are prudently managed to sustain plant and animal life, support urban activities, and protect public health and safety. WATER SUPPLY AND SAFETY Policy N-4.1 Maintain Secure a safe, clean, and reliable, long-term supply of water for Palo Alto. [Previous Policy N-19] [N75] Policy N-4.2 Maintain cost-effective citywide water conservation and efficiency programs for all customer classes customers, including low income customers, through education, rebates, assistance programs, and building requirements. [Previous Program N-24] [PTC] [N76] Educate customers on efficient water use (indoor Program N4.2.1 and outdoor), tree care, and landscaping options. [NEW PROGRAM] [N77] Where practical, incorporate federal, state, and other agency policies and standards for water efficiency into City codes, regulations, and procedures. [Previous Program N-25] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-27 Policy N-4.3 Encourage owners of existing residential and commercial property to conserve water by modeling best practices including replacing inefficient plumbing fixtures in buildings, installing drought tolerant landscape and harvesting rainwater. [NEW POLICY] [N78] Policy N-4.4 Manage water supply and water quality to reflect not only human use but also the water needed to sustain plant and animal life. [NEW POLICY] [N79] Maximize the conservation and efficient use of water in new and existing residences, businesses and industries.[Previous Policy N-20] DROUGHT Policy N-4.5 Support the development a multi-faceted approach to ensure resilient supply and management of water in Palo Alto, during significant periods of drought. [NEW POLICY] [N80] Study the supply and quality of local groundwater Program N4.5.1 aquifers to better understand their utility as natural water storage. [NEW PROGRAM] [N81] Work with local public agencies to educate Program N4.5.2 residents regarding the public health, fire, and overall quality of life risks associated with long-term drought. [NEW PROGRAM] [N82] Policy N-4.6 Retain and utilize rainwater on site to the extent possible. [NEW POLICY] [PTC] [N83] Encourage residents to use rain barrels or other Program N4.6.1 rainwater reuse systems. [NEW PROGRAM] [N84] GROUNDWATER Policy N-4.7 Ensure regulation of groundwater use to protect it as a natural resource and to preserve it as a potential water supply in the event of water scarcity. [NEW POLICY] [N85] Advocate for Santa Clara Valley Water District to Program N4.7.1 prepare a high-quality groundwater management plan that will address groundwater supply and quality, including, as appropriate: PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-28 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 An understanding of subsurface hydrology. Strategies to reduce depletion. Opportunities to recharge groundwater, including through use of recycled water and extracted groundwater. Methods to ensure that uncontaminated,toxin- free groundwater is used in a manner that benefits the community, for example in irrigation of parks, street cleaning, and dust suppression. An approach to metering extracted groundwater. [NEW PROGRAM] [N86] Work with neighboring jurisdictions and regional Program N4.7.2 agencies to protect groundwater. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N87] Support the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Program N4.7.3 the Regional Water Quality Control Board to implement their mandate to protect Protect Palo Alto’s groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses. [PTC] [Previous Policy N-18] [N88] Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Program N4.7.4 Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to identify and map key groundwater recharge and stormwater management areas for use in land use planning and permitting and the protection of groundwater resources. [Previous Program N-22] [N89] Policy N-4.8 Conserve and maintain subsurface water resources by reducing residential basement dewatering and other excavation activities. [NEW POLICY] [N90] Research and promote new construction Program N4.8.1 techniques and recharge strategies developed to reduce subsurface and surface water impacts and comply with City dewatering policies. [EIR Mitigation Measure HYD-2] [NEW PROGRAM] [N91] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-29 Explore appropriate ways to monitor dewatering for Program N4.8.2 all dewatering and excavation projects to encourage maintaining groundwater levels and recharging of the aquifer where needed. [EIR Mitigation Measure HYD-2] [NEW PROGRAM] [N92] WATER QUALITY AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Policy N-4.9 Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. [Previous Policy N-21] [N93] Work with regulatory agencies, environmental Program N4.9.1 groups, affected businesses, and other stakeholders to Monitor and implement practices identify economically viable Best Management Practices (BMPs) for reducing water pollution. Participate in BMPs pilot studies to identify new pollution control measuresExamples include state-of-the-art best management practices (BMPs), land use planning approaches, and construction of modern stormwater .management facilities. [Previous Program N-27] [N94] Continue public education programs on water Program N4.9.2 quality issues, including Bbest Mmanagement Ppractices (BMPs) for residents, businesses, contractors, and City employees. [Previous Program N-28] [N95] Actively participate in programs such as the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program to improve the quality of stormwater runoff. [Previous Program N-29] Actively work to reduce the amount of metals contained in brake pads, tires, and other automotive parts, thereby reducing urban runoff pollution from metals. Continue Palo Alto’s leadership role in encouraging the re-engineering of vehicles to reduce pollution from metals. [Previous Program N-32] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-30 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 Study the impacts on storm water pollution of architectural copper and consider limiting its use, if warranted.[Previous Program N-33] Evaluate Implement swift and rigorous spill Program N4.9.3 response, cleanup, and follow-up investigation procedures to reduces the impacts of toxic spills on the City’s creeks and San Francisco Bay. [Previous Program N-31] [N96] Increase monitoring and enforcement of existing Program N4.9.4 prohibitions on materials and practices known to impact local water quality, such as use of copper, in the design and construction industries. [NEW PROGRAM] [N97] Policy N-4.10 Conduct regular street-sweeping to collect trash and road surface pollutants before they enter stormwater minimize road surface pollutant runoff. [Previous Program N-30] [N98] Evaluate neighborhoods where parking controls Program N4.10.1 may hinder street sweeping and recommend any changes that are needed. [NEW PROGRAM] [N99] Policy N-4.11 Promote sustainable low water and pesticide landscaping practices on both public and private property. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N100] Implement the City’s Integrated Pest Management Program N4.11.1 Policy with periodic assessments of pesticide use and use of Best Management Practices to reduce pesticide applications and toxicity, and maximize non-chemical control. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N101] Revise the City’s Tree and Landscape Technical Program N4.11.2 Manual to include stronger requirements for least- toxic practices in the landscape permitting process. [NEW PROGRAM] [N102] Promote the value of toxin-free landscape Program N4.11.3 management, and educate residents about the impacts of common fertilizers, herbicides, PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-31 insecticides, and pesticides on local water quality. [NEW PROGRAM] [N103] Policy N-4.12 Encourage Low Impact Development (LID) measures to Llimit the amount of pavement and impervious surface in new development to reduce and increase the retention, treatment and infiltration of urban stormwater runoff into storm drains, creeks and San Francisco Bay. Include LID measures in major remodels, public improvement projects and recreation projects where practical. [Previous Policy N-22] [N104] Evaluate Promote the use of permeable paving Program N4.12.1 materials or other design solutions that allow for natural percolation and site drainage through a Stormwater Rebate Program and other incentives.[Previous Program N-34] [N105] Develop and implement a green stormwater Program N4.12.2 infrastructure plan with the goal to treat and infiltrate stormwater. [NEW PROGRAM] [N106] Mitigate flooding through improved surface Program N4.12.3 permeability or paved areas, and stormwater capture and storage. [EIR Mitigation Measure] [NEW PROGRAM] [N107] Policy N-4.13 Improve storm drainage performance by constructing new system improvements where necessary and replacing undersized or otherwise inadequate lines with larger lines or parallel lines. [Previous Policy N-24] [N108] Establish a standardized process for evaluating the Program N4.13.1 impacts of development on the storm drainage system, including point source discharge, base flow and peak flow.[Previous Program N-75] [N109] Complete improvements to the storm drainage Program N4.13.2 system consistent with the priorities outlined in the City's 1993 Storm Drainage Master Plan, as amended. , provided that an appropriate funding mechanism is identified and approved by the City Council. [Previous Program N-36] [N110] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-32 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 WASTEWATER TREATMENT Policy N-4.14 Reduce the discharge of toxic materials into the City’s sanitary sewer collection system by promoting the use of Best Management Practices and reducingReduce pollutant levels in City wastewater discharges. [Previous Policy N-25] [N111] Work with commercial and industrial dischargers to Program N4.14.1 identify and implement pollution prevention measures and Best Management Practices to eliminate or reduce the discharge of metals and other pollutants of concern recover metals onsite rather than discharging them into the sanitary sewer system. [Previous Program N-35] [N112] Encourage commercial dischargers to consistently Program N4.14.2 go beyond minimum requirements of the Clean Bay Business Program. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N113] Policy N-4.15 Provide, maintain, and operate wastewater treatment facilities, including maintaining adequate capacity at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant located in Palo Alto, to accommodate projected economic and population growth. Ensure that the plant operates in compliance with applicable local, State, and fFederal clean water, clean air, and health and safety regulatory requirements. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N114] Implement approved recommendations based on Program N4.15.1 the Long-Term Facilities Plan prepared for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N115] Develop a plan to address ongoing operations of Program N4.15.2 the Regional Water Quality Control Plant taking potential sea level rise and growth in surrounding communities into account. [NEW PROGRAM] [N116] Reduce the discharge of toxic materials into the City’s sanitary sewer collection system by PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-33 promoting the use of Best Management Practices. [Previous Policy N-23] Monitor wastewater treatment industry practices relating to the use of chlorine to disinfect wastewater.[Previous Program N-37] RECYCLED WATER Policy N-4.16 Improve source control, treatment, and distribution of recycled water, including reducing the salinity of recycled water, to maximize its use. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N117] Evaluate the expansion of existing recycled water Program N4.16.1 infrastructure to serve a larger area. Develop a plan to install “purple pipe” when streets are opened for other infrastructure work. [NEW PROGRAM] [N118] Evaluate the possibility of using recycled water as Program N4.16.2 an emergency water supply. [NEW PROGRAM] [N119] Investigate ways to reuse non-traditional water Program N4.16.3 sources including recycled, gray, black. and stormwater. [NEW PROGRAM] [N120] Policy N-4.17 Promote the use of salt-tolerant native species and Rrequire large new projects to provide separate irrigation systems that can accept Implement incentives for the use of drought-tolerant landscaping and recycled water for landscape irrigation for larger developments and toilet and urinal flushing, consistent with the City’s Recycled Water Ordinance, as amended. [PTC] [Previous Program N-26] [N121] AIR QUALITY GOAL N-5 Clean, healthful air for Palo Alto and the San Francisco Bay Area. Policy N-5.1 Support regional, Sstate, and federal programs that improve air quality in the Bay Area because of its critical importance to a healthy Palo Alto. [(Previous Policy N-26) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1)] [N122] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-34 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 Provide City input on significant proposals for air Program N5.1.1 quality legislation and state implementation plans. [Previous Program N-38] [N123] Assist Support the Bay Area Air Quality Program N5.1.2 Management District (BAAQMD) in its efforts to achieve compliance with existing air quality regulations by continuing to require development applicants to comply with BAAQMD construction emissions control measures, and health risk assessment requirements. [Previous Program N-39] [N124] Implement BAAQMD recommended standards for Program N5.1.3 the design of buildings near heavily traveled roads, in order to minimize exposure to auto-related emissions. [NEW PROGRAM] [N125] Explore adopting new standards that target the Program N5.1.4 reduction of very fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which is associated with increased impacts on health. [NEW PROGRAM] [N126] Expand the use of alternative fuels for City vehicles and establish a program to encourage expanded use of such fuels in private vehicles. To support this program, encourage the development of alternative fuel infrastructure (for instance, electric plug-ins) in parking facilities and other key locations around the City [Previous Program N-40] Support legislative programs that result in the removal of the oldest and dirtiest vehicles on the roadway. [Previous Program N-41] Policy N-5.2 Support behavior changes to reduce emissions of particulates from automobiles. [(NEW POLICY)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1)] [N127] Recommend revisions to proposed projects as needed to reduce air quality impacts, including improvements that reduce single occupant vehicle use. [Previous Program N-45] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-35 Promote understanding of the impacts of extended Program N5.2.1 idling on air quality, for residents, auto-dependent businesses, and schools. [NEW PROGRAM] [N128] Consider adopting and enforcing penalties for Program N5.2.2 drivers that idle for longer than 3-5 minutes. [NEW PROGRAM] [N129] Policy N-5.3 Reduce emissions of particulates from automobiles, manufacturing, dry cleaning, construction activity, grading, wood burningstoves automobiles, landscape maintenance, including leaf blowers, and other sources. [(Previous Policy N-27) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1)] [N130] Cooperatively work with Santa Clara County and Program N5.3.1 the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to ensure that mining and industrial operations mitigate environmental and health impacts. [NEW PROGRAM] [N131] Monitor particulate emissions at local California Air Program N5.3.2 Resources Board monitoring stations and make the information easily available to citizens. [NEW PROGRAM] [N132] Promote understanding of the health impacts of Program N5.3.3 particulate emissions and provide information to residents and businesses about steps they can take to reduce particulate emissions, such as reducing or eliminating wood burning or using low emission alternatives to wood-burning stoves and fireplaces. Develop public information programs to educate the public on Best Management Practices in the use of wood burning appliances, including reduction of wood burning during critical periods of poor air quality. [Previous Program N-43] [N133] Explore feasible and cost-effective opportunities to Program N5.3.4 reduce concrete and asphalt use by the City, in parks and other public projects. [NEW PROGRAM] [N134] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-36 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 Prohibit new indoor wood-burning stoves or fireplaces, and rRequire wood-burning stoves or fireplace inserts to comply with EPA- approved standards. [Previous Program N-42] (Program complete) Develop public information programs to educate the public on Best Management Practices in the use of wood burning appliances, including reduction of wood burning during critical periods of poor air quality. [Previous Program N-44] (Program complete) Encourage developers of new projects in Palo Alto, including City projects, to provide improvements that reduce the necessity of driving alone. [Previous Policy N-28] Policy N-5.4 All potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants should be adequately buffered, or mechanically or otherwise mitigated to avoid odor and toxic impacts that violate relevant human health standards. [Previous Policy N-29] [N135] NOISE GOAL N-6 An environment that minimizes the adverse impacts of noise. INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR AMBIENT NOISE AND PROJECT DESIGN Policy N-6.1 Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the guidelines in Table N-XX to evaluate the compatibility of proposed land uses with existing noise environments when preparing, revising, or reviewing development proposals. Acceptable exterior, interior and ways to discern noise exposure include: Use the guidelines in the table “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment” to determine compatibility The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB. This level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, 60 Ldn is a guideline which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the constraints of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single- family housing developments, and recreational areas in multiple family housing PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-37 projects). Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60 dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close to the standard as feasible through project design. For Iinterior noise, per the requirements of The indoor noise level as required by the State of California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25), must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB in all habitable rooms of all new multiple family dwelling units. This indoor criteria shall also apply to new single family homes in Palo Alto. Policy N-6.2 Noise exposure(s) can be determined from (a) the noise contour map included in this plan, (b) more detailed noise exposure studies, or (c) on area-specific or project-specific noise measurements, as appropriate.based on the noise contour map included in this plan, or more detailed noise measurements, if appropriate [(Previous Policy N- 39)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a)] [N136] Policy N-6.3 Protect the overall community and especially sensitive noise receptors, including schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, and senior and child care facilities, and public conservation land from unacceptable noise levels from both existing and future noise sources, including construction noise.excessive noise [Previous Policy N-43] [N137] Continue to workworking to reduce noise impacts Program N6.3.1 created by events and activities taking place in adjoining communities adjoining Palo Alto. [Previous Program N-58] [N138] Evaluate the feasibility of adopting noise criteria in Program N6.3.2 the purchase of new City vehicles and equipment. [Previous Program N-59] [N139] Update the Noise Ordinance, as needed, to provide Program N6.3.3 for clear interpretation of the regulations, to review the appropriateness of existing standards, and to ensure that regulations address contemporary issues. [EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a] [NEW PROGRAM] [N140] Policy N-6.4 Minimize roadway noise through prudent street, flow, and right-of-way design. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N141] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-38 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 NEW PERMANENT NOISE SOURCES Policy N-6.5 Protect residential and residentially-zoned properties from excessive and unnecessary noise from any sources on adjacent commercial or industrial properties. [NEW POLICY] [N142] Policy N-6.6 Apply site planning and architectural design techniques that reduce overall noise pollution and reduce noise impacts on proposed and existing projects withinEvaluate the potential for noise pollution and ways to reduce noise impacts when reviewing development and activities in Palo Alto and surrounding communities. [Previous Policy N-40] [N143] Policy N-6.7 WhenWhile a proposed project is subject to CEQAin the development review process, the noise impact of the project on existing residential land uses, public open spaces, and public conservation land should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels and potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. If an area is below the applicable maximum noise guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed. A project should be considered to cause a significant degradation of the noise environment if it meets any of the following criteria: The project would cause the average 24 -hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5. 0 dB or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB; The project would cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB;The project would cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB; [Previous Policy N-41] [N144] Update noise impact review procedures to address Program N6.7.1 appropriate requirements for analysis and thresholds for impacts on residential land uses and publicly-owned conservation land. [NEW PROGRAM] [N145] Policy N-6.8 The City may require proposals measures to reduce noise impacts of new development on adjacent properties through appropriate means including, but not limited to, the following: PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-39 Orient buildings to shield noise sensitive outdoor spaces from sources of noise. Construct noise walls when other methods to reduce noise are not practical and when these walls will not shift similar noise impacts to another adjacent property.when compatible with aesthetic concerns. Screen and control noise sources such as parking lots, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment, including HVAC equipment. Increase setbacks to serve as a buffer betweenfor noise sources from and adjacent dwellings. Whenever possible, retain fences, walls or landscaping that serve as noise buffers while considering although design, safety and other impacts must be addressed. Use soundproofing materials, noise reduction construction techniques, and/or acoustically rated windows/doorsand double- glazed windows. Include auxiliary power sources at loading docks to minimize truck engine idling. Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts. [Previous Policy N-42] [N146] Policy N-6.9 Continue to require applicants for new projects or new mechanical equipment in the Multifamily, Commercial, Manufacturing, or Planned Community districts to submit an acoustical analysis demonstrating compliance with the Noise Ordinance prior to receiving a building permit. [(NEW POLICY) (Comp Plan EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a)] [N147] Policy N-6.10 Continue to regulate noise from leaf blowers and residential power equipment. [NEW POLICY] [N148] Update Evaluate changes to the Noise Ordinance to Program N6.10.1 provide for clear interpretation of the regulations, and to review the appropriateness of existing standards further reduce the impacts of noise from leaf blowers and residential power equipment. Strictly enforce the Noise Ordinance. [Previous Program N-60] [N149] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-40 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 Evaluate changes to the Noise Ordinance to reduce the impact of leaf blower noise. [Previous Program N-61] (Program Complete) CONSTRUCTION NOISE Policy N-6.11 Continue to prioritize construction noise limits around sensitive receptors, including through limiting construction hours and individual and cumulative noise from construction equipment. [(NEW POLICY)(PTC)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-8)] [N150] For larger development projects that demand Program N6.11.1 intensive construction periods and/or use equipment that could create vibration impacts, such as the Stanford University Medical Center or major grade separation projects, require formal, ongoing monitoring and reporting of noise levels throughout the entire construction process. The monitoring plan should identify hours of operation and could include information on the monitoring locations, durations and regularity, the instrumentation to be used, and appropriate noise control measures to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. [(NEW PROGRAM)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-8)] [N151] AIRPORTS AND AIRCRAFT Policy N-6.12 Ensure compliance with the airport related land use compatibility standards for community noise environments, shown in Table N-XX, by prohibiting incompatible land use development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of the Palo Alto airport. [NEW POLICY] [N152] [EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1b] Continue working to reduce noise associated with Program N6.12.1 operations of the Palo Alto Airport. Ensure compliance with the land use compatibility standards for community noise environments, shown in Table N-XX, by prohibiting incompatible land use development within the 60 dBA CNEL PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-41 noise contours of the airport. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N153] Participate in appropriate public forums to ensure Program N6.12.2 that future activities at large commercial airports in the region do not negatively affect noise levels in Palo Alto. [Previous Program N-56] [N154] RAIL Policy N-6.13 Minimize noise spillover from rail related activities into adjacent residential or noise-sensitive areas. [NEW POLICY] [N155] Encourage the Peninsula Corridors Joint Powers Program N6.13.1 Board to pursue technologies and grade separations that would reduce or eliminate the need for train horns/whistles in communities served by Caltrain rail service. [Previous Program N- 57] [N156] Evaluate changing at-grade rail crossings so that Program N6.13.2 they qualify as Quiet Zones based on Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rules and guidelines in order to mitigate the effects of train horn noise without adversely affecting safety at railroad crossings. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N157] Participate in future environmental review of the Program N6.13.3 California High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project, planned to utilize existing Caltrain track through Palo Alto, to ensure that it adheres to noise and vibration mitigation measures. [NEW PROGRAM] [N158] Policy N-6.14 Reduce impacts from noise and ground borne vibrations associated with rail operations by requiring that future habitable buildings use necessary design elements such as setbacks, landscaped berms and soundwalls to keep interior noise levels below 45 dBA Ldn and ground-borne vibration levels below 72 VdB. [NEW POLICY] [N159] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-42 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 ENERGY GOAL N-7 A clean, efficient, competitively-priced energy supply that makes use of cost-effective renewable resources. Policy N-7.1 Continue to procure carbon neutral energy for both long-term and short-term energy supplies, including renewable and hydroelectric resources, while investing in cost-effective energy efficiency and energy conservation programs. Maintain Palo Alto’s long-term supply of electricity and natural gas while addressing environmental and economic concerns. [(Previous Policy N-44)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17)] [N160] Meet customer electricity needs with least total cost Program N7.1.1 resources after careful assessment of environmental cost and benefits. [NEW PROGRAM] [N161] Policy N-7.2 Advance the development of a “smart” energy grid, a diverse energy resource portfolio, and technologically advanced public utilities as a key part of a smart and connected city. (S/CAP Strategy) [NEW POLICY] [N162] Promote the adoption of cost-effective, renewable Program N7.2.1 energy technologies from diverse renewable fuel sources by all customers. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N163] Monitor other utilities that successfully use alternative energy sources and seek funding for similar projects that would be appropriate in Palo Alto. [Previous Program N-68] Assess the feasibility of using life cycle analysis and Program N7.2.2 total cost of ownership analysis for public and private projects in order to minimize the consumption of energy, the production of greenhouse gases, and costs over the life of the project. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N164] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-43 Continually evaluate and revise forecasts for electric power demand. Pursue adequate low cost supplies to meet this demand by participating in cost-effective programs offered by Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) or other suppliers and marketers of energy. [Previous Policy N-45] [N170] Policy N-7.3 Retain the ability to purchase supplemental gas and electric power from other potential providers to remain competitive in the marketplace.Prioritize the identification and implementation of cost- effective, reliable and feasible energy efficiency and demand reduction opportunities. [Previous Policy N 46] [N165] Policy N-7.4 Optimize energyMaximize the conservation and efficiency efficient use of energy in new and existing residences, businesses, and industriesand other buildings in Palo Alto. [(Previous Policy N-47) (PTC Edits)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17)] [N166] IncorporateContinue timely incorporation of sState Program N7.4.1 and federal energy efficiency standards and policies in relevant City codes, regulations, and procedures, and higher local efficiency standards that are cost- effective. [(Previous Program N-66) (PTC Edits) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17)] [N167] Implement cost effective energy efficiency Program N7.4.2 programs for all customers, including low income customers. [NEW PROGRAM] (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17) [N168] Incorporate cost-effective energy conservation Program N7.4.3 measures into construction, maintenance, and City operation and procurement practices.[(Previous Program N-65) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-17)] [N169] Implement gas and electric rates structures that Program N7.4.4 encourage efficient use of resources energy conservation and while meeting State law requirements that rates be based on the cost of service. are in balance with other rate-making objectives, such as providing competitive rates. Set PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-44 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 rates to achieve a balance between actual service costs, market prices, and the goal of promoting conservation and efficient use. Continue to provide a baseline service rate. [Previous Program N-62] [N170] Encourage continuation of Continue to provide Program N7.4.5 public education programs addressing energy conservation and efficiency. [(Previous Program N- 64)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL- 17)] [N171] Policy N-7.5 Encourage energy efficient lighting that protects dark skies and promotes energy conservation by minimizing light and glare from development while ensuring public health and safety. [NEW POLICY] [N172] Monitor professional and medically-sound research Program N7.5.1 and studies on light-emitting diodes (LEDs). [NEW PROGRAM] [N52] [N173] Policy N-7.6 Support the maximum economic use of solar electric (photovoltaic) and solar thermal energy, both as renewable supply resources for the Electric Utility Portfolio and as alternative forms of local power generation. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N174] Explore changes to building and zoning codes to Program N7.6.1 incorporate solar energy, energy storage, and other energy efficiency measures into major development projects, including City owned projects. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N175] Promote use of the top floors of new and existing Program N7.6.2 structured automobile garages for installation of photovoltaic panels and green roofs. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N176] Promote solar energy in individual private projects. Program N7.6.3 [NEW PROGRAM] [N177] Implement energy efficiency programs.[Previous Program N-63] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-45 Policy N-7.7 Explore a variety of cost-effective ways to reduce natural gas usage in existing and new buildings in Palo Alto in order to reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions. (S/CAP Strategy NG-GAS-1) [NEW POLICY] [N178] Evaluate the potential for a cost-effective plan for Program N7.7.1 transitioning to a completely carbon-neutral natural gas supply. [(NEW PROGRAM)(PTC)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure UTIl-17)] [N179] Explore the transition of existing buildings from gas Program N7.7.2 to electric or solar water and space heating. [NEW PROGRAM] [N180] Policy N-7.8 Support opportunities to maximize energy recovery from organic materials such as food scraps, yard trimmings and residual solids from sewage treatment. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N181] Evaluate energy efficient approaches for the Program N7.8.1 treatment and reuse of organic waste that maximize resource recovery and reduce greenhouse gas generation at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant located in Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Landfill. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N182] Encourage the appropriate use of alternative energy technologies. [Previous Policy N-48] Provide information and advice on the use of alternative energy technologies, including the relative costs and benefits of different types of fuel, to all customers. [Previous Program N-67] CLIMATE CHANGE AND CLIMATE ADAPTATION GOAL N-8 Actively support regional efforts to reduce our contribution to climate change while adapting to the effects of climate change on land uses and city services. Policy N-8.1 Take action to achieve target reductions in greenhouse gas emission levels from City operations and the community activity of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. (S/CAP Strategy) [NEW POLICY] [N183] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-46 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 Participate in cooperative planning with regional Program N8.1.1 and local public agencies, including on the Sustainable Communities Strategy, on issues related to climate change, such as greenhouse gas reduction, water supply reliability, sea level rise, fire protection services, emergency medical services, and emergency response planning. [(NEW PROGRAM)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure GHG-3)] [N184] Pursue or exceed State goals of achieving zero net Program N8.1.2 carbon for residential buildings by 2020 and commercial buildings by 2030, without compromising the urban forest. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N185] Policy N-8.2 With guidance from the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) and its subsequent updates and other future planning efforts, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from City operations and from the community. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N186] Periodically update the Sustainability and Climate Program N8.2.1 Action Plan (S/CAP) consistent with the update schedule in the approved S/CAP; this update shall include an updated greenhouse gas inventory and updated short, medium, and long-term emissions reduction goals. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [N187] Policy N-8.3 Prioritize infrastructure improvements that address adaptation of critical facilities to climate change in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) five-year plan. (S/CAP Strategy) [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [N188] Protect the Municipal Services Center, Utility Program N8.3.1 Control Center, and Regional Water Quality Control Plant from the impacts of sea level rise. (S/CAP Strategy) [NEW POLICY] [N189] Policy N-8.4 Continue to work with regional partners to build resiliency policy into City planning and capital projects, especially near the San Francisco Bay shoreline, while protecting the natural environment. (S/CAP Strategy) [NEW POLICY] [N190] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 N-47 Prepare response strategies that address sea level Program N8.4.1 rise, increased flooding, landslides, soil erosion, storm events and other events related to climate change. Include strategies to respond to the impacts of sea level rise on Palo Alto’s levee system. (EIR Mitigation Measure GHG-3) [NEW PROGRAM] [N191] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT N-48 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DRAFT – FEBRUARY 28MAY 15, 2017 SAFETY SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-1 5 This preliminary draft element was prepared by City staff on the basis of input from the CAC and members of the public received from August 2016 through December 2016. The Element was reviewed by the full CAC in December, 2016 and presented as a draft to Palo Alto City Council on May 15, 2017. INTRODUCTION The Safety Element satisfies the State-mandated requirement for a Safety Element. It addresses larger safety topics that are relevant to all cities, such as community safety and emergency management, and also focuses on a series of hazards, both natural and human-caused, that are important to Palo Alto. The Element addresses the potential risks to residents of and property in Palo Alto from the threat of earthquakes and other geological hazards, floods, and fires, as well as risks associated with hazardous materials and excess solid waste. Just as vital, it establishes a plan for a robust security infrastructure. The text is organized in to three topics, each with a corresponding goal, policies, and programs: Community Safety Natural Hazards Human-Caused Threats VISION: The City of Palo Alto is committed to the day-today safety of its entire residential, business and visitor community. The City will remain aware of all potential risks, fully prepared for emergencies, and will support public awareness, preparation and response. The following policy framework reflects Palo Alto’s longstanding belief that city safety begins internally, with education, awareness and action at the neighborhood level. Such prepared communities strengthen the City’s ability to be vigilant to both natural and human-caused hazards, and ultimately to minimize the impacts of these hazards. Community safety demands balancing a complex series of factors, and Palo Alto will continually develop best practices, coordinate with other organizations, and adopt technological innovations in order to achieve this balance. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-2 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 COMMUNITY SAFETY The potential of different types of hazards in Palo Alto varies greatly. Given this unpredictability, a safe City begins with a solid network of safety-related support, procedures and preparation at the community level. The goal of these policies and programs is to broaden public education and awareness of safe behaviors, and to promote implementation of community safety measures. The policy framework also reflects Palo Alto’s belief that safety can be built into the physical, behavioral and organization fabric of the community, including individual neighborhoods, the urban center and rural areas. In addition to preparation, community safety is defined by effective emergency management practices, adoption of effective regulation and application of innovative technologies by all safety-related City departments. Map S-1 shows the locations of fire and police stations within the city. NATURAL HAZARDS As is the case in every community, residents of Palo Alto are subject to a series of largely unpredictable, but rarely occurring, natural hazards. The very factors that make the City so desirable—its Bayfront position, foothills topography with beautiful creeks, and location at the center of globally significant but geologically active Bay Area—are directly associated with some of these natural risks. The goal of the Natural Hazards policy framework is to establish general safety measures, including adoption of a certified Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and then to minimize the potential for injury, loss of life and property damage resulting from individual hazards. These hazards include seismic events, as shown in Maps S-2, S-3 and S-4; flood events, as shown in Map S-5; and sea level rise, as shown in Map S-6. In the unlikely of event of dam failure, some areas of the City may be subject to inundation; these areas are shown in Map S-7. Finally, wildfire hazards zones are shown in Map S-8. As is evident throughout the Safety Element, policies are based on the City’s belief that risk reduction is best achieved through planning, regulation, technology and education. HUMAN-CAUSED THREATS Just as Palo Alto—a world-class City in a prime location—is subject to natural hazards, the diversity of people, culture, and economic drivers that define Palo Alto comes with its own risks. Like natural hazards, these threats are complex and many result from activities that contribute positively to the Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; PlaceWorks, 2016 ! ! #*#* #* #* #* #* $+ $+^_ FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SEA L E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y PASTEU R D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos Mountain View SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 East Palo Alto Fire Administration Palo Alto Police Station Stanford Police StationFire Station 6 Fire Station 2 Fire Station 1 Fire Station 3 Fire Station 4 Fire Station 5 0 0.5 10.25 Miles ^_Future Public Safety Building #*Fire Stations $+Police Stations !Caltrain Stations Park Railroads Highways Sphere of Influence City Boundary P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 1 F I R E A N D P O L I C E S T A T I O N S #* P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N S A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S - 2 E A R T H Q U A K E S A N D F A U L T S Source: US Geological Survey, 2004; Earthquakes and Faults in the San Francisco Bay Area (1970-2003); Scientific Investigations Map 2848. PALO ALTO Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; US Geological Survey Open File Report 06-1037, 2006; PlaceWorks, 2016. ! ! # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## ## # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SAN A N T O N I O R D EL C A M I N O R E A L LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y CALI F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E RedwoodCity Atherton Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos MountainView SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 EastPalo Alto Stanford University SunnyvalePortolaValley Woodside 0 1 20.5 Miles Liquefaction Susceptibility Level Very High High Moderate Low Very Low Not Mapped Water #Critical Facilities !Caltrain Stations Park/Open Space Railroads Highways Sphere of Influence City Boundary P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 3 L I Q U E F A C T I O N R I S K Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; US Geological Survey Open File Report 06-1037, 2006; PlaceWorks, 2016. # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## ## # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SAN A N T O N I O R D EL C A M I N O R E A L LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y CALI F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E RedwoodCity Atherton Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos MountainView SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 EastPalo Alto Stanford University SunnyvalePortolaValley Woodside 0 1 20.5 Miles Expansive Soil High potential for earthquake-induced landslides High potential for liquefaction High potential for surface rupture along fault #Critical Facilities !Caltrain Stations Sphere of Influence City Boundary Railroads Highways Park/Open Space P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 4 G E O T E C H N I C A L H A Z A R D S traces and potential for eqrthquake-induced landsllides where sloped Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; FEMA, 2015; PlaceWorks, 2016 # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAN D H I L L R D AL M A S T SEA L E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y PASTEU R DR CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos Mountain View SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 East Palo Alto Fire Station 1 0 0.5 10.25 Miles #Critical Facilities Railroads Highways Sphere of Influence City Boundary Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zones A: subject to 100-year flood; no base flood depth determined AE: subject to 100-year flood; base flood depth has been determined AH: subject to shallow flooding; base flood depth has been determined AO: subject to sheet flow, ponding, or shallow flooding; base flood depth has been determined P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 5 1 0 0 - Y E A R F L O O D Z O N E S ( S P E C I A L F L O O D H A Z A R D A R E A S ) No te: The Federal Emerg ency Manag ement Ag ency (FEMA) administers the Natio nal Flo o d Insu rance Pro g ram (NFIP) to make flo o d insu rance available to residents and bu sinesses. FEMA’s Flo o d Insu rance Rate Map (FIRM) identifies tho se p ro p erties that are within the Sp ecial Flo o d Hazard Area (SFHA). Pro p erties in the SFHA are p ro jected to be su bject to flo o ding in the event o f the 1% (100-year) flo o d event and are su bject to the City’s Flo o d Hazard Reg u latio ns (Palo Alto Mu nicip al Co de Chap ter 16.52). SFHAs in Palo Alto are categ o rized into fo u r Zo nes. Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Service Center, 2012; PlaceWorks, 2016. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SEAL E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y PASTEU R D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LI N C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Los Altos MountainView SAN FRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 EastPalo Alto 0 0.5 10.25 Miles #Critical Facilities Railroads Highways Sphere of Influence City Boundary Area vulnerable to an approximate 24-inch sea level rise Area vulnerable to an approximate 55-inch sea level rise P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 6 S E A L E V E L R I S E Note: Data on sea level rise is evolving. The October 2011 Bay Plan amendments revised the 2100 sea level rise projection from 55 inches to up to 69 inches. However, BCDC uses the 55-inch scenario in the Bay Plan when assessing long- term impacts. Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; State of California Emergency Management Agency, 2007; PlaceWorks, 2016 FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SEA L E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y PASTEU R D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos Mountain View SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 East Palo Alto Fire Station 1 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Felt Lake Lagunita Reservoir Searsville Reservoir Railroads Sphere of Influence City Boundary P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 7 D A M I N U N D A T I O N Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; CAL FIRE, 2007, 2008; PlaceWorks 2016 # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## ## # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SAN A N T O N I O R D EL C A M I N O R E A L LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y CALI F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E East Palo Alto Menlo Park Menlo Park Menlo Park Menlo Park Atherton Stanford University Mountain View §¨¦280 |ÿ82 Los Altos Los Altos Hills Sunnyvale £¤101 Portola Valley 0 1 20.5 Miles #Critical Facilities Highways Railroads Sphere of Influence City Boundary Local Responsibility Area (Palo Alto) Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone State Responsibility Areas Moderate High Very High P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 8 W I L D F I R E H A Z A R D Z O N E S !( kj #* kj kj kj #* #* kj kj #* !(kj kj !(kj #* !( kj kj !( !(!( !( #*!(kj #* #* !(kj !( !( !( !( !( kj kj !(#* !( #* kj !(kj #* #* kj !( !( !(!( !( #* kj!( !( #*!( #* kj!(kj!( #*kj #*!( kj (! !( !( !( (! !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( (! !( !( !( !( !( !( !( (! !( !( (! !(!( !( !( !( !( (! !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( (! (!!( (! !( (! !( (! !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( (! (! !( !( !(!( !(!( !( (! !( !(!( !( (!!( !( (! !( (! (!!( !( !( !(!( (! !( !( !( !( !((! (! (! !( (!(! (! !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( (! (! !( (! !( (! !( (! (! (!(! (! (! !( (! !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( (! !(!(!(!(!(!(!( (! !( (! (! !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !((! !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( (! !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( (! !( !( !( !( !( !( (! !( !(!( !( !( !( !( (! (!!( !( !( !( !( !( (! !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( (! !( !( !( !( FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SEAL E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y PASTEU R D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y East Palo Alto Menlo Park Stanford University Mountain View Los Altos Los Altos Hills Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; Department of Toxic Substance Control, 2014; US EPA, 2014; PlaceWorks 2016 0 0.5 10.25 Miles SWQCB Geotracker Sites !(Permitted Underground Storage Tank Sites !(Ongoing Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites !(Closed Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites (!Ongoing Cleanup Program Sites (!Closed Cleanup Program Sites DTSC Cleanup Program Sites !(Cleanup Sites #*Tiered Permit Sites kj Hazardous Waste Facilities Hazardous Waste Generators Small Quantity Generators Large Quantity Generators Railroads Sphere of Influence City Limit P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 9 H A Z A R D O U S M A T E R I A L S S I T E S PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-12 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 City. These include world class research, technological innovation and public transit. The following policy framework strives to provide an environment free of the damaging effects of toxic and hazardous materials, locations of which have been identified and are shown on Map S-9. It strives for 95% landfill diversion and future zero solid waste production, and commits to a state-of-the-art cybersecurity infrastructure that is based on a comprehensive review of existing gaps and redundancies. GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS COMMUNITY SAFETY GOAL S‐1 A safe community that is aware of risks and prepared for emergencies. PUBLIC AWARENESS Policy S-1.1 Facilitate ongoing public education and awareness to prevent loss of life and property from impacts of natural and human-made disasters and to facilitate recovery when disasters occur. [NEW POLICY] [S1] Program S1.1.1 Expand public education programs that help and encourage each household in the City to be prepared to be self-sufficient, with enough stored water and food to support the entire household, forat least one week after a major earthquake, flood, terrorism event, pandemic or other major disaster. Also encourage businesses and other organizations to prepare for self- sufficiency.[Previous Program N-82] [S2] Program S1.1.2 Continue to implement and fund the Emergency Services Volunteer program. [NEW PROGRAM] [S3] Program S1.1.3 Conduct emergency hazard drills with key stakeholder organizations across the community to improve preparedness for known threats and hazards. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S4] Program S1.1.4 Support an annual community public safety fair to educate and engage the public on preparedness PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-13 and offer the opportunity to buy emergency disaster supplies for home and vehicle. [NEW PROGRAM] [S5] Program S1.1.5 Encourage local businesses to have disaster preparedness, communication, mitigation and recovery plans in place. [NEW PROGRAM] [S6] COMMUNITY SAFETY Policy S-1.2 Support the Palo Alto Police Department and Office of Emergency Services efforts in public safety education and community outreach. Use education and crime prevention as integral parts of the practice of law enforcement. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S7] Program S1.2.1 Develop accessible, attractive marketing materials to promote involvement in community crime safety programs. [NEW PROGRAM] [S8] Policy S-1.3 Deter criminal behavior in Palo Alto through a multidisciplinary approach that includes a safe built environment, effective social services, functional administrative processes and Police Department review of site plans for major development proposals. [NEW POLICY] [S9] Program S1.3.1 Explore the use of urban design principles to increase safety and prevent crime in Palo Alto. [NEW PROGRAM] [S10] Program S1.3.2 Support programs such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Good Neighbor Next Door, which incentivizes home purchase for first responders with discounts. [NEW PROGRAM] [S11] Policy S-1.4 Support the use of digital data, analytics and metrics that are available to local police departments and first responders. [NEW PROGRAM] [S12] Program S1.4.1 Make data available to maintain an accurate, up to date, and complete real-time local crime mapping PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-14 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 function to promote neighborhood safety. [NEW PROGRAM] [S13] Policy S-1.5 Encourage the development of community-based law enforcement and community safety strategies, including partnerships with school districts, private schools, businesses, transit agencies, nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations, and community groups such as Emergency Services Volunteers. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S14] Program S1.5.1 Promote neighborhood security by providing crime prevention information and training to residents, and continuing to fund resident involvement in neighborhood safety programs such as “Know Your Neighbor” grants and Block Preparedness Coordinators. [NEW PROGRAM] [S15] Program S1.5.2 Collaborate with the Palo Alto Unified School District, other school districts in the City, private schools, businesses, non-profits, and local faith- based organizations to provide community safety education. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S16] Program S1.5.3 Encourage the Palo Alto Unified School District to develop secure school facilities and collaborate with public safety departments on disaster preparedness activities; emergency disaster planning, exercises and drills; and disaster recovery. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S17] Program S1.5.4 Continue to support and encourage participation in Police Department programs to introduce youth to the importance and benefits of local law enforcement. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S18] Policy S-1.6 Work with the Police Department to develop effective, transparent law enforcement strategies that protect the privacy and civil liberties of the public and results in a safe community for all people. [NEW POLICY] [S19] Program S1.6.1 Enhance public safety department training for evolving challenges, such as small- to large-scale human threats, interacting with individuals with PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-15 mental illness, and non-lethal alternatives. [NEW PROGRAM] [S20] Program S1.6.2 Support the Palo Alto Police Department in implementing and maintaining approved technologies for data gathering, surveillance, and recording interactions with the public. Incorporate best practices in use policies with special consideration in ensuring the programs protect the public’s privacy rights and civil liberties, in accordance with current legislation. Ensure transparency by communicating new equipment implementation, usage, privacy considerations, and retention of data. [NEW PROGRAM] [S21] Program S1.6.3 Communicate transparently with the community regarding adoption of new Palo Alto Police Department equipment and/or tactics while balancing the need for operational security. [NEW PROGRAM] [S22] Policy S-1.7 Regularly review the adequacy of law enforcement services and emergency services in the City. Plan and develop law enforcement infrastructure and technology according to overall need and City growth. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S23] Program S1.7.1 Regularly monitor and review the level of public safety staffing and satellite public safety station locations required for efficient local service delivery. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S24] Program S1.7.2 Design the new Public Safety building to meet the needs of the public safety departments and be resilient against known threats and hazards. This includes remaining fully operational after a catastrophic (7.9 magnitude) earthquake, other natural disasters, moderate terrorist attack or crisis. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S25] Program S1.7.3 Provide community notifications in the event of emergency using the best available methods and explore new technologies for emergency public PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-16 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 information and warnings. [PTC] [Previous Program G-10] [S26] Policy S-1.8 Monitor federal and State terrorism response planning to ensure that Palo Alto coordinates with relevant agencies and is well-prepared in the event of a terrorist act. [NEW POLICY] [S27] Program S1.8.1 Update Palo Alto’s 2001 Terrorism Response Plan. [NEW PROGRAM] [S28] Policy S-1.9 Design Palo Alto’s infrastructure system to protect the life and safety of residents, ensure resiliency in the face of disaster, and minimize economic loss. [NEW POLICY] [S29] EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Policy S-1.10 Follow the guidelines in the Emergency Operations Plan and continue towards implementing the four phases of Emergency Management: mitigation/prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S30] Program S1.10.1 Regularly update and make publicly available the City of Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S31] ] Program S1.10.2 Participate in local and regional planning efforts to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies. [Previous Program N-81] [S32] Program S1.10.3 Implement the mitigation strategies and guidelines provided by the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, including evolving hazards resulting from climate change. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S33] Policy S-1.11 Ensure continuity of critical City operations, including utilities, public safety, information technology, and others, after natural, technological, or human caused disasters. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S34] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-17 Policy S-1.12 Work with other government agencies, neighboring cities, local institutions, non-profit organizations, and private corporations with established emergency response functions to enhance the City’s overall emergency response capabilities. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S35] Program S1.12.1 Encourage multiagency coordination in case of incidents that cross disciplinary or jurisdictional boundaries or coordination that involves complex incident management scenarios. