HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7235
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7235)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/29/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Comprehensive Plan EIR Scenarios 5 & 6
Title: Policy Discussion on Comprehensive Plan Update Environmental Impact
Report Scenarios 5 & 6 (Continued from August 22, 2016)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review the policy parameters of Scenarios 5 and 6
proposed for analysis as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) and provide direction to staff regarding requested modifications.
Based on the Council’s direction, staff will work with the City’s consultants to conduct an
environmental analysis of the new EIR scenarios. The draft environmental analysis will be
circulated for public review prior to preparation of a Final EIR.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City is the “lead agency” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and must
prepare and certify an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to assess potential impacts of the
Comprehensive Plan Update prior to approval of the Update. The EIR is being prepared in
parallel with the Comprehensive Plan Update itself, and tests potential policy choices via the
use of high level alternatives or “scenarios” which are analyzed at an equal level of detail.
During their review of the Draft EIR, the City Council requested that the Draft EIR, which
analyzes four scenarios, be supplemented with an analysis of a fifth and sixth scenario. The
quantitative parameters of the fifth and sixth scenario (i.e. the projected population, housing,
and jobs in 2030) were established by the City Council on May 16, 2016, however at a hearing
on June 6, 2016, the Council ran out of time to weigh in on policy choices that should be
reflected in each scenario.
This evening’s agenda item will provide the City Council with an opportunity to define the
policies and programs, zoning code amendments, infrastructure investments, sustainability
measures, and mitigation/performance measures they would like to analyze as part of the new
scenarios. Additional information is provided in the attached materials, including Attachment F
City of Palo Alto Page 2
from the June 6, 2016 staff report, excerpts from the May 16, 2016 staff report, and mitigation
measures included in the Draft EIR.
BACKGROUND
The City Council expressed their desire to add at least one new planning scenario to those in
the Draft EIR on January 19, 2016 and adopted the following motion:
A. Direct Staff to come to the City Council Retreat with a more definitive schedule
of when the variety of issues discussed this evening will be scheduled for Council
consideration; and
B. Direct Staff to return to Council with the DEIR as well as a possible fifth scenario
which lowers the jobs/housing ratio and the implications that will have on the
timing and process of completing the Comprehensive Plan Update.
On February 22, 2016, the City Council added to this direction with the following motion:
Direct Staff to develop a “fifth scenario” for analysis in a supplement to the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) that:
A. Adds the sustainability options from the current scenarios, which reduce
impacts, including traffic, greenhouse gas impacts, noise, etc.; and
B. Includes further mitigations along with prospective mitigation enforcement
measures for a scenario that improves the quality of life in Palo Alto by
mitigating the impacts of future growth and development; and
C. Wherever possible, the scenario will use Palo Alto specific data; and
D. Where possible, integrate the Sustainability Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) in the
fifth scenario; and
E. Evaluate mechanisms for regulating employment densities in existing buildings;
and
F. Evaluate lower General Office and R/D development than Scenario 2; and
G. Evaluate transportation and parking regulation triggers if mitigation measures
are failing or exceeding expectations.
On May 16, 2016, the City Council provided direction on Scenarios 5 & 6 with the following
motion:
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Direct Staff to evaluate two variations of Scenario Number 5 including a performance
based approach with policies and mitigation measures to limit the impacts of growth
and other quality of life issues. Both Scenarios would include Staff recommended
Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) elements:
A. Option A from the Staff Report; and
B. Option C from the Staff Report, incorporating 6,000 housing units; and
C. Approve Amendment Number 5 to Contract Number C08125506 with
Placeworks to add $423,814 for a total not to exceed $2,801,157 for completion
of the Comprehensive Plan Update and associated EIR; and
D. Amend the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for the General
Fund by:
i. Increasing the Planning and Community Environment Department
appropriation by $356,140; and
ii. Decreasing the Budget Stabilization Reserve by $423,814.
On June 6, 2016, the City Council ran out of time to provide additional guidance on the
definition of the scenarios, continuing their discussion after adopting a motion to reopen the
public comment period for the Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for Scenarios 1-4, to run concurrently with the public comment period for Scenarios 5
and 6.
Tonight’s agenda item has been scheduled to allow the City Council to continue the discussion
they began on June 6, 2016 and to provide direction on the policy parameters of Scenarios 5
and 6. The quantitative parameters (i.e. the population, housing, and jobs numbers for 2030)
were defined on May 16, 2016 as described in Attachment A.
As the Council will recall from their earlier discussions, providing direction regarding
parameters of scenarios proposed for analysis does not constitute direction or a commitment
regarding components of the Comprehensive Plan Update itself. The Council will have
opportunities to weigh in on policy parameters in the context of their review of the CAC’s draft
land use element, and to provide final direction/decisions once the EIR is complete.
NEXT STEPS
Analysis of the new EIR scenarios is expected to take approximately 4-5 months, after which
time the analysis will be circulated for public review and comment as a supplement to the Draft
EIR. (Note: analysis of the sixth scenario is contingent on an additional amendment to the
City of Palo Alto Page 4
consultant contract, which is currently being developed.) As requested by the City Council,
additional comments on the Draft EIR will also be accepted during the public review period for
the supplement.
Following the public review period, the City will prepare formal written responses to all
substantive comments received on the Draft EIR and on the analysis of the additional scenarios
in the form of a Final EIR. The City Council is required to review and certify the FEIR prior to
taking action on the Comprehensive Plan Update. Certification of the Final EIR and
consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Update is currently scheduled for the second half of
2017.
Concurrent with preparation and review of the additional analysis, the City Council will have the
opportunity to review draft elements of the Comprehensive Plan Update as they are produced
by the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). The City Council’s review and direction on the draft
elements will determine the final form of the Comprehensive Plan Update that is considered for
adoption and described in the Final EIR as the “preferred” scenario.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Summary of New Scenarios for Analysis in the Comp Plan EIR
(Attachment F from June 6, 2016) (DOCX)
Attachment B: Excerpt from CMR #6800 May 16, 2016 (DOC)
Attachment C: Comp Plan Mitigation Measures (DOCX)
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update
Summary of Additional Scenarios Proposed for Analysis
in a Supplement to the Draft EIR
May 23, 2016
This attachment summarizes the City Council’s direction to analyze additional scenarios in a
supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the City’s Comprehensive Plan
Update prior to proceeding to a Final EIR. As described further below, two new scenarios
would supplement those included in the Draft EIR as follows:
Table 1. Summary of EIR Scenarios: Population & Employment Parameters (1)
Net Change 2015-2030
(City of Palo Alto Only) Resulting
Jobs/Housing Balance
in 20303 Population/
Housing
Non-Res
Sq. Ft.2 Jobs
1. Business as Usual 6,600/2,720 3.3M 15,480 Jobs/Employed
Residents Ratio of 3.20
2. Slowing Growth 6,600/2,720 3M 9,850 Jobs/Employed
Residents Ratio of 3.04
3. Housing Tested I 8,435/3,545 3.5M 12,755 Jobs/Employed
Residents Ratio of 3.03
4. Sustainability Tested I 10,455/4,420 4.M 15,480 Jobs/Employed
Residents Ratio of 3.04
5. [NEW]
Sustainability Tested II 8435/3,546 2.7M 8,868 Jobs/Employed
Residents Ratio of 2.93
6. [NEW]
Housing Tested II 13,737/6,000 2.7M 8,868 Jobs/Employed
Residents Ratio of 2.71
(1) The scenarios also include different ideas for zoning/implementation actions,
transportation investments, and sustainability measures as discussed further
below.
(2) This number includes 1.3M sq. ft. that has already been approved at the Stanford
Medical Center. The balance of the new nonresidential square footage would be
located in areas both inside and outside of the “monitored areas” referenced in
Policy L-8 and Map L-6 in the Comp Plan and in areas both inside and outside of
the area subject to the interim annual limit of 50,000 square feet new office/R&D
space.
(3) The number of employed residents in 2030 is estimated at approximately 48% of
total population based on ABAG Projections 2013. The ratio of jobs to employed
residents in this column assumes a 2014 base of 65,685 people and 95,460 jobs.
Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, May 2016
The City of Palo Alto has been working on an update to its Comprehensive Plan since 2008 and
May 23, 2016
Summary of EIR Scenarios
Page 2
published a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in February 2016 assessing four
“scenarios” or alternatives at an equal level of detail, hoping to inform policy direction
regarding the location and amount of growth desired by 2030, as well as policies and programs
needed to mitigate the impacts of that growth.
On January 19 and February 22, the City Council indicated their desire to analyze an additional
scenario in a supplement to the Draft EIR and on May 16, the City Council provided basic
parameters of two new scenarios (scenarios number 5 & 6), as shown in Table 1.
The first new scenario, Scenario 5, Sustainability Tested II, proposes 10% fewer jobs than
Scenario 2, Slowing Growth, and the same number of housing units as Scenario 3,
Housing Tested I. This new scenario is intended to test the efficacy of mitigation and
sustainability measures when applied to relatively slow growth over the 15 year
planning period.
