HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-01 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
June 1, 2015
Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the
Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the
presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the
Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times
are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur
in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called.
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
Call to Order
Study Session 6:00-7:00 PM
1. Discussion of the City of Palo Alto 2014 Performance Report, National
Citizen Survey™, and Citizen Centric Report
Special Orders of the Day 7:00-7:10 PM
2. Presentation by Matt Schlegel Regarding His Running in the Tsuchiura,
Japan Marathon
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Comments 7:10-7:20 PM
Oral Communications 7:20-7:35 PM
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
1 June 1, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Consent Calendar 7:35-7:40 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
3.Approval of First Amendment to Contract No. S15157589, With Khalid
Salman A Mohammed for the Support and Maintenance of SAP Payroll
and Human Capital Management (HCM) Modules to Add $116,000 for a
Total Amount Not to Exceed $200,000
4.Request Approval of Authorization of Indemnity Agreement With Santa
Clara Stadium Authority to Allow Provision of Requested Law
Enforcement Services to Levi’s Stadium Relating to Super Bowl 50 to
be Held at Levi’s Stadium on February 7, 2016
5.Approval of a Settlement Agreement with Palo Alto Police Officers’Association (PAPOA) Regarding Retirement Medical Benefits; Adoption
of Resolution Amending the Memorandum of Understanding Between
the City and PAPOA; Adoption of Resolution Fixing the Employer
Contribution Under the Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act
6.Approval of an Amendment to Contract No. C12141854 With the City
of Inglewood for Handling, Processing, and Collections of Parking
Citations and Fees
7.Adoption of a Resolution Fixing the Employer’s Contribution Under the
Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) With
Respect to Non-CalPERS Elected Council Members
Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
7:40-9:00 PM
8.PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) to
Allow the Demolition of an Existing 10,800 sq. ft. Two-Story Mid-
Century Modern Office Building and Construction of a New 24,466 sq.
ft. Three-Story Office Building for an Increase of 13,666 Net New sq.
ft. The New Building would Have One Level of Below Grade Parking
and a Roof Terrace and is Located in the Community Commercial
(CC(2)) Zone District at 2555 Park Boulevard. The Requested Action
Includes Approval of Architectural Review and Approval of a Design
Enhancement Exception Request to Allow Two Stair Towers and a Roof
Top Canopy Structure to Exceed the Height Limit by Ten and Thirteen
Feet Respectively; Adoption of a Resolution Certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a Statement of Overriding
2 June 1, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
FEIR plus Appendicies
Considerations. The Planning and Transportation Commission Has
Recommended Approval of the EIR. Environmental Impact
Assessment: Certification of an Environmental Impact Report and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
9:00-10:45 PM
9. Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding Establishment of an
Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit Applicable to Downtown, the
California Avenue Area, and the El Camino Corridor on an Interim
Basis
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who
would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
3 June 1, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Standing Committee Meetings
June 4, 2015 CAO Committee Meeting 5:00 PM
June 4, 2015 Sp. City Council Meeting 6:00 PM
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Public Letters to Council
Set 1 Set 2
4 June 1, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
June 1, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Discussion of the City of Palo Alto 2014 Performance Report, National
Citizen Survey™, and Citizen Centric Report
The Office of the City Auditor presents the 13th annual performance report for the City of Palo
Alto covering the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014 (FY 2014), the annual National Citizen
Survey™, and the Citizen Centric Report.
The performance report is designed to provide information to the City Council, management,
and the public to increase accountability and the transparency of City government. It contains
summary information on spending, staffing, workload, and performance results for fiscal years
2005 through 2014. Chapter 1 provides citywide spending and staffing information, Chapter 2
provides citywide information based on themes and subthemes, and Chapter 3 provides
information on a department‐by‐department basis. The departments provided us with data
specific to their departments, and we collected financial and staffing data from various city
documents and the Office of Management and Budget in the Department of Administrative
Services and benchmarking data from various external sources.
The National Citizen Survey™ is a collaborative effort between the National Research Center,
Inc., (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association. The NRC uses a
statistically valid survey methodology to gather resident opinions across a range of community
issues, including the quality of the community and services provided by the local government.
The report includes trends over time, comparisons by geographic subgroups, responses to an
open-ended question in the survey, and details about the survey methodology.
The Citizen Centric Report is a four-page summary of highlights in the performance report,
financial data, and an overview of our City's economic outlook.
Respectfully submitted,
Harriet Richardson
City Auditor
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - 2014 Performance Report (PDF)
Attachment B - 2014 National Citizen Survey™ (PDF)
Attachment C - 2014 Citizen Centric Report (PDF)
Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor
Page 3
The government of the City of
Palo Alto exists to promote and
sustain a superior quality of life in
Palo Alto. In partnership with our
community, our goal is to deliver
cost‐effective services in a
personal, responsive, and
innovative manner.
Quality
Superior delivery of services
Courtesy
Providing service with respect and concern
Efficiency
Productive, effective use of resources
Integrity
Straight‐forward, honest and fair relations
Innovation
Excellence in creative thought and
implementation
MISSION
VALUES
Attachment A
2
Chapter 2 Themes and Subthemes
Stewardship
Financial Responsibility
Environmental Sustainability
Neighborhood Preservation
Public Service
Emergency Services
Utility Services
Internal City Services
Community
Safety, Health, and Well Being
Mobility
Density and Development
Community Involvement
Attachment A
3
Performance Measure Title
Graphic
Benchmark or Performance Measure Title
Graphic
Performance Measure Title
Graphic
By the Numbers
Workload Indicator Workload Indicator
Workload Indicator Workload Indicator
Attachment A
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND
Citywide Spending and Staffing ……………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………… 5
CHAPTER 2: THEMES AND SUBTHEMES
Stewardship
Financial Responsibility ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………… 8
Neighborhood Preservation ………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
Environmental Sustainability ……..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14
Public Service
Public Safety Service Responsiveness ……………..……………………………………………………………………………………………… 16
Utility Service Responsiveness …………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17
Internal City Service Responsiveness …………….………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18
Community
Community Involvement and Enrichment ………….…………………………………………………………………………………………… 19
Safety, Health, and Well‐Being …….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
Density and Development ..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23
Mobility ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24
CHAPTER 3: DEPARTMENT DATA TABLES
Citywide …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25
Community Services ……………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 28
Development Services ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 32
Information Technology ………...………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 33
Library Department ………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34
Planning and Community Environment ………………………………………………………………….………………………………………… 36
Public Safety – Fire Department ……………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………… 38
Public Safety – Office of Emergency Services …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41
Public Safety – Police Department …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42
Public Works Department ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 45
Utilities Department ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 50
Strategic and Support Services ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 54
Office of Council‐Appointed Officers ………….………………………………………………………………………………………………… 54
Administrative Services Department ………..………………………………………………………………………………………………… 56
People Strategy and Operations Department ………...……………………………………………………………………………………… 57
Ta
b
l
e
of
Co
n
t
e
n
t
s
4
Attachment A
Authorized Staffing
Source: Administrative Services Department
Organizational Chart
Palo Alto residents elect nine members to the City Council. Council
Members serve staggered four‐year terms. The Council appoints a
number of boards and commissions, and each January, the Council
elects a new Mayor and Vice‐Mayor.
Palo Alto is a charter city, operating under a council/manager form of
government. The City Council appoints the City Manager, City
Attorney, City Auditor, and City Clerk.
5Ch
a
p
t
e
r
1
Ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
Citywide Spending and Staffing
General Fund Employee Costs (in millions)
Source: Administrative Services Department
1,160 1,168 1,150 1,150 1,114 1,115 1,129 1,147
0
500
1,000
1,500
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Regular Temporary
53
.
9
57
.
3
59
.
6
56
.
6
55
.
8
54
.
4
53
.
5
55
.
5
4.
0
4.
2 3.
7
4.
5
4.
1
5.
4
3.
7
4.
7
26
.
1
29
.
8
28
.
3
30
.
9
34
.
2
36
.
9
37
.
7
38
.
8
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14
Salaries/Wages Overtime Benefits
Attachment A
Source of FY 2014 General Fund Revenues
Source: Administrative Services Department
6Ch
a
p
t
e
r
1
Ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
Citywide Spending and Staffing
Use of FY 2014 General Fund Dollars
(shown on a budgetary basis)
Source: Administrative Services Department
$98,925,128
60%
$17,234,485
11%
$15,285,527
9%
$14,365,747
9%
$11,142,308
7%
$7,355,600
4%
Salary & Benefits Transfer to Infrastructure
Allocated Charges Contract Services
General Expense All Other Expenses
30,587,210
18%
29,423,562
17%
23,392,927
14%17,912,031
11%
14,215,499
8%
12,254,544
7%
11,007,553
7%
10,947,273
6%
8,143,304
5%
7,545,515
4%
5,446,863
3%
Property Taxes Sales Taxes
Charges for Services Operating Transfers‐In
Rental Income Transient Occupancy Tax
Utility Users Tax Charges to Other Funds
Documentary Transfer Tax Permits and Licenses
All Other Revenues
Attachment A
Capital Outlay – Governmental Funds
(in millions)
Source: Administrative Services Department
7Ch
a
p
t
e
r
1
Ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
Citywide Spending and Staffing
Capital Expenditures –Enterprise Funds
(in millions)
Source: Administrative Services Department
$1
7
.
5
$2
1
.
6
$2
1
.
5
$2
2
.
0
$3
5
.
5
$2
9
.
2
$2
9
.
5
$3
7
.
6
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14
$2
8
.
9
$3
6
.
1
$3
6
.
2
$2
9
.
7
$2
4
.
4
$2
7
.
6
$4
0
.
7
$3
7
.
1
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14
5 General Fund Projects With
Highest Actual Costs in FY 2014
(Totaling $25.5 million)
Main Library New Construction
Street Maintenance
Mitchell Park Library
Vehicle Replacement
Sidewalk Repairs
5 Enterprise Fund Projects With
Highest Actual Costs in FY 2014
(Totaling $22.4 million)
Gas Main Replacements Projects
Emergency Water Supply
Wastewater Collection Rehabilitations/Augmentations
Electric Customer Connections
Wastewater Treatment Plant Equipment Replacement
Attachment A
Cash and Investments and Rate of Return
Source: Administrative Services Department
Citywide Operating Expenditures Budget to Actual by Department
Source: Office of Management and Budget
8Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
St
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
Financial Responsibility
Utility Average Purchase Costs (per unit)
Source: Utilities Department
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Cash and investments
Rate of return
United States Treasury's 5‐year Average Yields
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Fi
r
e
Li
b
r
a
r
y
No
n
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
l
OE
S
PC
E
Po
l
i
c
e
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
‐Ou
t
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
to
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
& Su
p
p
o
r
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
Budget
Actual
Attachment A
History of Average Monthly Residential Bills
Source: Utilities Department
9Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
St
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
Financial Responsibility
Utility Fund Reserves
(in millions)
Source: Administrative Services Department
$137
$158 $174 $193 $206 $211 $213 $230 $232 $240
$0
$100
$200
$300
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Refuse
Storm Drainage
Wasterwater Collection
Water
Gas
Electric
User Tax
$204 $216 $217 $217 $199 $210 $224 $228 $232 $231
‐$100
$0
$100
$200
$300
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Refuse
Storm Drainage
Waterwater Collection
Water
Gas
Electric
Attachment A
Street Lane Miles Resurfaced
Source: Public Works Department
Number of Potholes Repaired and Percentage Repaired
Within 15 Days of Notification
Source: Public Works Department
10Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
St
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
Neighborhood Preservation
By the Numbers
8%
Percent of the City’s total 471
lane miles resurfaced in
FY 2014, similar to FY 2014 and
increased by 4% from FY 2005
2,613
Number of signs repaired or
replaced, which increased 7%
from FY 2013 and increased
61% from FY 2005
55%
Citizen Survey: Street repair rated
as “excellent” or “good” in FY
2014, compared to 47% in FY
2013 and benchmarked as
comparable to other jurisdictions
78
2014 Pavement Condition
Index score rated as “good” in
maintaining local street and
road networks, based on a
scale of 0 to 100
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
CY 2014 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Ratings
Source: MTC – Pavement Condition of Bay Area Jurisdictions CY 2014
3,
2
2
1
1,
0
4
9
1,
1
8
8
1,
9
7
7
3,
7
2
7
3,
1
4
9
2,
9
8
6
3,
0
4
7
2,
7
2
6
3,
4
1
8
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Number repaired Percent repaired within 15 days
58
65
71
72
74
77
77
77
78
East Palo Alto
Cupertino
Mountain View
Milpitas
Santa Clara
Menlo Park
Redwood City
Sunnyvale
Palo Alto
20 20 32 27 23 32 29 40 36 36
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
0
10
20
30
40
50
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Street lane miles resurfaced % of street lane miles resurfaced
PCI Rating Scale:0‐24
25‐49
50‐59
Failed
Poor
At Risk
60‐69
70‐79
80‐100
Fair
Good
Very Good ‐Excellent
Attachment A
Sidewalk Replaced or Permanently Repaired and
Percentage of Temporary Sidewalk Repairs Completed
Within 15 Days of Initial Inspection
Source: Public Works Department
Trees Maintained and Serviced
Source: Public Works Department
11Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
St
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
Neighborhood Preservation
By the Numbers
148
Number of trees planted,
including trees planted by
Canopy volunteers who
annually plant, care for, and
survey Palo Alto’s city trees
37%
Percent of trees trimmed to
clear power lines, an 11%
increase from FY 2005 and
targeted at 25%
80%
Citizen Survey: Street cleaning
rated as “excellent” or “good”
in FY 2014, compared to 76% in
FY 2013 and benchmarked as
higher than other jurisdictions
62%
Citizen Survey: Sidewalk
maintenance rated as
“excellent” or “good” in FY 2014,
compared to 56% in FY 2013 and
benchmarked as comparable to
other jurisdictions
Percent of All Sweeping Routes Completed
(Residential and Commercial)
Source: Public Works Department
35
,
0
9
6
34
,
8
4
1
34
,
5
5
6
35
,
3
2
2
35
,
2
5
5
35
,
4
7
2
33
,
1
4
6
35
,
3
2
4
35
,
3
8
3
35
,
3
8
6
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Total number of City‐maintained trees
Number of all tree‐related services completed
88
%
93
%
90
%
92
%
88
%
92
%
90
%
93
%
95
%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
76
%
87
%
98
%
88
%
86
%
78
%
83
%
82
%
95
%
79
%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Percent of temporary sidewalk repairs completed
Square feet of sidewalk replaced or permanently repaired
Attachment A
Library Visits and Checkouts
Source: Library Department
Map of Library Branch Locations
12Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
St
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
Neighborhood Preservation
By the Numbers
46,950
Number of cardholders, which
decreased 8% from FY 2013
and decreased 10% from
FY 2005
11,277
Total library hours open
annually, which ranged from
8,855 to 11,822, with negligible
overall change since FY 2005
58%
Percent of Palo Alto residents
who are cardholders, which
decreased 3% from FY 2013
and decreased 2% from
FY 2005
1,027
Meeting room reservations
made, which decreased 16%
from FY 2013 but increased
21% from FY 2012
Comparison of Library Checkouts Per Capita
Source: California Public Library Statistics 2012‐2013
22.9
22.8
21.0
21.0
20.6
20.6
18.8
16.4
Mountain View
Palo Alto
Burlingame
Santa Clara
Redwood City
Menlo Park
Sunnyvale
Berkeley
0
400,000
800,000
1,200,000
1,600,000
2,000,000
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Checkouts Visits
Attachment A
Urban Forest: Percent Pruned and Tree Line Cleared
Source: Public Works Department
Community Services: Parks/Land Maintained (Acres)
Source: Community Services Department
13Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
St
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
Neighborhood Preservation
By the Numbers
198,814
Visitors at Foothills Park, which
decreased 3% from FY 2013
and increased 64% from
FY 2005
292
Participants in community
garden program, which
remained the same from
FY 2013 and increased 20%
from FY 2005
148
Number of trees planted,
which decreased 40% from
FY 2013 and decreased 10%
from FY 2005
63,206
Number of native plants in
restoration projects, which
increased 35% from FY 2013
and increased 409% from
FY 2005
Citizen Survey: Visited a Neighborhood Park or City Park
Source: 2014 National Citizen SurveyTM
48%
46%
49%
41%
42%
46%
62%
45%
48%
45%
50%
53%
47%
29%
7%
6%
6%
9%
5%
6%
9%
FY 08
FY 09
FY 10
FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
More than once a month Once a month or less Not at all
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Percent of urban forest pruned Percent of tree line cleared
181 157
31 43
11 26 5
0
100
200
Go
l
f
Co
u
r
s
e
Ur
b
a
n
/
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Pa
r
k
s
Ci
t
y
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Sc
h
o
o
l
At
h
l
e
t
i
c
Fi
e
l
d
s
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Si
t
e
s
Me
d
i
a
n
St
r
i
p
s
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
an
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Lo
t
s
Attachment A
Green Building with Mandatory Regulations
Source: Development Services Department
Tons of Waste Landfilled and Tons of Materials
Recycled or Composted (excluding self‐hauled)
Sources: Public Works Department, California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
14Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
St
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
Environmental Sustainability
By the Numbers
49,594
Tons of materials recycled or
composted (i.e., do not end
up in a landfill), increased 3%
from FY 2013 and decreased
1% from FY 2005
3,141,510
Green Building energy
savings per year in Kilo
British Thermal Units,
which increased 63%
from FY 2013
4,878
Number of households
participating in the Household
Hazardous Waste program, which
increased 11% from FY 2013 and
increased 14% from FY 2005
26%
Percent of commercial
accounts with
compostable service,
which increased 11%
from FY 2013
Total Water Processed and Recycled
Source: Public Works Department
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Tons of materials recycled or composted Tons of waste landfilled
8,
4
9
7
8,
9
7
2
8,
8
5
3
8,
5
1
0
7,
9
5
8
8,
1
8
4
8,
6
5
2
8,
1
3
0
7,
5
4
6
7,
1
8
6
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
1,500
3,000
4,500
6,000
7,500
9,000
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
of
ga
l
l
o
n
s
of
re
c
y
c
l
e
d
wa
t
e
r
de
l
i
v
e
r
e
d
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
of
ga
l
l
o
n
s
pr
o
c
e
s
s
e
d
Millions of gallons processed
Millions of gallons of recycled water delivered
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Valuation Square feet
Sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
in
th
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
Do
l
l
a
r
s
in
mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Attachment A
Water Conservation Expenditures and Savings
Source: Utilities Department
Electric Efficiency Program Expenditures and Savings
Source: Utilities Department
15Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
St
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
Environmental Sustainability
By the Numbers
21%
Percent of qualifying renewable
electricity, including biomass,
biogas, geothermal, small
hydro facilities, solar, and wind,
which increased 16% from
FY 2005
0
Metric tons of electric supply
carbon dioxide emissions in
FY 2014; the carbon neutral
plan effectively eliminated all
greenhouse gas emissions from
the City’s electric supply
37
Average residential water usage
in hundred cubic feet per capita,
which decreased 2% from
FY 2013 and decreased 14%
from FY 2005
Gas Energy Efficiency Program Expenditures Savings
Source: Utilities Department
0.
6
%
0.
5
%
0.
6
%
0.
7
%
1.
5
%
0.
9
%
0.
9
%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
$0.0
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
(%
of
to
t
a
l
sa
l
e
s
)
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
(i
n
mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
First‐year energy savings achieved through electric efficiency
programs as a percentage of total sales
Energy conservation/efficiency program expenditures (in millions)
0.
1
1
%
0.
2
8
%
0.
4
0
%
0.
5
5
%
0.
7
3
%
1.
3
9
%
1.
3
4
%
$0.0
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
(i
n
mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
(%
of
to
t
a
l
sa
l
e
s
)
First‐year gas savings achieved through gas efficiency programs as a
percentage of total sales
Gas energy conservation/efficiency program expenditures (in millions)
0.
7
%
1.
0
%
1.
4
%
0.
5
%
1.
1
%
0.
5
%
0.
6
%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
$0.0
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
(%
of
to
t
a
l
sa
l
e
s
)
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
(i
n
mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
First‐year water savings achieved through efficiency programs as a
percentage of total sales
Water efficiency program expenditures (in millions)
153
Average residential gas usage
in therms per capita, which
decreased by 6% from FY 2013
and decreased 23% from FY
2005
Attachment A
Animal Services: Number of Palo Alto live calls responded
to Within 45 minutes
Source: Police Department
Fire: Number of Medical/Rescue Incidents to Response Time
Source: Police Department
16Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Responsiveness – Public Safety Services
By the Numbers
73
Number of hazardous materials
incidents, which decreased 8%
from FY 2013 and increased
284% from FY 2005
90%
Police Department
nonemergency calls responded
to within 45 minutes, which
decreased 2% from FY 2013 and
decreased 6% from FY 2005
77%
Percent emergency calls
dispatched within 60 seconds,
which decreased 14% from
FY 2013
93%
Percent of code enforcement
cases resolved within 120 days,
which increased 3% from
FY 2013 and increased 2% from
FY 2005
Police: Calls for Service and Response Time
Source: Police Department
3,
6
3
3
3,
7
8
0
3,
9
5
1
4,
5
5
2
4,
5
0
9
4,
4
3
2
4,
5
2
1
4,
5
8
4
4,
7
1
2
4,
7
5
7
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
ti
m
e
in
mi
n
u
t
e
s
In
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
Number of medical/rescue incidents
Average response time for medical/rescue calls
3,
0
0
6
2,
8
6
1
2,
9
9
0
3,
0
5
9
2,
8
7
3
2,
6
9
2
2,
8
0
4
3,
0
5
1
2,
9
0
9
3,
0
9
3
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Number of Palo Alto animal services calls
Percent Palo Alto live animal calls for service responded to within 45 minutes
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
00:00
05:00
10:00
15:00
20:00
25:00
Po
l
i
c
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
Total nonemergency calls Total emergency calls
Total urgent calls Avg emergency response (minutes)
Avg urgent response (minutes)Avg nonemergency response (minutes)
Attachment A
Water Service Disruptions
Source: Utilities Department
Electric Service Interruptions
Source: Utilities Department
17Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Responsiveness – Utility Services
By the Numbers
72,967
Total number of electric, gas,
and water customer accounts
Electric – 29,338
Gas – 23,592
Water – 20,037
39
Average power outage
duration in minutes per
customer affected in FY 2014,
which decreased 72% from FY
2013
402
Number of gas leaks found, 102
ground leaks and 300 meter
leaks, which increased 12% and
8% respectively from FY 2013
233
Number of miles of water
mains within the City, of which
0.3 miles were replaced in
FY 2014
Gas Service Disruptions
Source: Utilities Department
28 39 48 41 28 20 33 25 25 16
0
40
80
120
160
200
0
10
20
30
40
50
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Av
g
mi
n
u
t
e
s
pe
r
cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
af
f
e
c
t
e
d
Se
r
v
i
c
e
in
t
e
r
r
u
p
t
i
o
n
s
ov
e
r
on
e
mi
n
u
t
e
Service interruptions over 1 minute Avg minutes per customer affected
63
9
21
1
30
7
10
5
76
6
93
9
11
4
11
1
26
5
28
5
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
200
400
600
800
1000
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
un
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
se
r
v
i
c
e
di
s
r
u
p
t
i
o
n
s
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
af
f
e
c
t
e
d
Total customers affected Number of unplanned service disruptions
19
3
16
0
78
3
37
4
23
0
29
1
92 70 95
0
94
2
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
200
400
600
800
1000
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
un
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
se
r
v
i
c
e
di
s
r
u
p
t
i
o
n
s
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
af
f
e
c
t
e
d
Total customers affected Number of unplanned service disruptions
Attachment A
Information Technology:
Percent of Service Desk Requests Resolved
Source: Information Technology Department
City Attorney:
Percent of Claims Resolved Within 45 Days of Filing
Source: Office of the City Attorney
18Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Responsiveness –Internal City Services
By the Numbers
78
Number of claims handled by
the Office of the City Attorney
in FY 2014, which decreased
21% from FY 2013
2,047
Number of purchasing
documents processed and
$136.6 million in goods and
services purchased
1,783
Workers’ Compensation days
lost to work‐related illness or
injury in FY 2014, which
decreased 2% from FY 2013
28%
Percent of information
technology security incidents
remediated within one day in
FY 2014, which decreased 22%
from FY 2013
City Auditor:
Percent of Open Recommendations Implemented Over
the Last 5 Years
Source: Office of the City Auditor
92%95%92%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FY 12 FY 13 FY 14
40% 42% 39% 49% 42% 43%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FY 12 FY 13 FY 14
Over 5 days
Within 5 days
Within 8 hours
Within 4 hours
At time of call
9,460 9,734 9,348
Attachment A
Number of Participants in Teen Programs
Source: Library Department
Community Services and Library Volunteer Hours
Sources: Community Services and Library Departments
19Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Community Involvement and Enrichment
By the Numbers
173,905
Number of titles in library
collection, which increased
10% from FY 2013 and
increased 6% from FY 2005
2
Average business days for new
library materials to be available
for customer use, which
improved 50% from FY 2013 and
improved 78% from FY 2010
801
Number of library programs
offered, which increased 8%
from FY 2013 and increased
54% from FY 2005
37,971
Library program attendance,
which decreased 6% from
FY 2013 and increased 22%
from FY 2005
Community Services: Total Enrollment in Classes/Camps
Source: Community Services Department
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Camps Kids (excluding camps)Adults Preschool
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Restorative/resource management projects
Neighborhood parks
Library
Community Theatre
Art Center
1,549 1,573
1,906
2,211
1,188
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Attachment A
Animal Services: Percent of Cats and Dogs Recovered and
Returned to Owner
Source: Police Department
Fire: Safety Presentations, Including Demonstrations and
Fire Station Tours
Source: Fire Department
20Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Community Involvement and Enrichment
By the Numbers
2,480
Police Department number of
animals handled, which
decreased 7% from FY 2013
and decreased 29% from FY
2005
184
Office of Emergency Services
presentations, training
sessions, and exercises, which
increased 261% from FY 2013
8
Police Department average
number of officers on patrol,
which has remained constant
from FY 2005
26
Office of Emergency Services
emergency operations center
activations/deployments, which
decreased 46% from FY 2013
Police: Citizen Commendations Received
Source: Police Department
115
126
95 88
0
50
100
150
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Percent of dogs received by shelter and returned to owner
Percent of cats received by shelter and returned to owner
14
4
12
1
14
1
12
4
15
6
14
9
13
7
14
7
15
3
0
50
100
150
200
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
FY 14 Target:
>150
Attachment A
Code Enforcement: Percent of Cases Resolved
Within 120 Days
Source: Planning & Community Environment Department
Police: Number and Types of Cases
Source: Police Department
21Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Safety, Health, and Well‐Being
By the Numbers
88
Fire safety presentations,
including demonstrations and
fire station tours, which
decreased 7% from FY 2013
34%
Fire Department percent of
permitted hazardous materials
facilities inspected, which
increased 5% from FY 2013 and
decreased 14% from FY 2005
62
Reported crimes per 1,000
residents, which increased 3%
from FY 2013 and decreased
19% from FY 2005
1,741
Number of fire inspections
completed, which decreased
16% from FY 2013 and
increased 17% from FY 2005
Net Per Capita Expenditures: Fire, Emergency Medical
Services, and Police
Source: California State Controller’s Office, U.S. Census Bureau
1,131 1,207
1,464
1,249
1,108
916
1,181 1,191
0
400
800
1200
1600
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Theft cases closed Homicide cases closed Robbery cases closed
Rape cases closed Open cases (all types)
$342
$386
$447
$496
$579
$586
$597
$711
Fremont
Sunnyvale
San Mateo
Milpitas
Santa Clara
Mountain View
Redwood City
Palo Alto
Fire & EMS
Police
47
3
42
1
36
9
68
4
54
5
68
0
65
2
61
8
68
4
60
9
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
re
s
o
l
v
e
d
wi
t
h
i
n
12
0
da
y
s
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
ne
w
ca
s
e
s
Number of new cases Percent of cases resolved within 120 days
Note: Palo Alto provides ambulance services as compared to all other jurisdictions
listed which receive ambulance services through a county contractor.
Attachment A
Office of Emergency Services: Presentations, Training
Sessions, and Exercises
Source: Office of Emergency Services
Fire: Number of Licensed Paramedics & Certified
Emergency Medical Technicians
Source: Fire Department
22Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Safety, Health, and Well‐Being
By the Numbers
424
Traffic collisions with injury,
which increased 3% from
FY 2013 and decreased 4%
from FY 2005
315
Fire Department average
training hours per firefighter,
which remained the same as
FY 2013 and increased 1% from
FY 2005
63%
Percent of fires confined to the
room or area of origin, which
increased 19% from FY 2013
and decreased 10% from
FY 2005
4,757
Number of medical/rescue
incidents, which increased 1%
from FY 2013 and increased
31% from FY 2005
Police Benchmark: Expenditures Per Capita and Violent and
Property Crimes per 1,000 Residents in Calendar Year
Source: California State Controller & FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program
36 34 34 49 50 5011
3
10
9
10
9
70 61 50
0
30
60
90
120
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Number of licensed paramedics Number of certified EMTs
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
0
10
20
30
40
50
Pa
l
o
Al
t
o
Me
n
l
o
Pa
r
k
Re
d
w
o
o
d
Ci
t
y
Mo
u
n
t
a
i
n
Vi
e
w
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Mi
l
p
i
t
a
s
Sa
n
Ma
t
e
o
Fr
e
m
o
n
t
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
Ne
t
ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Cr
i
m
e
s
Property crimes Violent crimes Net expenditures
38 51
184
0
50
100
150
200
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Attachment A
Number of Code Enforcement
Cases Closed and Resolved Within 120 Days
Source: Planning & Community Environment Department
Inspections, Building Permits Issued and Valuation
Source: Development Services Department
23Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Completed Planning Applications in FY 2014
Source: Planning & Community Environment Department
Density and Development
By the Numbers
27
Average number of days to
issue 3,624 building permits,
which decreased 31% from
FY 2013 and 71% from FY 2005
50
4
30
1
26
3
66
7
53
5
61
8
60
3
54
1
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Resolved within 120 days Resolved within 121+ days
Architectural
Review
Board
44%
Individual
Review
29%
Other
10%
Conditional
Use
6%
Home
Improvement
Exception
5%
Temporary
Use &
Variances
6%
550
Number of permits routed to
all departments with on‐time
reviews, which increased 17%
from FY 2013
557
Number of permits
approved over the counter,
which decreased 7% from
FY 2013
31,002
Number of inspections
completed, which increased
26% from FY 2013 and 154%
from FY 2005
0
300
600
900
1200
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Inspections completed
Building permits issued
Building permit valuation
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
in
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
or
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
is
s
u
e
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
va
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
Da
t
a
no
t
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Da
t
a
no
t
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Ratings
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Shuttle and Caltrain Boardings
Source: Planning & Community Environment Department and Caltrain
24Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Mobility
By the Numbers
134,362
Number of shuttle boardings,
which decreased 21% from
FY 2005
$1.49
City’s cost per shuttle boarding,
which decreased 1% from
FY 2013 and 22% from FY 2005
7,564
Caltrain average weekday
boardings, which increased
12% from FY 2013 and 132%
from FY 2005
114
Average number of employees
in the City commute program,
which increased 15% from
FY 2013 and decreased 3%
from FY 2005
Citizen Survey: Percent Rating Ease of Transportation
“Excellent” or “Good”
Source: 2014 National Citizen SurveyTM
0
2,500
5,000
7,500
10,000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
City Shuttle boardings Caltrain average weekday boardings
Ci
t
y
Sh
u
t
t
l
e
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
s
Ca
l
t
r
a
i
n
av
e
r
a
g
e
we
e
k
d
a
y
bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
s
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY
10
FY
11
FY
12
FY
13
FY
14
Walking Bicycle travel Car travel
73
74
76
77
78
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
CY
10
CY
11
CY
12
CY
13
CY
14
70‐79 = “Good”
80‐100 = “Very Good‐Excellent”PC
I
Ra
t
i
n
g
Attachment A
25
OVERALL OPERATING EXPENDITURES
General Fund (in millions)
Community
Services Fire
1
Office of
Emergency
Services1 Library
Planning and
Community
Environment Police
Public
Works
Strategic and
Support
Services2 Nondepartmental3
Operating
transfers
out4 Total
Enterprise
funds
(in millions)
FY 07 $20.1 $21.6 ‐$5.9 $9.5 $25.9 $12.4 $15.8 $8.5 $12.7 $132.4 $190.3
FY 08 $21.2 $24.0 ‐$6.8 $9.7 $29.4 $12.9 $17.4 $7.4 $12.9 $141.8 $215.8
FY 09 $21.1 $23.4 ‐$6.2 $9.9 $28.2 $12.9 $16.4 $6.8 $15.8 $140.8 $229.0
FY 10 $20.5 $27.7 ‐$6.4 $9.4 $28.8 $12.5 $18.1 $8.7 $14.6 $146.9 $218.6
FY 11 $20.1 $28.7 ‐$6.5 $9.6 $31.0 $13.1 $15.9 $7.9 $11.0 $143.7 $214.0
FY 12 $20.9 $28.8 $0.6 $7.1 $10.3 $33.6 $13.2 $17.8 $7.7 $22.1 $162.1 $219.6
FY 13 $21.5 $27.3 $0.8 $6.9 $12.0 $32.2 $13.1 $17.4 $7.8 $25.1 $164.1 $220.5
FY 14 $22.6 $28.2 $0.9 $7.3 $13.3 $33.3 $13.2 $18.3 $8.4 $18.8 $164.3 $226.5
Change from:
Last year +5% +3% +23% +6% +10% +4% +1% +5%+8%‐25% 0% +3%
FY 07 +12% +31%‐+25% +40% +29% +6% +16%‐1%+48% +24% +19%
1 Office of Emergency Services (OES) was established as a separate department in FY 2012. FY 2012 data for the Fire Department was restated to remove OES figures.
2 Includes Offices of Council‐Appointed Officers, Administrative Services Department, People Strategy and Operations Department, and City Council.
3 Includes revenue and expenditure appropriations not related to a specific department or function that typically benefit the City as a whole (e.g., Cubberley lease payments to Palo Alto Unified School
District). May also include estimated provisions or placeholders for certain revenues and expenditures that can be one time or ongoing.
4 Funds transferred to the Capital Projects, Debt Service, and Technology Internal Service Funds annually.
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
OPERATING EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA
General Fund (in millions)
Community
Services Fire
1
Office of
Emergency
Services1 Library
Planning and
Community
Environment Police
Public
Works
Strategic and
Support
Services2 Nondepartmental3
Operating
transfers
out4 Total
Enterprise
funds
(in millions)
FY 07 $328 $287 ‐$95 $155 $422 $203 $257 $138 $208 $2,092 $3,100
FY 08 $342 $316 ‐$110 $155 $473 $208 $279 $119 $208 $2,210 $3,471
FY 09 $333 $303 ‐$98 $156 $445 $203 $258 $108 $249 $2,152 $3,607
FY 10 $318 $355 ‐$99 $145 $448 $195 $282 $136 $227 $2,206 $3,397
FY 11 $309 $365 ‐$100 $147 $478 $202 $244 $122 $170 $2,138 $3,300
FY 12 $319 $364 $8 $108 $158 $514 $202 $271 $118 $338 $2,399 $3,355
FY 13 $324 $340 $9 $104 $181 $485 $198 $263 $117 $378 $2,400 $3,322
FY 14 $342 $353 $12 $111 $201 $505 $200 $277 $127 $285 $2,412 $3,430
Change from:
Last year +5% +4% +24% +7% +11% +4% +1% +5%+8%‐25% +1% +3%
FY 07 +4% +23%‐+17% +30% +20%‐1% +8%‐8% +37% +15% +11%
1 Adjusted for the expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford). Office of Emergency Services (OES) was established as a separate department in FY 2012. FY 2012 data for the Fire Department was
restated to remove OES figures.
2 Includes Offices of Council‐Appointed Officers, Administrative Services Department, People Strategy and Operations Department, and City Council.
3 Includes revenue and expenditure appropriations not related to a specific department or function that typically benefit the City as a whole (e.g., Cubberley lease payments to Palo Alto Unified School
District). May also include estimated provisions or placeholders for certain revenues and expenditures that can be one time or ongoing.
4 Funds transferred annually to the Capital Projects, Debt Service, and Technology Internal Service Funds.
Mission:The government of the City of Palo Alto exists to promote and sustain a superior quality of life in Palo Alto. In partnership with our
community, our goal is to deliver cost‐effective services in a personal, responsive, and innovative manner.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Attachment A
26
AUTHORIZED STAFFING
Authorized Staffing (FTE1) –General Fund Authorized Staffing (FTE1) –Other Funds
Community
Services Fire
Office of
Emergency
Services Library
Planning and
Community
Environment Police
Public
Works
Strategic
and
Support
Services2 Subtotal Refuse
Storm
Drainage
Wastewater
Treatment
Electric, Gas,
Water, Wastewater
Collection, and
Fiber Optics Other
3 Subtotal Total
FY 07 148 128 ‐57 55 168 68 100 724 35 10 69 243 78 435 1,160
FY 08 147 128 ‐56 54 169 71 108 733 35 10 69 244 78 436 1,168
FY 09 146 128 ‐57 54 170 71 102 727 35 10 70 235 74 423 1,150
FY 10 146 127 ‐55 50 167 65 95 705 38 10 70 252 77 446 1,151
FY 11 124 125 ‐52 47 161 60 89 657 38 10 70 263 76 457 1,114
FY 12 123 125 2 54 46 161 57 87 655 38 9 71 263 78 459 1,114
FY 13 126 120 3 58 53 157 59 90 667 26 10 71 269 85 462 1,129
FY 14 134 121 3 57 54 158 60 87 674 22 11 70 272 99 473 1,147
Change from:
Last year +6% 0% 0%‐3% +1% +1% +2%‐3% +1%‐17% +10%‐1% +1% +15% +2% +2%
FY 07 ‐10%‐5%‐‐1%‐2%‐6%‐12%‐13%‐7%‐37% +11% +2% +12% +26% +9%‐1%
1 Includes authorized temporary and hourly positions and allocated departmental administration.
2 Includes Offices of Council‐Appointed Officers, Administrative Services Department, and People Strategy and Operations Department.
3 Includes the Technology and other Internal Service Funds, Airport Fund, Capital Projects Fund, and Special Revenue Funds.
Authorized Staffing (FTE) ‐Citywide General Fund Employee Costs
Regular Temporary TOTAL
Per 1,000
residents
Salaries and
wages1
(in millions)
Overtime
(in millions)
Employee
benefits
(in millions)
TOTAL
(in millions)
Employee
benefits rate2
As a percent of
total General Fund
expenditures
FY 07 1,080 80 1,160 18.9 $53.9 $4.0 $26.1 $84.0 48% 63%
FY 08 1,077 91 1,168 18.8 $57.3 $4.2 $29.8 $91.3 52% 64%
FY 09 1,076 74 1,150 18.1 $59.6 $3.7 $28.3 $91.6 48% 65%
FY 10 1,055 95 1,150 17.9 $56.6 $4.5 $30.9 $92.1 55% 63%
FY 11 1,019 95 1,114 17.2 $55.8 $4.1 $34.2 $94.2 61% 66%
FY 12 1,017 98 1,115 17.0 $54.4 $5.4 $36.9 $96.7 68% 60%
FY 13 1,015 114 1,129 17.0 $53.5 $3.7 $37.7 $94.9 71% 58%
FY 14 1,020 127 1,147 17.4 $55.5 $4.7 $38.8 $98.9 70% 60%
Change from:
Last year 0% +11% +2% +2% +4% +24% +3% +4%‐1%+2%
FY 07 ‐6% +58%‐1%‐8%+3%+15% +49% +18% +22%‐3%
1 Does not include overtime.
2 “Employee benefits rate” is General Fund employee benefits as a percent of General Fund salaries and wages, excluding overtime.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
Attachment A
27
CAPITAL SPENDING
Governmental Funds (in millions) Enterprise Funds (in millions)
Infrastructure
reserves
Net general
capital assets Capital outlay Depreciation Net capital assets Capital expenditures Depreciation
FY 07 $15.8 $335.7 $17.5 $11.0 $383.8 $28.9 $12.7
FY 08 $17.9 $351.9 $21.6 $11.2 $416.6 $36.1 $12.7
FY 09 $7.0 $364.3 $21.5 $9.6 $426.1 $36.2 $13.6
FY 10 $8.6 $376.0 $22.0 $14.4 $450.3 $29.7 $15.3
FY 11 $3.2 $393.4 $35.5 $14.4 $465.7 $24.4 $15.9
FY 12 $12.1 $413.2 $29.2 $16.4 $490.0 $27.6 $16.7
FY 13 $17.5 $428.9 $29.5 $15.9 $522.3 $40.7 $17.6
FY 14 $3.4 $452.6 $37.6 $13.8 $545.5 $37.1 $17.5
Change from:
Last year ‐81% +6% +27%‐14% +4%‐9%‐1%
FY 07 ‐79% +35% +115% +26% +42% +29% +37%
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
Attachment A
28
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
DEPARTMENTWIDE
Operating Expenditures (in millions)1 Authorized Staffing (FTE)
Administration
and Human
Services
Arts and
Sciences
Open Space,
Parks, and Golf
Recreation
Services Total
2
CSD
expenditures
per capita
Total
revenues3
(in millions) Total Temporary
Temporary as
a percent of
total
Per 1,000
residents
FY 05 ‐‐‐ ‐$19.1 $315 $6.5 158.0 58.8 37% 2.6
FY 06 ‐$4.0 ‐‐$19.5 $318 $6.9 146.2 47.9 33% 2.4
FY 07 ‐$3.9 ‐‐$20.1 $328 $7.1 148.2 48.9 33% 2.4
FY 08 ‐$4.1 ‐ ‐$21.2 $342 $7.4 146.7 49.4 34% 2.4
FY 09 $3.9 $4.6 $6.5 $6.3 $21.2 $333 $7.1 145.9 49.4 34% 2.3
FY 10 $4.2 $4.6 $5.8 $5.8 $20.5 $319 $7.3 146.4 52.1 36% 2.3
FY 11 $4.2 $4.5 $5.7 $5.7 $20.1 $310 $7.2 123.8 49.3 40% 1.9
FY 12 $2.9 $4.6 $8.2 $5.2 $20.9 $319 $6.8 123.5 48.7 39% 1.9
FY 13 $3.1 $4.5 $8.7 $5.1 $21.6 $325 $7.3 125.5 51.8 41% 1.9
FY 14 $3.5 $4.9 $9.0 $5.1 $22.5 $341 $6.9 133.5 59.2 44% 2.0
Change from:
Last year +12% +8% +3% 0% +5% +5%‐5% +6% +14% +3% +7%
FY 05 ‐‐‐‐+18% +8% +7%‐15% +1% +7%‐22%
1 Comparable numbers for some years were not available in the City’s Operating Budgets due to reorganizations.
2 The amount reflects total operating expenditures for the department, including the expenditures of all operating divisions.
3 Revenues include rental revenue generated at the Cubberley Community Center that is passed through to the Palo Alto Unified School District per the City’s agreement with the school district.