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S36] Program S1.12.2 Explore the establishment of mutually-beneficial cooperative agreements between Palo Alto’s public safety departments and those of neighboring cities. [NEW PROGRAM] [S37] POWER Policy S-1.13 Support the development of an independent, redundant power grid with local generation in Palo Alto, in order to ensure energy resiliency in the event of natural disasters or other threats. [NEW POLICY] [S38] Program S1.13.1 Identify solutions to add an additional power line to Palo Alto to ensure redundancy. [NEW PROGRAM] [S39] Program S1.13.2 Explore incentives to adopt emerging, residential off-grid capabilities and technologies, including back-up power sources vital in the event of natural disasters or other threats. [NEW PROGRAM] [S40] Program S1.13.3 Continue citywide efforts to underground utility wires to limit injury, loss of life, and damage to property in the event of human-made or natural disasters. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S41] Program S1.13.4 Enhance the safety of City-owned natural gas pipeline operations. Work with customers, public safety officials, and industry leaders to ensure the safe delivery of natural gas throughout the service area. Provide safety information to all residents on PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-18 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 City-owned natural gas distribution pipelines. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S42] Program S1.13.5 Provide off-grid and/or backup power sources for critical City facilities to ensure uninterrupted power during emergencies and disasters. [NEW PROGRAM] [S43] NATURAL HAZARDS GOAL S‐2 Protection of life, ecosystems and property from natural hazards and disasters, including earthquake, landslide, flooding, and fire. GENERAL SAFETY MEASURES Policy S-2.1 Incorporate the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (LHMAP), as periodically adopted by the City Council and certified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, into the Safety Element. The LHMAP describes the type, location, and extent of natural hazards that can affect the City; describes the City’s vulnerability to these hazards; and includes a mitigation strategy for reducing the potential losses. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the Safety Element, the provisions of the LHMAP shall control. [NEW POLICY] [S44] Policy S-2.2 Focus efforts to reduce exposure to natural hazards in areas of the City identified as vulnerable to the greatest risks, as shown on the maps in this Element. [Previous Policy N-49] [S45] Policy S-2.3 Implement public safety improvements, such as access roads and other infrastructure, in a manner that is sensitive to the environment. [Previous Policy N-50] [S46] EARTHQUAKES AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Policy S-2.4 Expand citizen awareness of seismic and geologic hazards through public education and preparedness. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S47] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-19 Policy S-2.5 Minimize exposure of people and structures to geologic hazards, including slope stability, subsidence, and expansive soils, and to seismic hazards including groundshaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides. [Previous Policy N-51] [S48] Program S2.5.1 Periodically review and update the City’s Seismic Hazard Ordinance. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S49] Program S2.5.2 Continue to provide incentives for seismic retrofits of structures throughout the city, particularly those building types that would affect the most people in the event of an earthquake. [Previous Program N-70] [S50] Policy S-2.6 Promote seismic rehabilitation and renovation of existing buildings, particularly those whose loss would have the greatest community impacts, using incentives as a way to ensure safe and structurally sound buildings. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S51] Program S2.6.1 Encourage efforts by individual neighborhood or block-level groups to pool resources for seismic retrofits. [NEW PROGRAM] [S52] Program S2.6.2 Continue to use a TDR Ordinance for seismic retrofits to allow the transfer of development rights from eligible structures in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone to receiver sites in the CD zone. Revise the TDR Ordinance so that transferred development rights may be used only for residential development on the receiver sites. [(NEW PROGRAM) (Moved from Land Use Element May 1 Draft)] [S53] Program S2.6.3 Study the possibility of revising the transfer of development rights program to encourage seismic retrofits to include sunset dates by which transfer obligations must be fulfilled. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S54] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-20 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Program S2.6.4 Explore the use of Community Development Block Grants, Palo Alto Housing Funds and other sources of funding to support owners of lower income and senior housing to retrofit seismically-unsafe construction. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S55] Policy S-2.7 Encourage property owners, business owners and the Palo Alto Unified School District to evaluate their vulnerability to earthquake hazards and take appropriate action to minimize their risk. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S56] Program S2.7.1 As part of the construction permitting process for proposed new and redeveloped buildings in areas of identified hazard shown on Map S-2, structures that would affect the most people in a seismic event require submittal to the City of a geotech- nical/seismic report that identifies specific risks and appropriate mitigation measures. [Previous Program N-73] [S57] Program S2.7.2 Review and update, as appropriate, City code requirements for excavation, grading, filling and construction to ensure that they conform to currently accepted and adopted State standards. [Previous Program N-74] [S58] Program S2.7.3 Utilize the results of Palo Alto’s Seismic Hazards Identification Program and inventory of potentially seismically vulnerable building types to establish priorities and consider incentives to encourage structural retrofits. [NEW PROGRAM] [S59] FLOOD HAZARD AND MITIGATION Policy S-2.8 Minimize exposure to flood hazards by protecting existing development from flood events and adequately reviewing proposed development in flood prone areas. [Previous Policy N-52] [S60] Program S2.8.1 Implement flood mitigation requirements of FEMA in Special Flood Hazard Areas as illustrated on the PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-21 Flood Insurance Rate Maps. [Previous Program N-76] [S61] Program S2.8.2 Continue participating in FEMA’s Community Rating System to reduce flood insurance for local residents and businesses and strive to improve Palo Alto’s rating in order to lower the cost of flood insurance. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S62] Program S2.8.3 Partner with appropriate agencies to expand flood zones as appropriate due to sea level rise, changes in creek channels, street flooding or storm drain overload due to increased likelihood of extreme storm events caused by climate change. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S63] Program S2.8.4 Collaborate with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and the Santa Clara Valley Water District on environmentally-sensitive efforts to stabilize, restore, maintain and provide one percent (100-year) flood protection adjacent to San Francisquito Creek. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S64] Program S2.8.5 Work with East Palo Alto, Santa Clara Valley Water District and San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority on efforts to increase the flows within the San Francisquito Creek possible solutions include replacing the City-owned Newell Road Bridge and District-owned Pope Chaucer Street Bridge. [NEW PROGRAM] [S65] Policy S-2.9 Prohibit new habitable basements in the development of single- family residential properties within 100-year flood zones of the FEMA- designated Special Flood Hazard Area. [NEW POLICY] [S66] Program S2.9.1 Keep basement restrictions up to date with changing flood hazard zones. [NEW PROGRAM] [S67] Policy S-2.10 Monitor and respond to the risk of flooding caused by climate change- related changes to precipitation patterns, groundwater levels, sea level rise, tides, and storm surges. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S68] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-22 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Program S2.10.1 Review development standards applicable in areas susceptible to flooding from sea level rise, including east of Highway 101, West Bayshore and East Meadow Circle, and the area east of San Antonio Road and north of East Charleston, and implement shoreline development regulations to ensure that new development is protected from potential impacts of flooding resulting from sea level rise and significant storm events. Regulations should be consistent with the Baylands Master Plan, as amended, and may include new shoreline setback requirements, limits on lot line adjustments to avoid the creation of vulnerable shoreline lots, and/or triggers for relocation or removal of existing structures based on changing site conditions and other factors. [NEW PROGRAM] (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure GHG-3) (Moved from Land Use Element May 1 Draft Program [L6]) [S69] Program S2.10.2 Study appropriate restrictions on underground construction in areas outside of flood zones, as shown on Map S-5, to accommodate expected higher groundwater levels due to sea level rise and minimize consequent flooding of underground construction. [NEW PROGRAM] [S68] Policy S-2.11 Support regional efforts to improve bay levees. [NEW POLICY] [S70] Program S2.11.1 Work cooperatively with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to provide flood protection from high tide events on San Francisco Bay, taking into account the impacts of future sea level rise, to provide one percent (100-year) flood protection from tidal flooding, while being sensitive to preserving and protecting the natural environment. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S71] Program S2.11.2 Work with regional, State, and federal agencies to develop additional adaptive strategies to address flood hazards to existing or new development and PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-23 infrastructure, including environmentally sensitive levees. [NEW PROGRAM] [S72] FIRE PROTECTION AND AWARENESS Policy S-2.12 Minimize exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards through rapid emergency response, proactive code enforcement, public education programs, use of modern fire prevention measures, and adequate emergency management preparation. [Previous Policy N-53] [S73] Program S2.12.1 Regularly review and update the Fire Department’s operations, training facilities, and programs to ensure consistency with current standards and Best Management Practices. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S74] Program S2.12.2 Explore technological tools, such as cameras or remote sensors, to identify smoke or fires and initiate response as quickly as possible. [NEW PROGRAM] [S75] Policy S-2.13 Require that the planning and design of development in areas exposed to wildland fire hazards minimize the risks of wildfire and include adequate provisions for vegetation management, emergency access, and firefighting. [NEW POLICY required by SB 1241] [S76] Program S2.13.1 Regularly review and fund updates to the Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan to ensure consistency with current standards and Best Management Practices. [Previous Program N-77] [S77] Program S2.13.2 Implement the Foothills Fire Management Plan to balance conservation of natural resources with reduction of fire hazards especially in open space areas. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S78] Program S2.13.3 Minimize fire hazards by maintaining low density zoning in wildland fire hazard areas. [Previous Program N-79] [S79] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-24 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Program S2.13.4 Work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and agencies to reduce wildfire hazards in and around Palo Alto, with an emphasis on effective vegetation management and mutual aid agreements. [NEW PROGRAM] [S80] Program S2.13.5 Consider implementation of CAL FIRE recommended programs in educating and involving the local community to diminish potential loss caused by wildfire and identify prevention measures to reduce those risks. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S81] Policy S-2.14 Provide emergency fire and medical services consistent with the response time standards set forth in the Fire Department’s annual budget. [Previous Policy N-54] [S82] Program S2.14.1 Evaluate measures for optimal service delivery to improve efficiency; develop automatic or mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions, including Stanford, to improve efficiencies. [Previous Program N-80] [S83] Program S2.14.2 Upgrade fire stations so that all remain fully functional following earthquakes. [NEW PROGRAM] [S84] Program S2.14.3 Review existing costs and contracts to develop a plan for the long term funding of the fire department and appropriate staffing levels at all stations. [NEW PROGRAM] [S85] Policy S-2.15 Expand Palo Alto Fire Department’s efforts in public education and community outreach to prevent injury, loss of life, and damage to property from accidental fires. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S86] Program S2.15.1 Provide public education on fire safety, including wildland and structural fire prevention, evacuation routes and guidelines for clearance of landscaping and other hazards around structures. [Previous Program N-78] [S87] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-25 Policy S-2.16 Monitor and respond to the risk of wild land fire hazards caused by climate change. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S88] HUMAN-CAUSED THREATS GOAL S‐3 An environment free of the damaging effects of human- caused threats and hazardous materials. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Policy S-3.1 Minimize the use of toxic and hazardous materials in Palo Alto. Promote the use of alternative materials and practices that are environmentally benign. [Previous Policy N-30] [S89] Program S3.1.1 Continue City permitting procedures for commercial and industrial storage, use, and handling of hazardous materials and regulate the commercial use of hazardous materials that may present a risk of off-site health or safety effects. [Previous Program N-47] [S90] Program S3.1.2 Minimize the risks of biohazards in Palo Alto, including Level 4 biohazards, by continuing to review and update, as necessary, local regulations regarding use, handling and disposal. [NEW PROGRAM] [S91] Program S3.1.3 Strengthen development review requirements and construction standards for projects on sites with groundwater contamination. [NEW PROGRAM] [S92] Program S3.1.4 Establish protocols to monitor the movement of hazardous materials on Palo Alto roadways and rail lines and respond effectively to spills via established truck and construction routes. [NEW PROGRAM] [S93] Program S3.1.5 Work with non-profit organizations to provide information to the public regarding pesticides, insecticidesand other commonly used hazardous materials, environmentallypreferable alternatives, PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-26 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 and safe recycling and disposal practices to all user groups. [Previous Program N-46] [S94] Program S3.1.6 Continue providing regular household hazardous waste collection events at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant and strive to make these programs more convenient and accessible to residents. [Previous Program N-48] [S95] Program S3.1.7 Continue to allow small quantity generators to dispose of hazardous waste at cost. [Previous Program N-50] [S96] Program S3.1.8 Continue to educate residents on the proper disposal of pharmaceutical and household hazardous waste. Encourage proper disposal of medications through pharmacies or drug take-back programs rather than flushing. [NEW PROGRAM] [S97] Policy S-3.2 Continue working with appropriate agencies to clean up hazardous waste sites and contaminated groundwater. [Previous Policy N-31] [S98] Policy S-3.3 Support public health by requiring as part of development review, property owners and private entities to disclose the presence of contaminated soil or groundwater, identify potential health impacts, and remediate contamination. [NEW POLICY] [S99] Policy S-3.4 Support public agency policies, regulations, legislation, and programs that implement Santa Clara County’s Hazardous Materials Management Program. [Previous Policy N-32] [S100] Policy S-3.5 Protect City authority for the approval or denial of proposed commercial hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities in the City. Continue to support the concept of “fair share” agreements between counties in the siting of such facilities. [Previous Policy N-33] [S101] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-27 Policy S-3.6 Work with the appropriate agencies, including Caltrain, to decrease the risks associated with rail infrastructure in Palo Alto, including the movement of hazardous materials through the City and the dangers of passenger trains in a fully-developed, populated environment. [NEW POLICY] [S102] Program S3.6.1 Work with the freight industry to monitor the contents of freight trains intersecting Palo Alto for potentially hazardous materials, and to establish accountability for accidents and spills. [NEW PROGRAM] [S103] Program S3.6.2 Work with Caltrain and the Palo Alto Unified School District, to educate students and the public on the dangers of rail trespass and the benefits of suicide support services available in Palo Alto. [NEW PROGRAM] [S104] Policy S-3.7 Monitor professional and medically-sound research and studies on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and share information with the Palo Alto community. [NEW POLICY] [S105] SOLID WASTE Policy S-3.8 Strive for 95 percent landfill diversion by 2030, and ultimately zero waste, by enhancing policies and programs for waste reduction, recycling, composting and reuse. [Previous Policy N-34] [S106] Program S3.8.1 Encourage residential and commercial food waste reduction through incentives, educational outreach and programs. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S107] Program S3.8.2 To the extent allowed by law, use refuse rate structures that incentivize waste reduction. [Previous Program N-51] [S108] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-28 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Program S3.8.3 Continue to work with CalRecycle and the Department of Toxic Substances Control to develop and promote long-term solid waste management, such as environmentally responsible recycling programs, composting of food waste and other organics and, City-wide electronics and digital hardware recycling efforts,. [Previous Program N-54] [S109] Policy S-3.9 Reduce solid waste generation through increased salvage and reuse of building materials, including architecturally and historically significant materials. [Previous Policy N-35] [S110] Program S3.9.1 Periodically review and update the adopted Construction and Debris program. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S111] Program S3.9.2 Educate Palo Alto residents and developers about available incentives to use environmentally friendly deconstruction activities to minimize our GHG emissions, and to save natural resources, as well as space in our landfills. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S112] . Policy S-3.10 Continue to implement the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policy and programs to reduce waste, toxic product use, resource consumption and to maximize energy efficiency. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S113] Program S3.10.1 Support efforts to enforce extended producer responsibility for solid waste to reduce waste produced from manufacturing, shipping, packaging and the entire life-cycle of the product. [NEW PROGRAM] [S114] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 S-29 Policy S-3.11 Encourage the use of reusable, returnable, recyclable, and repairable goods, and discourage the use of single use plastic water bottles and extended polystyrene (Styrofoam), through enforcement of the City’s 2016 Plastic Foam Ordinance expansion and continued incentives, education, and responsible City purchasing policies. [Previous Policy N-36] [S115] CYBERSECURITY Policy S-3.12 Secure that the City of Palo Alto’s computer and digital infrastructure such that public data, records and utilities are protected from unauthorized external access and internal system failures. [NEW POLICY] [S116] Program S3.12.1 Complete an assessment of the City’s digital infrastructure to locate vulnerabilities and gaps in system redundancies and develop recommendations for improved cybersecurity. [NEW PROGRAM] [S117] Program S3.12.2 Establish criteria for the installation of high security telecommunications technology in new local government projects. [NEW PROGRAM] [S118] Program S3.12.3 Establish a wi-fi network that will be available to public safety responders and Emergency Service Volunteers in the event of power interruption during an emergency or disaster. [NEW PROGRAM] [S119] Program S3.12.4 Develop an Infrastructure Master Plan that projects the future needs of streets, underground utilities, and all City assets and plans for the incorporation of new technology that improves efficiency and effectiveness. [(NEW PROGRAM) (PTC Program L2.9.1) (Moved from May 1 CC draft LUE. Figure out how to integrate.)] [L185] SAFETY SAFETY DRAFT –DECEMBER 13, 2016 MAY 15, 2017 S-1 5 This preliminary draft element was prepared by City staff on the basis of input from the CAC and members of the public received from August 2016 through December 2016. The Element was reviewed by the full CAC in December, 2016 and presented as a draft to Palo Alto City Council on May 15, 2017. INTRODUCTION The Safety Element satisfies the State-mandated requirement for a Safety Element. It addresses larger safety topics that are relevant to all cities, such as community safety and emergency management, and also focuses on a series of hazards, both natural and human-caused, that are important to Palo Alto. The Element addresses the potential risks to residents of and property in Palo Alto from the threat of earthquakes and other geological hazards, floods, and fires, as well as risks associated with hazardous materials and excess solid waste. Just as vital, it establishes a plan for a robust security infrastructure. The text is organized in to three topics, each with a corresponding goal, policies, and programs: Community Safety Natural Hazards Human-Caused Threats VISION: The City of Palo Alto is committed to the day-today safety of its entire residential, business and visitor community. The City will remain aware of all potential risks, fully prepared for emergencies, and will support public awareness, preparation and response. The following policy framework reflects Palo Alto’s longstanding belief that city safety begins internally, with education, awareness and action at the neighborhood level. Such prepared communities strengthen the City’s ability to be vigilant to both natural and human-caused hazards, and ultimately to minimize the impacts of these hazards. Community safety demands balancing a complex series of factors, and Palo Alto will continually develop best practices, coordinate with other organizations, and adopt technological innovations in order to achieve this balance. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-2 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 COMMUNITY SAFETY The potential of different types of hazards in Palo Alto varies greatly. Given this unpredictability, a safe City begins with a solid network of safety-related support, procedures and preparation at the community level. The goal of these policies and programs is to broaden public education and awareness of safe behaviors, and to promote implementation of community safety measures. The policy framework also reflects Palo Alto’s belief that safety can be built into the physical, behavioral and organization fabric of the community, including individual neighborhoods, the urban center and rural areas. In addition to preparation, community safety is defined by effective emergency management practices, adoption of effective regulation and application of innovative technologies by all safety-related City departments. Map S-1 shows the locations of fire and police stations within the city. NATURAL HAZARDS As is the case in every community, residents of Palo Alto are subject to a series of largely unpredictable, but rarely occurring, natural hazards. The very factors that make the City so desirable—its Bayfront position, foothills topography with beautiful creeks, and location at the center of globally significant but geologically active Bay Area—are directly associated with some of these natural risks. The goal of the Natural Hazards policy framework is to establish general safety measures, including adoption of a certified Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and then to minimize the potential for injury, loss of life and property damage resulting from individual hazards. These hazards include seismic events, as shown in Maps S-2, S-3 and S-4; flood events, as shown in Map S-5; and sea level rise, as shown in Map S-6. In the unlikely of event of dam failure, some areas of the City may be subject to inundation; these areas are shown in Map S-7. Finally, wildfire hazards zones are shown in Map S-8. As is evident throughout the Safety Element, policies are based on the City’s belief that risk reduction is best achieved through planning, regulation, technology and education. HUMAN-CAUSED THREATS Just as Palo Alto—a world-class City in a prime location—is subject to natural hazards, the diversity of people, culture, and economic drivers that define Palo Alto comes with its own risks. Like natural hazards, these threats are complex and many result from activities that contribute positively to the Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; PlaceWorks, 2016 ! ! #*#* #* #* #* #* $+ $+^_ FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SEA L E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y PASTEU R D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos Mountain View SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 East Palo Alto Fire Administration Palo Alto Police Station Stanford Police StationFire Station 6 Fire Station 2 Fire Station 1 Fire Station 3 Fire Station 4 Fire Station 5 0 0.5 10.25 Miles ^_Future Public Safety Building #*Fire Stations $+Police Stations !Caltrain Stations Park Railroads Highways Sphere of Influence City Boundary P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 1 F I R E A N D P O L I C E S T A T I O N S #* P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N S A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S - 2 E A R T H Q U A K E S A N D F A U L T S Source: US Geological Survey, 2004; Earthquakes and Faults in the San Francisco Bay Area (1970-2003); Scientific Investigations Map 2848. PALO ALTO Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; US Geological Survey Open File Report 06-1037, 2006; PlaceWorks, 2016. ! ! # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## ## # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SAN A N T O N I O R D EL C A M I N O R E A L LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y CALI F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E RedwoodCity Atherton Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos MountainView SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 EastPalo Alto Stanford University SunnyvalePortolaValley Woodside 0 1 20.5 Miles Liquefaction Susceptibility Level Very High High Moderate Low Very Low Not Mapped Water #Critical Facilities !Caltrain Stations Park/Open Space Railroads Highways Sphere of Influence City Boundary P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 3 L I Q U E F A C T I O N R I S K Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; US Geological Survey Open File Report 06-1037, 2006; PlaceWorks, 2016. # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## ## # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SAN A N T O N I O R D EL C A M I N O R E A L LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y CALI F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E RedwoodCity Atherton Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos MountainView SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 EastPalo Alto Stanford University SunnyvalePortolaValley Woodside 0 1 20.5 Miles Expansive Soil High potential for earthquake-induced landslides High potential for liquefaction High potential for surface rupture along fault #Critical Facilities !Caltrain Stations Sphere of Influence City Boundary Railroads Highways Park/Open Space P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 4 G E O T E C H N I C A L H A Z A R D S traces and potential for eqrthquake-induced landsllides where sloped Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; FEMA, 2015; PlaceWorks, 2016 # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAN D H I L L R D AL M A S T SEA L E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y PASTEU R DR CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos Mountain View SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 East Palo Alto Fire Station 1 0 0.5 10.25 Miles #Critical Facilities Railroads Highways Sphere of Influence City Boundary Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zones A: subject to 100-year flood; no base flood depth determined AE: subject to 100-year flood; base flood depth has been determined AH: subject to shallow flooding; base flood depth has been determined AO: subject to sheet flow, ponding, or shallow flooding; base flood depth has been determined P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 5 1 0 0 - Y E A R F L O O D Z O N E S ( S P E C I A L F L O O D H A Z A R D A R E A S ) No te: The Federal Emerg ency Manag ement Ag ency (FEMA) administers the Natio nal Flo o d Insu rance Pro g ram (NFIP) to make flo o d insu rance available to residents and bu sinesses. FEMA’s Flo o d Insu rance Rate Map (FIRM) identifies tho se p ro p erties that are within the Sp ecial Flo o d Hazard Area (SFHA). Pro p erties in the SFHA are p ro jected to be su bject to flo o ding in the event o f the 1% (100-year) flo o d event and are su bject to the City’s Flo o d Hazard Reg u latio ns (Palo Alto Mu nicip al Co de Chap ter 16.52). SFHAs in Palo Alto are categ o rized into fo u r Zo nes. Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Service Center, 2012; PlaceWorks, 2016. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SEAL E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y PASTEU R D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LI N C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Los Altos MountainView SAN FRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 EastPalo Alto 0 0.5 10.25 Miles #Critical Facilities Railroads Highways Sphere of Influence City Boundary Area vulnerable to an approximate 24-inch sea level rise Area vulnerable to an approximate 55-inch sea level rise P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 6 S E A L E V E L R I S E Note: Data on sea level rise is evolving. The October 2011 Bay Plan amendments revised the 2100 sea level rise projection from 55 inches to up to 69 inches. However, BCDC uses the 55-inch scenario in the Bay Plan when assessing long- term impacts. Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; State of California Emergency Management Agency, 2007; PlaceWorks, 2016 FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SEA L E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCAD E R O W A Y PASTEU R D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Los Altos Hills Los Altos Mountain View SANFRANCISCOBAY |ÿ82 %&'(280 £¤101 East Palo Alto Fire Station 1 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Felt Lake Lagunita Reservoir Searsville Reservoir Railroads Sphere of Influence City Boundary P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 7 D A M I N U N D A T I O N Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; CAL FIRE, 2007, 2008; PlaceWorks 2016 # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## ## # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # FOOT H I L L E X P Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SAN A N T O N I O R D EL C A M I N O R E A L LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y CALI F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E East Palo Alto Menlo Park Menlo Park Menlo Park Menlo Park Atherton Stanford University Mountain View §¨¦280 |ÿ82 Los Altos Los Altos Hills Sunnyvale £¤101 Portola Valley 0 1 20.5 Miles #Critical Facilities Highways Railroads Sphere of Influence City Boundary Local Responsibility Area (Palo Alto) Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone State Responsibility Areas Moderate High Very High P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 8 W I L D F I R E H A Z A R D Z O N E S !( kj #* kj kj kj #* #* kj kj #* !(kj kj !(kj #* !( kj kj !( !(!( !( #*!(kj #* #* !(kj !( !( !( !( !( kj kj !(#* !( #* kj !(kj #* #* kj !( !( !(!( !( #* kj!( !( #*!( #* kj!(kj!( #*kj #*!( kj (! !( !( !( (! !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( (! !( !( !( !( !( !( !( (! !( !( (! !(!( !( !( !( !( (! !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( (! (!!( (! !( (! !( (! !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( (! (! !( !( !(!( !(!( !( (! !( !(!( !( (!!( !( (! !( (! (!!( !( !( !(!( (! !( !( !( !( !((! (! (! !( (!(! (! !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( (! (! !( (! !( (! !( (! (! (!(! (! (! !( (! !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( (! !(!(!(!(!(!(!( (! !( (! (! !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !((! !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( (! !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( (! !( !( !( !( !( !( (! !( !(!( !( !( !( !( (! (!!( !( !( !( !( !( (! !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( (! !( !( !( !( FOOT H I L L E X P Y FA B I A N W A Y SAND H I L L R D AL M A S T SEAL E A V E SAN A N T O N I O R D OREG O N E X P Y QU A R R Y R D LOMA V E R D E A V E ARA S T R A D E R O R D E CHA R L E S T O N R D EMBARCA D E R O W A Y PASTEU R D R CAL I F O R N I A A V E LIN C O L N A V E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E JUN I P E R O S E R R A B L V D PA G E M I L L R D S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y East Palo Alto Menlo Park Stanford University Mountain View Los Altos Los Altos Hills Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; Department of Toxic Substance Control, 2014; US EPA, 2014; PlaceWorks 2016 0 0.5 10.25 Miles SWQCB Geotracker Sites !(Permitted Underground Storage Tank Sites !(Ongoing Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites !(Closed Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites (!Ongoing Cleanup Program Sites (!Closed Cleanup Program Sites DTSC Cleanup Program Sites !(Cleanup Sites #*Tiered Permit Sites kj Hazardous Waste Facilities Hazardous Waste Generators Small Quantity Generators Large Quantity Generators Railroads Sphere of Influence City Limit P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NS A F E T Y E L E M E N T MA P S- 9 H A Z A R D O U S M A T E R I A L S S I T E S PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-12 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 City. These include world class research, technological innovation and public transit. The following policy framework strives to provide an environment free of the damaging effects of toxic and hazardous materials, locations of which have been identified and are shown on Map S-9. It strives for 95% landfill diversion and future zero solid waste production, and commits to a state-of-the-art cybersecurity infrastructure that is based on a comprehensive review of existing gaps and redundancies. GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS COMMUNITY SAFETY GOAL S‐1 A safe community that is aware of risks and prepared for emergencies. PUBLIC AWARENESS Policy S-1.1 Facilitate ongoing public education and awareness to prevent loss of life and property from impacts of natural and human-made disasters and to facilitate recovery when disasters occur. [NEW POLICY] [S1] Program S1.1.1 Initiate Expand public education programs that help and strongly encourage each household in the City to be prepared to be self-sufficient, with enough stored water and food to support the entire household, for 72 hours at least one week after a major earthquake, flood, terrorism event, pandemic or other major disaster. Also encourage businesses and other organizations to prepare for self- sufficiency. Update and distribute the City’s earthquake preparedness guide, “Living with our Faults.”[Previous Program N-82] [S2] Program S1.1.2 Continue to implement and fund the Emergency Services Volunteer program. [NEW PROGRAM] [S3] Program S1.1.3 Conduct emergency hazard drills with key stakeholder organizations across the community to improve preparedness for known threats and hazards. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S4] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-13 Program S1.1.4 Support an annual community public safety fair to educate and engage the public on preparedness and offer the opportunity to buy emergency disaster supplies for home and vehicle. [NEW PROGRAM] [S5] Program S1.1.5 Encourage local businesses to have disaster preparedness, communication, mitigation and recovery plans in place. [NEW PROGRAM] [S6] COMMUNITY SAFETY Policy S-1.2 Support the Palo Alto Police Department and Office of Emergency Services efforts in public safety education and community outreach. Use education and crime prevention as integral parts of the practice of law enforcement. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S7] Program S1.2.1 Develop accessible, attractive marketing materials to promote involvement in community crime safety programs. [NEW PROGRAM] [S8] Policy S-1.3 Deter criminal behavior in Palo Alto through a multidisciplinary approach that includes a safe built environment, effective social services, functional administrative processes and Police Department review of site plans for major development proposals. [NEW POLICY] [S9] Program S1.3.1 Explore the use of urban design principles to increase safety and prevent crime in Palo Alto. [NEW PROGRAM] [S10] Program S1.3.2 Support programs such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Good Neighbor Next Door, which incentivizes home purchase for first responders with discounts. [NEW PROGRAM] [S11] Policy S-1.4 Support the use of digital data, analytics and metrics that are available to local police departments and first responders. [NEW PROGRAM] [S12] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-14 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 Program S1.4.1 Make data available to maintain an accurate, up to date, and complete real-time local crime mapping function to promote neighborhood safety. [NEW PROGRAM] [S13] Policy S-1.5 Encourage the development of community-based law enforcement and community safety strategies, including partnerships with school districts, private schools, businesses, transit agencies, nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations, and community groups such as Emergency Services Volunteers. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S14] Program S1.5.1 Promote neighborhood security by providing crime prevention information and training to residents, and continuing to fund resident involvement in neighborhood safety programs such as “Know Your Neighbor” grants and Block Preparedness Coordinators. [NEW PROGRAM] [S15] Program S1.5.1Program S1.5.2 Collaborate with the Palo Alto Unified School District, other school districts in the City, private schools, businesses, non-profits, and local faith-based organizations to provide community safety education. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S16] Program S1.5.3 Encourage the Palo Alto Unified School District to develop secure school facilities and collaborate with public safety departments on disaster preparedness activities; emergency disaster planning, exercises and drills; and disaster recovery. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S17] Program S1.5.4 Continue to support and encourage participation in Police sDepartment programs to introduce youth to the importance and benefits of local law enforcement. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S18] Policy S-1.6 Work with the Police Department to develop effective, transparent law enforcement strategies that protect the privacy and civil liberties of the public and results in a safe community for all people. [NEW POLICY] [S19] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-15 Program S1.6.1 Enhance public safety department training for evolving challenges, such as small- to large-scale human threats, interacting with individuals with mental illness, and non-lethal alternatives. [NEW PROGRAM] [S20] Program S1.6.2 Support the Palo Alto Police Department in implementing and maintaining approved technologies for data gathering, surveillance, and recording interactions with the public. Incorporate best practices in use policies with special consideration in ensuring the programs protect the public’s privacy rights and civil liberties, in accordance with current legislation. Ensure transparency by communicating new equipment implementation, usage, privacy considerations, and retention of data. [NEW PROGRAM] [S21] Program S1.6.3 Communicate transparently with the community regarding adoption of new Palo Alto Police Department equipment and/or tactics while balancing the need for operational security. [NEW PROGRAM] [S22] Policy S-1.7 Regularly review the adequacy of law enforcement services and emergency services in the City. Plan and develop law enforcement infrastructure and technology according to overall need and City growth. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S23] Program S1.7.1 Regularly monitor and review the level of public safety staffing and satellite public safety station locations required for efficient local service delivery. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S24] Program S1.7.2 Design the new Public Safety building to meet the needs of the public safety departments and be resilient against known threats and hazards. This includes remaining fully operational after a catastrophic (7.9 magnitude) earthquake, other natural disasters, moderate terrorist attack or crisis. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S25] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-16 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 Program S1.7.3 Provide community notifications in the event of emergency using the best available methods and explore new technologies for emergency public information and warnings. Work with neighborhood and civic organizations on emergency preparedness and security programs. [PTC] [Previous Program G-10] [S26] Policy S-1.8 Monitor federal and State terrorism response planning to ensure that Palo Alto coordinates with relevant agencies and is well-prepared in the event of a terrorist act. [NEW POLICY] [S27] Program S1.8.1 Update Palo Alto’s 2001 Terrorism Response Plan. [NEW PROGRAM] [S28] Policy S-1.9 Design Palo Alto’s infrastructure system to protect the life and safety of residents, ensure resiliency in the face of disaster, and minimize economic loss. [NEW POLICY] [S29] EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Policy S-1.10 Follow the guidelines in the Emergency Operations Plan and continue towards implementing the four phases of Emergency Management: mitigation/prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S30] Program S1.10.1 Regularly update and make publicly available the City of Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S31] Minimize exposure to all hazards through emergency management planning. [Previous POLICY N-55] Program S1.10.2 Participate in local and regional planning efforts to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies. Regularly update and distribute the City of Palo Alto Emergency Management Plan, including the earthquake, flood, and fire emergency evacuation plans. Consult with the Palo Alto Unified School District in updating the Plan.[Previous Program N-81] [S32] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-17 Program S1.10.3 Implement the mitigation strategies and guidelines provided by the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, including evolving hazards resulting from climate change. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S33] Policy S-1.11 Ensure continuity of critical City operations, including utilities, public safety, information technology, and others, after natural, technological, or human caused disasters. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S34] Policy S-1.12 Work with other government agencies, neighboring cities, local institutions, non-profit organizations, and private corporations with established emergency response functions to enhance the City’s overall emergency response capabilities. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S35] Program S1.12.1 Encourage multiagency coordination in case of incidents that cross disciplinary or jurisdictional boundaries or coordination that involves complex incident management scenarios. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S36] Program S1.12.2 Explore the establishment of mutually-beneficial cooperative agreements between Palo Alto’s public safety departments and those of neighboring cities. [NEW PROGRAM] [S37] POWER Policy S-1.13 Support the development of an independent, redundant power grid with local generation in Palo Alto, in order to ensure energy resiliency in the event of natural disasters or other threats. [NEW POLICY] [S38] Program S1.13.1 Identify solutions to add an additional power line to Palo Alto to ensure redundancy. [NEW PROGRAM] [S39] Program S1.13.2 Explore incentives to adopt emerging, residential off-grid capabilities and technologies, including back-up power sources vital in the event of natural disasters or other threats. [NEW PROGRAM] [S40] Program S1.13.3 Continue citywide efforts to underground utility wires to limit injury, loss of life, and damage to PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-18 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 property in the event of human-made or natural disasters. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S41] Program S1.13.4 Enhance the safety of City-owned natural gas pipeline operations. Work with customers, public safety officials, and industry leaders to ensure the safe delivery of natural gas throughout the service area. Provide safety information to all residents on City-owned natural gas distribution pipelines. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S42] Program S1.13.5 Provide off-grid and/or backup power sources for critical City facilities to ensure uninterrupted power during emergencies and disasters. [NEW PROGRAM] [S43] NATURAL HAZARDS GOAL S‐2 Protection of life, ecosystems and property from natural hazards and disasters, including earthquake, landslide, flooding, and fire. GENERAL SAFETY MEASURES Policy S-2.1 Incorporate the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (LHMAP), as periodically adopted by the City Council and certified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, into the Safety Element. The LHMAP describes the type, location, and extent of natural hazards that can affect the City; describes the City’s vulnerability to these hazards; and includes a mitigation strategy for reducing the potential losses. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the Safety Element, the provisions of the LHMAP shall control. [NEW POLICY] [S44] Policy S-2.2 Focus efforts to reduce exposure to natural hazards ion those areas of the City identified as vulnerable to where the greatest risks, as shown on the maps in this Element exist. [Previous Policy N-49] [S45] Policy S-2.3 Implement public safety improvements, such as access roads and other infrastructure, in a manner that is sensitive to the environment. [Previous Policy N-50] [S46] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-19 EARTHQUAKES AND SEISMIC AND OTHER GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Policy S-2.4 Expand citizen awareness of seismic and geologic hazards through public education and preparedness. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S47] Policy S-2.5 Minimize exposure of people and structures to geologic hazards, including slope stability, subsidence, and expansive soils, and to seismic hazards including groundshaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslidinglandslides. [Previous Policy N-51] [S48] Program S2.5.1 Periodically review and update the City’s Seismic Hazard Ordinance. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S49] Program S2.5.2 Continue to provide incentives for seismic retrofits of structures in the University Avenue/ Downtown areathroughout the city, particularly those building types that would affect the most people in the event of an earthquake. [Previous Program N-70] [S50] Policy S-2.6 Promote seismic rehabilitation and renovation of existing buildings, particularly those whose loss would have the greatest community impacts, using incentives as a way to ensure safe and structurally sound buildings. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S51] Strictly enforce Uniform Building Code seismic safety restrictions. [Previous Program N-69] Program S2.6.1 Encourage efforts by individual neighborhood or block-level groups to pool resources for seismic retrofits. [NEW PROGRAM] [S52] Allow development rights achieved through seismic upgrading of specified sites to be transferred to designated eligible receiver sites. [Previous Program N-71] Program S2.6.2 Continue to use a TDR Ordinance for seismic retrofits to allow the transfer of development rights from eligible structures in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone to receiver sites in the CD zone. Revise the TDR Ordinance so that transferred PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-20 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 development rights may be used only for residential development on the receiver sites. [(NEW PROGRAM) (Moved from Land Use Element May 1 Draft)] [S53] Program S2.6.3 Study the possibility of revising the a transfer of development rights program to encourage seismic retrofits to include sunset dates by which transfer obligations must be fulfilled. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S54] Program S2.6.4 Explore the use of Community Development Block Grants, Palo Alto Housing Funds and other sources of funding to support owners of lower income and senior housing to retrofit seismically-unsafe construction. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S55] Policy S-2.7 Encourage property owners, business owners and the Palo Alto Unified School District to evaluate their vulnerability to earthquake hazards and take appropriate action to minimize their risk. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S56] Revise the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances to recognize seismic, geologic, and soil related hazards.[Previous Program N-72] Program S2.7.1 As part of the construction permitting process for proposed new and redeveloped buildings in areas of identified hazard shown on Map S-2, structures that would affect the most people in a seismic event Rrequire preparation submittal to the City of a geotechnical/seismic report that identifies specific risks and appropriate mitigation measures. from an engineering geologist that reviews geologic, soils, and engineering reports for developments in hazard areas. Establish appropriate fees to cover the cost of this review. [Previous Program N-73] [S57] Program S2.7.2 Review and update, as appropriate, City code requirements for excavation, grading, and filling and construction to ensure that they conform to currently accepted and adopted State standards. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-21 Recover the cost of this work through grading permit fees. [Previous Program N-74] [S58] Program S2.7.3 Utilize the results of Palo Alto’s Seismic Hazards Identification Program and inventory of potentially seismically vulnerable buildings types to establish prioritiesze and consider incentives to encourage structural retrofits. [NEW PROGRAM] [S59] FLOOD HAZARD AND MITIGATIONS Policy S-2.8 Minimize exposure to flood hazards by protecting existing development from flood events and adequately reviewing proposed development in flood prone areas. [Previous Policy N-52] [S60] Program S2.8.1 Implement the flood mitigation requirements of FEMA relating to construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas as illustrated on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. [Previous Program N-76] [S61] Program S2.8.2 Continue participating in FEMA’s Community Rating System to reduce flood insurance for local residents and businesses and strive to improve Palo Alto’s rating in order to lower the cost of flood insurance. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S62] Program S2.8.3 Partner with appropriate agencies to expand flood zones as appropriate due to sea level rise, changes in creek channels, street flooding or storm drain overload due to increased likelihood of extreme storm events caused by climate change. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S63] Program S2.8.4 Collaborate with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and the Santa Clara Valley Water District on environmentally-sensitive efforts to stabilize, restore, maintain and provide one percent (100-year) flood protection adjacent to San Francisquito Creek. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S64] Program S2.8.5 Work with East Palo Alto, Santa Clara Valley Water District and San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-22 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 Authority on efforts to increase the flows within the San Francisquito Creek possible solutions include replacing the City-owned Newell Road Bridge and District-owned Pope Chaucer Street Bridge. [NEW PROGRAM] [S65] Policy S-2.9 Prohibit new habitable basements in the development of single- family residential properties within 100-year flood zones of the FEMA- designated Special Flood Hazard Area. [NEW POLICY] [S66] Program S2.9.1 Keep basement restrictions up to date with changing flood hazard zones. [NEW PROGRAM] [S67] Policy S-2.10 Monitor and respond to the risk of flooding caused by climate change- related changes to precipitation patterns, groundwater levels, sea level rise, tides, and storm surges. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S6869] Program S2.10.1 Review development standards applicable in areas susceptible to flooding from sea level rise, including east of Highway 101, West Bayshore and East Meadow Circle, and the area east of San Antonio Road and north of East Charleston, and Iimplement shoreline development regulations to ensure that new development is protected from potential impacts of flooding resulting from sea level rise and significant storm events. Regulations should be consistent with the Baylands Master Plan, as amended, and may include new shoreline setback requirements, limits on lot line adjustments to avoid the creation of vulnerable shoreline lots, and/or triggers for relocation or removal of existing structures based on changing site conditions and other factors. [NEW PROGRAM] (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure GHG-3) (Moved from Land Use Element May 1 Draft Program [L6]) [S6970] Program S2.10.2 Study appropriate restrictions on underground construction in areas outside of flood zones, as shown on Map S-5, to accommodate expected higher groundwater levels due to sea level rise and PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-23 minimize consequent flooding of underground construction. [NEW PROGRAM] [S68] Policy S-2.11 Support regional efforts to improve bay levees. [NEW POLICY] [S7071] Program S2.11.1 Work cooperatively with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to provide flood protection from high tide events on San Francisco Bay, taking into account the impacts of future sea level rise, to provide one percent (100-year) flood protection from tidal flooding, while being sensitive to preserving and protecting the natural environment. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S7172] Program S2.11.2 Work with regional, State, and federal agencies to develop additional adaptive strategies to address flood hazards to existing or new development and infrastructure, including environmentally sensitive levees. [NEW PROGRAM] [S7273] FIRE PROTECTION AND AWARENESS Policy S-2.12 Minimize exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards through rapid emergency response, proactive code enforcement, public education programs, use of modern fire prevention measures, and adequate emergency management preparation. [Previous Policy N-53] [S7374] Program S2.12.1 Regularly review and update the Fire Department’s operations, training facilities, and programs to ensure consistency with current standards and Best Management Practices. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S7475] Program S2.12.2 Explore technological tools, such as cameras or remote sensors, to identify smoke or fires and initiate response as quickly as possible. [NEW PROGRAM] [S7576] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-24 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 Policy S-2.13 Require that the planning and design of development in areas exposed to wildland fire hazards minimize the risks of wildfire and include adequate provisions for vegetation management, emergency access, and firefighting. [NEW POLICY required by SB 1241] [S7677] Program S2.13.1 Regularly review and fund review and updates to the Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan and the fire emergency evacuation provisions in the City’s Emergency Management Plan to ensure consistency with current standards and Best Management Practices. [Previous Program N-77] [S7778] Program S2.13.2 Implement the Foothills Fire Management Plan to balance conservation of natural resources with reduction of fire hazards especially in open space areas. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S7879] Program S2.13.3 Minimize fire hazards by implementing maintaining low density zoning in wildland fire hazard areas. [Previous Program N-79] [S7980] Program S2.13.4 Work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and agencies to reduce wildfire hazards in and around Palo Alto, with an emphasis on effective vegetation management and mutual aid agreements. [NEW PROGRAM] [S8081] Program S2.13.5 Consider implementation of CAL FIRE recommended programs in educating and involving the local community to diminish potential loss caused by wildfire and identify prevention measures to reduce those risks. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S8182] Policy S-2.14 Provide emergency fire and medical services consistent with the response time standards set forth in the Fire Department’s annual budget. [Previous Policy N-54] [S8283] Program S2.14.1 Evaluate measures for consolidation of services with other jurisdictions for optimal service delivery to improve efficiency; develop automatic or mutual PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-25 aid agreements with other jurisdictions, including Stanford, to improve efficiencies. [Previous Program N-80] [S8384] Program S2.14.2 Upgrade fire stations so that all remain fully functional following earthquakes. [NEW PROGRAM] [S8485] Program S2.14.3 Review existing costs and contracts to develop a plan for the long term funding of the fire department and appropriate staffing levels at all stations. [NEW PROGRAM] [S8586] Policy S-2.15 SupportExpand Palo Alto Fire Department’s efforts in public education and community outreach to prevent injury, loss of life, and damage to property from accidental fires. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S8687] Program S2.15.1 Provide public education on fire safety, including wildland and structural fire prevention, evacuation routes and guidelines for clearance of landscaping and other hazards around structures. [Previous Program N-78] [S8788] Policy S-2.16 Monitor and respond to the risk of wild land fire hazards caused by climate change. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S8889] HUMAN-CAUSED THREATS GOAL S‐3 An environment free of the damaging effects of human- caused threats and biological and chemical hazardous materials. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Policy S-3.1 Minimize the use of toxic and hazardous materials in Palo Alto. Encourage Promote the use of alternative materials and practices that are environmentally benign. [Previous Policy N-30] [S8990] Program S3.1.1 Continue City permitting procedures for commercial and industrial storage, use, and handling of hazardous materials and regulate the commercial use of hazardous materials that may PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-26 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 present a risk of off-site health or safety effects. [Previous Program N-47] [S9091] Program S3.1.2 Minimize the risks of biohazards in Palo Alto, including Level 4 biohazards, by continuing to review and update, as necessary, local regulations regarding use, handling and disposal. [NEW PROGRAM] [S9192] Program S3.1.3 Strengthen development review requirements and construction standards for projects on sites with groundwater contamination. [NEW PROGRAM] [S9293] Program S3.1.4 Establish protocols to monitor the movement of hazardous materials on Palo Alto roadways and rail lines and respond effectively to spills via established truck and construction routes. [NEW PROGRAM] [S9394] Program S3.1.5 Work with non-profit organizations to pProvide information to all user groups aboutthe public regarding pesticides, insecticides and other commonly used hazardous materials, environmentally friendly preferable alternatives, and safe recycling and disposal methodspractices to all user groups. [Previous Program N-46] [S9495] Program S3.1.6 Continue sponsoring aproviding regular household hazardous waste collection events at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant and strive to make these programs more convenient and accessible to residents. [Previous Program N-48] [S9596] Study the relative costs, advantages, and disadvantages of joining the regional household hazardous waste program operated by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health. [Previous Program N-49 (Study completed)] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-27 Program S3.1.7 Continue the program thatto allow small quantity generators to dispose of hazardous waste at cost. [Previous Program N-50] [S9697] Program S3.1.8 Continue to educate residents on the proper disposal of pharmaceutical and household hazardous waste. Encourage proper disposal of medications through pharmacies or drug take-back programs rather than flushing. [NEW PROGRAM] [S9798] Policy S-3.2 Continue working with appropriate agencies to clean up hazardous waste sites and contaminated groundwater. [Previous Policy N-31] [S9899] Policy S-3.3 Support public health by requiring as part of development review, property owners and private entities to disclose the presence of contaminated soil or groundwater, identify potential health impacts, and remediate contamination. [NEW POLICY] [S99100] Policy S-3.4 Support public agency policies, regulations, legislation, and programs that implement the Santa Clara County’s Hazardous Waste Materials Management PlanProgram. [Previous Policy N-32] [S100101] Policy S-3.5 Protect City authority for the approval or denial of proposed commercial hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities in the City. Continue to support the concept of “fair share” agreements between counties in the siting of such facilities. [Previous Policy N-33] [S101102] Policy S-3.6 Work with the appropriate agencies, including Caltrain, to decrease the risks associated with rail infrastructure in Palo Alto, including the movement of hazardous materials through the City and the dangers of passenger trains in a fully-developed, populated environment. [NEW POLICY] [S102103] Program S3.6.1 Work with the freight industry to monitor the contents of freight trains intersecting Palo Alto for potentially hazardous materials, and to establish accountability for accidents and spills. [NEW PROGRAM] [S103104] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-28 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 Program S3.6.2 Work with Caltrain and the Palo Alto Unified School District, to educate students and the public on the dangers of rail trespass and the benefits of suicide support services available in Palo Alto. [NEW PROGRAM] [S104105] Policy S-3.7 Monitor professional and medically-sound research and studies on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and share information with the Palo Alto community. [NEW POLICY] [S105106] SOLID WASTE Goal 7. Reduced Volumes of Solid Waste; Solid Waste Disposed in an Environmentally Safe, Efficient, Manner. Policy S-3.8 Reduce the amount ofStrive for 95 percent landfill diversion by 2030, and ultimately zero waste, by enhancing policies and programs for waste reduction, recycling, composting and reuse. solid waste disposed in the City’s landfill by reducing the amount of waste generated and promoting the cost-effective reuse of materials that would otherwise be placed in a landfill. [Previous Policy N-34] [S106107] Program S3.8.1 Encourage residential and commercial food waste reduction through incentives, educational outreach and programs. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S107108] Program S3.8.2 To the extent allowed by law, use refuse rate structures that incentivize waste reductionRegularly review the landfill fee structure to ensure that it encourages a reduction in solid waste disposal. [Previous Program N-51] [S108109] Improve City composting practices and continue promoting the household composting, program. [Previous Program N-52] [S107] Continue to develop cost-effective source separation programs for recyclable solid waste PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-29 materials for residential and commercial customers. [Previous Program N-53] [S108] Program S3.8.3 Continue to work with CalRecycle and the Department of Toxic Substances Control to develop and promote long-term solid waste management, programs that include environmentally sound disposal methods, such as environmentally responsible recycling programs, composting of food waste and other organics and, and City-wide electronics and digital hardware recycling efforts, such as the SMaRT Station©. [Previous Program N-54] [S109110] Policy S-3.9 Reduce solid waste generation through increased salvage and reuse of building materials, including architecturally and historically significant materials. [Previous Policy N-35] [S110111] Program S3.9.1 Periodically review and update the adopted Construction and Debris program. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S111112] Program S3.9.2 Educate Palo Alto residents and developers about available incentives to use environmentally friendly deconstruction activities to minimize our GHG emissions, and to save natural resources, as well as space in our landfills. [PTC] [NEW PROGRAM] [S112113] Maintain and expand the use of the Recycling Center at the City’s refuse disposal area. [Previous PROGRAM N-55] [S108] Support state and federal legislation encouraging the use of recyclable goods. [Previous Policy N-38] [S113] Policy S-3.10 Continue to implement the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policy and programs to reduce waste, toxic product use, resource consumption and to maximize energy efficiency. [PTC] [NEW POLICY] [S113114] Program S3.10.1 Support efforts to enforce extended producer responsibility for solid waste to reduce waste PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT S-30 SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 produced from manufacturing, shipping, packaging and the entire life-cycle of the product. [NEW PROGRAM] [S114115] Ensure the environmentally sound disposal of solid waste. [Previous Policy N-37] [S108] Policy S-3.11 Encourage the use of reusable, returnable, recyclable, and repairable goods, and discourage the use of single use plastic water bottles and extended polystyrene (Styrofoam), through enforcement of the City’s 2016 Plastic Foam Ordinance expansion and continued incentives, education, and responsible City purchasing policiesthrough incentives, educational displays and activities, and City purchasing policies and practices. [Previous Policy N-36] [S115116] CYBERSECURITY Policy S-3.12 Secure that the City of Palo Alto’s computer and digital infrastructure such that public data, records and utilities are protected from unauthorized external access and internal system failures. [NEW POLICY] [S116117] Program S3.12.1 Complete an assessment of the City’s digital infrastructure to locate vulnerabilities and gaps in system redundancies and develop recommendations for improved cybersecurity. [NEW PROGRAM] [S117118] Program S3.12.2 Establish criteria for the installation of high security telecommunications technology in new local government projects. [NEW PROGRAM] [S118119] Program S3.12.3 Establish a wi-fi network that will be available to public safety responders and Emergency Service Volunteers in the event of power interruption during an emergency or disaster. [NEW PROGRAM] [S119120] Program S3.12.4 Develop an Infrastructure Master Plan that projects the future needs of streets, underground utilities, and all City assets and plans for the incorporation of new technology that improves efficiency and PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT SAFETY DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017DECEMBER 13, 2016 S-31 effectiveness. [(NEW PROGRAM) (PTC Program L2.9.1) (Moved from May 1 CC draft LUE. Figure out how to integrate.)] [L185] Regularly review the water rate structure to ensure that it covers fixed costs based on cost of service studies and encourages conservation and efficiencyencourages efficiency and is competitive. [Previous Program N-23] BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-1 7 This preliminary draft element was prepared by City staff on the basis of input from the CAC and members of the public received from January 2017 through February 2017. The Element was reviewed by the full CAC on February 21, 2017 and revised based on CAC comments. The revised draft Element was presented to the CAC as a consent item on March 21, 2017. The CAC recommended it for Council review. It will be presented as a draft to Palo Alto City Council on May 15, 2017, along with final CAC comments. INTRODUCTION The Business and Economics Element addresses economic development policy issues. It is not a State-required Comprehensive Plan element. Instead, it is an optional element, but its contents are equally important to those in the mandatory elements. This Element, informed by local economic conditions and forecasts, focuses on the role of local businesses in the community and provides mechanisms for the City to support innovation, entrepreneurship, and local-serving retail and professional services. Its goals emphasize a thriving economy, compatibility and interdependence with residential neighborhoods, fiscal health, a culture of innovation and business diversity, flexibility and predictability in City regulations, as well as attractive, vibrant business centers and business employment districts. Implementation of this Element will take place over time and will utilize available planning and regulatory tools, such as the Zoning Ordinance, Coordinated Area Plans, and design review and ongoing outreach by the City to businesses. Land use topics relevant to the design of retail centers (Goal B-5) and business employment districts (Goal B-6) are discussed in the Land Use and Community Design Element. Transportation-related topics, such as employee commutes, the impact of commute-related congestion on residents, and adequate parking, are addressed in the Transportation Element. VISION: Palo Alto’s business environment will be dynamic and vital. Businesses will have access to a wide array of support services and will enjoy positive relationships with Palo Alto residents, officials, and City staff. The diverse character of Palo Alto will remain, so that the City’s livable neighborhoods are protected and enhanced, while its business districts remain competitive and attractive. The local economy will thrive, a diverse array of goods and services will be provided to Palo Alto consumers, and the City’s historic, mutually beneficial relationship with Stanford University supported. Most development will occur within Palo Alto’s business employment districts and will be consistent with the role and character designated for those districts by this Plan. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-2 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 ECONOMIC CONTEXT EMPLOYMENT Since 2010, in the aftermath of the Great Recession, the Silicon Valley region has experienced nearly a twenty percent increase in the number of jobs. During the same period of time, the unemployment rate has decreased to record lows. These trends are consistent with broader employment trends in both California and the Bay Area. The City is recognized as a hub of innovation and entrepreneurship, with employers concentrated in the education, medical, software, technology, biotechnology, financial, professional, and government services industries. Major employers in Palo Alto include Stanford University, Stanford Health Care, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, VMware, SAP, Space Systems/Loral, Hewlett-Packard, and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Each of these companies, institutions or agencies employs more than 2,000 persons. The top three employers, who are all affiliated with Stanford University, also include employees who work just outside of the city limits, in the part of unincorporated Santa Clara County that is within Palo Alto’s sphere of influence (SOI). As shown in Figure B-1, jobs are located throughout Palo Alto, primarily in the four Business Employment Districts, two Regional Centers, and three Multi-Neighborhood Centers identified in the Land Use and Community Design Element. The pie chart is based on approximately 95,000 jobs within the City limits. Stanford Research Park contains the largest concentration employees—36 percent—while the University Avenue/ Downtown Area and Stanford University Medical Center are other important employment areas, each hosting nine percent of the City’s employees. However, over a quarter of workers are dispersed outside of the Employment Districts and Centers. Successful businesses and employers are an integral part of a thriving, complete community. Local businesses offer many positives, including offering goods and services to residents and providing revenues that support the high quality of Palo Alto’s services. However, Palo Alto has an unusually high concentration of jobs, with approximately three times as many jobs (over 100,000) as employed residents (about 36,000). This indicates an exceptionally strong local economy, but it has also brought negative side effects over the past decade. Due to the high number of jobs PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-3 relative to a low number of employed residents, many workers must commute to Palo Alto, resulting in traffic congestion, air pollution, and parking constraints. The understandable desire of workers to live close to their jobs has driven up the price of housing dramatically. The resulting high cost of living prevents restaurants, hotels and others in the service industry from finding sufficient employees. Similarly, commercial rents have risen precipitously in response to the demand for a Palo Alto address, driving a conversion of retail spaces to office uses and pricing out smaller stores and professional services. The City recognizes the importance of providing affordable housing and efficient transit opportunities for employees of all types of businesses, as addressed in the Land Use and Community Design, Transportation and Housing Elements of this Plan. RETAIL Palo Alto is home to a wide array of retail opportunities, from Stanford Shopping Center, to University Avenue, to small neighborhood-oriented shopping centers. Currently, retail sales tax provides approximately five percent of total revenues to the City. Figure B-2 shows the revenue the City received in 2015 from sales tax (tax imposed on purchases of all goods in the state) and use tax (tax imposed on all Stanford Research Park, 36% Stanford Medical Center, 9% University Ave/Downtown, 9% San Antonio Road/ Bayshore Corridor, 6% Stanford Shopping Center, 5% Town & Country Village, 4% California Avenue, 3% East Bayshore, 2% Rest of City, 28% Figure B-1: City Employment Distribution Source: Association of Bay Area Governments and City of Palo Alto, 2016. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-4 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 purchases of goods from out-of-state vendors). Of the approximately $23 million in revenue, over half was generated by Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford Research Park and Downtown/University Avenue combined. The significant contribution of Stanford Research Park reflects the fact that retails sales tax includes taxes on business-to-business sales. While total sales tax revenue, including state and county pool allocations, in the City has increased significantly since 2009, the rate of increase has slowed in the past few years, as shown in Figure B-3. Recent economic studies have shown that retail spending is attributable not only to local residents, but also to local employees, local businesses, and visitors who come to the city for shopping and leisure, including University students. However, small, independent and locally-serving retailers in Palo Alto are currently experiencing challenges due to high rents, competition from online retailers, including in recruiting and retaining employees, as well as increasing healthcare costs. PLANNING CONTEXT THRIVING ECONOMY The City’s fiscal health and livability depend on maintaining a diverse community of businesses that are supported by residents, visitors, and workers. The City recognizes the need for all types of goods and services in the community, including by utilizing public-private partnerships and supporting non-profit agencies. Additionally, developing and maintaining advanced communications infrastructure is crucial to ensuring the City continues to be a viable location for new and established technology businesses. INTERDEPENDENCE A thriving business environment in Palo Alto is one that complements and supports the city’s residential neighborhoods and natural environment. The City can help cultivate interdependence between commercial centers and surrounding neighborhoods through policies that maintain the natural environment while minimizing potential impacts on neighborhoods such as traffic and parking. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-5 Stanford Shopping Center $5,700,000.00 25% Stanford Research Park $3,000,000.00 13% Downtown/ University Ave $3,400,000.00 15% California Ave/Park Blvd/Lambert Ave $1,500,000.00 6% Town & Country $600,000.00 3% All Other Areas $8,600,000.00 38% Figure B-2: Sales and Use Tax Revenue Received by the City by Geographical Area, Year Ending December 2015 Source: City of Palo Alto Office of the City Auditor. Sales Tax Digest Summary, Fourth Quarter Sales (October – December 2015). $- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 2009-10 Actual 2010-11 Actual 2011-12 Actual 2012-13 Actual 2013-14 Actual 2014-15 Actual 2015-16 Actual Fiscal Year Figure B-3: Sales Tax over Time Sales Tax Source: City of Palo Alto Open Data Portal. http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/home, accessed March 2017. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-6 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 FISCAL HEALTH Palo Alto’s continued fiscal health is crucial to providing the range and quality of infrastructure, services, amenities, and maintenance that residents expect. The key indicator of the fiscal health of any agency or organization is a balanced ratio of revenues to expenses. As shown in Figure B-4, the City’s total revenue stream has increased steadily over the last seven fiscal years (FY), from approximately $478 million in FY 2009-2010 to about $580 million in FY 2015-2016. This revenue comes from diverse sources, from the sale of utilities such as electricity, gas, water, and fiber optics; to the receipt of sales and property taxes. Figure B-5 illustrates total City expenses over the same time period, and shows that costs associated with salaries and benefits, utility purchases, contract services and other expenses have also risen, from about $526 million in FY 2009-2010 to about $629 million in FY 2015-2016. However, as illustrated in Figure B-6, Palo Alto’s total revenue has consistently outpaced its expenses, by an average of approximately $23 million per fiscal year. CULTURE OF INNOVATION AND BUSINESS DIVERSITY Palo Alto is a center of innovation within the technology sector. The City plays a key role in supporting business growth, including community-serving businesses and arts-based businesses, and utilizes metrics to track progress towards citywide economic goals. Partnerships and paired research efforts with Stanford University have consistently advanced across business sectors. FLEXIBILITY AND PREDICTABILITY The City can support a healthy businesses environment by providing regulations and operating procedures that provide business owners and neighbors with predictability and certainty through changing economic cycles, while maintaining flexibility and adaptability as market conditions change. This could involve streamlining administrative and regulatory processes, and simplifying design guidelines for new development. The City can act as a facilitator between residents and businesses in these processes to help ensure that neighbors, as well as employers, understand requirements and know what to expect. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-7 $- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 2009-10 Actual 2010-11 Actual 2011-12 Actual 2012-13 Actual 2013-14 Actual 2014-15 Actual 2015-16 Actual Fiscal Year Figure B-4: Revenues over Time Net Sales Property Taxes Charges to Other Funds Sales Taxes Charges for Services Rental Income Return on Investments Transient Occupancy Tax Other Income Other Revenue More (8 Revenue Types Grouped) Source: City of Palo Alto Open Data Portal, http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/home., accessed March 2017. $- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 $700,000,000 2009-10 Actual 2010-11 Actual 2011-12 Actual 2012-13 Actual 2013-14 Actual 2014-15 Actual 2015-16 Actual Fiscal Year Figure B-5: Revenues and Expenses over Time Revenues Expenses Source: City of Palo Alto Open Data Portal, http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/home, accessed March PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-8 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 RETAIL CENTERS Palo Alto’s robust retail economy is focused in retail centers, including both regional retail draws such as University Avenue/Downtown and Stanford Shopping Center, corridors such as California Avenue and El Camino Real, and smaller shopping centers like Edgewood Plaza. Regional retail centers employ large numbers of people, attract shoppers from well beyond Palo Alto’s boundaries, generate high sales tax revenues, and offer the broadest mix of goods and services. Multi- neighborhood Centers serve a much smaller area, typically the city or several neighborhoods within the city. Neighborhood Centers are the smallest unit; although their economic contributions are less substantial, they are vital to Palo Alto residents and are very much a part of community life. This Element provides policies and program to encourage the continued vibrancy of all Retail Centers, while recognizing that each Retail Center should maintain its distinctive character. BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS As described in the Land Use and Community Design Element, there are three Business Employment Districts in Palo Alto: Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical Center, and East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor. These districts provide thousands of local jobs, establish a customer base for many other Palo Alto businesses, and generate tax revenues for the city. Because each plays a central role in maintaining the fiscal health of the City, it is important to support their long-term viability and ability to respond to changing global economic conditions. STANFORD RESEARCH PARK As noted above, over one-third of the jobs in Palo Alto are located in Stanford Research Park. Over the coming decades, the Research Park will continue to evolve, but is likely to remain a major employment center. Working closely with Stanford University and the hundreds of employers in the Research Park will help the Research Park remain competitive with others in the Bay Area and nation, while also providing opportunities to address issues of shared concern, such as easing commute-related congestion. Reinvestment along El Camino Real will not only benefit Research Park employees, but will also help the City increase vitality and enhance the physical appearance of El Camino Real. Providing housing and services like restaurants within walking distance of the Research Park also helps fulfill the City’s goal of reducing auto dependence. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-9 STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC), including the Stanford University School of Medicine, the Stanford University Clinic, Stanford University Hospital, and Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital, currently employs approximately 10,000 people and is one of the largest concentrations of health care services in the Bay Area. The City approved a Development Agreement with SUMC in 2011 which will continue for 30 years, throughout the life of this Comprehensive Plan. The Development Agreement covers the construction of a new Stanford Hospital and clinics buildings, an expansion of the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, construction of new School of Medicine buildings, renovation of the existing Hoover Pavilion, construction of a new medical office building and parking garage at Hoover Pavilion, roadway improvements along Welch Road and Durand Way, and SUMC design guidelines. Growth associated with the agreement is expected to increase employment at SUMC by approximately 2,500 jobs. The City Council reviews SUMC’s compliance with the terms of the Agreement on an annual basis. EAST BAYSHORE AND SAN ANTONIO ROAD/BAYSHORE CORRIDOR The East Bayshore and San Antonio Road areas serve a special economic role. Its relatively low-cost space provides opportunities for a variety of service industries and start-up businesses that could not feasibly locate in the higher cost areas. GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS THRIVING ECONOMY GOAL B-1 Businesses in Palo Alto that contribute to economic vitality enhance the city’s physical environment, promote municipal revenues and provide needed local services. Policy B-1.1 Encourage new businesses that meet the City’s business, economic, or municipal services requirements, as articulated in this Plan and the City’s other Economic Development Policies, to locate in Palo Alto. [Previous Policy B-9] [B1] Direct the Palo Alto Office of Economic Program B1.1.1 Development to implement the Economic Development Policy, as periodically amended, to guide business development in the City. [Previous Program B-2] [B2] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-10 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Policy B-1.2 Promote Palo Alto’s image as a business-friendly community. Assume an active role in fostering businesses, including small start-ups, entrepreneurs, and start-up innovative businesses. [Previous Policy B-10] [B3] Policy B-1.3 Engage with all stakeholders in the community, including businesses of all sizes, local retailers, the public, and City decision-makers in order to understand the challenges businesses and employers face. [NEW POLICY] [B4] Policy B-1.4 Attract businesses that innovate in the areas of mobility and sustainability, and encourage these businesses to employ local residents. [NEW POLICY] [B5] Policy B-1.5 Consider the use of public private partnerships as a means of revitalizing selected areas where beneficial to achieving the City’s goals. [Previous Policy B-11] [B6] Policy B-1.6 Encourage the private sector to participate in partnerships with community groups and nonprofit or public agency building owners and developers to provide space for community-serving non-profits. [Previous Policy B-12] [B7] Policy B-1.7 Encourage businesses of all kinds to advance Palo Alto’s commitment to fiscal and environmental sustainability. [NEW POLICY] [B8] COMPATIBILITY AND INTERDEPENDENCE GOAL B-2 A thriving business environment that complements Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods and natural environment. Policy B-2.1 Support local-serving retail, recognizing that it provides opportunities for local employment, reduced commute times, stronger community connections and neighborhood orientation. [NEW POLICY] [B9] Policy B-2.2 Support a strong interdependence between existing commercial centers and surrounding neighborhoods as a way of encouraging economic vitality. [Previous Policy B-2] [B10] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-11 Policy B-2.3 Recognize that employers, businesses and neighborhoods share many values and concerns, including traffic and parking issues and preserving Palo Alto’s livability, and need to work together. [NEW POLICY] [B11] Policy B-2.4 Use a variety of planning and regulatory tools to ensure compatibility between Palo Alto’s thriving business districts and its healthy, stable neighborhoods. [Previous Policy B-1] [B12] Policy B-2.5 Recognize that Palo Alto’s natural environment and features are economic assets to the City. [Previous Policy B-3] [B13] FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY GOAL B-3 Careful management of City revenues and expenditures so that the fiscal health of the City is ensured and services are delivered efficiently and equitably. (NEW GOAL) Policy B-3.1 Promote a comprehensive approach to fiscal sustainability that includes careful monitoring of revenues and expenditures, efficient City operations, and land use, business and employment strategies. [NEW POLICY] [B14] Policy B-3.2 Support a diverse range of businesses that generate revenue and enhance the City’s fiscal sustainability. [NEW POLICY] [B15] Continue to refine tools, such as the Business Program B3.2.1 Registry, as data sources on existing businesses, including the type of business, number of employees, size, location, and other metrics to track the diversity of Palo Alto businesses. [NEW PROGRAM – PTC] [B16] Policy B-3.3 Develop strategies for promoting businesses and employers that generate revenues that will support a full range of high-quality City services, including retain and attract revenue-generating businesses. [NEW POLICY] [B17] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-12 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 CULTURE OF INNOVATION AND BUSINESS DIVERSITY GOAL B-4 The stimulation of diverse commercial, retail and professional service business opportunities through supportive business policies and a culture of innovation. Policy B-4.1 Nurture and support Palo Alto’s image as a global center of emerging technology by fostering innovation, supporting the established technology sector and attracting new businesses. [Previous Policy B-4] [PTC] [B18] Policy B-4.2 Attract and support small businesses, non-profit organizations, and professional services, which are vital to a diverse and innovative economy. [NEW POLICY] [B19] Revise zoning and other regulations as needed to Program B4.2.1 encourage the preservation of space to accommodate small businesses and other services. [NEW PROGRAM] [B20] Consider planning, regulatory, or other incentives to Program B4.2.2 encourage property owners to include smaller office spaces in their buildings to serve small businesses, non-profit organizations, and independent professionals. [NEW PROGRAM] [B21] Policy B-4.3 Promote the growth of small businesses. [NEW POLICY] [B22] Policy B-4.4 Recognize that Stanford Research Park contains a concentration of some of the City’s largest employers, and seek to maintain a mix of office and research and development uses. [NEW POLICY] [B23] Policy B-4.5 Maintain distinct business districts as a means of retaining local services and diversifying the City’s economic base. [Previous Policy B-5] [B24] Policy B-4.6 Encourage and support the operation of small, independent retail businesses and locally-serving professional services. [Previous Policy B- 7] [B25] Work with local merchants to encourage Palo Alto Program B4.6.1 residents, workers, and visitors to buy, and seek PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-13 professional services, in Palo Alto. [NEW PROGRAM] [B26] Study the impacts of on-line shopping on local, Program B4.6.2 traditional retail uses and develop strategies to help traditional retail adapt. [NEW PROGRAM] [B27] Evaluate which types of businesses are most likely Program B4.6.3 to be successful and where. [NEW PROGRAM] [B28] Study the overall viability of ground-floor retail Program B4.6.4 requirements in preserving retail space and creating an active street environment, including the types of locations where such requirements are most effective. [NEW PROGRAM] [B29] Maintain distinct neighborhood shopping areas that Program B4.6.5 are attractive, accessible, and convenient to nearby residents. [Previous Policy B-6] [B30] Policy B-4.7 Explore opportunities to provide spaces for arts and entertainment activities, and other creative and visitor uses. [NEW POLICY – PTC] [B31] FLEXIBILITY AND PREDICTABILITY GOAL B-5 City regulations and operating procedures that provide certainty, predictability and flexibility and help businesses adapt to changing market conditions. Policy B-5.1 Maintain a healthy business climate, which provides for predictability and flexibility for those seeking City approvals. Encourage streamlining of City administrative and regulatory processes wherever possible. Reduce inefficiencies, overlap, and time delays associated with these processes. [Previous Policy B-16] [B32] Regularly evaluate ways to improve coordination of Program B5.1.1 the City’s environmental review, permitting, and inspection processes. [Previous Program B-6] [B33] Improve design guidelines to reduce ambiguity and Program B5.1.2 more clearly articulate compatibility principles to PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-14 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 the business community and to the public. [Previous Program B-7] [B34] Simplify the design review process for small-scale Program B5.1.3 changes to previously approved site plans and buildings. [Previous Program B-5] [B35] Revise zoning and other regulations as needed to Program B5.1.4 encourage the revitalization of aging retail structures and areas. Encourage the preservation of space to accommodate small, independent retail businesses and professional services. [Previous Program B-10] [B36] Policy B-5.2 Continue to provide “one stop” service at the Development Center and to consolidate inspections to the extent feasible. [NEW POLICY] [B37] Policy B-5.3 Strengthen the role of the Office of Economic Development to attract and retain local serving businesses; assist businesses to navigate City procedures and requirements; and facilitate communication between residents and businesses.[NEW POLICY] [B38] RETAIL CENTERS GOAL B-6 Attractive, vibrant retail centers, each with a mix of uses and a distinctive character. REGIONAL CENTERS University Avenue/Downtown Policy B-6.1 Support and enhance the University Avenue/ Downtown area as a vital mixed use area containing retail, personal service, small office, restaurant, residential, and arts and entertainment uses. Recognize the importance of an appropriate retail mix, including small local businesses, to the continued vitality of Downtown. [(Previous Policy B-20) (Overlaps with Land Use Element Policy L-4.5)] [B39] Actively work with Downtown businesses, Program B6.1.1 professional associations and the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce to retain successful retail PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-15 businesses that contribute to the City’s goals for Downtown. [NEW PROGRAM – PTC] [B40] South of Forest Mixed Use Area (SOFA) Policy B-6.2 Maintain uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the Downtown business district and serve the needs of nearby neighborhoods. [Previous Policy B-21] [B41] Stanford Shopping Center Policy B-6.3 Work with appropriate stakeholders, leaseholders, and Stanford University to ensure that the Stanford Shopping Center is sustained as a distinctive, economically competitive, and high quality regional shopping center. [Previous Policy B-22] [PTC] [B42] MULTI-NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS California Avenue Policy B-6.4 Foster the establishment of businesses and commercial services in the California Avenue business district that serve the adjacent neighborhoods, as well as Stanford Research Park.[Previous Policy B-24] [B43] El Camino Real Policy B-6.5 Strengthen the commercial viability of businesses along the El Camino Real corridor, by, for example, encouraging the development of well- designed retail, professional services and housing. [Previous Policy B-25] [PTC] [B44] Policy B-6.6 Recognize the role of El Camino Real as both a local-serving and regional-serving corridor, defined by a mix of retail uses, housing and office space. [NEW POLICY] [B45] Town and Country Village Policy B-6.7 Retain Town and County Village as an attractive, local-serving retail center. [Previous Policy B-26] [B46] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-16 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS GOAL B-7 Thriving business employment districts at Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical Center, East Bayshore/San Antonio Road Area and Bayshore Corridor that complement the City’s business and neighborhood centers. STANFORD RESEARCH PARK Policy B-7.1 Support the positive relationship between the local business community and Stanford University faculty, alumni, and administrators. [Previous Policy B-28] [B47] Policy B-7.2 Facilitate the ability of Stanford University and Research Park businesses to respond to changing market conditions that support the long-term viability of the Research Park. [Previous Policy B-29] [B48] Review policies and regulations guiding Program B7.2.1 development at Stanford Research Park and revise them as needed to allow improved responsiveness to changing market conditions. [Previous Program B-15] [B49] Study the feasibility of a “transfer of development Program B7.2.2 rights” (TDR) program and other measures that would provide greater development flexibility within Stanford Research Park without creating significant adverse traffic impacts or increasing the allowable floor area. [Previous Program B-16] [B50] Policy B-7.3 Encourage investment and activity along El Camino Real and within Stanford Research Park that complements the Research Park and adjacent neighborhoods and enhances their physical appearance. [Previous Policy B-30] [B51] Policy B-7.4 Identify opportunities along the El Camino Real and within Stanford Research Park where commercial services serving Research Park employees and visitors might be created. [Previous Program B-17] [B52] Policy B-7.5 Encourage incubator businesses in Stanford Research Park. [Previous Policy B-31] [B53] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-17 STANFORD MEDICAL CENTER Policy B-7.6 Support the approved buildout of the SUMC and assist Stanford Medical Center in responding to changes in the delivery of health care services. Work with the Center to plan for changing facility needs within the context of City of Palo Alto planning goals and policies, as well as the goals and policies of other relevant jurisdictions. [Previous Policy B-32] [B54] EAST BAYSHORE AND SAN ANTONIO ROAD/BAYSHORE CORRIDOR Policy B-7.7 Seek to balance increases in costs for business space with the need for rehabilitation and replacement of outdated space in the San Antonio Road and East Bayshore areas, consistent with the East Meadow Circle Concept Plan as periodically amended. [Previous Policy B-33] [B55] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-18 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-1 7 This preliminary draft element was prepared by City staff on the basis of input from the CAC and members of the public received from January 2017 through February 2017. The Element was reviewed by the full CAC on February 21, 2017 and revised based on CAC comments. The revised draft Element was presented to the CAC as a consent item on March 21, 2017. The CAC recommended it for Council review. It will be presented as a draft to Palo Alto City Council on May 15, 2017, along with final CAC comments. INTRODUCTION The Business and Economics Element addresses economic development policy issues. It is not a State-required Comprehensive Plan element. Instead, it is an optional element, but its contents are equally important to those in the mandatory elements. This Element, informed by local economic conditions and forecasts, focuses on the role of local businesses in the community and provides mechanisms for the City to support innovation, entrepreneurship, and local-serving retail and professional services. Its goals emphasize a thriving economy, compatibility and interdependence with residential neighborhoods, fiscal health, a culture of innovation and business diversity, flexibility and predictability in City regulations, as well as attractive, vibrant business centers and business employment districts. Implementation of this Element will take place over time and will utilize available planning and regulatory tools, such as the Zoning Ordinance, Coordinated Area Plans, and design review and ongoing outreach by the City to businesses. Land use topics relevant to the design of retail centers (Goal B-5) and business employment districts (Goal B-6) are discussed in the Land Use and Community Design Element. Transportation-related topics, such as employee commutes, the impact of commute-related congestion on residents, and adequate parking, are addressed in the Transportation Element. VISION: Palo Alto’s business environment will be exciting, dynamic and vital. Businesses will have access to a wide array of support services and will enjoy positive relationships with Palo Alto residents, officials, and City staff. The competing needs diverse character of residents and businesses Palo Alto will be balancedremain, so that the City’s livable neighborhoods are protected and enhanced, while its business districts are remain competitive and attractive. The local economy will thrive, and a diverse array of goods and services will be provided to Palo Alto consumers., and the City’s historic, mutually beneficial relationship with Stanford University supported. Most development will occur within Palo Alto’s business employment areas,districts and will be consistent with the role and character designated for each areathose districts by this Plan. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-2 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 ECONOMIC CONTEXT EMPLOYMENT Since 2010, in the aftermath of the Great Recession, the Silicon Valley region has experienced nearly a twenty percent increase in the number of jobs. During the same period of time, the unemployment rate has decreased to record lows. These trends are consistent with broader employment trends in both California and the Bay Area. The City is recognized as a hub of innovation and entrepreneurship, with employers concentrated in the education, medical, software, technology, biotechnology, financial, professional, and government services industries. Major employers in Palo Alto include Stanford University, Stanford Health Care, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, VMware, SAP, Space Systems/Loral, Hewlett-Packard, and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Each of these companies, institutions or agencies employs more than 2,000 persons. The top three employers, who are all affiliated with Stanford University, also include employees who work just outside of the city limits, in the part of unincorporated Santa Clara County that is within Palo Alto’s sphere of influence (SOI). As shown in Figure B-1, jobs are located throughout Palo Alto, primarily in the four Business Employment Districts, two Regional Centers, and three Multi-Neighborhood Centers identified in the Land Use and Community Design Element. The pie chart is based on approximately 95,000 jobs within the City limits. Stanford Research Park contains the largest concentration employees—36 percent—while the University Avenue/ Downtown Area and Stanford University Medical Center are other important employment areas, each hosting nine percent of the City’s employees. However, over a quarter of workers are dispersed outside of the Employment Districts and Centers. Successful businesses and employers are an integral part of a thriving, complete community. Local businesses offer many positives, including offering goods and services to residents and providing revenues that support the high quality of Palo Alto’s services. However, Palo Alto has an unusually high concentration of jobs, with PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-3 approximately three times as many jobs (over 100,000) as employed residents (about 36,000). This indicates an exceptionally strong local economy, but it has also brought negative side effects over the past decade. Due to the high number of jobs relative to a low number of employed residents, many workers must commute to Palo Alto, resulting in traffic congestion, air pollution, and parking constraints. The understandable desire of workers to live close to their jobs has driven up the price of housing dramatically. The resulting high cost of living prevents restaurants, hotels and others in the service industry from finding sufficient employees. Similarly, commercial rents have risen precipitously in response to the demand for a Palo Alto address, driving a conversion of retail spaces to office uses and pricing out smaller stores and professional services. The City recognizes the importance of providing affordable housing and efficient transit opportunities for employees of all types of businesses, as addressed in the Land Use and Community Design, Transportation and Housing Elements of this Plan. RETAIL Palo Alto is home to a wide array of retail opportunities, from Stanford Shopping Center, to University Avenue, to small neighborhood-oriented shopping centers. Stanford Research Park, 36% Stanford Medical Center, 9% University Ave/Downtown, 9% San Antonio Road/ Bayshore Corridor, 6% Stanford Shopping Center, 5% Town & Country Village, 4% California Avenue, 3% East Bayshore, 2% Rest of City, 28% Figure B-1: City Employment Distribution Source: Association of Bay Area Governments and City of Palo Alto, 2016. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-4 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Currently, retail sales tax provides approximately five percent of total revenues to the City. Figure B-2 shows the revenue the City received in 2015 from sales tax (tax imposed on purchases of all goods in the state) and use tax (tax imposed on all purchases of goods from out-of-state vendors). Of the approximately $23 million in revenue, over half was generated by Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford Research Park and Downtown/University Avenue combined. The significant contribution of Stanford Research Park reflects the fact that retails sales tax includes taxes on business-to-business sales. While total sales tax revenue, including state and county pool allocations, in the City has increased significantly since 2009, the rate of increase has slowed in the past few years, as shown in Figure B-3. Recent economic studies have shown that retail spending is attributable not only to local residents, but also to local employees, local businesses, and visitors who come to the city for shopping and leisure, including University students. However, small, independent and locally-serving retailers in Palo Alto are currently experiencing challenges due to high rents, competition from online retailers, including in recruiting and retaining employees, as well as increasing healthcare costs. PLANNING CONTEXT THRIVING ECONOMY The City’s fiscal health and livability depend on maintaining a diverse community of businesses that are supported by residents, visitors, and workers. The City recognizes the need for all types of goods and services in the community, including by utilizing public-private partnerships and supporting non-profit agencies. Additionally, developing and maintaining advanced communications infrastructure is crucial to ensuring the City continues to be a viable location for new and established technology businesses. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-5 Stanford Shopping Center $5,700,000.00 25% Stanford Research Park $3,000,000.00 13% Downtown/ University Ave $3,400,000.00 15% California Ave/Park Blvd/Lambert Ave $1,500,000.00 6% Town & Country $600,000.00 3% All Other Areas $8,600,000.00 38% Figure B-2: Sales and Use Tax Revenue Received by the City by Geographical Area, Year Ending December 2015 Source: City of Palo Alto Office of the City Auditor. Sales Tax Digest Summary, Fourth Quarter Sales (October – December 2015). $- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 2009-10 Actual 2010-11 Actual 2011-12 Actual 2012-13 Actual 2013-14 Actual 2014-15 Actual 2015-16 Actual Fiscal Year Figure B-3: Sales Tax over Time Sales Tax Source: City of Palo Alto Open Data Portal. http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/home, accessed March 2017. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-6 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 INTERDEPENDENCE A thriving business environment in Palo Alto is one that complements and supports the city’s residential neighborhoods and natural environment. The City can help cultivate interdependence between commercial centers and surrounding neighborhoods through policies that maintain the natural environment while minimizing potential impacts on neighborhoods such as traffic and parking. FISCAL HEALTH Palo Alto’s continued fiscal health is crucial to providing the range and quality of infrastructure, services, amenities, and maintenance that residents expect. The key indicator of the fiscal health of any agency or organization is a balanced ratio of revenues to expenses. As shown in Figure B-4, the City’s total revenue stream has increased steadily over the last seven fiscal years (FY), from approximately $478 million in FY 2009-2010 to about $580 million in FY 2015-2016. This revenue comes from diverse sources, from the sale of utilities such as electricity, gas, water, and fiber optics; to the receipt of sales and property taxes. Figure B-5 illustrates total City expenses over the same time period, and shows that costs associated with salaries and benefits, utility purchases, contract services and other expenses have also risen, from about $526 million in FY 2009-2010 to about $629 million in FY 2015-2016. However, as illustrated in Figure B-6, Palo Alto’s total revenue has consistently outpaced its expenses, by an average of approximately $23 million per fiscal year. CULTURE OF INNOVATION AND BUSINESS DIVERSITY Palo Alto is a center of innovation within the technology sector. The City plays a key role in supporting business growth, including community-serving businesses and arts-based businesses, and utilizes metrics to track progress towards citywide economic goals. Partnerships and paired research efforts with Stanford University have consistently advanced across business sectors. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-7 $- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 2009-10 Actual 2010-11 Actual 2011-12 Actual 2012-13 Actual 2013-14 Actual 2014-15 Actual 2015-16 Actual Fiscal Year Figure B-4: Revenues over Time Net Sales Property Taxes Charges to Other Funds Sales Taxes Charges for Services Rental Income Return on Investments Transient Occupancy Tax Other Income Other Revenue More (8 Revenue Types Grouped) Source: City of Palo Alto Open Data Portal, http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/home., accessed March 2017. $- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 $700,000,000 2009-10 Actual 2010-11 Actual 2011-12 Actual 2012-13 Actual 2013-14 Actual 2014-15 Actual 2015-16 Actual Fiscal Year Figure B-5: Revenues and Expenses over Time Revenues Expenses Source: City of Palo Alto Open Data Portal, http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/home, accessed March PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-8 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 FLEXIBILITY AND PREDICTABILITY The City can support a healthy businesses environment by providing regulations and operating procedures that provide business owners and neighbors with predictability and certainty through changing economic cycles, while maintaining flexibility and adaptability as market conditions change. This could involve streamlining administrative and regulatory processes, and simplifying design guidelines for new development. The City can act as a facilitator between residents and businesses in these processes to help ensure that neighbors, as well as employers, understand requirements and know what to expect. RETAIL CENTERS Palo Alto’s robust retail economy is focused in retail centers, including both regional retail draws such as University Avenue/Downtown and Stanford Shopping Center, corridors such as California Avenue and El Camino Real, and smaller shopping centers like Edgewood Plaza. Regional retail centers employ large numbers of people, attract shoppers from well beyond Palo Alto’s boundaries, generate high sales tax revenues, and offer the broadest mix of goods and services. Multi- neighborhood Centers serve a much smaller area, typically the city or several neighborhoods within the city. Neighborhood Centers are the smallest unit; although their economic contributions are less substantial, they are vital to Palo Alto residents and are very much a part of community life. This Element provides policies and program to encourage the continued vibrancy of all Retail Centers, while recognizing that each Retail Center should maintain its distinctive character. BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS As described in the Land Use and Community Design Element, there are three Business Employment Districts in Palo Alto: Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical Center, and East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor. These districts provide thousands of local jobs, establish a customer base for many other Palo Alto businesses, and generate tax revenues for the city. Because each plays a central role in maintaining the fiscal health of the City, it is important to support their long-term viability and ability to respond to changing global economic conditions. STANFORD RESEARCH PARK As noted above, over one-third of the jobs in Palo Alto are located in Stanford Research Park. Over the coming decades, the Research Park will continue to evolve, but is likely to remain a major employment center. Working closely with Stanford PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-9 University and the hundreds of employers in the Research Park will help the Research Park remain competitive with others in the Bay Area and nation, while also providing opportunities to address issues of shared concern, such as easing commute-related congestion. Reinvestment along El Camino Real will not only benefit Research Park employees, but will also help the City increase vitality and enhance the physical appearance of El Camino Real. Providing housing and services like restaurants within walking distance of the Research Park also helps fulfill the City’s goal of reducing auto dependence. STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC), including the Stanford University School of Medicine, the Stanford University Clinic, Stanford University Hospital, and Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital, currently employs approximately 10,000 people and is one of the largest concentrations of health care services in the Bay Area. The City approved a Development Agreement with SUMC in 2011 which will continue for 30 years, throughout the life of this Comprehensive Plan. The Development Agreement covers the construction of a new Stanford Hospital and clinics buildings, an expansion of the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, construction of new School of Medicine buildings, renovation of the existing Hoover Pavilion, construction of a new medical office building and parking garage at Hoover Pavilion, roadway improvements along Welch Road and Durand Way, and SUMC design guidelines. Growth associated with the agreement is expected to increase employment at SUMC by approximately 2,500 jobs. The City Council reviews SUMC’s compliance with the terms of the Agreement on an annual basis. EAST BAYSHORE AND SAN ANTONIO ROAD/BAYSHORE CORRIDOR The East Bayshore and San Antonio Road areas serve a special economic role. Its relatively low-cost space provides opportunities for a variety of service industries and start-up businesses that could not feasibly locate in the higher cost areas. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-10 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS GROWTH THRIVING ECONOMY GOAL B-1 B-3: New Businesses in Palo Alto that contribute to economic vitality, and enhance the city’s physical environment, promote municipal revenues and provide needed local services.and Municipal Revenues Policy B-1.1 Encourage new businesses that meet the City’s business, andeconomic, goals or municipal services requirements, as articulated in this Plan and the City’s other Economic Development Policies, to locate in Palo Alto. [Previous Policy B-9] [B1] Direct Implement the City’s Economic Resource Program B1.1.1 Plan Palo Alto Office of Economic Development to implement the Economic Development Policy, as periodically amended, to guide business development in the City. [Previous Program B-2] [B2] Policy B-1.2 Promote Palo Alto’s image as a business-friendly community. Assume an active role in fostering new businesses, particularly including small start-ups, entrepreneurs, and , start-up innovative businesses. in emerging industries. [Previous Policy B-10] [B3] Policy B-1.3 Engage with all stakeholders in the community, including businesses of all sizes, local retailers, the public, and City decision-makers in order to understand the challenges businesses and employers face. [NEW POLICY] [B4] Policy B-1.4 Attract businesses that innovate in the areas of mobility and sustainability, and encourage these businesses to employ local residents. [NEW POLICY] [B5] Policy B-1.5 Consider Encourage the use of public private partnerships as a means of redeveloping and revitalizing selected areas where beneficial to achieving the City’s goals. [Previous Policy B-11] [B6] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-11 Policy B-1.6 Encourage the private sector to participate in partnerships withpartnerships with community groups and nonprofit or public agencyies building owners and developers to provide space for community-serving non-profits.or public agencies community benefits when feasible and services that would not otherwise be made available. [Previous Policy B-12] [B7] Policy B-1.7 Encourage businesses of all kinds to advance Palo Alto’s commitment to fiscal and environmental sustainability. [NEW POLICY] [B8] On an ongoing basis, evaluate opportunities for City involvement in public/ private partnerships, including public investment in infrastructure and other improvements, siting of public art, and modification of land use regulations and other development controls. [Previous Program B-3] Support the development of technologically advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of the emerging telecommunications industries [Previous Policy B-13] Develop the City Council-approved fiber optic ring around the City as recommended in the 1996 Telecommunications Strategy Study and evaluate and implement enhancements to the system. [Previous Program B-4] Work with electronic information network providers to maximize potential benefits for Palo Alto businesses, schools, residences, and other potential users [Previous Policy B-14] Allow the creative use of City utilities and rights of way to ensure competition among networks in providing information systems infrastructure [Previous Policy B-15] COMPATIBILITY AND INTERDEPENDENCE GOAL B-2 B-1: A thriving business environment that complements is Compatible with Palo Alto’s residential Character neighborhoods and natural environment. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-12 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Policy B-2.1 Support local-serving retail, recognizing that it provides opportunities for local employment, reduced commute times, stronger community connections and neighborhood orientation. [NEW POLICY] [B9] Policy B-2.2 Support a strong interdependence between existing commercial centers and surrounding neighborhoods as a way of encouraging economic vitality. [Previous Policy B-2] [B10] Policy B-2.3 Recognize that employers, businesses and neighborhoods share many values and concerns, including traffic and parking issues and preserving Palo Alto’s livability, and need to work together. [NEW POLICY] [B11] Policy B-2.4 Use a variety of planning and regulatory tools including growth limits, to ensure compatibility between Palo Alto’s thriving business districts and its healthy, stable neighborhoods. change is compatible with the needs of Palo Alto neighborhoods. [Previous Policy B-1] [B12] Policy B-2.5 Recognize that Palo Alto’s street tree systemnatural environment and features is anare economic assets to the City. [Previous Policy B-3] [B13] FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY GOAL B-3 Careful management of City revenues and expenditures so that the fiscal health of the City is ensured and services are delivered efficiently and equitably. (NEW GOAL) Policy B-3.1 Promote a comprehensive approach to fiscal sustainability that includes careful monitoring of revenues and expenditures, efficient City operations, and land use, business and employment strategies. [NEW POLICY] [B14] Policy B-3.2 Support a diverse range of businesses that generate revenue and enhance the City’s fiscal sustainability. [NEW POLICY] [B15] Continue to refine tools, such as the Business Program B3.2.1 Registry, as data sources on existing businesses, including the type of business, number of employees, size, location, and other metrics to track the diversity of Palo Alto businesses. [NEW PROGRAM – PTC] [B16] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-13 Policy B-3.3 Develop strategies for promoting businesses and employers that generate revenues that will support a full range of high-quality City services, including retain and attract revenue-generating businesses. [NEW POLICY] [B17] CULTURE OF INNOVATION AND BUSINESS DIVERSITY GOAL B-4 B-2: A diverse mix of Commercial, Retail, and Professional Service Businesses The stimulation of diverse commercial, retail and professional service business opportunities through supportive business policies and a culture of innovation. Policy B-4.1 Nurture and support Palo Alto’s image as a global center of emerging technology by fostering innovation, supporting the established businesses technology sector as well asand newattracting new businesses. [Previous Policy B-4] [PTC] [B18] Policy B-4.2 Attract and support small businesses, non-profit organizations, and professional services, which are vital to a diverse and innovative economy. [NEW POLICY] [B19] Revise zoning and other regulations as needed to Program B4.2.1 encourage the preservation of space to accommodate small businesses and other services. [NEW PROGRAM] [B20] Consider planning, regulatory, or other incentives to Program B4.2.2 encourage property owners to include smaller office spaces in their buildings to serve small businesses, non-profit organizations, and independent professionals. [NEW PROGRAM] [B21] Policy B-4.3 Promote the growth of small businesses. [NEW POLICY] [B22] Policy B-4.4 Recognize that Stanford Research Park contains a concentration of some of the City’s largest employers, and seek to maintain a mix of office and research and development uses. [NEW POLICY] [B23] Policy B-4.5 Maintain distinct business districts as a means of retaining local services and diversifying the City’s economic base. [Previous Policy B-5] [B24] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-14 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Policy B-4.6 Encourage and support the operation of small, independent retail businesses, and locally-serving professional services. [Previous Policy B-7] [B25] Work with local merchants to encourage Palo Alto Program B4.6.1 residents, workers, and visitors to buy, and seek professional services, in Palo Alto. [NEW PROGRAM] [B26] Study the impacts of on-line shopping on local, Program B4.6.2 traditional retail uses and develop strategies to help traditional retail adapt. [NEW PROGRAM] [B27] Evaluate which types of businesses are most likely Program B4.6.3 to be successful and where. [NEW PROGRAM] [B28] Study the overall viability of ground-floor retail Program B4.6.4 requirements in preserving retail space and creating an active street environment, including the types of locations where such requirements are most effective. [NEW PROGRAM] [B29] Maintain distinct neighborhood shopping areas that Program B4.6.5 are attractive, accessible, and convenient to nearby residents. [Previous Policy B-6] [B30] Initiate assessment districts or other programs to facilitate neighborhood shopping center improvements such as landscaping, parking, and access to public transportation. [Previous Program B-1] Encourage the renovation and reuse of long-term vacant buildings. [Previous Policy B-8] Policy B-4.7 Explore opportunities to provide spaces for arts and entertainment activities, and other creative and visitor uses. [NEW POLICY – PTC] [B31] FLEXIBILITY AND PREDICTABILITY GOAL B-5 City regulations and operating procedures that provide certainty, and predictability and flexibility and help businesses adapt to changing market conditions. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-15 Policy B-5.1 Maintain a healthy business climate, which provides for predictability and flexibility for those seeking City approvals. Encourage streamlining of City administrative and regulatory processes wherever possible. Reduce inefficiencies, overlap, and time delays associated with these processes. [Previous Policy B-16] [B32] Regularly evaluate ways to improve coordination of Program B5.1.1 the City’s environmental review, permitting, and inspection processes. including issues relating to hazardous materials and water quality regulations. [Previous Program B-6] [B33] Improve design guidelines to reduce ambiguity and Program B5.1.2 more clearly articulate design compatibility principles to the business community and to the public. [Previous Program B-7] [B34] Simplify the design review process for small-scale Program B5.1.3 changes to previously approved site plans and buildings. [Previous Program B-5] [B35] Evaluate methods to achieve the development limitations currently imposed by adopted floor area ratios in a more flexible manner. Such methods could include the use of building envelope restrictions. [Previous Program B-8] Revise the Sign Ordinance to more clearly reflect community design standards and requirements relating to size, number of signs, allowed locations, and design. [Previous Program B-9] Revise zoning and other regulations as needed to Program B5.1.4 encourage the revitalization of aging retail structures and areas. Encourage the preservation of space to accommodate small, independent retail businesses and professional services. [Previous Program B-10] [B36] Policy B-5.2 Continue to provide “one stop” service at the Development Center and to consolidate inspections to the extent feasible. [NEW POLICY] [B37] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-16 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Policy B-5.3 Strengthen the role of the Office of Economic Development to attract and retain local serving businesses; assist businesses to navigate City procedures and requirements; and facilitate communication between residents and businesses.[NEW POLICY] [B38] RETAIL CENTERS GOAL B-6 Attractive, vibrant business retail centers, each with a mix of uses and a distinctive character. ALL CENTERS Where redevelopment is desired, encourage owners to upgrade commercial properties through incentives such as reduce parking requirements, credit for on-street parking, and increases in allowable floor area. Use such incentives only where they are needed to simulate redevelopment or contribute to housing or community design goals. [Previous Policy B-17] Create incentives for providing multi-unit housing on top of parking lots in or near commercial centers and transit hubs. [Previous Policy B- 18] Use street corridor improvements as catalysts for economic revitalization in selected Centers. [(Previous Policy B-19) (Overlaps with Land Use Policy L-4.1)] Identify and prioritize commercial centers in need of economic or physical revitalization. [Previous Program B-11] REGIONAL CENTERS University Avenue/Downtown Policy B-6.1 Support and enhance the University Avenue/ Downtown area as a vital mixed use area containing retail, personal service, andsmall office, restaurant, residential, and arts and entertainment uses. Recognize the importance of an appropriate retail mix, including small local businesses, to the continued vitality of Downtown. [(Previous Policy B-20) (Overlaps with Land Use Element Policy L-4.5)] [B39] Actively work with Downtown businesses, Program B6.1.1 professional associations and the Palo Alto PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-17 Chamber of Commerce to retain successful retail businesses that contribute to the City’s goals for Downtown. [NEW PROGRAM – PTC] [B40] South of Forest Mixed Use Area (SOFA) Policy B-6.2 Maintain uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the Downtown business district, allow for the continued operation of automotive service uses, and serve the needs of nearby neighborhoods. [Previous Policy B-21] [B41] Stanford Shopping Center Policy B-6.3 Work with appropriate stakeholders, leaseholders, and Stanford University to ensure that the Stanford Shopping Center is sustained as a distinctive, economically competitive, and high quality regional shopping center. [Previous Policy B-22] [PTC] [B42] MULTI-NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS California Avenue/Cal-Ventura Maintain the existing local-serving retail orientation of the California Avenue business district. Discourage development that would turn the district into a regional shopping area or intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods. [(Previous Policy B-23)] Policy B-6.4 Foster the establishment of businesses and commercial services in the California Avenue business district that serve the adjacent neighborhoods, as well as Stanford Research Park.[Previous Policy B- 24] [B43] El Camino Real Policy B-6.5 Strengthen the commercial viability of businesses along the El Camino Real corridor, by, for example, encouraging Encourage the development of well-designed pedestrian-oriented neighborhood retail, professional services and housing. office centers along the El Camino corridor. [Previous Policy B-25] [PTC] [B44] Policy B-6.6 Recognize the role of El Camino Real as both a local-serving and regional-serving corridor, defined by a mix of retail uses, housing and office space. [NEW POLICY] [B45] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-18 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 Town and Country Village Policy B-6.7 Retain Town and County Village as an attractive, local-serving retail center. the local-serving retail character of Town and Country Village. [Previous Policy B-26] [B46] NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS Support the upgrading and revitalization of Palo Alto's four Neighborhood Commercial Centers. [Previous Policy B-27] Review the effect of size caps, parking requirements, and other land use restrictions on the viability and competitiveness of neighborhood centers. [Previous Program B-13] BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS GOAL B-7 Thriving business employment districts at Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical Center, East Bayshore/San Antonio Road Area and Bayshore Corridor that complement the City’s business and neighborhood centers. STANFORD RESEARCH PARK Policy B-7.1 Support the positive relationship between the local business community and Stanford University faculty, alumni, and administrators. [Previous Policy B-28] [B47] Policy B-7.2 Facilitate Stanford’s the ability of Stanford University and Research Park businesses to respond to changing market conditions that support the long-term viability of the Research Park. [Previous Policy B-29] [B48] Modify zoning regulations to allow convenience-oriented businesses such as restaurant s and office support services within the Research Park. [Previous Program B-14] Review policies and regulations guiding Program B7.2.1 development at Stanford Research Park and revise them as needed to allow improved responsiveness PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 B-19 to changing market conditions. [Previous Program B-15] [B49] Study the feasibility of a “transfer of development Program B7.2.2 rights” (TDR) program and other measures that would provide greater development flexibility within Stanford Research Park without creating significant adverse traffic impacts or increasing the allowable floor area. [Previous Program B-16] [B50] Policy B-7.3 Encourage commercial investment and activity along El Camino Real and within Stanford Research Park that complements the Research Park and adjacent neighborhoodsStanford Research Park and enhances their its physical appearance. [Previous Policy B-30] [B51] Policy B-7.4 Identify opportunities along the El Camino Real and within Stanford Research Park where a concentration of commercial services serving Research Park employees and visitors might be created. [Previous Program B-17] [B52] Evaluate the location near the northwest corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real for a hotel and conference facility. [Previous Program B-18] Policy B-7.5 Encourage incubator businesses in Stanford Research Park. [Previous Policy B-31] [B53] STANFORD MEDICAL CENTER Policy B-7.6 Support the approved buildout of the SUMC and Aassist Stanford Medical Center in responding to changes in the delivery of health care services. Work with the Center to plan for changing facility needs, but within the context of City of Palo Alto planning goals and policies, as well as the goals and policies of other relevant jurisdictions. [Previous Policy B-32] [B54] EAST BAYSHORE AND SAN ANTONIO ROAD/BAYSHORE CORRIDOR Policy B-7.7 Seek to balance increases in costs for business space with the need for rehabilitation and replacement of outdated space Discourage actions that could increase the cost of business space in the San Antonio Road and East Bayshore areas, consistent with the East Meadow Circle Concept Plan as periodically amended. [Previous Policy B-33] [B55] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT B-20 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DRAFT – MAY 15, 2017 1 RELEVANT CITY DOCUMENTS AND STUDIES: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY ELEMENTS Compiled for the Comprehensive Plan Citizens’ Advisory Committee, October 2016 – November 2016 Natural Environment Element • Airplane Noise Study [link]: Palo Alto also commissioned its own of aircraft overflight noise, performed by consulting firm Freytag & Associates Inc. The evaluation found that planes fly lower, faster and more frequently, resulting in increased noise. • Guidelines for Dewatering During Basement or Below Ground Garage Construction [link]: Adopted by the City in 2016, the guidelines provide a set of requirements for the dewatering process that must be adhered to, including 1) the use of fill stations so that others may use water for irrigation; and 2) a plan that demonstrates how a maximum amount of pumped water will be safely used. • Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance, Section 18.040.140 of the Zoning Code [link]: This ordinance applies to areas within 50 feet of the top of a stream bank and establishes requirements for construction, planting, lighting, and irrigation within the stream corridor. The ordinance was informed by the "Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams: A Manual of Tools, Standards, and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resource in Santa Clara County [link]” created by the Water Resources Protection Collaborative, a group of representatives from the water district, cities, the County, business, agriculture, streamside property owners and environmental interests convened by SCVWD. The City formally adopted the guidelines in 2007. • Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan (Master Plan) [link]: The goal of this Master Plan, currently set for adoption in 2017, is to provide guidance for meeting future recreational, programming, and environmental and maintenance needs, as well as establishing priorities for future park renovations and facility improvements. • Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) [link]: The UFMP, adopted in 2015, establishes long-term management goals and strategies to foster a sustainable urban forest in Palo Alto. The UFMP addresses topics such as the state of Palo Alto's tree canopy, best management practices, interdepartmental coordination, and tree-related City regulations. • Tree Technical Manual [link]: The Tree Technical Manual establishes specific technical standards and specifications deemed necessary to implement the City’s 1997 Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, and to achieve the City’s tree preservation goals. • Baylands Master Plan (BMP) [link]: Originally adopted in 1978 and last updated in 2008, the BMP is a long-range plan for “treating the Baylands as an integrated whole and balancing ecological preservation with continued commercial and recreational use.” • Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) [link]: Most recently revised in 2013, the Plan addresses the protection and management of federally listed and special-status species, labeled 2 "Covered Species," that occur or potentially occur on Stanford lands. The HCP plan area includes some lands within the Palo Alto city limits, and portions these lands, such as the Lagunitas Reservoir and undeveloped areas west of Foothill Expressway, have been identified as habitats for Covered Species. • Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) [link]: A Draft S/CAP was released in April 2016. On April 18, 2016 the Council unanimously approved the primary goal of the S/CAP - achieving an 80% reduction in Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) below 1990 levels by 2030. On November 28, 2016 the Council unanimously adopted the S/CAP Framework [link]. This Framework will serve as the road map for achieving Palo Alto’s 80 x 30 GHG reduction goal, and for developing the Sustainability Implementation Plans (SIPs). Safety Element • Local Hazard Mitigations Plan (LHMP) [link]: Palo Alto’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) is currently developing a city-specific version of Santa Clara County’s LHMP, a plan required by federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 that will update the City’s 2012 “annex” of the County LHMP [link]. The LHMP describes broad community goals and actions to mitigate the highest- priority hazards facing Palo Alto. The Plan will build on a comprehensive vulnerability/risk assessment to develop a series of policies and actions to mitigate the city’s top hazards of earthquake, flood, sea-level rise, wildfire, drought and extreme heat. • Vulnerability Assessment [link]: Recent legislation, notably Senate Bill 379 (2015), requires that local climate adaptation and safety policy be based on a formal vulnerability assessment. As noted below, the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, currently being prepared, is based on such an assessment. Throughout 2016, the LHMP team has identified and assessed top city hazards, inventoried its major assets and established a community risk profile. Although the vulnerability assessment has not yet been published, Planning staff is coordinating with staff from the City’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) [link], the department that is responsible for the vulnerability assessment and LHMP. • Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) [link]: A THIRA is a four step planning tool that the Department of Homeland Security requires of states and “high-threat, high-density urban areas,” including Palo Alto, to prepare. The THIRA covers natural hazards, technological hazards, and human-caused threats and lays out a framework “to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk.” Through the THIRA process, the City identified a range of potential hazards and prioritized the greatest risks, ranging from earthquake and flood to airplane accidents or cyber-attacks. • Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) [link]: The City Council adopted the current EOP in January 2016. It “serves as the foundational document for the City’s emergency management activities” and establishes departmental roles and responsibilities for mitigating, preparing for, responding to, and recovering from emergencies or disasters. It also outlines interjurisdictional coordination, mutual aid, and a “Whole Community” approach of collaborating with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), community-based organizations (CBOs), faith-based organizations (FBOs), private-sector businesses, educational organizations, and other stakeholders. 3 • SAFER Bay Levee Improvements [link]: The San Francisquito Creek JPA is currently conducting a levee improvement design project for the Bayfront levees between San Francisquito Creek and the Palo Alto/Mountain View border. The Strategy to Advance Flood protection, Ecosystems and Recreation or “SAFER Bay” will develop a Bayfront levee system design that provides 1% (100- year) protection from tidal flooding, assuming three feet of seal level rise over the next five decades. Palo Alto is participating in a feasibility study to identify potential alternative methods and alignments for levee improvements, estimated project costs, and preliminary environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and permitting requirements. • Foothills Fire Management Plan (FFMP) [link]: The goal of this 2009 management plan is to reduce losses from wildland fire in Palo Alto’s Wildland Urban Interface area, including the foothill areas within the City limits west of I-280. The majority of this area is covered by the Pearson- Arastradero Preserve, Foothills Open Space Preserve, and Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. In 2012, the City entered into a multi-year agreement with the Santa Clara FireSafe Council to implement the FFMP and to provide additional community education and outreach to the residents of the Wildland Urban Interface area within the city. The FireSafe Council is currently in the process of preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan [link] that includes a Palo Alto annex [link]. • Seismic Risk Management Advisory Group [link]: The City has convened an advisory group to provide input about community priorities regarding updating Palo Alto’s Seismic Hazards and Identification Program (Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.42). Members represent local residents (owners and renters), architects, engineers, contractors, developers, City staff, and regional agencies. Agendas, minutes, and presentations are available at the link above. • Capital Improvement Program [link]: The 2017-2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), adopted as part of the Fiscal Year 2017 Capital Budget, provides information regarding plans for infrastructure maintenance, expansion, and regulation in Palo Alto. • Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee [link]: In 2010 the City Council created a commission of 17 citizens and commissioners to provide a recommendation on infrastructure needs, priorities, projects and associated funding mechanisms to address the infrastructure backlog and future needs. The IBRC considered these questions over a 25-year time horizon and made specific recommendations to “catch up” (address deferred maintenance) and “keep up” (conduct routine maintenance and plan head for systematic repairs), as well as plan for new or rehabilitated facilities. The IBRC final report contains 20 specific recommendations, including a new system for monitoring infrastructure; building a new Public Safety Building; and approaches to financing infrastructure investments. The IBRC concluded their work in 2011. • Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) [link]: As required by the Urban Water Management Planning Act, all cities are required to update their UWMP every five years and submit it to the California Department of Water Resources for review and approval. The 2015 UWMP, adopted by the City Council in May 2016, includes an assessment of the reliability of the City’s water sources, an analysis of water demand and alternative water supply sources, a description of water conservation efforts, and a water shortage contingency plan. • Water Integrated Resources Plan (WIRP) [link]: Originally adopted in 2003 and updated in 2016, the WIRP discusses the variety of potable water supply resources and planning. It includes an 4 assessment of alternative potable water supplies, and assesses recycled water as a tool to reduce potable water demand. • Recycled Water [link]: The City owns and operates the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), a wastewater treatment plant, for the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Stanford University. Wastewater from the City and these communities is treated by the RWQCP prior to discharge to the Bay. The RWQCP currently produces recycled water in excess of the current demand; therefore staff is working to expand the recycled water demand and distribution system. The City certified an EIR [link] on September 28, 2015, to expand recycled water through South Palo Alto to Stanford Research Park and is currently working on updating the 1992 Recycled Water Master Plan. To improve the quality of recycled water and reduce its salinity/total dissolved solids (TDS), the City is initiating a jointly funded feasibility study (with SCVWD and Mountain View) on the installation of an advanced water purification system (AWPS) at RWQCP (link to CMR here). • Sewer System Management Plan [link]: The Sewer System Management Plan documents the proper operation and maintenance of CPAU’s sanitary sewer system, including capacity management and system audits. In addition, the Municipal Code includes the Sewer Use Ordinance [link] to prevent and control pollution and protect and foster human and environmental health and the Private Sewage Disposal Systems Code [link], which prohibits the installation of private sewage disposal systems or septic systems in subdivisions, except where installation of public sanitary sewerage facilities is clearly not feasible. • Storm Drain Master Plan [link]: The City prepared a Storm Drain Master Plan Update in June 2015. The Master Plan Update re-examined and reprioritized the storm drain improvements needed to increase the capacity of the City’s storm drain system to bring it into conformance with current design standards. More recently, an 11-member Storm Drain Blue Ribbon Committee concluded its work and forwarded recommendations to Council for future storm drain funding. The Blue Ribbon Committee suggested a shift to using the term “stormwater management” and recommended that the City emphasize green storm water infrastructure planning and implementation in its future storm water program and City-wide capital improvement program scoping and budgeting. The shift toward green infrastructure is consistent with new mandates from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board to develop a Green Storm Water Infrastructure Plan. (Council staff report and complete recommendations here) [link] • Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) Master Plan [link]: The City of Palo Alto operates its own fiber optic utility. City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) has the day-to-day responsibility for operating, maintaining, and marketing a 41-mile dark fiber optic backbone system (“fiber system”) that passes key City facilities, business parks, and commercial areas. CPAU licenses “dark fiber” for commercial purposes. Customers pay a one-time construction fee to connect to the fiber system and then pay a monthly recurring charge to license the use of the dark fiber. In 2015 the City completed a Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) Master Plan and a Wireless Network Plan. The key recommendations from the FTTP Master Plan suggested that the City explore a public-private partnership to develop an FTTP network (as a complement to the existing dark fiber network) and offer retail FTTP services. The Wireless Network Plan recommends expanding the City’s existing Wi-Fi coverage to additional City facilities and adjoining public areas such as parks; installing dedicated wireless facilities to address the needs of the City’s first responders and Utilities; and considering a citywide broadband wireless network for use by the general public. 5 • CPAU Carbon-Neutral Portfolio [link]: The City is committed to providing a carbon-neutral electricity supply from sources including solar, wind, landfill-gas-to-energy plants and hydroelectric projects and has many long term power contracts in place to ensure a reliable supply of renewable energy. CPAU requires that all of the facilities from which CPAU procures electricity must comply with applicable State, federal and local environmental rules and regulations, including individual environmental review and permitting processes. CPAU relies on those State and federal environmental laws and controls that protect endangered species, which the developers of renewable energy power plants must comply with and which the governing bodies approving those developments must enforce. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT PLACES MEMO Tuesday, December 13, 2016 The following documents are attached for your review and information: 1. CAC member Bonnie Packer’s comments 2. CAC member Hamilton Hitching’s comments 3. CAC member Annette Glanckopf’s comments Comments From CAC Member Bonnie Packer 12/12/2016 Introduction is great. Just a few editorial comments: Introduction: “management of open land”: Shouldn’t this say open space instead of open land? Map N-2: What do the 4 zones indicate? Storm drain system Map N-5 ?? This did not come through Energy: What about natural gas? Climate change: It should be noted here that some of the policies and programs in the Transportation Element are also for the purpose of slowing global warming by reducing GHG. Open Space: N-1.1 [N1] private open space. Private open space should be defined more explicitly. Is the intent here to refer to private property located in the open space zones? Does private open space include small backyards in the flatlands? It is very important that this be made clear. There are references elsewhere to residential backyards. Policy N-1.9 [N22] bullet points: Are these essentially a restatement of the rules for development in the open space zone? If so, eliminate the bullet points and simply state that the City will continue to apply the guidelines in the zoning code relating to developments in open space zone. Program N1.10.4 [N27]: What in-lieu fees are being referred to here? Please be specific. Policies N-11. And 12 [N28 and N29] Add San Mateo County. Urban Forest: Programs N2.6.1 and 2: Need to clearly and explicitly define street trees; that is trees that are in the City rights-of way. Accordingly, rewrite Policy N-2.7 [Previous Policy N-15] [N42] as follows: Where no tree exists in the City right of way, or if City-planted trees (street trees) are removed from the right of way in front of new commercial, multi-unit, and single family housing projects, require the owner/developer to provide or replace such street trees and related irrigation systems where appropriate. [Previous Policy N-15] [N42] Creeks: Setback requirements: Policy N-3.3 and programs: will any of this prevent the construction of or repair of existing trail bridges? Water Resources: Policy N-4.6 [N83] retaining rainwater on site – What sites does this policy apply to? City property? Is this for all properties? It should be rewritten to state: “Encourage the retention and utilization of rainwater on site….. “ There is some language missing in the following program: Program N4.8.2 Explore appropriate ways to monitor dewatering for all dewatering and excavation projects and to is not recharged into the aquifer. [NEW PROGRAM] [N92] Program N4.12.1 [N105] Evaluate Promote the use of permeable paving…..What verb belongs here? Evaluate or Promote? Program N4.12.3 is redundant as the idea is expressed in N-4.12.1. Also, it is not clear where this would apply, as written (another poorly drafted EIR mitigation measure) Program N4.12.3 Mitigate flooding through improved surface permeability or paved areas, and storm water capture and storage. (EIR Mitigation Measure) [NEW PROGRAM] [N107] Air Quality: Policy N-5.3 should be made stronger by adding the language in italics: Establish and regularly enforce regulations that reduce emissions of particulates from manufacturing, dry cleaning, construction activity, grading, wood burning, landscape maintenance, including leaf blowers, and other sources. [(Previous Policy N-27)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1)] [N130] Policy N-5.4 Add introductory language as indicated in italics: Establish and regularly enforce regulations that require all potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants be adequately buffered, or mechanically or otherwise mitigated to avoid odor and toxic impacts that violate relevant human health standards. [Previous Policy N-29] [N135] Noise: Policy N-6.1[N136] The long narrative about guidelines for noise levels must come from some official document that should be referred to, rather than repeated here in the comp plan. Program N6.10.1 [N151] Remove the reference to the Stanford University Medical Center. Energy: (In the Safety Element this is referred to as Power – which is the better term?) Program N7.1.1 [N161] should this say “meet customer electricity and natural gas needs”? Climate change: No comments Safety element. Community Safety: Policy S-1.6 [S19] Should protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons (i.e., not just residents). Program S1.7.2 [S25] regarding the Public Safety building: Rewrite: “Ensure that the new Public Safety building meets the needs….and will be resilient….” Power: In the Natural Environment Element the word used is Energy. Does it matter? Natural Hazards: Floods: Policy S-29 [S65] Use “Prohibit” rather than “prevent”regarding habitable basements in flood zones. Comments from CAC Member Hamilton Hitchings 12/12/16 I have read the latest version of the Safety Element and overall it looks quite good. I did spot a couple of things: * Program S1.1.3 "Develop citywide emergency drills that involve residents...". I believe this is supposed to be "emergency services volunteers". We don't currently have drills for the untrained general population and we are not planning on adding them to my knowledge. I think Annette feels strongly about this so Annette plays weigh in. * MAP S-2 says "Earthquakes and Faults" with no legend of what they are nor text saying there are not any in Palo Alto. It would be nice if it was clearer to the reader what it was showing us. * MAP S-5 "Fema Flood Zones". I believe the 100 year flood zone is larger than denoted, especially in the Duveneck/St. Francis and Crescent Park Neighborhoods. Since Embarcadero and cross streets are not show such as Newell, Middlefield and Louis its harder to tell and it would be helpful if those could be added. Hamilton Hitchings Comments from CAC Member Annette Glanckopf 12/13/16 Hello all. My comments follow: Safety Element 1. Program S1.1.3: Yes I do feel strongly about this. The city is not going to take on implementing a drill for all residents. The program should read: Develop citywide emergency drills that involve key stakeholders - City of Palo Alto first responders, city staff, ESVs (Emergency Service Volunteers) and the Red Cross 2. Program S2.6.1: On seismic : The program encourages neighborhoods to pool resources for seismic retrofits. I think the city c/should be the agent that does this...or at least add to program 3. Combine Program S2.5.2 and S2.53 4. Policy s2.9: Change word "Prevent" to "Prohibit"....new habitable basements ...within the flood zone 5. Policy s2.15 I suggest using the word "expand" not "support "........ the Fire dept efforts in public education since they are currently mainly focused on foothills fire prevention planning 6. As far as the maps: I agree with Hamilton...all of them need larger and better identification. IE the one on earthquake faults not clear where the faults are. Natural Environment 7. Tighten spacing map and page N4 8. Program Nl.1.1- remove errata "s," before Pearson 9. Policy Nl.4: Program Nl.4.1calls for review of CEQA thresholds of significance regarding special status species.....but for me this is hanging. Then what action should be 10. taken...report status to the agencies listed in program? 11. Goal N2 under Urban Forest: Add a new Program N2.1.2. Add " explore feasibilit y and locations for a memorial park to commemorate citizens who have contributed significant pub/le service to the City of Palo Alto.,, 12. Program N2.9.1. There is a comment Replacement tree program complete. If so, should this program be removed? 13. Program N3.4.1addresses creek stewardship, which is currently ongoing by Acterra. Replace the word "develop" to "enhance"or" expand." 14. Water Resources Policy N4.3: Add incentive programs,.Note: some of which are currently in place at city or county level 15. Policy N4.8 Program N4.8.1add regulate ...research, develop programs and regulate new construction .................... 16. Program N4.8.2: Add regulate 17. Policy N4.15 Add new program "Considerprohibiting waterfrom (new) construction (basements) toflow into storm drains" 18. OMIT Program N5.2.2 or reword. It addresses cars idling for more than 3-5 minutes. I am not sure how one can regulate cars in traffic from idling. 19. Policy N.6.2 :Consolidate construction noise under Policy N6.10 Annette COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT PLACES MEMO Tuesday, March 21, 2017 The following documents are attached for your review and information: 1. CAC member Don McDougall’s comments 2. CAC member Jennifer Hetterley’s comments 3. CAC member Annette Glanckopf’s comments don McDougall 3/19/17 Analysis including Safety x POLI CIES PRO GRAMS Deleted Routine In Progress New Community Services 27 10%40 11%13 48%COMMUNITY SERVICES Trnasportation 58 22%75 20%17 29%C1 Efficient 23 21 2 10 15 Land Use 81 30%56 15%-25 -31%C2 Quality 2 3 1 Natural Environment 58 22%106 29%48 83%C3 Parks maintained 6 3 2 2 1 1 Safety 24 9%77 21%53 221%C4 Parks adapt 2 8 1 0 1 6 Business & Economics 18 7%14 4%-4 -22%C5 Well-being 9 5 3 5 266 368 102 38%42 40 5 16 2 27 102 TRANSPORTATION T1 Sustainable 26 23 5 3 8 19 Community Services 27 11%40 14%13 48%T2 Congestion 4 6 0 3 54 Trnasportation 58 24%75 26%17 29%T3 Efficient Roadway 17 8 3 2 1 Land Use 81 33%56 19%-25 -31%T4 Character 3 3 0 1 Natural Environment 58 24%106 36%48 83%T5 Parking 11 14 1 1 1 14 Safety T6 Safe 7 14 2 8 1 10 Business & Economics 18 7%14 5%-4 -22%T7 Transit Dependent 1 3 2 2 242 291 49 20%T8 Region 12 4 1 3 3 81 75 12 19 15 102 LAND USE L1 Attractive 18 8 14 1 1 6 L2 Community 4 6 2 L3 Hoods 9 3 3 L4 Pedestrian Retail 10 11 2 4 1 6 L5 Employment districts 4 1 1 0 L6 Buildings 13 5 4 2 5 L7 Historic 12 6 1 2 1 L8 Cultural 1 0 4 L9 Public Spaces 13 12 1 3 1 9 L10 Airport 3 6 3 1 4 87 58 27 15 4 36 85 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT N1 Open Space 10 11 8 7 9 N2 Urban Forest 12 18 8 13 N3 Creeks 8 7 1 3 N4 Water 16 30 1 11 4 22 N5 Air 3 10 6 7 N6 Noise 12 11 2 2 5 N7 Energy 8 15 6 11 N8 Climate Change 4 5 1 4 73 107 9 41 7 74 SAFETY S1 Prepared 13 29 19 27 S2 Natural Hazards 15 28 1 9 3 18 S3 Human Causes 12 19 11 2 13 40 76 1 1 1 1 BUSINESS B1 Economic Dev 1 1 2 B2 Compatiblity 3 0 B3 fiscal responsibility 2 1 1 B4 Retail 6 4 1 4 B5 Regulations 1 5 2 B6 Vibrant retail 1 1 2 B7 Employment districts 2 2 16 14 0 4 1 7 339 370 54 96 30 247 Total Routine or IP 126 CAC Member Don McDougall’s Comments on Draft Implementation Plan Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. March 21, 2017. change changeAnalysis excluding Safety 1998 Programs 1998 Programs Current draft Programs Current draft CAC Member Jennifer Hetterly’s Comments on Draft Implementation Plan Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. March 21, 2017. Agree with Don – don’t sacrifice qualitative value of programs on the altar of quantitative targets. Only 15% completed is a very misleading metric. 185/368 programs in the draft are “ongoing” - those that are routine will never be “complete.” The 15% metric implies a failure by the City to implement the Comp Plan, when in fact, if this draft were adopted as is, we would start on day one with close to 50% of the programs already underway! Prioritization is a fraught exercise. Dot activity oversimplifies the challenges. 1. By listing the programs without the policies (just what we told Council NOT to do) we can’t see the inter-relationships. There may well be opportunities to integrate some programs into the policies (thereby eliminating such programs) or identify redundancies between policy and program (which may allow deletion of the program). It also may be appropriate to add or revise programs to respond to Council’s latest policy choices. For example, elimination of the Downtown CAP should not necessarily lead to deletion of program L1.16.6 to “Evaluate and adjust the zoning definition of office uses allowed in downtown and to consider ways to prioritize for small business and startups.” And Council’s direction to exclude specific development requirements and community indicators in the Comp Plan (because they’re not fully baked yet) does not mean we shouldn’t have a more general Policy to measure and evaluate the success of policy incentives to increase housing affordability, reduce SOV use and manage the sufficiency and use of parking or monitor the impacts of development. 2. Dot exercise encourages folks to pile on for their own, or most high profile priorities – leaving programs for lower profile, though critically important interests neglected. 3. Again, passion for quantification (dots for 10% of programs in each element) distorts qualitative priorities. a. The total number of programs in each element has NO bearing on the relative importance of individual programs across the board. I would argue that based on the Land Use policies, programs in CSF, T, S and NE should have relatively more dots as that’s where all the impacts of ramped up growth can be measured and mitigated. b. Furthermore, even by that approach, the number of dots are not equitably distributed. If you want 10%, make it 10% - LU should not get 10 dots for 56 progams. 4. A single meeting is insufficient. CAC Member Annette Glanckopf’s Comments MARCH 21, 2107 BUSINESS ELEMENT: • DESCRIPTION B10: REVISE SOME OF THE SUH DEVELOPMENT ACCOMPLISHED OR IN PROGRESS. (NEW HOSPITAL, CLINIC, PARKIGN STRUCTURE AT HOOVER) DOES IT BELONG IN COMP PLAN? • ELEMENT AFTER POLICY B3.4.6 PRORAM B4.6.3. • KEEP: MAINTAIN DISTINCT NH SHOPPING ARES THAT ARE ATRACTIVE ACCESSIBLE AND CONVENIENT TO NEARBY RESIDENTS. NEEDS TO BE IN BOTH PLACES (FITS BETTER UNDER GOAL B6) • OFFICE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: NEED POLICY DECISION FROM COUNCIL POLICY B5.3 ALSO POLICY WON’T BE ANY GOOD W/O STAFFING COMMUNITY SERVICES: • C1.14.1 WHY DOES PAUSD NEED TO KNOW ABOUT EVERY DEVELOPMENT DON’T THEY JUST NEED TO KNOW JUST THE ONES FOR YOUTH. • C1.19.1. REPLACE WORD SENIOR WITH ADULT • C1.19.2 AFTER SENIOR SERVICES, ADD “IN MULTIPLE LOCATIONS” • GOAL C.2 O C.2.21 TIE PERFORMANCE REVIEW TO PERFORMANCE INCREASES O C.3.21. DOESN’T FIT IN THIS SECTION. • C.5.1.1 WORDING IS TOO FLUFFY. • C5.6.2: TO ME, IT IS LOW VALUE TO TRY TO EDUCATE VISITORS ON HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, WHEN WE HAVE SO MANY OTHER NEEDS • C5.91. INDOOR GARDENS ? LAND USE GOAL L-1 • PROGRAM L1.3.1 WRONG ORDER. ESTABLISH POTENTIAL SITES FIRST, THEN WORK WITH STAKEHOLDERS • PROGRAM L.1.71. ADD AFTER REGULATORY TOOLS “SUCH AS FINING” • L.1.12.3 ADD MIDTOWN AND CHARLESTON PLAZA (HOUSING SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED) O NOTE: ANY DEVELOPMENT WOULD DEVASTATE LOCAL BUSINESSES AND MAKE PARKING WORSE GOAL L-2 • PROGRAM L2.2.1 OMIT. I DO NOT THINK SMALL RETAIL FITS IN RESIDENTIAL ESPECALLY R1 • PROGRAM L2.3.1. DO NOT REMOVE SAN ANTONIO FROM HOUSING SITE POTENTIAL. THERE IS HOUSING THERE ALREADY WITH GREENHOUSE, PALO ALTO GARDENS, AND THE JCC/ALTAIRE AND ALTURA • L.4.4.2: QUESTION: EXISTING WORK WITH PRIVATE ENTITIES FOR RESTROOMS? • • L.4.4.3 QUESTION: WHO IS WORKING WITH CN MERCHANTS? NOT THE CHAMBER , IF PLANNING, DO THEY TAKE ACTION ON CITY COMPLAINT, OR HOW DO THEY PRIORITIZE? CN SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO HAVE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS. THE SMALL MERCHANTS CANNOT AFFORD AN ASSESSMENT. • L.4.5.1: KEEP LOWER FAR • L4.6.2: OTHER AREAS NEED A COORDINATED PLAN BEFORE DOWNTOWN…..FRYS’S FIRST (MENTIONED ALTER) THEN EL CAMINO ARE HIGHER PRIORITY. • L.4.10.1 EAST WEST CONNECTION OMIT WORDING “TO BRING NEIGHBORHOODS TOGETHER” • L.6.13.1 INCLUDE WIDER SIDEWALKS • L9.4.2 WHILE A WORTHY GOAL, IT ISN’T IMPRACTICAL. IN MY EXPERIENCE MOSTLY DOESN’T WORK • L9.8.1 OMIT WORDING (OR RE-WORD) “PUBLIC BUILDINGS”. WHY SHOULD WE BUILD PUBLIC BUILDING IN GATEWAYS? • L.9.13.1 HOW CAN THIS BE RE-WORDED SO THAT THE CITY DOESN’T PUT DOWN IMPROVEMENTS LIKE RE-TARRING STREETS AND THEN PUBLIC WORKS COMES ALONG AND TEARS UP. NEED TO INCLUDE COORDINATION BETWEEN DIFFERENT UTILITIES AND BUILDING. • L.10.3.1 IF THIS IS EXISTING AND IS PLACE, CAN WE OMIT ? NATURAL ENVIRONMENT • N2.1.1 ADD ADOPT THE URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN (WORDING DELETED FROM ANOTHER ELEMENT) • N2.2.1 ADD ESPECIALY FOR CONTRUCTION • N3.3.2 COMBINE WITH N.3.3.1 • N4.7.3 COMBINE WITH N.4.7.1 • N4.7.4 COMBINE WITH N.4.7.1 • N.4.11.3 COMBINE WITH N4.11.1 • COMBINE N4.13.1 AND N4.12.2 • N4.13.2: DO WE NEED THIS? COMPLETE IMPROVEMENTS TO STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN…SINCE IT IS ONGOING AND WILL BE DECIDED SOON IN BALLOT? • COMBINE N.4.14.1 AND N.4.14.2 • COMBINE N4.16.1 AND N4.16.3 SAFETY ELEMENT • S.1.5.1 ONGOING PROGRAM. ADD OES TO DEPARTMENT • S.1.10.1 IS ONGOING. DOES THIS NEED TO BE A POLICY? • S1.10.3 IS ONGOING. DOES THIS NEED TO BE A POLICY? • S2.7.1 REWORD • S2.7.3 COMBINE WITH S 2.5.2 • S2.8.2 SHOULDN’T THIS BE ONGOING? • S.2.9.2 CONSIDER RE-WRITING AND COMBINING WITH S.10.1 • S.2.12.2 COMBINE WITH S.2.13.1. IN S,2,12,2 ADD “FOOTHILLS” • S.2.13.5 COMBINE WITH S2.15.1 • S.3.6.2 DOESN’T BELONG IN THIS SECTION “ SUICIDE PREVENTION” • S.3.1.5 COMBINE WITH S.3.1.6 BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • B.1.1: IS THERE A POLICY? • B.4.6.3: STUDY SHOULD INCLUDE – “WHAT MAKES GROUND FLOOR RETAIL VIABLE” AS WELL AS WHAT TYPE OF BUSINESSES FIT IN WHAT TYPE OF AREA? D’TOWN, CAL AVE, MIDTOWN, EL CAMINO ETC TRANSPORTATION • T1.2.4: NEEDED? WHAT OTHER MAJOR CITY FACILITY WILL BE BUILD AFTER PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING • T1.5.1 REMOVE WORDING “ FOR LOCAL ERRANDS” LOCAL ERRANS AND COMMUTING ARE APPLES AND ORANGES • T.1.11.1: VTA SERVICES.. IS THIS A VERY SHORT TERM PROGRAM THAT IS NOT NEEDED IN COMPL PLAN? • T1.19.5 I SUPPORT SAFETY FEATURES AS ENHANCED LIGHTING, BUT NOT INTREPRETATIVE STATIONS ESPECIALLY IN PARKS. SEEMS LIKE THIS SHOULD BE 2 SENTENCES. ONE FOR PARKS (ISN’T THIS IN PARK MASTER PLAN) AND ONE FOR THE BIKE/PED ROUTES. I SUPPORT STREET TREES AND LIGHTING. CONCERN OVER NEIGHBOHOOD SEATING AND INTREPRETIVE STATIONS • T3.10.1 COMBINE WITH T.3.10.3 • T.3.10.4 RATHER AN UNDERPASSING DOWNTOWN, WE NEED ANOTHER IN SOUTH PALO ALTO ESPECIALLY NEARFOR SCHOOL CROSSINGS • T.5.1.2 I DO NOT SUPPORT REDUCED PARKING FOR RETAIL AND RESTAURANTS • T.5.1.4 I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROGRAM – UNBUNDLED PARKING • T5.2.3 ADD CONSIDER SPECIAL PARKINF RATES FOR PALO ALTO RESIDENTS • T.5.4.1 COMBINE WITH T.5.7.2 • T.6.1.2 MAKE MORE GENERIC. REMOVE CONCEPT OF PAPER MAPS. • T6.2.1 WHY THIS AREA? IS THIS MORE OF A PROBLEM THAN ANY OTHER AREA? SAY MIDTOWN AT TOWLE? OR CROSSING AT SAFEWAY? COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 1 of 41 TUESDAY, December 13, 2016 Rinconada Library – Embarcadero Room 1213 Newell Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 5:30 PM TO 8:30 PM Call to Order: 5:35 P.M. 1 Co-Chair Keller: 2 Present: Fine, Glanckopf, Hitchings, Keller, Kleinhaus, Kou, Levy, McDougall, McNair, 3 Moran, Nadim, Packer, Peschcke-Koedt, Summa, Sung, Titus, Uang, Uhrbrock, 4 van Riesen, Wenzlua 5 6 Absent: Emberling, Filppu. Hetterly 7 Oral Communication: 8 Co-Chair Garber: Yolanda, have you completed? Have you completed the roll? 9 Yolanda Cervantes: Yes. 10 Co-Chair Garber: I count 16. I think that’s right. We have a quorum. We will move forward. Now, is the 11 time that we would have members of the public speak at oral communications. We have two cards. If 12 you would like to speak, please present a card. The first speaker will be [Betty Jo Chang], followed by 13 Esther Nygard. Betty Jo, you will have three minutes and yes, please use that speaker right there, thank 14 you. 15 Betty Joe Chang: Good evening. Thank you for your efforts on this Plan Element. It’s made a big 16 progression since the last time I read it and I really appreciate the time you’ve put into it. I just had a 17 couple of comments. I do have a handout with more of the reasons why. On item S-2.8.1, page S20, the 18 flood immigration requirements. I’d like you to consider adding to this policy S-2.8.1, a recommendation 19 that municipal code 16.2, the Cities flood hazard regulations be also applied to those areas on your map 20 as 6 of sea level rise. In residential areas that are within that 55-inch sea level rise, should have the 21 municipal code regulation 16.2 attached to it as well. This will have the effect of proactively reducing 22 construction of resident basement dwellings in areas where we know we may expect more flooding 23 during the practical lifetime of residential construction. This decoupled Palo Alto’s health and safety 24 concerns from often glacier responses of a property insurance mechanism, such as FEMA. We have to 25 remember that FEMA is about property damage and this plan is about health and safety of our citizens. 26 The second item, S-2.8.2, page S20 also. Thank you for continuing to participate in the Community 27 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 2 of 41 Waiting Program and for looking at perhaps, improving our rating one more notch because that may 1 reduce the cost of volunteer health – flood insurance in these areas that are going to be prone to 2 increased flooding as a result of climate change. Item S-2.8.3, also on the same page; partnering with 3 appropriate agencies to expand flood zones is appropriate due to channel creek changes and sheet 4 flooding, Nah Nah Nah. Please add – consider adding to that policy again. The recommendation that 5 municipal code 16.2B be added to – applied to all those areas dedicated on your map as 6 for sea level 6 rise. Program S-9 on page S21, prevent habitual basements as part of residential development in areas 7 within the flood hazard zone. We have to remember that all of Palo Alto is in some risk of flooding. 8 Please consider adding a prohibition of new habitual basements as part of the single family and 9 multifamily residential neighborhoods within the sea level rise and dam inundation map areas on maps 10 as 6 and as 7. Finally, program S-2.9, the study of appropriate restrictions on groundwater construction, 11 where the groundwater is 14-feet or less to accommodate expected high water levels. Please consider 12 adding a deadline for this study report of no later than 24 months from adoption to the Comprehension 13 Plan. Time is of the essence in this regard. Thank you again, for your time and your contribution to the 14 City. 15 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Esther Nygard If there is anyone else that would like speak, please give us a 16 card. Oh, I’m sorry Nygard, I apologize. 17 Esther Nygard: That’s alright. Good evening everybody. I just wanted to bring to your attention the 18 Water Energy Climate Nexus, which I believe is not mentioned in this plan so far. The Water Energy 19 Climate Nexus is a major theme in climate change adaptation these days. California’s water sector 20 consumes nearly 20% of the State electricity and 30% of its natural gas and its needs are growing. The 21 water sector uses – I’m done? The water sector uses electricity to pump, treat, transport, deliver and 22 heat water. Expected increases in groundwater pumping, water treatment, and water recycling mean 23 the energy intensity of water will grow but water does not only consume energy. It is an important 24 player in the generation of power and heading into the future, we expect climate change will add 25 additional stress on the availability of water for both portable use and energy production. For California 26 and Palo Alto to meet its climate goals, we need to rethink the role that water plays as a significant 27 electricity consumer and producer. Water and energy symbolically rely on each other to be produced 28 and delivered and in the face of climate change, they are inherently impacted together and it becomes 29 imperative that one cannot address without the other. Some possible goals to adapt to climate change 30 and reduce greenhouse gasses, as suggested in the paper from Department of Energy include the 31 following. First, optimize the energy efficiency of water management, treatment, distribution and used 32 systems. Second, enhance the reliability and resilience of energy and water systems. Third, increase safe 33 and productive use of non-traditional water sources. Fourth, promote responsible energy operations 34 with respect to water quality, ecosystem, and systemic impacts. Fifth, explore productive synergies 35 among water and energy systems. I believe Palo Alto already has some of these goals and/or some 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 3 of 41 programs that address some of these goals. However, in my opinion, the Energy Water Climate Nexus 1 remains to be acknowledged more explicitly in our plans. Thank you. 2 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. 3 Staff Comments: 4 1. Recap of November 28th City Council meeting on the Draft Land Use Element 5 Co-Chair Garber: Staff, I believe we have a recap of the November 28th City Council meeting on the Draft 6 Land Use Element. 7 Hillary Gitelman: I really wanted to be brief here. I don’t know how many of you were able to watch but 8 some of CAC members were actually at the meeting. It was a long conversation with the City Council 9 about the Land Use Element. Elaine and Elena were there, and Joanna was there to help give a brief 10 presentation of all the work the CAC had done in putting together the Draft Element and also 11 transmitting all of the comments that were in the Council’s Packet. I think, safe to say that the City 12 Council appreciated all of your efforts. They gave us a lot of comments. It was very diffuse. I mean they 13 didn’t get to the point where they could narrow down and sort of get to decisions yet but I think we set 14 the stage for a productive meeting the next time we go to Council, which we’re planning to do at the 15 end of January; where we’ll actually ask them to make choices between the options in the growth 16 management area, the height limit area and the others that you articulated in the Land Use Element. I 17 think we’re well positioned for that discussion. It will be a meeting of where they – Council gets both the 18 Land Use Element and then Transportation Element. So, they can also see the synergies between the 19 two of them. We don’t have a definite date yet. We’re tentatively on the calendar for the 30th of January 20 but I will let you know if that changes. We’re actually kind of hoping they set aside a whole day for this 21 discussion, instead of trying to cram it into a late Monday evening but we’ll see if we can prevail on the 22 new Council to make that happen. Then, just one more thank you to all of you for your efforts this year 23 and not just to the Committee but to the Staff and consultants. We’ve all put in a tremendous amount 24 of work and to the public, we have some religious attendees who have shared their thoughts with us 25 throughout this year and I appreciate all of that. We put in a lot of work. I think we have a lot to show 26 for it and we’re getting very close to the end on this project. So, we have good momentum. It’s been 27 really terrific and of course, special thanks to Adrian, Lydia, and Doria, who are moving on to other 28 assignments. Luckily, I think they will all be in a position to help us get this work done in their new roles. 29 Hopefully, we will, in 2017 see a conclusion to this process. Anyway, that’s all I have. 30 2. 2017 CAC Schedule 31 3. Changes to CAC and Next Steps 32 33 Elaine Costello: Ok, speaking of conclusion to this process and of – you know, we did this – this turn 34 around was shorter because of the holidays so, there were a couple little glitches in terms of what went 35 out. There was a page, I think it was page 7 that said the next steps, and it gives a colon and if you turn 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 4 of 41 to the next page, there were not next steps. That doesn’t mean you’re done. That just meant that At 1 Places are that list of next steps and the list of appendices. Basically, what we’re looking for is in January, 2 we will be at the meeting on business and economics and we will be – we have been asking members of 3 that subcommittee to let us know their availability for a subcommittee meeting on either January 5th or 4 6th. So, that we can have a subcommittee meeting before we hear it in mid-January and the other dates 5 that are on here as well. It’s really quite – as Hillary said, it’s quite a remarkable achievement that we 6 had really pushed – a lot of you have worked really hard to get these two elements done tonight so, that 7 we could have the majority – well, we could have almost everybody on the original CAC here for the 8 final action on this. So, we only have one more element to go, which is business and economics and then 9 we have some work on implementation and some work on governance and the user’s guide and we will 10 be done and it will move on. So, if you – both the schedule – the monthly schedule and this set of next 11 steps, which was actually page 10, are at your At Places. Also, At Your Places – any questions on the 12 schedule or how we’re going to move ahead? Also, At Places are the comments that were received from 13 CAC members and the comments that were received from Betty Jo. Betty Jo brought her comments 14 tonight and the other comments are all staples together. So, that is what is at your At Places and with 15 that, we were going to let Dan, who had some comments to make too. 16 17 Co-Chair Garber: As one of the co-chairs, also wanted to add our special thanks to Lydia and Adrian, 18 who are attending their last meeting of the CAC. I am so sorry for that. You would have such a better 19 time here. Lydia is not with us but hopefully, she’ll get the message but congratulations again and we 20 will look forward to your good work on the Council. Also, thank you, Lisa. We also wanted to give a 21 special thank you to Doria and this is her last meeting, however, we are hoping that she might come and 22 visit us as a representative of the PTC in the coming year and we’ll find out if that happens or not. 23 (Crosstalk) Either do we but we’re dancing to the rain gods here. Then finally, Heidi, who is not here this 24 evening. We also wanted to extend a special thank you and hopefully, she will continue her participation 25 as a citizen and through oral communications and the modes of communications that we have available 26 to ourselves. Any case, thank you and I wanted to offer all of that. 27 28 Agenda Items: 29 1. Action: Safety Element III 30 a. Introduction to revised Safety Element 31 b. Discussion of Draft Element 32 33 Co-Chair Garber: Let us get to our agenda items. We want to take action on the Safety Element. Does – 34 and – one moment. I will do that in a second. Did Staff have any comments to lead us into Safety 35 Element or do we want to go directly to – ok. 36 Elaine Costello: Do a brief presentation on where the status of the Safety Element (Inaudible)… 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 5 of 41 Co-Chair Garber: Ok, and then, just before we go I want to acknowledge that Whitney McNair joined us, 1 to add to the list, thank you. 2 Joanna Jansen: Thank you, Dan. The first element on our agenda tonight is the Safety Element and this 3 element is coming back to you. It has not gone to the subcommittee since the last time you saw it. This 4 is an element that incorporates your changes that we discussed when we were here on November 15th. I 5 think at – by the time of November 15th, we were pretty far along in this element due to the hard and 6 very knowledgeable – hard work and knowledge of our subcommittee members and the participation of 7 Staff from the Police Department and the Office of Emergency Services and Public Works and IT. A lot of 8 upfront work went into getting the element into good shape. Enough that we were able to make a series 9 of – for the most part, pretty minor cleanups and clarifications and additions based on your 10 conversation last time. I think one of the most significant changes that you probably recognize was that 11 this element was reorganized based on our discussion. I think the trigger for this was, the discussion of 12 water-related policies. Previously, this element included a section on infrastructure and within that 13 infrastructure section, there were sections on water, wastewater, stormwater, etc. and CAC pointed out 14 that a lot of those policies were very closely related to the policies about creeks and water resources in 15 the Natural Environment Element. We took a closer look at that and we were able to reorganize those 16 policies and programs and combine a lot of the water-related policies and programs into the Natural 17 Environment Element. That kind of dissolve our infrastructure as a whole so, we’ve moved the pieces of 18 what used to be in infrastructure goal into various – other places. The section on power is now found 19 under Community safety because that was really about maintaining a safe and reliable grid during 20 emergencies. The section on solid waste has been moved to be a part of a goal about human-caused 21 threats along with hazardous materials as has cyber security. With that, we kind of dissolved the 22 infrastructure goal and the other piece that was moved within this element is that there use to be a goal 23 5, about emergency management, which was really about specifically, responding and kind of this 24 disaster response type of role and that has become now a part of Goal S-1, Community safety. Again, in 25 response to the CAC discussion that we had last month. So, some reorganization here. I thought the 26 element worked really well, once we made these changes. Hopefully, you guys feel the same. That’s one 27 of the most substantive things that we’ve done since the last time you saw it. Then, under – so, there 28 are three goals in this element now. Just briefly, under each other of them. The Staff report details the 29 changes but I will just mention some of them. Under Goal S-1, I think one thing that we didn’t get quite 30 right was this program about emergency drills. I think that should have been changed to be able 31 emergency service volunteers and so, we can certainly clarify that in the next round and thank you, for 32 those of you who pointed that out. We have added a little bit more about engaging the business 33 community, not only in disaster preparedness but also in recovery plans. We’ve mentioned the use of 34 urban design principles to increase safety and the role of block preparedness coordinators. One thing I 35 wanted to note that’s not mentioned in your Staff report, rather than an addition, was a deletion. There 36 was a program last time about proactively identifying offenders before a crime has occurred and I think 37 that made a lot of folks nervous about profiling as the appropriates of such a program and I think while 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 6 of 41 it might have had good intentions, we realized that that was probably flawed and that program is not 1 here anymore. That’s been removed in response to those concerns. Of course, there are still many 2 programs about working with the Police Department and specifically, transparency and communication 3 about police strategies as well as satellite police locations. Goal 2 is about natural hazards. Specifically, 4 earthquakes and geological hazards and flood hazards, as well as fire hazards. These policies were 5 changed to clarify seismic rehabilitation and some policies where the rehabilitation wasn’t specified, a 6 new policy to encourage or support neighborhoods that do want to pursue an effort to pool resources 7 for seismic retrofit efforts. Clarifying the program about sunset dates for TDR programs that would 8 incentivize seismic retrofits and add a reference to the Baylands Master Plan in terms of whenever the 9 City is considering shoreline development as part of flood control or flood prevention projects. Finally, 10 under human-caused threats, probably one of the major topics that we changed under this goal had to 11 do with groundwater contamination and ongoing kind of refinements to the policies and programs 12 about basements and basement construction. In addition, we made some changes to the POP program 13 about telecommunications to replace maximum with the word high and clarify in the Program S-3.12.3 14 about the Wi-Fi network. We removed the specific reference to off grid. Again, in my opinion, kind of, 15 really rather minor changes in terms of the policies and programs themselves and defiantly interested to 16 hear your comments on the Safety Element. Thank you. 17 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Can I have members of the subcommittee – the safety subcommittee 18 speaks first. If you’d – if those that would like to speak would put their cards up. Hamilton, followed by 19 Annette, followed by Don. Go ahead Hamilton. 