The second new scenario, Scenario 6, Housing Tested II, proposes 10% fewer jobs than
Scenario 2, Slowing Growth, and 36% more housing than Scenario 4, Sustainability I.
This new scenario is intended to test policies and programs to accelerate the production
of housing over the 15 year planning period, while applying mitigation and sustainability
measures to address the impacts of growth.
In both of the new scenarios, Comprehensive Plan programs and zoning changes would be
developed to provide for a mix of housing for Palo Alto residents, including affordable housing,
senior housing, housing for special needs populations, micro units, housing with preferences for
members of the local workforce, and housing with reduced parking and traffic impacts, reduced
air emissions, and reduced energy and water use when compared with conventional units.
Housing locations and characteristics for each scenario are summarized in Table 2, below.
Table 2. Summary of Housing-Related Policies & Programsa
Summary of Housing Policies & & Programs Scenarios
1 2 3 4 5 6
Maintain All Existing Housing Sites √ √ √
Eliminate Housing Sites on San Antonio and South El
Camino √ √ √
Increase residential densities on sites in Downtown,
the California Ave Area and along El Camino Real √ √ √ √
Add new housing sites to the El Camino frontage of
the Research Park and the Shopping Center √ √
Consider additional sites near SUMC or in western
portion of the Research Park √
Convert some commercial development potential
(FAR) to residential FAR √ √ √ √ √
Remove constraints on the addition of Accessory
Dwelling Units √ √ √ √ √
May 23, 2016
Summary of EIR Scenarios
Page 3
Summary of Housing Policies & & Programs Scenarios
1 2 3 4 5 6
Adopt policies to avoid the loss of existing housing
and displacement √ √ √ √ √
Adopt regulations and incentives to create smaller
units √ √ √ √ √
(a)This list is not a complete listing of possible policy and zoning changes, but includes major initiatives required to
reach the housing projections of each scenario. There is some overlap between these and the zoning changes
summarized later.
Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, May 2016
Brief Description of the Six Scenarios
1. “Business As Usual” – the “business as usual” scenario shows the results if the City
continued to operate under the existing Comprehensive Plan with no changes to goals,
policies and programs. Any new housing built would be constructed under existing
zoning and no innovations in housing or new approaches to address the high cost of
housing would be explored. No new growth management measures are anticipated, and
any transit or traffic improvements would come from the existing infrastructure plan for
the City. This scenario uses a local forecast of housing growth based on the City’s past
performance (a long term average of about 150-160 new dwelling units per year), and
ABAG’s 2013 projection of job growth.
2. Scenario Two, or the “Growth Slowed” Scenario, would slow the pace of job growth
when compared with Scenario One by moderating the pace of office/R&D development
throughout the city. Scenario Two would also ensure that the modest amount of
housing growth expected under Scenario One would be built-out as small units and
other housing types appropriate for seniors and the Palo Alto workforce.
Transportation investments in this scenario would include implementation of the
County’s expressway plan.
3. Scenario Three, or the “Housing Tested I” Scenario, would implement a growth
management regime similar to the interim annual limit on office/R&D adopted by the
City Council in 2015 for the fastest changing areas of the City and would eliminate
housing sites along San Antonio and South El Camino. In place of these housing sites,
Scenario 3 would increase housing densities on other housing sites Downtown, near
California Avenue, and in other locations in the City close to transit and services.
Policies, regulations, and incentives would be designed to ensure smaller units for the
working professional and senior populations of the City. Transportation investments
would include grade separating the Caltrain crossings at Meadow and Charleston by
placing the railroad tracks in a trench.
May 23, 2016
Summary of EIR Scenarios
Page 4
4. Scenario Four, or the “Sustainability Tested I” Scenario, assumes the most growth in
housing and employment, consistent with ABAG projections. Rather than moderating
the pace of development, this scenario would seek to limit the impacts of development.
Housing sites along San Antonio and South El Camino would be eliminated and replaced
by both increased densities on other housing sites and by the addition of new sites
along the El Camino Real frontage of the Stanford Research Park and the Stanford
Shopping Center. Potential policies and regulations would be enacted to advance
sustainability objectives, including free transit passes for residents in transit-served
areas, achieving LEED platinum certification for new development, maximizing local
solar energy production, foregoing new natural gas hookups, and utilizing drought-
tolerant landscaping. Transportation investments would include grade separating the
Caltrain crossings at Meadow and Charleston by placing the railroad tracks in a trench,
and incorporating mix flow bus rapid transit on El Camino Real (with curbside stations
and queue jumping for transit vehicles).
5. Scenario Five, or the “Sustainability Tested II” Scenario, would implement a growth
management program to limit the pace of office/R&D development and convert some
commercial development potential (Floor Area Ratio or FAR) to residential FAR in
Downtown and the California Avenue area. Scenario 5 would eliminate housing sites
along San Antonio and South El Camino and in place of these sites, would increase
housing densities on sites Downtown and in the California Avenue area close to transit
and services. Policies, regulations, and incentives would be designed to ensure smaller
units for the working professional and senior populations of the City. Potential policies
and regulations would be enacted to advance sustainability objectives, including free
transit passes for residents in transit-served areas, achieving LEED platinum certification
for new development, maximizing local solar energy production, foregoing new natural
gas hookups, and utilizing drought-tolerant landscaping. Transportation investments
would include grade separating the Caltrain crossings at Meadow and Charleston by
placing the railroad tracks in a trench.
6. Scenario Six, or the “Housing Tested II” Scenario, would also implement a growth
management program to limit the pace of office/R&D development and would convert
some commercial development potential (Floor Area Ratio or FAR) to residential FAR in
Downtown, the California Avenue area, and along the El Camino Real corridor. Scenario
Six would eliminate housing sites along San Antonio and South El Camino and in place of
these sites, would both increase housing densities in other areas of the City close to
transit and services, and add new housing sites along the El Camino Real frontage of the
Stanford Research Park and the Stanford Shopping Center. Additional housing sites in
the Research Park could also be considered. Policies, regulations, and incentives would
be designed to ensure smaller units for the working professional and senior populations
of the City. Potential policies and regulations would be enacted to advance
sustainability objectives, including free transit passes for residents in transit-served
May 23, 2016
Summary of EIR Scenarios
Page 5
areas, achieving LEED platinum certification for new development, maximizing local
solar energy production, foregoing new natural gas hookups, and utilizing drought-
tolerant landscaping. Transportation investments would include grade separating the
Caltrain crossings at Meadow and Charleston by placing the railroad tracks in a trench,
and incorporating mix flow bus rapid transit on El Camino Real (with curbside stations
and queue jumping for transit vehicles).
Under all scenarios, goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan Update will be implemented
through programs, some of which will support specific changes in the City’s zoning ordinance.
The four EIR scenarios recognize this fact by suggesting and evaluating zoning code
amendments that could accompany the Comp Plan Update. These suggested amendments are
not meant to be prescriptive, but generally outline actions that could be taken to implement
the policy parameters of each scenario.
Similarly, the evaluation of Scenarios 5 & 6 can test a variety of zoning amendments to achieve
the population/housing and employment/square footage numbers included in Table 1.
Suggestions are included in Table 3, below.
Table 3. Zoning Code Amendments for the EIR Scenarios
Proposed Zoning Code Amendmentsa Scenarios
1 2 3 4 5a 6a
Planned Community (PC) zoning district provisions
would be reformed. √ √ √ √ √ √
Strategies to preserve retail would be enhanced for
the city’s neighborhoods. √ √ √ √ √ √
Incentives would be considered for small lot
consolidation along El Camino Real. √ √ √ √ √ √
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required
for new office and R&D uses in order to regulate
employment densities.
√ √ √
An alternate mechanism would be explored for
moderating employment densities, either through
regulation or revenue collection.
√ √
Allowable commercial densities would be reduced
and replaced with residential densities. √ √ √ √ √
Modest exceptions to the City’s 50-foot height limit
would be permitted for projects with ground floor
retail and residences above.
√ √ √
Allowable residential densities would be increased
downtown and near California Avenue, possibly by
adding the PTODb zoning designation to downtown
and streamlining the permitting process to allow for
residential development in the PTOD zone by right.
Another possibility would be to eliminate maximum
dwelling unit densities and use minimum densities
and FAR to encourage more, smaller units.
√ √ √ √
May 23, 2016
Summary of EIR Scenarios
Page 6
Proposed Zoning Code Amendmentsa Scenarios
1 2 3 4 5a 6a
Allowable residential densities would be increased
on the El Camino Corridor, possibly by adding the
PTODb zoning designation to pedestrian “nodes”
along the corridor with modified regulations to
encourage use of the designation. Another
possibility would be to eliminate maximum dwelling
unit densities and use minimum densities and FAR to
encourage more, smaller units.