DEPARTMENTWIDE CLASSES
Total number of classes/camps offered1 Total enrollment
1
Camp
sessions
Kids
(excluding
camps) Adults Preschool Total Camps
Kids
(excluding
camps) Adults Preschool
Total
(Target:
14,300)
Percent of class
registrations
online
(Target: 55%)
Percent of class
registrants who
are nonresidents
FY 05 156 276 362 171 965 6,601 4,862 5,676 3,764 20,903 40%16%
FY 06 153 235 294 160 842 5,906 4,604 5,485 3,628 19,623 41%15%
FY 07 145 206 318 137 806 5,843 4,376 4,936 3,278 18,433 42%13%
FY 08 151 253 327 143 874 5,883 4,824 4,974 3,337 19,018 43%15%
FY 09 160 315 349 161 985 6,010 4,272 4,288 3,038 17,608 45%13%
FY 10 162 308 325 153 948 5,974 4,373 4,190 2,829 17,366 55%14%
FY 11 163 290 283 142 878 5,730 4,052 3,618 2,435 15,835 52%14%
FY 12 155 279 203 148 785 5,259 4,136 2,688 2,667 14,750 51%12%
FY 13 152 235 258 139 784 5,670 3,962 2,461 2,155 14,248 54%12%
FY 14 170 301 202 143 816 6,210 4,028 2,274 2,135 14,647 55%14%
Change from:
Last year +12% +28%‐22% +3% +4% +10% +2%‐8%‐1% +3% +1%+2%
FY 05 +9% +9%‐44%‐16%‐15%‐6%‐17%‐60%‐43%‐30% +15%‐2%
1 Types of classes offered include arts, sports, nature and outdoors, and recreation. The department attributes the decline in enrollment in certain classes to increased competition from private camp
providers and reduced household spending on adult classes.
Mission:To engage individuals and families in creating a strong and healthy community through parks, recreation, social services, arts, and sciences.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Attachment A
29
ARTS AND SCIENCES DIVISION –PERFORMING ARTS
Community Theatre Children's Theatre
Number of
performances
Attendance at
performances
Enrollment in music &
dance classes1
Attendance at
performances
Participants in
performances & programs
Enrollment in theatre classes,
camps, and workshop2
FY 05 172 50,111 1,424 22,734 1,592 581
FY 06 183 55,204 1,416 22,788 1,670 597
FY 07 171 45,571 1,195 23,117 1,845 472
FY 08 166 45,676 982 19,811 1,107 407
FY 09 159 46,609 964 14,786 534 334
FY 10 174 44,221 980 24,983 555 1,436
FY 11 175 44,014 847 27,345 1,334 1,475
FY 12 175 45,635 941 27,907 1,087 1,987
FY 13 184 45,966 1,131 25,675 1,220 1,824
FY 14 108 41,858 2,037 31,337 1,360 2,148
Change from:
Last year ‐41%‐9% +80% +22% +11% +18%
FY 05 ‐37%‐16% +43% +38%‐15% +270%
1 One program started offering classes on a drop‐in basis in FY 2013. The enrollment for this program was calculated by dividing the number of drop‐in participants by eight, which is a typical number of
classes offered per registration. The department attributes the increase to an expansion of classes taught at schools.
2 The department attributes the increase to a shift in emphasis from performance to education to promote a philosophy of life‐long skills.
ARTS AND SCIENCES DIVISION ‐MUSEUMS
Art Center1 Public Art Junior Museum & Zoo Science Interpretation
Exhibition
visitors2
Total
attendance
(users)
Enrollment in art
classes, camps, and
workshops
(adults and children)
Outside
funding for
visual arts
programs
Attendance
at Project
LOOK! and
outreach
Number
of new
public art
installations
<NEW>
Enrollment in
Junior Museum
classes and
camps
Estimated number of
children participating
in school outreach
programs
Number of Arastradero,
Baylands, & Foothill
outreach classes for
school‐age children
Enrollment in
open space
interpretive
classes
FY 05 19,307 76,264 3,559 $275,909 6,722 5 1,934 3,388 48 1,188
FY 06 19,448 73,305 4,137 $284,838 6,191 4 1,832 2,414 48 1,280
FY 07 16,191 70,387 3,956 $345,822 6,855 1 1,805 2,532 63 1,226
FY 08 17,198 69,255 3,913 $398,052 6,900 2 2,089 2,722 85 2,689
FY 09 15,830 58,194 3,712 $264,580 8,353 2 2,054 3,300 178 2,615
FY 10 17,244 60,375 3,304 $219,000 8,618 0 2,433 6,971 208 3,978
FY 11 13,471 51,373 2,334 $164,624 6,773 2 1,889 6,614 156 3,857
FY 12 29,717 62,055 905 $193,000 14,238 4 2,575 9,701 131 3,970
FY 13 9,865 72,148 2,222 $206,998 10,472 2 2,363 10,689 136 3,575
FY 14 9,463 82,799 2,802 $156,079 8,873 6 1,935 10,696 112 3,044
Change from:
Last year ‐4% +15% +26%‐25%‐15% +200%‐18%0%‐18%‐15%
FY 05 ‐51% +9%‐21%‐43% +32% +20% 0%+216%+133%+156%
1 The Art Center closed to the public for renovation from May 2011 through October 2012, which accounts for some of the decreases in FY 2011 and FY 2012. Some of the increases in FY 2012 are due to
“On the Road” installations and outreach programs in the community.
2 Exhibition visitors include estimated On the Road art installation visitors.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Attachment A
30
OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND GOLF DIVISION – OPEN SPACE AND GOLF
Open Space Golf
Visitors at
Foothills Park
Volunteer hours for
restorative/resource
management projects1
Number of native
plants in restoration
projects2
Number of
rounds of golf
Golf Course
revenue
(in millions)
Golf Course operating
expenditures
(in millions)
Golf course debt
service
(in millions)
Net revenue/
(cost)
FY 05 121,574 15,847 12,418 78,410 $2.9 $2.4 $0.6 ($72,031)
FY 06 127,457 10,738 15,516 76,000 $3.0 $2.3 $0.6 $148,154
FY 07 140,437 11,380 14,023 76,241 $3.1 $2.5 $0.6 $43,015
FY 08 135,001 13,572 13,893 74,630 $3.2 $2.2 $0.7 ($23,487)
FY 09 135,110 16,169 11,934 72,170 $3.0 $2.4 $0.7 ($326,010)
FY 10 149,298 16,655 11,303 69,791 $3.0 $2.3 $0.6 $76,146
FY 11 181,911 16,235 27,655 67,381 $2.8 $2.0 $0.7 $166,017
FY 12 171,413 16,142 23,737 65,653 $2.7 $1.9 $0.6 $271,503
FY 13 205,507 15,551 46,933 60,153 $2.5 $2.1 $0.4 ($18,179)
FY 14 198,814 17,196 63,206 46,527 $1.8 $1.9 $0.4 ($579,000)
Change from:
Last year ‐3% +11% +35%
2 ‐23%3 ‐30%3 ‐10% 0%‐
FY 05 +64% +9% +409%
2 ‐41%‐39%‐20%‐29%‐
1 Includes activities through collaborative partnerships with nonprofit groups such as Save the Bay, and community service hours by court‐referred volunteers.
2 The increase is due to completion of a new greenhouse at the Baylands that has significantly boosted plant propagation.
3 The department attributes the decrease to a general decline in golf play throughout the United States and a pending reconfiguration project.
OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND GOLF DIVISION – PARKS AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
Maintenance Expenditures
Parks and landscape
maintenance
(in millions)
Athletic fields in
City parks
(in millions)
Athletic fields on
school district sites1
(in millions)
Total
(in millions) Per acre
Total hours
of athletic
field usage
Number of
permits issued
for special events
Volunteer hours
for neighborhood
parks
Participants in
community
gardening program
FY 05 $2.7 $0.6 $0.5 $3.8 $14,572 65,748 14 60 244
FY 06 $2.5 $0.6 $0.6 $3.7 $14,302 65,791 16 150 223
FY 07 $2.7 $0.6 $0.7 $3.9 $15,042 70,769 22 150 231
FY 08 $2.9 $0.6 $0.7 $4.2 $15,931 63,212 22 180 233
FY 09 $3.0 $0.7 $0.7 $4.4 $16,940 45,762 35 212 238
FY 10 $3.0 $0.5 $0.6 $4.1 $15,413 41,705 12 260 238
FY 11 $3.2 $0.4 $0.5 $4.1 $15,286 42,687 25 927 260
FY 12 $3.5 $0.4 $0.6 $4.5 $16,425 44,226 27 1,120 292
FY 13 $3.8 $0.4 $0.6 $4.8 $17,563 N/A
2 47 637 292
FY 14 $4.0 $0.4 $0.6 $5.0 $18,244 N/A
2 36 638 292
Change from:
Last year +5%‐1%+3%+4% +4%‐‐23%0%0%
FY 05 +46%‐27%+15% +30% +25%‐+157%+963%+20%
1 Palo Alto Unified School District partially reimburses the City for maintenance costs for the school district sites.
2 According to the department, this measure was not accurately tracked during FY 2013 or FY 2014.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Attachment A
31
RECREATION SERVICES DIVISION
Enrollment in Recreational Classes1 Cubberley Community Center
Dance Recreation Aquatics
Middle
school
sports Therapeutics
Private
tennis
lessons Total
Enrollment in
recreational
summer camps1
Hours
rented
Hourly rental
revenue
(in millions)
Number of
lease holders
3
Lease revenue
(in millions)
FY 05 1,531 5,055 223 1,242 216 259 8,526 6,601 38,624 $0.8 35 $1.3
FY 06 1,326 5,681 199 1,247 175 234 8,862 5,906 38,407 $0.9 38 $1.3
FY 07 1,195 5,304 225 1,391 228 274 8,617 5,843 36,489 $0.8 39 $1.4
FY 08 1,129 4,712 182 1,396 203 346 7,968 5,883 32,288 $0.9 39 $1.5
FY 09 1,075 3,750 266 1,393 153 444 7,081 6,010 34,874 $1.0 37 $1.4
FY 10 972 3,726 259 1,309 180 460 6,906 5,974 35,268 $0.9 41 $1.6
FY 11 889 3,613 228 1,310 178 362 6,580 5,730 30,878 $0.9 48 $1.6
FY 12 886 3,532 196 1,455 135 240 6,444 5,259 29,282 $0.8 33 $1.6
FY 13 1,000 2,776 167 1,479 167 339 5,928 5,670 29,207 $0.9 33 $1.6
FY 14 1,130 2,449 196 1,443 112 457 5,787 6,210 28,086 $0.8 32 $1.7
Change from:
Last year +13%‐12%2 +17%‐2%‐33% +35%‐2% +10%‐4%‐7%‐3% +6%
FY 05 ‐26%‐52%‐12% +16%‐48% +76%‐32%‐6%‐27% +3%‐9% +31%
1 These enrollment figures are also included in the total stated in the Departmentwide Classes table.
2 The department attributes the decreases to the temporary closure of the Mitchell Park Community Center, increased fees, and an increased supply of recreation services by other organizations.
3 The department reports that the maximum number of lease holders is 33 and that applicable records could not be located to determine the methodology used to report the number prior to FY 2012.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Attachment A
32
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
BUILDING
Average days
Number of
permits routed to all
departments with on‐
time reviews
Number of
permits approved
over the counter
Number of
building
permits
issued
First response
to plan checks
Issuance of
building
permits
(Target: 30)
Permit issuance
to final inspection
for projects up to
$500,000
(Target: 120)
Number of
inspections
completed
Valuation of
construction for
issued permits
(in millions)
Building
permit
revenue
(in millions)
FY 05 ‐‐3,081 24 94 ‐12,186 $215.0 $3.2
FY 06 ‐‐3,081 28 98 ‐11,585 $277.0 $4.4
FY 07 ‐‐3,136 27 102 ‐14,822 $298.7 $4.6
FY 08 292 ‐3,046 23 80 ‐22,820 $358.9 $4.2
FY 09 230 394 2,543 31 63 123 17,945 $172.1 $3.6
FY 10 218 326 2,847 30 44 162 15,194 $191.2 $4.0
FY 11 371 532 3,559 35 47 109 16,858 $251.1 $5.6
FY 12 345 644 3,320 22 38 127 18,778 $467.9 $6.8
FY 13 470 602 3,682 24 391 121 24,548 $574.7 $10.1
FY 14 550 557 3,624 23 27 139 31,002 $336.1 $9.3
Change from:
Last year +17%‐7%‐2%‐4%‐31%+15%+26%‐42%‐8%
FY 05 ‐‐+18%‐4%‐71%‐+154% +56% +191%
1 Prior year correction by the Department.
GREEN BUILDING1
Green Building with mandatory regulations Construction debris for completed projects2 (in tons)
Green Building permit
applications processed Valuation Square feet Salvaged Recycled Disposed to landfill
Energy savings
per year3
(in kBtu)
FY 09 341 $80,412,694 666,500 67 3,503 575 ‐
FY 10 556 $81,238,249 774,482 69 9,050 1,393 ‐
FY 11 961 $187,725,366 1,249,748 13,004 34,590 4,020 ‐
FY 12 887 $543,237,137 1,342,448 23,617 45,478 5,015 ‐
FY 13 1,037 $569,451,035 2,441,575 9,408 44,221 3,955 1,922,532
FY 14 04 $349,128,085 3,432,025 7,186 38,381 5,421 3,141,510
Change from:
Last year ‐100%‐39%+41%‐24%‐13%+37%+63%
FY 09 ‐100%+334%+415%+10,626% +996%+843%‐
1 The Green Building Program was established in FY 2009, and prior year data is not available.
2 For projects requiring either a demolition permit or a building permit with a valuation over $25,000. The Department reports that due to staffing turnover and reorganization, the data may not be
complete. Variances may also be due, in part, to a few large projects and a lower minimum reporting requirement for green building projects.
3 Reported in Kilo British Thermal Units. According to the Department, data prior to FY 2013 is either unavailable or inaccurate due to insufficient tracking resulting from staffing changes.
4 Green Building permit applications were no longer processed separately; they became part of the regular plan check process in FY 2014.
Mission:To provide citizens, business owners, developers, and applicants reliable and predictable expectations in the review, permitting, and
inspection of development projects that meet the municipal and building code requirements to safeguard the health, safety, property, and public
welfare while working collaboratively with other departments in the City.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Attachment A
33
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
DEPARTMENTWIDE1
Operating Expenditures (in millions)
Information
Technology
Project Services
IT
Operations
Enterprise
Systems
Office of the
Chief
Information
Officer
Technology
Capital
Improvement
Program2 Total
Revenue
(in millions)
Authorized
staffing
(FTE)
Number of
workstations
IT expenditures
per workstation
FY 12 $2.5 $3.0 $1.8 $1.5 $0.8 $9.6 $13.4 34.2 1,100 $4,658
FY 13 $1.7 $3.8 $1.9 $2.5 $3.4
3 $13.3 $17.5 36.3 1,118 $4,548
FY 14 $1.1 $4.6 $2.6 $4.0 $2.0 $14.3 $13.1 34.2 1,286 $4,491
Change from:
Last year ‐38% +20% +38% +59%‐40% +7%‐25%‐6% +15%‐1%
FY 12 ‐58% +54% +44% +165% +156% +48%‐2% 0% +17%‐4%
1 The Information Technology (IT) Department was established in 2012. Data prior to FY 2012 is generally not available or applicable for comparison.
2 Consistent with the City’s operating budget, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department.
3 The increase in FY 2013 is due to an increased number of projects, including the upgrade of the City’s telephone system and the replacement of desktop computers with laptops.
Percent of service desk requests resolved:1 City Staff Survey
Number of service
desk requests
At time of call
(Target: 44%)
Within 4 hours
(Target: 12%)
Within 8hours
(Target 18%)
Within 5 days
(Target: 13%)
Over 5 days
(Target: 13%)
Percent of security
incidents remediated
within 1 day
Percent rating IT services
as “excellent”
(Target: 90%)
FY 12 9,460 33%26%5%24%12%‐95%
FY 13 9,734 31%22%5%25%16%50%87%
FY 14 9,348 31%21%5%26%17%28%2 94%
Change from:
Last year ‐4% 0%‐1% 0% +1% +1%‐22% +7%
FY 12 ‐1%‐2%‐5% 0% +2% +5%‐‐1%
1 Percentages reported in each category do not include service desk requests resolved in any other category.
2 The Department implemented more security incident detection solutions, which resulted in an increase in recorded security incidents and complexity of issues.
Mission:To provide innovative technology solutions that support City departments in delivering quality services to the community.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Attachment A
34
DEPARTMENTWIDE
Operating Expenditures (in millions) Authorized Staffing (FTE)
Administration
Collections
and Technical
Services
Public
Services Total
Library
expenditures
per capita Regular
Temporary/
hourly TOTAL
Number of
residents per
library FTE
Volunteer
hours
Total hours
open
annually2
FTE per
1,000 hours
open
FY 05 $0.6 $2.0 $2.5 $5.1 $84 44.0 11.7 55.7 1,090 7,537 11,268 4.9
FY 06 $0.6 $1.5 $3.6 $5.7 $92 44.0 12.8 56.8 1,079 5,838 10,488 5.4
FY 07 $0.5 $1.5 $3.9 $5.9 $95 44.3 12.6 56.9 1,079 5,865 9,386 6.1
FY 08 $0.5 $1.8 $4.5 $6.8 $110 43.8 12.7 56.5 1,101 5,988 11,281 5.0
FY 09 $0.4 $1.8 $4.0 $6.2 $98 43.8 13.4 57.2 1,110 5,953 11,822 4.8
FY 10 $0.6 $1.8 $4.0 $6.4 $99 42.2 12.8 55.0 1,169 5,564 9,904 5.6
FY 11 $1.0 $1.6 $3.9 $6.5 $100 41.3 10.4 51.7 1,255 5,209 8,855 5.8
FY 12 $1.2 $1.7 $4.2 $7.1 $108 41.3 14.8 56.1 1,166 6,552 11,142 5.0
FY 13 $1.0 $1.8 $4.1 $6.9 $104 41.8 16.7 58.5 1,135 5,514 11,327 5.2
FY 14 $0.9 $2.3 $4.1 $7.3 $111 41.8 14.7 56.5 1,168 3,607 11,277 5.0
Change from:
Last year ‐9% +30% 0% +6% +7% 0%‐12%‐3% +3%‐35% 0%‐3%
FY 05 +39%
1 +18% +65% +44% +32%‐5% +26% +1% +7%‐52% 0% +1%
1 The department attributes the increase to a change in methodology for allocating Information Technology charges beginning in FY 2011. Allocated charges for the entire Department are reflected in the
Administration Division.
2 The department attributes the fluctuation to facility closures for renovation and reopening.
Li
b
r
a
r
y
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
COLLECTION AND TECHNICAL SERVICES
Number of items in collection Checkouts
Book
volumes
Media
items
eBook &
eMusic
items TOTAL
Per
capita
Total
number of
titles in
collection
Total
(Target:
1,480,000)
Per
capita
Average
per item
(Target:
4.23)
Percent of first time
checkouts
completed on self‐
check machines
(Target: 95%)
Number of
items on hold
Average number of
business days for new
materials to be available
for customer use
(Target: 2.0)
FY 05 236,575 27,928 ‐264,511 4.36 164,280 1,282,888 21.1 4.85 ‐125,883 ‐
FY 06 232,602 27,866 ‐260,468 4.25 163,045 1,280,547 20.9 4.92 ‐181,765 ‐
FY 07 240,098 30,657 ‐270,755 4.41 167,008 1,414,509 23.0 5.22 88% 208,719 ‐
FY 08 241,323 33,087 4,993 279,403 4.49 174,683 1,542,116 24.8 5.52 89% 200,470 ‐
FY 09 246,554 35,506 11,675 293,735 4.63 185,718 1,633,955 25.7 5.56 90% 218,073 ‐
FY 10 247,273 37,567 13,827 298,667 4.64 189,828 1,624,785 25.2 5.44 90% 216,719 9.0
FY 11 254,392 40,461 19,248 314,101 4.84 193,070 1,476,648 22.8 4.70 91% 198,574 8.0
FY 12 251,476 41,017 13,667 306,361 4.68 187,359 1,559,932 23.8 5.09 88% 211,270 9.53
FY 13 215,416 41,440 20,893 277,749 4.19 157,594 1,512,975 22.8 5.45 87% 204,581 4.0
FY 14 235,371 47,080 58,968 309,150 4.62 173,905 1,364,872 20.7 4.41 88% 197,444 2.0
Change from:
Last year +9% +14% +182%
1 +11% +10% +10%‐10%2 ‐9%2 ‐19%2 +1%‐3%‐50%
FY 05 ‐1% +69%‐+17% +6% +6% +6%‐2%‐9%‐+57%‐
1 The department attributes the increase to two new services introduced –Axis 360 ebooks and Zinio online magazines.
2 The department attributes the decrease to the Main Library closure.
3 Estimate. According to the Department, this metric was not consistently monitored in FY 2012 due to staff transitions, including a new division head.
Mission:To enable people to explore library resources to enrich their lives with knowledge, information, and enjoyment.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Attachment A
35
PUBLIC SERVICES
Programs1
Total number
of
cardholders
Percent of
Palo Alto
residents
who are
cardholders
Library
visits
Meeting room
reservations
(Target: 3,400)
Total number
of reference
questions
Total number
of online
database
sessions
Number of
internet
sessions
Number of
laptop
checkouts Total offered
Total
attendance
Number of
participants
in teen
programs
(Target:
2,500)
FY 05 52,001 60% 873,594 ‐80,842 39,357 113,980 1,748 519 31,141 ‐
FY 06 55,909 62% 885,565 ‐69,880 42,094 155,558 9,693 564 30,739 1,549
FY 07 53,099 58% 862,081 ‐57,255 52,020 149,280 11,725 580 30,221 1,900
FY 08 53,740 63% 881,520 ‐48,339 49,148 137,261 12,017 669 37,955 1,573
FY 09 54,878 63% 875,847 ‐46,419 111,228
2 145,143 12,290 558 36,582 1,588
FY 10 51,969 61% 851,037 ‐55,322 150,895
2 134,053 9,720 485 35,455 1,906
FY 11 53,246 64% 776,994 ‐53,538 51,111 111,076 5,279 425 24,092 1,795
FY 12 60,283 69% 843,981 846 43,269 42,179 112,910 4,829 598 30,916 2,211
FY 13 51,007 61% 827,171 1,223 43,476 31,041 70,195 3,662 745 40,405 2,144
FY 14 46,950 58% 678,181 1,027 34,060 35,872 114,520 1,672 801 37,971 1,188
Change from:
Last year ‐8%‐3%‐18%‐16%‐22%3 +16% +63%‐54%3 +8%‐6%‐45%
FY 05 ‐10%‐2%‐22%‐‐58%3 ‐9% 0%‐4% +54% +22%‐
1 Programs include planned events for the public that promote reading, support school readiness and education, and encourage life‐long learning. Many programs are sponsored by the Friends of the
Palo Alto Library.
2 The department attributes the increase to enhanced outreach activities targeting teachers and students to promote databases to schools.
3 The department attributes the decrease to improvements in technology and greater access to the Internet with free WiFi, which is available at all the branches. More library customers are using
their own laptop, tablet, and/or smartphone devices instead of library computers.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Li
b
r
a
r
y
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Attachment A
36
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
& Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
DEPARTMENTWIDE
Operating Expenditures (in millions)
Administration
Planning &
Transportation Building
1
Economic
Development2 Total
Expenditures
per capita
Revenue
(in millions)
Authorized
staffing (FTE)
FY 05 $0.7 $5.6 $2.9 ‐$9.1 $150 $4.2 61
FY 06 $0.5 $5.6 $3.1 $0.2 $9.4 $153 $5.6 53
FY 07 $0.7 $5.2 $3.4 $0.2 $9.5 $155 $6.6 55
FY 08 $0.6 $5.2 $3.6 $0.2 $9.7 $155 $5.8 54
FY 09 $0.2 $5.7 $3.5 $0.4 $9.9 $156 $5.1 54
FY 10 $0.6 $5.5 $2.9 $0.4 $9.4 $146 $5.5 50
FY 11 $0.9 $5.1 $3.3 $0.3 $9.6 $147 $7.5 47
FY 12 $0.9 $5.2 $4.2 ‐$10.3 $158 $9.3 47
FY 13 $1.1 $5.8 $5.2 ‐$12.0 $182 $12.6 53
FY 14 $1.1 $6.4 $5.8 ‐$13.3 $201 $11.4 54
Change from:
Last year +4%+9%+12%‐+10%+11%‐10%+1%
FY 05 +68%+14%+103%‐+46%+34%+172%‐11%
1 In FY 2014, Building was part of Development Services. During FY 2014, Development Services transitioned to its own department. FY 2014 information is shown here for consistency with the
City’s financial records.
2 In FY 2012, Economic Development was moved to the City Manager’s Office.
CURRENT PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT
Code Enforcement
Planning
applications
received
Planning
applications
completed
Architectural Review
Board applications
completed
Average
weeks to complete
staff‐level
applications
Number of
new cases
Number of
reinspections
Percent of cases
resolved within
120 days
FY 05 418 327 108 11.1 473 796 91%
FY 06 414 408 117 13.6 421 667 94%
FY 07 386 299 100 13.4 369 639 76%
FY 08 397 257 107 12.7 684 981 93%
FY 09 312 273 130 10.7 545 1,065 94%
FY 10 329 226 130 12.5 680 1,156 88%
FY 11 359 238 121 10.4 652 1,228 94%
FY 12 325 204 101 12.5 618 1,120 91%
FY 13 490 307 148 12.5 684 1,240 90%
FY 14 487 310 170 14.9 609 1,398 93%
Change from:
Last year ‐1%+1%+15%+20%‐11%+13%+3%
FY 05 +17%‐5%+57%+34%+29%+76%+2%
Mission:To provide the Council and community with creative guidance on, and effective implementation of, land use development, planning,
transportation, housing, and environmental policies, and plans and programs that maintain and enhance the City as a safe, vital, and attractive
community.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Attachment A
ADVANCE PLANNING
Number of residential units
Median price of a single family
home in Palo Alto
(in millions)
Estimated new jobs (job
losses) resulting from
projects approved
during the year1
Number of new housing
units approved
Cumulative number of
below market rate (BMR) units
FY 05 27,522 $1.34 (197) 81 322
FY 06 27,767 $1.54 (345) 371 322
FY 07 27,763 $1.52 0 517 381
FY 08 27,938 $1.55 193 103 395
FY 09 28,291 $1.40 (58) 36 395
FY 10 28,445 $1.37 662 86 434
FY 11 28,257 $1.52 2,144 47 434
FY 12 28,380 $1.74 760 93 434
FY 13 28,457 $1.99 142 2 434
FY 14 28,546 $2.04 (580) 311 449
Change from:
Last year 0%+3%‐508%+15,450%+3%
FY 05 +4%+53%‐194%+284%+39%
1 Job losses are assumed when commercial uses are replaced with residential units.
TRANSPORTATION
Number of monitored intersections
with an unacceptable level of service
during evening peak1 City shuttle boardings
City’s cost per shuttle
boarding
Caltrain average
weekday boardings4
Average number of employees
participating in the City commute
program5
FY 05 2 of 21 169,048 $1.92 3,264 117
FY 06 2 of 21 175,471 $1.91 3,876 104
FY 07 2 of 21 168,710 $2.00 4,132 105
FY 08 2 of 21 178,505 $1.97 4,589 114
FY 09 2 of 21 136,511 $2.61 4,407 124
FY 10 1 of 8 137,825 $2.65 4,359 113
FY 11 1 of 8 118,455 $1.82 4,923 92
FY 12 0 of 82 140,321 $1.46 5,730 93
FY 13 2 of 53 133,703 $1.50 6,763 99
FY 14 6 of 133 134,362 $1.49 7,564 114
Change from:
Last year ‐0%‐1%+12%+15%
FY 05 ‐‐21%‐22%+132%‐3%
1 The City is required through its membership with the Valley Transportation Authority to monitor eight intersections biannually. Prior to FY 2010, the City monitored additional intersections when
resources were available. In FY 2013, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, a larger scale analysis of 53 intersections was completed.
2 FY 2012 data was collected and analyzed by the Valley Transportation Authority.
3 The department provided this data from the draft Comprehensive Plan Existing Conditions Report, August 2014.
4 Prior‐year data has been updated based on annual counts revised by Caltrain.
5 Includes participants in the Caltrain Go Pass pilot program, which began in April 2014.
37Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
& Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
Attachment A
DEPARTMENTWIDE
Operating Expenditures (millions) Authorized Staffing
Administration
Emergency
response
Environmental
and fire safety
Training and
personnel
management
Records and
information Total
Resident
population
of area
served1
Expenditures
per resident
served
Revenue
(in millions)
Resident
population
served per
fire station1,4
Total
(FTE)
Per 1,000
residents
served
Overtime
as a
percent of
regular
salaries
FY 05 $0.8 $13.9 $1.8 $1.7 $0.8 $19.1 74,038 $257 $8.9 12,461 128.8 1.74 23%
FY 06 $1.3 $14.1 $2.0 $1.9 $0.9 $20.2 75,069 $269 $9.4 12,569 126.5 1.68 18%
FY 07 $1.6 $15.0 $2.0 $2.0 $0.9 $21.6 75,194 $287 $9.9 12,532 127.5 1.70 21%
FY 08 $1.6 $16.7 $2.4 $2.3 $1.0 $24.0 75,982 $316 $9.7 12,664 128.1 1.69 18%
FY 09 $0.4 $17.4 $2.3 $2.3 $1.0 $23.4 77,305 $303 $11.0 12,884 127.7 1.65 16%
FY 10 $2.3 $19.3 $2.5 $2.6 $1.0 $27.7 78,161 $355 $10.6 13,027 126.5 1.62 26%
FY 11 $1.6 $20.8 $2.6 $2.7 $1.0 $28.7 78,662 $365 $12.0 13,110 125.1 1.59 21%
FY 122 $1.7 $20.9 $2.4 $2.8 $1.0 $28.8 79,252 $364 $13.7 13,209 125.2 1.58 37%
FY 13 $1.9 $22.5 $1.7 $0.8 $0.3 $27.3 80,127 $340 $12.4
3 13,355 120.3 1.50 19%
FY 14 $1.9 $23.3 $1.7 $0.9 $0.3 $28.2 79,838 $353 $12.0
3 13,306 120.8 1.51 27%
Change from:
Last year +2% +3% +2% +9%‐2% +3% +0% +4%‐3% 0% 0% +1% +8%
FY 05 +143% +68%‐4%‐48%‐64% +48% +8% +37% +35% +7%‐6%‐13% +4%
1 Based on number of residents in the Fire Department’s expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford). The decrease in FY 2014 is due to a change in data source from the California Department of
Finance to the City Manager’s Official City Data Set based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
2 Office of Emergency Services (OES) was established as a separate department in FY 2012. FY 2012 data was restated to remove OES figures.
3 The department attributes the decline to lower contract revenues from Stanford University.
4 Calculation is based on six fire stations, and does not include Station 8 (Foothills Park, operated during the summer months when fire danger is high).
38
Pu
b
l
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
‐
Fi
r
e
Mission:To serve and safeguard the community from the impacts of fires, medical emergencies, environmental emergencies, and natural disasters
by providing the highest level of service through action, innovation, and investing in education, training, and prevention. We will actively participate
in our community, serving as role models who preserve and enhance the quality of life. We will effectively and efficiently utilize all of the necessary
resources at our command to provide a product deemed outstanding by our citizens. Pride, the pursuit of excellence, and commitment to public
service is of paramount importance.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Attachment A
SUPPRESSION, FIRE SAFETY, AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Suppression and Fire Safety Emergency Medical Services
Fire
incidents
Percent of fires
confined to the room
or area of origin1
(Target: 90%)
Number of
residential
structure
fires
Number
of fire
deaths
Fire
response
vehicles2
Fire safety presentations,
including demonstrations
and fire station tours
Average training
hours per
firefighter
Medical/rescue
incidents
Number of
ambulance
transports
Ambulance
revenue
(in millions)
FY 05 224 73%58 0 25 ‐312 3,633 2,744 $1.5
FY 06 211 63%62 1 25 ‐288 3,780 2,296 $1.7
FY 07 221 70%68 2 25 ‐235 3,951 2,527 $1.9
FY 08 192 79%43 0 25 ‐246 4,552 3,236 $2.0
FY 09 239 63%20 0 25 ‐223 4,509 3,331 $2.1
FY 10 182 56%11 0 29 ‐213 4,432 2,991 $2.2
FY 11 165 38%14 0 30 115 287 4,521 3,005 $2.3
FY 12 186 50%16 0 29 126 313 4,584 3,220 $2.8
FY 13 150 44%18 0 27 95 315 4,712 3,523 $3.0
FY 14 150 63%15 2 27 88 315 4,757 3,648 $2.9
Change from:
Last year 0%+19%‐17%‐0%‐7%0%+1% +4%‐2%
FY 05 ‐33%‐10%‐74%‐+8%‐+1%+31% +33% +100%
1 Includes fires in other jurisdictions responded to as part of the City’s aid agreements. The department indicated that these figures will be restated in the future to exclude fires in other communities to
more accurately measure progress toward its target of 90%, which is for Palo Alto fires only. The department defines containment of structure fires as those incidents in which fire is suppressed and
does not spread beyond the involved area upon firefighter arrival.
2 Includes ambulances, fire apparatus, hazardous materials, and mutual‐aid vehicles.
39
CALLS FOR SERVICE
Calls for service Average response time2 (minutes) Percent of calls responded promptly2
Fire
Medical/
rescue
False
alarms
Service
calls
Hazardous
condition Other
1 TOTAL
Average
number
of calls
per day
Fire calls
(Target: 6:00)
Medical/rescue
calls
(Target: 6:00)
Fire emergencies
within 8 minutes
(Target: 90%)
Emergency
medical requests
within 8 minutes
(Target: 90%)
Paramedic
calls within
12 minutes3
(Target: 90%)
FY 05 224 3,633 1,300 358 211 688 6,414 18 5:09 5:28 91%95%98%
FY 06 211 3,780 1,184 399 203 1,120 6,897 19 5:28 5:13 91%94%99%
FY 07 221 3,951 1,276 362 199 1,227 7,236 20 5:48 5:17 87%92%97%
FY 08 192 4,552 1,119 401 169 1,290 7,723 21 6:48 5:24 79%93%99%
FY 09 239 4,509 1,065 328 165 1,243 7,549 21 6:39 5:37 78%91%99%
FY 10 182 4,432 1,013 444 151 1,246 7,468 20 7:05 5:29 90%93%99%
FY 11 165 4,521 1,005 406 182 1,276 7,555 21 6:23 5:35 83%91%99%
FY 12 186 4,584 1,095 466 216 1,249 7,796 21 7:00 5:36 81%91%99%
FY 13 150 4,712 1,091 440 194 1,317 7,904 22 6:31 5:35 82%91%99%
FY 14 150 4,757 1,044 396 207 1,275 7,829 21 6:01 5:42 86%90%98%
Change from:
Last year 0% +1%‐4%‐10% +7%‐3%‐1%‐1%‐8%+2%+4%‐1%‐1%
FY 05 ‐33% +31%‐20% +11%‐2% +85% +22% +22% +17%+4%‐5%‐5%0%
1 “Other” calls include alarm testing, station tours, training incidents, cancelled calls, and good intent calls (i.e., a person genuinely believes there is an actual emergency when it is not an emergency).
2 Response time is from receipt of 911 call to arrival on scene; does not include cancelled enroute, not‐completed incidents, or mutual‐aid calls.
3 Includes non‐City ambulance responses.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Pu
b
l
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
‐
Fi
r
e
Attachment A
40
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND INSPECTIONS
Hazardous Materials
Incidents1 Permitted facilities Permitted facilities inspected2
Percent of permitted hazardous
materials facilities inspected
2
Number of fire
inspections
(Target: 850) Number of plan reviews3
FY 05 19 503 241 48% 1,488 982
FY 06 45 497 243 49% 899 983
FY 07 39 501 268 53% 1,021 928
FY 08 45 503 406 81% 1,277 906
FY 09 40 509 286 56% 1,028 841
FY 10 26 510 126 25% 1,526 851
FY 11 66 484 237 49% 1,807 1,169
FY 12 82 485 40 8% 1,654 1,336
FY 13 79 455 133 29% 2,069 1,396
FY 14 73 393 132 34% 1,741 1,319
Change from:
Last year ‐8%‐14%‐1% +5%‐16%‐6%
FY 05 +284%‐22%‐45%‐14% +17% +34%
1 Involve flammable gas or liquid, chemical release or spill, or chemical release reaction or toxic condition. Also known as CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives).
2 The method for calculating the number of inspections was changed in FY 2010 to avoid over counting. Prior‐year numbers are higher than they would be under the revised method. The department
attributes the FY 2012 decrease to temporary staffing shortages.
3 Does not include over‐the‐counter building permit reviews.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Pu
b
l
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
‐
Fi
r
e
Attachment A
41
Pu
b
l
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
–
Of
f
i
c
e
of
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
DEPARTMENTWIDE1
Operating expenditures
(in millions)
Revenues
(in millions)
Authorized staffing
(FTE)
Presentations, training
sessions, and exercises
(Target: 50)
Emergency Operations
Center activations/
deployments2
Grant contributions
received
FY 12 $0.60 $0.16 4.0 38 27 $139,300
FY 13 $0.75 $0.14 3.5 51 48 $24,530
FY 14 $0.93 $0.09 3.5 184 26 $13,986
Change from:
Last year +23%‐33%0%+261%‐46%‐43%
FY 12 +56%‐41%‐13%+384%‐4%‐90%
1 The Office of Emergency Services (OES) was expanded and reorganized in 2011. Data prior to FY 2012 is generally not available or applicable.In FY 2012 and FY 2013, the City classified OES
under the Fire Department for budget purposes.
2Includes unplanned (emergency) and planned events involving the Emergency Operations Center, Mobile Emergency Operations Center, and Incident Command Post activations and
deployments (e.g., December 2012 flood, Stanford football games, VIP/dignitary visits).
Mission:To prevent, prepare for and mitigate, respond to, and recover from all hazards.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Attachment A
42
Pu
b
l
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
‐
Po
l
i
c
e
DEPARTMENTWIDE
Operating Expenditures (in millions)
Administration Field Services
Technical
Services
Investigations
and Crime
Prevention
Traffic
Services
Parking
Services
Police
Personnel
Services
Animal
Services Total
Expenditures
per resident
Revenue
(in millions)
FY 05 $0.9 $9.4 $4.6 $3.1 $1.5 $1.0 $0.7 $1.4 $22.5 $371 $4.5
FY 06 $0.8 $10.5 $5.2 $3.0 $1.4 $1.1 $0.9 $1.4 $24.4 $398 $4.8
FY 07 $0.6 $11.1 $6.1 $3.1 $1.7 $1.0 $1.0 $1.5 $25.9 $422 $5.0
FY 08 $0.5 $13.7 $6.6 $3.3 $1.7 $0.8 $1.1 $1.7 $29.4 $473 $5.0
FY 09 $0.4 $13.6 $5.0 $3.7 $1.8 $1.1 $1.0 $1.7 $28.2 $445 $4.6
FY 10 $0.1 $13.1 $6.6 $3.4 $2.0 $1.1 $1.0 $1.7 $28.8 $448 $4.9
FY 11 $0.2 $14.4 $6.8 $3.5 $2.2 $1.1 $1.1 $1.7 $31.0 $478 $4.4
FY 12 $0.8 $14.9 $7.7 $3.7 $2.5 $1.2 $1.1 $1.8 $33.6 $514 $4.3
FY 13 $0.6 $15.0 $7.5 $3.5 $1.5 $1.2 $1.2 $1.7 $32.2 $485 $4.8
FY 14 $0.6 $16.0 $7.1 $3.3 $2.5 $1.1 $1.4 $1.3 $33.3 $505 $3.7
Change from:
Last year +17% +7%‐6%‐8% +65%‐10% +18%‐22% +4% +4%‐23%
FY 05 ‐24% +71% +54% +6% +71% +6% +84%‐5% +48% +36%‐19%
STAFFING, EQUIPMENT, AND TRAINING
Authorized Staffing (FTE)
Total
Per 1,000
residents
Number of
police
officers
Police officers
per 1,000
residents
Average
number of
officers on
patrol1
Number of
patrol
vehicles
Number of
motorcycles
Training hours
per officer2
(Target: 145)
Overtime as
a percent of
regular salaries
Citizen
commendations
received
(Target: >150)
Citizen
complaints filed
(sustained)
FY 05 173.4 2.9 93 1.53 8 30 10 137 12%‐‐
FY 06 168.8 2.8 93 1.52 8 30 9 153 13% 144 7 (0)
FY 07 168.1 2.7 93 1.52 8 30 9 142 16%121 11 (1)
FY 08 168.5 2.7 93 1.50 8 30 9 135 17%141 20 (1)
FY 09 169.5 2.7 93 1.46 8 30 9 141 14%124 14 (3)
FY 10 166.8 2.6 92 1.43 8 30 9 168 12%156 11 (3)
FY 11 161.1 2.5 91 1.40 8 30 9 123 12%149 7 (0)
FY 12 160.8 2.5 91 1.39 8 30 9 178 13%137 1 (0)
FY 13 157.2 2.4 91 1.37 8 30 9 134 14%147 3 (2)
FY 14 158.1 2.4 92 1.39 8 30 9 177 14%153 4 (2)
Change from:
Last year +1% +1% +1% +2% 0% 0% 0% +32% 0%+4%+33%
FY 05 ‐9%‐16%‐1%‐9% 0% 0%‐10% +30% +2%‐‐
1Does not include traffic motor officers.
2Does not include the academy.
Mission:To proudly serve and protect the public with respect and integrity.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Attachment A
43
CALLS FOR SERVICE
Average response time (minutes) Percent of calls responded promptly
Police
Department
Total1
(Target: 55,000)
False
alarms
Percent emergency
calls dispatched
within
60 seconds
Emergency calls
(Target: 5:00)
Urgent calls
(Target: 8:00)
Nonemergency
calls
(Target: 45:00)
Emergency calls
within 6 minutes
(Target: 90%)
Urgent calls
within 10 minutes
(Target: 90%)
Nonemergency
calls within 45
minutes
FY 05 51,305 2,385 94%5:01 7:50 18:15 71%78%96%
FY 06 56,211 2,419 88%4:41 7:39 20:36 78%78%95%
FY 07 60,079 2,610 96%5:08 7:24 19:16 73%79%91%
FY 08 58,742 2,539 96%4:32 7:02 19:09 81%80%92%
FY 09 53,275 2,501 94%4:43 7:05 18:35 81%82%92%
FY 10 55,860 2,491 95%4:44 6:53 18:32 78%83%92%
FY 11 52,159 2,254 93%4:28 6:51 18:26 78%83%92%
FY 12 51,086 2,263 92%4:28 6:56 19:29 78%83%91%
FY 13 54,628 2,601 91%4:57 6:57 18:55 75%83%92%
FY 14 58,559 2,450 77%5:341 7:571 20:552 72%77%90%
Change from:
Last year +7%‐6%‐14%+12% +14% +11%‐3%‐6%‐2%
FY 05 +14% +3%‐17%+11%+1% +15%+1%‐1%‐6%
1 Includes self‐initiated calls.
2 The department attributes the increase to a methodology change from a call being “received” after the information was entered in the old Computer‐Aided Dispatch (CAD) system to when a
dispatcher begins entering the information into the new system.