20 Hamilton Hitchings: I think that the changes that the Staff made have actually worked out really well. I 21 like the new organization. I think that was a big win. It feels denser and more organized. So, thank you 22 on that. In general, the element looks good. There are a couple of little things that I think Staff can clean 23 up after this meeting before it gets presented to Council but I don’t see any reason to have another 24 subcommittee meeting at this point. Do make 100% sure you correct S-13 because we brought it up a 25 couple times before. Other than that, I think – and the diagrams still needs some work because I was 26 looking at the flood diagram and then I’m like, there are whole neighborhood that was flooded in the 27 (Inaudible) Francis and Crescent Park area that aren’t covered in that diagram and that was only like a 28 50-year flood, approximately. I know – I think it needs a little bit more and the map needs a little bit 29 more detail and just, in general, the diagrams. The earthquake one was kind of confusing too but that 30 was the first time we’ve seen the diagrams. They’re the right subject matter, just a little bit more detail 31 would be great. Again, I don’t think there’s any reason that these changes can’t be handled solely by 32 Staff. I feel like the elements really come together so, thank you. 33 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Annette and then Don. 34 Annette Glackopf: Well, my comments are going to echo Hamilton’s but first of all, let me say thank you 35 for our little goody and for dinner and for all the good work and the element is coming together. I would 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 7 of 41 echo the comment that was already made about the drills and I know Staff also responded to that. In my 1 notes included some sample wording. On the topic of seismic and encouraging neighborhoods to pool 2 resources. The City already does – or had a program to do that so, I think also the City could – we could 3 also add – the City could be an agent that does the pooling; that’s sort of a note. When we talk about 4 habitable basements, which is Policy S-2.9, rather than the word prevent new habitable basements 5 within the flood zone. I think we should say prohibit. I think the Save Palo Alto Groundwater has made it 6 very clear on that point. I’m not sure how you would do code informant on that, which has always been 7 my button but I like the word prohibited rather than prevent. Then, on Policy S-2.1.5 of 15, about the 8 Fire Department's efforts in education. Rather than support these efforts, I would use the word expand 9 the Fire Department's efforts in public education. I know that is something they want to do but 10 currently, the major focus is in the fire areas in the Foothills. With that, I think it really looks good. I also 11 think the maps in this section and the natural environment section need to be tightened up. The 12 graphics, the text need to be increased. I mean you have to use a microscope to actually look at them. 13 I’m glad that we include all – many of the key maps that were included in THIRA, in that whole process; 14 threats, analysis, etc. Ok. Thanks. 15 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. 16 Don McDougall: The first thing I want to do is complement both of Annette and Hamilton for their 17 leadership on this subcommittee. In fact, they did a tremendous job of reviewing everything in detail. I 18 like what was done here. I think that there’s actually been more impact on this than is implied. The 19 suggestion that this was, you know, tweaking it, I think that is a real interesting content and 20 presentation. I think the idea not that it is safety and natural impacts and man mad impacts, really 21 clarifies what we’re trying to deal with. I like the idea that we added prepare, mitigate and recover as 22 opposed to just business continuity in the business section. I like the connection to the Bay Lands 23 Master Plan, I think that was really important. I think Hamilton’s point about the hundred-year flood. I 24 think there’s a map somewhere that shows the 100-year flood area and it’s different than this one. I 25 think we need to deal with that and I would encourage – like Hamilton, I don’t believe we need another 26 subcommittee but I would encourage the basement and groundwater – a review of that to maybe 27 tighten it up. I think there’s still a great deal of and about that. There’s lots of good technology from 28 [ISRE] and people like that with maps and I think relying on the fact that the maps look great when 29 they’re in color but they don’t look so great when they’re in black and white. They look great when 30 they’re on a 25x48 sheet but they don’t look so great when they’re on an 8 ½ by 11 sheets. There could 31 be some focus on that; just for presentation purposes. Again, I’d like to thank and complement Hamilton 32 and Annette. 33 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Are there other discussions from other members? If you would put your 34 cards up. Bonnie… 35 Co-Chair Keller: Should we just go around? Why don’t we just go around (Inaudible) 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 8 of 41 Co-Chair Garber: I think we may only have one person that is interested in speaking. Bonnie go ahead. 1 Bonnie Packer: Ok, I have just a couple of very small things. Policy S-.6, protect the privacy and civil 2 liberties, not just of residents but of all persons. With that in mind, last night around 10:30 at night, the 3 City Council passed a resolution about inclusiveness and I can’t get on the internet so I couldn’t 4 download my copy of it but I thought that would be a good thing. It’s a general resolution. It’s in 5 reaction to the election and the concerns that people have but about ensure that people feel safe and 6 that their human rights are being recognized and that there (Inaudible) process and a whole lot of things 7 like that. I think it would be – somehow if we could fit it in somewhere under the community safety, that 8 this is a safe Community for all persons. With respect to how the law treats them, treats people and in 9 other ways and that it might be something to consider. Another thing that will be coming before the City 10 that they may consider – the new City Council may consider is the concept of a sanctuary City. Again, 11 we’re talking about safety for all people and this may be an appropriate place to refer to that if not 12 include that resolution. I had a couple of just grammatical point – oh, there’s one other question I have. 13 In the natural environment section, we talk about – sections called energy. I the safety, we call it power. 14 I don’t know what the difference is and in what context and whether we should be consistent in the 15 words that we’re using. I know the power grid is different from energy supplies like from natural gas. So, 16 some clarification so, little definition to make a distinction there might be useful. That’s a seismic issue. I 17 love to raise seismic and also, I want to thank you for the lovely food and the little gift and thank you. 18 Co-Chair Garber: So, just to fair, we will touch on everyone and we’ll go down the line here. Why not 19 start over there? Amy, you don’t have a card up. Is there anything you would like to add to the 20 discussion? 21 Amy Sung: No. 22 Adrian Fine: Just really quickly, I think this is a really great section. Thanks Staff for including some urban 23 design issues around safety and the environment. Two points. So, one on Policy S-3.11 about digital 24 infrastructure and securing that. It sounded a little bit like the City was trying to go it alone and discover 25 what is right for us. There may be some other Cities that we can learn from or other Cities we can teach 26 in terms of providing a safe digital data infrastructure. The last one is on Annette’s point about S-2.9, 27 preventing or prohibiting basements in flood zone. That seems like a pretty specific policy. I mean, I’m 28 just not sure this group really debated whether we’re going to put that forward into the Comp. Plan. I’m 29 just raising it as it is now. Otherwise, I think this is a great section, though. 30 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Don, you’ve already spoken. Ellen. 31 Ellen Uhrbrock: Well, I want to really thank the Staff for making the revisions of the – with the 32 organization of this and I think it’s fine. I have this one small comment except it’s a new addition. You 33 have an S-1 on Community safety. You refer to the plans for the elderly and people with special needs 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 9 of 41 and I wonder if you want to include another category and is people who work or live on the third floor 1 or above in high rise buildings. 2 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Alex. 3 Alex van Riesen: I was also thinking about the point that Bonnie mentioned and I was wondering if it 4 wouldn’t be worthwhile to change the vision statement? I don’t know if that’s in stone but I notice that 5 the language would – sorry – would lend itself to that because the very first line of the vision statement 6 is, the City of Palo Alto is committed to the day to day safety of its entire residential, business and 7 Community. It would seem like we could include a line that would accentuate that the risks or some of 8 the hazards that we’re concerned about are not just natural disasters or human disasters or toxic waste 9 but some of the things that I think have been a growing concern in Communities. So, just a thought 10 about where to put it. 11 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Jennifer. 12 Jennifer Hetterly: I think the element is shaping up really nicely. Also, most of my concerns were in the 13 flood hazard and mitigation section. I think it needs to be strengthened somewhat. I didn’t have time to 14 write them up though but I have read this handout from Betty Joe Chang and I would like to advance the 15 recommendations that she puts there. Particularly, the first 3 out of the 4. Other smaller issues are 16 Program S -3.1.5, which is work with non-profit organizations to provide information to the public 17 regarding pesticides and other commonly used hazardous materials. I’d like to add insecticides to that 18 list. Pesticides and insecticides and other commonly used – that came up several times in the natural 19 environment subcommittee as a concern so, I would love to see that added here. Just above that, 20 Program S-3.1.3, about strengthening development review requirements has a second sentence that 21 standards should be consistent with state and federal regulations. I think you can delete that second 22 sentence because of course, they have to be consistent with state and federal regulations. The next 23 page or to pages later, Program 3.6.2, about working with Caltrain and the Palo Alto Unified School 24 District to educate students on the dangers of rail trespass and benefits of suicide support. I’d like to add 25 the public; educate students and the public because it’s not just students who are at risk. That was all I 26 had for this element. Thanks. 27 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Doria. 28 Doria Summa: I’ll be quick. Thank you, I do think it looks much improved and very close to being ready. 29 Just too quick, I’ll just associate my comments with Jen’s and the Committee and speakers before, I do 30 agree that the most important thing is probably strengthening the flood section. Thank you. 31 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Hamilton, you have already spoken, may I come back to you? 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 10 of 41 Whitney McNair: Thank you. I think the section is looking great. I just had a comment. There’s an 1 identification of critical facilities, which has a triangle symbol and it may be identified somewhere in 2 another element but it doesn’t have a definition within this element at all. So, I was having a hard time 3 trying to understand what those represented. Then, I’m just working with the engineers at Stanford, just 4 to make sure the dam inundation map is correct from the records that we have as well as the map S9. 5 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Jason. 6 Jason Titus: Yeah, I think it looks great. I’ve been – each of the points that I was wanting to make sure 7 were included, seem included. It’s great. 8 Co-Chair Garber: Ok. Lisa. 9 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: I also think it looks great. I mean it’s a huge, I think, development to get here. I 10 have a couple things similar to what Bonnie said. Whether it’s the vision that Alex mentioned or there’s 11 the human-caused threat section, is to add something about the inclusive and protecting everyone. The 12 diversity is there, which is great to see and I think where every that policy or program goes, probably 13 should also include something about the bullying – the children or teen issues that I think we’ve been 14 seeing as well as part of the human-caused threats. I think it belongs somewhere in safety but I may 15 have missed it. Is that – I may just have missed it. 16 Joanna Jansen: Sorry, if I could. That has been mentioned before and I think it’s in the Community 17 Services and Facilities Element. 18 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: I thought I had seen something somewhere but I might (Inaudible) something in 19 safety as well; given that there’s this human cause section in a sense and that would I think, pick up on 20 what Alex and Bonnie said as well. Then, to go to a little bit on the flood hazards which is the Policy S-21 2.8, because the programs now include existing, not just new development. I think the policy just needs 22 to be slightly expanded so that, you know, it’s something – minimize exposure to flood hazards by 23 maintaining and enhancing existing flood and reviewing proposed development. It’s just because the 24 programs have to do with existing as well. Then, this is one – a little bit what Adrian said on the 25 basements. I’m not convinced we need to prohibit them and the way it’s written, I – this is more of a 26 small technical thing. It happens that the neighborhood I live in, is generally speaking in the flood hazard 27 area or flood zone but our house is actually not in the flood zone. We have a map amendment, we’re 28 not in the flood zone. There are a few other houses there. The way it’s written, I think it – we’re not 29 planning to build a basement so, it’s not a personal issue but I think the way it’s written, since it’s saying, 30 prevent the basements in the neighborhoods within the flood hazards, rather than that property within 31 the flood hazard. It shouldn’t be a neighborhood constraining a house that is not in the flood hazard. If 32 we keep this basement provision which, I would actually say, I’m not sure we should but if so, then fine. 33 Beyond that, I just want to echo, I think it’s just been – oh, sorry, one other thing, going to your point 34 too. There are several places that it mentions elderly and people with disabilities and such I’m 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 11 of 41 wondering if, given the other discussion we had, we should also include children. Just in general because 1 it tends to be – I mean, I think we’ll naturally protect children before anyone else but it probably worns 2 having them in there because it is kind of a special need in a way. That would be consistent throughout, 3 not one particular section. That was it. I thought it was awesome and thank you also for the lovely meal 4 and gifts and the great year. 5 Co-Chair Garber: I hear we may be seeing more of you? 6 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: Yes, I’m not leaving, sorry. 7 Co-Chair Garber: Yeah! 8 Co-Chair Keller: Yeah! 9 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: Instead I have decided to retire from my day job. (Inaudible) 10 Co-Chair Garber: Alright, thank you. Bonnie, we’ve heard from you. Julia. 11 Julia Moran: I don’t have too much to say. The major concerns I had the last meeting have been solved 12 so, thank you and clearly, the Committee has done a huge amount of work. Thank you so much for all 13 that. Thank you for the gifts. I would just concur with Alex and Bonnie and Lisa about adding something 14 regarding the Human Safety Element where ever everyone deems it best fit. 15 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Elaine. 16 Elaine Uang: Yeah, thank you again. Great gifts, great meal, great everything. I’m glad that Alex pointed 17 out the vision in the City of Palo Alto being committed to the day to day safety of its entire residential, 18 business and visitor Community. Just looking through this in a cursory exploration, it seems like while 19 there was some language put into sort of talk about and recognize the business Community, I think 20 there need to be a few additional references to the business Community. If you think about Palo Alto 21 during the day, Monday-Friday, 8-6 or whatever, I mean, the population almost doubles and so, that’s a 22 significant portion of the people. I think we need to explore the Safety Element through the lens of the 23 number of people that it impacts and which policies impact the most folks. So, I think the inclusion of 24 business, especially, under the emergency management section, is critical. Adding that to the seismic 25 and the flood hazard issues are -- the earthquake geological hazards and flood hazards and mitigation is 26 important too but I think what we would find by enlarging, in anyone of these events, during the 27 business hours, we do need to have some attention to the volume of people who are in our City under 28 that function and they’re not necessarily residents. In similarly, I would just call out, I appreciate Lisa and 29 Adrian’s mention of the suggestion to prohibit basements. I think, you’ll find that overall and across the 30 City, the number of people who are affected by habitable basements is relatively small compared to the 31 overall number of people who are in our City during the business days. I also just – in thinking ahead 32 about implementation, we’ve always been looking at these as paper documents. I think the average 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 12 of 41 person is going to use this online. We haven’t talked much about cross referencing but you know, the 1 note – the idea of making sure that everybody feels physiologically safe and if that’s in the Community 2 services and facility, we need to recognize that within the Safety Element. I’ve also noticed, in just 3 thinking about orders of magnitude and where safety occurs. I think, what you’d find is actually 4 vehicular safety or vehicular incidents, traffic incidents and safety through vehicular and pedestrian or 5 vehicular and bike incidents are probably going to be higher than say a really violent crime within the 6 City of Palo Alto. As we think about the hyperlinks and coordination between elements, I’d like to see 7 some language – where did I highlight this? Referencing – ok, so, Adrian mentioned S-1.3.1, coordinating 8 or us of urban design principles. I’d also like to see streetscape design and coordination with Visions 9 Zero, which I think was mentioned in the Transportation Element because that’s going to be – probably, 10 the core effort that the City undertakes to really reduce any sort of life, safety, health issue within the 11 City. Just think ahead, we haven’t talked a lot about the intersections between elements but hyperlinks 12 and if you look at San Jose or other general plans, they have all of these links to different programs and 13 different elements and I think we just need to, you know, make ours a little bit stronger by creating 14 those links. 15 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Stephen. No comments? Let us note that Lydia has joined us and I think 16 you missed our thank you and grand send off to your new position that you’ll be stepping into. We will 17 miss you but we suspect that you’ll be having a lot to do with our topics here in the coming months. 18 Anyway, comments about the Safety Element? 19 Lydia Kou: Well, thank you and I’m very sorry I missed it. Thank you for all the food and it smells lovely 20 and the presents. As everybody said the element is coming along really well. I notice that the 21 introduction for the Natural Element, the preservation word is put back in with the addition over here 22 with the At Places, that was one of the things I was going to mention. Then, besides some random 23 letters throughout the element, itself – there’s random letters, ‘s’s and ‘r’s that are by themselves. 24 Besides that, it looks fine. I did want to ask about, in – let's see—Policy N-1.1, Program N… 25 Co-Chair Garber: Lydia, we’re actually on the Safety Element. 26 Lydia Kou: Oh, you’re on the safety… 27 Co-Chair Garber: Yeah. 28 Lydia Kou: …Well, safety is great under Annette and Hamilton and Don's hands. Thank you, I’ll go back 29 later then. Thank you. 30 Co-Chair Garber: Hamilton, we missed you, if you want to speak again and then we’ll go to Arthur. 31 Hamilton Hitchings: Yeah and these are just comments on your comments. I wanted to start by following 32 up on Bonnie’s comment. I was a little shocked when you said it because we work really hard to get the 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 13 of 41 civil liberties and privacy in and we did not limit it in scope to the residents so, I almost had a heart 1 attack when she said it was also limited to residents. I want to make very sure that Staff and Place 2 Works changes the language in Policy S-1.6. We were focused on the Program S-1.2 which has the right 3 wording. It says protect the public's privacy rights and civil liberty and then either Place Works or Staff 4 extracted it out for the policy. On the policy, S-1.6 it needs to say public, not all residents because we 5 want to make sure our Police Department is looking out for everybody who’s in the City boundaries. So, 6 please make sure that’s in there before it goes to City Council. I just had a couple other comments. You 7 know, we want to continue to strengthen basement groundwater at a level that’s appropriate for the 8 Comp. Plan. I think so of the comments in here are a little bit too specific. I don’t think we’re putting 9 implementation dates, for example, at this level but I think that’s important. I do think that Lisa’s point 10 about being in the flood zone, not the neighborhood because all flooding is based on the flood 11 designation of your property, is really important. You shouldn’t be penalized if you happen to be in a 12 neighborhood with a lot of houses but not within the actual flood zone. I think that was a really good 13 point. I agree with Elaine that the number one hazard in the City is actually vehicular. That should be 14 covered in the Transportation Element and I don’t know what the right way to link it is. I think we want 15 to avoid doing duplicate programs but at the same time, make sure that it’s referenced. Maybe it could 16 even be referenced in the introduction as well but absolutely, vehicular safety as covered in the 17 Transportation Element is absolutely critical. Those are my comments. Thank you. 18 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Arthur. 19 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. The first thing I’ll talk about is the flooding issue. If you look at S-2.11.2, this 20 is worded in a strange way; work with regional state and federal agencies to determine if sea levels in 21 the San Francisco Bay warrant additional adaptational strategies to address of flooding hazards to 22 existing and new development and infrastructure and etc. The answer is yes, you don’t actually need to 23 do anything to study that and there for, the issue is not to work with them to determine it but work with 24 them to determine what’s needed. So, really, it should be work with regional blah blah blah agencies to 25 develop adaptation strategies – to develop additional adaptation strategies to address flooding hazards 26 blah blah blah, with respect to sea level rise in the San Francisco Bay. I think that that’s the way it should 27 be worded. You know, it’s a forgone conclusion, like our water – regional water treatment control – 28 regional water quality control plant is going to be affected by sea level rise unless we do something and 29 so, the question is not if, it’s when and how and what we do about it. This thing should be revised to 30 actually do something. The second thing is with respect to habitable basements. Federal government 31 FEMA regulations currently prohibit basements in flood zones, period. No, if, and's or buts. The question 32 is if somebody is just outside of a flood zone because they used a level of map amendment or a LOMA or 33 LOMR, those are two things. Then, what happens with those things is if they’re just outside the flood 34 zone, then when you – if you build a basement, you’re going to hit groundwater really quickly and 35 you’re going to cause a big problem. The issue is, while it’s not corrected, it should be residential 36 neighborhoods within the flood zone because the neighborhood is either completely within or partly 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 14 of 41 within or not within so, that wording is awkward, in terms of 2.9. It really gets in terms of Program 2.9.2 1 where we talk about the idea of groundwater levels 14-feet or less. Now, what I’m wondering, is 14-feet 2 or less measured from what? I’m assuming that’s 14-feet or less measured from an ambient ground 3 level nearby. You know, whatever the existing ground level is and it doesn’t actually say that. Doesn’t 4 actually say what 14-feet or less is from. So, that’s where we need to deal with it because essentially, 5 where you are in an area that would be inundated by flood zone – by flooding, including with sea level 6 rise. That’s an area in which we should not have basements and this 14-feet is another way of 7 measuring that. The idea of expanding the flood zone restrictions to other kinds of building restrictions, 8 there actually much more problematic. One restriction is the restriction on basements and that’s – I’m 9 fine with the idea that you should not put new basements where you’re at a current flood risk or 10 incipient flood risk but if somebody is living outside the flood zone and their house burns down. What 11 happens is – let's say they have a fire but not all the house is burned, just have a fire in their kitchen and 12 kitchens are expensive and as result of that, when you have to rebuild the kitchen, you then have to 13 rebuild the whole house. Jack up the house above the base flood elevation which is what FEMA 14 regulations require in the flood zone. Requiring that outside the flood zone does not seem to make 15 sense. Therefore, that regulation that requires jacking up the house when you rebuild it outside the 16 flood zone, I wouldn’t – that’s to owners restriction if you have a kitchen fire for example. The issue is 17 basements, expensive regulations on that, that makes sense. Expensive regulations of other FEMA 18 regulations outside the flood zone doesn’t make as much sense and so, we need to think about what 19 you do there. For example, minor additions to square footage and having to have that above base flood 20 elevation while – instead of the existing grade, the level of the height of your house. You know, there 21 are things like that, those subtleties which I would not expand that in terms of this. However, on the 22 other hand, if you scrape your house and build a new house, that should be above base flood elevation 23 because it makes sense for that to be above the revised base flood elevations, taking into consent sea 24 level rise. I think that some new aunses are appropriate here. Finally, the issue of S-3.1.2 on hazardous 25 materials. This is written into weak of way; minimize the risk of biohazards in Palo Alto, including level 4 26 biohazards. No, bio level 4 biohazards should be prohibited. No ifs, and's or buts. Limiting any of the 27 other things – minimizing the other things, yes. Level 4 biohazards, prohibiting, we should not allow 28 introduction into our City and so the wording of that is awkward and incomplete. Similarly, the City has 29 gone on record with the removal of high levels of hazardous materials at the regional water quality 30 control plant, particular chlorine was removed and in terms of CPI removing hazardous materials there. 31 The City has gone on record, that policy of limiting – prohibiting high levels of hazardous materials, 32 according to whatever the hazardous requirements are. I’m not sure what the standards are for that but 33 that should be a policy under human-caused threats and it’s not there as far as I can tell. That the rule – 34 and the City has gone on record of that and so, it should be captured in here somewhere. So, those are 35 the things I’d like to bring up and I would like to add my thanks to everybody for participating in this for 36 the last year and a half and continuing hopefully. Thanks to those of us who are nothing going to be 37 continuing in their current capacity or at all because of elevation to elected office. 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 15 of 41 Co-Chair Garber: Ok. I see a couple of other cards up here. Annette, did you have something further to 1 add? Then Jennifer, did you also? 2 Annette Glackopf: Well, this is really short. I’m not going to go back to the basements again, although I 3 have some thoughts. I agree with Elaine, that we really should in the document have links and there’s 4 not any that I can see in there. I’m not sure everyone is going to be looking at it online but that would be 5 very useful. So, that’s one but my real comment is that I’m very concerns or interested in the comments 6 that Betty Joe Chang and Esther Nygard made and a couple of us have resigned to their comments. 7 Although we didn’t respond directly to them, I think they are all very, very good. I think Esther’s might fit 8 in the natural environment section; the Nexus of water and energy which is really fascinating. We really 9 haven’t talked about that but the ones that Betty Joe mentioned, I think are very, very reasonable and 10 so, I would agree with Jennifer that we should include them in the Comp. Plan, in the places that are 11 indicated here. So, that’s it. I don’t know if anyone else wants to raise their card and resignatedwith that 12 and also agree with me or raise your hand if you agree with me. Staff, take that into consideration. 13 Co-Chair Garber: Alright, thank you. Jennifer. 14 Jennifer Hetterly: I don’t want to overly belabor the basement flooding issue but I do want to have some 15 clarification because my understanding is that all flood zones are not created equal. There is more than 16 one flood zone and the FEMA requirement only prohibits basements within the FEMA special hazard – 17 special flood hazard area. As I also understand it, there are several parts of the City that the City deems 18 prone to flooding that are not within that special flood – that singular special flood hazard zone. I do 19 think that it’s worth providing for flood mitigation policies within the City’s government to protect the 20 homes that are in those high flood prone areas. I had another point. No, I forgot it. I’ll have to come 21 back if I remember. Thanks. 22 Co-Chair Garber: Arthur. 23 Co-Chair Keller: I’ll just elaborate on that Jennifer said. There are two main flood hazard zones in the 24 City’s special flood hazard areas and one of those is from the creek flooding from the San Francisquito 25 creek and the other is title flooding and there are some houses and proper parcels that are actually 26 subject to both flood zones. Therefore, have whichever – they have both restrictions applying essentially 27 and those restrictions include no basements. They also, the restrictions include when a new house is 28 built, if it’s a tear down, that the base flood – that the finished floor of the lowest level be above the 29 base flood elevation and that if an improvement is/or rebuild is made exceeding 50% of the current 30 value of the home, then that requires essential, jacking up the house over base flood elevation. If you 31 added an addition to it or a remodel to it, you can generally do that within 50% but if you have a – some 32 sort of calamity like a kitchen fire, which diminished the value of the home, then when you go above – 33 then the 50% above that is actually fairly easy to reach and gets to problems. Which is why when I want 34 to put in a plug for the idea of ordinance or law coverage, if you can get it on your insurance because 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 16 of 41 that will pay for bringing your house up to code, including jacking it up if necessary in the event of a 1 rebuild, if necessary in the event of a covered claim. 2 Co-Chair Garber: My comment – oh, Amy. 3 Amy Sung: I see that basement construction seems to generate a lot of interest so, I think that we might 4 want to put in a request for the study of what is an appropriate policy that should be set for basement 5 constructions. Especially, that the land is very scares in Palo Alto and in the interest of making sure that 6 the land can be put into the best of use. I heard that that was 14-feet, I’m not quite sure, did I hear that 7 correctly about – I heard a number about 14-feet – ok, so I – you know, with technology advancing so, it 8 might be time that the City do some studying to find out, you know what would be the very best way so 9 that that we can conserve the water in regarding to the dewatering of the basement excavation. Thank 10 you. 11 Hillary Gitelman: I just want to add one thing to the conversation. I am not at, at all well informed on 12 flood hazard issues so, I will not speak to that specifically, but Arthur’s comments on the hazardous 13 materials used raised for me this issue that we’re working on a general plan here, not a set of 14 regulations. We have regulations in our code specific to CPI and other hazardous materials users 15 including the bid hazards and so, those things are already regulated by our code and intention here in 16 Policy S- 3.1 and the programs that follow were to create a framework, that supported those regulations 17 and their perpetuation. We didn’t actually want to repeat the regulations and I think the same can be 18 said about flood hazard issues. I think we want policies that support the Community’s interests and 19 minimizing flood hazards and precluding development that would accentuate or expand those hazards 20 and that’s sort of what we’ve been shooting for without getting to the point of actually putting 21 regulatory language in what is a general plan. I hope that helps. 22 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Not that we need to talk more about basements but I am not actually going 23 to talk about content. However, I will just simply mention that this isn’t the only venue where 24 basements are being discussed and tomorrow evening there is the Policy and Services subcommittee 25 meeting of the City Council where Keith Bennett, the head of Save Palo Alto’s groundwater and I are 26 making a presentation and Esther and others will be there. It’s the – the scope is very specific to the 27 techniques of construction and the strategies relative to conserving our groundwater, where we are 28 talking at the regulatory level as oppose to the Comp. Plan level but it’s you’re interested, you can either 29 come and join us or you can read the minutes afterward and that may or may not go to the Council later 30 next year. Ok, if there is no more conversation about that. I would love to entertain a motion to 31 recommend the draft go to the Council. I’m hearing that motion being made by Annette, do I hear a 32 second? 33 Hamilton Hitchings: Well, I’d like a friendly amendment. 34 Co-Chair Garber: Please. 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 17 of 41 Hamilton Hitchings: Just that Staff has an opportunity to incorporate a couple of these clean up 1 provisions in there. 2 Male: And I’ll second. 3 Elaine Costello: Yeah, I would actually support that. There were just some things that we just missed. 4 WE wouldn’t change policy where there are differences of opinion. We would continue with our practice 5 of showing options so, we’re not going to go in there and rewrite the policy from what you saw tonight. 6 People pointed out some wording things that we know we were intending to make and they just 7 somehow didn’t get in there but they will. I agree completely that that’s a good amendment. 8 Co-Chair Garber: Arthur. 9 Co-Chair Keller: As it is our practice of late, anybody that has any additional comments that they wish to 10 go into the packets that go to the Council, can do so, until one week from today? 11 Elaine Costello: Yes. 12 Co-Chair Keller: Then that will go into that packets. So, they basically – the Council will get the – let me 13 refer to it as the corrected Safety Element, the minutes of today’s meeting, the attachments and the 14 handouts from today’s meeting. As well as additional notes submitted by members of the CAC or 15 members of the public to Staff by a week from today. 16 Co-Chair Garber: Alright. Does the maker of the motion except for the amendment, offered by the 17 seconder? 18 Annette Glackopf: Absolutely. 19 Co-Chair Garber: Alright, then I think we can move forward with the motion as amended. All those in 20 favor, raise they hands and say aye. Those not voting in favor? None. – thank you – those opposed. Any 21 abstentions? I think it moved unanimously then by the members that are currently here. 22 Commission Action: Motion: Forward the draft Safety Element for City Council review with 23 comments from the CAC and minutes. Staff is to clean up minor items that do not change policy as 24 discussed. Motion made by Commissioner Glanckopf, seconded by Commissioner Hitchings, motion 25 passed unanimously. 26 2. Natural Environment Element IV 27 a. Introduction of revised Natural Environment Element 28 b. Report from Natural Environment Subcommittee 29 c. Discussion of Draft Element 30 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 18 of 41 Co-Chair Garber: Let's move onto our next topic, the natural environment chapter. Does Staff want to 1 make some introductory comments? 2 Joanna Jansen: Yes, thank you Dan. Oh, before I forget and also since it’s kind of at the front of the 3 element. I want to make sure that you guys had a chance to see this piece that was provided At Places. 4 This is from Staff and this is a revised first page of the element. I know Lydia already picked up on this. 5 There was a couple of changes to the vision and the introduction that were not captured in the version 6 that you got. So, I wanted to make sure you saw this. A few words but they’re important words in the 7 vision and introduction components are important so, I want to make sure you had an opportunity to 8 take a look at that. Just like we moved things out of safety, of course we moved them into natural 9 environment. You probably notice some changes in the overall organization of the element. Primarily, 10 within the goal for water resources goal and also another change at the organizational level was to 11 move Goal 3, which is about creek – with now Goal 3, about creeks and riparian corridors; to put that 12 with the water resources goal. Lots of important synergy between these two goals in terms of things like 13 storm water or water quality, etc. So, those two goals are next to each other now and means that creak 14 and urban forest kind of switched places. Just to back up a step about the kind of history of this element 15 since the last time you saw it. We did talk about this element on November 15th when we were last 16 together and then since that time we had another natural environment subcommittee meeting to go 17 over the CAC’s comments and kind of have one final review of this element. We had a great discussion 18 with the subcommittee and joined by a number of departmental experts from the Urban Forestry, Public 19 Works, City Manager’s Office, Community Services and Utilities to help us with the refinements to the 20 Natural Environment Element. We made the changes to the vision and introduction that I just pointed 21 out. Under the urban space goal, we’ve continued to kind of make sure that we’re really emphasizing 22 this theme of connectivity and interconnectivity and specifically by referencing the figure that we are 23 pulling in from the parks recreation trails and open space master plan that has the natural systems map, 24 linking corridors and open spaces and urban parks, into really a kind of holistic view of open space and 25 habitat and ecology in Palo Alto. We are continuing to flush out the language about review of special 26 status species and the appropriate sources of what species could be considered. So, we have a program 27 to update the CEQA’s – the City’s CEQA thresholds about special status species analysis. We carried over 28 an idea that’s already in the urban forest section where the urban foresters are involved in reviewing 29 City projects to make sure that we do a similar type of review for project that could impact open space. 30 That’s part of City practice already but we wanted to acknowledge and memorialize that. Again, as 31 Hillary was saying, kind of provide some basis for that as an ongoing practice. I wanted to point out in 32 both this goal and the urban forest goal. There was some redundancy that we identified between the 33 Land Use Element and the open space – excuse me, the Natural Resource Element. The Land Use 34 Element Council draft that the Council just reviewed has a section on park land acquisition. As you recall, 35 when we were talking about the Land Use Element, that was a very important topic that we spent quite 36 a bit of time on. As we moved into the Natural Environment Element and talked about open space 37 expansion, acquisition, etc. We noticed some overlap there so, we’re proposing to consolidate those 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 19 of 41 policies and programs about acquisition so, that they’re all in one place. I think as practitioners, we see 1 that you’ve got a much greater chance of people noticing, understanding and acting on those programs 2 if they’re all in one place, rather than if they’re sprinkled throughout. Again, it gives us chance to make 3 sure that the document is internally consistent as well. I’ll get to the similar kind of issue in urban forest 4 in just a second. Then, we did add a little bit more about the development criteria for the Foothills area. 5 This is a case in Policy N-.19 which you probably recall a lot of detail since the time of the existing Comp. 6 Plan, a lot of detail has been incorporated into the zoning designation for the open space zone but we – 7 rather than kind of lose all that entirely and say, well that’s taken care of in the zoning now. We wanted 8 to retain some of the more important features of those development requirements and so, we’ve added 9 – rather than taking all of that out, we’ve gone back and put a little bit more back in there to make sure 10 that it’s really clear what the goals of those development criteria are. Moving on to urban forest, we’ve 11 incorporated the changes from canopy as we discussed at our last meeting and I think we’ve gotten 12 those down at this point. We tried to be responsive to all of those requirements or excuse me, requests 13 from canopy and including policies about avoiding net loss of tree canopy at the neighborhood level and 14 mentioning the urban forest in the visions and the introduction. We talked at the subcommittee level 15 about tree removal and a new program expanding the ability of Community members to appeal tree 16 removals. Urban forest is another place where there was some overlap with the land use section. The 17 land use section actually has a whole subtopic on the urban forest. I think it’s an important topic and 18 when we -- earlier on, when we talked about land us, we hadn’t really gotten to urban forest yet and we 19 were all really anxious to talk about it and make sure it was in there. I think now that we’re looking at 20 natural environment that has an entire goal about urban forest, we’re seeing that is a logical place for 21 the policies and programs about the urban forest. So, we pointed out in your Staff report and in the 22 element some places where those can be kind of consolidated and made sure that they are internally 23 consistent again. Some of them were almost exact duplications. Goal 3, creeks and riparian corridors, I 24 think one of the big things here to point out is that there are options in terms of these backs for natural 25 creeks, which are defined as those West of Foothill, for either a 100-foot setback or a 150-foot setback 26 and your element includes a map of where that setback would apply. Those are two options that we 27 anticipate would be carried forward to Council. Under Goal 4, water resources. We had Public Works 28 Staff present who help to clarify the procedure for groundwater management in California. It’s not really 29 done by the City, it’s done by groundwater management agency. In this case, it’s the Santa Clara Valley 30 Water District so, at our last meeting we discussed adding some policy language that had to do with 31 managing and planning for groundwater. That’s really going to be the role – the purview of the water 32 district so, we changed that from making the programs and policy sound like the City was going to be 33 doing that planning, to make sure that the City is going to have a very strong, active, kind of advocacy 34 role with the district as they do their planning and that the City is a very strong participant in that but 35 not leading that effort. An idea kind of, that was added to these goals was, we had already policies and 36 programs about minimizing impervious surfaces. At the subcommittee, we talked about yes, it’s good 37 that when something is going to be paved, it could be impervious or maximize impervious surfaces but 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 20 of 41 that the first step should be to try and minimize that area that is paved, even if it’s going to pave with 1 impervious surfaces and that site design. A new development should be kind of approached with that as 2 a goal, rather than just pave everything as long as it’s impervious. So, a little bit of refinement to that 3 language. We did add a reference to insecticides as Jennifer already mentioned and we also added some 4 specific references to the City’s recycled water ordinance. There is a recycled water ordinance in place 5 that has a lot of detail about where and when and how much dual plumbing is required in new 6 development for toilet and urinal flushing. We didn’t try to repeat all of the detail of that but just refer 7 to the ordinance itself. Under air quality, we just expanded the program we had already put in about 8 idling to include schools as additional source of places where people idle and make sure that to the 9 extended that that issue is addressed or enforced that schools are included in those educational efforts. 10 There was a previous policy – there’s an existing policy about mitigation of odor that had been, I think in 11 a previous version of the element, formatted as a program that was corrected back to a policy 12 consistent to what is currently in your current Comp. Plan. The Noise Element or excuse me, noise goals 13 haven’t changed too much. One thing that was important to the subcommittee members is changing a 14 reference to requiring certain types of review for projects that are subject to CEQA. To clarify that that 15 review should take place when the project is subject to the City’s development review, in response to 16 concerns that, which projects are subject to CEQA might change over time and so, this really puts that 17 regulation kind of, in the City’s court, rather than letting CEQA determine which projects do and don’t 18 get that level of analysis. We deleted the words from large commercial from Program N-6.11.2 so that – 19 which references participating regional forums to address noise impacts from airports. That it’s not only 20 large commercial airports but any airports. Goal 7 is about energy and again, we were joined by the 21 City’s Chief Sustainability Officer and also Staff from the Utilities Departments. Based on their input we 22 made some changes to several policies and programs on this in this sections. We did delete the program 23 regarding the use of carbon offsets, urban renewable credits, not because the City doesn’t want to 24 pursue that but because that should be complete as of January. So, that program is already going to be 25 completed by the time this moves forward to Council so, that’s recommended for deletion. Then, just 26 some refinement of the language about implementation and incentives and prioritization in this section. 27 Also, I just wanted to mention that a change that’s happened in this – under this goal, had to do with 28 transition from natural gas to electric. That was something that our subcommittee discussed in some 29 detail. Natural gas use does have GHG emissions associated with it and the S-CAP takes a relatively 30 aggressive approach towards phasing out the use of natural gas. In the Comp. Plan, we’re not quite as 31 strong as some of the strategies that are in the S-CAP but we do support the S-CAP strategies of 32 exploring that transition and continuing to figure out the best and almost most cost effective feasible 33 ways to move – phase out natural gas and move toward electrification but the water has – excuse me, 34 the language has been soften somewhat. Finally, Goal 8 is about climate change and climate adaptation. 35 We’ve strengthened the wording of the policy, instead of ‘seeking’ to reduce greenhouse emission in N-36 8.2, we are just going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We’re not going to seek to do it, we’re just 37 going to go ahead a do it. Consistent with the Council’s action in approving the S-CAP policy framework, 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 21 of 41 since the time that we met on this element in November. We also reworded the program about 1 protecting the municipal services center and other facilities from the impacts of sea level rise, including 2 the waste water treatment plant. We refined the wording of the Policy N-8.4, that wants to balance 3 responses to sea level rise with protecting the natural environment so, that we don’t respond to sea 4 level rise by building a bunch of new infrastructure that’s going to damage the delicate Bay front 5 ecology. Then, finally, I just want to note that at the subcommittee level, we did discuss the idea of a 6 policy that would have prohibited the City from obtaining power or electricity from a specific type of 7 solar energy called a concentrated solar thermal. This was due to concerns at the subcommittee level 8 about potential impacts on birds, in particular. The utilities Staff has said that this is not part of the 9 power portfolio right now, it wouldn’t be a major constraint right now but just being able to be flexible 10 and responsive as technology changes and as costs of electricity change in the future. They felt 11 uncomfortable about adding a specific prohibition on a specific type of alternative energy projects. So, 12 that policy is not the version that you have before you tonight and that’s it, I think. 13 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Are there members of the subcommittee that would like to speak to this? If 14 so turn your cards up. Don, Jennifer, Doria. Let's go in that order. Don, you’re first. 15 Don McDougall: I think I have a miss mash of comments. Complementary and disagreement and detail 16 in general. First off, I think that once again, the organization is – the changes in organization are 17 important because they create interesting structure and they do a better job of sending the message 18 across. I do want to compliment Staff – our Staff, if I can refer to them that way for participating but I 19 think also, the fact that they got so many other Staff from other departments to come and participate in 20 those meetings needs to be complimented and I know that wasn’t easy to do and I appreciate their 21 time. Under the vision statement, right from start. I like the fact that we’re no longer saying that this 22 natural environment is all about beauty and appearance and we’ve added health and I think that that’s 23 really important. In the vision statement, I do wonder why we say even in built up areas as opposed to 24 just simply say, in built up areas or whatever. I’m not quite sure that even doesn’t detract from what 25 we’re trying to say. In terms of details, I think that people should be complimented for adding so much 26 of the stuff about insecticides and pervious surfaces, idling and I think the challenge will be whether we 27 have the will and ability to enforce those things. I think Shani, who’s not here, should be complimented 28 on her contributions to that. I like the idea that in general, we’re talking about preservation and not 29 management. I think that’s a really important concept. I think when this was written 20 years ago, 30 management was probably the issue; I think preservation is today. I think that – I’m not sure we’re 31 strong enough with the public appeal process or ability relative to tree removal. I think that we might 32 want to strengthen that. I really like the fact that we’ve added the concept of smart energy grid but I 33 think there’s more opportunity for smartness in the whole natural environment and data collection that 34 we do. I think over the next 15 years, the length of this plan, the transition from natural gas probably 35 will be a higher – of higher importance than it appears today and the fact that we’re dealing with carbon 36 offsets, I would object that we’re removing that from here. The idea that there should be carbon offsets 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 22 of 41 as opposed to just simple illuminating the problem and not having offsets. The same thing with solar 1 thermal, I worry that we’re removing that because we’re worried about the economy of this and I’m not 2 sure in their natural environment section, we should be worrying about the economy as opposed to the 3 environment. Solar thermal is well known to be hazardous. As was mentioned, I really like the idea that 4 we’re being positive, we’re not ‘seeking’ to reduce greenhouse gas, we’re going to reduce it. In the map 5 N3, I do want to mention that the fact that map shows regional habitat connection, I think the 6 connectivity of our habitat is really, really, important and I think that the fact that that got called out, I’d 7 like to thank you for that. Thank you. 8 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you, Don. Jennifer and then Doria. 9 Jennifer Hetterly: Yeah, I think this element is coming along – has come along great. I really appreciate 10 Staff and Place Works work on this. They really transformed it a lot in terms of how it’s presented and 11 how the content comes across. I just have a few comments, Program N-1.10.2 about dedicating publicly 12 owned recreational open space and conservation areas as parkland. I’d like to say publicly controlled 13 and not publicly owned. We currently have quite a bit of dedicated park land that is under long-term 14 leases. We don’t own it as a City but we’ve nonetheless dedicated it as park land to preserve that 15 function for the life of the lease so, I’d like to be changed to controlled. Same program, for some 16 examples of things that we ought to consider dedicating as rental wetlands and Gamble House. I believe 17 the rental wetlands is dedicated park land already. So, a different example would be good there like 18 Rinconada Community Gardens, would be one that’s not dedicated parkland but is clearly a park like 19 use. Policy N-2.2 under the urban forest, that’s where I think you consolidated the land use policy about 20 the urban forest as infrastructure into this Natural Element policy. I actually think the urban forest – I 21 think we ought to retain that original land use Policy L-9.11 in the land use sections as well. More than 22 parks and preserves and other open space, the urban forest infrastructure is really impacted by all 23 developments and all land use decisions so, I think it has broader concerns and ought to be elevated in 24 both elements. Next comment – oh, the groundwater regulation, I understand that the water district 25 has regulatory authority over that. I know we previously had a program that called for looking into 26 setting use fees for groundwater extraction. I assume that that came out because we don’t have the 27 authority to do that, is that correct? If it’s not correct, I think we should put it back in. If it is correct, 28 then I think we ought to be really cautious about – we ought to be looking for other ways to control the 29 groundwater impacts of excavation. 30 Joanna Jansen: Jennifer? 31 Jennifer Hetterly: Yeah? 32 Joanna Jansen: Sorry, I don’t know if this is what you’re thinking but under N-4.7.1, there is still a bullet 33 point that says an approach to metering extracted groundwater. Is that? 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 23 of 41 Jennifer Hetterly: I don’t know if metering means charging a fee or if it just means monitoring how 1 much is extracted? So, I think where it was before was in Program N-4.8.2 and that program needs some 2 editing anyways, it’s not a complete sentence. So, I’d love to see fees back in there if it’s allowable; if 3 not, I get that but we ought to be looking for other ways that the City can reduce dewatering beyond 4 regulation of the dewatering and one of those ways is to control underground construction. Next – this 5 is my last comment I think – is also about water. 