√ √
Mitigation and sustainability measures would be
adopted to minimize impacts of new market rate
housing and new non-residential development by
requiring mitigation, monitoring, and enforcement.
√ √
(a)The suggested zoning changes listed here do not include all of the sustainability measures or mitigation
measures which could be applied to the scenarios.
(b) The Pedestrian and Transit-Oriented Development (PTOD) combining zoning district is intended to allow higher
density residential dwellings on commercial, industrial, and multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of
Caltrain stations, while protecting low density residential parcels and parcels with historical resources.
Source: Comp Plan Update Draft EIR, February 2016 and Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community
Environment, May 2016
The Comprehensive Plan Update will identify infrastructure investments expected to occur over
the next 15 years to the extent feasible and will rely on the City’s adopted infrastructure plan as
a base document. The planning scenarios evaluated in the program-level EIR provide an
opportunity to evaluate other potential transportation infrastructure projects, and these are
included in Table 4, below.
Table 4. Infrastructure Investments for the EIR Scenarios
Summary of Infrastructure Investmentsa Scenarios
1 2 3 4 5 6
New Public Safety Building √ √ √ √ √ √
Bicycle Bridge over US 101 √ √ √ √ √ √
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan Implementation Projects √ √ √ √ √ √
Byxbee Park √ √ √ √ √ √
California Avenue Parking Garage √ √ √ √ √ √
Downtown Parking Garage √ √ √ √ √ √
Fire Stations √ √ √ √ √ √
County Expressway Plan Implementation √
Grade separation of Caltrain in a trench below
Charleston and Meadow; other improvements along
the corridor.
√ √ √ √
Bus Rapid Transit on El Camino Real in mixed-flow
lanes with the addition of queue jumping and
curbside stations.
√ √
(a)This list is not a complete listing of the City’s infrastructure plan, but includes those investments highlighted in
Draft EIR Scenarios 1-4 as well as others that may be appropriate for highlighting in Scenarios 5&6. There may be
some overlap between the suggested investments listed here and the sustainability measures and
May 23, 2016
Summary of EIR Scenarios
Page 7
performance/mitigation measures referenced later.
Source: Comp Plan Update Draft EIR, February 2016 and Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community
Environment, May 2016
On April 18, 2016, the City Council indicated their support for the draft SCAP goal of reducing
GHG Emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2030 (twenty years ahead of the State’s goal) and
requested clarity on how the Comp Plan Update and the SCAP will be integrated. The two plans
are intended to be coordinated and complimentary, and while SCAP principles and strategies
have not been fully defined as of yet, Table 5 acknowledges the relationship between the two
plans, and indicates some of the sustainability measures that are common to both for
evaluation as part of the EIR scenarios.
Table 5. Sustainability Measures for the EIR Scenarios
Summary of Sustainability Measuresa Scenarios
1 2 3 4 5 6
Mobility
Paid transit passes for employees in workplaces with
over 50 employees (portion of SCAP Strategy F-INC-
1)
√ √ √ √ √ √
Employer incentives for carpooling and bicycling
(SCAP Strategy F-FAC-3.4) √ √ √ √ √
Unbundled parking costs for multi-family units
(portion of SCAP Strategy T-INC-2) √ √ √ √
Parking charge program for existing workplaces with
over 50 employees (portion of SCAP Strategy T-INC-
2)
√ √ √
Paid parking in Downtown and California Avenue
areas (portion of SCAP Strategy T-INC-2) √ √ √
Free transit passes for all Palo Alto residents in
transit-accessible areas (portion of SCAP Strategy F-
INC-1)
√ √ √
Adoption of the SCAP goal of a 80% reduction in
GHG emissions by 2030 and alignment of the
Comprehensive Plan Update with SCAP principles.
Inclusion of Comprehensive Plan policies and
programs supportive of the refinement and
furtherance of SCAP strategies.
√ √
(a)The suggested sustainability measures listed here do not include every strategy from the draft SCAP, which is
still a work in progress. This list also does not include mitigation measures which are listed separately below, even
though many address topics related to sustainability (for example, transportation mitigation to limit and off-set
new trips).
Source: Comp Plan Update Draft EIR, February 2016; Draft SCAP, April 2016, and Palo Alto Department of Planning
& Community Environment, May 2016
All of the EIR scenarios will require mitigation measures to address significant environmental
impacts and consistent with the Council’s direction, these will be analyzed as part of Scenarios
5 and 6. For example, the analysis will assess the effectiveness of Mitigation Measure
May 23, 2016
Summary of EIR Scenarios
Page 8
TRANS1a, which establishes a framework for imposing a “no net new trips” requirement on
market rate housing, office/R&D development, and other uses. The measure reads:
TRANS-1a: Adopt a programmatic approach to reducing traffic with the goal of achieving no
net increase in peak period motor vehicle trips from new development, with an exception
for uses that directly contribute to the neighborhood character and diversity of Palo Alto
(such as ground floor retail and below market rate housing). The program should, at a
minimum:
Require new development projects to prepare and implement a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Plan to achieve the following reduction in peak period motor
vehicle trips from the rates included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip
Generation Manual for the appropriate land use category. These reductions are
deemed aggressive, yet feasible, for the districts indicated.
o 45 percent reduction in the Downtown district
o 35 percent reduction in the California Avenue area
o 30 percent reduction in the Stanford Research Park
o 30 percent reduction in the El Camino Real Corridor
o 20 percent reduction in other areas of the city
TDM Plans must be approved by the City and monitored by the property owner on an
annual basis. The Plans must contain enforcement mechanisms or penalties that accrue
if targets are not met.
Require new development projects to offset remaining peak period motor vehicle trips
through one of the following methods:
o By directly contracting with another property owner or organization to reduce
trips generated from another site; or
o By paying an annual fee to the City for use in reducing motor vehicle trips to
the extent feasible through the provision of transit services, carpool/rideshare
incentives, bicycle lanes, and other similar programs and improvements.
A full list of EIR mitigation measures needed for Scenarios 2-4 is included in the Executive
Summary (Chapter 1) of the Draft EIR and potential modifications or additions to this list will be
considered during the analysis of Scenarios 5-6.
Next Steps
Once the Draft EIR comment period has concluded and final direction on the new scenarios is
provided, staff will post written comments on the website and make them available to the
Council, the Planning & Transportation Commission, and the public. Staff will also work with
the City’s consultants, Placeworks, to modify the scope of work included in the contract
amendment approved on May 16, 2016 to allow for analysis of a sixth scenario. (The
May 23, 2016
Summary of EIR Scenarios
Page 9
amendment assumed only five scenarios.) Some efficiencies may be possible given that the
new scenario five is very similar to those already analyzed in the Draft EIR, but it’s expected
that an additional contract amendment will be required.
Excerpt from May 16, 2016 Staff Report (CMR#6800)
Page 1
The following discussion addresses five characteristics of the Fifth Scenario consistent with this
motion: (1) Net change in employment & non-residential development 2015-2030; (2) Net
change in population and housing 2015-2030; (3) Potential zoning changes to accomplish these
levels of development; (4) Infrastructure investments; (5) Potential sustainability measures to
reduce impacts; and (6) Other potential performance or mitigation measures to address the
impacts of development.
The EIR will assess the impacts of the scenario, including the level of growth assumed as well as
the principal investments and policy parameters that are articulated as part of the scenario.
The proposed contract amendment in Attachment A provides for an analysis of the scenario
with and without mitigation measures and other performance measures or strategies to reduce
or eliminate physical impacts and preserve or improve quality of life.
1. Jobs & Sq. Ft.
The City Council has articulated their desire for lower office/R&D development and
employment than assumed in Scenario 2 and the options presented in Table 2, above, suggest
or 10% fewer jobs and square footage than in Scenario 2 (i.e. a total of 8,868 new jobs and
2.8M new sq. ft.).
With this projection of future job growth, Palo Alto would see the 2,400 jobs anticipated as part
of the SUMC as well as an average of 431 jobs per year over the 15 year life of the Comp Plan.
This seems low given the amount of land zoned for non-residential uses and existing building
space in use for employment-generating uses in the City.
With the projected increase in new square footage, Palo Alto would see completion of the 1.3M
sq. ft. approved as part of the SUMC project, plus an average of 93,000 sq. ft. in additional non-
residential square footage per year. New non-residential square footage in areas shown on
Comp Plan Map L-6 are subject to the square footage cap in Comp Plan Policy L-8, and new
office/R&D square footage would be limited to 50,000 square feet in areas subject to the City’s
interim annual limit on Office/R&D uses if this program were continued after the two-year trial.
[Note that new jobs and new non-residential square footage are not proportionally related
because new jobs can be added in existing as well as new building space. Generally, the rate of
job growth and employment densities change cyclically, with more jobs and higher densities in
good economic times, and fewer jobs in economic downturns. See the Zoning section below
for a discussion of regulating employment densities.]