CRIME
Reported crimes Arrests Number of cases/percent of cases cleared or closed for part I crimes1,5
Part I1
(Target: <2,000) Part II2
Per 1,000
residents Per officer3 Total4 Juvenile Homicide Rape Robbery Theft
FY 05 2,466 2,214 77 50 2,134 256 ‐‐‐‐
FY 06 2,520 2,643 84 56 2,530 241 ‐‐‐‐
FY 07 1,855 2,815 76 50 3,059 244 0/(N/A) 2/(50%) 37/(51%) 1,092/(18%)
FY 08 1,843 2,750 74 49 3,253 257 2/(100%) 3/(67%) 41/(66%) 1,161/(21%)
FY 09 1,880 2,235 65 44 2,612 230 1/(100%) 7/(29%) 42/(31%) 1,414/(20%)
FY 10 1,595 2,257 60 42 2,451 222 1/(100%) 9/(33%) 30/(53%) 1,209/(22%)
FY 11 1,424 2,208 56 40 2,288 197 0/(N/A) 3/(0%) 42/(36%) 1,063/(20%)
FY 12 1,277 2,295 55 39 2,212 170 0/(N/A) 4/(50%) 19/(68%) 893/(19%)
FY 13 1,592 2,399 60 44 2,274 115 0/(N/A) 3/(67%) 35/(66%) 1,143/(10%)
FY 14 1,540 2,557 62 45 2,589 116 0/(N/A) 4/(75%) 27/(63%) 1,160/(11%)
Change from:
Last year ‐3%+7% +3% +2% +14% +1%‐‐‐‐
FY 05 ‐38% +15%‐19%‐12% +21%‐55%‐‐‐‐
1 Part I crimes include homicide, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny/theft, vehicle theft, and arson.
2 Part II crimes include simple assaults or attempted assaults where a weapon is not used or where serious injuries did not occur.
3 Based on authorized sworn staffing.
4 Total arrests do not include being drunk in public where suspects are taken to a sobering station, or traffic warrant arrests.
5 Clearance rates (percentages) include cases resolved with or without arrests as of June 2014, but may not reconcile with Department of Justice figures due to differing definitions and timing
differences.Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Pu
b
l
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
‐
Po
l
i
c
e
Attachment A
44
TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONTROL
Traffic collisions Citations issued
Total
Per 1,000
residents
With injury
(Target: <375)
(percent of total) Bicycle/pedestrian Alcohol related
DUI
Arrests Traffic stops Traffic Parking
FY 05 1,419 23 407 (29%) 97 32 111 8,822 5,671 52,235
FY 06 1,287 21 396 (31%)113 43 247 11,827 7,687 56,502
FY 07 1,257 20 291 (23%)103 31 257 15,563 6,232 57,222
FY 08 1,122 18 324 (29%)84 42 343 19,177 6,326 50,706
FY 09 1,040 16 371 (36%)108 37 192 14,152 5,766 49,996
FY 10 1,006 16 368 (37%)81 29 181 13,344 7,520 42,591
FY 11 1,061 16 429 (40%)127 38 140 12,534 7,077 40,426
FY 12 1,032 16 379 (37%)123 42 164 10,651 7,505 41,875
FY 13 1,126 17 411 (37%)127 43 144 12,306 8,842 43,877
FY 14 1,129 17 424 (38%)139 47 206 16,006 12,244 36,551
Change from:
Last year 0% +1%+3%+9%+9%+43% +30% +38%‐17%
FY 05 ‐20%‐27%+4%+43%+47%+86% +81% +116%‐30%
ANIMAL SERVICES
Animal service calls
Revenue
(in millions) Palo Alto Regional
1
Percent of Palo Alto
live calls responded to
within 45 minutes
(Target: 93%)
Number of
animals handled
Percent of dogs
received by shelter and
returned to owner
Percent of cats
received by shelter
and returned to
owner
FY 05 $0.9 3,006 1,604 91% 3,514 77% 12%
FY 06 $0.9 2,861 1,944 89% 3,839 78% 9%
FY 07 $1.0 2,990 1,773 88% 3,578 82% 18%
FY 08 $1.2 3,059 1,666 91% 3,532 75% 17%
FY 09 $1.0 2,873 1,690 90% 3,422 70% 11%
FY 10 $1.4 2,692 1,602 90% 3,147 75% 10%
FY 11 $1.0 2,804 1,814 88% 3,323 68% 20%
FY 12 $1.0 3,051 1,793 91% 3,379 69% 14%
FY 13 $1.3 2,909 1,0572 90%2,675 65%17%
FY 14 $0.4 3,093 695 91%2,480 68%10%
Change from:
Last year ‐66%+6%‐34%+1%‐7%+3%‐7%
FY 05 ‐54%+3%‐57%0%‐29%‐9%‐2%
1Includes calls from the City of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills.
2The decline beginning in FY 2013 is due to the City of Mountain View terminating its contract with Palo Alto Animal Services in November 2012.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Pu
b
l
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
‐
Po
l
i
c
e
Attachment A
45
PUBLIC SERVICES – STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND FACILITIES
Operating Expenditures (in millions) Streets Sidewalks Facilities
Streets City facilities
Number of
potholes
repaired
Percent of potholes
repaired within 15
days of notification
Number of signs
repaired or
replaced
Percent of temporary
repairs completed
within 15 days of
initial inspection
Total square
feet of facilities
maintained
Maintenance
cost per
square foot
Custodial
cost per
square foot
FY 05 $2.0 $4.3 3,221 76% 1,620
1 76% 1,402,225 $3.19 $1.12
FY 06 $1.9 $4.6 1,049 95% 1,754 87% 1,402,225 $1.52 $1.18
FY 07 $2.2 $4.8 1,188 82% 1,475 98% 1,613,392 $1.38 $1.04
FY 08 $2.2 $5.1 1,977 78% 1,289 88% 1,616,171 $1.52 $1.12
FY 09 $2.3 $5.7 3,727 80% 1,292 86% 1,616,171 $1.62 $1.19
FY 10 $2.3 $5.5 3,149 86% 2,250 78% 1,617,101 $1.75 $1.18
FY 11 $2.4 $5.6 2,986 81% 1,780 83% 1,617,101 $1.70 $1.16
FY 12 $2.5 $5.5 3,047 81%2,439 82% 1,608,137 $1.74 $1.14
FY 13 $2.7 $5.4 2,726 83%2,450 95% 1,608,119 $1.88 $1.08
FY 14 $2.6 $5.1 3,418 75%2 2,613 79%2 1,611,432 $1.89 $1.08
Change from:
Last year ‐1%‐6% +25%‐8%+7%‐16%0% +1% 0%
FY 05 +29%+19% +6%‐1%+61%+3%+15%‐41%‐4%
1 Estimated.
2 The Department repaired all potholes and made temporary repairs in the vicinity, so it took longer than 15 days to complete the repairs.
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
PUBLIC SERVICES –TREES
Operating
expenditures
(in millions)
Authorized
staffing1
(FTE)
Total number of
City‐maintained
trees2
Number of trees
planted3
(Target: 250)
Number of all tree‐related
services completed4
(Target: 6,000)
Percent of
urban forest
pruned
Percent of total
tree line cleared
(Target: 25%)
Number of tree‐
related electrical
service disruptions
FY 05 $1.8 14.0 35,096 164 4,775 14%26%5
FY 06 $2.0 14.0 34,841 263 3,422 10%23%13
FY 07 $2.2 14.0 34,556 164 3,409 10%30%15
FY 08 $2.3 14.0 35,322 188 6,579 18%27%9
FY 09 $2.1 14.0 35,255 250 6,618 18%33%5
FY 10 $2.3 14.0 35,472 201 6,094 18%27%4
FY 11 $2.6 14.0 33,146 150 5,045 15%26%8
FY 12 $2.4 12.9 35,324 143 5,527 16%28%4
FY 13 $2.3 13.3 35,383 245 6,931 17%41%3
FY 14 $2.6 13.3 35,386 148 5,055 12%37%7
Change from:
Last year +14%0%0%‐40%‐27%‐5%‐4%+133%
FY 05 +45%‐5%+1%‐10%+6%‐2%+11%+40%
1 For the General Fund only.
2 FY 2011 was the first year since 1989 that the trees were officially counted; numbers prior to FY 2011 were estimated.
3 Includes trees planted by Canopy volunteers.
4 Excludes trees trimmed to clear power lines.
Mission:To provide efficient, cost effective, and environmentally sensitive operations for construction, maintenance, and management of Palo Alto
streets, sidewalks, parking lots, facilities, and parks; ensure continuous operation of our Regional Water Quality Control Plant, City fleet, and storm
drain system; provide maintenance, replacement and utility line clearing services for the City’s urban forest; provide efficient and cost effective
garbage collection; to promote reuse and recycling to minimize waste; and to ensure timely support to other City departments and the private
development community in the area of engineering services.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Attachment A
46
ENGINEERING SERVICES
Number of private development permits issued1
Operating
expenditures
(in millions)
Authorized
staffing
(FTE)
Total
(Target: 250)
Per FTE
(Target: 77)
Lane miles
resurfaced
Percent of
lane miles
resurfaced
Square feet of sidewalk
replaced or permanently
repaired2
Number of ADA3
ramps installed
FY 05 $1.8 14.0 276 92 20.0 4% 132,430 46
FY 06 $1.9 15.0 284 95 20.0 4% 126,574 66
FY 07 $2.0 14.0 215 83 32.0 7% 94,620 70
FY 08 $2.1 14.6 338 112 27.0 6% 83,827 27
FY 09 $2.2 14.6 304 101 23.0 5% 56,909 21
FY 10 $1.6 10.0 321 107 32.4 7% 54,602 22
FY 11 $1.5 9.2 375 125 28.9 6%71,174 23
FY 12 $1.6 9.2 411 103 40.0 9%72,787 45
FY 13 $1.4 9.7 454 114 36.3 8%82,118 56
FY 14 $1.7 10.4 412 103 35.6 8%74,051 42
Change from:
Last year +20% +8%‐9%‐9%‐2% 0%‐10%‐25%
FY 05 ‐7%‐25%+49%+12%+78% +4%‐44%‐9%
1 Includes permits for street work, encroachment, and certificate of compliance.
2 Includes both in‐house and contracted work.
3 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that accessibility to sidewalks of buildings and facilities be provided to individuals with disabilities.
33 Capital Expenditures1 – General Fund (in millions) Capital Expenditures 1 – Enterprise Funds (in millions) Capital Authorized Staffing (FTE)2
Streets
(Target: $3.8) Sidewalks Parks
Facilities
(Target: $16.9) Storm Drainage
Wastewater
Treatment Refuse Streets Sidewalks Parks Structures
FY 05 $3.3 $1.9 $1.5 $7.0 $0.01 $1.5 $0.3 ‐‐‐‐
FY 06 $2.4 $2.5 $1.5 $6.1 $0.33 $2.2 $0.1 1.4 7.4 2.0 8.4
FY 07 $5.2 $2.5 $0.9 $7.2 $1.46 $1.8 $0.0 1.4 7.4 2.0 8.4
FY 08 $3.5 $2.2 $2.7 $8.3 $3.65 $10.9 $0.0 1.4 7.4 2.0 8.4
FY 09 $4.5 $2.1 $1.9 $10.8 $5.41 $9.2 $0.7 1.4 7.1 2.0 9.2
FY 10 $4.0 $1.9 $3.3 $10.1 $1.07 $6.0 $0.2 2.9 7.1 2.7 11.4
FY 11 $5.5 $1.9 $1.4 $25.5 $1.10 $3.1 $0.2 3.0 6.9 1.6 10.0
FY 12 $4.0 $2.0 $1.2 $21.5 $1.92 $1.5 $0.7 3.0 7.0 1.6 10.4
FY 13 $8.4 $2.2 $1.7 $15.2 $2.62 $2.9 $0.5 3.0 7.4 1.6 12.0
FY 14 $7.5 $2.6 $2.2 $21.7 $1.44 $2.7 $1.7 3.2 7.1 3.7 11.3
Change from:
Last year ‐12% +20% +29% +43%‐45%‐8% +237% +4%‐3% +131%‐5%
FY 05 +126% +39% +49% +209% +10,329% +75% +447%‐‐‐‐
1 Capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services; overhead is not included.
2 Budgeted number; actual FTEs at year‐end may differ.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
Attachment A
47
STORM DRAINAGE
Operating
revenues
(in millions)
Operating
expenditures1
(in millions)
Reserves
(in millions)
Average
monthly
residential bill
Authorized
staffing
(FTE)
Feet of storm drain
pipelines cleaned
(Target: 100,000)
Calls for assistance
with storm drains2
Percent of industrial/
commercial sites in
compliance with storm
water regulations
(Target: 80%)
FY 05 $3.0 $2.7 $0.6 $4.25 9.9 316,024 50 89%
FY 06 $5.7 $2.9 $3.1 $10.00 9.5 128,643 24 83%
FY 07 $5.3 $4.3 $4.5 $10.20 9.5 287,957 4 71%
FY 08 $5.9 $7.1 $3.3 $10.55 9.5 157,337 80 65%
FY 09 $5.8 $7.5 $1.2 $10.95 9.5 107,223 44 70%
FY 10 $5.8 $3.9 $2.7 $10.95 9.5 86,174 119 81%
FY 11 $6.3 $3.5 $5.0 $11.23 9.5 129,590 45 81%
FY 12 $6.1 $4.3 $6.5 $11.40 9.5 157,398 18 89%
FY 13 $6.2 $5.9 $6.2 $11.73 9.6 159,202 32 87%
FY 14 $6.4 $4.2 $7.83 $11.99 10.6 173,185 35 79%
Change from:
Last year +2%‐29%+26% +2% +10%+9%+9%‐8%
FY 05 +115% +57% +1,263% +182% +7%‐45%‐30%‐10%
1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department.
2 Estimated.
3 Includes $1.6 million of rate stabilization reserve.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Wastewater Treatment Fund Regional Water Quality Control Plant Watershed Protection
Operating
revenues
(in
millions)
Operating
expenditures1
(in millions)
Percent of
operating
expenditures
reimbursed by
other
jurisdictions
Reserves
(in millions)
Authorized
staffing
(FTE)
Millions of
gallons
processed2
(Target:
8,200)
Fish toxicity
test –percent
survival
(Target:
100%)
Authorized
staffing
(FTE)
Inspections of
industrial/
commercial
sites3
Percent of
wastewater
treatment
discharge tests
in compliance
(Target: 99%)
Percent of
customers using
reusable bags at
grocery stores
FY 05 $17.0 $15.6 63% $12.6 54.4 8,497 100% 14.3 191 99.38%‐
FY 06 $19.5 $18.1 63% $13.6 54.8 8,972 100% 13.7 192 99.40%‐
FY 07 $17.7 $20.4 64% $13.8 54.8 8,853 100% 13.9 114 99.40%‐
FY 08 $23.9 $31.3 64% $11.1 54.8 8,510 100% 13.9 111 99.25%9%
FY 09 $29.1 $39.3 63% $12.9 54.3 7,958 100% 13.7 250 98.90% 19%
FY 10 $17.6 $22.4 62% $11.8 54.3 8,184 100% 13.7 300 98.82% 21%
FY 11 $20.9 $20.5 61% $15.8 55.5 8,652 100% 13.7 295 99.00% 22%
FY 12 $22.8 $19.8 60% $18.0 55.0 8,130 100% 14.6 300 99.27% 21%
FY 13 $21.9 $20.8 63% $18.9 55.5 7,546 100% 14.6 362 99.80% 24%
FY 14 $18.8 $21.2 61% $14.7
4 55.6 7,186 100%13.8 443 99.70% 40%
Change from:
Last year ‐14% +2%‐2%‐22% 0%‐5% 0%‐6% +22%‐0.10% +16%
FY 05 +11%‐36%‐2% +17% +2%‐15% 0%‐4% +132% +0.32%‐
1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department.
2 Includes gallons processed for all cities served by Palo Alto’s Regional Water Quality Control Plant.
3 Prior to 2009, only automotive sites were reported. Beginning in 2009, inspections reported include industrial, automotive, and food service facilities.
4 Includes $5.5 million of rate stabilization reserve.Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
Attachment A
48
Tons of materials recycled
or composted1
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
participation – number of households
(Target: 4,430)
<NEW>
Percent of households with mini‐can
garbage service
(20 gallon cart)
(Target: 33%)
Commercial accounts with compostable
service2
(Target: 36%)
<NEW>
FY 05 50,311 4,284 ‐‐
FY 06 56,013 4,425 ‐‐
FY 07 56,837 4,789 ‐‐
FY 08 52,196 4,714 ‐‐
FY 09 49,911 4,817 ‐‐
FY 10 48,811 4,710 21% 21%
FY 11 56,586 4,876 25% 14%
3
FY 12 51,725 4,355 29% 13%
FY 13 47,941 4,409 32% 15%
FY 14 49,594 4,878 33% 26%
3
Change from:
Last year +3% +11% +1% +11%
FY 05 ‐1% +14%‐‐
1 Tons of materials recycled or composted do not include self‐hauled materials by residents or businesses.
2The new compostable service began in July 2009. The Department reports that the FY 2011 decrease was due to customers stopping their service after too much garbage was found in compostable
containers and the FY 2014 increase is mainly due to more outreach by GreenWaste and more accounts enrolling in the program.
REFUSE/ZERO WASTE
Operating
Revenues
(in millions)
Operating
Expenditures1
(in millions) Reserves
Monthly Residential Bill
(32 gallon container)
Authorized
Staffing
(FTE)
Total tons of waste
landfilled2
Percent of all sweeping
routes completed
(residential and commercial)
FY 05 $24.0 $25.3 $7.2 $19.80 32.1 60,777 ‐
FY 06 $25.2 $27.7 $4.7 $21.38 35.0 59,276 88%
FY 07 $26.3 $25.1 $5.9 $21.38 34.7 59,938 93%
FY 08 $29.8 $29.4 $6.3 $24.16 34.9 61,866 90%
FY 09 $30.0 $35.5 $0.8 $26.58 35.3 68,228 92%
FY 10 $29.2 $31.4 ($1.4) $31.00 38.0 48,955 88%
FY 11 $31.6 $31.0 ($0.7) $32.40 38.0 38,524 92%
FY 12 $31.6 $32.4 ($1.6) $36.33 37.6 43,947 90%
FY 13 $31.5 $29.7 ($0.2) $41.54 26.5 45,411 93%
FY 14 $30.8 $30.1 $0.4
3 $41.54 22.0 47,088 95%
Change from:
Last year ‐2%+1%‐0%‐17%+4%+2%
FY 05 +28%+19%‐95%+110%‐32%‐23%‐
1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department.
2 Reflects all waste landfilled in the previous calendar year, as reported by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).
3 Includes ‐$1.6 million of rate stabilization reserve.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
Attachment A
49
CITY VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
Expenditures
Operating
revenues
(in millions)
Operating
expenditures
(in millions)
Replacements
and additions
(in millions)
Operations and
maintenance
(in millions)
Authorized
staffing
(FTE)
Current value of
vehicle and equipment
(in millions)
Number of
alternative fuel vehicles
(Target: 67)
Percent of
nonemergency vehicles
using alternative fuels
or technologies
(Target: 26%)
FY 05 $5.6 $5.2 $2.0 $3.0 16.0 $10.9 73 16%
FY 06 $5.8 $6.6 $2.9 $3.2 16.0 $11.9 74 19%
FY 07 $6.4 $7.0 $1.4 $3.3 16.0 $11.9 79 20%
FY 08 $6.8 $6.9 $1.1 $3.8 16.3 $10.8 80 25%
FY 09 $8.8 $14.8 $8.7 $4.3 16.2 $10.0 75 25%
FY 10 $7.8 $7.5 $0.8 $4.0 16.0 $11.2 74 24%
FY 11 $8.1 $6.8 $1.5 $3.1 16.6 $10.8 63 24%
FY 12 $8.1 $8.7 $1.6 $3.5 17.0 $10.0 60 25%
FY 13 $8.0 $8.0 $1.6 $4.2 18.2 $9.0 57 23%
FY 14 $7.8 $7.5 $2.8 $4.7 18.2 $8.5 61 25%
Change from:
Last year ‐3%‐6% +75%+10%0%‐6%+7%+2%
FY 05 +39% +46% +39% +57% +14%‐22%‐16%+9%
Light‐duty vehicles
Total miles traveled Median mileage Median age
Maintenance cost
per vehicle1
Percent of scheduled preventive
maintenance performed within five
business days of original schedule
FY 05 1,731,910 38,897 6.5 $1,790 96%
FY 06 1,674,427 41,153 6.8 $1,781 95%
FY 07 1,849,600 41,920 6.8 $1,886 86%
FY 08 1,650,743 42,573 7.4 $1,620 74%
FY 09 1,615,771 44,784 8.0 $2,123 94%
FY 10 1,474,747 47,040 8.7 $1,836 93%
FY 11 1,447,816 47,252 8.8 $2,279 98%
FY 12 1,503,063 50,345 9.7 $2,168 98%
FY 13 1,382,375 52,488 9.7 $2,177 97%
FY 14 1,409,342 57,721 10.7 $2,733 92%
Change from:
Last year +2%+10%+10%+26%‐5%
FY 05 ‐19%+48%+64%+53%‐4%
1 Does not include fuel or accident repairs; includes maintenance costs for 30 police patrol cars.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
Attachment A
50
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
ELECTRIC
Operating
revenues
(in millions)
Operating
expenditures1
(in millions)
Capital
expenditures2
(in millions)
General
Fund
transfers
(in millions)
Electric
Fund
reserves
(in millions)
Authorized
staffing
(FTE)
Electricity
purchases
(in millions)
Average purchase
cost (per
megawatt hour)
Energy Conservation/
Efficiency Program
expenditures
(in millions)
Average monthly
residential bill3
FY 05 $95.0 $105.3 $7.3 $8.2 $148.0 117.5 $41.0 $41.28 ‐$29.36
FY 06 $122.4 $109.1 $7.2 $8.7 $161.3 118.8 $55.6 $48.62 $1.5 $32.73
FY 07 $108.7 $118.0 $10.5 $8.8 $156.4 114.0 $62.5 $64.97 $1.5 $32.73
FY 08 $112.6 $130.6 $10.2 $9.4 $145.3 111.0 $71.1 $76.84 $1.9 $34.38
FY 09 $129.9 $139.7 $5.5 $9.7 $129.4 107.0 $82.3 $83.34 $2.1 $38.87
FY 10 $130.7 $126.4 $7.5 $11.5 $133.4 109.0 $68.7 $74.11 $2.7 $42.76
FY 11 $125.9 $116.5 $7.3 $11.2 $142.7 107.0 $61.2 $64.01 $2.7 $42.76
FY 12 $123.1 $118.3 $6.4 $11.6 $147.3 108.9 $58.7 $65.00 $3.2 $42.76
FY 13 $125.3 $124.5 $10.4 $11.8 $143.3 109.6 $61.3 $69.15 $2.6 $42.76
FY 14 $126.1 $128.8 $7.7 $11.2 $140.5 112.9 $68.8 $77.84 $2.6 $42.76
Change from:
Last year +1% +3%‐26%‐5%‐2% +3% +12% +13% 0% 0%
FY 05 +33% +22% +6% +36%‐5%‐4% +68% +89%‐+46%
1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department.
2 Capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services.
3 Electric comparisons based on recent residential median data: 365 kilowatt‐hour (kWh)/month in summer (May‐October), 453 kWh/month in winter (November‐April). Prior years were restated to
more accurately reflect a monthly utility bill. Does not include 5 percent utility users tax.
Electric consumption (in MWH1)Percent power content
Number of
customer
accounts Residential
Commercial
and other
Average
residential
usage per
capita
Renewable
large hydro
facilities
Qualifying
renewables2
Electric savings
achieved
annually through
efficiency
programs
(% of total sales)
Percent
customers
enrolled in
Palo Alto
Green
Electric
service
interruptions
over 1 minute
in duration
Average
outage
duration per
customer
affected
(Target: <60
minutes)
Circuit
miles
under‐
grounded
during the
year
Electric
Supply
CO24
emissions
(in metric
tons)
FY 05 28,556 161,440 797,132 2.62 58% 5%‐2% 28 65 2.0 ‐
FY 06 28,653 161,202 804,908 2.58 61% 8%‐15% 39 63 1.0 ‐
FY 07 28,684 162,405 815,721 2.65 84% 10%‐19% 48 48 1.0 156,000
FY 08 29,024 162,680 814,695 2.62 53% 14% 0.56% 20% 41 87 1.2 177,000
FY 09 28,527 159,899 835,784 2.52 47% 19% 0.47% 20% 28 118 0.0 173,000
FY 10 29,430 163,098 801,990 2.53 34% 17% 0.55% 22% 20 132 0.0 150,000
FY 11 29,708 160,318 786,201 2.47 45% 20% 0.70% 21% 33 141 1.2 71,000
FY 12 29,545 160,604 781,960 2.45 65% 20% 1.52% 20% 25 67 1.2 80,000
FY 13 29,299 156,411 790,430 2.36 42% 21% 0.88% 18% 25 139 1.2 57,000
FY 14 29,338 153,190 797,594 2.29 40% 21% 0.87%‐3 16 39 0.0 04
Change from:
Last year 0%‐2% +1%‐2%‐2% 0%‐0.01%‐18%‐36%‐72%‐100%‐100%
FY 05 +3%‐5% 0%‐11%‐18% +16%‐‐2%‐43%‐40%‐100%‐
1 Megawatt hours.
2 Includes biomass, biogas, geothermal, small hydro facilities (not large hydro), solar, and wind. The City Council established a target of 33% renewable power by 2015.
3 The residential Palo Alto Green program has been terminated because the City adopted a carbon neutral plan in March 2013.
4 In FY 2014, the carbon neutral plan effectively eliminated all greenhouse gas emissions from the City’s electric supply.
Mission:To provide safe, reliable, environmentally sustainable, and cost‐effective services.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Attachment A
51
GAS
Operating
revenues
(in millions)
Operating
expenditures1
(in millions)
Capital
expenditures2
(in millions)
General Fund
transfers
(in millions)
Gas Fund
reserves
(in millions)
Authorized
staffing
(FTE)
Gas
purchases
(in millions)
Average
purchase cost
(per therm)
Average monthly
residential bill3
FY 05 $31.8 $39.0 $5.3 $2.8 $12.9 47.4 $18.8 0.58 $26.30
FY 06 $37.2 $36.3 $3.3 $2.9 $13.2 47.3 $21.4 0.66 $33.43
FY 07 $42.9 $40.0 $3.6 $3.0 $16.9 47.9 $22.3 0.69 $44.00
FY 08 $50.4 $46.2 $4.4 $3.2 $21.8 46.4 $27.2 0.82 $52.20
FY 09 $49.5 $44.4 $4.5 $3.3 $26.4 48.4 $25.1 0.80 $56.60
FY 10 $46.8 $43.0 $5.1 $5.4 $29.6 49.0 $22.5 0.71 $51.03
FY 11 $50.4 $45.7 $2.0 $5.3 $34.4 54.3 $21.5 0.65 $51.03
FY 12 $50.9 $48.7 $5.1 $6.0 $36.2 52.3 $16.2 0.53 $51.03
FY 13 $35.6 $38.1 $5.0 $6.0 $32.0 53.3 $13.5 0.45 $37.50
FY 14 $36.6 $39.9 $9.4 $5.8 $28.3 53.4 $14.3 0.49 $39.89
Change from:
Last year +3% +5% +89%‐3%‐12% 0% +6% +9% +6%
FY 05 +15% +2% +80% +109% +120% +13%‐24%‐15% +52%
1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department.
2 Capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services.
3 Gas comparisons based on recent residential median data: 18 therms/month in summer (April‐October), 54 therms/month in winter (November‐March). Commodity prices switched to market
rate in FY 2013. Prior years were restated to more accurately reflect a monthly utility bill. Does not include 5 percent utility users tax.
Gas consumption (in therms)Unplanned service outages Number of leaks found
Number of
customer
accounts Residential
Commercial
and other
Average
residential
usage per capita
Natural gas savings
achieved annually
through efficiency
programs
(% of total sales) Number
Total customers
affected Ground leaks Meter leaks
FY 05 23,301 12,299,158 19,765,077 200 ‐31 639 ‐‐
FY 06 23,353 11,745,883 19,766,876 188 ‐19 211 119 88
FY 07 23,357 11,759,842 19,581,761 192 ‐18 307 56 85
FY 08 23,502 11,969,151 20,216,975 193 0.11%18 105 239 108
FY 09 23,090 11,003,088 19,579,877 173 0.28%46 766 210 265
FY 10 23,724 11,394,712 19,350,424 177 0.40%58 939 196 355
FY 11 23,816 11,476,609 19,436,897 177 0.55%22 114 124 166
FY 12 23,915 11,522,999 18,460,195 176 0.73%35 111 95 257
FY 13 23,659 10,834,793 18,066,040 163 1.40%65 265 91 279
FY 14 23,592 10,253,776 17,862,866 153 1.34%49 285 102 300
Change from:
Last year 0%‐5%‐1%‐6%‐0.05%‐25%+8% +12% +8%
FY 05 +1%‐17%‐10%‐23%‐+58%‐55%‐‐
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Attachment A
52
WATER
Operating
revenues
(in millions)
Operating
expenditures1
(in millions)
Capital
expenditures2
(in millions)
General Fund
transfers
(in millions)
Water Fund
reserves
(in millions)
Authorized
staffing
(FTE)
Water
purchases
(in millions)
Average
purchase costs
(per 100 CCF
3)
Average monthly
residential bill4
Total water in
CCF sold
(in millions)
FY 05 $21.8 $23.2 $4.6 $2.4 $22.2 40.6 $6.7 $1.17 $34.00 5.3
FY 06 $21.6 $24.1 $4.7 $2.4 $19.2 40.8 $6.5 $1.13 $34.00 5.2
FY 07 $26.3 $24.1 $3.9 $2.5 $21.3 44.7 $7.8 $1.32 $36.82 5.5
FY 08 $29.3 $24.9 $3.4 $2.6 $26.4 46.2 $8.4 $1.41 $41.66 5.5
FY 09 $29.5 $28.9 $4.9 $2.7 $26.6 47.7 $8.4 $1.46 $42.97 5.4
FY 10 $28.8 $30.5 $7.1 $0.1 $28.7 46.8 $9.1 $1.70 $43.89 5.0
FY 11 $28.4 $31.8 $7.6 $0.0 $25.5 46.9 $10.7 $1.99 $43.89 5.0
FY 12 $33.8 $41.6 $9.7 $0.0 $23.1 46.4 $14.9 $2.74 $53.62 5.1
FY 13 $40.5 $47.7 $15.3 $0.0 $34.2 49.0 $16.6 $3.03 $62.16 5.1
FY 14 $42.8 $38.4 $9.8 $0.0 $37.1 48.2 $15.7 $2.90 $67.35 5.0
Change from:
Last year +6%‐19%‐36%0% +9%‐2%‐5%‐4%+8%‐1%
FY 05 +96% +66% +111%‐100% +68% +19% +134% +148% +98%‐5%
1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department.
2 Capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services.
3 CCF = hundred cubic feet.
4 Water comparisons based on recent residential median data: 9 CCF/month. Prior years were restated to more accurately reflect a monthly utility bill. Does not include 5 percent utility users tax.
Water consumption (in CCF1)Unplanned service outages
Number of
customer
accounts Residential
Commercial
and other2
Average
residential
usage per
capita
Water savings
achieved through
efficiency programs
(% of total sales) Number
Total
customers
affected
Percent of
miles of water
mains replaced
Water quality compliance
with all required CA
Department of Health and
Environmental Protection
Agency testing
FY 05 19,605 2,686,507 2,644,817 44 ‐10 193 1%100%
FY 06 19,645 2,647,758 2,561,145 42 ‐11 160 0%100%
FY 07 19,726 2,807,477 2,673,126 46 ‐27 783 1%100%
FY 08 19,942 2,746,980 2,779,664 44 0.72%17 374 1%100%
FY 09 19,422 2,566,962 2,828,163 40 0.98%19 230 1%100%
FY 10 20,134 2,415,467 2,539,818 38 1.35%25 291 2%100%
FY 11 20,248 2,442,415 2,550,043 38 0.47%11 92 3%100%
FY 12 20,317 2,513,595 2,549,409 38 1.09%10 70 0%100%
FY 13 20,043 2,521,930 2,575,499 38 0.53%61 950 2%100%
FY 14 20,037 2,496,549 2,549,766 37 0.64%50 942 0%100%
Change from:
Last year 0%‐1%‐1%‐2% +0.13%‐18%‐1%‐2%0%
FY 05 +2%‐7%‐4%‐14%‐+400% +388%‐1%0%
1 CCF = hundred cubic feet.
2 Includes commercial, industrial research, and City facilities.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Attachment A
53
WASTEWATER COLLECTION
Operating
revenues
(in millions)
Operating
expenditures1
(in millions)
Capital
expenditures2
(in millions)
Wastewater
Collection
Fund reserves
(in millions)
Authorized
staffing
(FTE)
Average
monthly
residential
bill3
Number of
customer
accounts
Percent
miles of
mains
cleaned/
treated
Percent
miles of
sewer lines
replaced
Number of
sewage
overflows
Percent sewage
spills and line
blockage responses
within 2 hours
FY 05 $12.5 $12.6 $3.8 $13.5 24.5 $19.25 21,763 ‐‐ ‐99%
FY 06 $14.1 $13.2 $2.4 $14.5 23.1 $21.85 21,784 44% 0% 310 99%
FY 07 $15.7 $19.1 $7.7 $12.4 25.4 $23.48 21,789 69% 3% 152 99%
FY 08 $16.6 $15.7 $3.6 $13.8 28.0 $23.48 21,970 40% 1% 164 99%
FY 09 $15.5 $15.0 $2.9 $14.1 25.5 $23.48 22,210 44% 1% 277 100%
FY 10 $15.9 $13.4 $2.8 $16.6 26.1 $24.65 22,231 66% 2% 348 100%
FY 11 $16.1 $15.5 $2.6 $17.1 28.5 $24.65 22,320 75% 2% 332 100%
FY 12 $15.8 $16.8 $1.7 $16.8 29.7 $27.91 22,421 63% 0% 131 100%
FY 13 $17.6 $17.4 $3.6 $16.4 30.0 $29.31 22,152 65% 2% 129 100%
FY 14 $17.0 $16.7 $3.9 $16.6 30.2 $29.31 22,105 54% 3% 105 100%
Change from:
Last year ‐3%‐4% +8% +2% +1% 0% 0%‐11% +1%‐19%0%
FY 05 +36% +32% +3% +23% +23% +52% +2%‐‐ ‐+1%
1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department.
2 Capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services.
3 Wastewater comparisons are for a residential dwelling unit. Rates are not metered.
FIBER OPTICS
Operating
revenues
(in millions)
Operating
expenditures1
(in millions)
Capital
expenditures2
(in millions)
Fiber Optics
Fund reserves
(in millions)
Authorized
staffing
(FTE)
Number of
customer
accounts
Number of
service
connections
Backbone
fiber miles
FY 05 ‐‐$0.0 ‐5.4 39 116 30.6
FY 06 ‐‐$0.0 ‐4.9 42 139 40.6
FY 07 $2.3 $1.3 $0.0 ‐3.1 49 161 40.6
FY 08 $3.4 $1.1 $0.0 $5.0 0.7 41 173 40.6
FY 09 $3.8 $1.5 $0.0 $6.4 6.0 47 178 40.6
FY 10 $3.6 $1.4 $0.1 $10.2 5.5 47 196 40.6
FY 11 $3.7 $1.9 $0.4 $11.9 7.7 59 189 40.6
FY 12 $4.1 $1.8 $0.6 $14.3 7.4 59 199 40.6
FY 13 $4.7 $1.5 $0.4 $17.0 7.3 72 205 40.6
FY 14 $4.9 $2.0 $0.5 $19.9 7.2 75 230 40.6
Change from:
Last year +3% +33% +20% +17%‐2% +4% +12% 0%
FY 05 ‐‐‐‐+33% +92% +98% +33%
1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department.
2 Capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Attachment A
54
OFFICES OF COUNCIL‐APPOINTED OFFICERS
General Fund Operating Expenditures (in millions)General Fund Authorized Staffing (FTE)
City Manager’s
Office1
City Attorney’s
Office
City Clerk’s
Office
City Auditor’s
Office
City Manager’s
Office1
City Attorney’s
Office
City Clerk’s
Office
City Auditor’s
Office
FY 05 $1.7 $2.6 $0.8 $0.8 11.1 14.1 6.2 4.4
FY 06 $1.3 $2.6 $1.0 $0.9 8.8 12.3 6.1 4.1
FY 07 $1.7 $2.5 $0.9 $0.9 8.9 11.6 7.3 4.1
FY 08 $2.3 $2.7 $1.3 $0.9 12.9 11.6 8.3 4.3
FY 09 $2.0 $2.5 $1.1 $0.8 11.8 11.6 7.4 4.3
FY 10 $2.3 $2.6 $1.5 $1.0 11.0 11.6 7.2 4.3
FY 11 $2.3 $2.3 $1.2 $1.0 9.9 10.1 7.2 4.8
FY 12 $2.5 $2.8 $1.5 $0.9 11.1 9.0 7.2 4.3
FY 13 $2.5 $2.4 $1.3 $1.0 10.1 9.0 7.2 4.5
FY 14 $2.9 $2.6 $1.1 $1.0 9.6 9.0 6.2 4.5
Change from:
Last year +15%+6%‐14%+3%‐5%0%‐14%0%
FY 05 +66%‐2%+40%+28%‐14%‐36%0%+3%
1Includes figures for the Office of Sustainability, which was established as a separate office in FY 2014 and is no longer classified under the City Manager’s Office for budget purposes.
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
& Su
p
p
o
r
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Missions:
City Manager: To lead the City in providing exemplary service and creating partnerships with citizens in an ever‐changing environment, in response
to City Council priorities.
City Attorney: To serve Palo Alto and its policy makers by providing legal representation of the highest quality.
City Auditor: To promote honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable city government.
City Clerk: To provide excellent service to the public, City staff, and the City Council through personal assistance and the use of information
technologies; to provide timely and accessible service in response to all inquiries and requests for public information and records; to provide
resources through web pages to enable the public to research public information independently. Administration of elections, records
management, and the legislative process are all key processes handled by the department.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Attachment A
55
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
& Su
p
p
o
r
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
City Attorney City Auditor
Number of
claims
handled
Percent of claims
resolved within
45 days of filing
(Target: 95%)
Percent of survey respondents
agreeing or strongly agreeing
the training provided is
useful and relevant
(Target: 92%)
<NEW>
Number of major
work products
issued2
<NEW>
Number of major
work products
issued2 per
audit staff
<NEW>
Percent of open audit
recommendations
implemented over the
last five years
(Target: 75%)
<NEW>
Sales and use tax
revenue
recoveries3
FY 05 144 ‐‐42.0 ‐$232,895
FY 06 107 ‐‐52.5 ‐$917,597
FY 07 149 ‐‐42.0 ‐$78,770
FY 08 160 ‐‐73.5 ‐$149,810
FY 09 126 ‐‐3 1.5 40% $84,762
FY 10 144 ‐‐5 2.5 42% $259,560
FY 11 130 ‐‐3 1.0 39% $95,625
FY 12 112 92% 92% 5 1.7 49% $160,488
FY 13 99 95%‐1 5 1.4 42%$151,153
FY 14 78 92%100%4 1.3 43%$168,916
Change from:
Last year ‐21%‐3%‐‐20%‐7%+1%+12%
FY 05 ‐46%‐‐0%‐33%‐‐27%
1No training was provided in FY 2013.
2Includes audits, the annual Performance Report, and the annual National Citizen Survey™.
3Includes other nonrecurring revenues from transient occupancy tax, alternative fuel tax credit, and/or unclaimed property in fiscal years 2005 through 2007 and fiscal years 2010 through 2013.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Attachment A
56
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
General Fund Procurement Card2
Operating
expenditures
(in millions)
Authorized
staffing
(FTE)
Budget
stabilization
reserve
(in millions)
Cash and
investments
(in millions)
Rate of
return on
investments
(Target:
2.25%)
Number of
accounts
payable
checks
issued
Average days
purchase
requisitions
are in queue1
Value of goods
and services
purchased
(in millions)
Number of
purchasing
documents
processed
Number of
transactions
Total value
(in millions)
<NEW>
Total lease
payments
received
(in millions)
<NEW>
FY 05 $6.7 57.1 $24.5 $367.3 4.24%16,813 ‐$70.2 3,268 8,261 ‐‐
FY 06 $6.6 51.1 $26.3 $376.2 4.21%15,069 ‐$61.3 2,847 10,517 ‐‐
FY 07 $7.0 52.9 $27.5 $402.6 4.35%14,802 ‐$107.5 2,692 10,310 ‐‐
FY 08 $7.3 53.5 $26.1 $375.7 4.45%14,480 ‐$117.2 2,549 11,350 ‐‐
FY 09 $7.0 50.6 $24.7 $353.4 4.42%14,436 ‐$132.0 2,577 12,665 ‐‐
FY 10 $7.9 44.2 $27.4 $462.4 3.96%12,609 ‐$112.5 2,314 12,089 ‐‐
FY 11 $6.3 40.2 $31.4 $471.6 3.34%13,680 ‐$149.8 2,322 13,547 ‐‐
FY 12 $7.0 41.3 $28.1 $502.3 2.59%10,966 ‐$137.0 2,232 15,256 ‐‐
FY 13 $7.0 42.5 $30.4 $527.9 2.46%10,466 38 $152.5 1,945 18,985 ‐$3.4
FY 14 $7.1 41.5 $35.1 $541.2 2.21%10,270 30 $136.6 2,047 17,885 $6.2 $3.4
Change from:
Last year +1%‐2% +16% +3% 0%‐2%‐21%‐10% +5%‐6%‐0%
FY 05 +6%‐27% +43% +47%‐2%‐39%‐+95%‐37% +116%‐‐
1 The estimated average number of days purchase requisitions remain in queue after the initiating department releases them. The Administrative Services Department started tracking this measure in
May 2013. The time to convert purchase requisitions to purchase orders may very significantly depending on procurement requirements and complexity.
2 The department’s goal is to increase procurement card expenditures to $7 million per year to take advantage of the revenue the City receives through rebate. St
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
& Su
p
p
o
r
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Mission:To provide proactive administrative support to City departments and decision makers, and to safeguard and facilitate the optimal use of
City resources.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Attachment A
57
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
& Su
p
p
o
r
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
PEOPLE STRATEGY AND OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT
General Fund Workers’ Compensation
Operating
expenditures
(in millions)
Authorized
staffing
(FTE)
Turnover of employees
within first year1
(Target: 4%)
Estimated cost
incurred2
(in thousands)
Claims Paid2
(in thousands)
Estimated costs
outstanding2
(in thousands)
Number of claims
filed with days
away from work3
Days lost to work‐
related illness or
injury4
FY 05 $2.5 15.1 0% $2,128 $1,705 $423 74 ‐
FY 06 $2.5 15.4 3% $2,994 $2,579 $415 80 ‐
FY 07 $2.6 15.6 7% $2,129 $1,923 $206 76 2,242
FY 08 $2.7 17.2 9%$2,698 $2,421 $278 75 1,561
FY 09 $2.7 16.0 8%$2,539 $2,014 $525 73 1,407
FY 10 $2.7 16.3 6%$2,531 $2,109 $421 71 1,506
FY 11 $2.6 16.3 8%$1,655 $1,150 $505 45 1,372
FY 12 $2.7 16.5 10%$2,865 $1,463 $1,402 55 1,236
FY 13 $2.9 16.6 8%$3,032 $1,334 $1,698 40 1,815
FY 14 $3.1 16.7 9%$1,617 $659 $959 45 1,783
Change from:
Last year +10% +1%+1%‐47%‐51%‐44%+13%‐2%
FY 05 +27% +11%+9%‐24%‐61%+127%‐39%‐
1In FY 2013, the City’s probation period was extended from six months to one year.
2 Estimates of claim costs incurred during each fiscal year, and associated costs paid and outstanding as of June 30, 2014. Costs are expected to increase as claims develop. Prior‐year costs were
updated to reflect current costs as of June 30, 2014.
3 Restated to reflect the number of claims filed during each fiscal year that resulted in days away from work as of June 30, 2014. Numbers may increase as claims develop.