1Program N-4.1 and 3.1 is about a standardized process 6 for evaluating the impacts of development on the storm drain system, including point source discharge, 7 base flow, peak flow, etc. I would like to add to that something about exploring opportunities for cost 8 recovery – increased cost recovery based on those evaluations. It doesn’t really get us very far to just 9 evaluate the impacts if we don’t have a strategy for doing something about it. I would like to add a cost 10 recovery element to that program. That’s all I had. 11 Elaine Costella: I’m having trouble finding that number. 12 Alex van Riesen: I think it’s N.13.1 13 Jennifer Hetterly: It’s page N33, N-4.13.1, sorry. 14 Elaine Costella: Thank you, I just missed (Crosstalk) 15 Alex van Riesen: You said 1.3.1 16 Jennifer Hetterly: Oh, my bad. (Crosstalk) 17 Elaine Costello: No, no, that’s fine, I just want to make sure we have it, that’s all. Thank you. 18 Doria Summa: I also wanted to thank Staff for including such a broad range of experts from other 19 departments. That was very helpful. Especially, given the very technical nature of the energy section and 20 in general, I had a concern that the energy section as Director Gitelman says, to be overly regulatory, 21 instead of general enough. I think there is a couple thing where it does lean a little that direction 22 because I think there’s likely to be so many new technologies and changes in the years to come. If 23 anything seems to regulatory versus broad, I think it could be made more general but I do think, based 24 on what I learned at the subcommittee meetings, I would be more comfortable if concentrated solar 25 power was called out. It wasn’t just for birds, it was for a lot of other species and it has a lot of negative 26 – really profoundly negative effects. That’s not to say that if 20-years from now, it was the only way we 27 could get energy, we wouldn’t be able to rethink it but I think it belongs in there at least as a cautionary 28 thing if not outright prohibited. Wait, I have to put on my glasses. Oh, I agree with Jen about 1.10.2 and 29 that about pursues dedication of – and her change, publicly controlled but I would like to get rid of the 30 word pursue and says dedicate. That just needs to get done and I also agree with her comments on the 31 urban forest and then, finally in the groundwater policy we were just talking about. I had a concern 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 24 of 41 about contaminated groundwater from sites migrating, that you guys addressed in the Safety Element 1 so, thank you very much. I wonder if there shouldn’t be a correlating bullet under 4.7.1, that sort of 2 strengthens the idea that it should be – that those things need to be looked at and addressed because 3 what we find that there are assumptions of where the plume goes and where it doesn’t and there’s 4 recently been some testing in certain neighborhoods. I would just think it would be good for it to be 5 tested and once and for all that could – or it could be – it should be tested regularly, but on a reasonable 6 basis but I think there needs to be a bullet there to address that. Thanks. 7 Co-Chair Garber: Ok, why don’t we go around the table. Lydia, would you start us off? 8 Lydia Kou: Mine is pretty short. Policy N-1.1 under program – in the programs, I was wondering if 9 Program N-11.2, promote and support ecosystems protections and environment education programs in 10 Palo Alto. Since a lot of out ecosystem touches the other – there are other Cities that it touches, I’m 11 wondering if we should have another program to include adjoining Cities, such as East Palo Alto or 12 Woodside, etc. The Cities that adjoin and then, on page N17, in one of the bullets it says – and I don’t 13 understand this – it says, be clustered or closely grouped in relation to the areas surrounding to reduce 14 conspicuousness. Minimize access roads. I wonder if the ‘ness’, that word is there – too much additional 15 wording in there but (Inaudible). Page N17 (Crosstalk) and then it starts again. So, those are just a 16 couple of things and then also, like I said earlier, the random letters in different areas. Thank you. 17 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Stephen. 18 Stephen Levy: Pass. 19 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Elaine. 20 Elaine Uang: Couple of, kind of specific wording comments. Policy N-1.1, I think there’s – sometimes 21 there are a tendency to suggest that everything that’s landscaped is natural and I just want to make a 22 suggestion for the second sentence of the policy, respect the role that natural and constructed 23 landscapes play within the urbanized part of the City because not everything that is green is actually 24 natural. Every lawn or grass lawn that put out there is actually not native landscape necessarily. On the – 25 Oh my gosh, there’s a lot of little things. I’m glad to see the urban forest and understory as a category, 26 right before Goal N2 but I’m wondering if we can also include the word understory as part of Goal – the 27 language in Goal N2. So, thriving urban forest and understory. The understory – I think while the urban 28 forest is primary and the trees really provide the bulk of the ecosystem benefits for both the open space 29 and the urban areas. I think the understory plays a strong role especially, in things like storm water 30 management and drainage. So, I’d like to see the understory also put back in. Especially, like under 31 policy N 2.2, recognizing the importance of the urban forest and understory. I think there’s also some 32 language that I find a little bit loose. The appreciation of natural systems, I think maybe something that 33 could be stronger and is actually a concept – a strong scientific concept is the term ecosystem services 34 and so, maybe instead of appreciation of natural systems, we can kind of make that stronger and really 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 25 of 41 recognize the actual services that the natural landscapes and connected ecosystems provide for our 1 City. Let's see creeks and riparian areas, Goal N3. Again, just a few – there’s – I’ve pushed in the past for 2 separating the natural creeks from the channelized creeks and I think that the language here is still kind 3 of conflating those things. I’m not sure that we would necessarily want to push for conservation of all 4 the channelized creeks. If there’s room to make improvements to the channelized creeks in the future, 5 I’d like to see the language, you know, be open to that. I might suggest conservation of natural creeks 6 and riparian areas as open space amenities, ecological habitats and elements Community design and 7 then also, make separate – the mention of maintaining channelized creeks so, that -- because I think 8 they’re very different – they’re highly – the channelized creeks are highly constructed and very different 9 and don’t provide the same services as the natural creeks. Then, in – I think there’s a mention of map 10 N4, illustrating where the possible 150-foot setbacks are and that’s just not very clear in the draft that 11 was sent out. Maybe that shows up better in the big map but it’s not very clear from the small – and I 12 also am just not – and maybe this is something that Staff can provide later but I’d like to understand 13 where the suggestion of 150-feet setbacks come from? Like if there’s a strong – is there strong evidence 14 or recommendation from another agency or best practice because it’s not clear to me why 150-feet as 15 opposed to 100 or 125. Then – oh, just one more thing. On climate change, I think there’s a reference to 16 sustainable Community strategy which I think is a mandate from SP375. I mean, the core of the 17 sustainable Community strategy is really being to integrate land use transportation and housing and N-18 8.1.1, makes reference to a whole bunch of other things that it's important for; climate change, 19 greenhouse gas, water supply, sea level rise but really the crux of, you know the mandate for 20 sustainable Community strategy is to integrate land use transportation housing for those climate change 21 and greenhouse gas reduction. If there’s a way to kind of reference that and again, tie this piece, this 22 Natural Environment Element back to land use, back to transportation and further this links, I’d like to 23 see that happen. 24 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Julia. 25 Julia Moran: I just have one little comment. Thank you, subcommittee and thank you for meeting with 26 all those experts. This is clearly, very detailed section and I appreciate the work you guys have done. 27 Program N-2.9.3, I think there’s someone who mentioned this last meeting. I’m just concerned – 28 expanded opportunities for Community members to appeal the removal of trees and in private 29 residences. I don’t know, I – maybe it's ok – it makes me a little uncomfortable. It’s something to 30 consider that there was someone last meeting and I also concur that – I’m not sure about that language. 31 Co-Chair Garber: Did Staff understand that? I wasn’t – if you point, forgive me for asking? 32 Julia Moran: My point is… 33 Co-Chair Garber: That… 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 26 of 41 Julia Moran: So, it expands the opportunities for Community member to appeal the removal of trees 1 under private residences and I’m not that… (Crosstalk) 2 Co-Chair Garber: Increase it to something that is – sorry. (Crosstalk) 3 Julia Moran: …Community members should – increasing what’s already there is there. 4 Co-Chair Garber: Ok, thank you. 5 Co-Chair Garber: Forgive me, anything else? 6 Julia Moran: No. 7 Co-Chair Garber: Ok. Bonnie. 8 Bonnie Packer: Thank you. I think the element has really been put together very nicely. Most of my 9 comments are for the purpose of clarification. Even though this is not a regulatory document, I want to 10 make sure that it’s good – what you mean to say is really well understood. So, like in N-1.1, you talk 11 about managing private open space and I’m not really sure what private open space is? There are other 12 references to residential back yards and that private open space and it’s nice to tell residents about nice 13 ways to keep your backyards and there’s nothing very regulatory about what is said but I’m not sure 14 what is meant by private open space. Do you mean all the land that people have their – that is in the 15 open space zones, that’s private or what? I just – a little definitional clarification – little paraphrase or 16 something that would add to that. You mention that you put in a lot of the – in the bullet points under 17 N-1.9, which is a lot of the development requirements in the open space zone. Maybe you should just 18 say that that comes from the zoning code for the development standards for building in the open space 19 zones in that section. Policies – I think it’s N-.11, where it talks about working with Stanford, Santa Clara 20 County, and the water district, I would add San Mateo County because so much of Stanford is also in San 21 Mateo County. We might as well – they’re right across San Francisquito Creek, we should be working 22 with them, who knows. In the urban forest area, I have no problem with the intent but I think there’s – it 23 isn’t clear what a street tree is. I know or I understand a street tree to be those trees that the City 24 planted in the City’s rights of ways and that isn’t defined well here. So, that Policy N-2.7, that says 25 require new commercial, multi-unit, blah blah blah, to provide street trees. It’s so vague, like where? 26 When? What do they need to provide? I have in my comments submitted, alternate language that 27 would specify that if you remove a tree or if there are no trees in the right away, in front of the property 28 that you’re developing, then you do something about it. I’m just asking for explicit language in that area. 29 The creeks, I just have one question. One of the – in the setback requirements, it says that ensure that if 30 you’re going to have a trail along the creek, it can only be on one side and I’m thinking of Fern Canyon in 31 Foothills Park. There’s a beautiful trail that goes up one side of the creek, crosses over and goes down 32 the other side. So, you want to be sure that it – that there – that some trails it may be appropriate to 33 have it on both sides of a creek or maybe if it’s high up, it doesn’t matter. Water resources, I suggest in 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 27 of 41 my written comments, mostly grammatical changes for clarification and also, under air quality. In the 1 noise section, Policy N-6.1, you have a whole, huge long thing about decibel levels and it doesn’t belong 2 here. I mean, you said earlier you wanted to keep this on a high level and not be regulatory. So, that 3 whole section, it goes for about a whole page. I can’t find – oh, here it is. On page N35, if you can just 4 refer to the guidelines for maximum outdoor noise levels and interior noise to some document and not 5 repeat it here in the Comp. Plan, it would be more consistent with the broad scope that we’re trying to 6 do. That’s it, thank you. 7 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Yes, Hillary. 8 Hillary Gitelman: Just one note on that last comment. This is a crazy section where the State guild lines 9 actually, require some excessive detail on interior and exterior noise level. So, we’ll look at it. If there’s a 10 way to simplify it, we will. 11 Bonnie Packer: If you got to do it, you got to do it. 12 Co-Chair Garber: If you go to go. Lisa. 13 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: I actually have nothing to add. I thought that the new programs and the new 14 policies were awesome and I love especially, the extra protection for our trees and the urban canopy but 15 I didn’t see anything major and some of the others have been mentioned. 16 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Jason. 17 Jason Titus: Yeah, I was generally really impressed and was actually, really proud to be a Palo Alton. Just 18 reading through this and seeing the stuff that we’re promoting and planning for. There were a couple 19 things. One on the non-concentrating solar thermal, I didn’t know if there was a particular reason why 20 we didn’t say that we wanted to do solar water heating. I mean, it is real in Hawaii. Other places it is 21 actually mandated that every new home has to do it. If we want to reduce natural gas usage in a place 22 that’s sunny the vast majority of the time. Seems like we should probably – at least encourage it and 23 potentially even just say, new construction, you should incorporate solar water heating of some sort. 24 Then, also, on water usage. There was – we had something in 4.16.3 saying that we wanted to 25 investigate ways to use non-traditional water sources. Including things like gray water and such but it 26 seems kind of wimpy for something that's supposed to be looking way, way out – 20-years in the future. 27 Lots of places use gray water now so, why wouldn’t we say we want to encourage the usage of gray 28 water and say, this is – there is a lot of water that is going to waste that could be used for irrigation and 29 houses and all that right now. I just want to be stronger there. 30 Co-Chair Garber: Great. Thank you. Whitney. 31 Whitney McNair: Thank you. I just want to – I have two comments. One is map N-1, I believe that the 32 map is been created from the bike and pedestrian plan that was adopted earlier, I think in 2012 and so, 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 28 of 41 built upon that are these pollinator pathways that do seem to be getting some traction and as a 1 concept, I think it’s an interesting and supportable concept. I would just want it to be – just identify that 2 the lines that are drawn on the map, look as though they follow a very specific course and it ma – it 3 should just be a conceptual diagram because the lines do go through existing property. They don’t really 4 follow the right of way, they go through parking lots and buildings. I know in particular, through the 5 research park they do so, it doesn’t really follow what one would think of as a natural pathway, where 6 you would have landscaping. So, I just wanted to identify if the idea is conceptual, the map should sort 7 of reflect that point. If it’s not, then really where they’re drawn should be looked at a little more. Then, 8 Program N-2.12.3, this one is – I think it’s a little overreaching. It’s about cooperating with different 9 entities, including Stanford and Caltrain and PG&E and what not, to ensure that tree planting removal 10 and maintenance practice are consistent with City guild lines. Throughout the document, I really want to 11 make clear, if it’s meant to be applying to Stanford University, we’ll talk about that. If it’s meant to apply 12 to Stanford – the lands that Stanford owns that are within the research park that are – then I think that 13 distinguishing needs to be made. Those Stanford-owned lands, that are within the research park, 14 already have to meet City regulations but if it’s really intended to be Stanford University as it’s written – 15 Stanford already has to comply with County regulations and there’s regulations for landscaping and tree 16 removal and replacement and also, Stanford has the ability to do a vegetation management plan, where 17 they holistically look at the whole of the campus; to look at the trees and the landscaped areas for all of 18 the lands within Santa Clara County. That is different and more comprehensive than just an identified 19 parcel and the tree that’s on that one sort of, regulated parcel, where they are doing a building. So, it’s a 20 way to – that one might be preserving more trees in the long run if you’re looking at it comprehensively 21 and so, I just think that the way that it’s written is not appropriate. It’s overreaching and Stanford has to 22 comply with other guild lines that might be more apply. 23 Female: What number is that again? 24 Whitney McNair: It’s N-2.12.3. 25 Elaine Costello: Ok, thank you. 26 Whitney McNair: It may be that the language ensures inconsistent with City guild lines but that needs to 27 be softened in some way. 28 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you, sorry. Annette. 29 Annette Glackopf: Don’t we wish we had a plan like that in Palo Alto. I basically agree with some of the 30 comments – most of the comments that Doria and Jen made. A couple of comments, on Policy N-14, 31 Program 4.1, it calls to review a CEQA thresholds of significance regarding special status species but it 32 leaves us sort of hanging. So, it’s fine to call for a review but what is the action on that? Maybe reports 33 status to the agencies listed. The one goal that I’d like to see added, that I’ve asked three times already, 34 is I would like something probably a new program into 12 to explore the feasibility and locations for a 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 29 of 41 memorial park to commemorate citizens who have contributed significant public services to the City of 1 Palo Alto. I’ve talked to Canopy about that. It’s sort of ongoing things and I think it would nice if were in 2 the Comp. Plan. Program N-3.4.1 addressed creek stewardship and this is sort of currently on-going with 3 Actera and so, I think we need to address that. At least I get an email everyday referring to this so, 4 maybe the word develops – replace the word develop to enhance or expand, would be worthwhile. 5 Joanna Jansen: Annette, I’m sorry. Can you restate which one you were looking at there? 6 Annette Glackopf: Ok, I sent you actually some of the notes. 7 Joanna Jansen: Oh, ok. 8 Annette Glackopf: Program N-3.4.1 addressed creek stewardship and Actera seems to have a lot going 9 on in that so, you should at least address that. Another thing is, I would like -- a little further on under 10 Policy N-4.15, to add a new program. I think Doria or Jen referred to this and certainly the storm – the 11 Palo Alto – Save Palo Alto Groundwater has talked about this; something to the effect of considering 12 prohibiting water from new construction for basements to flow into storm drains. So, consider 13 prohibiting water from dewatering to go into storm drains and they’ll talk about that tomorrow night. 14 Then, sort of a funny one on this Program N-5.2.2, I think it either needs to be omitted or reworded. I 15 understand the philosophy of addressing cars idling for more than 3-5 minutes and I can certainly see 16 that in a driveway but you know, with our traffic jams, that certainly is a possibility on City streets. We 17 need to sort of – we can’t really regulate cars getting stalled in traffic for huge amounts of time. Finally, 18 the only other thing I’d like to mention at this time is Bonnie was talking about City trees in the right of 19 way. I think the City needs to do a lot of work about – in this area. I think that street trees should be 20 mandatory; they’re not. It’s sort of voluntary and if someone right now dumps a tree – takes it down, 21 which they do all the time. Whether it’s in the front of their property or a City-owned tree, there’s no 22 code enforcement or regulation for them to put it back and a lot of (Inaudible) trees, even in City right 23 away areas, is controlled by, what I consider a very fickle rule in that you have to plant at a certain 24 distance from driveways and utility outboxes. Which if you planted the right species of trees, that 25 wouldn’t be a consideration. I agree with Bonnie that there needs to be some work there but we also 26 need to really look at zoning and what we can do in that area. I have some more comments but it’s sort 27 of in the notes that I sent to Staff. 28 Co-Chair Garber: Ok, we can come back to you if you like in the next round. Hamilton. 29 Hamilton Hitchings: I wanted to commend the subcommittee on a very thorough and thoughtful 30 modernization of the element. It really looks in good shape. I just want to go through quickly, I’ve been 31 focused on the Safety Element but I want to make a couple comments on people's comments tonight. 32 On Don’s comments really resonated with me, as did Annette’s. I want to second Elaine’s mention of 33 distinguishing channelized creeks. You know, that ship has sailed and I understand some people are not 34 happy but they were channelized for very good reason and they are very different than something like 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 30 of 41 the San Francisquito Creek, which has not been channelized and it’s important to distinguish between 1 them. In terms of Julia’s comment about not expanding the appeal of removal of trees. It wasn’t meant 2 to go so far as to allow neighbors to prevent you from removing them but merely to notify. So, I think 3 within that context, it is appropriate to expand and so, at least you can be notified that your neighbor is 4 about to remove a tree. I really agreed with Bonnie’s comments about the need to clarify what private 5 open space means. Is it your back yard or is it like space within the private open – we need a clear 6 definition of that along with what a street tree is within the element. I want to second Jason’s 7 recommendation on encouraging gray water. I just want to go into – reinforce a couple of things that 8 Annette said including the memorial public park. We really need to prohibit dewatering into storm 9 drains. I absolutely agree with that. The street trees, we really need code enforcement to replace them. 10 I had a neighbor across the street – who I like a lot by the way – but they remove their tree and you 11 know, I don’t know if it will ever be replaced but I mean it was a very key location. So, I think it is 12 important that we have mandatory street trees and that they be enforced. It’s really part of the 13 character and part of the preservation of our urban forest. I’d love to see at least a little bit of 14 strengthening of language in that. Again, I want to thank the subcommittee for a great job. 15 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Doria, we’ve heard from you and Jennifer. Alex. 16 Alex van Riesen: My comments, I appreciate the extensive nature of this element. I just have a couple 17 comments on the urban forest section and understory. I was struck by – it seems that there’s an 18 emphasis within the Goal N2, particularly to protect the urban forest from development. That comes up 19 newer house times which seems appropriate in ways but I guess the other thing we talked about before 20 that there’s a – either the imminent threat of drought and flooding. You know one or the other, the 21 feast and the famine and the water. I realize you have N-2.6.2 which is a mention of drought but it 22 seems to me that there’s something missing in terms of a plan or who’s thinking about what happens to 23 the trees if the drought continues or if – as the other chart show – flooding continues and what’s the 24 impact. I don’t know if that would be true in other areas as well but it seems like there almost would be 25 another section or under protection and expansion some greater mention of drought and flooding with 26 regards to the trees since that’s a significant portion of the City. The other thing I thought about is in 27 Program N-6.2.1 under noise and I was just – it says to continue working to reduce noise impacts 28 created by events and activities taking place in Community adjoining Palo Alto and I couldn’t think of 29 anything other than a Stanford football game or Shoreline – No, I was getting there. Wow, you people 30 are on top of it, man. I couldn’t even get to number two. The thing is, I’ve lived here 15-years and I’ve 31 noticed no change so, the word continue has no meaning for me there so, I wonder if there’s a way to 32 toughen that up. Maybe it’s happened but I’ve heard nothing about – sometimes you’ll hear nothing 33 and then you’ll hear it likes its crystal clear. Especially, in South Palo Alto. I wonder if there’s a way to 34 toughen that up so, that – can we actually make some changes because it’s not my understanding that 35 Mountain View has done anything to change Shoreline – erect a wall in the back, you know, as some 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 31 of 41 other theaters have done but my feeling is nothing has changed. That program feels destined for not 1 working unless it’s beefed up. 2 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Ellen. 3 Alex van Riesen: Sorry. 4 Ellen Uhrbrock: I am quite in awe of the knowledge and the ability of the subcommittee and the 5 committees but I really want to know, what is the distribution of this plan? When it’s published and it’s 6 approved by the Council. Who do you expect to read it and use it and have it as a reference? Could you 7 answer that for me, please? 8 Hillary Gitelman: This is envisioned of a plan that will be used by the City decision makers, Staff and the 9 public in reviewing development applications, legislative changes, capital investments. It’s intended to 10 be a broad policy framework that will be available to inform those decisions and allow everyone to 11 balance our goals and priorities. 12 Co-Chair Garber: I can just add, I would use it professionally, at least a couple times a week. Anything 13 else? Done? 14 Co-Chair Keller: Don already went. 15 Co-Chair Garber: Oh, no I said done not Don. Adrian, go ahead. 16 Adrian Fine: Alright, overall, I really agree with a lot of folks. This is a pretty good document. 3 points; I 17 also want to echo the gray water thing. It does seem conspicuous now that you guys both mention it. 18 Policy N-5.2 about supporting behavior changes to reduce emission particulates from automobiles. 19 That’s a really big goal. I think everyone would agree with it. There’s not much meat underneath it. It 20 related pretty heavily to our transportation element. It might be related to incentives for EVs. I just 21 seemed pretty thin for such a large policy. The last thing I was wondering about, just a suggestion. 22 There’s a lot of new finance mechanisms for clean energy, clean water, cleaner utilities so that residents 23 can do it locally; even solar share programs. There might be something here in terms of the City 24 promoting or identifying or working with residents on new clean power and clean water initiatives. 25 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Amy. 26 Amy Sung: I think this is an amazing element. I first thought that it was pretty boring but after I read 27 through it, I admit, I was totally wrong. I wanted to focus on energy use because we are now at 40% of 28 our energy consumption and it’s really in residential buildings. I was looking at the energy use 29 particularly, in Policy N-7.7 and it says explore a variety of the cause of effect ways to reduce natural gas 30 to – in the existing new buildings in Palo Alto. I think (Inaudible) talks about the existing buildings, we do 31 have a lot of homeowners who are not interested in remodeling instead of selling their houses. This 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 32 of 41 might be an area that we really capitalize on harvesting some of the energy and reduce the energy use. 1 Maybe in the programs, we could have something, like provide incentives for the existing homeowners 2 that are wanting to upgrade their energy use. For example, the Program 7.7.1, talks about the carbon 3 neutral and natural gas supply. Something I think that something we talked about incentives. That might 4 be something we can consider. The other is Policy N-7.6; it has a very specific language talking about 5 solar photo (Inaudible) panels. This is like a particular – a clean energy that we wanted to promote but 6 for example, you know, (Inaudible) is just talking about the incorporation of a solar panel into roof tiles 7 as we advance into technology. Here you talked about this Comp. Plan is really to be high level and for 8 the broad language. Maybe this specific reference that you (Inaudible) solar panel, might be just too 9 specific. Instead, you maybe want to talk about the clean energy or solar energy or something really 10 high level. I have a question about Program N-7.6.3 says, it promoted solar energy in individual private 11 projects and I’m not quite sure, what does that mean, individual private projects? Does that mean new 12 buildings, single family homes or garage or what? It’s just not very clear on that (Crosstalk) 13 Co-Chair Garber: Amy, what number was that? I’m sorry. 14 Amy Sung: Program 7.6.3, page 54. 15 Male: She’s looking at the track change version, maybe you’re looking clean, improvised version. 16 Amy Sung: Anyway, I just thought the energy section, when it touches on the existing homes at that part 17 of the area, we can focus on. Thank you. 18 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Arthur. 19 Co-Chair Keller: I’ve been listening to this and I have a few comments on which are on other comments 20 that people have made. Firstly, I wholeheartedly agree with Don McDougall about the need to improve 21 the tree removal appeal process. Currently, if a private owner wants to remove a tree, they do appeal – 22 they basically apply for it and then the City approves it or denies it and the neighbors who may be 23 affected by that removal because of enjoyment – all people nearby see the tree, enjoy the tree. They 24 have no rights currently at all. Maybe they get notified but can’t do a damn thing about it and therefore 25 a strengthening that to allow an appeal. Particularly, for protected trees but even nonprotected trees, 26 wherever there’s an appeal process – that is for an application. If there’s an application, the neighbors 27 should be able to appeal. The City decided, just like any other development going on. With respect to N-28 2 – by the way, that’s to respect to N -2.9.3. With respect to 2.12.3, I think that this should be referred 29 to within the City of Palo Alto. I agree with the idea of Stanford University lands within the City of Palo 30 Alto. I don’t think it should be weakened at all and I believe it should specifically include this City of Palo 31 Alto utility because our utilities have been butchering trees, not consistent with City guidelines. I agree 32 entirely with the comments of Elaine Uang, with respect to channelized versus natural creeks. The ship 33 has sailed. We are not going to remove channelized creeks, the channels there. If anything, they are 34 potential for raising the heights of the channels in order to have sea level rise dealt with. They aren’t 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 33 of 41 going away and don’t expect them to go away and create regulations that are consistent with them 1 staying. The issue with respect to extracting groundwater. The water district does have regulations in 2 terms of extracting groundwater basically, in terms of wells but other than that, they have no 3 regulations with respect to that. So, expecting that to be reliant on this – on the water district 4 regulations means that there are no regulations. Regulating pumping into storm drains is something 5 reserved to the City. The water district has no say on that and so, that’s something in which it does make 6 sense for us to be regulating. The next thing is with respect to N-4.5 – sorry—N-5.2.2, I assume that the 7 way to handle this, which is idling, it idling while parked and if you simply add the phrase while parked, it 8 makes perfect sense and works fine. With respect to N-5.3.3 which is health impacts of particulate 9 emissions and providing information about the steps that (Inaudible) remove, reduce particulate 10 emissions. Isn’t this being handled by the air district? I notice there’s things deleted on the next page on 11 N-37 on the track changes version about wood fire – wood burning stoves and things like that. So, I’m 12 wondering if some reference to the air district makes sense or if this policy is still something that we’re 13 doing? Going up a little higher, with respect to N-5.3, there’s a mention of leave blowers. People seem 14 to be all up in arms about the particulate matters of the leaf blower machines and completely ignoring 15 the fact that leaf blowers blow dust from the dirt, from the ground and that dust is as much as a 16 problem. Whether the leaf blowers are electric or gas – or fossil fuel powered, that dust that lingers in 17 the air and is a hazard in and of itself. Finally, with respect to concentrated solar thermal. The issues 18 with respect to concentrated solar thermal are not mirror affecting wildlife. There is a current large 19 project of concentrated solar thermal, I think it’s called Tonopah. I may not have the name correct but in 20 particular, this is towed as being solar power and as such, it basically says, it is greenhouse gas free. That 21 is not correct. It heats up during the day and at night it has to stay warm. They use natural gas to keep it 22 heated overnight so, that in the morning when the sun comes on, it can heat up and use – generate 23 power. This is not the kind of greenhouse gas free energy that the City of Palo Alto should be buying and 24 therefore, I would suggest that we do include the prohibition for concentrated solar thermal unless and 25 until, it is truly greenhouse gas free, without the use of fossil fuels to create heat during night time 26 hours. I think that that’s something that we should do because if we’re going to have 100% greenhouse 27 gas-free electric utility, buying concentrated solar thermal power, does not generate greenhouse gas-28 free power. Also, one final thing is there was a mention of various kinds of things in term of -- I think it 29 was Amy Sung mentioned about various incentives for retrofits. It is interesting that the City of Palo Alto 30 utilities incentive program seems to be very targeted. You get incentives for doing an X or you get 31 incentives for doing a Y. Where those are specifically targeted for what it is. You get incentive certain 32 times for putting in solar thermal water heaters but you don’t get incentives for putting in solar – for 33 improving a certain water—heating—for example, if you use solar thermal water space heating, you 34 don’t get incentives for that. That’s kind of silly. In PG&E territory, they have this idea that you measure 35 the energy usage of the home before you retrofit. You measure the energy usage of the home after the 36 retrofit and if your improvement excesses a certain threshold, you get a lump of money. That’s a much 37 better strategy, I think that our approach which is targeted in vulcanized ways and I think we should 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 34 of 41 explore what other electric and – what other (Inaudible) utilities do in terms of their incentive programs 1 and think about copying some of that in that regard. I also think that we need to, in order to promote 2 solar power, we need to think about a time of use metering. And solar power works with time of use 3 metering and we explored it but not for those – we explored time of use metering for those with electric 4 (Inaudible) but not if you have solar power but if you have solar power and (Inaudible) you can get time 5 of use metering and invest in our utilities in PG and E territories. I think we should include that and 6 consider that because that I think will promote energy efficient and if you think about when the wind 7 blows, were buying more and more wind power. The wind blows at night and therefore we want to 8 promote energy use at night and energy saving during the day. Notwithstanding the duck's belly chart – 9 people have seen that. Anyway, thank you. 10 Co-Chair Garber: Doria, did you have something else? Oh, I’m sorry. Stephen and then Doria. 11 Stephen Levy: If it's red, I guess it’s on. I wanted to follow up on what Elaine said way back at the 12 beginning. It’s on N-34, it’s 8.1.1. It’s about what the sustainable Community strategy means. I don’t 13 need to the change the language at this point but it does go to something that we talked about way 14 earlier in the process. That at the end Hillary, I hope, were going to write about how elements are 15 connected. I work for three regional planning agencies and two air quality agencies, I think I have this 16 right but Elaine and Joanna and Hillary, if I mark it up, jump in at the end, please. The suitable 17 Community Strategy has two pieces. It sets regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and it 18 requires that within each region, enough housing is provided to match the job and population growth. 19 It's that other meaning of sustainability. That doesn’t mean a lot per say but what Elaine said is really 20 important because land use and transportation, housing and transportation, in the right place – for 21 every agency that I work for is one of the major greenhouse gas emission and climate change adaptation 22 policies. It's not some abstract thing and it anybody on Council doesn’t get that, if we don’t 23 communicate that through the document, for example, by understanding that the Land Use Element 24 and the Housing Element are part of a greenhouse gas reduction policy, along with the Transportation 25 Element. I think that’s a mistake. So, I really want to support what Elaine said. That confers with my 26 professional knowledge. If you see if any different, please jump in because it is more important to get it 27 right but I think sometimes people see that and think it’s only about greenhouse gasses. It’s only one 28 way, it's only regulation or stuff and I think it really is housing and transportation also. 29 Co-Chair Garber: Doria. 30 Doria Summa: Just very quickly, I wanted to respond to some of the comments and we tried to 31 distinguish between channelize creeks and natural creeks but we wanted to make sure that we 32 maintained the concept of even the channelized creeks provide habitat for animals. On creeks, again, 33 the 150-foot setback for creeks is actually the County standard and that’s why it was added as an option. 34 Somethings that a couple people have mentioned, specific technologies and practices. We didn’t include 35 because they’re part of the green building code which will evolve as things evolve and change. I agree 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 35 of 41 with Whitney, that we need to make it clear that we weren’t trying to tell Stanford what to do on the 1 whole entire campus. That wasn’t our intention and getting back to her map comment. I think, in 2 general, it’s hard to evaluate the maps because they’re so small so, I hope at some time, we could get a 3 full-size version. Arthur was absolutely right, it was stopped cars, it was not idling cars in traffic. We 4 didn’t think we could do anything about that. I appreciate the comment about strengthening street tree 5 protection and urban forest. I also agree that we should prohibit concentrated solar thermal. That’s it. 6 Co-Chair Garber: I have a couple comments and Arthur also wanted to talk. I wasn’t going to speak on 7 this but – oh and Don, alright. Trees, I agree that street trees should be essentially required. They are 8 very important for the character of our neighborhoods, for our streets. They play a very important part 9 in the identity of our town. I have a slightly different take, which I think is more aligned with Julia’s 10 relative to trees that are on my personal property. I have talked about this before, where I think in the 11 residential neighborhoods, the weight on the scale should be in favor of the individual homeowner and 12 so, I have a hard time giving my neighbors appeal power over my decision of what I do with my trees on 13 my property. I’m not saying about the trees that are protected but just in general. That much said, let 14 me move on to my other topics. Tomorrow night, in addition with the Services and Policy Committee, 15 we’re also going to lay out very briefly a policy framework for thinking about the conservation of 16 groundwater. If the goal is ultimately the conservation of groundwater, then there are several policies 17 that I think the City should think about pursuing. This is not to compete with the County obsess over 18 these issues but I think the City can do a number of things to support that goal. For instance, reduction 19 of extraction sources. There are many in the City. They are from underpasses and building primarily but 20 that is something that we can control and that we can legislate and regulate. Reduction of groundwater 21 depletion due to construction. That includes buildings and additions to single family homes. Utilization 22 of surface groundwater, where groundwater is surfaced, we should make out best efforts to utilize that 23 in a beneficial way and not simply pour it down the drain and back into the Bay. There are a variety of 24 ways that are being explored but we should be more proactive about that. We should also be exploring, 25 presumably with the County and others, is groundwater recharge. We’ve talked about a number of 26 those issues in here but there are at least 4 or 5 different programs. I can imagine that would directly 27 support those sorts of activities. Then there’s, of course, the coordination with (Inaudible) etc. but I 28 would actually look to slightly reorganize the groundwater Policy N-4.7 and start with, at the top our 29 goal of conservation of Palo Alto’s groundwater and then, let everything else fall under neither that. I 30 am comfortable with Policy 4.8 because I will be talking about that in much greater detail at the 31 regulatory level tomorrow and we’ll have other things. There may be some learnings that come out of 32 that, that can influence the Comp. Plan later but that can be added in, you know, at the Council level or 33 even by us if we wanted to. Then finally, under water quality and storm water management. One of the 34 things that we’ve learned in the work that – and the calculations that Keith and I have been working on, 35 is the degree to which soil absorption of water, how important that is to our environment. It acts as a 36 buffer for flooding and it’s one of the key things that helps use mitigate that. It operated very much the 37 way that wetlands do and that is something that should probably find its way into Policy 4.9. We don’t 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 36 of 41 understand entirely how those soils work but we do know there – we have a rough idea of their capacity 1 and their ability to buffer the impacts when there are storm surges etc. That’s it. Arthur and then Don. 2 Don, please. 3 Don McDougall: Just quickly, on the tree on private property issue. I’m sort of between should you, 4 shouldn't you. I think the elephant in the room is Castilleja, coming out and saying we’ve got 168 trees 5 were going to get rid of and is that on private property or not on private property and huge Redwoods 6 and should people have the opportunity to speak out about that or not. Therefore, I lean in the direction 7 of allowing some sort of appeal, especially if it’s any kind of protected tree. I think the other issue about 8 that and I’ve mentioned this before, is the issue of transparency. We’ve talked a lot about trees being in 9 public – on the public divides and so on. The City took out three trees in front of our house a year and a 10 half ago. I have no visibility of whether they’re ever going to plan on replacing those or not. Since my 11 neighbor won’t fix his irrigation system and he irrigates the mud every day, it’s a problem. I want to 12 mention Shani again. I think she had a really positive impact with this and her experience with other 13 Communities up and down the Bay, that was why the 150-foot. She knew that that was a County 14 regulation, number 1 and she was also aware of what places like San Jose were doing, even with 15 concrete creeks and the importance of that. The same thing with the pollination routes and that map. 16 Whitney mentioned, it looked like it went through buildings and parking lots and I think the pollination 17 route was not necessarily a creek route or something. It was a concept to where pollination would 18 happen. I was to reinforce what Stephen said about the sustainable. People heard me say sustainable 19 enough during the campaign over and over again but it’s sustainability and connectedness of things. It’s 20 the connection of the various kinds of sustainability. In fact, if there comes down and we haven’t done a 21 business one yet as to what – are the three E’s, is the social equity and the economy and the 22 environment that are connected and I hope in the end that we can, as a Comprehensive Plan, connect 23 all three of those. I think that would be really important. Thank you. 24 Co-Chair Garber: Hillary. 25 Hillary Gitelman: I just wanted to make sure, everyone knew that Shani had sent her apologies. She was 26 going to have to go to the San Jose City Council this evening to represent the Audubon Society so, she 27 wasn’t able to make it. 28 Co-Chair Garber: And Arthur. 29 Co-Chair Keller: So, firstly, I think that Don McDougall is right about the need for being able to appeal to 30 trees. Don understands the idea why somebody should not be able to appeal a tree on private property 31 when they can appeal individual review second stories on private property. They can review all sorts of – 32 appeal all kinds of other things on private property developments. What’s special about trees that they 33 should not be able to appeal that? Makes no sense to me. If they can appeal anything, they should be 34 able to appeal the removal of trees, especially, protected trees. I also agree with Don McDougall’s point 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 37 of 41 about street trees. I had a tree removed from the front of my house, street tree because it died and I 1 said, good. Dig out the stump and put a new one in and the City said, no, we can’t because it’s within 5-2 feet of a water meter and water line. So, put some other tree in there. Now, notice that I can actually 3 put a tree – I’m the part of Palo Alto that has rolling curbs and therefore, this tree is behind the curb and 4 then there’s a property line with a fence there and then on my side of the property line, I can feel free to 5 put a tree in, exactly two feet away from where the City refuses to put one in. That’s kind of crazy and 6 that needs to be improved. We need to think about better ways, after all, [Dave Doctor] has this idea of 7 structural soil. Why can’t we use structural soil kind of techniques for being able to dig out the stump 8 and put it in so that the tree roots go down, away from the water meter? Finally, I appreciate Stephen 9 Levy bringing up sustainable Community strategy and SB375. I heard him talk a lot about transportation, 10 land use, housing, I didn’t hear him talk anything about jobs. What seems to me, accepting the idea that 11 the housing needs to be created in order to satisfy the needs for jobs. 12 Stephen Levy: I didn’t say that. 13 Co-Chair Keller: Well, in the event, well… 14 Stephen Levy: So…(Crosstalk) 15 Co-Chair Garber: Well, hang on, hang on. 16 Stephen Levy: … you’re the Chairman, you don’t get to miss quote. 17 Co-Chair Garber: Well, (Inaudible) (Crosstalk) 18 Co-Chair Keller: I’m sorry, I missed…(Crosstalk) 19 Co-Chair Garber: Finish your comments (Inaudible) 20 Co-Chair Keller: I’m sorry if I miss quoted you. I think that you mentioned the idea of creating housing 21 but I don’t think you mentioned the idea of limiting jobs. One of the things about this is that I know that 22 Stephen has lived here for decades and so, have I. I lived here seeing a recession, boom, recession, 23 boom and we’ve had a pretty much a boom for a lot since the last recession in the early 90’s. What 24 happened in previous booms is that we’ve had expansion within Silicon Valley and those expansions 25 have involved relocations out of the valley is what’s happened. We had disc drives, used to be created 26 here and now disc drives have moved in construction elsewhere and now they’re overseas. We had the 27 construction of Silicon – generating manufacturing equipment and then that was moved elsewhere out 28 of the valley. Now, we have a boom in terms of software and the software is being created here and 29 we’re basically more and more intensification within Silicon Valley and we don’t have the same kind of 30 thing about relocating so, that expansion happens elsewhere. So, where we’re winding up with, the 31 Cities – for example, Menlo Park said, oh, well all the other Cities are expanding jobs, we want to have 32 our share of expanding jobs and so, what’s happening is they’re expanding jobs fast and sure, they are 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 38 of 41 expanding housing but they are expanding jobs faster than they are expanding housing. The same thing 1 with Mountain View. Mountain View is expanding housing but they’re expanding jobs in terms of what’s 2 going on with Google and LinkedIn and whatever. Faster than they are expanding housing. The issue 3 that in some sense, what we need to think about is yes, we do need to create more housing but as a 4 region, we need to basically say, we need to slow down on creating jobs and yes, companies, you need 5 to create some of these jobs elsewhere and figure out – spread the wealth in other Communities. I think 6 that that’s part of the issue of what we need to do in terms of sustainability Community strategy. It’s 7 balancing transportation, housing and jobs and that means not simply putting your foot on the scale of 8 jobs, which is what we’ve been doing much too much, especially in the last few years in Palo Alto but 9 moderating on jobs and increasing them and basically, increasing housing. That’s the kind of balance I 10 think we need to do. Also, in terms of transportation, our transportation infrastructure is not keeping up 11 with this either. Thank you. 12 Stephen Levy: So…(Crosstalk) 13 Co-Chair Garber: Hang on, Bonnie is first. Then you, Stephen. I’m sorry, she was (Inaudible) 14 Bonnie Packer: I want to say that I think that the last few comments of our Co-Chair where rather out of 15 line and not part of what the subject matter of this element. It would just – anyway, I’m not going to go 16 into the reason why. I totally disagree with your concept about jobs. I do want to underscore what 17 Elaine and Stephen said about cross referencing. I did say in my written comment that in the 18 introductory part about climate change, refer to the Transportation Element and yes, the Land Use 19 Element to because we do talk about locating a concentration of people, whether its jobs or housing 20 near transit because that has another effect on (Inaudible). I mean it’s all interrelated. Going back to the 21 minutia of street trees, I hope that whole issue of appeals is not worked out here in this Comp. Plan. 22 That’s an issue for the City Council and a larger group of people to weigh in on and a public hearing. I 23 just think consider it and that’s it. It isn’t our job to decide what’s appropriate or not appropriate as far 24 as appeal process. I might recommend, since I did bring up the issue of defining street trees that maybe 25 the City have more education about street trees, what the City’s role is and what a private person’s role 26 is because it’s totally confusing. There isn’t – the City’s done a poor job in that communication of that 27 area. So, communication about respected responsibilities with regard to our urban forest might be a 28 useful high-level program/policy kind of thing, in the Comp. Plan because we should keep it high level. 29 Thank you. 30 Co-Chair Garber: Thank you. Stephen. 31 Stephen Levy: Hillary, I remember way back when you said at the very end – I don’t know – the Staff I 32 guess would write about the connections between the elements. As I look down here, unless that’s 33 somehow in the intro or the user guild. I don’t see any place in the upcoming steps and I think a number 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 39 of 41 of us think that some of those connections are really important. Is that something you’re planning to 1 do? 2 Hillary Gitelman: Yes, that’s a good point. We had already – always anticipated that that conversation 3 would start in our review of implementation because we’re going to look at all the programs from all the 4 elements and then, the last meeting where we have talked about… (Crosstalk) 5 Stephen Levy: Ok, I just wanted to make sure. 6 Hillary Gitelman: …sort of taking stock, we’ll talk about what those relationships are. 7 Stephen Levy: Look, I suspect that Arthur and I have very different visions for the region. I was trying to 8 share what I know, asking the Staff to step in about what the law and the implementation of the 9 sustainable Community strategy means. If Arthur disagrees with that, that’s his disagreement. I was 10 trying to do an explanation and I think I’m correct, ok? So, in our region, we have – we’re about to have 11 an adopted plan by [ABEC], that actually increases the targets for jobs in population because that’s what 12 the experts – and I didn’t go this one – that’s what the experts think is happening. In that plan, the 13 integration of housing and transportation is absolutely critical to the reduction of greenhouse gas 14 emissions and the protection of the climate. That’s all I’m saying. If Arthur wants the region to grow 15 differently, as Bonnie said, that’s a different topic than what I was talking about and again, I’ll ask Hillary 16 and Joanna and Elaine, have I said anything wrong because I kind of does this for a living? 17 Hillary Gitelman: Let me weigh in, I think going back to Elaine’s original comment and I think that was 18 right now. We’ve reference the sustainable Communities strategies here and it was – in this sense of 19 trying to talk about climate change and climate adaptation but the regional agencies think about this, it 20 about the integration of land use and transportation and so, we can try and draw out that theme in this 21 reference and be more complete in our program here. 22 Stephen Levy: Thank you. 23 Co-Chair Garber: Ok. Thank you all. I’m not seeing any more cards up. 24 Female: Dan? 25 Co-Chair Garber: Yes. 26 Female: I’m sorry. If I may, I just wanted to provide a little clarification on the tree issue. Just basically to 27 state that we draw designation between trees on single family lots versus anything else. So, for any type 28 of development commercial, industrial, or multi-family, we do regulate trees. So, the removal of a tree 29 would be a modification to an approved landscaping plan so that is something that is regulated. We 30 issue permits and that is appealable through our process. What is different for single-family lots is that 31 we do not regulate nonprotected trees within back yards. I think that’s the question that was being 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 40 of 41 discussed by the subcommittee so, that would the specific change that would occur if this was further 1 explored by the City Council and also, I wanted to mention that the City does regulate street trees and 2 we do require street trees as part of developments. 3 Co-Chair Garber: I’m sorry? Ok. Are we good to go? I would love to hear a motion to move this element 4 going forward by one of the subcommittee members. You so move, is there a second? Doria seconds. 5 Are there any friendly or unfriendly amendments that might be offered? Bonnie. 6 Bonnie Packer: (Inaudible) A friendly amendment as we did with the Safety Element, that was we send 7 forward would include the relevant comments and the changes that were recommended by… 8 Co-Chair Garber: By the Committee. 9 Bonnie Packer: …by what you sensed was a consensus of the Committee. 10 Co-Chair Keller: Also, the minutes of the meeting and people can submit comments to a week from 11 today. 12 Co-Chair Garber: Hamilton, did you have a comment there? 13 Hamilton Hitchings: Yeah, I was just going to add the word corrections but Bonnie got it covered. 14 Co-Chair Garber: Ok. With that, would those that support the motion, please raise their hand and say 15 aye. All opposed? None, showing. Any abstentions? No, abstentions. It passes unanimously. Thank you 16 very much. 17 Commission Action: Motion: Forward the draft Natural Environment Element for City Council 18 review with comments from the CAC and minutes. Staff is to clean up minor items that do not 19 change policy as discussed. Motion made by Commissioner Summa and seconded by 20 Commissioner McDougal, motion passed unanimously. 21 Co-Chair Garber: What else do we possibly have to talk about this evening? 22 Stephen Levy: Thanks for the food. 23 Co-Chair Garber: Yes, thank you for the food. 24 Hillary Gitelman: Please, note the next meeting date, January 17th and we’ll send out a calendar 25 reminder for all of the 2017 meeting. So, January, February, March, April. 26 Co-Chair Garber: Alright folks (Crosstalk) Yeah and if anyone is not able to join us on those dates, please 27 let us know but with that, we are adjourned. 28 Feedback for Continuous Improvement: 29 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 41 of 41 Future Meetings: 1 Next meeting: January 17, 2017 – Rinconada Library (Embarcadero Room) 2 Topic: Natural Resources Element II 3 4 Adjournment: 8:30 p.m. 5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 1 of 38 TUESDAY, March 21, 2017 Rinconada Library – Embarcadero Room 1213 Newell Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 5:30 PM TO 8:30 PM Call to Order: 5:30 P.M. 1 Co-Chair Keller: I call the Citizens Advisory Committee meeting of the Comprehensive Plan 2 updates to order on Tuesday, March 21st, 2017 and the time is 5:30. Will the secretary place call 3 roll? 4 Present: Filppu, Glanckopf, Hetterly, Hitchings, Keller, Kleinhaus, Levy, McDougall, 5 McNair, Moran, Packer, Peschcke-Koedt, Summa, Sung, Titus, Uang, Uhrbrock, 6 van Riesen 7 8 Absent: Garber, McNair 9 Oral Communication: 10 Co-Chair Keller: Our first agenda item is oral communications. Are there any speakers from the 11 public who wish to speak today? Seeing and hearing none. We close oral communication. 