2. Population & Housing
A majority of the City Council expressed their desire to pursue removal of housing sites along
San Antonio Road and South El Camino Real, and replace those with higher residential densities
on sites in Downtown and the California Avenue area. This would result in housing and
Excerpt from May 16, 2016 Staff Report (CMR#6800)
Page 2
population projections consistent with Scenario 3, which is consistent with Option A in Table 2,
above.
The Council did not weigh-in on whether they would be interested in exploring higher
residential densities and new housing sites in “pedestrian nodes” along the El Camino Real
corridor. This is an idea advanced in Scenario 4 and reflected to varying degrees in Option B
and C above, which also assume rezoning to convert non-residential density (floor area ratio or
FAR) to residential density in some areas of the City. (See below for more on potential zoning
changes for evaluation as part of Scenario 5.)
At the Council’s discussions about Scenario 5 (February 22) and housing policies generally
(March 21), the City Council expressed its interest in stimulating workforce housing (i.e. housing
for teachers, fire fighters, and others who work in Palo Alto) and testing the idea of micro-units
with reduced parking and other sustainability measures (bike share/car share, net zero energy,
all electric buildings, etc.). These and other housing types (accessory dwelling units, multifamily
affordable units, cohousing, etc.) can be facilitated via changes to the City’s zoning regulations
and/or use of the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program and Council has requested
that staff consider actions that might be taken before the Comprehensive Plan Update.
3. Zoning Changes
Goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan Update will be implemented through programs,
some of which will support specific changes in the City’s zoning ordinance. The four EIR
scenarios recognize this fact by suggesting and evaluating zoning code amendments that could
accompany the Comp Plan Update. These suggested amendments are not meant to be
prescriptive, but generally outline actions that could be taken to implement the policy
parameters of each scenario.
Similarly, the evaluation of Scenario 5 can test a variety of zoning amendments to achieve the
population/housing and employment/square footage numbers discussed above. Suggestions
are included in Table 4, below. City Council input on potential additions and subtractions for
Scenario 5 would be helpful.
Table 4. Possible Zoning Code Amendments for Scenarios 5
Proposed Zoning Code Amendmentsa Scenarios
1 2 3 4 5a
Planned Community (PC) zoning district provisions would be
reformed. √ √ √ √ √
Strategies to preserve retail would be enhanced for the
city’s neighborhoods. √ √ √ √ √
Incentives would be considered for small lot consolidation
along El Camino Real. √ √ √ √ √
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required for new
office and R&D uses in order to regulate employment √ √ √
Excerpt from May 16, 2016 Staff Report (CMR#6800)
Page 3
Proposed Zoning Code Amendmentsa Scenarios
1 2 3 4 5a
densities.
An alternate mechanism would be explored for moderating
employment densities, either through regulation or revenue
collection (See Discussion below.)
√
Allowable commercial densities in the Downtown (CD
zoning District) would be reduced and replaced with
residential densities.
√ √ √ √
In the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Service
Commercial (CS) districts, non-retail portions of allowable
commercial floor area ratios (FARs) would be reduced and
replaced with residential use.
√ √ √
In the Community Commercial 2 (CC-2) district, the
allowable 2.0 FAR would be reduced to an FAR of 1.5 near
California Avenue.
√ √
In the Community Commercial 2 (CC-2) district, commercial
FAR would be somewhat reduced and replaced with
residential FAR.
√
Modest exceptions to the City’s 50-foot height limit would
be permitted for residential uses only (including projects
with ground floor retail and residences above).
√ √ √
Allowable residential densities would be increased
downtown, possibly by adding the PTODb zoning designation
to downtown and streamlining the permitting process to
allow for residential development in the PTOD zone by right.
√ √ √
Allowable residential densities would be increased on the El
Camino Corridor, possibly by adding the PTODb zoning
designation to pedestrian “nodes” along the corridor with
modified regulations to encourage use of the designation.
√ √
Performance-based zoning strategies would be adopted to
minimize impacts of new market rate housing and new non-
residential development by requiring mitigation,
monitoring, and enforcement. Code changes could also
address housing types and preferences.
√
(a)The suggested zoning changes listed here do not include all of the sustainability measures or mitigation
measures which are listed separately below.
(b) The Pedestrian and Transit-Oriented Development (PTOD) combining zoning district is intended to allow higher
density residential dwellings on commercial, industrial, and multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of
Caltrain stations, while protecting low density residential parcels and parcels with historical resources.
Source: Comp Plan Update Draft EIR, February 2016 and Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community
Environment, April 2016
The City Council requested staff evaluate mechanisms for regulating employment densities and
this concept was originally evaluated as part of EIR scenarios 2-4 by assuming a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) would be required for new office/R&D development, allowing the City to impose a
Excerpt from May 16, 2016 Staff Report (CMR#6800)
Page 4
condition to impose a limit of 250 sq. ft. per worker or something similar.
This approach would address the issue prospectively (i.e. on a going forward basis as new uses
are approved), and would not address some Councilmembers’ interests in regulating
employment densities in existing uses. It would also create enforcement challenges for this
City, likely necessitating additional enforcement staff as the number of new uses subject to
employment density conditions increases over time.
To regulate employment densities in existing uses would be more difficult. In general, there are
a range of possible methods to regulate employment density1, including:
Building Code regulations. The Building Code contains maximum occupancy densities.
These densities are based primarily on ensuring safe egress in case of fire or other
disaster. Occupancy densities vary by use and the occupancy density for business and
industrial uses are 100 gross square feet per occupant. The Building Code contains
uniform standards and to alter these standards the City must make local “climactic,
geographical or topographical” findings. Palo Alto has an existing permitting scheme
called “use and occupancy which could provide a practical enforcement mechanism for
either building permit occupancy limits or related regulatory “use” requirements
discussed below.
Zoning – permitted uses. Like most cities Palo alto’s zooning categories currently do not
contain occupancy limits. While posing some practical enforcement challenges, it is
legally possible to incorporate occupancy limits into either permitted or conditionally
permitted use classifications (see below).
Zoning – conditional use permits. It is possible to allow a base level of zoning density as
a matter of right and require some form of discretionary permits (such as a conditional
use permit) for increased density.
Zoning – performance based zoning. This is a relatively new concept which specifies the
goals (i.e. number of jobs, houses, car trips, etc.) and allows the applicant to propose a
qualifying building. See http://www.citylab.com/housing/2014/08/braving-the-new-
world-of-performance-based-zoning/375926/.
Zoning – transportation demand management strategies. Since concerns about
employee density is generally tied to traffic impacts, many cities attempt to regulate the
direct traffic impacts. Transportation demand management (TDM) programs can be
structured in a variety of ways, including payment of impact fees (supported by a nexus
study linking high employment densities to traffic impacts) and mandatory participation
in the newly established TMA. While the primary focus of TDM strategies is to reduce
1 Establishing occupancy limits for housing units, restricting housing based on school impacts, and limiting
development of housing units in general is legally challenging. The State Housing and Community Development
Department (HCD), the Building Industry Association (BIA) and affordable housing advocates aggressively monitor
such restrictions, and litigation would be very likely in the current housing environment.
Excerpt from May 16, 2016 Staff Report (CMR#6800)
Page 5
Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) trips of new development, many programs also have
some incidental benefit of reducing SOV trips of existing development (i.e.
establishment of shuttles that can be used by other neighboring businesses).
Development Agreements. These allow more customized parcel specific regulations.
Head count tax/Impact Fee. Most of the zoning methods regulate new development. It
is more difficult to regulate existing businesses. One way to regulate existing businesses
is to set a head count tax at a level designed to disincentive density.
4. Infrastructure Investments
The Comprehensive Plan Update will identify infrastructure investments expected to occur over
the next 15 years to the extent feasible and will rely on the City’s adopted infrastructure plan as
a base document. The planning scenarios evaluated in the program-level EIR provide an
opportunity to evaluate other potential transportation infrastructure projects, and these are
included in Table 5, below. City Council input on potential additions and subtractions for
Scenario 5 would be appreciated.
Table 5. Possible Infrastructure Investments for Scenario 5
Summary of Infrastructure Investmentsa Scenarios
1 2 3 4 5a
New Public Safety Building √ √ √ √ √
Bicycle Bridge over US 101 √ √ √ √ √
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan Implementation Projects √ √ √ √ √
Byxbee Park √ √ √ √ √
California Avenue Parking Garage √ √ √ √ √
Downtown Parking Garage √ √ √ √ √
Fire Stations √ √ √ √ √
County Expressway Plan Implementation √
Grade separation of Caltrain in a trench below Charleston
and Meadow; other improvements along the corridor. √ √ √
Bus Rapid Transit on El Camino Real in mixed-flow lanes
with the addition of queue jumping and curbside stations. √ √
(a)This list is not a complete listing of the City’s infrastructure plan, but includes those investments
highlighted in Draft EIR Scenarios 1-4 as well as others that may be appropriate for highlighting in
Scenario 5. There may be some overlap between the suggested investments listed here and the
sustainability measures and performance/mitigation measures referenced later.