4 Based on calendar days. Federal requirements limit each claim to 180 days.
Mission:To recruit, develop, and retain a diverse, well‐qualified and professional workforce that reflects the high standards of the community we
serve, and to lead City departments in positive employee relations, talent management, succession planning, and employee engagement.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Attachment A
The National Citizen Survey™
January 23, 2015
Office of the City Auditor
Harriet Richardson, City Auditor
Houman Boussina, Senior Performance Auditor
Deniz Tunc, Administrative Assistant
Attachment B
Page intentionally left blank
Attachment B
Office of the City Auditor
January 23, 2015
Executive Summary: The National Citizen Survey™
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
This report presents the results of the 12th annual National Citizen Survey™ (NCS™) for the City of Palo Alto.
The National Research Center and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) conduct
the statistically valid NCS™ to gather resident opinions across a range of community issues, including the
quality of the community and related services, as well as residents’ engagement level within their
community. The Office of the City Auditor contracts with the National Research Center to conduct the NCS™.
BACKGROUND
From 2003 through 2013, the National Research Center mailed surveys to 1,200 residents within the City of
Palo Alto. In an attempt to increase the number of responses received in 2014, we expanded the number of
surveys distributed from 1,200 to 3,000. We also requested that the National Research Center distribute the
surveys within six geographic areas of the City. The larger sample size allowed us to maintain statistical
reliability within each of the six geographic areas, as well as in the north and south areas of the City. The
larger number of surveys distributed also resulted in a higher number of surveys returned; however, the
27 percent response rate was the same as it was in 2012 but slightly lower than it was in 2013 (29 percent).
Although the percentage of respondents has held fairly steady, the higher number of surveys improved the
margin of error for the overall response rate from plus or minus five percentage points for the 2013 survey
to plus or minus three percentage points for the 2014 survey.
The following table shows the number of surveys distributed and the number of responses received within
each area. The response rate is based on the number of eligible surveys, after accounting for surveys
returned to the National Research Center as undeliverable. The maps below the table show the
neighborhoods in the north and south areas and in Areas 1-6, and the dots on the maps represent
households that received a survey. Two responses that were returned had been altered so the area could
not be determined; the results of those two responses are included in the overall summary of results.
SURVEY RESPONSE DATA
Area Number mailed Undeliverable Eligible Returned Response rate
Overall 3,000 104 2,896 796 27%
North
South
1,391
1,609
59
45
1,332
1,564
328
466
25%
30%
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
Area 5
Area 6
207
494
414
679
670
536
8
14
3
28
33
18
199
480
411
651
637
518
75
137
141
181
126
134
38%
29%
34%
28%
20%
26%
Unknown Area 2
Attachment B
Executive Summary: National Citizen Survey 4
North/South Areas 1-6
Neighborhoods in North Palo Alto: Crescent Park,
Community Center, Duveneck/St. Francis, Triple El,
Embarcadero Oaks, Leland Manor, Garland,
Southgate, Evergreen Park, College Terrace,
Downtown North, University South, Professorville,
Old Palo Alto
Neighborhoods in South Palo Alto: Midtown, St.
Claire Gardens, South of Midtown, Palo Verde,
Adobe Meadow/Meadow Park, Charleston Gardens,
The Greenhouse, Greendell, Greenmeadow, Walnut
Grove, Fairmeadow, Ventura, Charleston Meadows,
Monroe Park, Palo Alto Orchards, Barron Park, Green
Acres, Greater Miranda, Esther Clark Park, Palo Alto
Hills
Neighborhoods in Area 1: Crescent Park, Community
Center, Duveneck/St. Francis, Triple El, Embarcadero
Oaks, Leland Manor, Garland
Neighborhoods in Area 2: Midtown, St. Claire
Gardens, South of Midtown
Neighborhoods in Area 3: Palo Verde, Adobe
Meadow/Meadow Park, Charleston Gardens, The
Greenhouse, Greendell, Greenmeadow, Walnut
Grove, Fairmeadow
Neighborhoods in Area 4: Ventura, Charleston
Meadows, Monroe Park, Palo Alto Orchards, Barron
Park, Green Acres, Greater Miranda, Esther Clark Park
Neighborhoods in Area 5: Southgate, Evergreen Park,
College Terrace, Palo Alto Hills
Neighborhoods in Area 6: Downtown North,
University South, Professorville, Old Palo Alto
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS
This section highlights the results of key quality of life questions asked in the survey. The full results of the
survey are in Appendix A.
North
South
Area 1
Area 3
Area 2
Area 4
Area 5
Area 6
Attachment B
Executive Summary: National Citizen Survey 5
Overall Results
Palo Alto as a place to live (percent who rated as excellent or good):
10-year trend:
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
95% 92% 95% 94% 95% 94% 95% 96% 94% 94%
Your neighborhood as a place to live (percent who rated as excellent or good):
10-year trend:
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
92% 91% 90% 90% 91% 90% 91% 91% 91% 90%
Palo Alto as a place to raise children (percent who rated as excellent or good):
10-year trend:
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
93% 90% 92% 93% 93% 91% 94% 92% 92% 92%
Attachment B
Executive Summary: National Citizen Survey 6
Palo Alto as a place to work (percent who rated as excellent or good):
10-year trend:
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
86% 89% 88% 89% 87% 87% 90% 90% 84% 81%
Palo Alto as a place to visit (new question – percent who rated as excellent or good):
10-year trend:
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
75% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Palo Alto as a place to retire (percent who rated as excellent or good):
10-year trend:
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
60% 56% 68% 68% 65% 64% 67% 61% 68% 60%
Attachment B
Executive Summary: National Citizen Survey 7
Overall quality of life in Palo Alto (percent who rated as excellent or good):
10-year trend:
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
91% 91% 94% 92% 94% 93% 91% 94% 92% 90%
The quality of services provided by the City of Palo Alto (percent who rated as excellent or good):
10-year trend:
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
83% 84% 88% 83% 80% 80% 85% 86% 87% 88%
The combined “excellent” and “good” responses improved in several areas by six or more percentage points,
which is the point where the National Research Center considered the change to be significant:
Question 2013 2014
Community engagement 73% 79%
Land use, planning, and zoning 36% 43%
Economic development 61% 73%
Overall quality of new development 44% 51%
Overall quality of business and service establishments 71% 79%
Availability of affordable quality health care 62% 73%
Availability of preventive health services 73% 82%
Street repair 47% 55%
Street lighting 66% 74%
Bus or transit services 49% 57%
Garbage collection 85% 91%
Storm drainage 69% 80%
Shopping opportunities 73% 82%
Attachment B
Executive Summary: National Citizen Survey 8
2
In contrast, the combined “excellent” and “good” responses declined by six or more percentage points in only
one area – Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other
emergency situations) declined from 77 percent in 2013 to 70 percent in 2014.
Comparative Results
There were statistically significant variances in the combined “excellent” and “good” responses between the
north and south subgroups, as well as for the six area subgroups. It is important to recognize that while these
variances exist, the survey did not ask why respondents answered the way they did. Thus, the only way to
answer why the differing opinions exist among the various subgroups would be to do more in-depth
questioning, such as through targeted focus groups. The tables below list the questions and percentage of
“excellent” and “good” responses where the variances were significant and compare the responses for 2014
with those from 2013. The Benchmark Comparison column shows how Palo Alto residents’ opinions
compared with perspectives over 500 communities for which the National Research Center gathers surveys
data. These comparisons are shows as ↔ for comparable, ↑ for Palo Alto’s results being higher than the
benchmark, and ↑↑ for Palo Alto’s results being much higher than the benchmark.
NORTH/SOUTH SUBGROUP – PERCENTAGE RATING “EXCELLENT”/“GOOD” OR “VERY”/”SOMEWHAT”
Survey Question Overall
2013*
Overall
2014
Benchmark
Comparison
North South
Palo Alto as a place to retire 56% 60% ↔ 68% 54%
Feeling of safety in your neighborhood after dark 72% 84% ↔ 80% 86%
Ease of public parking N/A 38% ↔ 32% 42%
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 55% 52% ↔ 45% 56%
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 84% 84% ↑ 88% 82%
Availability of paths and walking trails 71% 74% ↔ 81% 70%
Overall “built environment” of Palo Alto (including overall design,
buildings, parks, and transportation systems
N/A 67% ↔ 73% 63%
Palo Alto as a place to visit N/A 75% ↔ 80% 71%
Shopping opportunities 73% 82% ↑ 88% 77%
Vibrant downtown/commercial areas N/A 77% ↑↑ 81% 74%
Availability of affordable quality health care 62% 73% ↑ 79% 69%
Availability of preventive health services 73% 82% ↑ 87% 78%
Availability of affordable quality mental health care N/A 63% ↑ 70% 57%
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 74% 71% ↔ 77% 67%
Opportunities to volunteer 82% 83% ↔ 87% 80%
Neighborliness of residents in Palo Alto N/A 64% ↔ 69% 61%
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 55% 54% ↔ 61% 49%
Quality of storm drainage services 69% 80% ↑ 75% 83%
Quality of code enforcement services (weeds, abandoned buildings,
etc.)
57% 62% ↔ 68% 58%
Importance of quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 83% 81% ↑ 77% 84%
Overall economic health of Palo Alto N/A 80% ↑↑ 76% 83%
*N/A means that the question was not in the 2013 survey.
Attachment B
Executive Summary: National Citizen Survey 9
AREA SUBGROUPS – PERCENTAGE RATING “EXCELLENT”/“GOOD” OR “VERY”/”SOMEWHAT”
Survey Question Overall
2013*
Overall
2014
Benchmark
Comparison
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Overall quality of life in Palo Alto 91% 91% ↔ 91% 93% 91% 86% 88% 97%
Your neighborhood as a place to live 91% 92% ↑ 91% 95% 92% 86% 93% 96%
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 90% 93% ↑ 92% 97% 94% 89% 89% 95%
Palo Alto as a place to retire 56% 60% ↔ 68% 56% 66% 44% 62% 75%
Overall appearance of Palo Alto 85% 89% ↑ 83% 94% 87% 86% 88% 94%
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto N/A 92% ↑ 84% 94% 94% 93% 96% 90%
Feeling of safety in your neighborhood after
dark
72% 84% ↔ 79% 89% 87% 83% 85% 77%
Availability of paths and walking trails 71% 74% ↔ 77% 72% 74% 66% 81% 83%
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 84% 84% ↑ 90% 90% 82% 75% 81% 93%
Ease of travel by public transportation in
Palo Alto
N/A 36% ↔ 22% 24% 36% 43% 39% 42%
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 55% 52% ↔ 41% 57% 52% 58% 43% 49%
Quality of overall natural environment in
Palo Alto
83% 88% ↑ 88% 88% 96% 83% 86% 91%
Overall “built environment” of Palo Alto
(including overall design, buildings, parks,
and transportation systems)
N/A 67% ↔ 66% 62% 66% 63% 73% 77%
Shopping opportunities 73% 82% ↑ 85% 69% 80% 83% 87% 88%
Palo Alto as a place to visit N/A 75% ↔ 84% 68% 82% 67% 78% 80%
Availability of affordable quality mental
health care
N/A 63% ↑ 56% 55% 67% 52% 77% 73%
Availability of preventive health services 73% 82% ↑ 83% 77% 80% 76% 91% 88%
Availability of affordable quality health care 62% 73% ↑ 69% 65% 73% 69% 88% 79%
Opportunities to participate in social events
and activities
74% 71% ↔ 77% 72% 68% 62% 77% 77%
The value of services for the taxes paid to
Palo Alto
66% 66% ↔ 52% 60% 79% 57% 82% 75%
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 54% 50% ↔ 37% 51% 49% 42% 61% 60%
The job Palo Alto government does at
welcoming citizen involvement
55% 54% ↔ 49% 52% 60% 38% 71% 64%
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government N/A 52% ↔ 35% 52% 54% 49% 64% 56%
Generally acting in the best interest of the
community
N/A 54% ↔ 40% 55% 56% 47% 64% 63%
Quality of Palo Alto government being
honest
N/A 58% ↔ 39% 54% 62% 54% 72% 65%
Treating all residents fairly N/A 57% ↔ 45% 55% 65% 47% 65% 68%
Street repair 47% 55% ↔ 42% 59% 68% 42% 65% 56%
Street cleaning 76% 80% ↑ 77% 85% 86% 73% 84% 79%
Street lighting 66% 74% ↔ 73% 76% 82% 64% 78% 75%
Sidewalk maintenance 56% 62% ↔ 43% 70% 66% 53% 72% 65%
Cable television N/A 60% ↔ 53% 60% 66% 49% 73% 61%
Public library services 85% 81% ↔ 68% 81% 81% 79% 84% 90%
City-sponsored special events N/A 75% ↔ 74% 81% 81% 62% 80% 76%
Sense of community 67% 64% ↔ 71% 66% 68% 54% 69% 65%
*N/A means that the question was not in the 2013 survey.
Attachment B
Executive Summary: National Citizen Survey 10
Custom Questions
In addition to the standard survey questions, we asked four custom questions:
1) “If the City must identify areas for additional multifamily housing (condos or apartments) to meet state
requirements, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with placing the additional multifamily
housing in the following locations: Along El Camino Real, Along San Antonio Avenue, California Avenue
area, Downtown Palo Alto, or East of Highway 101.”
Although none of the areas received an overall high level of favorable responses, East of Highway 101
received the most overall favorable response rate, with 69 percent of respondents saying that they
“strongly agree” or “somewhat agree,” followed by Along San Antonio Avenue, which received 68 percent
favorable responses. However, only 51 percent of Area 3 respondents, which includes San Antonio
Avenue, favored additional multifamily housing Along San Antonio Avenue.
2) “Please indicate your level of support for future funding of the following transportation-related
investments: bicycle/pedestrian improvements, Caltrain grade separation, electric vehicle
infrastructure and incentives, incentives to encourage people to use transit instead of cars, parking
garages (downtown and California Avenue), road widening and intersection improvements, shuttle
service improvements.”
Ninety-three percent of respondents supported bicycle/pedestrian improvements, while 84 percent
supported shuttle service improvements and incentives to encourage people to use transit instead of cars,
and 82 percent supported electric vehicle infrastructure/incentives and parking garages. Road
widening/intersection improvements and Caltrain grade separation received less support, at 75 percent
and 74 percent respectively.
3) “Please rate the ease of vehicle travel through Palo Alto on Monday-Friday from early morning through
rush hour, late morning through mid-afternoon, late afternoon through rush hour, evening through
midnight, and midnight through early morning.”
The only time frames that respondents rated high were midnight through early morning and evening
through midnight, with overall ratings of 95 percent and 79 percent excellent or good, respectively.
Respondents rated rush hour time frames extremely low, with only 25 percent of respondents rating early
morning through rush hour as excellent or good and only 14 percent of respondents rating late afternoon
through rush hour as excellent or good.
4) “Please rate the availability of public parking in Palo Alto on Monday-Friday from early morning
through rush hour, late morning through mid-afternoon, late afternoon through rush hour, evening
through midnight, and midnight through early morning.”
The only time frame that respondents rated high was midnight through early morning, with an overall
88 percent rating of excellent or good. The overall excellent/good ratings for late afternoon through rush
hour, late morning through mid-afternoon, evening through midnight, and early morning through rush
hour were 26 percent, 32 percent, 44 percent, and 65 percent, respectively.
We also asked one open-ended questions that allowed residents to write in a response:
“What one change could the City make that would make Palo Alto residents happier?”
We put the full text of all of the responses into the website, www.wordle.net to create a “word cloud.” The
cloud gives greater prominence to words that appeared more frequently in residents’ responses to the
question. Although residents may have used various words to represent the same topic, the word cloud
Attachment B
Executive Summary: National Citizen Survey 11
clearly indicates that housing is the issue of most concern to residents. The word “housing” appeared most
often in combination with the word “affordable,” which is another prominent word in the cloud. The second
and third most important issues to residents were traffic and parking.
Office of the City Auditor ● 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor ● Palo Alto, CA 94301 ● 360.329.2667
Copies of the full report are available on the Office of the City Auditor website at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/reports/accomplishments.asp
Attachment B
National Research Center, Inc. | Boulder, CO International City/County Management Association | Washington, DC
Appendix A
The National
Citizen Survey™
Palo Alto, CA
Report of Results
2014
Attachment B
1
Contents
Summary ........................................................................................ 1
Trends Over Time ........................................................................... 3
Comparisons by Geographic Subgroups .......................................... 13
Open-Ended Responses ................................................................. 27
Complete Survey Responses .......................................................... 41
Detailed Survey Methods ............................................................... 77
Survey Materials............................................................................ 91
Attachment B
1
Summary
The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC)
and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are
standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS
communities. The NCS captures residents’ opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community
Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural
Environment, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community
Engagement). This report discusses trends over time, comparing the 2014 ratings for the City of Palo Alto to its
previous survey results each year from 2003 to 2013. Additional reports and technical appendices are available
under separate cover.
Trend data for Palo Alto represent important comparison data and should be examined for improvements or
declines. Deviations from stable trends over time, especially, represent opportunities for understanding how local
policies, programs or public information may have affected residents’ opinions.
Meaningful differences between survey years have been noted within the following tables as being “higher” or
“lower” if the differences are greater than six percentage points between the 2013 and 2014 surveys, otherwise
the comparison between 2013 and 2014 are noted as being “similar.” When comparing results over time, small
differences (those inside the margin of error of 6% for comparison to 2013) are more likely to be due to random
variation (attributable to chance over real change), while larger differences (those greater than 6% compared to
2013) may be due to a real shift in resident perspective. However, it is often wise to continue to monitor results
over a longer period of time to rule out random variation due to chance in the sampling process. Sometimes small
changes in question wording can explain changes in results as well.
Additionally, benchmark comparisons for all survey years are presented for reference. Changes in the benchmark
comparison over time can be impacted by various trends, including varying survey cycles for the individual
communities that comprise the benchmarks, regional and national economic or other events, as well as emerging
survey methodologies. NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives
gathered in surveys from over 500 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics on The
National Citizen Survey™. The surveys gathered for NRC’s database include data from communities who have
conducted The NCS as well as citizen surveys unaffiliated with NRC. The comparison evaluations are from the
most recent survey completed in each community; most communities conduct surveys every year or in
alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh
and relevant and the comparisons below are to jurisdictions who have conducted a survey within the last five
years. Palo Alto’s results are noted as being “higher” (↑) than the benchmark, “lower” (↓) than the benchmark or
“similar” (↔) to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by Palo Alto residents is statistically
similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. More extreme differences are noted as “much
higher” (↑↑) or “much lower” (↓↓). Where questions were not asked in previous years or benchmark ratings were
not available, “NA” indicates that this information is “Not Applicable.”
Overall, ratings in Palo Alto for 2014 generally remained stable. Of the 88 items for which comparisons were
available, 63 items were rated similarly in 2013 and 2014, eight items showed a decrease in ratings and 17
showed an increase in ratings. Notable trends over time included the following:
Ratings within Education and Enrichment showed the most variation. For example, fewer participants had
used public libraries or participated in religious or spiritual activities, but more residents gave higher ratings
to religious or spiritual events and activities.
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
2
Within Mobility, ratings for the services of street repair, street lighting and bus or transit services all
increased.
Fewer participants attended or watched public meetings.
Participants gave higher ratings for a variety of Community Characteristics. Some of these characteristics
included new development in Palo Alto, shopping opportunities, businesses and services, health care and
preventive health care. Participants also gave higher ratings for a variety of governmental services such as
garbage collection, storm drainage, land use, planning and zoning, economic development and public
information.
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
3
Trends Over Time
Please note that the tables include benchmark comparisons for all survey years. In previous survey years, a smaller margin of error (MOE) was used for
comparisons to other communities versus a larger margin of error in 2014. To aid in interpreting the relative benchmark change from 2013 to 2014, an additional
2014 column has been included, with a smaller margin of error (analogous to 2013). All of the interpretation in the set of 2014 reports is based on the larger
margin of error.
Table 1: Community Characteristics General
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
2014 rating compared to 2013
Comparison to benchmark
03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 (+/-2 points MOE)14 (+/-10 points MOE)
Overall quality of life in Palo Alto 92% 93% 90% 92% 94% 91% 93% 94% 92% 94% 91% 91%↔ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↔
Overall image or
reputation of Palo Alto NA NA NA 91% 93% 92% 92% 90% 92% 92% 90% 92%↔ * NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑
Palo Alto as a place to
live 95% 96% 94% 94% 96% 95% 94% 95% 94% 95% 92% 95%↔ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑
Your neighborhood as a place to live 88% 91% 90% 91% 91% 91% 90% 91% 90% 90% 91% 92%↔ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 90% 93% 92% 92% 92% 94% 91% 93% 93% 92% 90% 93%↔ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑
Palo Alto as a place to
retire 62% 63% 60% 68% 61% 67% 64% 65% 68% 68% 56% 60%↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑ ↑ ↑↑↑ ↑ ↑↑↑ ↔ ↔ ↔
Overall appearance of
Palo Alto 87% 86% 85% 85% 86% 89% 83% 83% 89% 89% 85% 89%↔ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑
Table 2: Community Characteristics by Facet
Percent rating positively (excellent/good, *very/somewhat safe)
2014
rating compared to 2013
Comparison to benchmark
03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14
(+/-2 points MOE)
14 (+/-
10 points MOE)
Safety Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 92% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑
In your neighborhood
during the day* 97% 98% 98% 94% 98% 95% 95% 96% 98% 96% 97% 97%↔ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↔
In Palo Alto’s
downtown/commercial areas during the day* 95% 94% 96% 91% 94% 96% 91% 94% 91% 92% 93% 92%↔ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↔
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
4
Percent rating positively (excellent/good, *very/somewhat safe)
2014 rating compared
to 2013
Comparison to benchmark
03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 (+/-2 points
MOE)
14
(+/-10 points
MOE)
In your neighborhood
after dark* 83% 82% 84% 79% 85% 78% 78% 83% 83% 82% 72% 84%↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑↑ ↑ ↔↑↑ ↔
In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial
areas after dark* 71% 76% 69% 69% 74% 65% 65% 70% 65% 71% 62% 68%↔ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↔↑↑ ↔
Mobility Overall ease of getting to the places you usually
have to visit NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 71% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔
Availability of paths and
walking trails NA NA NA NA NA 74% 75% 75% 75% 77% 71% 74%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↔
Ease of walking in Palo Alto NA NA 86% 87% 88% 86% 82% 85% 83% 82% 84% 84%↔ NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 84% 80% 79% 78% 84% 78% 79% 81% 77% 81% 78% 78%↔ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 36% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓ ↔
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 55% 52% 61% 60% 65% 60% 65% 66% 62% 51% 55% 52%↔ ↔ ↔ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↓ ↓ ↓↓ ↔
Ease of public parking NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 38% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓↔
Traffic flow on major streets 36% 39% 41% 39% 45% 38% 46% 47% 40% 36% 34% 35%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑↑ ↔ ↔↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↔
Natural Environment Overall natural environment in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA 85% 84% 84% 84% 88% 83% 88%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑
Cleanliness of Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA 88% 85% 85% 88% 86% 84% 87%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑
Air quality NA NA NA 80% 79% 75% 73% 77% 77% 81% 81% 83%↔ NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↔
Built
Environment
Overall “built
environment” of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and
transportation systems) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 67% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑ ↔
Overall quality of new
development in Palo Alto NA NA 56% 62% 57% 57% 55% 53% 57% 56% 44% 51%↑ NA NA ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↓ ↔ ↔↓↓ ↓↓ ↔
Availability of affordable quality housing 6% 7% 8% 11% 10% 12% 17% 15% 14% 12% 13% 11%↔ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓
Variety of housing options NA NA NA NA NA 34% 39% 37% 37% 29% 26% 27%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
5
Percent rating positively (excellent/good, *very/somewhat safe)
2014 rating compared
to 2013
Comparison to benchmark
03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 (+/-2 points
MOE)
14
(+/-10 points
MOE)
Public places where
people want to spend
time NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 81% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑
Economy Overall economic health
of Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 88% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑
Vibrant downtown/commercial
areas NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 77% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑
Overall quality of
business and service establishments in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA 77% 73% 75% 74% 79% 71% 79%↑ NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑ ↔
Cost of living in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 11% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓ ↓↓
Shopping opportunities NA NA 75% 80% 79% 71% 70% 70% 71% 69% 73% 82%↑ NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑
Employment
opportunities 33% 43% 45% 59% 61% 61% 51% 52% 56% 68% 68% 69%↔ ↔ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑
Palo Alto as a place to
visit NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 75% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↔
Palo Alto as a place to work NA NA 81% 84% 90% 90% 87% 87% 89% 88% 89% 86%↔ NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑
Recreation and
Wellness
Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 88% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑
Availability of affordable quality mental health care NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 63% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑
Availability of preventive health services NA NA NA NA NA 70% 67% 67% 72% 76% 73% 82%↑ NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑
Availability of affordable quality health care NA NA NA 57% 56% 57% 63% 62% 59% 68% 62% 73%↑ NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑ ↑
Availability of affordable
quality food NA NA NA 62% 71% 64% NA NA 66% 68% 67% 65%↔ NA NA NA ↔↑↑↑ NA NA ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↔
Recreational
opportunities NA NA NA 83% 85% 82% 78% 80% 81% 81% 81% 77%↔ NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↔
Fitness opportunities (including exercise
classes and paths or trails, etc.) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 78% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↔
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
6
Percent rating positively (excellent/good, *very/somewhat safe)
2014 rating compared
to 2013
Comparison to benchmark
03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 (+/-2 points
MOE)
14
(+/-10 points
MOE)
Education
and
Enrichment
Opportunities to
participate in religious or
spiritual events and activities NA NA NA NA NA 82% NA NA NA 84% 75% 86%↑ NA NA NA NA NA ↑ NA NA NA ↑ ↔↑↑ ↔
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 81% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑
Adult education opportunities NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 89% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑
K-12 education NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 92% 92% 94% 95%↔ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑
Availability of affordable quality child
care/preschool NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 49% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↔
Community Engagement Opportunities to participate in social
events and activities NA NA NA NA NA 80% 80% 74% 76% 74% 74% 71%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↔ ↔
Neighborliness of
residents in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 64% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↔
Openness and acceptance of the
community toward people of diverse backgrounds 73% 73% 72% 75% 79% 77% 78% 79% 78% 80% 76% 76%↔ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↔
Opportunities to participate in community
matters NA NA NA NA NA 75% 76% 76% 71% NA NA 75%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑NA NA ↑↑ ↔
Opportunities to volunteer NA NA NA NA NA 86% 83% 81% 80% 80% 82% 83%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↔
Table 3: Governance General
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
2014 rating compared to 2013
Comparison to benchmark
03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 (+/-2 points MOE)
14 (+/-10 points MOE)
Services provided by Palo Alto 87% 90% 88% 87% 86% 85% 80% 80% 83% 88% 84% 83%↔ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑↑↑↔
Overall customer service by
Palo Alto employees (police,
receptionists, planners, etc.) 78% 84% 79% 79% 79% 73% 79% 77% 76% 81% 79% 81%↔ ↑ ↔ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↔ ↑ ↑ ↔ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↔
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
7
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
2014 rating
compared to 2013
Comparison to benchmark
03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 (+/-2
points MOE)
14 (+/-10
points MOE)
The value of services for
taxes paid to Palo Alto NA NA 70% 74% 67% 64% 58% 62% 66% 67% 66% 66%↔ NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↔↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑ ↔
The overall direction that Palo
Alto is taking 54% 63% 54% 62% 57% 63% 53% 57% 55% 59% 54% 50%↔ ↔ ↑ ↔↑↑↑ ↔ ↓ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↓ ↓↓ ↔
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen
involvement 65% 70% 59% 73% 68% 57% 56% 57% 57% 58% 55% 54%↔ ↑ ↑ ↔↑↑ ↑↑↓ ↔↑↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↔ ↔
Overall confidence in Palo
Alto government NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 52% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔
Generally acting in the best interest of the community NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 54% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔
Being honest NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 58% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔
Treating all residents fairly NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 57% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔
Services provided by the Federal Government 32% 38% 32% 33% 33% 33% 41% 43% 41% 50% 37% 48%↑ ↓ ↔ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↔ ↑ ↔↑↑↔↑↑ ↔
Table 4: Governance by Facet
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
2014 rating compared to 2013
Comparison to benchmark
03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 (+/-
2 points MOE)
14 (+/-
10 points MOE)
Safety Police services 89% 90% 87% 87% 91% 84% 84% 87% 88% 86% 86% 87%↔ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑↔
Fire services 96% 97% 94% 95% 98% 96% 95% 93% 92% 96% 93% 95%↔ ↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑ ↔ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↔
Ambulance or emergency medical services 95% 95% 95% 94% 94% 95% 91% 94% 93% 96% 93% 97%↔ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↔
Crime prevention NA 86% 86% 77% 83% 74% 73% 79% 81% 74% 75% 80%↔ NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑↔
Fire prevention and
education NA 85% 82% 84% 86% 87% 80% 79% 76% 80% 82% 85%↔ NA ↔ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↔ ↑ ↔ ↔ ↔↑↑ ↔
Animal control 79% 79% 79% 78% 79% 78% 78% 76% 72% 78% 76% 80%↔ ↑↑↑↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑
Emergency
preparedness (services that prepare the community for
natural disasters or other emergency situations) NA NA NA NA NA 71% 62% 59% 64% 73% 77% 70%↓ NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑↑ ↔ ↔ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↔
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
8
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
2014 rating compared to 2013
Comparison to benchmark
03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 (+/-
2 points MOE)
14 (+/-
10 points MOE)
Mobility Traffic enforcement 64% 64% 63% 63% 72% 64% 61% 64% 61% 66% 64% 62%↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔
Street repair 50% 47% 48% 47% 47% 47% 42% 43% 40% 42% 47% 55%↑ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑ ↔
Street cleaning 75% 77% 74% 77% 77% 75% 73% 76% 79% 80% 76% 80%↔ ↑ ↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑
Street lighting 67% 65% 63% 66% 61% 64% 64% 68% 65% 68% 66% 74%↑ ↔ ↔ ↔↑↑↔ ↑ ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↔
Sidewalk maintenance 50% 50% 51% 53% 57% 53% 53% 51% 51% 53% 56% 62%↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑ ↑ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔↑↑↔
Traffic signal timing NA 57% 49% 55% 60% 56% 56% 56% 52% 47% 53% 53%↔ NA ↑ ↔↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔
Bus or transit services 89% NA NA 58% 57% 49% 50% 45% 46% 58% 49% 57%↑ ↑↑NA NA ↑ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↓↓↓↔ ↓ ↔ ↔
Natural Environment Garbage collection 94% 91% 92% 92% 91% 92% 89% 88% 89% 89% 85% 91%↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↔↑↑↔
Yard waste pick-up 88% 88% 91% 90% 93% 89% NA NA NA NA NA 90%↔ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑↑
Drinking water 82% 74% 80% 80% 79% 87% 81% 84% 86% 83% 88% 89%↔ ↑ ↔↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑
Preservation of
natural areas such as open space, farmlands and
greenbelts NA NA NA NA NA 78% 82% 78% 76% 81% 79% 80%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑
Palo Alto open space NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 82% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑↑
Built
Environment
Storm drainage 65% 57% 60% 61% 59% 70% 73% 74% 74% 75% 69% 80%↑ ↑ ↔ ↑↑↑↑↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑↑↑↑
Sewer services 84% 80% 82% 83% 83% 81% 81% 82% 84% 82% 84% 89%↔ ↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑
Utility billing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 84% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑↑
Land use, planning and zoning 41% 48% 46% 50% 49% 47% 47% 49% 45% 51% 36% 43%↑ ↔ ↔ ↔↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↔ ↑ ↔ ↔↓↓ ↓↓ ↔
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 55% 59% 56% 61% 59% 59% 50% 53% 56% 61% 57% 62%↔ ↔ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑ ↔
Cable television NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 60% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔
Economy Economic
development 48% 58% 55% 61% 62% 63% 54% 49% 52% 67% 61% 73%↑ ↔ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑
Recreation and Wellness City parks 90% 91% 92% 87% 91% 89% 92% 90% 94% 91% 93% 92%↔ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↔
Recreation programs
or classes 83% 85% 87% 85% 90% 87% 85% 82% 81% 87% 87% 87%↔ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↔
Recreation centers or
facilities 77% 84% 78% 81% 82% 77% 80% 81% 75% 85% 80% 84%↔ ↔ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑ ↔
Education and
Enrichment
City-sponsored special events NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 75% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↔
Public library services 81% 81% 80% 78% 81% 75% 78% 82% 83% 88% 85% 81%↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↓ ↔ ↔ ↔↑↑↔ ↔ ↔
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
9
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
2014 rating compared to 2013
Comparison to benchmark
03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 (+/-
2 points MOE)
14 (+/-
10 points MOE)
Community Engagement Public information services 72% 77% 74% 72% 73% 76% 68% 67% 67% 74% 73% 79%↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↔
Table 5: Participation General
Percent rating positively (excellent/good, *very likely/somewhat likely, **yes)
2014 rating compared to 2013
Comparison to benchmark
03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 (+/-2 points MOE)
14 (+/-10 points MOE)
Sense of community 70% 69% 68% 66% 70% 70% 71% 71% 75% 73% 67% 64%↔ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑↑↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑ ↔ ↔ ↔
Recommend living in Palo Alto
to someone who asks* NA NA NA NA NA 91% 90% 90% 91% 92% 89% 86%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↔ ↔ ↔
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years* NA NA NA NA NA 85% 87% 83% 87% 87% 87% 83%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↔ ↔
Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or
web) for help or information** 62% 64% 56% 54% 57% 54% 58% 56% 43% 44% 49% 50%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↓ ↔ ↔↓↓ ↓↓↔ ↑ ↔
Table 6: Participation by Facet
Percent rating positively (always/usually/sometimes, *at least once in the last 12
months, **yes, *** Housing costs LESS than 30% of income, ****Very positive/Somewhat positive, *****At least good)
2014
rating compared
to 2013
Comparison to benchmark
03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14
(+/-2 points
MOE)
14
(+/-10 points
MOE)
Safety Stocked supplies in preparation for
an emergency** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 46% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↔
Did NOT report a
crime to the
police in Palo Alto** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 87% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑
Was NOT the victim of a crime in Palo Alto** 87% 89% 90% 88% 91% 90% 89% 91% 91% 91% 94% 92%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↔
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
10
Percent rating positively (always/usually/sometimes, *at least once in the last 12 months, **yes, *** Housing costs LESS than 30% of income, ****Very
positive/Somewhat positive, *****At least good)
2014 rating
compared to 2013
Comparison to benchmark
03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 (+/-2
points MOE)
14 (+/-10
points MOE)
Mobility Used bus, rail or
other public transportation
instead of
driving* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 50% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑
Carpooled with
other adults or children instead of driving alone* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 53% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↔
Walked or biked instead of
driving* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 85% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑
Natural Environment Made efforts to conserve water** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 96% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑
Made efforts to make your home more energy
efficient** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 77% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔
Recycle at home 98% 97% 98% 97% 97% 99% 99% 98% 96% 99% 98% 98%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑
Built Environment Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in
Palo Alto (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.)** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 70% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑
NOT under housing cost
stress*** NA NA NA NA NA 69% 65% 66% 64% 71% 69% 70%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑↔ ↑ ↔ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↔
Economy Purchased goods or services from a
business located in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 96% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔
Economy will
have positive impact on income**** 25% 27% 20% 26% 25% 4% 12% 15% 11% 22% 32% 36%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓↓ ↔↓↓↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑
Work in Palo Alto** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 44% * NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
11
Percent rating positively (always/usually/sometimes, *at least once in the last 12 months, **yes, *** Housing costs LESS than 30% of income, ****Very
positive/Somewhat positive, *****At least good)
2014 rating
compared to 2013
Comparison to benchmark
03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 (+/-2
points MOE)
14 (+/-10
points MOE)
Recreation
and Wellness
Used Palo Alto
recreation centers or their services* 53% 60% 62% 63% 67% 68% 63% 60% 60% 65% 58% 63%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑ ↑↑↔↑↑ ↔
Visited a neighborhood or City park* 92% 91% 93% 93% 92% 93% 94% 94% 91% 95% 94% 91%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↔
Ate 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 91% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↔
Participated in moderate or
vigorous physical
activity NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 92% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↔
In very good to
excellent health***** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 76% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↔
Education
and Enrichment
Used Palo Alto
public libraries or their services* 80% 77% 79% 76% 79% 74% 82% 76% 74% 77% 77% 68%↓ NA NA NA NA NA ↔↑↑↑ ↔ ↑ ↑ ↔ ↔
Participated in religious or spiritual activities
in Palo Alto* NA NA NA NA NA 40% NA NA NA 40% NA 30%↓ NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓NA NA NA ↓↓NA ↓↓ ↓↓
Attended a City-sponsored event* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 50% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔
Community Engagement Campaigned or advocated for an
issue, cause or
candidate** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 27% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↔
Contacted Palo
Alto elected officials (in-person, phone,
email or web) to express your opinion** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
12
Percent rating positively (always/usually/sometimes, *at least once in the last 12 months, **yes, *** Housing costs LESS than 30% of income, ****Very
positive/Somewhat positive, *****At least good)
2014 rating
compared to 2013
Comparison to benchmark
03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 (+/-2
points MOE)
14 (+/-10
points MOE)
Volunteered your
time to some group/activity in
Palo Alto* 49% 52% 52% 53% 52% 51% 56% 51% 45% 54% 50% 40%↓ NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↔↑↑↑ ↓ ↔
Participated in a club* NA NA NA NA NA 34% 33% 31% 31% 38% 29% 27%↔ NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔↑↑↔ ↓ ↔
Talked to or visited you’re your immediate
neighbors* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 91% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔
Done a favor for a
neighbor* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 81% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔
Attended a local public meeting* 30% 28% 30% 27% 26% 26% 28% 27% 27% 25% 28% 22%↓ NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔
Watched (online or on television) a
local public
meeting* 28% 27% 29% 31% 26% 26% 28% 28% 27% 21% 24% 16%↓ NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓
Read or watched
local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 82% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓ ↔
Voted in local elections NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 74% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↓ ↔
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
13
Comparisons by Geographic Subgroups
This report discusses differences in opinion of survey respondents by North and South Palo Alto as well as within
six areas of Palo Alto.
Responses in the following tables show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example,
the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as “excellent” or “good,” or the percent of respondents
who attended a public meeting more than once a month. ANOVA and chi-square tests of significance were
applied to these comparisons of survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a
5% probability that differences observed between Districts are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than
95% probability that the differences observed are “real.” Where differences were statistically significant, they
have been shaded grey. Differences can represent just one area or multiple areas where differences were
detected.
The margin of error for this report is generally no greater than plus or minus three percentage points around any
given percent reported for the entire sample (796 completed surveys). For the North and South, the margin of
error rises to approximately plus or minus five percentage points since the sample sizes for the North were 328
and for the South were 466. Further, for each of the six areas within Palo Alto, the margin of error rises to
approximately plus or minus eleven percentage points since sample sizes were 75 for Area 1, 137 for Area 2, 141
for Area 3, 181 for Area 4, 126 for Area 5 and 134 for Area 6. The margin of error for the six areas within Palo
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
14
Alto is based off the smallest number of returned surveys per area; thus margin of error was calculated using the
number of returned surveys from Area 1 (75).
Table 7: Response Rates by Area
Number mailed Undeliverable Eligible Returned Response rate
North 1391 59 1,332 328 25%
South 1609 45 1,564 466 30%
Area 1 207 8 199 75 38%
Area 2 494 14 480 137 29%
Area 3 414 3 411 141 34%
Area 4 679 28 651 181 28%
Area 5 670 33 637 126 20%
Area 6 536 18 518 134 26%
Unknown 2
Overall 3,000 104 2,896 796 27%
Notable differences between the areas included the following:
There were no differences in ratings for overall quality of life in the North and South, but in the six areas,
Area 4 reported the lowest quality of life, while Area 6 reported the highest. Other general Community
Characteristics (such as your neighborhood, Palo Alto as a place to raise children or retire and the overall
appearance) also tended to receive lower ratings from Area 4.
Residents overall ratings of safety varied across the six areas with Area 1 having the lowest levels of safety
and Area 5 having the highest. Ratings for safety after dark in your neighborhood also varied across the
North and South as well as the six areas. Fewer participants in the North stocked supplies for an emergency
and Area 5 residents reported the fewest crimes.
Within the facet of Mobility, variations were noted across all areas for Community Characteristics. Mobility
services (such as street repair, street cleaning, street lighting and sidewalk maintenance) tended to be rated
higher in Area 3. Where differences were noted, support for transportation related investments was highest
in the South as well as in Area 3.
The North as well as Area 5 gave the highest ratings for the availability of affordable quality health care,
preventive health services and mental health care.
General ratings for Participation as well as Governance saw differences across the six areas. Area 1 tended to
give the lowest ratings for general Governance while Area 5 tended to give the highest ratings.