12 Staff Comments: 13 1. March 20th City Council Hearing 14 Co-Chair Keller: Next, we have Staff comments on last night’s meeting. I’d like to acknowledge 15 that some people were there and I’d like to hear – if you were, you heard an interesting 16 meeting and let’s hear what Staff has to say about it. 17 Hillary Gitelman: Thank you, Arthur. Good evening everybody and thanks to those who were 18 there or who were listening in last night. If you were there or were listening in, you know that 19 the Council conducted a public hearing on the supplement to the draft EIR. There was a lot of 20 conversation about the EIR but they started with this issue that we spent our last CAC meeting 21 talking about, which is the placement of programs in the Comp. Plan. We reproduced for you 22 today the two motions that were adopted last night. The first one, motion number one, address 23 this program issue. To cut to the punch line, the Council basically reconsidered and retracted 24 their prior direction to put the programs in the back of the book. Their direction last night was 25 to proceed as originally intended where the programs are both in the Implementation Plan in 26 the back and in the elements. They also asked the Staff to continue to work on consolidating redundant 27 programs, eliminating any that are infeasible and incorporate suggestions from you all and the public 28 about the relative priority and timeline for the programs and the estimated level of effort. I am hoping 29 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 2 of 38 that your work today is going to inform that work product. Then ultimately, the Council indicated that 1 they’ll be the final arbiter of this prioritization and the suit of programs that we bring forward. I thought 2 it was a nice to have the Council really listen to what the CAC and others in the community had been 3 saying to them in the last month or so. It was nice that they started out the meeting with that and then 4 they heard testimony on the – or they offered comments and questions on the EIR. Then they grappled 5 with this question of what should be described as the preferred scenario in the final EIR and that’s what 6 the second motion on this page references. Again, it was very – Len and I were talking about it that they 7 were sort of statesmen like last night and they sort of swung to the middle and ended up with a set of 8 recommendations or a set of direction to us that kind of reflects the middle of the range of planning 9 scenarios that have been included in the EIR process. Good news on both fronts I think and we have a 10 direction to move forward. The next time we go back to Council will be on May 1st, for them to look 11 again at the revised Land Use and Transportation Elements. I’m looking forward to that and I hope that 12 some or all of you will be able to either be there or listen in because of it – we’re real to the point where 13 the fruits of your labor are starting to show in these elements. I think they are pretty good and the 14 Council is going to feel like we’re making great headway when they see them on the 1st. That’s our wrap-15 up. 16 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. The next meeting will be on April 18th that we know about and there will 17 also be one in May. Also, I understand that it was in the Council’s packet, something about 18 acknowledging us so you might want to tell us when that is so all of us can show up. 19 Hillary Gitelman: In the Staff report last night, we put a little section on next steps and we laid out the 20 next few Council meetings to talk about Comp. Plan items. May 1st, I have already mentioned but there’s 21 a date in the middle of June; I think it was June 5th, that we set aside for adoption of a resolution 22 thanking the CAC for their efforts. I hope you’ll plan to be in attendance and I’ll let you know if that date 23 changes but at this point, we feel like you guys will have wrapped up your work by then and it would be 24 nice for the Council to acknowledge all of your efforts so June 5th. 25 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Don, you wanted to say something? 26 Don McDougall: I think I understood that you’re saying that people who were there last night could 27 comment in addition to Hillary’s comments, is that true or you don’t want to do that? That’s fine. 28 Co-Chair Keller: If you want to do that very briefly, we have a lot of things to talk about. 29 Don McDougall: I do want to just briefly say two things. I have to say that I was impressed that Corey 30 Wolbach did lead the listening to people I would say and I think he should be recognized for that. 31 Whatever we think of whatever politics he might have, I think that he did listen to people and he did 32 respond and individually, he fell on his sword for the collective Council I would say. The second thing 33 that I would like to say is that I’m continued to be disturbed as Hillary reported, with the insistence that 34 we reduce the number of programs. I’ve said before and I’ll say again, the notes that I sent didn’t get 35 included in the package tonight so I’m sorry for that. I think the number of programs is informative. I 36 think it’s informative that there are more programs in the Community Services Element. It says that 37 we’re a much more compassionate community than we use to be. I think it’s informative that there are 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 3 of 38 more in transportation because we’re concerned about the same thing the Council is concerned about. I 1 think it’s informative that there are more things in the Natural Element because in fact, there – we 2 understand more and I believe that we are more responsive to the natural environment than we were in 3 1998. I think this desperate desire to reduce the number of programs will mislead the future. I think that 4 leaving the programs there – I agree with what Hillary said about consolidating where there are 5 duplicates. Let’s do that and let’s do that aggressively but other than that, I think the programs should 6 be left there. They are informative, it understands – it allows people in the future to understand what 7 we in 2017 were interested in and just simply getting rid of them in order have 160 programs instead of 8 300 programs or 370 programs doesn’t make sense. I think the other thing in there is looking at the 9 Safety Element, there wasn’t a Safety Element before. There is one now and I think the programs there 10 are important. As will be pointed out those are ones that have been added by the professionals. I think 11 they are programs that we don’t want to have eliminated. Should we have a Fire Department, yes, we 12 should. Do we want to eliminate that program so that somebody in the future can say gee, the plan 13 doesn’t say you have to have a Fire Department? I think the other thing to remember is that Council 14 keeps telling us that they get to decide on this stuff. This is a guideline, it’s not rules so why not put in 15 the guild lines that we believe are the guidelines. Thank you for your forbearance. 16 Co-Chair Keller: Sure. Anybody else who wishes to speak briefly? Stephen. 17 Stephen Levy: You can check Hillary but in my conversations, there’s an element in the first motion that 18 I think was intended to be there but somehow didn’t and you can check. I think the intent was that the 19 programs be put back in under the policies and I thought it was there and when I read this, it didn’t have 20 that statement but I think that was the intent. 21 Co-Chair Keller: That’s what motion number 1A was. Option 4B was to put the programs in the – also in 22 the main body of the Comprehensive Plan. 23 Stephen Levy: Right but I’m saying put them – organize them under the policies. 24 Co-Chair Keller: Yes, that was the intent. 25 Stephen Levy: Yeah, ok. The second point is that I have a different take then Don. I listened to the 26 whole meeting and read this, there was no intent or request to willy-nilly reduce programs. The 27 language here is pretty clear that it’s to consolidate redundant programs and eliminate infeasible 28 programs. I don’t have a particular definition for redundant or infeasible but the Council didn’t say just 29 throw out programs to reduce the number. For example, there are a whole bunch of programs in the 30 Natural Environment Element that all say that we should conserve energy and they’re all probably in the 31 SCAP. 32 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Any other quick – Hi, Doria. 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 4 of 38 Doria Summa: Sorry and I’ll be quick. I wanted to thank the Council who isn’t here, for reconsidering the 1 prior actions and I also want to thank Don. I really appreciate the analysis that he did of the programs 2 and kind of counting them differently and thinking about them differently. I have to say, his work and 3 also other members of this body who spoke last night have really convinced me that we shouldn’t be – 4 that prioritizing programs isn’t really the right thing to do. They should all be left in because they all are 5 an expression of somebody’s heartfelt concern and desire. Redundancy is different or things that are 6 complete, I agree that those should be taken out. I don’t remember if Shani said this or I had a dream 7 last night but she may have said – it’s something like Sofie’s choices, which do you pick to throw out. 8 Then the other thing that struck me last night is that there were many, many letters At Places from the 9 public and I just want to touch very briefly on three letters. One was from Super Intendant of schools 10 McGee, Todd Collins, who is a Board Member and actually [Penny Elsons], who is a very well-respected 11 civically engaged member of the public who I guess you would say. They’re really strong concerns that 12 the EIR was not a contemplating in any realistic way the impacts of Stanford’s growth on the school 13 system. I really worry that that’s been under – I know it’s not – it hasn’t been the focus of what we’ve 14 been doing but I really am very concerned that that has been grossly underestimated in the whole 15 process here. I mean, the Super Intendent of Schools and a Board Member and then Penny, who has 16 been working on school issues for many, many years. I just wanted to opine that I think it’s very 17 important that – then analysis of how Stanford’s expansion is going to affect the school system be 18 beefed up and done more accurately and completely. Thanks. 19 Co-Chair Keller: Hillary, will speak to that. 20 Hillary Gitelman: If I can just chime in on that issue. I appreciate the comment and we did get comments 21 like that last night and we’ll be addressing that in the final EIR as we move forward. I also wanted to say 22 – I probably should have said this earlier that those of you who are interested in commenting on the EIR, 23 the supplement to the draft EIR and draft EIR, the comment period goes through the end of the month 24 and there’s going to be another public hearing at the Planning Commission next Wednesday evening. 25 You have another chance to do it orally or you can send us notes in writing and any subsistent 26 comments we receive will be responded to in the final EIR. Feel free to submit comments like Doria’s or 27 on another subject; we’re happy to get them. 28 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Shani. 29 Shani Kleinhaus: Thank you. I spoke last night about the prioritization. I’ve had – I did use Sophie’s 30 choice because I don’t see how we’re going to prioritize youth over elderly over people with 31 developmental disabilities and all that stuff. I just don’t – even if we don’t take the – any of the 32 programs out, I think the people who came to speak here over the time that we’ve been doing this are 33 really the people who did not feel that there was somebody here representing them. So, none of us are 34 probably going to be especially interested in their issues; whatever those issues where. I think that the 35 result of a prioritization program here will essentially be setting side a lot of the comments that we got 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 5 of 38 from a lot of the people who came to speak from the public. One other thing that I have a problem with 1 prioritization is – well, I kind of – I would like to get back to that because I’m not sure exactly but I do 2 think that we will be leaving out groups that we shouldn’t and I don’t like this type of exercise. We’ve 3 tried it and everyone – a lot of the people who participated in the exercise of the Implementation 4 Committee did not like that exercise and we said ok, we’ll try it and see how it works. Maybe for Staff 5 that works but for me, it didn’t. I don’t know what betters – a better way there is to do things but I think 6 the best thing – we wasted a month and a half because of not knowing what’s going to happen with all 7 these programs and how they’re going to be so maybe we need to have a little more time. What we 8 might want to do is first look at consolidation and consistency and see if we have all of that. Only then, 9 come back and see which programs – if we want to do that. One other thing is that a lot of new 10 programs… 11 Co-Chair Keller: I just want to say is that right now we are talking about the comments on last night’s 12 Council meeting. If we are going to get to DOT exercise, that will be next on the agenda. If you have any 13 more comments on last night… 14 Shani Kleinhaus: I spoke about that last night so I was repeating that. I will – but that’s ok. We can talk 15 about the other things later. 16 Co-Chair Keller: Ok. I want to trim this a little bit but Annette? 17 Annette Glanckopf: I didn’t go but I did watch every golden word and I don’t think we have really 18 emphasized enough that we have really worked on the redundancy or the conflict between programs. 19 The two things that I didn’t hear last night where that and the thing that Don brought up, which really 20 have been something that I really resonate with is that the numbers that were presented for completed. 21 I mean, that’s great that we completed something Palo Alto in 10-years. I was looking at this fairly 22 carefully and I think we should have some different designation for the ongoing programs. That should 23 defiantly be called out even though you guys put enormous work into this matrix of all these categories. 24 I’ll come back later when we start talking about how we do this but I … 25 Co-Chair Keller: We’ll deal with the (inaudible) next so if you can deal with last night’s meeting. 26 Annette Glanckopf: Again, I just think that our major effort should be to combine things and make a big 27 point that things are not redundant and that we’ve really – the last Comp. Plan accomplished a lot more 28 than the Council seems to think it did. That was my… 29 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Len. 30 Don McDougall: Yes, thanks. I just wanted to commend the Council for their actions last night. They 31 began to act like representative leaders rather than giddy winners. It was a pleasure to see and a very 32 good step forward for this community. Thank you. 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 6 of 38 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Amy. 1 Amy Sung: Actually, I have just some small question. Yesterday, I thought that it was so good to see so 2 many members of the CAC that went to the Council meeting; that was tremendous I think. That shows 3 that we really care about what we produce and appreciated that Council was taking the time to address 4 it. My question was that I see that the two Co-Chairs submitted a letter to the Council. Was that on 5 behalf of our CAC? I wasn’t so sure of that. The other one that I heard repeatedly was the comments 6 about had we know this is what Council wanted then we would have done it differently. I think that is 7 very interesting and I just wanted to just bring up what I thought about that comment. In our real world, 8 we produce something and then it was – whatever stage it is, we found that there are improvements to 9 be made. I think it is a better when it’s still in the planning and the paper stage that we make 10 improvements and I really, really appreciated the opportunity for the Staff to put in such tremendous 11 efforts to put all the programs in one place. That’s the one thing that I think we are not afraid to do and 12 that is that to make the final product the way that it is the best that it can be and not just say well, this is 13 what it was given to us and we are just going to do what we were told from the beginning. That’s my 14 comment, thank you. 15 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. A little clarification, the first that was in the current Comp. Plan, the ’98 to 16 2010 Comp. Plan, the programs are in the Implementation Plan. They’ve always been there and so the 17 only question is whether they were going to be in the elements under the programs – under the policies 18 or not. That’s what the Council decided to last night was to put them under the programs where – that’s 19 what motion 2A is. The second is that the letter from the Co-Chairs represents our understanding of 20 where we saw the consensus of the meeting for people who were at the meeting. We also represented 21 some of the comments from – that – where people were actually in favor of the Council’s comments at 22 the meeting – at the people who were at the meeting, some of them expressed interest in having the 23 programs not be part of the elements and we mentioned that as well. That’s our interpretation of what 24 happened at the meeting so we put that together. A couple of things about this that I just want to add. 25 One is that – I think that – I agree with Len that it was more of a collegial process and I think that that’s 26 important. The second thing is I wonder what eliminating infeasible policies and programs are? The 27 reason I have concerns about that is because – for example, some people feel that undergrounding 28 Caltrain is infeasible or even grade separation is infeasible. Yet, that’s the consensus and actually, the 29 position of the City. I’m not sure what the threshold is for something being infeasible. What the 30 judgment is on that and so I had a question of that. I’m not sure if Staff wants to address that at some 31 point but maybe we should – do you want to address that? Thank you. 32 Hillary Gitelman: Well, thanks for the opening. Just to reiterate, we as Staff, of course, are interested in 33 following the Council’s direction and the Council directed us to incorporate suggestions from this body 34 on prioritization and a timeline. I hope that you will offer some comments on that tonight and of course, 35 we’re also will welcome any comments that you have on consolidating redundant programs. The Council 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 7 of 38 did have some pause about this phrase, eliminating infeasible policies and programs, because there was 1 an acknowledgment that there wouldn’t be a lot of programs in there that are infeasible but there are 2 this issues that we have so many programs in there and they won’t all be able to be completed. That’s 3 why prioritization is important so we’re not going to get hung up on the infeasibility clause. I think we’re 4 going to focus on a consolidation of programs where that’s appropriate and we would welcome your 5 input this evening and we’ve been charged with prioritization. If you want to offer prioritization 6 suggestions tonight, we would welcome those and reflect your input in our recommendation back to 7 Council. 8 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I guess infeasibility comes from a – there was actually a State legislature 9 some number of years ago, that decided that Pie should not be 3.14 blah blah blah blah. That is should 10 be 3 and State law actually defined it as such. 11 12 Agenda Items: 13 1. Consent: Revised Business and Economics Element 14 Co-Chair Keller: I guess out next agenda item – if we are closed on this, is the revised Business and 15 Economics Element. Does Staff want to say anything about that first? 16 Hillary Gitelman: We put this back on consent at the Committee’s direction. I think our thought was that 17 it had benefited a lot from the last round of comments. If you all have additional comments that you’d 18 like to submit. We’re hoping tonight you’ll forward it to the Council and then have a – in the next week if 19 you have any additional (Crosstalk)… 20 Elena Lee: Yes, if you have additional comments, please send them to us by the 31st and we incorporate 21 that into the packet that goes to Council for their review. 22 Hillary Gitelman: We’re looking for a motion from the group this evening on this element. 23 Co-Chair Keller: Are there any very quick comments that people have? I guess – Hamilton, yes? 24 Hamilton Hitchings: I think Staff did a great of incorporating our feedback. They made some changes 25 which were sort of made general to appeal to the group so I’m very supportive of that but I want on the 26 record that there’s a policy now that talks about sustainability. The way I had originally proposed it was 27 to focus on innovative companies in mobility, which is self-driving cars and transportation like Tesla and 28 Ford and the Stanford Research Center on that and greenhouse gas reduction. That will be lost when 29 people look at sustainability but we have an opportunity to attract those kinds of companies to Palo Alto 30 and so I just wanted it for the record that that’s specifically was what I was talking about. 31 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Don. 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 8 of 38 Don McDougall: (Inaudible) I support what Hamilton just said. I think Staff did a really nice job and I 1 agree that Hamilton’s sustainability initiative was not – cannot be encompassed in one word. I am still a 2 little concerned through the element that retail versus commercial business is not sufficiently separated 3 in some places. We’re just talking about business in general and it’s not clear what it is we’re trying to 4 protect. I think one more pass through trying to make it clear whether we’re looking after retail or we’re 5 looking after the business community because they are really different approaches. 6 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I’d like to acknowledge that Council Member Lydia Kou is here and also, next 7 is Bonnie Packer. 8 Bonnie Packer: Also, I think the Business Element is great. There was – I just remembered last time 9 there was a discussion about whether or not there was really an Office of Economic Development in the 10 City and then I saw it mentioned towards the end. I can’t find it now so if it exists fine but if it doesn’t 11 exist, there was one of these programs or policies that mentioned it. That’s just a little detail and 12 another thought though about this particular element, I found that there were very few programs. 13 There are a lot of policies and it made me think about the other elements and how some policies could 14 be programs and programs could be policies. I just don’t – this one seemed – this element may be 15 because so much of the issues are covered in land use and transportation so it’s a smaller element. It 16 seemed to flow better but it also pointed out that when I went to do the DOT priority exercise and I 17 looked at the programs, I didn’t have the policies in front of me to remember what the programs – what 18 policies was supposed to implement. It was very hard to prioritize without seeing the policies written in 19 front of me in that chart. I am going to bring that up again when we talk about the process, later on, 20 tonight. Thank you. 21 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Annette. 22 Annette Glanckopf: I think element really looks pretty good. I just had some small – two or three little 23 small things and one is that I agree with Bonnie. I’ve been really hot on this Office of Economic 24 Development. I have my own little vision of what it should be but I’m not really sure that the Council – I 25 think we really need to have some sort of policy decision if there is an office, about what exactly the 26 Council wants this office to do because I think it’s going to imply Staffing if we do it the way the Business 27 Element requires. I’m fine with that but to me, it’s right now a little bit fluffy. I just echo what Bonnie 28 said. The other things have to do with really retail, which I sort of put in my note. There was a section 29 that was eliminated because it was supposed to be redundant but it’s in the retail centers and it talks 30 about maintaining distinct neighborhood shopping centers, which really there are only three that are 31 attractive, accessible and covenant etc. etc. Since we call out all the other big areas, I would just like to 32 see that one left in. We call that Cal. Ave, University, south of Forest etc. It wouldn’t take very much just 33 to leave it in. Finally, somewhere in Program B-4.3 – 4.6.3, they talk about studying retail and to me, 34 really what we should be studying is what does make ground floor retail viable rather than just sort of 35 numbers and concepts and looking at online shopping. What type of businesses fits in what area? Would 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 9 of 38 you put a high-end clothing store in a neighborhood center for example or what types of businesses? I 1 think that could actually be a lot better and I would actually ask you to add that to the policy, which I 2 think will fluff up the local retail. I really do agree with Don, it is really high level and it doesn’t really talk 3 in this section about local serving small business – local serving retail. 4 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you, Annette. I’ll just add that that also is interesting in terms what makes a retail 5 center and what’s appropriate in a mix of a retail center? For example, a mix of shops with an anchor 6 store like a grocery store, sufficient parking and what was interesting going back to a dead horse of the 7 Alma Plaza, none of the proposals for that everywhere for a viable shopping center that had a sufficient 8 number of other shops. Stephen. 9 Stephen Levy: Two quick comments and a question. I echo Don and Hamilton in thanking the Staff. My 10 memory is that Hamilton meant what he said he meant so I hope that that can be clarified either from 11 the notes or whatever. My question is Elena, if I heard right, we will pass the Business Element on 12 consent in the existing element plus all of the comments that are made tonight, will be forwarded to the 13 Council. That there will not be a revision per say but the comments will be additive and in a separate 14 joint document. 15 Hillary Gitelman: That was out intention based on the input we received from this group last month. 16 Co-Chair Keller: Also, the comments people make between now and the 31st so people can still – CAC 17 Members can still submit comments through the 31st. They will be attached to it but not revisions, yes. 18 Don. 19 MOTION 20 Don McDougall: I was going to make a motion to the opposite. First of all, I agree with your comment 21 about the defining a center and defining retail as being viable but I would be remised by not saying a 22 sustainable; I think that’s key. I would make a motion that we accept the current revision of the Business 23 Element and that we allow Staff to moderately modify and I trust Staff to decide what is moderately 24 modify it. If the statements and comments are outrageous then leave them out. If they just simply 25 improve the element per say, then include them so that we avoid a round of discussion about all of the 26 extra statements. My motion would be to allow the Staff to modify and then subsequently submit the 27 Business Element. 28 Co-Chair Keller: I think the job of the (inaudible) restate the motion and so – or at least to – what I 29 understand is that you are basically giving Staff the discretion to take into count our comments and 30 make minor changes in the spirit of what we have and correction based on the feedback that Staff gets 31 from the CAC Member. Does that (inaudible) 32 Don McDougall: Yes, thank you for the very clear restatement of my motion. 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 10 of 38 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. 1 Annette Glanckopf: Arthur, I’ll second it with my two amendments. 2 Co-Chair Keller: Great. (Crosstalk) First, before we do this, I think Shani had a comment that she didn’t 3 get to say and then we’ll go into the motion. Yes? 4 Shani Kleinhaus: I’m sorry I had to miss the discussion last time but when I look at it, one thing that is 5 really missing for me is profession services. It’s not the same as small business necessarily and I don’t 6 see enough for doctors, physiatrists, dentists – all this – not just health but other types of professional 7 services. Small HR firms, lawyer firms, all those things. There’s stuff about – I just don’t see that called 8 here and I think it’s needed. B-1.4 could be consolidated into B-1.6. Those two are very similar. I’m not 9 sure that they initially were like that but now they are. There is a – Policy B-3.3 is a program and not a 10 policy so that’s something that could be easily changed I suppose. I’m not sure whether Policy B-4.1, 11 supporting the established technology sector means that the City needs to support Palantir. I think 12 we’ve had a lot of discussions why that would not be a good idea but that’s what it reads like to me. I 13 think that Program B-5.1.4, revised zoning to – revitalize aging retail and allow space to accommodate 14 small independent retail businesses. Often those things are opposite. If you renovate, then it’s not 15 affordable so I’m not – things tend to become bigger and different. I think there’s an internal 16 contradiction in this program. I think creating certainty, which is a goal, is something that we cannot 17 commit too. That’s wrong because usually when you streamline things, the way to do it is by cutting out 18 the public input. By making sure you have regulation instead of conversation and I am not sure we really 19 want to do that. I’m sorry I wasn’t here before and the comments I just made, some of them maybe 20 easy to fix and other may not. I would not vote to accept it yet. We’re not ready. 21 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you, Shani. I also support the idea of supporting local serving businesses that are 22 not necessarily retail. We see – for example, the outcry for 550 Hamilton and the – causing people to 23 have to leave the thriving building with Bank of American in it on El Camino, which is supposedly being 24 replaced by a – for what I consider, not illegal (inaudible) to zoning, commercial building that would 25 have a large RND tenant in there. I think that we need to be careful about the encroachment of those 26 RND-type services in – where they replace local serving, non-retail business. Hamilton? 27 Hamilton Hitchings: That change could be accomplished by adding three words to the end of Policy 4-6. 28 Encourage the policy – it reads, encourages and support small independent retail businesses and other 29 services. By other services, we also meant professional services but Shani didn’t read it that way so we 30 could add other services including professional services. That would be a three-word addition. I don’t 31 know if this group feels comfortable adding that too – as an amendment but if there is consensus on 32 that, we could do that. I really don’t want this to go back to the subcommittee so I’d rather we resolve it 33 now. 34 Co-Chair Keller: I think Joanna has a comment. 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 11 of 38 Joanna Jansen: Yeah, we did hear this comment before about the need for professional services so the 1 attempt to address that is in Policy B-4.2, which says encourage the retention of small businesses, non-2 profit organizations, and professional services, which are vital to a diverse and innovative economy. 3 Co-Chair Keller: Could you be on a microphone? 4 Shani Kleinhaus: That’s about retention, that’s not about bringing more. I think we need more than just 5 to retain. 6 Joanna Jansen: I guess I was just making the point that professional services and this kind of service 7 specifically is in Policy B-4.2 rather than adding to B-4.6 if that’s acceptable? 8 Co-Chair Keller: I think this is – I think this fits in with the category of giving Staff the discretion to figure 9 out how best to deal with this. Is there anybody who doesn’t think we should encourage retention of 10 our or growth of professional services? I don’t see anybody who is opposed to that so there seems to be 11 consensus on giving staff discretion on figuring out to do that. Ok, there was a – Jen, I think you wanted 12 to go next and then I think Annette has some amendments. 13 Jennifer Hetterly: I just wanted to make one comment that doesn’t have any policy implications but 14 from a usability perspective for people reading the Comp. Plan. I think the narrative – the figure on page 15 B-2 and I mention this last time, that it tracks the sales and used tax revenue by geographical area. That 16 reflects the total revenue and I think that there’s not a strong understanding that what Palo Alto gets 17 out of the total is really just a small portion; some 10%-11%. I would love to see some – a sentence or 18 some language in the narrative that just makes that clear to the reading that we’re not getting $22 19 million dollars in sales tax revenue going into the City’s coffers as a result to if we’re getting some 20 portion of that or maybe I missed the understanding it. If so, if you could clarify the language so that I 21 would understand it and others would too. I think that would be helpful. 22 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. If want to say something, put up your tag but I think Annette is next. 23 Annette Glanckopf: You also need to change the word December on that chart. It’s not spelled 24 correctly. 25 Co-Chair Keller: Annette, you said you had several amendments. 26 MOTION AMENDMENTS 27 Annette Glanckopf: Right, I was going to second Don’s motion with now three amendments. I would like 28 to see that a paragraph is put back in, it’s very short. To keep distinct neighborhood shopping etc., which 29 you think is redundant but I think if really fits in with all the other different section. The other one is that 30 I would like to add to the point of B-4.6.3 about the study that we’re going to look at for retail – ground 31 floor retail and talk about what makes ground floor retail viable and what businesses fit it. Then the 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 12 of 38 third motion would be that I don’t think it’s too terribly repetitive to add those three words that 1 Hamilton came up with in one of the programs. 2 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I think it was one of the policies, right Hamilton? 3 Annette Glanckopf: It was a program I think. Wasn’t it? 4 Hamilton Hitchings: It was policy B-4.6. 5 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Don, do you accept those amendments? 6 Don McDougall: I would prefer that the amendment is with careful consideration of those three things 7 as opposed to them being specifically called out because several people have made comments that 8 we’re not putting in the motion. I – you’re making specific recommendations, right? I’m saying that I 9 don’t want that… 10 Annette Glanckopf: No, I’m just adding – One I just said was leave something in and then the other one 11 was just add some wording. 12 Don McDougall: Right but then should we, in the motion, include Shani’s comments and Hamilton’s 13 comments and (inaudible)(crosstalk) 14 Annette Glanckopf: I did include both of those. 15 Don McDougall: Are those the – if those are the only comments then I would have no objection but I 16 would just say that with special consideration to as opposed to those being specific. I’m afraid 17 something is being left out, as opposed to… 18 Co-Chair Keller: I think that was perhaps direction to include, it that’s ok. 19 Don McDougall: Yeah, I’ll accept that. 20 Co-Chair Keller: OK, great. Who – I think that Stephen had a comment and then I’d like to sort of trunk 21 it. Not go too far on this so let’s go. 22 Stephen Levy: Sure. Is Staff can clarify, my understanding is if figure B-2 and B-3 represent the total sale 23 tax in the tax revenue and the distribution, not a – that they are the total. 24 Hillary Gitelman: That’s correct. 25 Co-Chair Keller: I think that Jen’s comment is that that’s only a portion of the total revenue and that it 26 should be indicated sale tax as a percentage of the overall revenue – whatever percentage it is 27 (inaudible) revenue. Is that right, Jen? 28 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 13 of 38 Jennifer Hetterly: Maybe. I think maybe I should just talk to Staff after the meeting and clarify my 1 (inaudible)(crosstalk) 2 Co-Chair Keller: Jen can talk to Staff afterward, great. Thank you. Are there any other comments before 3 we call the question? Ok, great. I’m not going to restate the motion as amended. I think Staff has it. All 4 those in favor of the motion – you had a comment, Amy? 5 Amy Sung: Excuse me, can you just repeat what is the motion that we are going to vote on? 6 Co-Chair Keller: We are voting on a motion to have the – to submit this element, the revised Business 7 and Economics Element to Council. Giving Staff the discretion to incorporate the comments that have 8 been made that are consistent with the – that are compatible with the comments that have been made 9 and making minor additions or changes. Also, directions to include the three points that Annette had 10 made, which were accumulating comments that were made by several people here. 11 Hilary Gitelman: Also, directing us to forward any written comments we receive by the end of next 12 week. 13 Co-Chair Keller: Also, todays – those written comments by the 31st of March. As well as the notes of 14 today’s meeting. That being done, any – all in favor of the motion. Any opposed? Any abstentions? The 15 motions carry with one abstention. Shani Kleinhaus abstains. 16 MOTION PASSES WITH ON ABSTENTION 17 Co-Chair Keller: If you have any further comments, please submit them by the 31st. 18 2. Action: Draft Implementation Plan Chapter 19 a. Introduction of Implementation Plan Chapter 20 b. Report from Implementation Subcommittee 21 c. Discussion of Draft Chapter 22 Co-Chair Keller: Now we go onto the draft implementation chapter. This is not an element, it’s 23 a chapter so it has slightly different statues. Perhaps we should go with Staff giving an 24 introduction. 25 Joanna Jansen: Thank you, Arthur. I just wanted to take a minute to go over both the 26 Implementation Plan itself and also, go ahead and talk a little bit about the DOT exercise. I’m 27 going to be talking about both of those things. As Arthur said and as we explained in the Staff 28 report, the Implementation Plan is a chapter of the Comp. Plan. It’s in your existing Comp. Plan 29 too. It gathers all of the programs from all of the elements into one table to track their 30 implementation over time. It – you have that table and that was the bulk of your packet for this 31 week. It was the 78-page table that gathers all of the programs from the elements as they have 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 14 of 38 been drafted by the CAC and those of them that have been – has specific direction given by the 1 Council, we attempted to capture and reflect that direction from the Council in the plan as well. 2 The table itself in your packet has a column showing the lead department or agency that would 3 be responsible for the program. A relative priority column and that has five different priorities 4 based on the feedback that we heard at the subcommittee. That includes what we are currently 5 calling routine programs, meaning that things that Staff are going to do on a regular basis as 6 part of the normal course of doing business. In progress or IP programs, those are things that 7 are specific to elements such as – there’s one that I am looking at here that says, optimize 8 traffic signal timing. That’s something that’s already in progress but it’s a (inaudible) that will be 9 completed and checked off a list someday. Then there’s short, medium and long term and so in 10 general, we are thinking that short means that we’ll do this within the first 5-years after 11 adoption, medium is 5-10-years and long term is 10-years or more out most likely. We don’t 12 have a lot of long terms but that’s what those prioritizes mean. Another column that we added 13 to your plan here for you packet is that whether or not it’s a new or existing program. That was 14 something that the subcommittee really expressed a strong interest in being able to see so 15 we’ve added that information to this table. We found out that there are about; I think 110 16 existing programs that are being carried forward and about 258 new programs that are being 17 added based on bringing this up to date with the concern of today. Then finally, we have 18 anticipated level of effort. Just trying to give at least some order of magnitude sense of whether 19 a program is going to be less expensive or more expensive using a number of dollar signs to 20 indicate that. We have not assigned any specific dollar values to any of these programs yet but 21 we wanted you to have some kind of sense of scale. Certainly, your comments on those are 22 welcome too if you have thoughts on how those columns are completed. Then for your packet, 23 we just have a note column here to make sure that some of the changes that we made over 24 time are reflected or so that you can see how these programs connect to things like the EIR 25 mitigation measure for example. This table was really created for your packet. This is probably 26 not the form that the implementation chapter is going to take in the Comp. Plan itself. We’re 27 just trying to provide you with the most useful and distinct information to work through as a 28 CAC. The existing Comp. Plan has a slightly different set of columns and certainly, we can 29 explore the utility of those columns once the programs themselves get a little bit more refined. 30 We’re pulling this all together into an adopted Comp. Plan. That is – that’s the implementation 31 table itself and just to back up a second, the overall goal here is to provide a tool for the 32 community, the decision makers and Staff to figure out how are we going to implement the 33 Comp. Plan. How we are going to achieve the goals that are articulated in the Comp. Plan and 34 also to help set prioritizes and make decisions on a year to year basis or as budgeting cycles 35 move forward, about how to allocate resources and what new programs to undertake and what 36 ongoing programs to continue. I think we heard some very insightful comments at the 37 subcommittee about – just acknowledging the fact that prioritizes in this piece of the Comp. 38 Plan – on of the reason why it’s a chapter and not an element is because I think we see this 39 really as a very living piece of the Comp. Plan. Something that’s going to need to change on a 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 15 of 38 pretty regular basis and respond to changing conditions in the external world. We can and do 1 want to set some priorities or get a sense at least, of prioritizes as of today, 2017, but it’s 2 probably not going to be exactly the same priorities that would be held 5-years from now or 8-3 years from now. A lot of things will change and those priorities are going to need to change in 4 response. This is a more fluid piece of the Comp. Plan rather than the policies, which we’re 5 hoping are going to provide long standing regulatory guidance for all of the City activities. With 6 that said about the Implementation Plan and what this is itself, then I want to go on and just 7 explain a little bit about the DOT exercise that we’re going to do tonight and then I’m sure you 8 guys will have questions and thoughts on the DOT exercise. We definitely have time on the 9 agenda to talk about that. You’ll see these posters around the room and these are the same 10 version of the rows of the programs that you have in your packet. To the extent that you did 11 your homework and used your packet either electronically or hardcopy, to identify prioritizes or 12 opportunities for consolidation or any other comments on the programs. You should be able to 13 find that correspondence pretty easily and they’re in the order on the wall that they are in your 14 packet. If you start here with community services, transportation, land use and natural 15 environment are on the wall in this room and right out there in the little area just outside the 16 door, we have safety on the opposite side of the windows that are facing me and then business 17 and economics on that wall next to the lady’s room. That’s the order that you can find in your 18 packet. For the elements that have a larger number of programs, we have 10 dots each and 19 they are color coded. You can see the poster – there’s a poster on each one of the walls and 20 next to where the posters are its reminding you of what color to use. It’s just so you can keep 21 track so you don’t have to count each one of these so you have a set of colors to use for each 22 element so for example, land use is blue. For the two elements with the least number of 23 programs, we have a lower number of dots so for community services and for business and 24 economics, we have four dots since those have considerably fewer programs than the others. I 25 acknowledge that ten is more or less an arbitrary number. It seemed like a nice round number 26 that folks can kind of wrap their mind around. It doesn’t necessarily represent exactly the same 27 proportion of programs in each element because there are different numbers but we thought 28 we’d make it not to terribly complicated and just let you go with 10; see what you think how 29 that works. We’re going to ask you to put those on representing your highest priorities for the 30 programs in that element. Each dot represents a priority for you. In the subcommittee, the 31 questions came up of whether or not folks can put more than one dot on a program if they 32 think that’s really exceptionally high priority for them and we heard arguments on both sides of 33 that point. We decided that for this round, you can put more than one on but just be aware 34 that that does – it’s going to affect the total so probably best to try to keep that a moderate 35 number if you can, rather than putting all ten of your dots on one program. We didn’t have that 36 happen during the subcommittee so I don’t think it’s going to happen here but that’s something 37 to keep in mind. What we want to do it try to divided you up into (crosstalk) – Oh, thank you. 38 Great input. One more point to make is when you are thinking about your priorities and again, 39 you think about these however you want and you’re going to have your dots to use how you 40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 16 of 38 see fit. When we talked about this at the subcommittee, some folks thought well, if a program 1 is already in process or it’s a routine program, maybe that means that I don’t need to put dots 2 on it or shouldn’t waste my dots on that because it’s already happening. Instead, I want to use 3 my dots to express what I think on something that is not happening already that should 4 happen. That’s one way of thinking about it but I would also suggest that those ongoing 5 programs and even the routine programs are drawing from the same pool of money and Staff 6 time as are new programs. We have at the City a finite set of resources and part of the 7 challenge here – it is a really difficult choice to figure out how to use those finite resources or 8 how to prioritize them in a given year based on what’s happening in Palo Alto and what we’re 9 hearing the community and a lot of other conditions that we have to take into account. It can 10 happen in a City that a City looks at what it can do with the finite set of resources and decides 11 to discontinue a program that’s currently happening in order to fund a new effort or a new 12 project. If you do think that there’s something that’s in progress already that’s important to 13 continue, consider putting a dot on that because it is – the fact that it’s in progress already, 14 doesn’t necessarily guarantee that it will continue forever. Just logistically, given the space that 15 we have available, what we thought might work best is to divide you up into three groups and 16 have each group focus on a set of two elements at a time and then we’ll rotate. We’ll do 15 17 minutes for those two elements and then you’ll rotate to the next set of two elements. That 18 way everybody gets a shot and you have about 15 minutes per set of two and we’re not having 19 all 21 people try to put dots on one poster at a time. Yes? 20 Hamilton Hitchings: If you’re going to do that, can you please make sure that we’re on the ones that we 21 were on in the subcommittee for as our first one? 22 Co-Chair Keller: Actually, what we’re going to do is do it based on where you’re sitting and just go 23 around and do it that way because it’s easier to divide up. Otherwise, people have been in different 24 subcommittees and they’ve been overlapping so that’s not necessarily going to work. The way – what 25 I’m going to suggest is that if you’re sitting on this side of the room, you do the –these are the dots. The 26 dots are in here. The dots are in your envelope. What we are going to do is that the people who are 27 sitting on this wall are going to do the wall behind them first. The people who are sitting on that wall are 28 going to do the ones in the corridor first and the people who are sitting on this wall are going to do the 29 ones over here and behind me first. That’s the simplest way and then we’ll rotate around in a clockwise 30 fashion. It’s as arbitrary as any other one but at least it – you were self-selected without realizing it. I 31 have one preliminary comment and that is that I think the term ‘relative priority’ for short term, 32 medium, and long term are routine and in progress. The word priority is probably inappropriate. I would 33 say relative timing might make more sense because we’re going through a prioritization exercise so that 34 would – because short, medium, long-term, that’s a time element and not a priority element. What 35 we’re going to do first is those people who are – we’re going to give people – we’re going to go around 36 once. The people who are on the implementation subcommittee will go first, people who are not on the 37 implementation subcommittee will go second in terms of a discussion on the next thing. If you were on 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 17 of 38 the implementation subcommittee, please put your tags up. If you were not on the implementation 1 subcommittee, put your tags down and we’ll go around. Then we’ll take everybody else in the second go 2 around. We’ll give everybody two minutes to go around this and make any comments you have before 3 the dot exercise and then we’ll come back after the dot exercise and have another round until the end. 4 Joanna Jansen: Can I make just one more logistical comment… 5 Co-Chair Keller: Sure. 6 Joanna Jansen: …in case it comes up. Some of these that are all of a solid color, it’s a little bit hard to see 7 the dots or where the edges of the dots are but this is a dot. It might look solid to you. If you need any 8 help getting the dots off or reaching the row that you are trying to reach or anything else, please let us 9 know. There will be Staff around near the posters and we are happy to help you with those mechanical 10 pieces. 11 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Do the Staff have any more comments? Great, so let’s kick it off with Elaine. 12 Elaine Uang: I’m glad to see that we are going through this prioritization effort and I’ll just keep this 13 really brief. I’m actually very glad that the dot exercise is staying in the way that we – that you had 14 envisioned it. I thought it was actually very useful during the implementation subcommittee to see in 15 totality what everybody else was thinking. I think the danger with – it’s a useful tool to have a 16 spreadsheet and have each of us internally prioritize but the danger of doing that is that we can’t all see 17 everyone’s possibilities. As an elementary school teacher, will tell you, the act of actually getting up and 18 physically moving around and using movement to view so much information – a large quantity of 19 information in totality is actually very useful. Not only does this give you the ability to see all the 20 programs in three very concentrated posters. It allows you to make connections between different 21 programs and allows you to see redundancies a little bit better as opposed to just these little 8 ½ by 11 22 sheets. I actually found the implementation subcommittee exercise to be quite useful and I’m glad to 23 just see that where perpetuating this so thanks. 24 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. By the way, there are two purposes of the name tags. One is to show me 25 you want to speak and the other is to remind me of your name because even though I remember 26 everybody, I am really bad at names and I forget them all the time. Don. 27 Don McDougall: I have to say that I am not longer enthusiastic about the dot exercise. The first thing I 28 would say is that Arthur is absolutely right. The short, medium and long are totally different than in 29 progress or routine. One is measuring time and time (inaudible) and ones measuring the status. A 30 second comment would be that I think it’s interesting that through here you’ve got the 1, 2, 3 dollar 31 signs. Anything that is measured or evaluate has 2 or 3 dollar signs. I don’t think that’s necessary and I 32 think that’s pejorative relative to anything that we want to measure. I think that everybody continues to 33 repeat two things. One is that things will change in the future and I think the real issue here is which are 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 18 of 38 the things that Council, Staff or whatever, are going to review every year or every 5-years or every 15-1 years? They need to be put in those buckets, not buckets of a higher priority. The Council will change, 2 the Staff will change. Everything will continue to change; circumstances will change and knowing how 3 frequently we’re going to look at these things is more important than in 2017, we thought this was a 4 high priority but by 2018, it’s not and it becomes useful information. The other thing that I would ask is 5 that I don’t understand what the result of this is going to be. As Elaine said, it was really usually to sit in 6 a room with the subcommittee and do this exercise and look at it and say wow, look at all the dots. 7 There all there and they’re not there or whatever. What we haven’t heard here is when we’re done, 8 does Staff go away and take all of the programs that don’t have any dots and delete them or what 9 happens? We don’t understand – we got an explanation about how we do the exercise but we have not 10 an explanation of what happens with the dots. I mean, does Council get given seven dots for this one, 11 three dots for that one, no dots for this one. I don’t understand and I am not in favor of this exercise in 12 this format. 13 Hillary Gitelman: I’d like to respond to that if I could? For those of you who weren’t at the 14 subcommittee meeting, we had a similar round and kind of talking about do we like the dot exercise, do 15 we not and I think we went around and everybody was like no, we don’t want to do the dot exercise. 16 Then we did the dot exercise and we went around and said hey, that was kind of interesting. We learned 17 something out of that. I’m hoping we will go through that same process this evening. I’m going back to 18 the City Council motion last night, they directed Staff to encourage – to incorporate suggestions from 19 the CAC and use their own judgment to identify relative priorities of the implementation programs. We 20 have an obligation to give the Council our recommendations regarding priorities and this evening we are 21 looking for your input on that. That’s the purpose of the dot exercise. 22 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. 23 Don McDougall: I don’t think that answers my question about what are you going to do? Tell them high, 24 medium or low or delete the ones that you didn’t like? That doesn’t answer my question, I’m sorry. 25 Elaine Costello: Excuse me, let me try and – one thing that we were talking to the Co-Chairs earlier 26 today. One thing is that we are not entirely sure – we do know that we have an obligation to get back to 27 the Council on priorities and we do look forward to your input. We – what we will do, is we will take – 28 we’ll add a column or I’m just going to say add a column and we’ll show how many dots there were from 29 this dot exercise. Our thinking this afternoon when we met with the Co-Chairs, was we would then send 30 that back out to you and before we forwarded anything to the Council – once we get the results from 31 tonight’s dot exercise, we’ll take a look at it – it is not – we’re not really high on – we’re not high on 32 anything but we’re not excited about deleting programs. That’s just not – I can’t think of one program 33 that we deleted. We are – have been charged with trying to consolidate them but we are very, very 34 interested in what your thoughts are about what’s the most important things to do? Our thought was 35 that we would put this together as a piece of information for you. We would give it some thought and 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 19 of 38 we would send it back out to you and then you could back at the next meeting. There are a number of 1 possibilities that we thought of what we would do next. We would ask for your comments on it. We may 2 ask you to refine a few things. We haven’t really settled on that part yet but we do know that our plan is 3 to put this on a spreadsheet. We have figured out with Place Works how we can send it back out to you 4 as a spreadsheet that you could fill in again and comment on. This is the first iteration toward getting a 5 sense of priorities. That’s where are thinking is right now. 6 Co-Chair Keller: After we do the dot exercise, we’ll have an opportunity – if we get to it soon enough, to 7 comment afterward and figure out where we go next. Ok? Who’s next? Shani? 8 Shani Kleinhaus: I still don’t feel comfortable with this. I would rather we did something like three colors 9 for each one of those next 5-years, next 10-years, next 15-years so look at more scheduling rather than 10 comparing them to each other. I think that would be more helpful in terms of prioritization because it 11 says what you do sooner rather than a competing – I have ten dots for every environmental program on 12 earth, whether it’s noise or air pollution or nature or all these other things; it just can’t be done. I just 13 don’t understand this. I don’t think it will reflect the things that are really important. There’s a lot of 14 things in progress. One of the questions I had is you say it has 258 programs but a lot of them seem to 15 be in progress already, even if they are new. How many new programs that are not yet being 16 implemented are there by Staff? I don’t have an answer to that. I don’t know if Don it in his table but I 17 really think it’s very, very important to know how many truly new programs there are and if so, they 18 should be highlighted because what the City is already doing, they prioritize this to continue or not but 19 most likely they will continue. I’d like an answer to that if possible. How many new programs that are 20 not yet being implemented, are there? 21 Elaine Costello: There are 258 new programs… 22 Shani Kleinhaus: Yes. 23 Elaine Costello: … and some of them – we don’t – I haven’t really broken it out into what is being 24 implemented but since they are new… 25 Shani Kleinhaus: There are a lot of programs here that when I looked at it, there seemed to be more 26 programs that are new and next to them had in progress. The new with nothing. 27 Elaine Costello: We don’t have the number for whatever (crosstalk) (inaudible) 28 Shani Kleinhaus: I think that’s really important to know how many new programs that are not in 29 progress there are because what happens over time is the Council directs new programs all the time, 30 whether they are in the plan or not. Now we captured some of those that are already in progress and 31 we put them into this document so what happens next to the ones that came from the public that can 32 to speak to us and asked for the news ones that are not already in progress. That’s something that I 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 20 of 38 don’t see here and I think it will be lost. I would really like to know that number of how many are there 1 that are not already in progress and are new or somehow already being executed as a matter of 2 routine? 3 Co-Chair Keller: I’m not sure Staff can give you that number today but when we have out spreadsheet, 4 (Inaudible) 5 Shani Kleinhaus: Any news ones that are routine but were just captured here or in progress and is 6 captured here, should be taken out of the new programs. They are just captured, they are not new. 7 Co-Chair Keller: Hamilton. 8 Hamilton Hitchings: I’m just going to flow from Shani’s. It’s not a false fact but it’s a highly miss leading 9 statement to say that there are 258 new programs. What the correct statement is that the 10 Comprehensive Plan has added texted for 258 new programs within the thing but many of those are 11 programs that are fully funded and ongoing. When you throw out a number like that, people are really 12 latching on to like this 15%. 15% is another false fact because many of those are ongoing, many of them 13 cannot be completed like the cap of 1.7 million-square-feet so people latch on to that and say see, we 14 only did 17%. No, we didn’t do over half or half of what’s in the Comp. Plan. We just – a lot of those 15 things are ongoing. We have to be really careful about completely misrepresenting what’s going on 16 through how we speak. I do want to thank the Staff for eliminating or I should say consolidating the 17 number of programs and there’s plenty more room to consolidate. Just an example, C-5.1.1 through C-18 5.4.1, those four programs to me look pretty identical and could certainly be consolidated. I don’t know 19 if you can get that down to two or one but that’s an example. There’s a lot more room so I want to 20 support and highly encourage the Staff to continue that progress and I think they can reduce the 21 number of other things. I think Arthur put it really well that this isn’t so much about selecting things. It’s 22 about talking about which things we should do first. The priorities are essential – what we are doing 23 with these dots is talking about what we think the highest priority of things that we should be working 24 on in the next 5-years let’s say. Then they’ll go back and look at the next things and that’s how we 25 should view this, as a timing exercise rather than a priority. I feel this exercise – I know this isn’t going to 26 be popular, is a useful exercise. I did it at a small startup and that start-up kind of changed the world. 