Source: Comp Plan Update Draft EIR, February 2016 and Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community
Environment, April 2016
5. Sustainability Measures
On April 18, 2016, the City Council indicated their support for the draft SCAP goal of reducing
GHG Emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2030 (twenty years ahead of the State’s goal) and
requested clarity on how the Comp Plan Update and the SCAP will be integrated. As noted
earlier, a Sustainability subcommittee of the Comp Plan CAC is assisting with this effort to
ensure that each element of the Comp Plan Update includes policies and programs that are
Excerpt from May 16, 2016 Staff Report (CMR#6800)
Page 6
supportive of the SCAP goal and consistent with its principles and strategies. At the end of the
day, the two plans are intended to be coordinated and complimentary. Also, by incorporating
the SCAP by reference, the Comp Plan will indicate the City’s commitment to the plan, yet still
allow it to be updated as needed over time without the need for a Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
While SCAP principles and strategies have not been fully defined as of yet, Table 6
acknowledges the relationship between the two plans.
Table 6. Possible Sustainability Measures for Scenarios 5
Summary of Sustainability Measuresa Scenarios
1 2 3 4 5a
Mobility
Paid transit passes for employees in workplaces with over
50 employees (portion of SCAP Strategy F-INC-1) √ √ √ √ √
Employer incentives for carpooling and bicycling (SCAP
Strategy F-FAC-3.4) √ √ √ √
Unbundled parking costs for multi-family units (portion of
SCAP Strategy T-INC-2) √ √ √
Parking charge program for existing workplaces with over 50
employees (portion of SCAP Strategy T-INC-2) √ √
Paid parking in Downtown and California Avenue areas
(portion of SCAP Strategy T-INC-2) √ √
Free transit passes for all Palo Alto residents in transit-
accessible areas (portion of SCAP Strategy F-INC-1) √ √
Adoption of the SCAP goal of a 80% reduction in GHG
emissions by 2030 and alignment of the Comprehensive
Plan Update with SCAP principles. Inclusion of
Comprehensive Plan policies and programs that are
supportive of the refinement and furtherance of SCAP
strategies.
√
(a)The suggested sustainability measures listed here do not include every strategy from the draft SCAP,
which is still a work in progress. This list also does not include mitigation measures which are listed
separately below, even though many address topics related to sustainability (for example, transportation
mitigation to limit and off-set new trips).
Source: Comp Plan Update Draft EIR, February 2016; Draft SCAP, April 2016, and Palo Alto Department of Planning
& Community Environment, April 2016
6. Performance/Mitigation Measures
All of the EIR scenarios will require mitigation measures to address significant environmental
impacts and these can be the source of performance measures analyzed as part of Scenario 5.
For example, Mitigation Measure TRANS1a, establishes a framework for imposing a “no net
new trips” requirement on market rate housing, office/R&D development, and other uses. The
measure reads:
Excerpt from May 16, 2016 Staff Report (CMR#6800)
Page 7
TRANS-1a: Adopt a programmatic approach to reducing traffic with the goal of achieving no
net increase in peak period motor vehicle trips from new development, with an exception
for uses that directly contribute to the neighborhood character and diversity of Palo Alto
(such as ground floor retail and below market rate housing). The program should, at a
minimum:
Require new development projects to prepare and implement a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Plan to achieve the following reduction in peak period motor
vehicle trips from the rates included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip
Generation Manual for the appropriate land use category. These reductions are deemed
aggressive, yet feasible, for the districts indicated.
o 45 percent reduction in the Downtown district
o 35 percent reduction in the California Avenue area
o 30 percent reduction in the Stanford Research Park
o 30 percent reduction in the El Camino Real Corridor
o 20 percent reduction in other areas of the city
TDM Plans must be approved by the City and monitored by the property owner on an
annual basis. The Plans must contain enforcement mechanisms or penalties that accrue
if targets are not met.
Require new development projects to offset remaining peak period motor vehicle trips
through one of the following methods:
o By directly contracting with another property owner or organization to reduce
trips generated from another site; or
o By paying an annual fee to the City for use in reducing motor vehicle trips to the
extent feasible through the provision of transit services, carpool/rideshare
incentives, bicycle lanes, and other similar programs and improvements.
A full list of EIR mitigation measures needed for Scenarios 2-4 is included in Attachment B. The
analysis of Scenario 5 will determine whether these or other measures are required for Scenario
5, however the City Council’s initial input on potential additions and subtractions for inclusion
as part of Scenario 5 would be appreciated.
P L A C E W O R K S 1
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
AES-1: The following policies and programs, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that future
development under Scenarios 3 and 4 would not degrade the visual character or quality of the area:
Policy: Promote high quality, creative design, and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.
Policy: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the
neighborhood and adjacent structures.
Policy: Maintain and enhance the University/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic,
cultural, recreational, and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historic importance of the area and
reinforces its pedestrian character.
Program: Review and revise as needed the Downtown, El Camino Real, and South of El Camino Real Design Guidelines to support and enhance
the existing visual character of these neighborhoods with building forms and massing that relate to the street and the pedestrian, whether
through traditional architectural forms or innovative new designs.
Program: In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character, design new development to maintain and support the existing
character.
AES-4: The City shall develop an ordinance that will require development projects of a certain size or location to prepare an analysis of potential
shade/shadow impacts. The ordinance shall focus on potential impacts to public open spaces (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks)
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21. Projects that are shown to shadow open spaces during these times shall
mitigate these impacts through building and site design features.
Air Quality
AIR-1: The policies and programs, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that it is consistent with the
2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan:
Policy: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use.
Policy: Reduce emission of particulates from wood burning stoves, construction activity, automobiles, and other sources.
Program: Locate higher density development near transit corridors and near multimodal transit stations. Support regional, State, and federal
programs that improve air quality in the Bay Area.
Program: Encourage infill, redevelopment, and re-use of vacant or underutilized parcels employing minimum density requirements that are
appropriate to support transit, bicycling, and walking.
Program: Promote mixed-use development to provide housing and commercial services near employment centers, thereby reducing the
necessity of driving.
AIR-2a: As part of the City’s development approval process, the City shall require applicants for future development projects to comply with the
current BAAQMD basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10 (Table 8-1, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures
Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines).
AIR-2b: Prior to issuance of construction permits, development project applicants that are subject to CEQA and have the potential to exceed the
BAAQMD screening-criteria listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines shall prepare and submit to the City of Palo Alto a technical assessment
evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with BAAQMD
methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the
2 M A R C H 2 2 , 2 0 1 6
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures
BAAQMD thresholds of significance, as identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the City of Palo Alto shall require that applicants for new
development projects incorporate mitigation measures (Table 8-2, Additional Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for Projects with
Construction Emissions Above the Threshold, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines or applicable construction mitigation measures subsequently
approved by BAAQMD) to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities to below these thresholds. These identified measures
shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be
verified by the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department.
AIR-2c: Prior to issuance of construction permits, development project applicants that are subject to CEQA and have the potential to exceed the
BAAQMD screening-criteria listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines shall prepare and submit to the City of Palo Alto a technical assessment
evaluating potential project operation phase-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with BAAQMD
methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operational-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the
BAAQMD thresholds of significance, as identified in BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment
Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions
during operational activities.
AIR-2d: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a. In addition, the following policy and program, or equally effective language, shall be included
in the proposed Plan to reduce long-term air quality impacts by emphasizing walkable neighborhoods and supporting alternative modes of
transportation.
Policy: Encourage new residential, commercial and mixed-use development around transit stations, locations with bicycle and pedestrian
connectivity, neighborhood-serving retail, and city services to allow residents and employees to meet daily needs without the use of the
private automobile.
Program: Promote mixed-use development to provide housing and commercial services near employment centers, thereby reducing the
necessity of driving.
AIR-3a: Applicants for future non-residential land uses within the city that: 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per
day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered TRUs, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools,
hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of a proposed project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall
submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Palo Alto prior to future discretionary Project approval or shall comply with best practices
recommended for implementation by the BAAQMD.
The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds 10 in one million (10E-06), PM2.5
concentrations exceed 0.3 µg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be required to identify and
demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate
enforcement mechanisms.
Mitigation measures and best practices may include but are not limited to:
Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions, as feasible.
Electrifying warehousing docks.
Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles.
Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes.
P L A C E W O R K S 3
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures identified in the project-specific HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or
incorporated into the site development plan as a component of a proposed project.
AIR-3b: Applicants for residential and other sensitive land use projects (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes, and day care centers) that are subject to
CEQA within 1,000 feet of a major sources of TACs (e.g., warehouses, industrial areas, freeways, and roadways with traffic volumes over 10,000
vehicle per day), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the source/edge of the nearest travel lane, shall
submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Palo Alto prior to future discretionary Project approval or shall comply with best practices
recommended by the BAAQMD.