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
15
Table 8: Community Characteristics - General
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 92% 90% 91% 93% 91% 86% 88% 97% 91%
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 93% 91% 91% 93% 93% 88% 96% 93% 92%
Palo Alto as a place to live 94% 96% 92% 96% 98% 95% 93% 97% 95%
Your neighborhood as a place to live 94% 91% 91% 95% 92% 86% 93% 96% 92%
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 92% 93% 92% 97% 94% 89% 89% 95% 93%
Palo Alto as a place to retire 68% 54% 68% 56% 66% 44% 62% 75% 60%
Overall appearance of Palo Alto 89% 89% 83% 94% 87% 86% 88% 94% 89%
Table 9: Community Characteristics - Safety
Percent rating positively (excellent/good, *very/somewhat safe)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 91% 94% 84% 94% 94% 93% 96% 90% 92%
In your neighborhood during the day* 97% 97% 93% 98% 96% 96% 98% 98% 97%
In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas during the day* 92% 92% 89% 94% 91% 89% 93% 95% 92%
In your neighborhood after dark* 80% 86% 79% 89% 87% 83% 85% 77% 84%
In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas after dark* 69% 68% 66% 76% 64% 63% 68% 72% 68%
Table 10: Community Characteristics - Mobility
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 69% 72% 59% 75% 74% 70% 68% 76% 71%
Traffic flow on major streets 37% 34% 31% 35% 39% 31% 39% 38% 35%
Ease of public parking 32% 42% 29% 45% 36% 43% 34% 32% 38%
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 45% 56% 41% 57% 52% 58% 43% 49% 52%
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 36% 36% 22% 24% 36% 43% 39% 42% 36%
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 81% 76% 74% 77% 79% 73% 84% 83% 78%
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 88% 82% 90% 90% 82% 75% 81% 93% 84%
Availability of paths and walking trails 81% 70% 77% 72% 74% 66% 81% 83% 74%
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
16
Table 11: Community Characteristics - Natural Environment
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 88% 88% 88% 88% 96% 83% 86% 91% 88%
Air quality 84% 82% 73% 82% 83% 80% 86% 89% 83%
Cleanliness of Palo Alto 86% 87% 83% 90% 86% 84% 84% 91% 87%
Table 12: Community Characteristics - Built Environment
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South
Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 73% 63% 66% 62% 66% 63% 73% 77% 67%
Public places where people want to spend time 82% 80% 83% 82% 86% 74% 79% 86% 81%
Variety of housing options 30% 25% 33% 29% 31% 19% 29% 27% 27%
Availability of affordable quality housing 11% 11% 11% 9% 13% 11% 16% 6% 11%
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 54% 49% 45% 48% 49% 51% 62% 54% 51%
Table 13: Community Characteristics - Economy
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 90% 87% 91% 85% 88% 89% 88% 92% 88%
Palo Alto as a place to work 88% 84% 83% 81% 90% 83% 88% 92% 86%
Palo Alto as a place to visit 80% 71% 84% 68% 82% 67% 78% 80% 75%
Employment opportunities 73% 66% 74% 66% 70% 64% 69% 78% 69%
Shopping opportunities 88% 77% 85% 69% 80% 83% 87% 88% 82%
Cost of living in Palo Alto 11% 12% 10% 9% 18% 10% 11% 11% 11%
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 82% 76% 81% 75% 83% 74% 81% 83% 79%
Vibrant downtown/commercial areas 81% 74% 81% 74% 75% 72% 77% 85% 77%
Table 14: Community Characteristics - Recreation and Wellness
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 89% 87% 87% 89% 88% 86% 89% 90% 88%
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
17
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 80% 78% 75% 78% 78% 77% 89% 77% 78%
Recreational opportunities 80% 76% 79% 74% 82% 74% 83% 79% 77%
Availability of affordable quality food 65% 64% 64% 66% 69% 59% 64% 68% 65%
Availability of affordable quality health care 79% 69% 69% 65% 73% 69% 88% 79% 73%
Availability of preventive health services 87% 78% 83% 77% 80% 76% 91% 88% 82%
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 70% 57% 56% 55% 67% 52% 77% 73% 63%
Table 15: Community Characteristics - Education and Enrichment
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 98% 95% 97% 93% 95% 96% 98% 98% 96%
Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 51% 48% 53% 53% 57% 38% 43% 55% 49%
K-12 education 95% 95% 99% 92% 94% 97% 94% 94% 95%
Adult educational opportunities 92% 87% 86% 91% 87% 84% 97% 91% 89%
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 83% 80% 83% 84% 80% 75% 81% 86% 81%
Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 88% 84% 91% 87% 85% 81% 89% 87% 86%
Table 16: Community Characteristics - Community Engagement
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South
Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 77% 67% 77% 72% 68% 62% 77% 77% 71%
Opportunities to volunteer 87% 80% 87% 84% 79% 77% 85% 88% 83%
Opportunities to participate in community matters 79% 73% 75% 77% 72% 68% 75% 86% 75%
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse
backgrounds 77% 75% 78% 77% 77% 70% 76% 78% 76%
Neighborliness of residents in Palo Alto 69% 61% 66% 59% 66% 59% 74% 65% 64%
Openness and acceptance of the community toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people 90% 84% 85% 90% 86% 77% 93% 92% 87%
Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as
Twitter and Facebook 78% 70% 73% 68% 69% 72% 81% 79% 73%
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
18
Table 17: Governance - General
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo
Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
The City of Palo Alto 86% 82% 82% 80% 87% 79% 86% 89% 83%
The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 71% 64% 52% 60% 79% 57% 82% 75% 66%
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 54% 47% 37% 51% 49% 42% 61% 60% 50%
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 61% 49% 49% 52% 60% 38% 71% 64% 54%
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 53% 52% 35% 52% 54% 49% 64% 56% 52%
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 57% 52% 40% 55% 56% 47% 64% 63% 54%
Being honest 60% 57% 39% 54% 62% 54% 72% 65% 58%
Treating all residents fairly 61% 55% 45% 55% 65% 47% 65% 68% 57%
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 84% 79% 82% 82% 84% 72% 84% 86% 81%
The Federal Government 46% 49% 29% 42% 62% 47% 55% 49% 48%
Table 18: Governance - Safety
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South
Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
Police services 89% 86% 83% 89% 88% 81% 90% 93% 87%
Fire services 95% 95% 95% 93% 97% 95% 96% 96% 95%
Ambulance or emergency medical services 96% 97% 94% 96% 98% 96% 97% 98% 97%
Crime prevention 77% 82% 68% 86% 83% 78% 85% 79% 80%
Fire prevention and education 86% 83% 81% 79% 85% 84% 89% 91% 85%
Animal control 80% 79% 77% 81% 80% 77% 78% 85% 80%
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters
or other emergency situations) 66% 72% 65% 72% 70% 72% 68% 70% 70%
Table 19: Governance - Mobility
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Traffic enforcement 59% 64% 58% 66% 70% 58% 66% 57% 62%
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
19
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Street repair 55% 55% 42% 59% 68% 42% 65% 56% 55%
Street cleaning 80% 81% 77% 85% 86% 73% 84% 79% 80%
Street lighting 75% 73% 73% 76% 82% 64% 78% 75% 74%
Sidewalk maintenance 61% 62% 43% 70% 66% 53% 72% 65% 62%
Traffic signal timing 51% 55% 50% 53% 62% 50% 49% 55% 53%
Bus or transit services 60% 55% 41% 50% 60% 56% 63% 67% 57%
Table 20: Governance - Natural Environment
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Garbage collection 91% 92% 93% 92% 92% 90% 91% 91% 91%
Yard waste pick-up 89% 90% 91% 90% 94% 87% 88% 91% 90%
Drinking water 90% 89% 88% 89% 90% 87% 95% 87% 89%
Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 79% 80% 81% 78% 84% 79% 73% 84% 80%
Palo Alto open space 84% 80% 86% 78% 85% 78% 77% 90% 82%
Table 21: Governance - Built Environment
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Storm drainage 75% 83% 70% 85% 81% 80% 76% 81% 80%
Sewer services 89% 89% 85% 89% 93% 86% 91% 91% 89%
Utility billing 83% 85% 80% 83% 89% 84% 81% 87% 84%
Land use, planning and zoning 46% 42% 46% 45% 46% 35% 56% 40% 43%
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 68% 58% 58% 56% 67% 54% 72% 72% 62%
Cable television 62% 59% 53% 60% 66% 49% 73% 61% 60%
Table 22: Governance - Economy
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Economic development 76% 70% 74% 64% 78% 70% 77% 77% 73%
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
20
Table 23: Governance - Recreation and Wellness
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
City parks 91% 93% 93% 91% 92% 93% 87% 94% 92%
Recreation programs or classes 89% 86% 88% 87% 88% 82% 88% 92% 87%
Recreation centers or facilities 86% 83% 84% 82% 84% 81% 88% 88% 84%
Table 24: Governance - Education and Enrichment
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Public library services 82% 81% 68% 81% 81% 79% 84% 90% 81%
City-sponsored special events 76% 74% 74% 81% 81% 62% 80% 76% 75%
Table 25: Governance - Community Engagement
Percent rating positively (excellent/good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Public information services 80% 79% 68% 83% 78% 75% 84% 86% 79%
Table 26: Participation General
Percent rating positively (excellent/good, *very likely/somewhat likely, **yes)
North or South Palo
Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South
Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
Sense of community 68% 62% 71% 66% 68% 54% 69% 65% 64%
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks* 88% 85% 82% 89% 91% 79% 87% 93% 86%
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years* 81% 85% 94% 84% 94% 81% 72% 80% 83%
Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information** 46% 53% 63% 57% 54% 51% 33% 48% 50%
Table 27: Participation - Safety
Percent rating positively (yes)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Was NOT the victim of a crime 93% 92% 89% 92% 94% 89% 98% 91% 92%
Did NOT report a crime 87% 86% 82% 91% 87% 80% 95% 86% 87%
Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 40% 49% 42% 56% 48% 44% 42% 39% 46%
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
21
Table 28: Participation - Mobility
Percent rating positively (more than once a month)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Walked or biked instead of driving 86% 83% 78% 88% 80% 82% 82% 94% 85%
Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 54% 52% 65% 59% 48% 50% 41% 60% 53%
Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 56% 47% 34% 37% 48% 54% 63% 60% 50%
Table 29: Participation - Natural Environment
Percent rating positively (always/sometimes, *yes)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Recycle at home 98% 99% 99% 99% 98% 98% 98% 97% 98%
Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient* 79% 77% 87% 77% 86% 70% 76% 78% 77%
Made efforts to conserve water* 95% 97% 96% 99% 96% 96% 93% 97% 96%
Table 30: Participation - Built Environment
Percent rating positively (yes)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
NOT under housing cost stress 66% 72% 82% 74% 77% 68% 53% 70% 70%
Did NOT observe a code violation 73% 69% 73% 65% 74% 68% 70% 77% 70%
Table 31: Participation - Economy
Percent rating positively (always/sometimes, *yes, **Somewhat/very positive)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Purchase goods or services from a business located in Palo Alto 97% 95% 98% 95% 97% 94% 95% 99% 96%
Economy will have positive impact on income** 33% 38% 37% 43% 33% 36% 30% 34% 36%
Work in Palo Alto* 46% 42% 44% 46% 30% 47% 52% 42% 44%
Table 32: Participation - Recreation and Wellness
Percent rating positively (always/sometimes, *more than once a month,
**Excellent/very good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South
Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services* 60% 65% 77% 73% 68% 57% 49% 60% 63%
Visited a neighborhood park or City park* 89% 93% 92% 98% 91% 91% 82% 93% 91%
Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 90% 91% 90% 93% 90% 89% 91% 90% 91%
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
22
Percent rating positively (always/sometimes, *more than once a month,
**Excellent/very good)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South
Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 94% 91% 98% 94% 92% 88% 89% 95% 92%
Reported being in "very good" or "excellent" health** 79% 75% 82% 82% 67% 74% 77% 79% 76%
Table 33: Participation - Education and Enrichment
Percent rating positively (more than once a month)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 63% 72% 75% 75% 79% 66% 52% 65% 68%
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 33% 28% 35% 26% 35% 25% 32% 33% 30%
Attended a City-sponsored event 55% 46% 64% 52% 47% 42% 49% 55% 50%
Table 34: Participation - Community Engagement
Percent rating positively (always/usually/sometimes, *at least once in the last 12
months, **yes)
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South
Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate** 27% 27% 31% 26% 28% 27% 22% 28% 27%
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion** 18% 16% 26% 15% 21% 15% 14% 16% 17%
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto* 41% 40% 58% 42% 43% 35% 34% 39% 40%
Participated in a club* 32% 24% 47% 25% 28% 20% 29% 26% 27%
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors* 90% 91% 93% 89% 92% 93% 84% 94% 91%
Done a favor for a neighbor* 81% 81% 92% 83% 85% 75% 80% 76% 81%
Attended a local public meeting* 23% 21% 26% 20% 26% 18% 19% 26% 22%
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting* 17% 15% 23% 14% 19% 13% 17% 14% 16%
Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 83% 81% 91% 77% 87% 81% 80% 81% 82%
Vote in local elections 75% 73% 86% 77% 77% 68% 67% 78% 74%
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
23
Table 35: Community Focus Areas
Percent rating positively (essential/very important)
North or South Palo
Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 82% 86% 85% 89% 89% 82% 86% 75% 84%
Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 81% 83% 84% 79% 81% 86% 84% 77% 82%
Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 77% 84% 77% 81% 84% 85% 79% 76% 81%
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 78% 81% 83% 74% 80% 86% 72% 82% 80%
Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 61% 67% 75% 67% 72% 65% 58% 55% 65%
Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 68% 73% 78% 74% 77% 70% 64% 65% 71%
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 76% 83% 85% 81% 82% 84% 77% 72% 80%
Sense of community 69% 73% 85% 75% 76% 69% 68% 62% 72%
Table 36: City Website Use
In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household
members done each of the following in Palo Alto?: (Percent rating as "At least once a
month").
North or South
Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Used the City's website to conduct business or pay bills 50% 55% 45% 57% 49% 58% 45% 56% 53%
Table 37: Additional Palo Alto Services
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: (Percent rating
as "Excellent" or "Good").
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South
Area
1
Area
2
Area
3
Area
4
Area
5
Area
6
Neighborhood branch libraries 80% 77% 72% 78% 78% 73% 84% 85% 78%
Your neighborhood park 84% 81% 80% 82% 82% 79% 83% 89% 82%
Variety of library materials 87% 89% 85% 88% 88% 89% 84% 92% 88%
Street tree maintenance 82% 79% 72% 81% 78% 77% 84% 87% 80%
Electric utility 74% 72% 65% 73% 71% 72% 79% 77% 73%
Gas utility 88% 87% 82% 87% 88% 86% 91% 91% 88%
Recycling collection 88% 88% 85% 87% 90% 87% 93% 89% 88%
City's website 88% 87% 90% 88% 87% 85% 88% 87% 87%
Art programs and theatre 67% 69% 68% 72% 68% 67% 65% 68% 68%
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
24
Table 38: Custom Question - Locations for Multifamily Housing
If the City must identify areas for additional multifamily housing (condos or apartments) to
meet state requirements, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with placing the
additional multifamily housing in the following locations: (Percent rating as "Strongly agree"
or "Somewhat agree").
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Along El Camino Real 73% 62% 76% 68% 66% 54% 67% 77% 66%
Along San Antonio Avenue 78% 61% 73% 66% 51% 63% 75% 84% 68%
California Avenue area 54% 56% 56% 51% 56% 59% 51% 56% 55%
Downtown Palo Alto 47% 50% 44% 43% 51% 56% 51% 46% 49%
East of Highway 101 67% 70% 65% 64% 78% 69% 66% 69% 69%
Table 39: Custom Question - Support for Transportation-related Investments
Please indicate your level of support for future funding of the following transportation-
related investments: (Percent rating as "Strongly support" or "Somewhat support").
North or South
Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Bicycle/pedestrian improvements 94% 93% 93% 93% 94% 91% 95% 94% 93%
Caltrain grade separation (i.e., raising or lowering the tracks so vehicles can continue
driving while trains pass) 69% 78% 70% 73% 84% 77% 72% 68% 74%
Electric vehicle infrastructure and incentives 77% 84% 86% 84% 89% 82% 76% 73% 82%
Incentives to encourage people to use transit instead of cars 86% 82% 84% 82% 87% 80% 85% 88% 84%
Parking garages (downtown and California Avenue) 85% 79% 82% 75% 87% 80% 84% 85% 82%
Road widening and intersection improvements 75% 75% 76% 68% 80% 77% 85% 66% 75%
Shuttle service improvements 83% 85% 79% 82% 93% 83% 86% 82% 84%
Table 40: Custom Question - Ease of Vehicle Travel in Palo Alto
Please rate the ease of vehicle travel through Palo Alto on Monday-Friday from...:
(Percent rating as "Excellent" or "Good").
North or South Palo
Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Early morning through rush hour (6:01 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.) 26% 24% 17% 29% 22% 22% 19% 35% 25%
Late morning through mid-afternoon (9:01 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.) 62% 63% 55% 65% 67% 58% 61% 66% 62%
Late afternoon through rush hour (3:01 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.) 14% 14% 11% 13% 19% 13% 12% 18% 14%
Evening through midnight (7:01 p.m. - 12:00 a.m.) 76% 81% 78% 85% 73% 82% 76% 78% 79%
Midnight through early morning (12:01 a.m. - 6:00 a.m.) 95% 94% 93% 95% 92% 94% 96% 96% 95%
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
25
Table 41: Custom Question - Availability of Public Parking in Palo Alto
Please rate the availability of public parking in Palo Alto on Monday-Friday from...:
(Percent rating as "Excellent" or "Good").
North or South Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Early morning through rush hour (6:01 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.) 68% 63% 73% 67% 65% 60% 60% 70% 65%
Late morning through mid-afternoon (9:01 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.) 29% 35% 37% 28% 37% 37% 31% 24% 32%
Late afternoon through rush hour (3:01 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.) 23% 27% 29% 31% 22% 28% 17% 25% 26%
Evening through midnight (7:01 p.m. - 12:00 a.m.) 35% 51% 30% 52% 48% 51% 37% 37% 44%
Midnight through early morning (12:01 a.m. - 6:00 a.m.) 89% 88% 87% 90% 87% 88% 87% 91% 88%
Table 42: Custom Question - Growth in Palo Alto
Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Palo Alto over the past 2
years: (Percent rating as “Somewhat” or “Much too slow”) *(Percent rating “Somewhat”
or “Much too fast”)
North or South
Palo Alto Areas within Palo Alto
Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
Population growth* 54% 64% 58% 62% 67% 64% 52% 53% 60%
Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) 17% 21% 7% 22% 21% 21% 24% 19% 20%
Jobs growth 22% 32% 15% 30% 27% 36% 36% 16% 28%
Housing growth 41% 32% 21% 34% 25% 35% 51% 44% 35%
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
26
Page intentionally left blank
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
27
Open-Ended Responses
Respondents were asked to record their opinions about possible improvements to the city in the following
question:
What one change could the City make that would make Palo Alto residents happier?
The verbatim responses were categorized by topic area and those topics are reported in the following chart with
the percent of responses given in each category. Because some comments from residents covered more than a
single topic, those verbatim responses are grouped by the first topic listed in each comment whenever a
respondent mentioned more than a single topic.
Results from the open-ended question are best understood by reviewing the frequencies that summarize
responses as well as the actual verbatim responses themselves. A total of 796 surveys were completed by Palo
Alto residents; of these 480 respondents wrote in responses for the open-ended question. About one-third of
question respondents wanted changes in transportation and about one-fifth of respondents wanted to see
changes made in development or housing.
Figure 1: Question 19
What one change could the City make that would make Palo Alto residents happier?
*Totals have been rounded and add up to 101%
2%
9%
3%
4%
6%
8%
20%
20%
29%
Don't know/Nothing
Other
Safety, Crime
Parks and Recreation, Library
Utilities
Governance
Housing
Development
Transportation, traffic, etc.
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
28
The following pages contain the respondents’ verbatim responses as written on the survey or entered in the web
survey and have not been edited for spelling or grammar. Responses have been organized by coded topic areas.
What one change could the City make that would make Palo Alto
residents happier?
Transportation, traffic, etc.
- Stop decreasing lanes of traffic and making it impossible to drive. Narrowing lanes (Arastradero, now Calif
Ave) is disaster and does not improve things. - Provide more discounts to Seniors (over 50).
"Control traffic"- no question regarding our excellent hospital & university new hospital congestion has been
monitored closely well. Thanks
1- Abolish plans for high speed train. 2- Better picnic areas in local parks.
1- Ease of getting around town. 2- Ease of parking.
1) Require provision for adequate parking for all developers (By special tax contribution) to public parking
development if not appropriate "on site"). 2) Connect end of Alma to Sandhill w/ underpass under tracks and
El Camino.
Add more off-street bike and pedestrian paths
Add shuttle services.
Allow easier automobile traffic flow.
Better bicycle lanes and sidewalks. More separation between cars, bikes, and pedestrians.
Better light timing on alma in conjunction with Caltrain
better parking & better traffic flow
better parking for residents
Better parking solutions.
Better public transit.
Better timing of traffic lights.
Better traffic & parking situations downtown.
Better traffic flow - get bikes to follow lane.
better traffic flow along Sand Hill RD
Bike path on Matadero creek.
car bypass of University Ave
Citing bicycle riders who don't obey traffic laws (e.g. running stop signs, riding multiple across street...)
Correct stop light at Town & County.
Create bicycle only streets.
Do not shut down so many streets at same time to repair something!
Downtown parking & multiple housing design & set-backs.
Ease congestion on Middlefield Rd north of Oregon Expressway.
Easier public transport options to the Airport (no more samtrans KX)
easing the traffic issue!
Eliminate long term parking on streets.
Employers should provide employee parking and control corporate / start-up growth downtown.
Enact a strong residential parking permit law.
Encourage people working in downtown businesses to be driven by shuttle. Too many "worker" cars in
Downtown North!
End high speed rail and make any rail below grade separation.
Enforce traffic code to cyclists!!
Enforce traffic regulations (automobile & bicycle) downtown to make the intersections safer for pedestrians.
Extend BART
Facilitate an easier - more accessible marguerite bus service.
Fewer Stop Signs! The explosion of stop signs in Palo Alto has become totally absurd.
Fix sidewalks in Midtown/South of Midtown areas which would probably mean taking out old & drying trees.
Fix streets & sidewalks.
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
29
Fix the roads.
Fix the traffic situation on all the roads (better speed control, better light synchronization, better local transit
options, etc.)
Fix traffic flow during morning rush hour along Charleston / Arastradero. Since the lane changes in
Arastradero it's been a nightmare. I drive through Los Altos to down off at Sunn - Ridiculous !
Fix traffic on Arastradero.
General traffic flow improvements / ease of access to 101.
Get rid of Caltrain or sync traffic lights.
Get rid of traffic (joke).
Grade separation for trains.
Grade Separation, underground trains
Have all intersections that don't have stop lights into 4-way stop signs. Especially where people can't see.
People assume stop signs so I am often [?] when I actually have the right of way.
Have more parking available.
help build Caltrain track underground
Holding neighboring cities accountable for their citizens using Palo Alto neighborhood streets for overnight
parking !!
I would like to see sidewalks cleaned. Some are dirty with many stains. I am speaking only about down town
University Ave.
Improve bright green bike lanes.
Improve certain infrastructures (roads & sidewalks) & more attention to parks.
Improve congestion in downtown Palo Alto.
Improve downtown parking.
Improve public transit for travel within the city.
Improve safety (pedestrian/bike) on Middlefield from Loma Verde to Embarcadero.
Improve traffic congestion & parking.
Improve traffic flow and parking availability.
Improve traffic flow on major roads - parking!
Improve traffic light at town and country village.
Improve traffic management @ peak times. Find ways to promote/support local businesses. No more Roxy
Rapp!
Improved public transportation
Increase speed limits on highly travelled roads.
Increase speed on Middlefield to 35 mph.
Increase supply of employee parking downtown - Get it out of neighborhoods.
Increase the speed limit on the Oregon Expressway & Alma.
Insist on parking to match addition of housing & commercial development.
Late afternoon through rush hour.
Less traffic.
Make 4 to 6 blocks of University Avenue downtown a pedestrian only street in route traffic one way on Lytton
and Hamilton. It would be a fantastic community gathering place.
Mitigate noise from Caltrain.
More attention to congestion & traffic.
More bike friendly improvements!
More bike lanes
More bike lanes on (streets-cross) Embarcadero to University. More shuttle services from mid-town to San
Antonio, Gann & Paly High (frequent).
More bike paths, composting available, construction / improvement projects include more green (trees, etc.),
& improve architecture design / approval of new homes.
More downtown parking garages.
More downtown parking.
More Downtown parking.
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
30
More free parking.
More marked bike lanes (esp. near Cubberley).
More parking downtown
More public Parking Downtown & Calif. Ave.
More public parking/parking lots.
More public transportation within the city.
More Round abouts!! More houses, better public connection with S.F.
More separated bike lanes.
Move traffic better. (Coordinate lights) & safer for bikers and pedestrians. Too many red-light runners
downtown.
No parking on university in DTPA.
Only lived here one year, but loud air traffic noise very late at night flying right over our homes is something
I could do without.
Open a street to move through traffic off Univ. Ave.
Parking availability - Better management of public garage & bus service.
Parking downtown -
Parking ease.
Parking permits for residents, employees (& designated areas).
Parking solution.
Pave streets & fix sidewalks routinely!
Personally, I'd like university Ave in Downtown to be a pedestrian mall, but I don't think that view would
make a lot of residents happier in the short term.
Private parking spaces in downtown area.
Provide school bus service. It's a shame that as the wealthiest state in US, CA does not universal school bus
service.
Public Transit connections
Public transportation - better parking - shuttle buses.
Public transportation improvements.
Public transportation to neighbor cities.
quieter Caltrain throughout the night
Railroad grade Arastradero, fix page mill - foothill intersection, fix foothill - Arastradero intersection.
Reduce cars - both traffic and parking problems.
Reduce congestion somehow -
Reduce cut-through neighborhood traffic
Reduce through traffics.
Reduce traffic; reduce large ofc. buildings; add safer, wider bike lanes.
Reduce vehicle traffic
Relieve auto congestion.
Reopen the narrowed streets to old lane lines.
Repair existing road and add more to public transportation.
Require all new buildings to have underground/onsite parking, enough to not impact existing parking.
Residential permit parking downtown.
Return Oregon Expressway to pedestrian & bike friendly corridor (like Embarcadero).
Road repair.
Safe bike lanes.
Separate business from residential goals. I live in downtown and the feeling is that our cut them traffic &
parking issues don't matter. Hawthorne & Everett are unsafe for crossing as a cyclist or pedestrian.
Commuters run our stop sign daily - Byron & Hawthorne.
Severe traffic congestion on 7th Charleston Rd. We who live there cannot get out of our driveway 7:30-10
Am to 2:30-7 Pm very serious problem! Please do correct this!
Slow down speed of cars.
Solve traffic - jam problem.
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
31
Solving the downtown / Professorville parking problem, without burdening the residents.
Stop high speed rail project thru Palo Alto and address train noise issues.
Streamline traffic all along Middlefield Rd - need 4 lanes between Embarcadero & Lincoln.
Synchronize green light on El-Camino and Oregon.
Take a good look at accidents where pedestrians are hurt and improve the road, especially at Fairmeadow
School.
Too many cars, architectural choices : horrible think "Santa Barbara" Spanish.
Traffic control.
Traffic has become ridiculous around San Antonio. It takes me 20m to go 1-mile at 5:30pm to take my kids to
their gym class.
Traffic light situation on El Cam from Alma to San Antonio too long wait time for El Cam vehicles.
Traffic lights that change in accordance with flow & time of day - Ridiculous waste of gas to sit through long
light in absence of traffic. Just pure pollution!
Traffic management.
Traffic, widen road not narrowing down! Why Michele Park library took so many years? Who should take
responsibility? it's too slow! No One take care of it? Is it a city's job?
Development
1- Less commercial buildings and offices (nicer designs). 2- Fewer restaurants. 3- New
buildings/condos/townhouses are too close to the street!
1. Rescind PC zoning give a ways to developers. 2. And curtail High/density development. 3. Fights resist a
bag "targets" for development.
Abandon architectural fads like massing building close to highways
Allow denser apartment/condo development in the city. The supply of housing needs to increase so that it
becomes more affordable.
Allow More Density and Development.
Better architectural design and control of large buildings down town and throughout Palo Alto.
Better control of new housing (too many monster homes) that look out of place.
Better joining - don't allow building structures right next to sidewalk, especially an El Camino!!
Bring sense of community back stop the incredibly rapid growth, [lower] height of buildings respect past in
neighborhoods, demolishing of homes etc.
Change zoning laws to reduce FAR/preserve yard area/create open space in residential neighborhoods.
Increase density along Hwy 101 & train stations. For example, increase allowed height but require each to
have significant open space on their site.
Clean up the downtown - Bring back quality buildings. Better water drainage from rain.
Communicate a clear plan and priorities for managing growth
Contain overall growth, more people, more cars, more congestion & lower quality of life.
Curtail the density of new housing. I live in South PA & have seen the > in dense housing & therefore traffic,
change my neighborhood.
Decrease amount of commercial growth.
Design review for homes; not restored review planning commission focus on design.
Design: Read 'Happy City' Charles Montgomery transforming our lives through urban design.
Disallow new construction to be so close to sidewalks, i.e. Bigger Setbacks.
Do not create a canyon - like effect on El Camino by allowing a line-up of > 2 story bldgs.
Do not place high density housing in the middle/interior of a single family home neighborhood. withdraw
from ABAG!
Don't allow developers to build to Street - set back please new residences too close to property lines. Too
easy for property owners to get approval to obtain [?] to disregard building standards related to neighbors.
Don't allow new developers modify the design of older style buildings that give Palo Alto its character.
Eliminate the back-room deals with developers. Make sure developments demand on the commons is
supported, not just tolerated.
Eliminate the planned community development zoning that gives no real benefit to the community.
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
32
Encourage rich foreign home buyers to participate rather than "invest".
End the era of aggressive development. Use valid data to guide choices. Minimize office space development.
Work to fix parking and traffic problems.
End the PC zoning process: It's a farce.
Enforce zoning regulation so that RI = Single-family residential, not a place where people can pack 15 people
into a house, so that they can maximize income and rent to transient tenants.
Fewer hotels, clubs etc. built on El Camino right up to the sidewalk.
Follow the comp plan! Provide neighborhood retail that is accessible by walking or biking. Don't replace retail
with housing as you did at Alma Plaza.
Follow the strategic plan. Stop favoring developers over residents.
Get rid of flood zone (FEMA) coverage/zoning. Too much money for residents!
Have all construction projects follow [?] policy laws & building codes for P.A. Especially: signal spacing,
daylight plain, setback height limits.
Improve the downtown environment to encourage developing businesses and restaurants. More parking!
Improve the retail business in Palo Alto.
install several bowling alleys! Hire people.
Keep downtown varied - not all high-end!
Keep Palo Alto a quiet suburb, stop building an urban center.
Keep small business alive.
Keep small businesses alive with subsidies! Avoid big box stores & chain franchises.
Less commercial density. Better large building design.
Less density.
Less density.
Limit both commercial office and market rate housing development.
Limit building of condos, etc. Palo Alto is being ruined as the city I have known for years too much traffic and
too fast.
Limit growth - No more residents, already too crowded here.
Limit growth of Palo Alto. Stop re-zoning.
Limit growth, refrain from issuing building permits for structures that don't fit in with existing buildings or will
create more traffic congestion.
Limit the out of control housing expansion which is so often completely out of character with the existing
neighborhood.
Listen to residents versus developers so as to maintain some quality of life in an area that's become way too
crowded!
Maintain ambiance & character of area.
Make it easier for basic retail to function here, not boutique chains or office buildings.
Minimize higher density housing growth.
More convenience stores.
More office space for companies !
More places to stay (e.g. good restaurants).
More retail stores, need a Chinese supermarket.
Mountain current density and height limits.
Need to completely revamp the PC / rezoning permission process.
New multi-resident construction should have bigger setbacks & more trees / planting. The El Camino corridor
in S. Palo Alto is becoming an ugly corner.
No buildings over 3 stories !!!!!!
No hideous modern buildings. Architectural design integrity please. The new downtown buildings are hideous.
No question about office growth ! No question about development of Lego style buildings.
Noise abatement. Building work, and general traffic (including cleaning) is unpleasant.
Ordinances capping all growth.
Pay more attention to the residents needs and desires and less attention to developers who have had some
very negative impacts on our neighborhoods.
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
33
Plan new development more thoughtfully and without political consideration.
Please don't change the character of city. We like the old density of housing. No high density housing.
Reduce density of commercial & residential redevelopment. Retain traditional designs vs hayes group style tin
& glass cans.
Reduce the population growth.
Reduce/rethink the over-building that's taking over the "town."
Regulate aesthetic aspects of housing and other development to make a beautiful town. This area is
becoming uglier & unappealing.
Require 15-20 ft setback from property line for noisy machinery such as air conditioners and pool equipment
(Similar to neighboring cities). Palo Alto lots are small. My Backyard sounds like "Industrial Alley" - City
Planning and Government will not address this issue, despite many complaints. 8 hours a day of neighbors
'noisy pool equipment' 3 ft from my yard - Huge quality of life issue !!
Retail growth.
Retail stores: A good department stores in Palo Alto's older day. We had several, bookstore, etc.
Revise architectural review board.
Slow down building large commercial buildings with their accompanying traffic and people congestion. We do
not need any more increase in traffic or population.
Slow down on high density housing.
Slow down the building of multifamily housing.
Slow down. Look at aggregate impacts of projects that have been approved and those under consideration.
Consider potential aggregate impacts of.
Smaller development with bigger setbacks from sidewalk.
Stop adding housing until the city has the infrastructure. Get rid of board members that are clearly bowing to
developers. Ex- San Jose mayor used to say, "Get better before you get bigger."
stop allowing all of these BIG UGLY BUILDINGS...
Stop allowing bldgs. along El Camino & San Antonio & Alma so close to street. Some of the new bldgs. are
downright ugly !
Stop allowing ugly buildings to be built all over Palo Alto.
Stop building condos, etc. to the sidewalk.
Stop building office space. Too many vacancies now.
Stop building so close to the sidewalks. Trees & Parking should be on perimeters & buildings set back. Too
dense building these days.
Stop building their huge office buildings. Too many people traffic is crazy. The lovely small community I once
loved and moved here for is gone!!
stop building those new, dense development.
Stop building.
Stop development without full impact reports.
stop doing shady deals with developers that citizens learn about after the fact
Stop exceptions for developers!!
Stop making deals with developers in exchange for sweeteners including money.
Stop making so many tech companies move in especially downtown.
Stop over - building and blocked traffic so I can get out of my neighborhood to go to another city on part of
Palo Alto by car.
Stop over-development of commercial properties.
Stop over-development; enforce zoning ordinances.
Stop population growth; by stopping construction of high-density multi-family housing.
Stop putting all the ugly, huge stuff at very south end / side of Palo Alto.
stop the building of these multi-family units that will be ridiculously high priced. stop catering to the ultra
wealthy people. stop allowing all of these offices buildings to be built tearing down the places that made Palo
Alto unique. stop allowing the ultra rich to dictate what kind of community this is becoming. Palo Alto is being
destroyed by greed.
Stop the building, apartments and condos and ease the traffic - more parking structures.
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
34
Stop up-zoning!
Stop using planned community zoning.
Thanks for asking. Way too many fro yo stops ! A little diversity. Restaurants seem to come and go due to
high rents. The bubble will burst ! It always does ! To keep a downtown feel, have to have diversity to attract
punters, pedestrianised University Ave would make it special indeed but annoy drivers ! It's a hard one but
too much traffic on University Ave is a turn off I try to avoid !
Too much new housing. Less massive housing projects, apartments, etc.
Urbanize Palo Alto with more dense, transit-oriented, affordable housing, offices and retail.
Housing
affordable housing
Affordable housing !
Affordable housing for families (houses, not apts/condos).
Affordable housing for middle class.
Affordable housing for single parents/adults - I am being forced out in a yr due to increase rent and inability
to buy.
Affordable housing, public transportation.
Affordable housing.
Affordable housing.
Affordable housing.
Affordable rental apartments.
Availability of low cost housing/rentals apt.
Better housing options. Many apartments are old and way too expensive for what you're getting.
Better plans for more housing.
Build affordable housing!
Build much more affordable housing; provide services (health counseling, job training) to residents who are
struggling.
Building more affordable housing. Cost of living is insane !
Cheaper rent.
Comprehensive & integrated housing & transportation planning.
Cost of real estate (buying and renting) is high and rising. City drastically increase construction of multi-
family dwellings. Even well-above-average families cannot reasonably afford to live here. Apartment/condo
stock is tiny, and even the smallest homes still sell for over $1 million.
Ease dense housing building, ease commercial/office bldg.- i.e. slow down development because traffic &
schools can't handle it.
Encourage affordable housing for the teachers, doctors, police, fire fighters, etc. that can no longer live here.
Give ordinary people a chance to become home owners. Houses are just way too expensive here.
House prices reduced.
Housing at a range of affordability.
Housing costs get rid of housing tax discrepancy.
Housing is really expensive.
If it is possible to lower apartment rentals.
Increased housing coupled with increased transportation methods to reduce congestion
Less control by regional agencies to increase more housing & population growth in Palo Alto.
Less emphasis on low income housing.
Less expensive housing.
Limit affordable housing! Does not make sense in Palo Alto when there are other municipalities nearby that
can support the mandate. Palo Alto cannot be all for all!
Low house price.
Lower cost of new home developments.
Lower Rent!!!
Lower rent.
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
35
Lower rent.
lower rental cost.
Lower rents
Lower rents/add more low-rent housing.
Lowering the cost of housing.
Make it possible for the non-super-rich to continue to live here, after we have been here most of our lives.
Make stricter guidelines/rules regarding residential construction. We should not support foreign absentee
owners focused on tearing down, building big/cheap houses, only to make short term profit. Ugly!!
More affordable housing
More affordable housing (rent).
More affordable housing / less mosquitoes ! - I see much more here in Palo Alto than in Menlo Park.
More affordable housing for middle income residents.
More affordable housing for young families.
More affordable housing.
More affordable housing.
More affordable housing.
More affordable housing.
More affordable housings & in more rapid/more service is providing affordable housings.
More affordable places to rent (to live).
More affordable quality housing for middle class families
More apartment/condo housing
More high density housing
More housing & finish Mitchell park library !
More housing opportunities.
More housing options available, especially apartments or condos.
More housing options. Rent/property prices are too high for all but the richest.
More housing, lower rent.
Need place to live as a human being. Since we came here from foreign country... Palo Alto housing is too
expensive to live, but we like education, people, city, green though in PA.
New, affordable (ACTUALLY affordable) housing
Provide more affordable quality housing.
Quality affordable housing equity in schools - not a 2 class system rich & tutored need to be taught, better
teacher less bullying!
Reduce foreign investment in housing to prevent home prices from increasing too much so that locals can
afford to buy.
Rent control !
Rent Control to keep working people in Palo Alto. Palo Alto should not be just for the Tech Wealthy
rent control, stop monster homes That use several lots to make one out size one
Rent control/more affordable housing.
Should increase its affordable housing. Many people who work here cannot afford to live here and must travel
big distances for work.
Stop allowing so much new housing - I didn't move here to be in a big crowded city - this is a suburb. I'm
aware of state requirements, but there has to be a way to stop it.
Stop building housing! Fix what we have. The city has botched every big project they've had as long as I can
remember. (E.G. Mitchell Library, El Camino Park, PA Golf Course, Storm Drain Project, PC zoning, etc..)
Stop insane growth of housing. This is not L.A. we'll not be able to live here in 3-5 yrs.
The biggest problem in PA. is the cost of housing which is making in affordable only to the very rich. I
wonder where teacher, repair people, sales clerks will live - what will the city be like when those who are now
in 60's are long gone.
The Maybelle/Prop D brouhaha gave credence to the old moniker of "Shallow Alto". O.K... given our 75
million track houses we'll never have real diversity here, but we could be doing much more to build
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
36
multifamily housing (which is greener in terms of energy, water, etc.). Mountain View seems to be managing
this... O.K. probably won't make some residents "happier".
The socioeconomic diversity is declining Palo Alto would benefit from focusing on affordable housing so that
all people who work in Palo Alto can afford to live in Palo Alto. In short, please maintain existing affordable
housing & create more.
To provide more affordable housing options!
Transition to much denser housing with better public transit.
Work on having more affordable housing.
Governance
1- Taxes are too high. 2- Stop - overbuilding dense ghettos.
1. Stop wasting quarter million dollar chunks of cash on studies. 2. Get the new library up & running.
A new city council and honesty, safer downtown.
Being transparent and honest.
City council could better respond to the wishes / ideas of residents.
Create a process that's open & fair.
Do not allow developers to control the city council for their own profit.
Eliminate city council.
Encourage more interaction between neighbors
Finish public projects (for example, Mitchell Park library) on time, on budget.
Finish the projects that have been started in a more timely manner and don't be so innovative at the expense
of reality.
Fire all city council members.
Get rid of the government and put together a city government which would keep it a wonderful town. They
are KILLING it!!!!!!!!
Have the council listen to the public.
If Palo Alto gov't of services is more active in next door, we'd hear more. I really like that we deal.
Improve city manager/council - need to be more forthcoming too accommodating to on special
interest/builders.
Improve contract negotiations & oversight so the Mitchell Park library mess doesn't happen again. What a
waste of money!!
Increase tax on large corporations so that investments can be made towards the housing situation.
Keep property taxes low !!
Less influenced by special interests.
Let us know more about what safety program is running.
Listen to its concerned residents.
Listen to residents - do what they want, not what politicians want.
Listen to them.
Listening but not catering to every voice or group agenda that comes along - consider the best overall
direction for our community as a whole and act.
Low tax.
Lower taxes, cut waste in local government.
Lower taxes.
Lowest price.
Make city council, city manager and staff more accountable and open!
Make decisions more efficiently & manage large public projects more efficiently - For example the Mitchell
Park - Main library projects are disasters. Will we now debate a simple bike bridge over 101 for several yards
+ delay the actual construct of whatever is destructed & approved?
Making it easier to communicate without having to dial zero to talk to some one.
Mandarin service
New and/or larger tax break for fixed income seniors.
Property tax is too high - lower it (by giving some credits). Due to high price of housing.
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
37
Reduce city pension fund. Caltrain grade separation housing near public transporters.
Reduce property tax rate increase every year.
Reduce taxes by reducing city administrators (not workers).
Replace City Council & Planning Commission.
Stop ! Look ! & Listen !!!
Take time to smile and welcome those around them.
Treating all residents equally regardless of race or culture.
Use tax dollars wisely for economic infrastructure and growth
Utilities
Beautification - underground utilities.
city wide optical fiber to the residence
Citywide high speed internet.
Compost pick up!!
Compost pick up.
enforce recycled water for lawns
Free internet.
Free wireless internet city wide.
Google fiber project.
High speed internet supported by city
I would like to see some kind of incentive to recycle and to compost household waste.
Incentives/Assistance for lawn replacement (e.g. Alameda County (I think) would drop off all the materials for
sheet mulching at your house).
Lower cost of utility.
Lower the cost of utilities.
More/better incentives for solar power. (This is a silly question, I cannot say what would make all residents
happier!)
Place electric power lines underground, especially on Charleston/Arastradero Road.
Quieter garbage collection later in the day. The noise is horrible.
Reduce the night time street sweeping. The street sweeper comes by our home 3 nights per week, driving by
3 times each instance between midnight & 2am. It is very loud & aggravating.
Replace all public water lines that are leaking.
utilities should be made to accept automatic credit card payments.
Parks and Recreation, Library
A park where dogs could run freely - no confined to dog runs.
Access to an affordable drop in, indoor swimming pool - not just private gym owned pools. Put bathrooms in
at all children's playgrounds.
Complete Mitchell Park library!!!
Dog park, Off leash, Big.
find out the root cause of Mitchell library opening delay and avoid it in the future
finish Mitchell park library
Fix Library - open Mitchell Park & main continue community gardens.
Get decent gardening service to maintain the parks.
Little Park - like settings throughout city...small space of beauty seating possibility, quiet spot in busy busy
city space.
Make California street beautiful again.
More trees and vegetation.
More trees in parks. The parks feel very exposed to sunshine and not very usable during the day time.
More Trees, more "natural" city parks
Open Mitchell Park Library.
Opening the Mitchell Park library soon.
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
38
Plant more trees.
Save & plant more trees build more parks, public transportation restrict private cars into Palo Alto - Make
public parking outside the city, stop building commercial buildings, reduce pollution from private cars. Don't
allow tree removals!! Think of public health - not on business health.
Would love to see pool for residents only; disappointed & long lines @ city pools & fact open to all.
Safety, crime
Better enforcement of noise restrictions overnight in parks.
Deal better with residential safety.
Enforce the cities ordinances
If I felt walking in my neighbourhood like in US - not in China.
Improve safety (i.e. car/house burglar).
Less crime.
Make bike lanes safer & bike travel safer for our children!!! Please & thank you!
Make it safer.
More crime prevention
More effective crime prevention and safety.
Reduce crime, particularly burglary.
Safe, clean, lower cost works, housing.
Safer downtown.
safety and noise control in neighborhood parks
Safety!
Stop the assaults and robberies in the downtown area.
Other
1. Develop affordable child care for families with low income. 2. Concentrate at what Palo Alto is not good at
- access the residents - and get a clear idea what 1/2 of population [?].
affordability
Affordable cost of living & security from crime.
Ban the use of leaf blowers in Palo Alto, they pollute everything. Cars, homes, roads and noise.
Be more agreeable to places for changes on the Stanford campus which the university wants.
Better enforcement of Gas - powered leaf blower ban.
Better planned public events. (I went to the chili cook, which was a mob scene, with impossibly long lines.
Vendor food could have been much better ( use the vendors who have stands at farmer's market for quality
food).
Build a history museum in the Roth building.
Cap the # of 1 %ers or cost [?] paying cash for homes driving up housing costs. Some plan to foster middle
income residence. Ensuring zero Middle class people in P.A. Also Landlords held to a standard better than the
absolute cheapest.
Change the South Palo Alto ZIP code 94303 to differentiate it and it's services from that of the East Palo Alto
area with the same ZIP
Compassion.
Consider importance of arts - Theatre works.
Cost of living less.
Deal with the homeless people living in their vehicles in family neighborhood.
Discourage job growth Downtown and at Stanford.
Ensure school standards and performance.
Focus more on environmental issues.