27 You all are carrying smartphones around now so the – we did this and I – we do it all the time in the 28 industry. It’s like stop whining guys. Anyway, just had to throw that out there. This is part of getting shit 29 done. I just want the Staff to confirm that they’re not deleting programs that don’t get votes. Thank you. 30 Elaine Costello: No, we’re not going to delete programs just because they didn’t get votes and if 31 programs get consolidated, we’ll merge the numbers – we’re really not trying to play the game here. 32 We’re really trying to set what should be done first and respond to the Council’s request for priorities. 33 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Doria. 34 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 21 of 38 Doria Summa: First of all, I approach this as a prioritization, not a timing because that’s what it was 1 called. That’s a problem for me and I really would like to associate my concerns with Don and Shani and 2 to a certain extend Hamilton’s. I’m sure his startup succeeded for other reason than the dot exercise. 3 That was probably a merit of the product. Regardless, I have a problem with prioritizing because I think 4 it leaves things out and that’s kind of Shani’s ethical approach to this. I have a problem with what the 5 work that Don showed me that he did last night, which Hamilton really referenced in that the numbers 6 aren’t really factual. I have a problem – I do not see how the dot exercise encourages any interactivity or 7 discussion between this group. It’s like 19 adults running around individually without participating with 8 one another at all so I don’t see how it advances the conversation. I’m concerned I guess, based on 9 some of Don’s question about how it’s going to be used. If it’s not really going to be used, what’s the 10 point of doing it? I’m also concerned that a more accurate way would be to do it the way that I 11 recommended at the subcommittee level, which is having a workable electronic spreadsheet. Where 12 everyone could – where priority designation for each item would have been decided whether it’s 1 13 through 3 or 1 through 5 and you could only vote once on everyone that you were interested in. I’m not 14 concerned that Staff is going to throw away sad, little, unpopular programs. That’s not really my 15 concern. My concern is that it’s not telling us anything and that with multiple dots being able to be used 16 by one person and given the number of people here, that the percentage of interest could be miss 17 represented. Other than that, that’s about it. 18 Co-Chair Keller: Annette. 19 Annette Glanckopf: I pretty much think this is not – even though it’s going to be a lot of fun to run 20 around and put dots on things. I really don’t think it’s getting there and I agree with what Don said and 21 Doria said. For me, I think our focus should be trying to figure out which new programs are the high 22 priority programs and combine the ones that are redundant. I counted in my own estimation, at least 20 23 programs that I would consolidate. It also concerns me that we go off in detail – we have all these 24 Master Plans out there and then we go into detail and we cherry pick things from the Master Plan so I 25 think that’s something that we have to be cautious of. If I were looking at this as a Council Member, I 26 would like to know what department is doing what priorities? If you look at this, community services 27 and poor Hillary, have just about everything in the plan. Public Works has a little bit, the fire has a little 28 bit, police has a little bit, so it’s really misleading to sort of say that we’re going to just put dots there. In 29 the Business Element, there are only nine programs and so, that’s not ten, even though you have 30 reduced it. In the Safety Element, as Hamilton has pointed out a number of times, almost every program 31 in there is a high priority program. In the future, what I would like to see is if I were allocating the 32 money. I would like to see this by the department and by priority. I think you need to leave them in the 33 Comp. Plan with the policies and programs but when you get to big Implementation Plan, to me it 34 should be by the department. High priorities first and maybe sub-departments so transportation, 35 planning, business development and then go from there. Then also, finally, I looked at this in detail and 36 to me, I think – again, I think it is a work of art what you guys did but I don’t totally agree with 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 22 of 38 everything as far as existing or new programs. I think there’s a whole bunch of things that are ongoing, 1 that are really not new and maybe have different lead departments. I’m willing to do the dot exercise 2 and maybe that will pick out the high of the high but again, I don’t think it’s getting there, just the way 3 Doria said. I don’t think in the end game – we’re going to all have a good time doing this but I don’t think 4 it really gets the end result we want. 5 Co-Chair Keller: Alex. 6 Alex Van Riesen: What I took from what Hillary said is that you were given a mandate by the City 7 Council to prioritize these. I get the pragmatist in me says that you’re going to prioritize this one way or 8 another and the City Council wants that and the question is whether we’ll have any input in that or not. 9 It seems to me, this is our chance to speak up. I agree that you may not like it because it may artificially 10 force the equation but it does seem to me that the ones that are gathering our greatest attention are 11 the ones that need to be addressed the soonest. The things that are getting our greatest attention. I 12 sympathize with those Sofie’s choice issue and that there are lots of things but the reality is they – it’s 13 going to be difficult to accomplish all the things that are on the list, to begin with. I find that we need to 14 be able to have some focal point to start with. Having said that, I’d like to see tonight that there’s some 15 resolution to this issues about how many programs are actually accomplished in the first 15-years. I 16 know Don has put out some – I can’t totally read Don’s – I’m reading yours – I hear – I don’t know if my 17 concerns are the same as Shani but what percentage of the programs were actually accomplished? I 18 hear some disagreement with the number 15% so I’d like a brief run through at some point on how did 19 we come up with that number? Is that number accurate and how was it defined? Another one is that I 20 guess I’ve been asking myself, are there any other options for creating a priority list and it sounds like – I 21 don’t know if anyone else has come up with any – that – I don’t know if it’s worth it to continue to give 22 time to think about that but I do want to say that I like the idea of things to revisit in 5, 10 and 15-years. 23 My idea – I don’t – I wonder if we should consider including a policy and/or a program for the City 24 Council to be mandated to have to review this document every year because what I have heard is that – 25 from other people, is that no one ever looked at this in the first 15-years. Now, I kind of don’t believe 26 that’s true but shouldn’t it be mandated that the City Council has to come back and review this 27 document publicly. Then that would be an opportunity for the community to speak into some of the 28 elements or the priority of the programs that are not being addressed. Can I just mention one last thing? 29 I just wanted to say that I think it’s a mistake – the only thing that -- I would rather us not double up on 30 the dots. I think for a more accurate read, I’d rather that everyone – well, I still think it communicates 31 something. 32 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Bonnie. 33 Bonnie Packer: Hi, I am standing because I hurt my muscle. It hurts to sit. Ok, I agree with most -- what 34 most people said who were concerned about this exercise. When we came to the implementation 35 subcommittee I said, we don’t have any criteria for creating priorities. I’m sure Hamilton when you did a 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 23 of 38 priority thing, you had criteria. Do we have the resources? Do we have the time? All these things you 1 consider when you are doing a priority exercise. We don’t have criteria to work with. Some people are 2 saying time and some people say what’s our most favorite thing that we like. For all of us, when we 3 were working on these elements, all the programs are kind of important otherwise, we wouldn’t have 4 put them in. How do we choose? We go to Safety, am I going to weigh one against another and have 5 somebody die because we didn’t do the flood thing right. We didn’t – you know. Those are – when I – 6 when we got this a week early and I thought, that’s nice. They are giving us lot of time but I felt that this 7 is not a good use of my volunteer time. To really spend all this time thinking about each program and 8 trying to prioritize and weigh it against the other programs. It’s just too heavy, it’s too much and it was 9 just – without the policies in here – see a lot of the programs seem to be redundant and should be 10 consolidated. That’s because probably this program is trying to implement a certain policy and the other 11 program that sounds like that program is implementing another policy. Without – I didn’t want to take 12 the time to go back to whatever draft I had of the particular element that these things were referring to. 13 I couldn’t really figure it out. Why aren’t we prioritizing the policies? Why not do that and then within 14 the policies prioritize the programs. It just seems like the Council wants us to do this but what are they 15 going to learn from it if we’re confused about what we’re doing? I hope they read these minutes and 16 they understand our frustration. When it comes to the – when push comes to shove, it’s really going to 17 be a matter of political will and City Resources and the particular Council what’s really going to happen. 18 Our input is probably not going to inform them that much in 2017 or in 2018. Thank you. 19 Co-Chair Keller: Stephen. 20 Stephen Levy: My understanding Hillary, is that Staff was asked to develop some priorities in that 21 process and gather input from this Committee. Is that correct? I joined the Committee to serve in an 22 advisory Committee to the Council. I’m happy to do that. I kind of feel that the experience when we did 23 this at the subcommittee is that we talked about it for an hour and then finally somebody said let’s do it 24 and we all looked at it at the end and there were actually some pretty strong priorities that dropped out 25 of it. I would rather just get it on and do it. My memory – Hamilton, and others of the subcommittee 26 were that we all felt that there were some duplications. I looked at it and there were probably eleven 27 policies that said it one way or another that we should be energy efficient in the City. There are probably 28 eight policies that say that we really need to be careful about seismic events in the City. I end up with a 29 question. Is that for Staff or are you asking our input on the consolidation or will that come from you 30 looking at the priorities? 31 Hillary Gitelman: I think we’d welcome your input this evening about this consolidations task. 32 Stephen Levy: Fine. (Inaudible) since you now said that this would come back to the Committee, have 33 we blown our schedule? We were tasked with doing the introduction governance thing in April and then 34 being done in May. I would hate to blow the schedule. Can you comment on that? 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 24 of 38 Hillary Gitelman: I think your hope is that this would come back as an item early on the agenda at your 1 next month meeting and we’d still have time to do the governance and other things that are scheduled 2 for that day. We just want to show you as a result of this meeting and your input in the intervening 3 month, how we’ve revised the table that you see. 4 Stephen Levy: You don’t anticipate any more subcommittee meetings or duplicate meetings or anything 5 like that? 6 Hillary Gitelman: That’s correct. 7 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. If those of you who are on the subcommittee could please put your tags 8 down and those of you who were not on the subcommittee, if you wish to speak put your tags up so 9 that I can call on you. Amy, you were not on the subcommittee so you go first. 10 Amy Sung: I wanted to say that I am in favor of this dot exercise simple because (inaudible). This is the 11 work of our labor and who else is more familiar with the product that has been produced and delivered 12 – to be delivered. When you look at the context, I think a lot has to do with the intent of what the 13 programs are intended to do. I think that gives a great inside to the Council who is going to make the 14 decision. Why was it deemed more important and why it was given such a weight of priority? Not that 15 that will be automatically be granted but I think it provides a great insight and guidance. At least what 16 the Council can do it reach back to the Committee – I don’t know. I’m sure that – but then we will be all 17 gone and go our separate ways but I think that provides a great insight and intent. When there is a vast 18 number of programs and if everyone is giving equal weight, how do you evaluate? I remember we were 19 all so excited and I think it was even mentioned yesterday what – Did I remember correctly? That we 20 were so congratulating that our Palo Alto schools where being ranked number one. My god, there are so 21 many schools in the State and in the Country and we were so happy because there was some sort of a 22 ranking system. I think that is what we are being told, that you categorize so that you put them in little 23 boxes to see how they have been stuck up against each other. I do want to address the concerns that, 24 what happen to those that are not being favored? You feel like you have so many kids and those that 25 are not being loved and neglected -- I think we heard the reassurance that those that are not being 26 loved will still be there. Just kind of showing that this is a product that’s being delivered but carries 27 different weight. Thanks. 28 Co-Chair Keller: Len. Ellen, did you want to speak? 29 Ellen Uhrbrock: I’d like to say that from the very, very beginning working with this group, I have always 30 been more interested in what the programs are and what you’re going to plan to do over the next 20-31 years. Really, I am more interested in the programs and how you are going to do it than I am in the 32 policies. The policies seem to be rather – I shouldn’t say this but rather easy to write. They are very 33 grand but then, how are you going to do it.? I like seeing all the different programs and then I like seeing 34 how they fit together and build something that is coherent and progress. To me, it’s been rather an 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 25 of 38 interesting assignment. Then I look at these programs and I think, ok now, if that was my job, how would 1 I organize it and how would I do it? Some of them I don’t understand at all and can’t figure out how I can 2 do it at all; that’s not surprising. It’s a game and I think that we might as well play this game and see 3 what we are able to do and do it good or bad. Actually, what we are doing is helping to advise the Staff 4 what they – what their jobs are going to be and you're advising the new City Planner on how he has to 5 be the CEO and worth the big bucks in running Palo Alto. That puts me in a rather low level of working 6 with the Committee but it’s been very interesting, very fun and this is big business. Whatever I 7 contributed would be a little bit and thank you for putting up with me. 8 Co-Chair Keller: Len. 9 Len Filppu: Thank you. I think that there – here’s what I am thinking about this issue. There is confusion I 10 believe, in what the City Council intends to do – there go the lights. 11 Co-Chair Keller: It’s 7 – there’s the 7th inning stretch, we have the 7 o’clock dark. 12 Len Filppu: Yes, and I am trading and selling stickers too if anyone is interested. There’s this sense that 13 there’s this number shock about the programs. That people are freaked out at the number of programs. 14 When this group was chartered with creating – coming up with – thinking out of the box, asking the 15 neighbors, finding input from the community and writing down a smorgasbord of a variety of 16 interesting, relevant programs. What I am worried about and maybe it’s just my years in Washington 17 have made me jaded. I’m worried that in an environment where the City Council first voted to relegate 18 programs to an appendix to move on with whatever agenda and then, the next step is ok, they are back 19 but let’s prioritize with just ten dots. There are an enormous amount of programs within elements, that 20 once you put a numerical value – once you quantify these programs, it’s much easier for not Staff, not 21 the process going on here but the next set of eyes reviewing this to say well, these didn’t make the cut 22 so let’s just get rid of these. That’s what I am worried about and that’s my message to City Council is 23 please understand that these have been squabbled over, fought over, thought out of the box over, input 24 from neighbors and residents and they’re presented to you in good faith for your due consideration. 25 Thank you. 26 Co-Chair Keller: Jen. 27 Jennifer Hetterly: I’m also a little concern about the dot project. I think it vastly oversimplifies a complex 28 challenge of prioritizing programs but I also – and I also don’t think that it represents suggestions from 29 the CAC. I think if you go forward to Council saying, based on this dot exercise, these are the CAC’s 30 recommendations. I don’t think that gives them a full picture and it wouldn’t seem to me, to represent 31 all the issues that people are concerned about today. Early on, in this process and really throughout the 32 process, we’ve talked about the implementation stage as when we were really going to come back 33 together and look at the whole picture and pull it all together and see how everything fits. Where we 34 had extra, where we had not enough and fill in the gaps; whatever. This doesn’t accomplish that in my 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 26 of 38 view. I think it doesn’t – the dots don’t allow us to say ok, now that we look at the whole thing – oh, let 1 me back up. Not having the policies together with the programs; I think is doing exactly what we just 2 told Council not to do. We can’t then have a holistic view of what’s going on and how they relate and I 3 think that’s part of some of the discomfort that we’re seeing at the table today. We couldn’t go back 4 and look up every single policy that went with every single program in order to make those connections. 5 I think we’re starting out the gates at a deficit because we didn’t have that big picture. I think there are 6 several areas where we have lots of policies that say support this and a program that says, collaborate 7 with so and so to support that. Where the program doesn’t really go much further than the policy, those 8 would be easy redundancies perhaps to eliminate. There are also plenty of places where we could 9 integrate the program into the policy and have sufficient comfort on this panel to say that’s ok, we can 10 give up that program as long as the policy has this little extra. There may well be places – oh, for the 11 downtown cap there were some programs that were eliminated as a result of Council’s choice not to 12 have the downtown cap but it doesn’t seem like they are naturally connected. One was evaluated and 13 adjust the zoning definition for office uses allowed in downtown and consider ways to prioritize for 14 small business and startups. That doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not we have a downtown 15 cap or not. I think we’re missing – there’s a lot of stuff that’s falling through the cracks that we’re not 16 pulling together by relying on this very simplistic program. Last, of all, I am concerned about the dot 17 distribution. I think the total number of programs in an element is no reflection on the importance of 18 the individual programs within that element. It may well be that the Business Element has some – two 19 programs that are hugely important but since it’s the shortest one, it gets one sticker. Where 20 transportation maybe has 30 programs that are hugely important out of the 77. It’s not a numbers 21 game. It’s a qualitative game and I think that we missed that in doling out the numbers. I think if you are 22 going to dole out the numbers in that arbitrary way, that you should do it equability in that arbitrary 23 way. If you are going to say 10% for each element, then you ought to be 10% for each element. Not 10% 24 for two of them and 8% for some of them and 6% for some of them. It ought to be uniform. 25 Co-Chair Keller: Julia. 26 Julia Moran: I’m fine doing the dot program. I share some of the concerns that other people have but 27 hopefully, it’ll flush out as we go forward. I just hope that once we do it, that we both look at what – 28 maybe this will be obvious once it’s all on the wall but both look at the results to see our priorities but 29 also were within an area where we have a lot of similar programs and which ones stand out within that. 30 I – when I went through it -- for example, early childhood. There were two programs involving early 31 childhood and I – my priority was having something involving early childhood not one over the other 32 and so I’m not sure the best way that that will be shown so I’m hoping that will be the case. As well as 33 perhaps – like Stephen said, there are sections where there are 10+ programs involving – I think I 34 counted 15 programs about taking care of our trees. Perhaps – I hope that we can use this in the 35 subcommittee or the Staff to help with figuring out which of those tree programs are important and as 36 they go forward and consolidate. 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 27 of 38 Co-Chair Keller: Lisa. 1 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: A few thought. A little bit different – the first is I agree. I think we should do the 2 dot exercise and the way I am taking it – I think there’s been a little bit of discussion about this. I’m 3 taking this as our first chance to show what we think are most important, potentially to do first. Nothing 4 is being taken out of the plans so everything is there. This is at least our chance to give some priority in 5 the context of what should we do first. Second – sorry about that. The second is I did – I think you 6 mentioned and you mentioned it Arthur, the way this was laid to priority – to me, prioritization means 7 what’s most important, not what costs the most money or is the fastest to do or the slowest to do or 8 whatever. It’s really what moves the needle? If this is our goal, this is our vision. What gets us the 9 furthest there and that’s my number on priority. It doesn’t matter if it’s going to take 5-years or 5-10 minutes, that’s still my number one priority. The way I’m doing – at least the dots, I’m not sure if we are 11 all doing it the same way is what’s most important. What’s going to get us closest, fastest or furthest – 12 not fastest, furthest on our journey of where we are today to where we want to be through all these 13 different programs that we’re eventually going to hopefully do. Priority would be what’s most 14 important, not what’s fastest or cheapest or whatever so that’s on the dot exercise. I’m all for doing it. I 15 think we’ll actually learn something from doing it and then we can always step back and say – as I think 16 you mentioned and someone else mentioned too is how to we help pull it all together and see how 17 things mesh. I would still love to do that and this won’t get us there but it at least gets us a start on what 18 might be most important. A subsistent question on the Land Use Element. The two programs that we 19 have put in relating to height had come out but it didn’t have a comment saying that Council had said to 20 take them out. I am actually – assuming that we still have the discretion to do something, I was going to 21 propose we – because we had talked so much about that here. I’m not into the exact wording but add 22 back something where we came back over and over to the idea of allowing more dense housing and 23 potentially some height flexibility if it was near transit and it was part of some – I’m not talking Master 24 Plan in a technical sense but part of plan to go toward (inaudible). I don’t see it in here anywhere and so, 25 it just – unless Council has directed us to take it out, I was going to ask if we could put that –however we 26 want to word it, something back in that kind of captures because we spent a lot of time on that both in 27 transportation and in land use. Those are my comments. 28 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. The first is in terms of height flexibility, there actually is something in the 29 Housing Element already there in terms of height flexibility near transit and with respect – (inaudible) 30 respect to low – to – with respect to low-income housing. It’s not here because we’re not prioritizing the 31 Housing Element. That’s done and it’s already been sent to the State. We don’t have the Housing 32 Element here. It’s already in the Housing Element. We don’t have the Housing Element here. I’m not 33 sure whether the Housing Element should be in the Implementation Plan as well and just incorporated 34 and that’s an open question. Consolidations interfere with the dot exercise because if you do the dot 35 exercise before consolidation, then if people have put two dots on something to consolidate, if you sum 36 them, you get two dots together. If you – things may fall out because they weren’t a sufficient priority 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 28 of 38 individually but become a higher priority when they are consolidated. There’s some interaction there 1 that I have discovered when I have done this exercise on prior work. That you always do consolidation 2 work first and then you do the dot exercise but we’re not doing that in that order. There’s also this 3 distinguishing between the urgent and the important and we are confusing the two in terms of dot 4 exercise. Secondly, there’s the notion of dot currency. The dots are currency and there are no relations 5 to the cost. Should you use three dots in order to count for one dot on a 3-dollar sign item and one dot 6 for a current – for a single dollar sign item, as an example. I can put three dots on 3-dollar sign item and 7 somehow that has the same weight as putting three dots on one dollar sign item. Even though it’s hard 8 to do all three of the 3-dollar sign items because they are costly. Maybe we should make a distinction 9 between things – between programs and policies that are newly codified versus ones that are newly 10 instituted. Right now, if they are newly in the Comp. Plan, we’re not making the distinction if whether 11 they are things that are already ongoing for which they are newly codified in the Comp. Plan, as opposed 12 to simply something that we are proposing to start; that’s a new program – a true new program. We 13 should make a distinction between true new programs and newly codified programs that are already 14 ongoing and I think that will clarify the count of what we’re really adding. I would like to see the policies 15 put back into the spreadsheets so when we get this back, we can see it in context. I hope the 16 consolidation is an opportunity to clarify wording because I think that when you are going through this 17 process and consolidating, clarifying and trying to eliminate conflicts is a useful thing. In terms of Alex, 18 maybe we should have a quiz for – on the Comp. Plan for Board, Commissioners, and new Council 19 Members. Also, a program that is not loved does not necessarily mean that it is killed but maybe it 20 starved and doesn’t get attention. Maybe that’s the (inaudible) prioritizing – prioritization. Maybe 21 ongoing programs shouldn’t be programs. Maybe they should be policies and maybe we should take an 22 opportunity to revisit that. Just as Annette talked about – I think you talked about the Safety Element, I 23 think you mentioned that there were a lot of policies without programs? Maybe that’s what this should 24 be. Ongoing things should be policies and not programs. I just want to make a reference that there is an 25 old song for those us who are old enough. Remember a song about eleven spoons full and said – the line 26 is, you know you have to finally decide, say yes and leave the other behind. That’s a good Segway into 27 doing the dot exercise. I’m hoping that we can do the dot exercise 10-minutes per wall because 28 otherwise, we will have no time to discuss. If you can try to do 10-minutes per wall and then move on 29 from there and Staff will basically try to shuffle us on to the next group when we can. Please, let’s go 30 with the dot exercise. The group on here – on the wall by the windows will do community service and 31 transportation. The group over here by the wall – this wall with the clock will do land use and 32 community design and natural environment and the group over by the corridor or the entrance will to 33 the two outside. Thank you. We are talking about next steps and one of the things that I’d like to just 34 mention is that since Staff is talking about sending us a spreadsheet along for our review, we can briefly 35 talk about – there are two purposes of the spreadsheet. One is to provide our input but the spreadsheet 36 can also be done – can also be useful as a way of getting data. For example, if the spreadsheet included, 37 just of discussion sake, the lead department of agency. You could take that spreadsheet and sort it as 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 29 of 38 you wished to be able to do analytics based on that. For those of us who are computer savvy with our 1 Microsoft Excel, you could have fun and analysis the data you got from the spreadsheet. I basically filled 2 time with that information till people sat down. Maybe Staff can give us a comment on how we should 3 lead with the process and then we’ll go around the room. 4 Hilary Gitelman: Elaine and Joanna are looking at me worriedly. What is she going to say about that dot 5 exercise? Thank you all for getting up, moving around and giving us your thoughts. What we did at the 6 subcommittee was to just go around with one round of comments of observation. What did we learn 7 from this exercise and in tonight, I think we’d also be interested in your thoughts on next steps, just so 8 we’re all on the same page of what we were thinking would happen next. As Arthur said, we would send 9 out a spreadsheet that shows you the results from tonight’s exercise and provides an opportunity for 10 you to present – provide us with some additional input. I am most interested in getting your input on 11 consolidation suggestions. We’re going to still talk about how we send this out and what we ask from 12 you and when but I think many of you have observed that the consolidation question is probably the 13 most useful – use of our time. We’ll try and put that front and center with the request we send out to 14 you. God, there was one more thing I wanted to say. 15 Co-Chair Keller: While you are thinking of the other thing, I am wondering if that’s an opportunity to 16 take things that are ongoing programs that really should be considered policies and recommend that 17 that be done. 18 Hillary Gitelman: If you all have suggestions on that kind of thing, we’ll take those as well because what 19 we’d like to do is ultimately, provide the Council with our recommendation here and anything that we 20 need to clean up along the way we will. I also wanted to acknowledge the request we had for some 21 additional numbers – number of new programs, the number of completed programs. We will get back to 22 you all with that. Oh, I remember what the other things were. There was a request to provide the 23 policies in the document. That is going to be problematic for us because if you think about it, the goals, 24 plus the policies, plus the programs are the whole plan. We would go from having a spreadsheet that’s – 25 how many pages is this? 70 something pages to quite a voluminous document. Also, a lot of the policy 26 language is still very much in flux because the Council hasn’t completed their review. I apologize, I would 27 love to do that for you but we’re just not going to be able to – we’re going to have to continue to ask 28 you to compare the spreadsheet you get with the elements that have the programs. The last version of 29 these things and if you can’t do it, I totally understand. We’re going to – there are going to be 30 opportunities for the public to engage with this whole plan as it gets closer to the finish line and if there 31 are any horrible disasters, we’ll catch them along the way. We just can’t at this point consolidate the 32 whole things. It’s just not feasible. 33 Elena Lee: I’m sorry, I’d like to also add that I think on the website, we have linked all the latest version 34 of each element so there will be a central place where you can select and pick the latest so that should 35 help a little. Yes, we can do that. 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 30 of 38 Elaine Costello: What I think we can do – one of the things that is happening is that – as Hillary said, we 1 are responding to the Council and doing additional versions of things so there are sets of policies 2 roaming around. We will make sure that the set that you should use in reference to this set of programs 3 is identified at the top – we can probably put it on each page even, with a link so that you could at least 4 see the one and if you say, wait, I saw another version. Yes, there are other versions. What the other 5 versions are is that we are responding to changes that the Council asked for. For example, in land use at 6 their meeting in; I think January. We’re certain – you’re going to see different things but we’ll make sure 7 that each page has a link to the version of the element that these programs relate to. Does that work for 8 you? 9 Hillary Gitelman: We’ll send out some instructions with the materials. I think it would be useful to do a 10 round of comments and observations. 11 Co-Chair Keller: Are you talking about pages or tabs? Are each of these a page or just one long 12 spreadsheet? 13 Elaine Costello: You are so far ahead of us Arthur. Those are excellent questions. 14 Co-Chair Keller: Ok great. Thank you. Also, you might also simply put the links to all of the element – all 15 the latest versions of the elements in the email cover note to which you would attach the spreadsheet. 16 That might be easier than putting them in the header of a spreadsheet. Whatever is easiest for the Staff. 17 Why don’t we do around the room and I think last time we started with Elaine. This time, we’ll start with 18 Lisa and you’ll have two minutes and we’ll just go around the room. If you’re quick, we will be able to 19 popcorn afterward. 20 Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: I’ll actually be very quick. I thought this was a really good exercise and it’s 21 wonderful to see how much common thought we have I think around a lot of them. There are quite a 22 few orphan ones that will hopefully still get moved forward but it’s nice to see that. I don’t have any 23 questions or anything else to add. 24 Co-Chair Keller: Stephen. 25 Stephen Levy: I think we replicated what happened when the subcommittee did it, which was we had 26 an hour discussion then we went around and did the dots and there was a whole bunch of agreement. 27 In response to consolidation, I just looked at one element. We have a ton of programs that say we want 28 to be energy efficient and we also have an SCAP. We have a ton of programs that say we want clean 29 water and water quality. With all difference to Shani – I’d worked with Shani, we have over 20 programs 30 that say we really, really, really value the trees. Those are all important topics but whether trees, water 31 quality, and energy efficiency are worth 55 programs, that’s one area I’d look at to consolidate. I’m sure 32 there are others that – perhaps you could take a topic or heading of cost effective – I looked down there 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 31 of 38 and there are five things that are cost effective and they could be dot items under one and that would 1 be a way to preserve the content but make it a program about having cost-effective energy 2 Co-Chair Keller: Bonnie. 3 Bonnie Packer: I’m looking forward to the new version with the links because that will really help with 4 being able to consolidate – I mean offering suggestions about consolidation because it was really hard to 5 do that. I know some people wrote on the pages and I did that in the subcommittee but it’s really hard. 6 It’s – I’m looking forward to that and I’m wondering when we get this, will we be – could we – will we 7 have an opportunity to – in our response to sort of do the dot exercise again without the actual dots? 8 You know what I mean? 9 Hillary Gitelman: I think we’re still giving some thought to how this will work exactly. I hope you can be 10 patience and we will try and get this out in a reasonable time frame. 11 Bonnie Packer: Thank you. 12 Co-Chair Keller: Julia. 13 Julia Moran: I was glad we did the exercise. I’d agree with Stephen that I think the topics that he named 14 and I am sure there are others, where there’s a ton of – pretty much saying the same thing within a 15 program but it’s relating to different policies. If there’s a way that we can cross over and not have that 16 many programs repeated would be great. 17 Co-Chair Keller: Jason. 18 Jason Titus: Same, I thought it was actually a useful exercise. I did think that it sorts of culls out the 19 things that people are at least – where there are commonality and interest. Then, also I think the energy 20 efficiency was one area where I think it’s really important -- we did have a large number of things that 21 could probably be organized together. 22 Co-Chair Keller: Alex. 23 Alex Van Riesen: Same. I thought it was a helpful exercise and I agree with Stephen. I thought it went 24 similar to how it went in the subcommittee. 25 Co-Chair Keller: Annette. 26 Annette Glanckopf: Well, I still felt like a 4th grader but – and didn’t have enough time. I did find it really 27 difficult because some of the elements I had like 20 high priorities and it was very difficult to make those 28 decisions. It is interesting to see the commonality. 29 Co-Chair Keller: Jennifer. 30 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 32 of 38 Jennifer Hetterly: I have two things to say. First, in the preamble for the implementation chapter, on 1 page 2 there’s a section called priorities. It says that in adopting this plan, the CAC says the following 2 three broad priorities – I’m wondering where those came from? Did these come from Council because 3 we haven’t framed the entire Comp? Plan in the context of those three priorities as far as I know. 4 Hillary Gitelman: I think this was our reading of the work that the CAC has done so we’d love your 5 comments or thoughts on that if you think that should be revised. 6 Jennifer Hetterly: Off the top of my head I would say that I would love to see it be revised to be the -- 7 first one to be, increase the proportion of affordable housing in the community. I’d love to see an added 8 item to maintain the balance of public service and facilities as the population grows. I think ought to 9 broaden it beyond just those three. My next comment is, however –whatever you all decide to do with 10 this dot program, I would like to know what are Staff’s expectations in terms of whatever form it takes, 11 your representation of what the CAC suggestions are about prioritization. I’m wondering if the CAC is 12 going to have an opportunity to act on – to confirm or endorse whatever that representation is or are 13 you all just going to represent how you think best and send it forward? 14 Hillary Gitelman: Ideally, we will have another version at the next meeting that the Committee can bless 15 if you feel so inclined. 16 Jennifer Hetterly: I personally think that it is important for the Committee to bless whatever’s put forth 17 as the representation of our suggestions. If we’re not going to have the opportunity to do that, then that 18 will certainly affect the nature of my participation in the process. 19 Co-Chair Keller: Is this an opportunity for Staff requesting that in this go around with – along with the 20 spreadsheets, we solicit people to suggest what the priorities are and that we filter them at the next 21 meeting? 22 Hillary Gitelman: I think we would like any comments you have on the introductory section. Not just 23 that but there are two or three pages of text here. If you have any suggestions of how that should be 24 edited, we would be happy to accept them. 25 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. 26 Doria Summa: I guess – I don’t find this very useful. I don’t know how you can look at it at this point and 27 seeing all these dots and frankly, connect them. It doesn’t mean anything to me yet. Maybe when we 28 have time to study the results it will mean something. I share Jen’s concern about those priorities. I 29 think boiling down to three is too narrow. That’s about it. I don’t think there’s any way to discuss the 30 content of anything. We can’t even see from where we are sitting and stuff. 31 Co-Chair Keller: Len. 32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 33 of 38 Len Filppu: I’m just curious, does this exercise – will this exercise have any bearing on where in the 1 element these policies and programs might appear? In other words, if there’s one program that just is 2 wildly dotted out more than others, does that move it up in the Comp. Plan at all? 3 Hillary Gitelman: No. At this point, we are continuing to believe that the programs will be under the 4 policies that they are intended to implement in the elements and then they’ll appear by a goal in this 5 Implementation Plan. 6 Len Filppu: So, there is not change to the goals or the policies? 7 Hillary Gitelman: That’s right. 8 Len Filppu: The tail is not wagging the dog. 9 Hillary Gitelman: The tail is not wagging the dog. 10 Len Filppu: Ok, thank you. 11 Co-Chair Keller: Hamilton. 12 Hamilton Hitchings: If you look at – we had a lot of discussion in this Committee about land use and 13 transportation and when I look over at the land use and when I look at the transportation, we actually 14 tend to agree in many cases on what some of the most important programs are. I think that’s a very 15 reassuring for me and actually, shows that there is a lot of consensuses. I mean land use was fairly 16 contentious but if you look at these programs, there’s a lot of support. I hear that there is a lot of 17 concern that this prioritization will be miss used and I have a couple of comments about that. First, I 18 think we are overweighting how much importance the Council is going to put on this. They have asked 19 for out input and I think – when I look at this, there’s a bunch of columns and I see – the way I 20 envisioned this is that there’s going to be an additional column. Maybe it’s like how many votes each 21 one of these got. When – if I was a Council Member and I was scanning down, I would be like oh, this 22 one got 12. I won’t – I’m going to stop and pay extra attention to that. I’m going to read it a second 23 time. If I have a fundamental philosophical – it may not change it and ultimately, the Council and Staff 24 are going to do this anyway. They are going to do it in a different context, they’ll do it around budgets, 25 the overall. They are not going to go well; public safety only got 10 dots so we’re going to cut the Fire 26 Department. I mean, they are going to have to do it and this just provides another column of input. I 27 don’t really – I would like us to share this information as just part of the Implementation Element. Just 28 another column in here besides relative priority, new and existing, and anticipated. I’d also like for the 29 things that got a lot of dots, Staff to go back and consider revising the priorities. If something got 10 30 dots, it really should be priority low. User discretion but in general, do that. I’d also like to see maybe a 31 list of the top 10 or 20 – maybe top 20 programs that this Council did. Just put in a list so that it’s 32 something that the existing Council can quickly skim and go oh, these are things that they thought were 33 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 34 of 38 really important. Just because I know everybody has their (inaudible) things and a lot of us have the 1 same things. It just gives it a little bit more attention and it’s more likely that it will make it onto their to-2 do list. I guess I am done. There is one last thing, sorry. The priorities, we did discuss the priorities but if I 3 was going to come up with three priorities, I would give the Staff an A for picking three. However, I do 4 agree with Jen. We do need to add the word percentage of affordable housing and not – the other one 5 that I would like to add -- maybe it doesn’t make it on there – is increase public safety. We actually have 6 a ton of stuff in the Infrastructure Plan that’s in the cue for public safety like a new Police Department, 7 improvements to the fire stations etc. My special interest would be for that but I think if there’s only 8 three, they have picked at least three good ones. 9 Co-Chair Keller: Shani. 10 Shani Kleinhaus: I’d like to reiterate that it’s really important to show what is completely new and not 11 already being done and codified. You asked for redundancies so I marked a few of the one that I found. I 12 think in the community and services and services and facilities, there is a lot of redundancy. C-1.19, one, 13 two, three can probably be put together. Same with C-1.17.1 with potentially C-1.18.2. There are others 14 and I would let you go through and see that there are a lot of things. I think it’s evident because people 15 kind of picked one of them but if you really look and put them together, then they got a lot more points 16 and it looks like it. There is one that has an error I think. N-4.8.2, I think it says the opposite of what it 17 wants to say. It says explore ways so that dewatering does not result in recharge into the aquifer. I think 18 that is not what it should be so please take a look at that one. T-2.1.1 can be combined with T-2.1.2. T-19 6.6.4 has been done in many of the other ones so it kind of – you can break it into others relatively 20 easily. I have a few more of those. There something – L-3.2.1 which just seems like there’s some kind of 21 leftover text here so we might want to look at that one, L-3.2.1. L-9.4.2 was moved but stills remain in 22 the land use so it needs to be removed from there. I’m not sure about this one, looks like N-4.14.1 and 23 4.14.2 can be combined. I think that’s what I wrote down but there are probably a lot more of them. 24 Co-Chair Keller: Ellen. 25 26 Ellen Uhrbrock: I think the Council at the start of each year or election year has a retreat where they set 27 their own priorities, is that an annual event? Wouldn’t that be a good time for them to review the 28 priorities of the long-range plan and see where they are – measure on what had been done before and 29 what is going to come up? I think it would be something they could really benefit from to know how 30 we’re doing or which way we are going and it fits in when they start a new Council meeting. My other 31 comment is that somebody ought to reread a lot of these and see if our policies are actually policies and 32 programs are actually programs. They seem to be able to morph from one to the other a lot and that it 33 would be clearer overall if it was distinct that this is a policy and this is a program. The reading of it 34 would be lots – more comprehensive to somebody who is wanting to see what’s in this. That’s all. 35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 35 of 38 Co-Chair Keller: Don. 1 Don McDougall: There have been lots of comments that this was a useful process because now we 2 know what important. I would argue that we also know now what’s not important so relative to 3 Hamilton’s suggestion that we actually put a column in and tell them how many – the Council how many 4 dots things go. I would argue that if this is a useful process, then we should look at land use – that one 5 sheet over there and there are two of them that have a lot of dots. Those should be called out as being 6 important. Everything else that’s not in that category, should just simply be put in. If you start saying this 7 is important, this is less important, this is less important, this is not important at all. Then it will never 8 get any attention and if nobody voted for looking after disabled, does that mean that it gets ignored 9 forever. I would never put in the number of dots. I would put in two or three out of each category that 10 says what’s important because implicitly, you’re saying what’s not important and everything else and I 11 think that’s wrong. I keep hearing consolidation. I object to consolidation. I think that we should be 12 talking about removing duplication where they persist. The reason I object to consolidation is that I think 13 that if you look at the table that I created, the number of programs associated with a particular item; I 14 think is informative of what we thought was important. I think Council, Staff, the users of the document 15 need to think about what goals did we say were important. What policies did we say were important as 16 well as what programs? If you look at this, you can see under transportation, that sustainable, which is 17 all about SOVs, parking and safety and transit dependent came out as either new or with lots of 18 programs. Implicitly, that tells me that those things are important. If we start saying let’s consolidate 19 and take all those programs down to two programs. I no longer have that information about what’s 20 important so I think duplication makes sense. I think consolidation is a dangerous thing to do. As relative 21 to the implementation and the implementation subcommittee, I think I will happily comment on your 22 preamble because I think the thing that we want to make sure is that we’ve created some sort of user 23 manual. How do we expect this to be used? Is it going to be put on the shelf for people to look at when 24 they think they need information or is it something that’s going to be proactively reviewed on an annual 25 basis? That’s why I insist that we need to say that we don’t need to review all 250 programs every year 26 but maybe we need to review 125 of them. Half of them need to be reviewed every year. Some of them 27 every 5-years or whatever. We need a user manual so that we have some expectation about how this 28 gets used in the future. Thank you. 29 Co-Chair Keller: Amy. 30 Amy Sung: I really enjoyed this process. I really think that it is kind of a validation to show that this is 31 really an area that we gather a lot of agreements and attention so I really liked this exercise. In terms of 32 consolidation, I remember in the beginning when we started out, there were some Stanford students or 33 Professor or they volunteered work. They – I remember vaguely that their work had to do with the kind 34 of deep (inaudible) and then they are going to see what (inaudible) did receive the most attention. I 35 think we see a lot of those in social media and that you can see that instead of consolidating this – 36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 36 of 38 affordable housing for instance. If you condense it into one word, it becomes one word but if you said 1 that technology that Stanford (inaudible) is, then you will see that it pops up in ten places. I think that is 2 one way to see – to gauge how often that has been mentioned and popped up. I think that might be 3 something to remember. In term of implementation, I think that looking at it – the -- for example, the 4 top three or top five, it really shows that there’s really an area that gathers attention and our energy so 5 that it may warrant special attention. Like I said, not everything is created equal and of course, I am very 6 concerned about those that have one dots or no dots so maybe that issue should be color coded as a 7 first tier, a second tier and a third tier and that’s just that. Thank you. 8 Co-Chair Keller: Elaine. 9 Elaine Uang: Two points, I’ve seen a couple of programs where they might be the same general concept 10 but applied to different parties. For example, on the Safety Element, we have emergency power backup 11 for the City and then emergency power backup for the residence. I’m wondering if maybe there is some 12 opportunity to – if they are just two separate parties, do they need to be two different programs and 13 just something around that. Same with things like safe routes to school for PAUSD versus safe routes to 14 school for private schools and daycare centers or something like that. If they are different parties but 15 generally the same concept, maybe they actually could be the same programs. I just think it’s worth 16 taking a look at. Then, in some ways, the way that we structured this by doing very hierarchical goals, 17 policies and then programs supporting each policy, has sort of hamstrung us a little bit and that 18 hierarchical approach might not be the right thing because it doesn’t leave us the opportunity to make 19 connects and allow programs to actually support multiple policies or go support policies across 20 elements. I took a look and I actually went to the OPR – the State OPR general plan guidelines, just kind 21 of looking at what is their recommendation for the structure of general plans. They basically say goals 22 and policies are key in the primary. I looked around at some of the neighboring – our neighboring Cities; 23 Mountain View and San Jose just have goals and policies in their general plan. Redwood City has another 24 interesting fact which I really thought – at first I scratched my head but now I actually see some value in 25 it. They have goals and policies and then they have a separate implementation section under each 26 element but it’s separate. It’s not connected – the programs aren’t directly connected to specific 27 policies. They are just a set of programs and I think the way – the reason why that is, is that some of 28 those programs might overlap between several policies. I mean, I get why we did it the way that we did 29 it but now, kind of rolling back up and thinking about things. Maybe the structure has not allowed us to 30 capitalize on places where there is overlap and really highlight what that overlap is. I don’t know that we 31 can really go back based on council direction and change that but it had occurred to me that maybe 32 there is a lot of languages to weigh through because we are structuring it in such a way that it’s 33 preventing us to thinking about linkages. The linkages to me are really where you’re going to get the 34 streamlined Comp. Plan. A streamline Comp. Plan is very important because the more concise – the 35 more usable the document is and the more accessible it is to the general public and that’s where I’m 36 really worried that while I’m not – I think it’s all very important stuff that we’ve talked about. It’s going 37 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 37 of 38 to be really hard for the average person to come along and really just want to go through this and say 1 hey, yeah, I get it. Here’s what my Cities vision is and here are all of the direction that they want to take 2 to fulfill that. It’s going to be basically – no one is going to look at it now because it’s this massive brick 3 and we put the programs in two places. 4 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I appreciate the comments that people have. I have some concern about 5 consolidating programs where – that might actually not be appropriate. Let me give – my favorite case 6 and point and that are, there is a program in there to have a coordinated area plan for Fry’s electronics 7 site and California Avenue. Now, there’s a difference between having one coordinating area plan for 8 both sites, which something that will take (inaudible) years and won’t be done by the time that the Fry’s 9 site lease is up in 2019. When we have an opportunity to design what we want for that site versus 10 having two coordinating area plans, one of the Fry’s sites, which is just on that side alone and figure out 11 what you’re going to do with that site as it turns over and you can do that quickly and get it done. Then 12 the broader one, you can do over time, which is the California Avenue site and because those have been 13 consolidated into one program, we have the mistake of hauling off the urgent from the important 14 because Fry’s site is urgent. The second thing is that we can talk about how we might have done it in 15 terms of having programs be different but the history of our City is that programs went under policies 16 went under goals. That’s how we authored it and that’s what we did. If we had a different way of doing 17 it 2-years ago, or perhaps 8-years ago, when I first started working on the Comp. Plan on the Planning 18 Commission. If we had a different direction, we’d have gone differently but this is where we are now. 19 What we can do, however, is we can think about organization online and I would like to see us talk 20 about this at the last meeting. Have a little bit of discussion and maybe somewhat of a brainstorming 21 session on how this – there’s two versions of this. There it is as a PDF document or a document on the 22 shelf, which is the official version of – the legal version of the Comp. Plan as a document. Then there is 23 more livable, usable version of that in which there are hyperlinks, in which programs can appear under 24 multiple places. In which there are cross references. In which all of the sustainability stuff can be culled 25 out so you can index them. Where there are hyperlinks from a reference to say the Tree Production 26 Manual or the Urban Forest Master Plan. All of those are hyperlinked out so that you can get to them 27 directly to where they exist. I think that would be a much more useful document and actually, would 28 become a go-to document for a lot of stuff in the City because otherwise, you don’t know where 29 everything is. You know where to find the Bay Lands Master Plan. You know where to find the – what all 30 these different plans are. If they are all referenced from the Comp. Plan, think about that as a great 31 index to all the policies of the City in one place from one source. Finally, I think that the other thing we 32 can do in the – I hope we can do at the last meeting, is thinking about what lessons we learned. We 33 basically spent 2-years of this – hard fought 2-years and a lot of work that we did. Can we really get 34 some lessons learned from this process and use that as an opportunity to capture that so when we go to 35 the next round in this -- I hope it starts in 2025 or earlier because if we’re going to have the next Comp. 36 Plan actually go into effect in 2035, we have to start early. Then that means that we can sort of dig that 37 out of the time capsule and give it to the next Comp. Plan Committee and say ok, this is what lessons we 38 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES Page 38 of 38 thought you might have learned. Let’s try to use that as the basis for the next one. Staff seems to have a 1 comment and then we can answer – people can also talk again. 2 Hillary Gitelman: I was just going to try and wrap up because we’re almost at that hour. I really – first I 3 wanted to acknowledge all the input we got this evening. I know everyone wasn’t thrilled about the 4 exercise. It was difficult what we asked you to do, it was imperfect but I think we got a lot out of it and I 5 hope at some level, all of you understand what we were trying to go for and know that we will use this 6 information to generate another product that we will again, appreciate your input on. We’re being a 7 little vague about what we’re spending out to you and what it will look like and exactly what we’ll be 8 asking but we’ll try and firm that up in the next week or so, so we give you plenty of time before the 9 next meeting. If you have questions in the (inaudible) or additional suggestions that didn’t make it out in 10 the air this evening. Please don’t hesitate to email that to the Staff and we’ll start assembling a package 11 of information for the next meeting. 12 Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Remember that your comments on the Business and Economics Element are 13 due on March 31st. Also, due on March 31st are your comments on the supplemental draft 14 Environmental Impact Report on the Comp. Plan. If anybody has any last-minute comments, we’ll 15 entertain them. Otherwise, this meeting is adjourned. 16 Feedback for Continuous Improvement: 17 Future Meetings: 18 Next meeting: April 18th, 2017 – Rinconada Library (Embarcadero Room) 19 20 Adjournment: 8:30 PM 21