The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)
and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The latest OEHHA guidelines shall be used for the analysis, including age sensitivity factors,
breathing rates, and body weights appropriate for children age zero to 16 years. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds 10 in
one million (10E-06), PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3 µg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be
required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable
level (i.e., below 10 in one million or a hazard index of 1.0), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms.
Measures and/or best practices to reduce risk may include but are not limited to:
Air intakes located away from high volume roadways and/or truck loading zones.
Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately sized Maximum Efficiency Rating Value (MERV)
filters.
Mitigation measures identified in the HRA and best practices shall be incorporated into the site development plan as a condition of approval.
The air intake design and MERV filter requirements shall be noted and/or reflected on all building plans submitted to the City and shall be
verified by the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department.
AIR-4: The following policy, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to reduce odor impacts:
Policy: All potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants should be adequately buffered, mechanically or otherwise mitigated, to
avoid odor and toxic impacts that violate human health standards.
Biological Resources
None
Cultural Resources
CULT-1a: The City shall prepare and adopt an ordinance that would regulate the demolition or alteration of a historic resource listed on the
National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory, if alterations would significantly alter the historic value and/or
character defining features of the historic resource.
CULT-1b: Include a program in the Comprehensive Plan Update requiring the City to update and maintain the City’s Historic Resource Inventory
to determine all historic resources that are eligible for the California Register as well as important examples of California history or prehistory.
Historic resources may consist of a single building or structure or a district.
Include a policy in the Comprehensive Plan requiring an evaluation prior to the issuance of a demolition or alterations permit, where proposed
development would affect a potential historic resource that has not been evaluated for inclusion into the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
4 M A R C H 2 2 , 2 0 1 6
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures
CULT-1c: The following policy and program, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that future
development under all four scenarios would not adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California
Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory:
Policy: Protect Palo Alto’s archaeological resources, including natural land formations, sacred sites, the historical landscape, historic habitats,
and remains of settlements here before the founding of Palo Alto in the nineteenth century.
Program: Require that a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System be conducted and reviewed by a cultural
resources professional for proposed new development to determine whether the site contains known prehistoric or historic cultural resources
and the potential for as-yet-undiscovered cultural resources.
CULT-2: Implement Mitigation Measures CULT-1a, CULT-1b, and CULT-1c.
CULT-3: The following policies, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that future development under all
four scenarios would not damage archaeological resources:
Policy: Protect Palo Alto’s archaeological resources, including natural land formations, sacred sites, the historical landscape, historic habitats,
and remains of settlements here before the founding of Palo Alto in the nineteenth century.
Policy: Require that a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System be conducted and reviewed by a cultural
resources professional for proposed new development to determine whether the site contains known prehistoric or historic cultural resources
and to determine the potential presence of as-yet-undiscovered cultural resources.
Policy: Require that areas found to contain significant prehistoric artifacts be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist for appropriate
protection and preservation.
Policy: Require that if cultural resources, including archaeological or paleontological resources, are uncovered during grading or other on-site
excavation activities, construction shall stop until appropriate mitigation is determined and implemented.
Policy: Require that any archaeological or paleontological resources on a development project site, as a condition of project approval, be
either preserved at their location or adequately documented as a condition of removal. When a development project has sufficient flexibility,
avoidance and preservation of the resource shall be the primary mitigation measure, unless the City identifies a superior mitigation. If
resources are documented, their preservation should be coordinated with descendants and/or stakeholder groups, as warranted.
Policy: Continue to consult with tribes as required by California Government Code Section 65352.3. In doing so, use appropriate procedures to
accommodate tribal concerns when a tribe has a religious prohibition against revealing precise information about the location or previous
practice at a particular sacred site.
No mitigation necessary.
CULT-5: The following policies, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that future development under all
four scenarios would not damage paleontological resources:
Policy: Require that areas found to contain significant prehistoric artifacts be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist for appropriate
protection and preservation.
Policy: Require that if cultural resources, including archaeological or paleontological resources and unique geologic features, are uncovered
during grading or other on-site excavation activities, construction shall stop until appropriate mitigation is determined and implemented.
Policy: Require that any archaeological or paleontological resources on a development project site, as a condition of project approval, be
P L A C E W O R K S 5
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures
either preserved at their location or adequately documented as a condition of removal. When a development project has sufficient flexibility,
avoidance and preservation of the resource shall be the primary mitigation measure, unless the City identifies a superior mitigation. If
resources are documented, their preservation should be coordinated with descendants and/or stakeholder groups, as warranted.
CULT-6: Implement Mitigation Measures CULT-1a, CULT-1b, and CULT-1c.
CULT-7: Implement Mitigation Measures CULT-1a, CULT-1b, CULT-1c, CULT-3, and CULT-5.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
None
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
GHG-2: To ensure that Palo Alto’s GHG emissions are reduced consistent with the State’s long-term goals, the proposed Plan should contain the
following policy and program, or equally effective language, articulating these goals and ensuring steady progress towards their achievement:
Policy: Strive to achieve and exceed target reductions in greenhouse gas emission levels set forth by Executive Order S-03-05.
Program: Adopt an updated GHG emission reduction plan as part of the S/CAP aimed at achieving or exceeding the State’s goals, and monitor
the City’s progress on an annual basis.
GHG reduction policies included in the S/CAP, which is being prepared in conjunction with proposed Plan, would ensure substantial progress
toward the long-term GHG reduction goals of Executive Order S-03-05. However, at this time, additional State and federal actions, as well as
advances in technology, are necessary to achieve the deep cuts required to meet the 2050 emissions target. These actions are beyond the
jurisdiction of the City of Palo Alto and therefore it is unclear whether the City alone can mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level.
GHG-3: To address the potential impacts associated with exposing additional people to the effects of climate change, the proposed Plan should
include the following policies and programs, or equally effective language, to ensure that future development would address potential risks and
that the City would work with other agencies to coordinate strategies for minimizing risk, ensuring appropriate response/recovery, and planning
for resiliency:
Policy: Monitor and respond to the risk of flooding caused by climate change that may result in changes to precipitation patterns, sea level
rise, and storm surges.
Policy: Promote and participate in cooperative planning with other public agencies and regional and adjacent jurisdictions, especially
regarding issues related to climate change, such as water supply, sea level rise, fire protection services, emergency medical services, and
emergency response planning.
Program: Develop and implement “green infrastructure” practices to mitigate flooding through improved permeability or paved areas, and
storm water capture and storage.
Program: Regularly coordinate with regional, State, and federal agencies on rising sea levels in the San Francisco Bay and major tributaries to
determine if additional adaptation strategies should be adopted to address flooding hazards from increased sea levels for existing or new
development and infrastructure. This includes monitoring Federal Emergency Management Agency flood map updates to identify areas in the
city susceptible to sea level rise, addressing changes to State and regional sea and bay level rise estimates, and coordinating with adjacent
municipalities on flood control improvements as appropriate.
Program: Prepare response strategies that address sea level rise and increased flooding, and other events related to climate change, such as
increased flooding, landslides, soil erosion, wildfires, and storm events. Include response strategies to address sea level rise on Palo Alto’s
6 M A R C H 2 2 , 2 0 1 6
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures
levee system.
Program: Develop new development requirements for shoreline development to ensure that new development is designed and located to
provide protection from potential impacts of flooding resulting from sea level rise and significant flood events. Requirements may include:
new setbacks to ensure to structures are set back far enough inland that they will not be endangered by erosion; limits on subdivisions and lot
line adjustments in areas vulnerable to sea level rise to avoid the creation of new shoreline lots; incentive or transfer of development rights
(TDR) programs to relocate existing development away from high risk areas; and/or triggers for relocation or removal of existing structures
based on changing site conditions and other factors.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
None
Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD-2: The City shall continue to investigate the potential impacts of basement construction dewatering and update standard conditions of
approval to contain the following or equally effective measures:
Prohibit dewatering during the rainy season.
Encouraging greater fill station use by distributing more door-hangers and enlisting other public outreach regarding dewatering, fill stations,
and trees.
Strengthening outreach on the water cycle and value of fresh water flows to storm drains, creeks, and the Bay.
Refining requirements for contractor Use Plans, including maximizing on-site water use, one day/week water truck hauling service for
neighbors, and City landscaping and piping to nearby parks or major users where feasible.
Expanding fill station specifications to address water pressure issues resulting from multiple concurrent users, including separate pumps for
neighbors where needed and sidewalk bridges for hoses to prevent tripping hazards.
Broadening the City’s Basement Pumping Guidelines to require a determination of the impacts of groundwater pumping on adjacent
buildings, infrastructure, and trees or landscaping. Applicants would determine the size of the temporary cone of depression caused by
pumping and avoidance measures would be required if impacts are anticipated. The Urban Forestry staff may develop guidelines for soil
enhancement and supplemental watering (by project applicant) for neighboring landscaping. Additional measures could include adjusting the
location, depth, or duration of pumping or altering construction methods.