Improve schools by making current schools smaller, and opening others. Schools are too big !
Improving senior living and/public transportation.
increase nightlife and entertainment
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
39
Make K-12 education better! After all the money paid for house & property tax, we expect better public
education.
Making it affordable for everyone.
Mental health facilities for the homeless.
More $ to schools.
More books in one library.
More job opportunities.
More money to the Schools.
Need to pass policy against allowing sleeping/living in cars. It has created serious safety issues in our
neighborhood. We live near Menlo Park and have seen their policies push homeless (car residents) into our
neighborhood. My wife does not feel safe.
Neighborhood events that build community in the sections of P.A.
P. Alto is known for "AFFLUENCE", "SCHOOLS", "IMAGE". It is not associated with "CULTURE", "MUSIC",
"ART", "FREEDOM" & other such ideals.
Protecting diversity of all kinds, economic diversity included.
Provide service that their suppose to to the residents.
Provide some education on home farming, and please enforce farm animal policies, people are bringing
Roosters into palo Alto. Chickens are fine, but Roosters are a menace.
Raise the minimum wage in Palo Alto. The living cost is very higher than other cities.
Reduce the noise tolerance decibels at night when the neighboring restaurant continues to use their shop-vac
outside their shop in 10 minute intervals from 7:30p to 9:30 - 10p./7 days/week. Talking to them about this
hasn't helped at all. I live in Lytton street.
Require transients to obey signage and spend nights in hostels.
Stop outlawing homelessness - it won't go away if you legislate against poor people.
Support all the residents, not just the rich tech employees.
The city does fine - same issue with citizens sense of entitlement - but need a new/updated comprehensive
plan -
The City should not intrude on citizen's right to smoke in their homes/condominiums.
To reduce the cost of living.
Too many homeless downtown - need a sit / lie ordinance or ban on sleeping in cars.
Too much emphasis on process & on giving to the north end. PA has few businesses that produce revenue &
from south easier to go southern more is available.
Don't know/nothing
?
Can't think of any.
Don't Know
Don't know!
Go back to the fifties.
honestly not sure...
N/A
No comment.
No comment.
Not possible.
Nothing that is possible will make them happier.
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
40
Page intentionally left blank
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
41
Complete Survey Responses
Responses excluding “don’t know”
The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, excluding the “don’t know” responses. The percent of
respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”); the number of respondents changes
based on whether or not the participant responded to the question on the survey and based on the weighted data (for more information on weighting,
please see Appendix C: Survey Data Weighting).
Generally, a small portion of respondents select “don’t know” for most survey items and inevitably some items have a larger “don’t know” percentage.
Comparing responses to a set of items on the same scale can be misleading when the “don’t know” responses have been included. If two items have
disparate “don’t know” percentages (2% versus 17%, for example), any apparent similarities or differences across the remaining response options may
disappear once the “don’t know” responses are removed. For a complete set of frequencies including “don’t know” please see Responses including “don’t know”.
Benchmark comparisons are also included in separate tables. Ratings are compared when there are at least five communities in which a similar
question was asked. Where comparisons are available, five columns are provided in the table. The first column is Palo Alto’s “percent positive.” The
percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and “somewhat safe,”
“essential” and “very important,” etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents
indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month. The second column is your jurisdiction’s rating on the 100-point scale. The third
column is the rank assigned to Palo Alto’s rating among communities where a similar question was asked. The fourth column is the number of
communities that asked a similar question. The final column shows the comparison of Palo Alto’s rating to the benchmark. In the fifth and final column,
Palo Alto’s results are noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the
average rating given by Palo Alto residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. More extreme differences are
noted as “much higher” or “much lower.” For detailed methodology about the benchmark data, please see Appendix C: Benchmark Comparison Data.
Table 43: Question 1
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Palo Alto as a place to live 57% N=452 39% N=307 3% N=28 1% N=9 100% N=796
Your neighborhood as a place to live 52% N=412 40% N=312 7% N=57 1% N=6 100% N=787
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 56% N=398 37% N=259 6% N=41 1% N=10 100% N=709
Palo Alto as a place to work 49% N=324 36% N=238 12% N=79 3% N=17 100% N=657
Palo Alto as a place to visit 38% N=282 37% N=278 20% N=149 5% N=38 100% N=747
Palo Alto as a place to retire 33% N=217 28% N=184 21% N=143 19% N=124 100% N=669
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 46% N=357 45% N=351 8% N=61 2% N=12 100% N=782
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
42
Table 44: Question 1 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Palo Alto as a place to live 84 47 318 Higher
Your neighborhood as a place to live 81 33 251 Higher
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 82 44 314 Higher
Palo Alto as a place to work 77 6 289 Much higher
Palo Alto as a place to visit 69 20 74 Similar
Palo Alto as a place to retire 58 181 298 Similar
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 78 60 384 Similar
Table 45: Question 2
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 47% N=370 46% N=364 7% N=53 1% N=8 100% N=794
Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 28% N=217 43% N=341 24% N=187 5% N=41 100% N=787
Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 41% N=323 47% N=366 10% N=81 2% N=13 100% N=783
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 18% N=139 49% N=385 26% N=199 7% N=57 100% N=780
Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 45% N=326 43% N=315 11% N=79 1% N=9 100% N=729
Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 62% N=465 34% N=257 4% N=28 0% N=2 100% N=752
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 47% N=349 41% N=302 10% N=71 2% N=15 100% N=737
Sense of community 20% N=153 44% N=334 30% N=228 6% N=44 100% N=759
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 51% N=396 41% N=313 6% N=50 2% N=14 100% N=773
Table 46: Question 2 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 79 38 155 Higher
Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 64 34 66 Similar
Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 76 35 230 Higher
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 59 29 62 Similar
Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 77 8 62 Higher
Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 86 2 62 Much higher
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 78 2 66 Much higher
Sense of community 60 118 255 Similar
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 80 20 288 Higher
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
43
Table 47: Question 3
Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 49% N=383 38% N=298 7% N=57 6% N=50 100% N=788
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 58% N=447 25% N=195 9% N=66 8% N=62 100% N=769
Table 48: Question 3 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 86 130 227 Similar
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 83 132 224 Similar
Table 49: Question 4
Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total
In your neighborhood during the day 83% N=661 13% N=106 2% N=17 1% N=7 0% N=1 100% N=793
In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas during the day 66% N=512 26% N=201 6% N=45 2% N=15 1% N=5 100% N=777
In your neighborhood after dark 42% N=332 42% N=328 10% N=80 6% N=45 0% N=3 100% N=788
In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas after dark 27% N=195 42% N=308 16% N=121 12% N=90 3% N=21 100% N=734
Table 50: Question 4 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
In your neighborhood during the day 95 41 294 Similar
In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial area during the day 89 100 251 Similar
In your neighborhood after dark* NA NA NA NA
In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas after dark* NA NA NA NA
*Custom line item; benchmark not available.
Table 51: Question 5
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Traffic flow on major streets 4% N=31 31% N=247 40% N=317 24% N=190 100% N=786
Ease of public parking 6% N=45 32% N=253 42% N=327 20% N=156 100% N=782
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 10% N=81 41% N=321 38% N=292 11% N=84 100% N=779
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 10% N=51 26% N=137 32% N=168 32% N=171 100% N=527
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 29% N=188 49% N=318 18% N=119 4% N=24 100% N=649
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 39% N=306 45% N=349 14% N=108 2% N=15 100% N=778
Availability of paths and walking trails 29% N=209 46% N=335 21% N=157 4% N=30 100% N=731
Air quality 32% N=242 51% N=391 15% N=118 2% N=15 100% N=766
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
44
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Cleanliness of Palo Alto 35% N=279 51% N=405 12% N=96 1% N=10 100% N=790
Overall appearance of Palo Alto 36% N=280 53% N=419 10% N=79 1% N=8 100% N=785
Public places where people want to spend time 28% N=208 53% N=401 16% N=120 3% N=26 100% N=754
Variety of housing options 7% N=50 20% N=142 33% N=235 40% N=288 100% N=715
Availability of affordable quality housing 4% N=27 7% N=51 19% N=132 70% N=483 100% N=694
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 32% N=236 46% N=339 19% N=141 2% N=17 100% N=733
Recreational opportunities 30% N=226 48% N=359 20% N=148 3% N=22 100% N=755
Availability of affordable quality food 24% N=187 41% N=320 29% N=224 6% N=51 100% N=781
Availability of affordable quality health care 30% N=209 44% N=309 21% N=147 6% N=43 100% N=708
Availability of preventive health services 36% N=236 46% N=307 15% N=102 3% N=19 100% N=663
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 25% N=96 38% N=148 25% N=98 12% N=48 100% N=390
Table 52: Question 5 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Traffic flow on major streets 38 233 288 Similar
Ease of public parking 41 38 51 Similar
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 50 185 246 Similar
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 38 60 83 Similar
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 68 19 250 Higher
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 74 22 243 Higher
Availability of paths and walking trails 66 61 237 Similar
Air quality 71 52 211 Similar
Cleanliness of Palo Alto 74 53 227 Higher
Overall appearance of Palo Alto 75 43 295 Higher
Public places where people want to spend time 68 17 60 Higher
Variety of housing options 31 217 221 Much lower
Availability of affordable quality housing 15 254 255 Much lower
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 69 17 62 Similar
Recreational opportunities 68 56 254 Similar
Availability of affordable quality food 61 79 181 Similar
Availability of affordable quality health care 66 34 216 Higher
Availability of preventive health services 72 7 182 Higher
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 58 13 57 Higher
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
45
Table 53: Question 6
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 16% N=65 33% N=130 32% N=127 19% N=76 100% N=398
K-12 education 60% N=331 35% N=192 4% N=22 1% N=5 100% N=551
Adult educational opportunities 36% N=206 53% N=308 10% N=55 1% N=8 100% N=577
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 36% N=256 45% N=323 14% N=101 5% N=34 100% N=713
Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 41% N=199 45% N=221 12% N=59 2% N=10 100% N=489
Employment opportunities 25% N=142 44% N=248 24% N=134 8% N=45 100% N=569
Shopping opportunities 38% N=291 44% N=338 15% N=118 3% N=24 100% N=771
Cost of living in Palo Alto 2% N=15 9% N=71 32% N=244 57% N=435 100% N=765
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 23% N=174 56% N=421 19% N=141 3% N=21 100% N=757
Vibrant downtown/commercial areas 28% N=211 49% N=369 19% N=146 4% N=30 100% N=756
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 12% N=81 39% N=257 27% N=178 22% N=143 100% N=660
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 23% N=153 48% N=320 26% N=173 3% N=21 100% N=666
Opportunities to volunteer 35% N=205 48% N=281 15% N=88 2% N=12 100% N=586
Opportunities to participate in community matters 28% N=163 47% N=274 21% N=125 4% N=21 100% N=582
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 31% N=217 45% N=317 17% N=121 7% N=51 100% N=706
Neighborliness of residents in Palo Alto 20% N=148 44% N=324 28% N=209 7% N=55 100% N=736
Openness and acceptance of the community toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people 33% N=162 54% N=270 11% N=53 3% N=14 100% N=499
Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and
Facebook 24% N=86 49% N=175 20% N=70 7% N=25 100% N=356
Table 54: Question 6 Benchmark Comparisons
Average
rating Rank
Number of communities in
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 49 100 215 Similar
K-12 education 85 7 214 Much higher
Adult educational opportunities 74 3 58 Higher
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 71 15 248 Higher
Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 75 20 175 Similar
Employment opportunities 62 3 258 Much higher
Shopping opportunities 72 22 242 Higher
Cost of living in Palo Alto 19 63 64 Much lower
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 66 30 217 Similar
Vibrant downtown/commercial area 67 5 59 Much higher
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 47 185 235 Similar
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
46
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 64 51 207 Similar
Opportunities to volunteer 72 30 220 Similar
Opportunities to participate in community matters 66 31 221 Similar
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 66 27 241 Similar
Neighborliness of residents in Palo Alto 59 20 61 Similar
Openness and acceptance of the community toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
people* NA NA NA NA
Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and
Facebook* NA NA NA NA
*Custom line item; benchmark not available.
Table 55: Question 7
Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total
Made efforts to conserve water 4% N=30 96% N=758 100% N=788
Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 23% N=178 77% N=607 100% N=786
Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 70% N=543 30% N=227 100% N=770
Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto 92% N=721 8% N=60 100% N=781
Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto 87% N=674 13% N=104 100% N=778
Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 54% N=427 46% N=356 100% N=783
Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 73% N=573 27% N=210 100% N=782
Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 50% N=389 50% N=395 100% N=784
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 83% N=648 17% N=131 100% N=779
Table 56: Question 7 Benchmark Comparisons
Average
rating Rank
Number of communities in
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Made efforts to conserve water 96 1 59 Higher
Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 77 34 60 Similar
Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto 70 7 60 Higher
Household member was NOT a victim of a crime 92 48 226 Similar
Did NOT report a crime to the police 87 7 64 Higher
Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 46 15 57 Similar
Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 27 13 59 Similar
Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 50 99 259 Similar
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
47
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your
opinion 17 31 60 Similar
Table 57: Question 8
In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other
household members done each of the following in Palo Alto? 2 times a week or
more
2-4 times a
month
Once a month or
less Not at all Total
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 14% N=106 18% N=142 31% N=244 37% N=288 100% N=780
Visited a neighborhood park or City park 33% N=258 29% N=229 29% N=228 9% N=68 100% N=783
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 11% N=87 27% N=213 29% N=229 32% N=247 100% N=775
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 6% N=50 11% N=83 13% N=104 70% N=549 100% N=786
Attended a City-sponsored event 2% N=13 6% N=49 42% N=325 50% N=387 100% N=774
Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 11% N=89 12% N=98 26% N=206 50% N=392 100% N=785
Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 17% N=133 18% N=142 18% N=140 47% N=368 100% N=784
Walked or biked instead of driving 45% N=352 24% N=188 15% N=118 15% N=121 100% N=779
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 9% N=69 13% N=104 18% N=139 60% N=462 100% N=774
Participated in a club 7% N=54 10% N=76 10% N=78 73% N=563 100% N=771
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 40% N=309 31% N=242 20% N=159 9% N=71 100% N=780
Done a favor for a neighbor 19% N=147 22% N=173 40% N=310 19% N=149 100% N=779
Used the City's website to conduct business or pay bills 6% N=44 10% N=78 37% N=291 47% N=369 100% N=782
Table 58: Question 8 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 63 48 190 Similar
Visited a neighborhood park or City park 91 35 221 Similar
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 68 112 195 Similar
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 30 156 169 Much lower
Attended City-sponsored event 50 29 59 Similar
Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 50 10 53 Higher
Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 53 7 61 Similar
Walked or biked instead of driving 85 6 61 Much higher
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 40 120 218 Similar
Participated in a club 27 117 194 Similar
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 91 32 60 Similar
Done a favor for a neighbor 81 34 58 Similar
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
48
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Used the City's website to conduct business or pay bills* NA NA NA NA
*Custom line item; benchmark not available.
Table 59: Question 9
Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County
Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last
12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members
attended or watched a local public meeting?
2 times a
week or
more
2-4 times a
month
Once a month
or less Not at all Total
Attended a local public meeting 1% N=5 2% N=15 19% N=151 78% N=609 100% N=779
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 1% N=5 3% N=24 12% N=93 84% N=652 100% N=774
Table 60: Question 9 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Attended a local public meeting 22 123 219 Similar
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 16 168 182 Lower
Table 61: Question 10
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Police services 38% N=233 49% N=297 11% N=65 2% N=13 100% N=609
Fire services 50% N=258 45% N=231 4% N=22 0% N=2 100% N=513
Ambulance or emergency medical services 54% N=253 43% N=202 3% N=16 0% N=1 100% N=471
Crime prevention 28% N=147 52% N=276 15% N=81 4% N=22 100% N=527
Fire prevention and education 36% N=149 49% N=201 14% N=57 2% N=8 100% N=415
Traffic enforcement 18% N=110 45% N=275 27% N=169 10% N=62 100% N=617
Street repair 13% N=96 41% N=296 28% N=202 17% N=120 100% N=714
Street cleaning 31% N=226 49% N=363 16% N=114 4% N=31 100% N=735
Street lighting 25% N=187 48% N=359 18% N=133 8% N=63 100% N=742
Sidewalk maintenance 18% N=129 44% N=321 25% N=178 13% N=98 100% N=726
Traffic signal timing 13% N=92 41% N=295 29% N=213 17% N=126 100% N=726
Bus or transit services 17% N=77 40% N=184 25% N=114 18% N=84 100% N=459
Garbage collection 47% N=351 44% N=325 7% N=53 1% N=11 100% N=740
Yard waste pick-up 45% N=278 45% N=274 9% N=57 1% N=4 100% N=613
Storm drainage 28% N=159 52% N=288 15% N=84 5% N=28 100% N=559
Drinking water 50% N=366 39% N=285 8% N=61 2% N=18 100% N=731
Sewer services 42% N=260 48% N=297 9% N=54 2% N=14 100% N=625
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
49
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Utility billing 38% N=270 47% N=334 13% N=90 3% N=22 100% N=716
City parks 47% N=347 44% N=325 7% N=49 2% N=11 100% N=731
Recreation programs or classes 31% N=145 56% N=259 11% N=51 2% N=8 100% N=463
Recreation centers or facilities 32% N=160 52% N=258 13% N=62 3% N=17 100% N=498
Land use, planning and zoning 14% N=75 30% N=165 28% N=155 29% N=159 100% N=553
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 18% N=81 44% N=195 26% N=118 12% N=51 100% N=445
Animal control 30% N=128 50% N=212 15% N=62 6% N=25 100% N=428
Economic development 26% N=137 47% N=245 19% N=100 8% N=45 100% N=526
Public library services 41% N=247 41% N=247 12% N=75 7% N=41 100% N=610
Public information services 26% N=130 53% N=267 17% N=87 3% N=17 100% N=502
Cable television 18% N=85 42% N=192 22% N=103 18% N=83 100% N=462
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 22% N=96 48% N=205 24% N=102 6% N=25 100% N=428
Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 35% N=222 45% N=282 16% N=99 5% N=30 100% N=633
Palo Alto open space 39% N=257 43% N=287 15% N=101 3% N=20 100% N=666
City-sponsored special events 23% N=111 52% N=257 20% N=100 5% N=24 100% N=493
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 31% N=163 50% N=260 16% N=83 3% N=18 100% N=524
Neighborhood branch libraries 30% N=180 48% N=284 18% N=105 4% N=24 100% N=593
Your neighborhood park 41% N=237 42% N=243 11% N=63 7% N=40 100% N=583
Variety of library materials 43% N=292 45% N=306 10% N=67 2% N=14 100% N=679
Street tree maintenance 33% N=185 47% N=260 14% N=77 6% N=33 100% N=555
Electric utility 27% N=192 45% N=319 20% N=140 7% N=51 100% N=701
Gas utility 39% N=271 49% N=340 11% N=80 1% N=7 100% N=698
Recycling collection 39% N=262 49% N=325 11% N=72 1% N=6 100% N=665
City's website 42% N=294 46% N=323 10% N=70 3% N=21 100% N=708
Art programs and theatre 18% N=94 51% N=268 28% N=146 4% N=23 100% N=530
Table 62: Question 10 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Police services 74 85 364 Similar
Fire services 82 78 303 Similar
Ambulance or emergency medical services 83 39 287 Similar
Crime prevention 68 66 292 Similar
Fire prevention and education 73 62 242 Similar
Traffic enforcement 57 175 314 Similar
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
50
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Street repair 51 161 366 Similar
Street cleaning 69 21 246 Higher
Street lighting 63 33 270 Similar
Sidewalk maintenance 55 92 256 Similar
Traffic signal timing 50 95 210 Similar
Bus or transit services 52 93 182 Similar
Garbage collection 79 33 292 Similar
Yard waste pick-up 78 13 221 Higher
Storm drainage 68 22 302 Higher
Drinking water 79 8 278 Higher
Sewer services 76 11 262 Higher
Utility billing 73 5 64 Higher
City parks 79 38 275 Similar
Recreation programs or classes 72 52 276 Similar
Recreation centers or facilities 71 53 233 Similar
Land use, planning and zoning 43 178 243 Similar
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 56 70 300 Similar
Animal control 68 15 276 Higher
Economic development 63 17 234 Higher
Public library services 72 172 288 Similar
Public information services 67 40 228 Similar
Cable television 53 73 167 Similar
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 62 66 241 Similar
Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 70 13 217 Higher
Palo Alto open space 72 8 73 Higher
City-sponsored special events 64 24 72 Similar
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 69 126 307 Similar
Neighborhood branch libraries* NA NA NA NA
Your neighborhood park* NA NA NA NA
Variety of library materials* NA NA NA NA
Street tree maintenance* NA NA NA NA
Electric utility* NA NA NA NA
Gas utility* NA NA NA NA
Recycling collection* NA NA NA NA
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
51
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
City's website* NA NA NA NA
Art programs and theatre* NA NA NA NA
*Custom line item; benchmark not available.
Table 63: Question 11
Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
The City of Palo Alto 28% N=210 55% N=406 14% N=102 3% N=21 100% N=740
The Federal Government 9% N=56 39% N=244 40% N=251 12% N=74 100% N=625
Table 64: Question 11 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Services provided by the City of Palo Alto 70 75 361 Similar
Services provided by the Federal Government 48 8 208 Similar
Table 65: Question 12
Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 14% N=95 52% N=340 24% N=159 9% N=61 100% N=655
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 11% N=74 39% N=255 34% N=224 16% N=109 100% N=661
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 13% N=69 40% N=210 32% N=164 15% N=76 100% N=520
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 9% N=63 43% N=293 34% N=233 14% N=95 100% N=683
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 12% N=81 42% N=277 30% N=197 16% N=109 100% N=663
Being honest 14% N=82 43% N=248 29% N=165 13% N=75 100% N=570
Treating all residents fairly 14% N=78 43% N=249 27% N=155 16% N=93 100% N=575
Table 66: Question 12 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 57 85 343 Similar
Overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 48 192 272 Similar
Job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 51 126 255 Similar
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 49 36 66 Similar
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 50 35 62 Similar
Being honest 53 30 62 Similar
Treating all residents fairly 51 31 62 Similar
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
52
Table 67: Question 13
Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Palo Alto community to
focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important Total
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 54% N=416 30% N=235 13% N=101 3% N=20 100% N=772
Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 35% N=266 47% N=361 17% N=130 2% N=12 100% N=769
Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 37% N=285 44% N=335 18% N=135 2% N=13 100% N=769
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and
transportation systems) 38% N=292 42% N=321 19% N=145 1% N=11 100% N=770
Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 22% N=169 42% N=321 29% N=223 6% N=46 100% N=758
Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 34% N=259 37% N=280 26% N=195 3% N=27 100% N=762
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 39% N=295 41% N=317 18% N=136 2% N=18 100% N=766
Sense of community 26% N=194 46% N=351 25% N=191 3% N=25 100% N=761
Table 68: Question 14
If the City must identify areas for additional multifamily housing (condos or
apartments) to meet state requirements, please indicate how much you agree or
disagree with placing the additional multifamily housing in the following locations: Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Total
Along El Camino Real 34% N=239 32% N=229 16% N=117 17% N=124 100% N=708
Along San Antonio Avenue 30% N=209 38% N=260 16% N=109 17% N=115 100% N=693
California Avenue area 24% N=173 31% N=219 20% N=142 25% N=175 100% N=708
Downtown Palo Alto 24% N=167 25% N=176 21% N=146 30% N=208 100% N=697
East of Highway 101 38% N=250 31% N=201 13% N=83 19% N=123 100% N=656
Table 69: Question 15
Please indicate your level of support for future funding of the following
transportation-related investments: Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total
Bicycle/pedestrian improvements 59% N=441 35% N=260 4% N=30 3% N=22 100% N=753
Caltrain grade separation (i.e., raising or lowering the tracks so vehicles can continue driving while trains pass) 40% N=283 35% N=246 17% N=121 9% N=62 100% N=712
Electric vehicle infrastructure and incentives 35% N=248 46% N=327 12% N=87 6% N=43 100% N=704
Incentives to encourage people to use transit instead of cars 43% N=309 41% N=299 11% N=78 5% N=38 100% N=724
Parking garages (downtown and California Avenue) 38% N=276 44% N=315 14% N=102 4% N=30 100% N=723
Road widening and intersection improvements 31% N=226 44% N=318 17% N=123 8% N=56 100% N=724
Shuttle service improvements 37% N=246 48% N=320 11% N=77 4% N=29 100% N=673
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
53
Table 70: Question 16
Please rate the ease of vehicle travel through Palo Alto on Monday-Friday from... Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Early morning through rush hour (6:01 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.) 5% N=36 19% N=127 45% N=295 31% N=204 100% N=663
Late morning through mid-afternoon (9:01 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.) 13% N=93 49% N=347 27% N=192 11% N=75 100% N=707
Late afternoon through rush hour (3:01 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.) 2% N=12 12% N=89 35% N=255 51% N=366 100% N=723
Evening through midnight (7:01 p.m. - 12:00 a.m.) 28% N=199 51% N=356 17% N=119 4% N=26 100% N=701
Midnight through early morning (12:01 a.m. - 6:00 a.m.) 71% N=422 23% N=138 4% N=24 1% N=8 100% N=592
Table 71: Question 17
Please rate the availability of public parking in Palo Alto on Monday-Friday from... Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Early morning through rush hour (6:01 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.) 25% N=115 41% N=188 25% N=117 10% N=44 100% N=464
Late morning through mid-afternoon (9:01 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.) 4% N=22 28% N=163 39% N=223 29% N=166 100% N=575
Late afternoon through rush hour (3:01 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.) 4% N=24 21% N=125 40% N=232 35% N=203 100% N=584
Evening through midnight (7:01 p.m. - 12:00 a.m.) 13% N=73 31% N=179 34% N=197 22% N=124 100% N=573
Midnight through early morning (12:01 a.m. - 6:00 a.m.) 56% N=245 33% N=145 9% N=38 3% N=13 100% N=441
Table 72: Question 18
Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in
Palo alto over the past 2 years: Much too slow Somewhat too slow Right amount Somewhat too fast Much too fast Total
Population growth 1% N=6 5% N=31 34% N=200 35% N=206 25% N=150 100% N=592
Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) 5% N=32 15% N=93 58% N=372 17% N=111 5% N=29 100% N=637
Jobs growth 8% N=40 20% N=98 53% N=263 9% N=46 10% N=48 100% N=494
Housing growth 17% N=108 18% N=114 26% N=160 17% N=108 22% N=136 100% N=626
Table 73: Question D1
How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the
times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total
Recycle at home 1% N=7 1% N=7 4% N=30 11% N=90 83% N=655 100% N=789
Purchase goods or services from a business located in Palo Alto 1% N=8 3% N=23 27% N=214 48% N=378 21% N=161 100% N=785
Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 1% N=10 8% N=65 22% N=174 40% N=318 28% N=220 100% N=786
Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 1% N=9 7% N=55 23% N=178 39% N=303 30% N=238 100% N=782
Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 5% N=42 13% N=100 20% N=156 26% N=207 36% N=279 100% N=784
Vote in local elections 18% N=142 8% N=61 9% N=68 18% N=141 48% N=373 100% N=785
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
54
Table 74: Question D1 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Recycle at home 98 2 213 Higher
Purchase goods or services from a business located in Palo Alto 96 38 60 Similar
Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 91 2 60 Similar
Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 92 3 60 Similar
Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 82 57 60 Similar
Vote in local elections 74 139 211 Similar
Table 75: Question D2
Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number
Excellent 34% N=264
Very good 43% N=334
Good 19% N=152
Fair 4% N=28
Poor 1% N=6
Total 100% N=784
Table 76: Question D3
What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number
Very positive 7% N=58
Somewhat positive 28% N=219
Neutral 53% N=412
Somewhat negative 10% N=78
Very negative 2% N=12
Total 100% N=779
Table 77: Question D4
What is your employment status? Percent Number
Working full time for pay 55% N=434
Working part time for pay 12% N=97
Unemployed, looking for paid work 3% N=20
Unemployed, not looking for paid work 5% N=37
Fully retired 23% N=183
College student, unemployed 2% N=15
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
55
What is your employment status? Percent Number
Total 100% N=786
Table 78: Question D5
Do you work inside the boundaries of Palo Alto? Percent Number
Yes, outside the home 30% N=221
Yes, from home 14% N=105
No 56% N=422
Total 100% N=747
Table 79: Question D6
How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent Number
Less than 2 years 13% N=105
2 to 5 years 21% N=165
6 to 10 years 18% N=138
11 to 20 years 14% N=112
More than 20 years 34% N=265
Total 100% N=786
Table 80: Question D7
Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number
One family house detached from any other houses 57% N=449
Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 40% N=314
Mobile home 0% N=1
Other 2% N=19
Total 100% N=783
Table 81: Question D8
Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number
Rented 44% N=341
Owned 56% N=432
Total 100% N=773
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
56
Table 82: Question D9
About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and
homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number
Less than $1,000 per month 12% N=89
$1,000 to $1,499 per month 8% N=58
$1,500 to $1,999 per month 13% N=97
$2,000 to $2,499 per month 12% N=87
$2,500 to $2,999 per month 10% N=75
$3,000 to $3,499 per month 10% N=76
$3,500 to 3,999 per month 7% N=52
$4,000 to $4,499 per month 7% N=55
$4,500 to $4,999 per month 5% N=36
$5,000 or more per month 16% N=115
Total 100% N=739
Table 83: Question D10
Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number
No 64% N=497
Yes 36% N=283
Total 100% N=780
Table 84: Question D11
Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number
No 69% N=543
Yes 31% N=242
Total 100% N=785
Table 85: Question D12
How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from
all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number
Less than $25,000 6% N=40
$25,000 to $49,999 10% N=73
$50,000 to $99,999 18% N=128
$100,000 to $149,999 17% N=119
$150,000 to $199,999 13% N=93
$200,000 to $249,999 8% N=58
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
57
How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from
all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number
$250,000 to $299,999 9% N=67
$300,000 or more 19% N=140
Total 100% N=719
Table 86: Question D13
Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number
No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 95% N=734
Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 5% N=41
Total 100% N=776
Table 87: Question D14
What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number
American Indian or Alaskan Native 0% N=3
Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 28% N=212
Black or African American 1% N=11
White 69% N=533
Other 4% N=33
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option.
Table 88: Question D15
In which category is your age? Percent Number
18 to 24 years 1% N=9
25 to 34 years 20% N=158
35 to 44 years 19% N=145
45 to 54 years 21% N=168
55 to 64 years 11% N=89
65 to 74 years 12% N=92
75 years or older 16% N=122
Total 100% N=783
Table 89: Question D16
What is your sex? Percent Number
Female 51% N=399
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
58
What is your sex? Percent Number
Male 49% N=380
Total 100% N=779
Table 90: Question D17
Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number
Cell 55% N=430
Land line 26% N=201
Both 19% N=149
Total 100% N=780
Table 91: Question D18
Do you consider yourself to be one or more of the following? (Check all that apply.) Percent Number
Heterosexual 97% N=645
Bisexual 1% N=8
Lesbian 0% N=1
Transgender 0% N=2
Gay 1% N=7
Total 100% N=662
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option.
Responses including “don’t know”
The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, including the “don’t know” responses. The percent of
respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”).
Table 92: Question 1
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Palo Alto as a place to live 57% N=452 39% N=307 3% N=28 1% N=9 0% N=0 100% N=796
Your neighborhood as a place to live 52% N=412 40% N=312 7% N=57 1% N=6 0% N=1 100% N=788
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 50% N=398 33% N=259 5% N=41 1% N=10 10% N=81 100% N=790
Palo Alto as a place to work 41% N=324 31% N=238 10% N=79 2% N=17 16% N=123 100% N=780
Palo Alto as a place to visit 36% N=282 35% N=278 19% N=149 5% N=38 5% N=41 100% N=788
Palo Alto as a place to retire 28% N=217 24% N=184 18% N=143 16% N=124 14% N=110 100% N=779
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 45% N=357 45% N=351 8% N=61 2% N=12 1% N=4 100% N=786
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
59
Table 93: Question 1 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Palo Alto as a place to live 84 47 318 Higher
Your neighborhood as a place to live 81 33 251 Higher
Palo Alto as a place to raise children 82 44 314 Higher
Palo Alto as a place to work 77 6 289 Much higher
Palo Alto as a place to visit 69 20 74 Similar
Palo Alto as a place to retire 58 181 298 Similar
The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 78 60 384 Similar
Table 94: Question 2
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as
a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 47% N=370 46% N=364 7% N=53 1% N=8 0% N=1 100% N=795
Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 27% N=217 43% N=341 24% N=187 5% N=41 0% N=4 100% N=791
Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 41% N=323 46% N=366 10% N=81 2% N=13 1% N=7 100% N=790
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 18% N=139 49% N=385 25% N=199 7% N=57 1% N=8 100% N=788
Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 42% N=326 40% N=315 10% N=79 1% N=9 7% N=54 100% N=783
Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 59% N=465 33% N=257 4% N=28 0% N=2 4% N=35 100% N=787
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 45% N=349 39% N=302 9% N=71 2% N=15 6% N=47 100% N=784
Sense of community 20% N=153 43% N=334 29% N=228 6% N=44 3% N=22 100% N=781
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 50% N=396 40% N=313 6% N=50 2% N=14 1% N=11 100% N=785
Table 95: Question 2 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 79 38 155 Higher
Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 64 34 66 Similar
Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 76 35 230 Higher
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 59 29 62 Similar
Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 77 8 62 Higher
Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 86 2 62 Much higher
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 78 2 66 Much higher
Sense of community 60 118 255 Similar
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 80 20 288 Higher
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
60
Table 96: Question 3
Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the
following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 48% N=383 38% N=298 7% N=57 6% N=50 1% N=6 100% N=794
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 56% N=447 25% N=195 8% N=66 8% N=62 3% N=22 100% N=791
Table 97: Question 3 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 86 130 227 Similar
Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 83 132 224 Similar
Table 98: Question 4
Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total
In your neighborhood during the day 83% N=661 13% N=106 2% N=17 1% N=7 0% N=1 0% N=1 100% N=794
In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas during the day 65% N=512 25% N=201 6% N=45 2% N=15 1% N=5 2% N=15 100% N=793
In your neighborhood after dark 42% N=332 41% N=328 10% N=80 6% N=45 0% N=3 1% N=5 100% N=793
In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas after dark 25% N=195 39% N=308 15% N=121 11% N=90 3% N=21 7% N=55 100% N=789
Table 99: Question 4 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
In your neighborhood during the day 95 41 294 Similar
In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial area during the day 89 100 251 Similar
In your neighborhood after dark* NA NA NA NA
In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas after dark* NA NA NA NA
*Custom line item; benchmark not available.
Table 100: Question 5
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto
as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Traffic flow on major streets 4% N=31 31% N=247 40% N=317 24% N=190 1% N=4 100% N=790
Ease of public parking 6% N=45 32% N=253 42% N=327 20% N=156 1% N=5 100% N=787
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 10% N=81 41% N=321 37% N=292 11% N=84 1% N=5 100% N=784
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 7% N=51 18% N=137 21% N=168 22% N=171 33% N=256 100% N=783
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
61
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto
as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 24% N=188 41% N=318 15% N=119 3% N=24 17% N=130 100% N=778
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 39% N=306 44% N=349 14% N=108 2% N=15 1% N=10 100% N=788
Availability of paths and walking trails 27% N=209 43% N=335 20% N=157 4% N=30 7% N=56 100% N=786
Air quality 31% N=242 50% N=391 15% N=118 2% N=15 3% N=21 100% N=787
Cleanliness of Palo Alto 35% N=279 51% N=405 12% N=96 1% N=10 0% N=1 100% N=791
Overall appearance of Palo Alto 35% N=280 53% N=419 10% N=79 1% N=8 0% N=2 100% N=787
Public places where people want to spend time 27% N=208 51% N=401 15% N=120 3% N=26 4% N=29 100% N=784
Variety of housing options 6% N=50 18% N=142 30% N=235 37% N=288 8% N=63 100% N=778
Availability of affordable quality housing 3% N=27 7% N=51 17% N=132 62% N=483 11% N=82 100% N=776
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 30% N=236 43% N=339 18% N=141 2% N=17 6% N=47 100% N=780
Recreational opportunities 29% N=226 46% N=359 19% N=148 3% N=22 4% N=32 100% N=787
Availability of affordable quality food 24% N=187 40% N=320 28% N=224 6% N=51 1% N=10 100% N=791
Availability of affordable quality health care 27% N=209 39% N=309 19% N=147 5% N=43 10% N=81 100% N=789
Availability of preventive health services 30% N=236 39% N=307 13% N=102 2% N=19 16% N=125 100% N=788
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 12% N=96 19% N=148 12% N=98 6% N=48 51% N=400 100% N=790
Table 101: Question 5 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Traffic flow on major streets 38 233 288 Similar
Ease of public parking 41 38 51 Similar
Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 50 185 246 Similar
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 38 60 83 Similar
Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 68 19 250 Higher
Ease of walking in Palo Alto 74 22 243 Higher
Availability of paths and walking trails 66 61 237 Similar
Air quality 71 52 211 Similar
Cleanliness of Palo Alto 74 53 227 Higher
Overall appearance of Palo Alto 75 43 295 Higher
Public places where people want to spend time 68 17 60 Higher
Variety of housing options 31 217 221 Much lower
Availability of affordable quality housing 15 254 255 Much lower
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 69 17 62 Similar
Recreational opportunities 68 56 254 Similar
Availability of affordable quality food 61 79 181 Similar
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
62
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Availability of affordable quality health care 66 34 216 Higher
Availability of preventive health services 72 7 182 Higher
Availability of affordable quality mental health care 58 13 57 Higher
Table 102: Question 6
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto
as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 8% N=65 17% N=130 16% N=127 10% N=76 49% N=386 100% N=784
K-12 education 43% N=331 25% N=192 3% N=22 1% N=5 29% N=226 100% N=777
Adult educational opportunities 26% N=206 39% N=308 7% N=55 1% N=8 26% N=203 100% N=780
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 33% N=256 41% N=323 13% N=101 4% N=34 9% N=67 100% N=780
Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 26% N=199 28% N=221 8% N=59 1% N=10 37% N=289 100% N=778
Employment opportunities 18% N=142 32% N=248 17% N=134 6% N=45 27% N=209 100% N=778
Shopping opportunities 37% N=291 44% N=338 15% N=118 3% N=24 1% N=5 100% N=776
Cost of living in Palo Alto 2% N=15 9% N=71 31% N=244 56% N=435 1% N=9 100% N=774
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 22% N=174 54% N=421 18% N=141 3% N=21 3% N=23 100% N=780
Vibrant downtown/commercial areas 27% N=211 47% N=369 19% N=146 4% N=30 3% N=22 100% N=778
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 10% N=81 33% N=257 23% N=178 18% N=143 15% N=119 100% N=778
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 20% N=153 41% N=320 22% N=173 3% N=21 14% N=109 100% N=775
Opportunities to volunteer 26% N=205 36% N=281 11% N=88 2% N=12 25% N=190 100% N=776
Opportunities to participate in community matters 21% N=163 36% N=274 16% N=125 3% N=21 25% N=189 100% N=772
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 28% N=217 41% N=317 16% N=121 7% N=51 9% N=71 100% N=777
Neighborliness of residents in Palo Alto 19% N=148 42% N=324 27% N=209 7% N=55 4% N=31 100% N=767
Openness and acceptance of the community toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender people 21% N=162 35% N=270 7% N=53 2% N=14 36% N=277 100% N=776
Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as
Twitter and Facebook 11% N=86 23% N=175 9% N=70 3% N=25 54% N=416 100% N=771
Table 103: Question 6 Benchmark Comparisons
Average
rating Rank
Number of communities in
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 49 100 215 Similar
K-12 education 85 7 214 Much higher
Adult educational opportunities 74 3 58 Higher
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 71 15 248 Higher
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
63
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 75 20 175 Similar
Employment opportunities 62 3 258 Much higher
Shopping opportunities 72 22 242 Higher
Cost of living in Palo Alto 19 63 64 Much lower
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 66 30 217 Similar
Vibrant downtown/commercial area 67 5 59 Much higher
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 47 185 235 Similar
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 64 51 207 Similar
Opportunities to volunteer 72 30 220 Similar
Opportunities to participate in community matters 66 31 221 Similar
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 66 27 241 Similar
Neighborliness of residents in Palo Alto 59 20 61 Similar
Openness and acceptance of the community toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people* NA NA NA NA
Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook* NA NA NA NA
*Custom line item; benchmark not available.
Table 104: Question 7
Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total
Made efforts to conserve water 4% N=30 96% N=758 100% N=788
Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 23% N=178 77% N=607 100% N=786
Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 70% N=543 30% N=227 100% N=770
Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto 92% N=721 8% N=60 100% N=781
Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto 87% N=674 13% N=104 100% N=778
Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 54% N=427 46% N=356 100% N=783
Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 73% N=573 27% N=210 100% N=782
Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 50% N=389 50% N=395 100% N=784
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 83% N=648 17% N=131 100% N=779
Table 105: Question 7 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Made efforts to conserve water 96 1 59 Higher
Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 77 34 60 Similar
Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto 70 7 60 Higher
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
64
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Household member was NOT a victim of a crime 92 48 226 Similar
Did NOT report a crime to the police 87 7 64 Higher
Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 46 15 57 Similar
Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 27 13 59 Similar
Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 50 99 259 Similar
Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 17 31 60 Similar
Table 106: Question 8
In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household
members done each of the following in Palo Alto? 2 times a week or
more
2-4 times a
month
Once a month or
less Not at all Total
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 14% N=106 18% N=142 31% N=244 37% N=288 100% N=780
Visited a neighborhood park or City park 33% N=258 29% N=229 29% N=228 9% N=68 100% N=783
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 11% N=87 27% N=213 29% N=229 32% N=247 100% N=775
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 6% N=50 11% N=83 13% N=104 70% N=549 100% N=786
Attended a City-sponsored event 2% N=13 6% N=49 42% N=325 50% N=387 100% N=774
Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 11% N=89 12% N=98 26% N=206 50% N=392 100% N=785
Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 17% N=133 18% N=142 18% N=140 47% N=368 100% N=784
Walked or biked instead of driving 45% N=352 24% N=188 15% N=118 15% N=121 100% N=779
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 9% N=69 13% N=104 18% N=139 60% N=462 100% N=774
Participated in a club 7% N=54 10% N=76 10% N=78 73% N=563 100% N=771
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 40% N=309 31% N=242 20% N=159 9% N=71 100% N=780
Done a favor for a neighbor 19% N=147 22% N=173 40% N=310 19% N=149 100% N=779
Used the City's website to conduct business or pay bills 6% N=44 10% N=78 37% N=291 47% N=369 100% N=782
Table 107: Question 8 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 63 48 190 Similar
Visited a neighborhood park or City park 91 35 221 Similar
Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 68 112 195 Similar
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 30 156 169 Much lower
Attended City-sponsored event 50 29 59 Similar
Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 50 10 53 Higher
Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 53 7 61 Similar
Walked or biked instead of driving 85 6 61 Much higher
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 40 120 218 Similar
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
65
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Participated in a club 27 117 194 Similar
Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 91 32 60 Similar
Done a favor for a neighbor 81 34 58 Similar
Used the City's website to conduct business or pay bills* NA NA NA NA
*Custom line item; benchmark not available.
Table 108: Question 9
Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County
Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last
12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members
attended or watched a local public meeting?