Land Use and Planning
LAND-1: Include policies and programs in the proposed Plan to ensure that the intensity of future development under Scenarios 3 and 4 would
not adversely change the land use patterns or affect the quality of life in Palo Alto neighborhoods. This could be accomplished by maintaining
existing Comp Plan policies related to compatibility and quality of life in the area:
Policy: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the
Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities.
Policy: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall city welfare and objectives, and the desires of surrounding
neighborhoods.
Policy: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed-use centers and the surrounding
residential neighborhoods.
P L A C E W O R K S 7
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures
Program: Encourage greater use of allowed density within zoning regulations through smaller housing units near multimodal transit stations
to take advantage of transit availability.
LAND-2: The following policies and programs, or equally effective language, should be included in the proposed Plan to further reduce potential
impacts to visual character and ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses:
Policy: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential
areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block
locations rather than along streets wherever possible.
Policy: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the
neighborhood and adjacent structures.
Policy: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.
Program: Maintain and periodically review height and density limits to discourage single uses that are inappropriate in size and scale to the
surrounding uses.
Program: Review and change zoning regulations to promote gradual transitions in the scale of development where residential districts abut
more intense uses.
Program: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines, and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high-quality residential
and commercial design.
LAND-5: To avoid potential impacts from physically dividing an established community, the proposed Plan shall include the following policies, or
equally effective policies:
Policy: Design future transportation projects (including roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit projects) to improve connections between
and within neighborhoods, rather than divide neighborhoods.
Policy: Pursue a below-grade alignment and not an elevated alignment for regional fixed rail in Palo Alto, including both high speed rail and
Caltrain.
Policy: Ensure that future grade separation projects include a community participation and review process, and undergo environmental
review. Future grade separation improvement projects would have the potential to cause environmental impacts, such as impacts associated
with construction-related emissions, noise, and traffic, and aesthetics and land use impacts. These impacts, and alternatives to these grade
separation projects, would be evaluated in detail when the projects are more clearly defined.
Noise
NOISE-1a: The following policies and programs, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that long-term
operational noise under Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 would not result in significant increases in average 24-hour noise levels.
Policy: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the guidelines in the table “Land Use
Compatibility for Community Noise Environment” to determine compatibility.
- For exterior noise, the guideline for “normally acceptable” noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dBA. 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 dBA 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
8 M A R C H 2 2 , 2 0 1 6
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures
in multiple-family housing projects). Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60 dBA 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 interior noise, the requirements of the State of California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and the Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25)
are extended to all new dwelling units in Palo Alto. Specifically, interior levels for all habitable rooms must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dBA in all
new dwelling units in Palo Alto.
- Noise exposure(s) should be determined from a) more detailed noise exposure studies, or b) area-specific or project-specific noise
measurements, as appropriate. Noise contour maps in this plan can be used as a preliminary screening tool in determining approximate
noise exposure.
- Prior to the initial development application for future developments near noise-sensitive land uses, the applicant shall submit an acoustical
analysis by an acoustical engineer demonstrating projected compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Noise Ordinance, and the State
building code. The analysis shall be based on acoustical readings, equipment specifications, architectural designs (even if preliminary), and
any proposed sound reduction/insulation measures, such that the pertinent land use compatibility, interior environments, and project-
related noise emissions can be demonstrated to comply with prescribed city, county, and state noise standards.
Policy: The City may require proposals to reduce noise impacts of development on adjacent properties through appropriate means including,
but not limited to, the following:
- Construct noise walls when compatible with aesthetic concerns.
- Screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment.
- Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings.
- Whenever possible, retain fences, walls, or landscaping that serve as noise buffers although design, safety, and other impacts must be
addressed.
- Use soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows.
- Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts.
Program: Update the Noise Ordinance to provide for clear interpretation of the regulations, and to review the appropriateness of existing
standards. Strictly enforce the Noise Ordinance.
NOISE-1b: The following policy, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that aircraft noise under all four
scenarios would not result in significant increases in average 24-hour noise levels.
The following new policy shall be adopted as part of the proposed Plan. The wording of this policy may change as long as the revised policy is
equally effective in mitigating potential aircraft noise impacts:
Policy: Ensure compliance with the airport related land use compatibility standards for community noise environments by prohibiting
incompatible land use development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of the Palo Alto airport.
NOISE-1c: The following policies, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that railway noise under all four
scenarios would not result in significant increases in average 24-hour noise levels.
Policy: Minimize noise spillover from rail related activities into adjacent residential or noise-sensitive areas.
Policy: Reduce impacts from noise and ground borne vibrations associated with rail operations by requiring that future development of
habitable buildings address the following:
P L A C E W O R K S 9
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures
- Be sited at least 100 feet from the centerline of the tracks whenever feasible.
- Interior noise level of up to 45 dBA Ldn, with windows closed must be ensured through structural design. For habitable buildings located
within 100 feet from the centerline of railroad tracks, developments shall provide a detailed noise impact analysis, prepared by a qualified
acoustical consultant technician, demonstrating that noise and ground borne vibration issues associated with rail operations have been
adequately addressed (i.e., by building siting or construction techniques). This study must demonstrate that an interior noise level of 45 dBA
Ldn will not be exceeded with windows closed.
- Provide a detailed vibration impact analysis, prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant, demonstrating that ground-borne vibration levels
will not exceed 72 VdB (relative to one microinch/sec) at residential buildings or 65 VdB at buildings with vibration-sensitive uses.
NOISE-2: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c.
NOISE-3: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c.
NOISE-4a: The following policies and programs, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that future
development under all four scenarios would not result in indoor noise levels that exceed acceptable levels in residential development.
Policy: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the guidelines in the table “Land Use
Compatibility for Community Noise Environment” to determine compatibility.
- For exterior noise, the guideline for “normally acceptable” noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dBA. 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 dBA 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 60 dBA 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 interior noise, the requirements of the State of California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and the Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25)
are extended to all new dwelling units in Palo Alto. Specifically, interior levels for all habitable rooms must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dBA in all
new dwelling units in Palo Alto.
- Noise exposure(s) should be determined from (a more detailed noise exposure studies, or (b) on area-specific or project-specific noise
measurements, as appropriate. Noise contour maps in this plan can be used as a preliminary screening tool in determining approximate
noise exposure.
Prior to the initial development application for future developments near noise-sensitive land uses, the applicant shall submit an acoustical
analysis by an acoustical engineer demonstrating projected compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Noise Ordinance, and the State
building code. The analysis shall be based on acoustical readings, equipment specifications, architectural designs (even if preliminary), and any
proposed sound reduction/insulation measures, such that the pertinent land use compatibility, interior environments, and project-related
noise emissions can be demonstrated to comply with prescribed city, county, and state noise standards.
Policy: For all future residential projects greater than four dwelling units that are proposed to be within the 65 dBA Ldn noise contours, as
depicted on current Comprehensive Plan mapping, an acoustical analysis prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant shall be submitted to
the City as part of the entitlement review application. As part of the above acoustical analysis, require that projects include appropriate
layout, structural, and/or architectural design features to ensure meeting the interior noise standards of the City and State codes.
10 M A R C H 2 2 , 2 0 1 6
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures
NOISE-4b: The Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines established in the current Comprehensive Plan shall be maintained under all four
scenarios.
NOISE-5a: The following policies, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that future development under
all four scenarios would not result in significant construction-related vibration impacts.
Policy: Require a detailed construction noise impact analysis, prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant, for all projects that require
discretionary approval and that are located within 100 feet of any noise sensitive land uses. If impacts are identified, require a noise
monitoring plan to be prepared and submitted prior to the issuance of construction permits. This plan shall identify the monitoring locations,
durations and regularity, the instrumentation to be used, and the appropriate noise control measures that will be incorporated to ensure
compliance with the noise ordinance.
Policy: Continue to prioritize construction noise limits around sensitive receptors.
NOISE-5b: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c.
NOISE-6: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-4a and NOISE-4b.
NOISE-7: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, NOISE-1c, NOISE-4a, and NOISE-4b.
NOISE-8: The following policies, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that future development under
all four scenarios would not result in significant impacts to sensitive receptors from construction noise and vibration.
Policy: Require a detailed construction noise and vibration impact analysis, prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant, for all projects
that require discretionary approval and that are located within 100 feet of any noise- and/or vibration-sensitive land uses.
- If noise impacts are identified, require a noise monitoring plan to be prepared and submitted prior to the issuance of construction permits.
This plan shall identify the noise monitoring locations, durations and regularity, the instrumentation to be used, and the appropriate noise
control/mitigation measures that will be incorporated to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance.
- If projected daytime vibration levels exceed 90 VdB (relative to one microinch/sec) at workshop uses, 84 VdB at offices uses, 78 VdB at
residential uses, or the limits for VC-A through VC-E uses shown in the FTA manual, a vibration mitigation plan is to be prepared and
submitted prior to the issuance of construction permits.
Policy: Continue to prioritize construction noise and vibration limits around sensitive receptors.
NOISE-11a: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c.
NOISE-11b: The following programs, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to preclude overall community noise
impacts that are in excess of established State and/or City standards.
Program: Encourage the Joint Powers Board to pursue technologies to reduce train whistle noise in communities served by Caltrain.
Program: Evaluate changing at-grade rail crossings so that 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.
NOISE-11c: City of Palo Alto staff and officials shall participate in and contribute to the environmental impact assessment of future Caltrain and
HSR development programs for railway operations within the city’s SOI.
Population and Housing
P L A C E W O R K S 11
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures
POP-4a: Conduct a nexus study and update the City’s affordable housing linkage fee for commercial development to ensure that new job-
generating development adequately mitigates the costs of its impacts on housing affordability in Palo Alto.
POP-4b: Continue to increase the supply of housing in the city through implementation of the adopted Housing Element policies and programs,
and/or slow the rate of job growth in the city. Possible zoning adjustments to accomplish more housing and/or fewer jobs could include changes
to allow more residential density by right in areas that are well-served by services and transit, somewhat reducing commercial FAR and replacing
it with residential FAR, and/or implementing an annual limit on new office and R&D development.
Public Services and Recreation
PS-7: To address the potential impacts of necessary property acquisition and park construction/
improvement, the Comprehensive Plan Update and/or the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan shall incorporate
policies and programs addressing funding, community input, and environmental review, as follows:
Continue to collect park impact and park dedication (in lieu) fees from new development to ensure there is funding to add and improve
parklands during the life of the Comprehensive Plan. Reevaluate the fees on a regular basis.
Consider integrating new pocket parks within existing neighborhoods where this is possible by acquiring small parcels or conditioning new
development.
Where there is publicly owned land that could be improved for public use, consider designating this land as parkland when improvements
occur.
Pursue reliable and sustainable mechanisms to address a growing gap in maintenance funding as park and community services facilities uses
increase.
Monitor the health of the parks and the effectiveness of recreation facilities in the face of growing demand and use; evaluate services to
respond to growing and changing demographic patterns.
Monitor impacts on habitat and ecosystems and develop conservation plans to preserve and protect them.
Ensure that new parks and park improvements are developed with ample community input and assessed to ensure that significant
environmental impacts are avoided or mitigated to be less than significant.
Consider utilizing park impact and park dedication (in lieu) fees to rehabilitate, expand, or otherwise increase utilization of existing parks and
recreation facilities.
In addition to these measures, the City would require permitting and review of new parks in accordance with CEQA, which would ensure that
any environmental impacts are disclosed and mitigated to the extent possible. This EIR is a programmatic document and does not evaluate the
environmental impacts of any project-specific development. With mitigation, the impact is less than significant.
PS-8: Implement Mitigation Measure PS-7, above.
Transportation and Traffic
TRANS-1a: Adopt a programmatic approach to reducing traffic with the goal of achieving no net increase in peak period motor vehicle trips from
new development, with an exception for uses that directly contribute to the neighborhood character and diversity of Palo Alto (such as ground
floor retail and below market rate housing). The program should, at a minimum:
Require new development projects to prepare and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to achieve the following
reduction in peak period motor vehicle trips from the rates included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual for
12 M A R C H 2 2 , 2 0 1 6
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures
the appropriate land use category. These reductions are deemed aggressive, yet feasible, for the districts indicated.
- 45 percent reduction in the Downtown district
- 35 percent reduction in the California Avenue area
- 30 percent reduction in the Stanford Research Park
- 30 percent reduction in the El Camino Real Corridor
- 20 percent reduction in other areas of the city
TDM Plans must be approved by the City and monitored by the property owner on an annual basis. The Plans must contain enforcement
mechanisms or penalties that accrue if targets are not met.
Require new development projects to offset remaining peak period motor vehicle trips through one of the following methods:
- By directly contracting with another property owner or organization to reduce trips generated from another site; or
- By paying an annual fee to the City for use in reducing motor vehicle trips to the extent feasible through the provision of transit services,
carpool/rideshare incentives, bicycle lanes, and other similar programs and improvements.
TRANS-1b: Establish and implement a policy that eliminates (“unbundles”) free or subsidized parking in new commercial and residential
development (i.e. requiring employees and residents to pay separately for parking).
TRANS-1c: Work to advance plans for grade separation at intersections along the Caltrain tracks to reduce traffic congestion/delay and improve
safety; seek funding for design and implementation from local, regional, State, and federal sources. Ensure that future grade separation projects
include a community participation and review process, and undergo environmental review. Future grade separation improvement projects
would have the potential to cause environmental impacts, such as impacts associated with construction-related emissions, noise, and traffic,
and aesthetics and land use impacts. These impacts, and alternatives to these grade separation projects, would be evaluated in detail when the
projects are more clearly defined.
TRANS-1d: Take a leadership role in regional transportation planning and advocating for specific transit improvements and investments, such as
Caltrain service enhancements, Dumbarton Express service, enhanced bus service on El Camino Real with queue jumping and curbside
platforms, and additional VTA bus service.
TRANS-1e: Work with the PAUSD to ensure that decisions regarding school assignments are analyzed to reduce peak period motor vehicle trips
to and from school sites.
TRANS-3a: The City shall require new development projects to prepare and implement TDM programs, as described in TRANS-1a. TDM programs
for worksites may include measures such as private bus services and free shuttle services to transit stations geared towards commuters.
TRANS-3b: Take a leadership role in regional transportation planning and advocating for specific multi-modal freeway improvements, such as
dynamic pricing, express bus service, transit and HOV priority, and other enhanced mobility options.
TRANS-6: Provide traffic signal prioritization for buses at Palo Alto intersections, focusing first on regional transit routes. Also, provide queue
jump lanes and curbside platforms for buses on El Camino Real.
In concert with Mitigation Measure TRANS-6, Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a, TRANS-1b, and TRANS-3 would eliminate the impact on transit at
the following intersections, which are projected to operate at a substandard level of service and are used by at least one bus route:
Middlefield Road and East Charleston Road (#2) under Scenarios 1 and 4
El Camino Real (SR 82) and San Antonio Road (#8) under Scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4
Foothill Expressway and Page Mill Road (#9) under Scenarios 1, 3, and 4
P L A C E W O R K S 13
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures
Foothill Expressway and Arastradero Road (#10) under Scenarios 1, 3, and 4
Alma Street and East/West Charleston Road (#4) under Scenarios 1 and 2
VTA Route 88 runs on East/West Charleston Road and crosses the Caltrain tracks and Alma Street. The intersection of Alma Street and East/West
Charleston Road (#4), is one of the impacted intersections under Scenarios 1 and 2, but signal pre-emption for VTA’s bus service would not be
possible at this location, due to the railroad crossing and the need for Caltrain to have signal pre-emption capabilities. However, signal priority
for VTA buses should be possible at this intersection, and would provide sufficient mitigation to eliminate the impact on transit at this
intersection. However, impacts on transit at all intersections and segments where buses operate would not be eliminated.
No further feasible mitigation measures have been identified. Thus, all four scenarios would have a significant impact on transit operations by
increasing congestion. These impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.
TRANS-8: Develop a proactive neighborhood traffic calming program with a tool box of specific improvements that can be used to discourage
non-local drivers from using local, neighborhood streets to bypass traffic congestion on arterials.
TRANS-9: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-8.
Utilities and Service Systems
UTIL-15: The following policies and programs, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that future
development under Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 would comply with applicable solid waste regulations:
Policy: Reduce the amount of 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.
Policy: Reduce solid waste generation through salvage and reuse of building materials, including architecturally and historically significant
materials.
Policy: Encourage the use of reusable, returnable, recyclable, and repairable goods through incentives, educational displays and activities, and
through City purchasing policies and practices.
Policy: Increase program participation to maximize recycling and composting from all residents, businesses, and institutions, and consider
ways to expand recycling and composting programs.
UTIL-17: The following policies and programs, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that future
development under Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 maximize energy efficiency and conservation:
Policy: Optimize energy conservation and efficiency in new and existing residences, businesses, and industries in Palo Alto.
Policy: Maintain Palo Alto’s long-term supply of electricity and natural gas while transitioning to renewable energy and energy conservation.
Program: Encourage establishment of public education programs addressing energy conservation and efficiency.
Program: Incorporate cost-effective energy conservation measures into construction, maintenance, and City operation and procurement
practices.
Program: Incorporate State and federal energy efficiency and renewable energy standards and policies in relevant City codes, regulations, and
procedures for both privately-owned and City-owned projects and properties.
Program: Evaluate the merits of electrification strategies and implement suitable programs to switch from gasoline/natural gas to electricity to
achieve deep carbon emission reduction.
14 M A R C H 2 2 , 2 0 1 6