2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total
Attended a local public meeting 1% N=5 2% N=15 19% N=151 78% N=609 100% N=779
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 1% N=5 3% N=24 12% N=93 84% N=652 100% N=774
Table 109: Question 9 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Attended a local public meeting 22 123 219 Similar
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 16 168 182 Lower
Table 110: Question 10
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Police services 30% N=233 38% N=297 8% N=65 2% N=13 21% N=165 100% N=774
Fire services 33% N=258 30% N=231 3% N=22 0% N=2 34% N=260 100% N=773
Ambulance or emergency medical services 33% N=253 26% N=202 2% N=16 0% N=1 39% N=302 100% N=774
Crime prevention 19% N=147 36% N=276 11% N=81 3% N=22 31% N=236 100% N=763
Fire prevention and education 20% N=149 26% N=201 7% N=57 1% N=8 46% N=348 100% N=763
Traffic enforcement 14% N=110 36% N=275 22% N=169 8% N=62 19% N=147 100% N=763
Street repair 12% N=96 38% N=296 26% N=202 16% N=120 7% N=56 100% N=769
Street cleaning 29% N=226 47% N=363 15% N=114 4% N=31 5% N=38 100% N=773
Street lighting 24% N=187 46% N=359 17% N=133 8% N=63 4% N=30 100% N=772
Sidewalk maintenance 17% N=129 42% N=321 23% N=178 13% N=98 6% N=44 100% N=770
Traffic signal timing 12% N=92 38% N=295 28% N=213 16% N=126 5% N=41 100% N=767
Bus or transit services 10% N=77 24% N=184 15% N=114 11% N=84 40% N=307 100% N=766
Garbage collection 45% N=351 42% N=325 7% N=53 1% N=11 5% N=36 100% N=775
Yard waste pick-up 36% N=278 36% N=274 7% N=57 1% N=4 20% N=155 100% N=768
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
66
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Storm drainage 21% N=159 38% N=288 11% N=84 4% N=28 27% N=207 100% N=765
Drinking water 48% N=366 37% N=285 8% N=61 2% N=18 4% N=34 100% N=765
Sewer services 34% N=260 39% N=297 7% N=54 2% N=14 18% N=140 100% N=765
Utility billing 35% N=270 44% N=334 12% N=90 3% N=22 7% N=51 100% N=767
City parks 45% N=347 42% N=325 6% N=49 1% N=11 5% N=36 100% N=768
Recreation programs or classes 19% N=145 34% N=259 7% N=51 1% N=8 39% N=294 100% N=757
Recreation centers or facilities 21% N=160 34% N=258 8% N=62 2% N=17 34% N=253 100% N=751
Land use, planning and zoning 10% N=75 22% N=165 20% N=155 21% N=159 27% N=204 100% N=757
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 11% N=81 26% N=195 16% N=118 7% N=51 41% N=307 100% N=752
Animal control 17% N=128 28% N=212 8% N=62 3% N=25 43% N=327 100% N=755
Economic development 18% N=137 32% N=245 13% N=100 6% N=45 31% N=233 100% N=759
Public library services 32% N=247 32% N=247 10% N=75 5% N=41 20% N=152 100% N=762
Public information services 17% N=130 35% N=267 11% N=87 2% N=17 34% N=260 100% N=761
Cable television 11% N=85 25% N=192 13% N=103 11% N=83 39% N=302 100% N=764
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural
disasters or other emergency situations) 13% N=96 27% N=205 14% N=102 3% N=25 44% N=329 100% N=757
Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 29% N=222 37% N=282 13% N=99 4% N=30 16% N=124 100% N=757
Palo Alto open space 34% N=257 38% N=287 13% N=101 3% N=20 13% N=97 100% N=762
City-sponsored special events 15% N=111 34% N=257 13% N=100 3% N=24 35% N=262 100% N=755
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners,
etc.) 21% N=163 34% N=260 11% N=83 2% N=18 31% N=238 100% N=761
Neighborhood branch libraries 24% N=180 37% N=284 14% N=105 3% N=24 22% N=169 100% N=762
Your neighborhood park 31% N=237 32% N=243 8% N=63 5% N=40 23% N=177 100% N=760
Variety of library materials 38% N=292 40% N=306 9% N=67 2% N=14 11% N=86 100% N=765
Street tree maintenance 25% N=185 35% N=260 10% N=77 4% N=33 26% N=196 100% N=751
Electric utility 25% N=192 42% N=319 18% N=140 7% N=51 8% N=63 100% N=765
Gas utility 35% N=271 44% N=340 10% N=80 1% N=7 9% N=67 100% N=764
Recycling collection 34% N=262 43% N=325 9% N=72 1% N=6 13% N=100 100% N=765
City's website 38% N=294 42% N=323 9% N=70 3% N=21 8% N=63 100% N=772
Art programs and theatre 12% N=94 35% N=268 19% N=146 3% N=23 31% N=235 100% N=765
Table 111: Question 10 Benchmark Comparisons
Average
rating Rank
Number of communities in
comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Police services 74 85 364 Similar
Fire services 82 78 303 Similar
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
67
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Ambulance or emergency medical services 83 39 287 Similar
Crime prevention 68 66 292 Similar
Fire prevention and education 73 62 242 Similar
Traffic enforcement 57 175 314 Similar
Street repair 51 161 366 Similar
Street cleaning 69 21 246 Higher
Street lighting 63 33 270 Similar
Sidewalk maintenance 55 92 256 Similar
Traffic signal timing 50 95 210 Similar
Bus or transit services 52 93 182 Similar
Garbage collection 79 33 292 Similar
Yard waste pick-up 78 13 221 Higher
Storm drainage 68 22 302 Higher
Drinking water 79 8 278 Higher
Sewer services 76 11 262 Higher
Utility billing 73 5 64 Higher
City parks 79 38 275 Similar
Recreation programs or classes 72 52 276 Similar
Recreation centers or facilities 71 53 233 Similar
Land use, planning and zoning 43 178 243 Similar
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 56 70 300 Similar
Animal control 68 15 276 Higher
Economic development 63 17 234 Higher
Public library services 72 172 288 Similar
Public information services 67 40 228 Similar
Cable television 53 73 167 Similar
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 62 66 241 Similar
Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 70 13 217 Higher
Palo Alto open space 72 8 73 Higher
City-sponsored special events 64 24 72 Similar
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 69 126 307 Similar
Neighborhood branch libraries* NA NA NA NA
Your neighborhood park* NA NA NA NA
Variety of library materials* NA NA NA NA
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
68
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Street tree maintenance* NA NA NA NA
Electric utility* NA NA NA NA
Gas utility* NA NA NA NA
Recycling collection* NA NA NA NA
City's website* NA NA NA NA
Art programs and theatre* NA NA NA NA
*Custom line item; benchmark not available.
Table 112: Question 11
Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of
the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
The City of Palo Alto 27% N=210 53% N=406 13% N=102 3% N=21 4% N=34 100% N=773
The Federal Government 7% N=56 32% N=244 33% N=251 10% N=74 19% N=142 100% N=767
Table 113: Question 11 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Services provided by the City of Palo Alto 70 75 361 Similar
Services provided by the Federal Government 48 8 208 Similar
Table 114: Question 12
Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 12% N=95 44% N=340 21% N=159 8% N=61 15% N=118 100% N=773
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 10% N=74 33% N=255 29% N=224 14% N=109 14% N=104 100% N=766
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 9% N=69 27% N=210 22% N=164 10% N=76 32% N=245 100% N=765
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 8% N=63 38% N=293 30% N=233 12% N=95 11% N=88 100% N=771
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 10% N=81 36% N=277 26% N=197 14% N=109 14% N=107 100% N=770
Being honest 11% N=82 32% N=248 21% N=165 10% N=75 26% N=199 100% N=770
Treating all residents fairly 10% N=78 32% N=249 20% N=155 12% N=93 25% N=194 100% N=769
Table 115: Question 12 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 57 85 343 Similar
Overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 48 192 272 Similar
Job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 51 126 255 Similar
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
69
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 49 36 66 Similar
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 50 35 62 Similar
Being honest 53 30 62 Similar
Treating all residents fairly 51 31 62 Similar
Table 116: Question 13
Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Palo Alto community to
focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important Total
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 54% N=416 30% N=235 13% N=101 3% N=20 100% N=772
Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 35% N=266 47% N=361 17% N=130 2% N=12 100% N=769
Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 37% N=285 44% N=335 18% N=135 2% N=13 100% N=769
Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 38% N=292 42% N=321 19% N=145 1% N=11 100% N=770
Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 22% N=169 42% N=321 29% N=223 6% N=46 100% N=758
Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 34% N=259 37% N=280 26% N=195 3% N=27 100% N=762
Overall economic health of Palo Alto 39% N=295 41% N=317 18% N=136 2% N=18 100% N=766
Sense of community 26% N=194 46% N=351 25% N=191 3% N=25 100% N=761
Table 117: Question 14
If the City must identify areas for additional multifamily housing
(condos or apartments) to meet state requirements, please indicate
how much you agree or disagree with placing the additional
multifamily housing in the following locations: Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don't know Total
Along El Camino Real 31% N=239 30% N=229 15% N=117 16% N=124 8% N=59 100% N=767
Along San Antonio Avenue 27% N=209 34% N=260 14% N=109 15% N=115 9% N=73 100% N=766
California Avenue area 22% N=173 28% N=219 18% N=142 23% N=175 8% N=61 100% N=769
Downtown Palo Alto 22% N=167 23% N=176 19% N=146 27% N=208 9% N=67 100% N=764
East of Highway 101 33% N=250 27% N=201 11% N=83 16% N=123 14% N=102 100% N=759
Table 118: Question 15
Please indicate your level of support for future funding of the
following transportation-related investments: Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Don't know Total
Bicycle/pedestrian improvements 57% N=441 34% N=260 4% N=30 3% N=22 2% N=17 100% N=771
Caltrain grade separation (i.e., raising or lowering the tracks so vehicles
can continue driving while trains pass) 37% N=283 32% N=246 16% N=121 8% N=62 7% N=54 100% N=766
Electric vehicle infrastructure and incentives 32% N=248 42% N=327 11% N=87 6% N=43 9% N=67 100% N=770
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
70
Please indicate your level of support for future funding of the
following transportation-related investments: Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Don't know Total
Incentives to encourage people to use transit instead of cars 40% N=309 39% N=299 10% N=78 5% N=38 6% N=46 100% N=770
Parking garages (downtown and California Avenue) 36% N=276 41% N=315 13% N=102 4% N=30 5% N=40 100% N=763
Road widening and intersection improvements 30% N=226 41% N=318 16% N=123 7% N=56 6% N=43 100% N=767
Shuttle service improvements 32% N=246 42% N=320 10% N=77 4% N=29 12% N=96 100% N=768
Table 119: Question 16
Please rate the ease of vehicle travel through Palo Alto on Monday-Friday
from... Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Early morning through rush hour (6:01 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.) 5% N=36 16% N=127 38% N=295 26% N=204 14% N=112 100% N=775
Late morning through mid-afternoon (9:01 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.) 12% N=93 45% N=347 25% N=192 10% N=75 8% N=63 100% N=770
Late afternoon through rush hour (3:01 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.) 2% N=12 12% N=89 33% N=255 48% N=366 6% N=47 100% N=769
Evening through midnight (7:01 p.m. - 12:00 a.m.) 26% N=199 46% N=356 15% N=119 3% N=26 9% N=69 100% N=770
Midnight through early morning (12:01 a.m. - 6:00 a.m.) 55% N=422 18% N=138 3% N=24 1% N=8 23% N=178 100% N=770
Table 120: Question 17
Please rate the availability of public parking in Palo Alto on Monday-Friday
from... Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Early morning through rush hour (6:01 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.) 15% N=115 25% N=188 15% N=117 6% N=44 39% N=300 100% N=764
Late morning through mid-afternoon (9:01 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.) 3% N=22 21% N=163 29% N=223 22% N=166 25% N=191 100% N=766
Late afternoon through rush hour (3:01 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.) 3% N=24 16% N=125 30% N=232 27% N=203 23% N=177 100% N=762
Evening through midnight (7:01 p.m. - 12:00 a.m.) 10% N=73 23% N=179 26% N=197 16% N=124 25% N=189 100% N=762
Midnight through early morning (12:01 a.m. - 6:00 a.m.) 32% N=245 19% N=145 5% N=38 2% N=13 42% N=325 100% N=766
Table 121: Question 18
Please rate the speed of growth in the following
categories in Palo Alto over the past 2 years: Much too slow Somewhat too slow Right amount Somewhat too fast Much too fast Don't know Total
Population growth 1% N=6 4% N=31 26% N=200 27% N=206 19% N=150 23% N=180 100% N=772
Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) 4% N=32 12% N=93 49% N=372 14% N=111 4% N=29 17% N=128 100% N=766
Jobs growth 5% N=40 13% N=98 34% N=263 6% N=46 6% N=48 36% N=273 100% N=767
Housing growth 14% N=108 15% N=114 21% N=160 14% N=108 18% N=136 18% N=140 100% N=766
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
71
Table 122: Question D1
How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the
times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total
Recycle at home 1% N=7 1% N=7 4% N=30 11% N=90 83% N=655 100% N=789
Purchase goods or services from a business located in Palo Alto 1% N=8 3% N=23 27% N=214 48% N=378 21% N=161 100% N=785
Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 1% N=10 8% N=65 22% N=174 40% N=318 28% N=220 100% N=786
Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 1% N=9 7% N=55 23% N=178 39% N=303 30% N=238 100% N=782
Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 5% N=42 13% N=100 20% N=156 26% N=207 36% N=279 100% N=784
Vote in local elections 18% N=142 8% N=61 9% N=68 18% N=141 48% N=373 100% N=785
Table 123: Question D1 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Recycle at home 98 2 213 Higher
Purchase goods or services from a business located in Palo Alto 96 38 60 Similar
Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 91 2 60 Similar
Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 92 3 60 Similar
Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 82 57 60 Similar
Vote in local elections 74 139 211 Similar
Table 124: Question D2
Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number
Excellent 34% N=264
Very good 43% N=334
Good 19% N=152
Fair 4% N=28
Poor 1% N=6
Total 100% N=784
Table 125: Question D2 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
In very good to excellent health 76 12 60 Similar
Table 126: Question D3
What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number
Very positive 7% N=58
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
72
What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number
Somewhat positive 28% N=219
Neutral 53% N=412
Somewhat negative 10% N=78
Very negative 2% N=12
Total 100% N=779
Table 127: Question D3 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Economy will have positive impact on income 36 7 211 Higher
Table 128: Question D4
What is your employment status? Percent Number
Working full time for pay 55% N=434
Working part time for pay 12% N=97
Unemployed, looking for paid work 3% N=20
Unemployed, not looking for paid work 5% N=37
Fully retired 23% N=183
College student, unemployed 2% N=15
Total 100% N=786
Table 129: Question D5
Do you work inside the boundaries of Palo Alto? Percent Number
Yes, outside the home 30% N=221
Yes, from home 14% N=105
No 56% N=422
Total 100% N=747
Table 130: Question D5 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
Work inside boundaries of Palo Alto 44 27 60 Similar
Table 131: Question D6
How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent Number
Less than 2 years 13% N=105
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
73
How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent Number
2 to 5 years 21% N=165
6 to 10 years 18% N=138
11 to 20 years 14% N=112
More than 20 years 34% N=265
Total 100% N=786
Table 132: Question D7
Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number
One family house detached from any other houses 57% N=449
Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 40% N=314
Mobile home 0% N=1
Other 2% N=19
Total 100% N=783
Table 133: Question D8
Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number
Rented 44% N=341
Owned 56% N=432
Total 100% N=773
Table 134: Question D9
About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and
homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number
Less than $1,000 per month 12% N=89
$1,000 to $1,499 per month 8% N=58
$1,500 to $1,999 per month 13% N=97
$2,000 to $2,499 per month 12% N=87
$2,500 to $2,999 per month 10% N=75
$3,000 to $3,499 per month 10% N=76
$3,500 to 3,999 per month 7% N=52
$4,000 to $4,499 per month 7% N=55
$4,500 to $4,999 per month 5% N=36
$5,000 or more per month 16% N=115
Total 100% N=739
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
74
Table 135: Question D9 Benchmark Comparisons
Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
NOT experiencing housing costs stress 70 86 209 Similar
Table 136: Question D10
Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number
No 64% N=497
Yes 36% N=283
Total 100% N=780
Table 137: Question D11
Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number
No 69% N=543
Yes 31% N=242
Total 100% N=785
Table 138: Question D12
How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from
all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number
Less than $25,000 6% N=40
$25,000 to $49,999 10% N=73
$50,000 to $99,999 18% N=128
$100,000 to $149,999 17% N=119
$150,000 to $199,999 13% N=93
$200,000 to $249,999 8% N=58
$250,000 to $299,999 9% N=67
$300,000 or more 19% N=140
Total 100% N=719
Table 139: Question D13
Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number
No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 95% N=734
Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 5% N=41
Total 100% N=776
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
75
Table 140: Question D14
What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number
American Indian or Alaskan Native 0% N=3
Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 28% N=212
Black or African American 1% N=11
White 69% N=533
Other 4% N=33
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option.
Table 141: Question D15
In which category is your age? Percent Number
18 to 24 years 1% N=9
25 to 34 years 20% N=158
35 to 44 years 19% N=145
45 to 54 years 21% N=168
55 to 64 years 11% N=89
65 to 74 years 12% N=92
75 years or older 16% N=122
Total 100% N=783
Table 142: Question D16
What is your sex? Percent Number
Female 51% N=399
Male 49% N=380
Total 100% N=779
Table 143: Question D17
Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number
Cell 55% N=430
Land line 26% N=201
Both 19% N=149
Total 100% N=780
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
76
Table 144: Question D18
Do you consider yourself to be one or more of the following? (Check all that apply.) Percent Number
Heterosexual 97% N=645
Bisexual 1% N=8
Lesbian 0% N=1
Transgender 0% N=2
Gay 1% N=7
Total 100% N=662
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
77
Detailed Survey Methods
The National Citizen Survey (The NCS™) was developed to provide communities an accurate, affordable and easy
way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important local topics. Standardization of common questions
and survey methods provide the rigor to assure valid results, and each community has enough flexibility to
construct a customized version of The NCS.
Results offer insight into residents’ perspectives about the community as a whole, including local amenities,
services, public trust, resident participation and other aspects of the community in order to support budgeting,
land use and strategic planning and communication with residents. Resident demographic characteristics permit
comparison to the Census as well as comparison of results for different subgroups of residents.
Survey Validity
The question of survey validity has two parts: 1) how can a community be confident that the results from those
who completed the questionnaire are representative of the results that would have been obtained had the survey
been administered to the entire population? and 2) how closely do the perspectives recorded on the survey
reflect what residents really believe or do?
To answer the first question, the best survey research practices were used for the resources spent to ensure that
the results from the survey respondents reflect the opinions of residents in the entire community. These practices
include:
Using a mail-out/mail-back methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same
dollars spent. A higher response rate lessens the worry that those who did not respond are different than
those who did respond.
Selecting households at random within the community to receive the survey to ensure that the households
selected to receive the survey are representative of the larger community.
Over-sampling multi-family housing units to improve response from hard-to-reach, lower income or younger
apartment dwellers.
Selecting the respondent within the household using an unbiased sampling procedure; in this case, the
“birthday method.” The cover letter included an instruction requesting that the respondent in the household
be the adult (18 years old or older) who most recently had a birthday, irrespective of year of birth.
Contacting potential respondents three times to encourage response from people who may have different
opinions or habits than those who would respond with only a single prompt.
Inviting response in a compelling manner (using appropriate letterhead/logos and a signature of a visible
leader) to appeal to recipients’ sense of civic responsibility.
Providing a pre-addressed, postage-paid return envelope.
Offering the survey in Spanish or other language when requested by a given community.
Weighting the results to reflect the demographics of the population.
The answer to the second question about how closely the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what
residents really believe or do is more complex. Resident responses to surveys are influenced by a variety of
factors. For questions about service quality, residents’ expectations for service quality play a role as well as the
“objective” quality of the service provided, the way the resident perceives the entire community (that is, the
context in which the service is provided), the scale on which the resident is asked to record his or her opinion
and, of course, the opinion, itself, that a resident holds about the service. Similarly a resident’s report of certain
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
78
behaviors is colored by what he or she believes is the socially desirable response (e.g., reporting tolerant
behaviors toward “oppressed groups,” likelihood of voting for a tax increase for services to poor people, use of
alternative modes of travel to work besides the single occupancy vehicle), his or her memory of the actual
behavior (if it is not a question speculating about future actions, like a vote), his or her confidence that he or she
can be honest without suffering any negative consequences (thus the need for anonymity) as well as the actual
behavior itself.
How closely survey results come to recording the way a person really feels or behaves often is measured by the
coincidence of reported behavior with observed current behavior (e.g., driving habits), reported intentions to
behave with observed future behavior (e.g., voting choices) or reported opinions about current community quality
with objective characteristics of the community (e.g., feelings of safety correlated with rates of crime). There is a
body of scientific literature that has investigated the relationship between reported behaviors and actual
behaviors. Well-conducted surveys, by and large, do capture true respondent behaviors or intentions to act with
great accuracy. Predictions of voting outcomes tend to be quite accurate using survey research, as do reported
behaviors that are not about highly sensitive issues (e.g., family abuse or other illegal or morally sanctioned
activities). For self-reports about highly sensitive issues, statistical adjustments can be made to correct for the
respondents’ tendency to report what they think the “correct” response should be.
Research on the correlation of resident opinion about service quality and “objective” ratings of service quality
vary, with some showing stronger relationships than others. NRC’s own research has demonstrated that residents
who report the lowest ratings of street repair live in communities with objectively worse street conditions than
those who report high ratings of street repair (based on road quality, delay in street repair, number of road repair
employees). Similarly, the lowest rated fire services appear to be “objectively” worse than the highest rated fire
services (expenditures per capita, response time, “professional” status of firefighters, breadth of services and
training provided). Resident opinion commonly reflects objective performance data but is an important measure
on its own. NRC principals have written, “If you collect trash three times a day but residents think that your trash
haul is lousy, you still have a problem.”
Survey Sampling
“Sampling” refers to the method by which households were chosen to receive the survey. All households within
the City of Palo Alto were eligible to participate in the survey. A list of all households was represented by a United
States Postal Service listing of housing units within the zip codes serving Palo Alto. Since some of the zip codes
that serve the City of Palo Alto households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the community, the exact
geographic location of each housing unit was compared to community boundaries using the most current
municipal boundary file (updated on a quarterly basis) and addresses located outside of the City of Palo Alto
boundaries were removed from consideration. Each address identified as being within City boundaries was further
identified as being within the North or South Palo Alto as well as within one of six areas of Palo Alto.
To choose the 3,000 survey recipients, a systematic sampling method was applied to the list of households
previously screened for geographic location. Systematic sampling is a procedure whereby a complete list of all
possible items is culled, selecting every Nth one until the appropriate amount of items is selected. Multi-family
housing units were over sampled as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys
than do those in single-family housing units. Figure 1 displays a map of the households selected to receive the
survey. In general, because of the random sampling techniques used, the displayed sampling density will closely
mirror the overall housing unit density (which may be different from the population density). While the theory of
probability assumes no bias in selection, there may be some minor variations in practice (meaning, an area with
only 15% of the housing units might be sampled at an actual rate that is slightly above or below that).
An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. The birthday method selects a
person within the household by asking the “person whose birthday has most recently passed” to complete the
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
79
questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way
people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire.
Figure 2: Location of Survey Recipients in the North and South
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
80
Figure 3: Location of Survey Recipients in the Six Areas
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
81
Survey Administration and Response
Selected households received three mailings, one week apart, beginning in August 2014. The first mailing was a
prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. The next mailing contained a letter from the City
Auditor inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire and a postage-paid return envelope. The final
mailing contained a reminder letter, another survey and a postage-paid return envelope. The second cover letter
asked those who had not completed the survey to do so and those who had already done so to refrain from
turning in another survey. Respondents could also opt to take the survey online. Completed surveys were
collected over the following six weeks.
About 3% of the 3,000 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service
was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the remaining 2,896 households that received the survey, 796
completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 27%; average response rates for a mailed resident
survey range from 25% to 40%. Of the 796 completed surveys, 104 were completed online. Additionally,
responses were tracked by the North and South as well as six areas; response rates by these areas ranged from
20% to 38%.
Table 145: Survey Response Rates by North and South and Area
Number mailed Undeliverable Eligible Returned Response rate
North 1391 59 1,332 328 25%
South 1609 45 1,564 466 30%
Area 1 207 8 199 75 38%
Area 2 494 14 480 137 29%
Area 3 414 3 411 141 34%
Area 4 679 28 651 181 28%
Area 5 670 33 637 126 20%
Area 6 536 18 518 134 26%
Unknown 2
Overall 3,000 104 2,896 796 27%
Confidence Intervals
It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” and
accompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and the one used here,
is 95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of
the survey results because some residents’ opinions are relied on to estimate all residents’ opinions.1
The margin of error for the City of Palo Alto survey is no greater than plus or minus three percentage points
around any given percent reported for the entire sample (796 completed surveys).
For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the sample size for the subgroup is smaller.
For subgroups of approximately 100 respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10 percentage points.
1 A 95% confidence interval indicates that for every 100 random samples of this many residents, 95 of the confidence intervals created will
include the “true” population response. This theory is applied in practice to mean that the “true” perspective of the target population lies
within the confidence interval created for a single survey. For example, if 75% of residents rate a service as “excellent” or “good,” then the
4% margin of error (for the 95% confidence interval) indicates that the range of likely responses for the entire community is between 71%
and 79%. This source of uncertainty is called sampling error. In addition to sampling error, other sources of error may affect any survey,
including the non-response of residents with opinions different from survey responders. Though standardized on The NCS, on other surveys,
differences in question wording, order, translation and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results.
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
82
Survey Processing (Data Entry)
Upon receipt, completed surveys were assigned a unique identification number. Additionally, each survey was
reviewed and “cleaned” as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items
out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; in this case, NRC would use protocols to randomly choose
two of the three selected items for inclusion in the dataset.
All surveys then were entered twice into an electronic dataset; any discrepancies were resolved in comparison to
the original survey form. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed.
Survey Data Weighting
The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2010 Census and
American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of Palo Alto. The primary objective of weighting
survey data is to make the survey sample reflective of the larger population of the community. When the
weighting scheme is applied to the data, each survey response is adjusted based on the demographic
characteristics of the respondent. This means that the voice of some survey respondents is amplified and of
others is weakened to better reflect the demographic characteristics of Palo Alto. The characteristics used for
weighting were housing tenure, housing unit type and sex and age. The results of the weighting scheme are
presented in the following table.
Table 146: Palo Alto, CA 2014 Weighting Table
Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data
Housing
Rent home 44% 37% 44%
Own home 56% 63% 56%
Detached unit 58% 54% 57%
Attached unit 42% 46% 43%
Race and Ethnicity
White 68% 70% 67%
Not white 32% 30% 33%
Not Hispanic 95% 96% 95%
Hispanic 5% 4% 5%
Sex and Age
Female 52% 54% 51%
Male 48% 46% 49%
18-34 years of age 22% 11% 21%
35-54 years of age 41% 32% 40%
55+ years of age 37% 57% 39%
Females 18-34 10% 5% 10%
Females 35-54 21% 16% 20%
Females 55+ 20% 33% 21%
Males 18-34 12% 6% 12%
Males 35-54 20% 17% 20%
Males 55+ 17% 24% 17%
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
83
Survey Data Analysis and Reporting
The survey dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). For the most part,
the percentages presented in the reports represent the “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination
of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and “somewhat safe,”
“essential” and “very important,” etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive
represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month.
On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents
giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have
been removed from the analyses presented in the reports. In other words, the tables and graphs display the
responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item.
Benchmark Comparison Data
NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys from
over 500 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics on The National Citizen Survey™. The
surveys gathered for NRC’s database include data from communities who have conducted The NCS as well as
citizen surveys unaffiliated with NRC. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in
each community; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest
results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant and the comparisons
below are to jurisdictions who have conducted a survey within the last five years. The communities in the
database represent a wide geographic and population range. The City of Palo Alto chose to have comparisons
made to the entire database.
Interpreting the Results
Ratings are compared when there are at least five communities in which a
similar question was asked. Where comparisons are available, five columns
are provided in the table. The first column is Palo Alto’s “percent positive.”
The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive
response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and “somewhat
safe,” “essential” and “very important,” etc.), or, in the case of resident
behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of
respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a
month. The second column is your jurisdiction’s rating on the 100-point scale
(for detailed explanation of the 100-point scale, please see Putting
Evaluations onto the 100-point Scale). The third column is the rank assigned
to Palo Alto’s rating among communities where a similar question was asked.
The fourth column is the number of communities that asked a similar
question. The final column shows the comparison of Palo Alto’s rating to the
benchmark.
In the fifth and final column, Palo Alto’s results are noted as being “higher”
than the benchmark, “lower” than the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating
given by Palo Alto residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. More
extreme differences are noted as “much higher” or “much lower.”
In previous survey years, a smaller margin of error (MOE) was used for comparisons to other communities versus
a larger margin of error in 2014. All of the benchmarks listed in this report are based on the larger margin of
error (+ or – 10 points).
Benchmark Database Characteristics
Region Percent
New England 3%
Middle Atlantic 5%
East North Central 15%
West North Central 13%
South Atlantic 22%
East South Central 3%
West South Central 7%
Mountain 16%
Pacific 16%
Population Percent
Less than 10,000 10%
10,000 to 24,999 22%
25,000 to 49,999 23%
50,000 to 99,999 22%
100,000 or more 23%
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
84
Putting Evaluations onto the 100-point Scale
Although responses to many of the evaluative questions were made on a four point scale with 1 representing the
best rating and 4 the worst, the benchmarks are reported on a common scale where 0 is the worst possible rating
and 100 is the best possible rating. The 95 percent confidence interval around an average score on the 100-point
scale is no greater than plus or minus three points based on all respondents.
The 100-point scale is not a percent. It is a conversion of responses to an average rating. Each response option is
assigned a value that is used in calculating the average score. For example, “excellent”=100, “good”=67,
“fair”=33 and “poor”=0. If everyone reported “excellent,” then the average rating would be 100 on the 100-point
scale. Likewise, if all respondents gave a “poor”, the result would be 0 on the 100-point scale. If half the
respondents gave a score of “excellent” and half gave a score of “poor,” the average would be in the middle of
the scale (like the center post of a teeter totter) between “fair” and “good.” An example of how to convert survey
frequencies into an average rating appears on the following page.
Example of Converting Responses to the 100-point Scale
How do you rate the community as a place to live?
Response
option
Total with
“don’t
know”
Step1: Remove the
percent of “don’t know”
responses
Total without
“don’t know”
Step 2:
Assign scale
values
Step 3: Multiply the
percent by the scale
value
Step 4: Sum to
calculate the
average rating
Excellent 36% =36÷(100-5)= 38% 100 =38% x 100 = 38
Good 42% =42÷(100-5)= 44% 67 =44% x 67 = 30
Fair 12% =12÷(100-5)= 13% 33 =13% x 33 = 4
Poor 5% =5÷(100-5)= 5% 0 =5% x 0 = 0
Don’t know 5% --
Total 100% 100% 72
How do you rate the community as a place to live?
Communities included in national comparisons
The communities included in Palo Alto’s comparisons are listed on the following pages along with their population
according to the 2010 Census.
Abilene city, KS .......................................................... 6,844
Adams County, CO ................................................. 441,603
Airway Heights city, WA .............................................. 6,114
Albany city, OR ......................................................... 50,158
Albemarle County, VA ............................................... 98,970
Albert Lea city, MN ................................................... 18,016
Altoona city, IA......................................................... 14,541
Ames city, IA ............................................................ 58,965
Andover CDP, MA ....................................................... 8,762
Ankeny city, IA ......................................................... 45,582
Ann Arbor city, MI .................................................. 113,934
Annapolis city, MD .................................................... 38,394
Apple Valley town, CA .............................................. 69,135
Arlington city, TX .................................................... 365,438
Arlington County, VA ............................................... 207,627
Arvada city, CO ....................................................... 106,433
Ashland city, OR ...................................................... 20,078
Ashland town, VA ....................................................... 7,225
Aspen city, CO ........................................................... 6,658
Auburn city, AL ........................................................ 53,380
Auburn city, WA ....................................................... 70,180
Aurora city, CO ....................................................... 325,078
Austin city, TX ........................................................ 790,390
Bainbridge Island city, WA ........................................ 23,025
5% 13% 44% 38%
0 Poor 67 Good 33 Fair 100 Excellent 72
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
85
Baltimore city, MD .................................................. 620,961
Baltimore County, MD ............................................. 805,029
Battle Creek city, MI ................................................. 52,347
Bay City city, MI ....................................................... 34,932
Baytown city, TX ...................................................... 71,802
Bedford city, TX ....................................................... 46,979
Bedford town, MA ..................................................... 13,320
Bellevue city, WA .................................................... 122,363
Bellingham city, WA .................................................. 80,885
Beltrami County, MN ................................................. 44,442
Benbrook city, TX ..................................................... 21,234
Bend city, OR ........................................................... 76,639
Benicia city, CA ........................................................ 26,997
Bettendorf city, IA .................................................... 33,217
Billings city, MT ...................................................... 104,170
Blaine city, MN ......................................................... 57,186
Bloomfield Hills city, MI ............................................... 3,869
Bloomington city, IL .................................................. 76,610
Bloomington city, MN ................................................ 82,893
Blue Springs city, MO ................................................ 52,575
Boise City city, ID ................................................... 205,671
Boonville city, MO ....................................................... 8,319
Boulder city, CO ....................................................... 97,385
Boulder County, CO ................................................ 294,567
Bowling Green city, KY .............................................. 58,067
Brentwood city, TN ................................................... 37,060
Bristol city, TN .......................................................... 26,702
Broken Arrow city, OK ............................................... 98,850
Brookfield city, WI .................................................... 37,920
Brookline CDP, MA .................................................... 58,732
Brookline town, NH ..................................................... 4,991
Broomfield city, CO ................................................... 55,889
Brownsburg town, IN ................................................ 21,285
Bryan city, TX ........................................................... 76,201
Burien city, WA ........................................................ 33,313
Burleson city, TX ...................................................... 36,690
Cabarrus County, NC .............................................. 178,011
Cambridge city, MA ................................................ 105,162
Canton city, SD .......................................................... 3,057
Cape Coral city, FL .................................................. 154,305
Cape Girardeau city, MO ........................................... 37,941
Carlisle borough, PA ................................................. 18,682
Carlsbad city, CA .................................................... 105,328
Cartersville city, GA .................................................. 19,731
Cary town, NC ........................................................ 135,234
Casa Grande city, AZ ................................................ 48,571
Casper city, WY ........................................................ 55,316
Castine town, ME ....................................................... 1,366
Castle Pines North city, CO ........................................ 10,360
Castle Rock town, CO ............................................... 48,231
Cedar Falls city, IA.................................................... 39,260
Cedar Rapids city, IA .............................................. 126,326
Centennial city, CO ................................................. 100,377
Centralia city, IL ....................................................... 13,032
Chambersburg borough, PA ...................................... 20,268
Chandler city, AZ .................................................... 236,123
Chanhassen city, MN ................................................ 22,952
Chapel Hill town, NC ................................................ 57,233
Charlotte city, NC .................................................... 731,424
Charlotte County, FL ............................................... 159,978
Charlottesville city, VA .............................................. 43,475
Chesterfield County, VA ........................................... 316,236
Chippewa Falls city, WI ............................................ 13,661
Citrus Heights city, CA .............................................. 83,301
Clackamas County, OR ............................................ 375,992
Clayton city, MO ...................................................... 15,939
Clearwater city, FL .................................................. 107,685
Clive city, IA ............................................................ 15,447
Clovis city, CA .......................................................... 95,631
College Park city, MD ............................................... 30,413
College Station city, TX ............................................ 93,857
Colleyville city, TX .................................................... 22,807
Collinsville city, IL .................................................... 25,579
Columbia city, MO ................................................... 108,500
Columbus city, WI ...................................................... 4,991
Commerce City city, CO ............................................ 45,913
Concord city, CA ..................................................... 122,067
Concord town, MA .................................................... 17,668
Conyers city, GA ...................................................... 15,195
Cookeville city, TN ................................................... 30,435
Coon Rapids city, MN ............................................... 61,476
Cooper City city, FL .................................................. 28,547
Coronado city, CA .................................................... 18,912
Corvallis city, OR ...................................................... 54,462
Cross Roads town, TX ................................................ 1,563
Crystal Lake city, IL .................................................. 40,743
Dade City city, FL ....................................................... 6,437
Dakota County, MN ................................................. 398,552
Dallas city, OR ......................................................... 14,583
Dallas city, TX ...................................................... 1,197,816
Dardenne Prairie city, MO ......................................... 11,494
Davenport city, IA .................................................... 99,685
Davidson town, NC................................................... 10,944
Decatur city, GA ....................................................... 19,335
Delray Beach city, FL ................................................ 60,522
Denison city, TX ....................................................... 22,682
Denver city, CO ...................................................... 600,158
Derby city, KS .......................................................... 22,158
Des Moines city, IA ................................................. 203,433
Destin city, FL .......................................................... 12,305
Dewey-Humboldt town, AZ ......................................... 3,894
Dorchester County, MD ............................................ 32,618
Dothan city, AL ........................................................ 65,496
Douglas County, CO ................................................ 285,465
Dover city, NH ......................................................... 29,987
Dublin city, OH ........................................................ 41,751
Duluth city, MN ........................................................ 86,265
Duncanville city, TX .................................................. 38,524
Durham city, NC ..................................................... 228,330
East Baton Rouge Parish, LA .................................... 440,171
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
86
East Grand Forks city, MN ........................................... 8,601
East Lansing city, MI ................................................. 48,579
Eau Claire city, WI .................................................... 65,883
Eden Prairie city, MN ................................................ 60,797
Edgerton city, KS ........................................................ 1,671
Edina city, MN .......................................................... 47,941
Edmonds city, WA .................................................... 39,709
El Cerrito city, CA ..................................................... 23,549
El Paso city, TX ...................................................... 649,121
Elk Grove city, CA ................................................... 153,015
Elk River city, MN ..................................................... 22,974
Elko New Market city, MN ........................................... 4,110
Elmhurst city, IL ....................................................... 44,121
Encinitas city, CA ...................................................... 59,518
Englewood city, CO .................................................. 30,255
Erie town, CO ........................................................... 18,135
Escambia County, FL .............................................. 297,619
Estes Park town, CO ................................................... 5,858
Fairview town, TX ....................................................... 7,248
Farmington Hills city, MI ........................................... 79,740
Fayetteville city, NC ................................................ 200,564
Fishers town, IN ....................................................... 76,794
Flagstaff city, AZ ...................................................... 65,870
Flower Mound town, TX ............................................ 64,669
Flushing city, MI ......................................................... 8,389
Forest Grove city, OR ................................................ 21,083
Fort Collins city, CO ................................................ 143,986
Fort Smith city, AR ................................................... 86,209
Fort Worth city, TX ................................................. 741,206
Fountain Hills town, AZ ............................................. 22,489
Franklin city, TN ....................................................... 62,487
Fredericksburg city, VA ............................................. 24,286
Freeport CDP, ME ....................................................... 1,485
Freeport city, IL ........................................................ 25,638
Fremont city, CA ..................................................... 214,089
Friendswood city, TX ................................................ 35,805
Fruita city, CO .......................................................... 12,646
Gahanna city, OH ..................................................... 33,248
Gainesville city, FL .................................................. 124,354
Gaithersburg city, MD ............................................... 59,933
Galveston city, TX ..................................................... 47,743
Garden City city, KS .................................................. 26,658
Gardner city, KS ....................................................... 19,123
Geneva city, NY ........................................................ 13,261
Georgetown city, TX ................................................. 47,400
Gilbert town, AZ ..................................................... 208,453
Gillette city, WY ........................................................ 29,087
Globe city, AZ ............................................................. 7,532
Golden Valley city, MN .............................................. 20,371
Goodyear city, AZ ..................................................... 65,275
Grafton village, WI ................................................... 11,459
Grand Blanc city, MI ................................................... 8,276
Grand Island city, NE ................................................ 48,520
Grass Valley city, CA ................................................. 12,860
Greeley city, CO ....................................................... 92,889
Green Valley CDP, AZ ............................................... 21,391
Greenwood Village city, CO ....................................... 13,925
Greer city, SC .......................................................... 25,515
Guilford County, NC ................................................ 488,406
Gunnison County, CO ............................................... 15,324
Hailey city, ID ............................................................ 7,960
Haines Borough, AK ................................................... 2,508
Hallandale Beach city, FL .......................................... 37,113
Hamilton city, OH ..................................................... 62,477
Hampton city, VA .................................................... 137,436
Hanover County, VA ................................................. 99,863
Harrisonburg city, VA ............................................... 48,914
Harrisonville city, MO ............................................... 10,019
Hayward city, CA .................................................... 144,186
Henderson city, NV ................................................. 257,729
Hermiston city, OR ................................................... 16,745
High Point city, NC .................................................. 104,371
Highland Park city, IL ............................................... 29,763
Highlands Ranch CDP, CO ........................................ 96,713
Hillsborough town, NC ................................................ 6,087
Holden town, MA ..................................................... 17,346
Holland city, MI ....................................................... 33,051
Honolulu County, HI ................................................ 953,207
Hooksett town, NH ................................................... 13,451
Hopkins city, MN ...................................................... 17,591
Hopkinton town, MA ................................................. 14,925
Hoquiam city, WA ...................................................... 8,726
Houston city, TX .................................................. 2,099,451
Hudson city, OH ....................................................... 22,262
Hudson town, CO ....................................................... 2,356
Hudsonville city, MI .................................................... 7,116
Huntersville town, NC ............................................... 46,773
Hurst city, TX ........................................................... 37,337
Hutchinson city, MN ................................................. 14,178
Hutto city, TX .......................................................... 14,698
Hyattsville city, MD .................................................. 17,557
Indian Trail town, NC ............................................... 33,518
Indianola city, IA ..................................................... 14,782
Iowa City city, IA ..................................................... 67,862
Jackson County, MI ................................................. 160,248
James City County, VA ............................................. 67,009
Jefferson City city, MO ............................................. 43,079
Jefferson County, CO .............................................. 534,543
Jefferson County, NY ............................................... 116,229
Jerome city, ID ........................................................ 10,890
Johnson City city, TN................................................ 63,152
Johnson County, KS ................................................ 544,179
Johnston city, IA ...................................................... 17,278
Jupiter town, FL ....................................................... 55,156
Kalamazoo city, MI ................................................... 74,262
Kansas City city, MO ................................................ 459,787
Keizer city, OR ......................................................... 36,478
Kenmore city, WA .................................................... 20,460
Kennedale city, TX ..................................................... 6,763
Kennett Square borough, PA ....................................... 6,072
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
87
Kirkland city, WA ...................................................... 48,787
La Mesa city, CA ....................................................... 57,065
La Plata town, MD ...................................................... 8,753
La Porte city, TX ....................................................... 33,800
La Vista city, NE ....................................................... 15,758
Lafayette city, CO ..................................................... 24,453
Laguna Beach city, CA .............................................. 22,723
Laguna Hills city, CA ................................................. 30,344
Laguna Niguel city, CA .............................................. 62,979
Lake Oswego city, OR ............................................... 36,619
Lake Zurich village, IL ............................................... 19,631
Lakeville city, MN ...................................................... 55,954
Lakewood city, CO .................................................. 142,980
Lane County, OR .................................................... 351,715
Larimer County, CO ................................................ 299,630
Las Cruces city, NM .................................................. 97,618
Las Vegas city, NV .................................................. 583,756
Lawrence city, KS ..................................................... 87,643
League City city, TX .................................................. 83,560
Lee County, FL ....................................................... 618,754
Lee's Summit city, MO .............................................. 91,364
Lewis County, NY ..................................................... 27,087
Lewiston city, ME ..................................................... 36,592
Lincoln city, NE....................................................... 258,379
Lindsborg city, KS ....................................................... 3,458
Littleton city, CO ....................................................... 41,737
Livermore city, CA .................................................... 80,968
Lone Tree city, CO .................................................... 10,218
Longmont city, CO .................................................... 86,270
Longview city, TX ..................................................... 80,455
Los Alamos County, NM ............................................ 17,950
Louisville city, CO ..................................................... 18,376
Lynchburg city, VA .................................................... 75,568
Lynnwood city, WA ................................................... 35,836
Madison city, WI..................................................... 233,209
Mankato city, MN ...................................................... 39,309
Maple Grove city, MN ................................................ 61,567
Maple Valley city, WA ............................................... 22,684
Maricopa County, AZ ............................................ 3,817,117
Marin County, CA ................................................... 252,409
Maryland Heights city, MO ........................................ 27,472
McAllen city, TX ...................................................... 129,877
McDonough city, GA ................................................. 22,084
McKinney city, TX ................................................... 131,117
McMinnville city, OR .................................................. 32,187
Mecklenburg County, NC ......................................... 919,628
Medford city, OR ...................................................... 74,907
Menlo Park city, CA ................................................... 32,026
Mercer Island city, WA .............................................. 22,699
Meridian charter township, MI ................................... 39,688
Meridian city, ID ....................................................... 75,092
Merriam city, KS ....................................................... 11,003
Merrill city, WI ............................................................ 9,661
Mesa city, AZ ......................................................... 439,041
Mesa County, CO .................................................... 146,723
Miami Beach city, FL ................................................ 87,779
Miami city, FL ......................................................... 399,457
Midland city, MI ....................................................... 41,863
Milford city, DE .......................................................... 9,559
Milton city, GA ......................................................... 32,661
Minneapolis city, MN ............................................... 382,578
Mission Viejo city, CA ............................................... 93,305
Modesto city, CA ..................................................... 201,165
Monterey city, CA ..................................................... 27,810
Montgomery County, MD ......................................... 971,777
Montgomery County, VA ........................................... 94,392
Montpelier city, VT ..................................................... 7,855
Monument town, CO .................................................. 5,530
Mooresville town, NC ................................................ 32,711
Morristown city, TN .................................................. 29,137
Moscow city, ID ....................................................... 23,800
Mountain Village town, CO .......................................... 1,320
Mountlake Terrace city, WA ...................................... 19,909
Munster town, IN ..................................................... 23,603
Muscatine city, IA .................................................... 22,886
Naperville city, IL .................................................... 141,853
Needham CDP, MA ................................................... 28,886
New Braunfels city, TX ............................................. 57,740
New Brighton city, MN .............................................. 21,456
New Hanover County, NC ........................................ 202,667
New Orleans city, LA ............................................... 343,829
Newport Beach city, CA ............................................ 85,186
Newport city, RI ....................................................... 24,672
Newport News city, VA ............................................ 180,719
Newton city, IA ........................................................ 15,254
Noblesville city, IN ................................................... 51,969
Nogales city, AZ ....................................................... 20,837
Norfolk city, VA ....................................................... 242,803
Norman city, OK ..................................................... 110,925
North Las Vegas city, NV ......................................... 216,961
Northglenn city, CO .................................................. 35,789
Novato city, CA ........................................................ 51,904
Novi city, MI ............................................................ 55,224
O'Fallon city, IL ........................................................ 28,281
O'Fallon city, MO ...................................................... 79,329
Oak Park village, IL .................................................. 51,878
Oakland Park city, FL ............................................... 41,363
Oakley city, CA ........................................................ 35,432
Ogdensburg city, NY ................................................ 11,128
Oklahoma City city, OK ............................................ 579,999
Olathe city, KS ........................................................ 125,872
Old Town city, ME ...................................................... 7,840
Olmsted County, MN ............................................... 144,248
Orland Park village, IL .............................................. 56,767
Oshkosh city, WI ...................................................... 66,083
Otsego County, MI ................................................... 24,164
Oviedo city, FL ......................................................... 33,342
Paducah city, KY ...................................................... 25,024
Palm Coast city, FL ................................................... 75,180
Palm Springs city, CA ............................................... 44,552
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
88
Palo Alto city, CA ...................................................... 64,403
Panama City city, FL ................................................. 36,484
Papillion city, NE ....................................................... 18,894
Park City city, UT ........................................................ 7,558
Parker town, CO ....................................................... 45,297
Parkland city, FL ....................................................... 23,962
Pasadena city, CA ................................................... 137,122
Pasco city, WA ......................................................... 59,781
Pasco County, FL .................................................... 464,697
Peachtree City city, GA ............................................. 34,364
Pearland city, TX ...................................................... 91,252
Peoria city, AZ ........................................................ 154,065
Peoria city, IL ......................................................... 115,007
Peoria County, IL .................................................... 186,494
Peters township, PA .................................................. 21,213
Petoskey city, MI ........................................................ 5,670
Pflugerville city, TX ................................................... 46,936
Phoenix city, AZ .................................................. 1,445,632
Pinal County, AZ ..................................................... 375,770
Pinehurst village, NC ................................................. 13,124
Piqua city, OH .......................................................... 20,522
Platte City city, MO ..................................................... 4,691
Plymouth city, MN .................................................... 70,576
Pocatello city, ID ...................................................... 54,255
Polk County, IA ...................................................... 430,640
Port Huron city, MI ................................................... 30,184
Port Orange city, FL .................................................. 56,048
Port St. Lucie city, FL .............................................. 164,603
Portland city, OR .................................................... 583,776
Post Falls city, ID ...................................................... 27,574
Prince William County, VA ....................................... 402,002
Provo city, UT ........................................................ 112,488
Pueblo city, CO ....................................................... 106,595
Purcellville town, VA ................................................... 7,727
Queen Creek town, AZ .............................................. 26,361
Radford city, VA ....................................................... 16,408
Radnor township, PA ................................................ 31,531
Rapid City city, SD .................................................... 67,956
Raymore city, MO ..................................................... 19,206
Redmond city, WA .................................................... 54,144
Rehoboth Beach city, DE ............................................. 1,327
Reno city, NV ......................................................... 225,221
Reston CDP, VA ........................................................ 58,404
Richmond city, CA .................................................. 103,701
Richmond Heights city, MO ......................................... 8,603
Rifle city, CO .............................................................. 9,172
River Falls city, WI .................................................... 15,000
Riverdale city, UT ....................................................... 8,426
Riverside city, CA .................................................... 303,871
Riverside city, MO ....................................................... 2,937
Rochester city, MI .................................................... 12,711
Rochester Hills city, MI ............................................. 70,995
Rock Hill city, SC ...................................................... 66,154
Rockford city, IL ..................................................... 152,871
Rockville city, MD ..................................................... 61,209
Rolla city, MO .......................................................... 19,559
Roswell city, GA ....................................................... 88,346
Round Rock city, TX ................................................. 99,887
Royal Oak city, MI .................................................... 57,236
Saco city, ME ........................................................... 18,482
Sahuarita town, AZ .................................................. 25,259
Salida city, CO ........................................................... 5,236
Salt Lake City city, UT ............................................. 186,440
Sammamish city, WA ............................................... 45,780
San Antonio city, TX ............................................. 1,327,407
San Carlos city, CA ................................................... 28,406
San Diego city, CA ............................................... 1,307,402
San Francisco city, CA ............................................. 805,235
San Jose city, CA .................................................... 945,942
San Juan County, NM .............................................. 130,044
San Marcos city, TX .................................................. 44,894
San Rafael city, CA ................................................... 57,713
Sandy Springs city, GA ............................................. 93,853
Sanford city, FL ........................................................ 53,570
Sangamon County, IL .............................................. 197,465
Santa Clarita city, CA ............................................... 176,320
Santa Fe County, NM .............................................. 144,170
Santa Monica city, CA ............................................... 89,736
Sarasota County, FL ................................................ 379,448
Savage city, MN ....................................................... 26,911
Savannah city, GA ................................................... 136,286
Scarborough CDP, ME ................................................ 4,403
Scott County, MN .................................................... 129,928
Scottsdale city, AZ .................................................. 217,385
Seaside city, CA ....................................................... 33,025
SeaTac city, WA ....................................................... 26,909
Sevierville city, TN ................................................... 14,807
Shawnee city, KS ..................................................... 62,209
Sheboygan city, WI .................................................. 49,288
Shorewood city, MN ................................................... 7,307
Sioux Falls city, SD .................................................. 153,888
Skokie village, IL ...................................................... 64,784
Snellville city, GA ..................................................... 18,242
South Lake Tahoe city, CA ........................................ 21,403
South Portland city, ME ............................................ 25,002
Southborough town, MA ............................................. 9,767
Southlake city, TX .................................................... 26,575
Sparks city, NV ........................................................ 90,264
Spokane Valley city, WA ........................................... 89,755
Spring Hill city, KS ...................................................... 5,437
Springboro city, OH .................................................. 17,409
Springfield city, OR .................................................. 59,403
Springville city, UT ................................................... 29,466
St. Charles city, IL .................................................... 32,974
St. Cloud city, MN .................................................... 65,842
St. Joseph city, MO .................................................. 76,780
St. Louis County, MN ............................................... 200,226
St. Louis Park city, MN ............................................. 45,250
Stallings town, NC .................................................... 13,831
State College borough, PA ........................................ 42,034
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
89
Sterling Heights city, MI .......................................... 129,699
Sugar Grove village, IL ................................................ 8,997
Sugar Land city, TX .................................................. 78,817
Summit city, NJ ........................................................ 21,457
Sunnyvale city, CA .................................................. 140,081
Surprise city, AZ ..................................................... 117,517
Suwanee city, GA ..................................................... 15,355
Tacoma city, WA .................................................... 198,397
Takoma Park city, MD ............................................... 16,715
Tamarac city, FL ....................................................... 60,427
Temecula city, CA ................................................... 100,097
Tempe city, AZ ....................................................... 161,719
Temple city, TX ........................................................ 66,102
The Woodlands CDP, TX ........................................... 93,847
Thornton city, CO ................................................... 118,772
Thousand Oaks city, CA .......................................... 126,683
Tualatin city, OR ....................................................... 26,054
Tulsa city, OK ......................................................... 391,906
Twin Falls city, ID ..................................................... 44,125
Tyler city, TX ............................................................ 96,900
Umatilla city, OR ......................................................... 6,906
Upper Arlington city, OH ........................................... 33,771
Urbandale city, IA ..................................................... 39,463
Vail town, CO ............................................................. 5,305
Vancouver city, WA ................................................ 161,791
Ventura CCD, CA .................................................... 111,889
Vestavia Hills city, AL ................................................ 34,033
Virginia Beach city, VA ............................................ 437,994
Wake Forest town, NC .............................................. 30,117
Walnut Creek city, CA ............................................... 64,173
Washington County, MN ......................................... 238,136
Washoe County, NV ................................................ 421,407
Watauga city, TX ..................................................... 23,497
Wauwatosa city, WI ................................................. 46,396
Waverly city, IA ......................................................... 9,874
Weddington town, NC ................................................ 9,459
Wentzville city, MO................................................... 29,070
West Carrollton city, OH ........................................... 13,143
West Chester borough, PA ........................................ 18,461
West Des Moines city, IA .......................................... 56,609
West Richland city, WA ............................................ 11,811
Westerville city, OH .................................................. 36,120
Westlake town, TX ........................................................ 992
Westminster city, CO ............................................... 106,114
Weston town, MA ..................................................... 11,261
Wheat Ridge city, CO ............................................... 30,166
White House city, TN ............................................... 10,255
Whitewater township, MI ............................................ 2,597
Wichita city, KS ....................................................... 382,368
Williamsburg city, VA................................................ 14,068
Wilmington city, NC ................................................. 106,476
Wilsonville city, OR ................................................... 19,509
Winchester city, VA .................................................. 26,203
Windsor town, CO .................................................... 18,644
Windsor town, CT .................................................... 29,044
Winston-Salem city, NC ........................................... 229,617
Winter Garden city, FL .............................................. 34,568
Woodland city, CA .................................................... 55,468
Woodland city, WA ..................................................... 5,509
Wrentham town, MA ................................................ 10,955
Yakima city, WA ....................................................... 91,067
York County, VA ....................................................... 65,464
Yuma city, AZ .......................................................... 93,064
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
90
Page intentionally left blank
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
91
Survey Materials
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
92
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
93
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
94
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
95
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
96
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
97
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
98
Attachment B
The National Citizen Survey™
99
Attachment B
Table of Contents
Page 1 City Organization and
Information
Page 2 Progress in Fiscal
Year 2014
Page 3 Fiscal Year 2014
Revenues and
Expenditures
Page 4 What's Next?
City’s Economic
Outlook and Moving
Forward
Demographics Information
FY
2012
FY
2013
Population* 64,538 65,498
Average travel time to work* 22 minutes 22 minutes
Median household income* $117,680 $118,396
Median price of single family home $1,742,000 $1,992,500
Number of authorized City staff 1,114 1,129
FY
2014
66,029
22 minutes
$122,366
$1,880,250
1,147
City Organization and Information
Incorporated in 1894, the City of Palo Alto covers 26 square miles and is located in the
heart of Silicon Valley. Palo Alto has over 66,000 residents and the daytime population is
estimated at more than 123,000. Stanford University, adjacent to Palo Alto and one of the
top-rated institutions of higher education in the nation, has produced much of the talent
that founded successful high-tech companies in Palo Alto and Silicon Valley. The total
daytime population for Palo Alto and Stanford is about 148,000.
The City of Palo Alto provides a full range of municipal services, in addition to owning and
operating its own utility system, including electricity, gas, water, wastewater treatment,
refuse, storm drain, and fiber optics. The City also offers expanded service delivery,
including fire protection service for Palo Alto and Stanford. The Regional Water Quality
Control Plant serves the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
Stanford, and East Palo Alto.
City residents elect nine members to the City Council to serve staggered four-year terms.
Each January, Council members elect a Mayor and Vice-Mayor. The City of Palo Alto
operates under a Council-manager form of government.
1
* Figures reflect American Community Survey data
The City of
Palo Alto’s Values
Quality
Superior delivery of services
Courtesy
Providing service with respect
and concern
Efficiency
Productive, effective use of
resources
Integrity
Straightforward, honest, and fair
relations
Innovation
Excellence in creative thought
and implementation
Additional information is available at the Office of the City Auditor’s website, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/default.asp
The City of
Palo Alto, California
A Report to Our CiƟzens
Attachment C
Progress in Fiscal Year 2014
Themes for 2014
Differing from prior years’
performance reports, the
themes allow users to
understand the performance
of cross-departmental
programs or initiatives, while
continuing to present
information by individual
departments.
► Stewardship:
Financial
Responsibility
Neighborhood
Preservation
Environmental
Sustainability
► Public Service:
Public Safety
Services
Utility Services
Internal City Services
► Community:
Community
Involvement and
Enrichment
Safety, Health, and
Well-Being
Density and
Development
Mobility
Key Measures
Additional information is available at the City of Palo Alto’s website, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/default.asp
All percent ratings as “excellent/good”
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
Ranking
compared
to other
surveyed
jurisdictions
GENERAL COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
Palo Alto as a place to live 95% 92% 95% Much Higher
Overall quality of life in Palo Alto 94% 91% 91% Much Higher
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 92% 90% 92% Much Higher
Overall appearance of Palo Alto 89% 85% 89% Much Higher
STEWARDSHIP
General Fund Operating Expenditures Per Capita (in millions) $2,399 $2,400 $2,412
Overall natural environment in Palo Alto 88% 83% 88% Higher Than
Your neighborhood as a place to live 90% 91% 92% Higher Than
PUBLIC SERVICE
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government n/a n/a 52% Similar
Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police,
receptionists, planners, etc.) 81% 79% 81% Similar
Police services 86% 86% 87% Similar
Fire services 96% 93% 95% Similar
COMMUNITY
Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto as “very/somewhat safe” n/a n/a 92% Higher Than
Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit n/a n/a 71% Similar
Overall “built environment” of Palo Alto (including overall de-
sign, buildings, parks, and transportation systems) n/a n/a 67% Similar
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of
diverse backgrounds 80% 76% 76% Similar
Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands
and greenbelts 81% 79% 80% Higher Than
Opportunity to participate in community matters n/a n/a 75% Similar
Opportunities to volunteer 80% 82% 83% Similar
Cost of living in Palo Alto n/a n/a 11% Much Lower
Palo Alto as a place to visit n/a n/a 75% Similar
The value of services for taxes paid to Palo Alto 67% 66% 66% Similar
Services provided by Palo Alto 88% 84% 83% Similar
Generally acting in the best interest of the community n/a n/a 54% Similar
Economic development 67% 61% 73% Higher Than
2
How We Have Progressed Attachment C
The City’s Finances
Revenues and Expenditures
Primary Sources of General Fund Revenues
Primary General Fund Expenditures
Additional information is available at the City of Palo Alto’s website, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/default.asp
Revenues by Source
FY 2013
Actual
Revenues
FY 2014
Actual
Revenues
Property Tax $28.7 million $30.6 million
Sales Tax $25.6 million $29.4 million
Charges for Services $26.7 million $24.0 million
Rental Income $12.9 million $14.2 million
Transient Occupancy Tax $10.8 million $12.2 million
Utility Users Tax $10.9 million $11.0 million
Documentary Transfer Tax $6.8 million $7.8 million
Permits and Licenses $7.6 million $7.0 million
All Other Revenues $2.6 million $5.5 million
Total Revenues: $132.6 million $141.7 million
Independent Audit
An independent audit of the City’s basic financial statements
resulted in a clean audit opinion.
3
Source: FY 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
Source: FY 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
Revenues by Source
FY 2013
Actual
Expenditures
FY 2014
Actual
Expenditures
Public Safety $59.5 million $61.7 million
Community Services $21.5 million $22.5 million
Planning and Community
Environment $11.8 million $13.2 million
Public Works $11.5 million $11.5 million
Nondepartmental $7.4 million $8.0 million
Library $6.9 million $7.3 million
All Others $5.5 million $7.3 million
Administrative Services $3.1 million $3.0 million
Total Revenues: $127.2 million $134.5 million
Attachment C
What’s Next?
City’s Budget and Accomplishments
City’s Budget
While revenues continue to trend upward, the City has stayed on its course to proactively manage its budget to ensure fiscal
responsibility and stability as well as to focus on infrastructure investments and contain long-term pension and retiree
healthcare liabilities. For Fiscal Year 2015, the City Council adopted a balanced citywide budget of $470.3 million and a
General Fund budget of $171.1 million. The increase in the General Fund Budget from the prior year was mostly possible
due to a significant increase in major tax revenues. These increases were the result of a very robust local economy and
growth in jobs. On the other side of this good news, increasing traffic in the region, parking problems in the City’s key
commercial districts, and the overall pace of development proposals and building impacts across town made growth and its
impacts the key focus of the Council. The 2014 City Council Priorities reflect this:
Comprehensive planning and action on land use and transportation: the Built Environment, Transportation, Mobility,
Parking, and Livability
Infrastructure Strategy and Funding
Technology and the Connected City
Accomplishments
As this report identifies, staff performs at a high level serving our community. In addition to the performance measures and
data contained in this report, we can be proud of many accomplishments in 2014, a few of which are highlighted below:
Land Use: Launched the Our Palo Alto program to complete the revision of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted the
2015-2023 Housing Element, began Phase 1 of Downtown Cap Study, continued implementation of the Development
Services Blueprint, developed a Residential Permit Parking Program (RPP), moved to expand shuttle service, initiated
development of an expansive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to include a Transportation Management
Agency (TMA), studied new garage opportunities, and developed a series of intermediate zoning changes (underway) to
manage near term growth impacts.
Infrastructure: Completed construction of Mitchell Park and Rinconada Libraries; adopted a plan to fully fund the City’s
Infrastructure Plan (outgrowth of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission Report); initiated the Parks, Open Space &
Recreation Master Plan process and completed the transfer of Palo Alto Airport to the City.
Technology: Developed a Fiber to the Premises Strategy and plan, launched Accela Citizen Access, Tri-Cities Computer
Aided Dispatch, PaloAlto311 mobile application and mobile audio video equipment in all patrol vehicles.
Sustainability: Received the Beacon Award from the League of California Cities and the Institute for Local Government for
greatest sustainability achievements in the State, the Most Electric Vehicle Ready Community Award and the Best Solar
Collaboration Award, and initiated work on a new Sustainability & Climate Action Plan.
In closing, I would like to thank Harriet Richardson, our City Auditor, and her team, who put together this report for our
citizens, City Council, and staff. The Auditor’s Office and my staff have worked together to streamline this report and focus
on the most significant performance measures. In the coming year, we plan to continue our cooperation with the goal of
establishing an ever more robust performance management system.
The Office of the City Auditor is responsible for independently evaluating the City’s programs, services, and departments. For 12 years our
office has issued the City’s annual Performance Report (formerly Service Efforts and Accomplishments) to supplement the City’s financial
reports and statements. If you are interested in viewing the City’s complete annual performance report, please visit:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/reports/accomplishments.asp
About Citizen Centric Reporting
The Association of Government Accountants (AGA) developed guidance on producing Citizen Centric Reporting as a method to
demonstrate accountability to residents and answer the question, “Are we better off today than we were last year?” Additional details
can be found at the AGA website: www.agacgfm.org (under Tools & Resources)
4
From the City Manager
Attachment C
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5743)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/1/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: First Amendment to contract with Khalid Salman A
Mohammed, SAP Consultant for Payroll Support
Title: Approval of First Amendment to Contract No. S15157589, with Khalid
Salman A Mohammed for the Support and Maintenance of SAP Payroll and
Human Capital Management (HCM) Modules to Add $116,000 for a Total
Amount Not to Exceed $200,000
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute, Amendment No. 1 to Contract S15157589 with Khalid Salman A Mohammed by
increasing the total compensation by $116,000, from $84,000 to a total amount not to exceed
$200,000 for SAP Payroll and SAP Human Capital Management (HCM) support and
configuration services.
BACKGROUND
On January 12, 2015, City of Palo Alto entered into an agreement for a one year contract with
Khalid Salman A Mohammed in the amount of $84,000 for professional services in the areas of
SAP Payroll and HCM support and configuration on a part-time basis to provide a minimum
level of support for the critical areas of payroll and human resource management. This was due
to an unexpected vacancy in the position providing support and maintenance of SAP Payroll
and HCM, which are critical to the day to day operation of the City of Palo Alto. The contract
with Khalid Salman A Mohammed was intended to be an interim measure until a qualified full
time staff person could be hired to fill the vacancy.
DISCUSSION
The City has been utilizing SAP since 2003 for the day to day operation of many areas, including
SAP Payroll and HCM. As the City’s Enterprise Resources Planning (ERP) system, SAP is highly
configurable with processes integrated via interlinked configuration rules in various modules.
The software requires a high degree of specialized expertise to provide effective ongoing
maintenance and support. It can be challenging to find external resources that have adequate
City of Palo Alto Page 2
levels of experience to provide this support in a timely manner. Bi-weekly processing of payroll
is a function that is critical to the City’s ongoing operation.
Staff has been actively recruiting to fill the vacant position, but has been unsuccessful to date in
attracting candidates that are sufficiently qualified to provide support in this critical area. In
addition to bi-weekly payroll processing, there are a number of upcoming activities, including
the legally mandated support pack installation, implementation of new labor agreements, and
year end benefit enrollments, which will require support at a full time level. This funding
increase will enable the consultant to provide an adequate level of support until such time that
a full time resource can be brought on board, which staff estimates will be by year-end. Staff
will continue to recruit to fill the vacant position.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The recommended increase in total compensation is $116,000. Funding for this contract
amendment is available due to salary savings from a vacant position in the FY 2015 and
anticipated savings in the FY 2016 IT Department budgets. In the event that staff hires a
permanent replacement for the vacant position, this contract will be terminated at that time.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Approval of the recommended Contract amendment is not a project for purposes of the
California Environmental Quality Act and thus no environmental review under is required.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Amendment 1 to Contract S15157589 (PDF)
Attachment B: Original Contract S15157589 (PDF)
1 Revision April 28, 2014
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. S15157589
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
KHALID SALMAN MOHAMMED
This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S15157589 (“Contract”) is entered into June 01, 2015,
by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation
(“CITY”), and Khalid Salman Mohammed, a sole proprietor, located at
1962 Bellomy Street, Unit 2, Santa Clara, CA 95050 (“CONSULTANT”).
R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of
providing support of the SAP Payroll/HR system.
B. The parties wish to amend the Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and
provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree:
SECTION 1. Section 4 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services
described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and
reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000).
In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services,
Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Two Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($200,000). The applicable rates are set out in Exhibit “C”, entitled
“HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this
Agreement.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the
provisions of Exhibit “B”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for
Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY.
Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for
the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of
Services described in Exhibit “A”.”
SECTION 2. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read
as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference:
Exhibit “B” entitled “COMPENSATION” - Second paragraph is hereby amended to
read as follows:
“The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all
services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall
not exceed $200,000. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services,
including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes
any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $200,000.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 76C920D9-8A7A-46DA-89E4-9E6E536629ED
2 Revision April 28, 2014
Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total
exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost
to the CITY.”
SECTION 5. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract,
including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this Amendment on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Khalid Salman Mohammed
DocuSign Envelope ID: 76C920D9-8A7A-46DA-89E4-9E6E536629ED
Salman Mohammed
4/15/2015
SAP CONSULTANT
Certificate of Completion
Envelope Number: 76C920D98A7A46DA89E49E6E536629ED Status: Completed
Subject: Please DocuSign this document: S15157589_Contract Amendment1_KMOHAMMED.pdf
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 2 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 4 Initials: 0 John Montenero
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto , CA 94301
john.montenero@cityofpaloalto.org
IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Record Tracking
Status: Original
4/15/2015 12:18:38 PM PT
Holder: John Montenero
john.montenero@cityofpaloalto.org
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Salman Mohammed
Salman.Mohammed@CityofPaloAlto.org
SAP CONSULTANT
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)Using IP Address: 107.1.1.2
Sent: 4/15/2015 12:26:39 PM PT
Viewed: 4/15/2015 3:27:49 PM PT
Signed: 4/15/2015 3:28:58 PM PT
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 4/15/2015 3:27:49 PM PT
ID: 062ade70-ee09-4020-b068-4cf7e52cd55b
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Kim Leban
kim.leban@cityofpaloalto.org
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 4/15/2015 3:28:59 PM PT
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered
ID:
Notary Events Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 4/15/2015 3:28:59 PM PT
Certified Delivered Security Checked 4/15/2015 3:28:59 PM PT
Signing Complete Security Checked 4/15/2015 3:28:59 PM PT
Completed Security Checked 4/15/2015 3:28:59 PM PT
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure
CONSUMER DISCLOSURE
From time to time, City of Palo Alto (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to
you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for
providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc.
(DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly,
and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms
and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of
this document.
Getting paper copies
At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available
electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the
DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you
through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such
documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of
any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may
request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below.
Withdrawing your consent
If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time
change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures
only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and
disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures
electronically is described below.
Consequences of changing your mind
If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the
speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to
you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format,
and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such
paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must
withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your
DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive
required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your
DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us
or to sign electronically documents from us.
All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically
Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide
electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures,
authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or
made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of
you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required
notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given
us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through
the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as
described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the
consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures
electronically from us.
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 10/1/2013 3:33:53 PM
Parties agreed to: Salman Mohammed
How to contact City of Palo Alto:
You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically,
to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to
receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows:
To contact us by email send messages to: david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org
To advise City of Palo Alto of your new e-mail address
To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures
electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at
david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state: your previous
e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to
change your email address..
In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected
in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign.
To request paper copies from City of Palo Alto
To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided
by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and
in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and
telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any.
To withdraw your consent with City of Palo Alto
To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic
format you may:
i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent
page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may;
ii. send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request
you must state your e-mail, full name, IS Postal Address, telephone number, and account
number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The
consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions
may take a longer time to process..
Required hardware and software
Operating Systems: Windows2000? or WindowsXP?
Browsers (for SENDERS): Internet Explorer 6.0? or above
Browsers (for SIGNERS): Internet Explorer 6.0?, Mozilla FireFox 1.0,
NetScape 7.2 (or above)
Email: Access to a valid email account
Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum
Enabled Security Settings:
•Allow per session cookies
•Users accessing the internet behind a Proxy
Server must enable HTTP 1.1 settings via
proxy connection
** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, we will
provide you with an email message at the email address we have on file for you at that time
providing you with the revised hardware and software requirements, at which time you will
have the right to withdraw your consent.
Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically
To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to
other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you
were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or
electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to
e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or
save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and
disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above,
please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below.
By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that:
• I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF
ELECTRONIC CONSUMER DISCLOSURES document; and
• I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can
print it, for future reference and access; and
• Until or unless I notify City of Palo Alto as described above, I consent to receive from
exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations,
acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made
available to me by City of Palo Alto during the course of my relationship with you.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5762)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/1/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Law Enforcement Services to Levi’s Stadium
Title: Request Approval of Authorization of Indemnity Agreement With Santa
Clara Stadium Authority to Allow Provision of Requested Law Enforcement
Services to Levi’s Stadium Relating to Super Bowl 50 to be Held at Levi’s
Stadium on February 7, 2016
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommended Motion
Staff recommends that Council consider the following motion:
Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached agreement
which would allow the Palo Alto Police Department to provide law enforcement services
to the new Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara with respect to increased security during the
2016 Super Bowl, joining other Santa Clara County agencies whose assistance is needed
given the staffing demand.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the
attached agreement which would allow the Palo Alto Police Department to provide law
enforcement services to the new Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara with respect to increased
security during the 2016 Super Bowl, joining other Santa Clara County agencies whose
assistance is needed given the staffing demand.
Executive Summary
Since 2014, the San Francisco Forty-Niners have hosted their regular season football games at
Levi’s Stadium. The stadium was completed in 2014 and is maintained by the City of Santa
Clara and the Santa Clara Stadium Authority. The Stadium Authority has been selected to host
the February 2016 NFL Super Bowl. Toward that end, the Santa Clara Police Department has
requested support from local law enforcement agencies and has worked with staff from the
City of Palo Alto and other Bay Area municipalities to develop a police services staffing plan in
advance of the 2016 Super Bowl. The plan allows Santa Clara to supplement its police
department’s staff with experienced peace officers from the region. This new agreement is in
addition to the agreement previously entered into Santa Clara in March 2014.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Staff recommends participation as a cooperative measure to support an allied law enforcement
agency in providing adequate public safety resources for a significant regional venue, and to
provide an outside employment opportunity for some Palo Alto police officers who may be
interested in serving in this capacity.
Analysis
Existing Agreement
In March 2014, the City of Palo Alto entered into an agreement which allowed Palo Alto police
officers to work as “Per Diem Police Officers” for the City of Santa Clara for the sole purpose of
providing police services for the Santa Clara Stadium Authority. Under that agreement,
participating officers must meet certain certification requirements, and are subject to a
background check. They work in a per diem capacity at the stadium and are off-duty from their
employment with the Palo Alto Police Department. The officers are “double-badged” and are
classified as reserve police officers for Santa Clara, wearing Santa Clara police uniforms and
insignias. The officers are trained and supervised by the Santa Clara Police Department for
stadium events. Officers utilize their personal protective equipment issued by the City of Palo
Alto in order to ensure familiarity and proficiency by the officer.
The hours worked in Santa Clara do not contribute to hours worked for the City of Palo Alto for
the purposes of calculating overtime or other City-provided benefits. The officers are paid
directly by Santa Clara. Palo Alto does not pay salary or overtime for this work.
Since June 2014, five officers from the Palo Alto Police Department have worked at Levi’s
Stadium as reserve officers pursuant to the agreement without incident.
Proposed Agreement
The proposed agreement provides that officers from neighboring law enforcement agencies will
serve as part of a special detail to assist with stadium security, but will do so in their capacity as
Palo Alto police officers. Such officers will not be considered reserve officers under the March
2014 agreement, but will continue to be under the employ of their home agency. They will
wear their Palo Alto Police Department uniform, and use their regular Palo Alto Police
Department equipment. The Stadium Authority will pay the officers an hourly rate, with
payment being remitted to the home agency after invoicing. Each agency shall be liable for the
acts of its own employees. Various city attorneys and staff from local municipalities in the
County have negotiated the agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The Agreement provides that participating officers’ duties to the City of Palo Alto will take
priority over any assignment with the Santa Clara Police Department and officers can be
recalled to the City of Palo Alto without prior notice in the event of an emergency.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The cities of Mountain View, Los Altos, Milpitas, Gilroy, Campbell, Morgan Hill, and the City of
Santa Clara, intend to submit this Agreement to their respective Councils for approval. Police
Department staff will monitor its officers’ participation for any negative impacts and report any
incidents to the City Manager. If necessary, the City’s participation can be terminated in its
entirety at its election upon notice.
The proposed agreement is intended for planned policing events at the stadium and does not
supersede mutual aid agreements for unusual occurrences or other significant events.
Resource Impact
The agreement will result in no resource impact. Any injury sustained by an officer on special
detail will be treated in the same manner as if incurred in the normal course of his/her duties
for Palo Alto.
Policy Impact
The agreement will result in no policy impact.
Attachments:
Exhibit A:Super Bowl-Santa Clara Stadium Agreement Executed (PDF)
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT
by and between the
SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY, THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,
and
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
PREAMBLE
This agreement for the performance of municipal law enforcement services (“Agreement”) is
made and entered into on this ______ day of __________, 2015, (“Effective Date”) by and
between the City of Palo Alto (“Agency”), the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, a Joint Powers
Authority, with its primary business address at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California
95050 (“Authority”), and the City of Santa Clara, a chartered municipal corporation, located at
1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95050 (“City”). Authority, City and Agency
may be referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties” to this Agreement.”
RECITALS
A. Authority and City are desirous of contracting with Agency for the performance of
certain additional, supplemental law enforcement functions described herein specifically
for Super Bowl 50, scheduled to be held at Stadium on February 7, 2016.
B. Agency is agreeable to rendering such additional, supplemental law enforcement
services pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
C. Pursuant to the authority set forth in Government Code sections 54981 and 55632,
Authority and City seek additional supplemental law enforcement services, and Agency
agrees to provide additional supplemental law enforcement services, in connection with
Super Bowl 50 at and around the Stadium site.
The Parties agree as follows:
AGREEMENT PROVISIONS
1. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED.
A. Agency agrees, as available, to provide supplemental special detail law
enforcement services for Super Bowl 50 events taking place at the Stadium site
and surrounding areas, as those areas are determined by the National Football
League and/or City and/or Authority, during the term of this Agreement. The
classification and approximate numbers of personnel provided by Agency will be
determined and mutually agreed upon, in writing, between Agency, Authority and
the Santa Clara Chief of Police prior to each Super Bowl 50 event. The Parties
shall establish and agree to the number of hours necessary for Agency employees
to perform the requested services. City herein provides consent, pursuant to
Law Enforcement Services Agreement/Palo Alto Page 1 of 10
Rev. 1-23-15
Penal Code section 830.1(a)(2), for any Agency peace officer providing services
hereunder to exercise full peace officer authority within the City’s jurisdiction.
B. Except as otherwise specifically set forth, such services shall encompass only
those duties and functions of the type coming within the jurisdiction of, and
customarily rendered by, Agency under its Charter and/or municipal codes, and
the statutes of the State of California, and under the Charter and municipal codes
of the City.
C. For special detail officers, the request for Super Bowl 50 services shall be a
written request from the Santa Clara Police Chief or his/her designee. The request
shall contain specific dates of service, hours of operation, number of personnel
requested, and classification of personnel requested. For the purpose of
performing said services and if Agency is able to provide such services, Agency
shall furnish and supply, as available, all necessary labor, supervision, personnel,
helicopters, tactical vehicles, equipment, fuel, and supplies necessary to provide
the services to be rendered hereunder. The Authority and/or City acknowledges
that additional equipment charges for special equipment such as helicopters,
tactical vehicles, equipment, fuel, and supplies may be appropriate depending
upon the services requested, and may be charged by Agency and paid for by
Authority in accordance with Section 4 below as above and beyond the authorized
pay rate for personnel. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Authority and/or City
may provide additional resources for Agency to utilize in performance of the
services. The request shall be signed by a representative of the Authority and/or
City who is duly authorized to enter into such agreements for supplemental law
enforcement services. The request shall be submitted via email to the Agency
specified contact.
D. The City hereby grants to Agency and its personnel responding to requests for
services herein the right to transmit and broadcast communications to the Santa
Clara Police Department's units via the Santa Clara Police Department’s
designated dispatch frequency and/or any other law enforcement frequency for
which the City is licensed by the FCC.
E. Mutual aid agreements pursuant to the California Emergency Plan (Government
Code §§ 8550 et seq.) and the Master Mutual Aid Agreement: If any mutual aid
agreement(s) currently in place are triggered during any performance of services
under this Agreement, the mutual aid agreement(s)shall govern all necessary
personnel and/or tactics.
2. ADMINISTRATION OF PERSONNEL.
A. In the event of a dispute between the Parties to this Agreement as to the extent of
the duties and functions to be rendered hereunder, or the minimum level or
manner of performance of such service, the City shall be consulted and a mutual
determination thereof shall be made by both Agency and the City in consultation
with the City of Santa Clara’s Chief of Police.
Law Enforcement Services Agreement/Palo Alto Page 2 of 10
Rev. 1-23-15
B. The rendition of the services performed by Agency, the discipline of its officers,
and other matters incident to the performance of such services and the control of
personnel so employed shall remain with Agency.
C. With regard to sections A. and B., if there remains a disagreement as to the
minimum level of services for a particular event, the Parties agree that the Santa
Clara Chief of Police shall have final and conclusive determination of levels of
service provided by Agency’s officers.
D. All Authority and/or City employees who work in conjunction with Agency
pursuant to this Agreement shall remain Authority and/or City employees, are not
Agency employees, and have no claim or right to any Agency employment
benefits or policies. Similarly, all Agency employees who work in conjunction
with Authority and/or City pursuant to this Agreement shall remain Agency
employees, are not Authority or City employees, and have no claim or right to any
Authority or City employment benefits or policies.
E. Neither Authority or City shall be called upon to assume any liability for the
direct payment of any Agency salaries, wages, or other compensation to any
Agency personnel performing services hereunder for said Authority and/or City.
Except as herein otherwise specified, neither Authority or City shall be liable for
compensation or indemnity to any Agency employee or agent for injury or
sickness arising out of his/her status as a contract agent of the Authority and/or
City.
3. COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT.
A. For and in consideration of Agency providing supplementary law enforcement
services for the Authority and/or City under this Agreement, the Authority agrees
to pay Agency for said services at the hourly rates as indicated in Exhibit A.
B. The rates in Exhibit A are developed by the Agency. These rates are designed to
reimburse Agency’s costs in the compensation of employees, the administration
of workers’ compensation benefits, and the Agency’s overhead attributable to
providing the services identified in this Agreement.
C. For supplemental law enforcement services, equipment, supplies or personnel
provided by Agency pursuant to this Agreement that are not listed on Exhibit A,
Authority agrees to pay Agency for such services, equipment, supplies or
personnel on a cost-recovery basis.
4. PAYMENT PROCEDURES.
A. Agency shall submit a summarized invoice which covers all services performed
during the term of this Agreement, to the Authority and the Authority shall pay
Agency for all undisputed amounts within thirty (30) days after date of said
invoice.
Law Enforcement Services Agreement/Palo Alto Page 3 of 10
Rev. 1-23-15
B. For all disputed amounts, Authority shall provide Agency with written notice of
the dispute including the invoice date, amount, and reasons for dispute within ten
(10) days after receipt of the invoice. The Parties shall memorialize the resolution
of the dispute in writing.
5. CANCELLATION OF PERSONNEL.
A. The Authority shall not be charged for cancellations made more than 24 hours
prior to the scheduled event/assignment.
B. The Authority agrees that if cancellation is made within 24 hours prior to the
scheduled event/assignment and the assigned Agency officer cannot be notified of
such cancellation, Authority shall reimburse Agency a minimum of four (4) hours
of compensation for each assigned officer pursuant to the rates identified herein.
C. Agency agrees to make all reasonable efforts to notify its assigned officer(s) of
the cancellation.
6. TERM OF AGREEMENT.
A. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date indicated on the first page so that
the Parties can undertake planning for all Super Bowl 50 related events. The law
enforcement services provided by Agency shall begin on __________ and shall
terminate ______________, 2016, unless terminated sooner or extended in whole
or in part as provided for herein. This Agreement shall terminate on __________,
2016.
7. TERMINATION.
A. Either Party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause by giving not
less than sixty (60) days advance written notice to the other Party.
B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Agency may terminate the Agreement on only
twenty (20) days advance notice, or less in the event of exigent circumstances, if
Agency concludes that there are insufficient personnel to provide the agreed upon
services and still perform other Agency duties as required by law.
C. In the event of a termination, each Party shall fully discharge all obligations owed
to the other Party accruing prior to the date of such termination, and, except as
otherwise provided herein, each Party shall be released from all obligations,
which would otherwise accrue subsequent to the date of termination.
8. FAIR EMPLOYMENT.
While in the performance of services under this Agreement, Agency and its employees
and agents shall not discriminate against any other employee or agent because of race,
color, creed, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, ethnic
background, or marital status, in violation of state or federal law.
Law Enforcement Services Agreement/Palo Alto Page 4 of 10
Rev. 1-23-15
9. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION.
A. For purposes of indemnification, each Party shall be responsible for the acts of its
participating employee and shall incur any liabilities arising out of the service and
activities of those employees.
B. Any Agency employee who performs duties under this Agreement shall be
deemed to be continuing under the general employment of his or her respective
jurisdiction and shall have the same powers, duties, privileges, responsibilities,
and immunities as are conferred upon such employee by law in his or her own
jurisdiction. Pursuant to Insurance Code Section 11663, the general employer
shall be responsible for the entire cost of any worker’s compensation payable on
account of injury occurring in the course of and arising out of general and special
employments.
C. Pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, each of the Parties hereto shall fully
indemnify and hold each of the other Parties, their officers, employees, and
agents, harmless from any damage or liability imposed for injury (as defined in
Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of negligent acts or
omissions or willful misconduct of the indemnifying Party, its officers, employees
or agents, under or in connection with any work performed or authority delegated
to such party under this Agreement. No Party, nor any officer, employee or agent
thereof, shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of the
negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the other Parties hereto, their
officers, employees or agents, under or in connection with any work performed or
authority delegated to such other parties under this Agreement.
10. ASSIGNMENT, DELEGATION, AND SUBCONTRACTING.
A Party shall not assign its rights and/or subcontract, or otherwise delegate, its duties
under this Agreement, either in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the
other Party, and any attempted assignment or delegation without such consent shall be
null and void.
11. INTEGRATED DOCUMENT.
This Agreement represents the entire agreement between Authority, City and Agency. No
other understanding, agreements, or conversations with any representative of either Party
prior to execution of this Agreement shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations
of this Agreement. Any verbal agreement shall be considered unofficial information and
is not binding upon either Party.
12. SEVERABILITY AND WAIVER.
In case any one or more of the provisions in this Agreement shall, for any reason, be held
invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, it shall not affect the validity of the other
provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect. Agency agrees that waiver by
Authority and/or City of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this
Law Enforcement Services Agreement/Palo Alto Page 5 of 10
Rev. 1-23-15
Agreement shall not be construed as waiver(s) of any other condition of performance
under this Agreement.
13. NOTICES.
All notices to the Parties shall, unless otherwise requested in writing, be sent to Authority
addressed as follows:
Santa Clara Stadium Authority
Attention: Executive Director
1500 Warburton Ave.
Santa Clara, CA 95050
or by facsimile at (408) 241-6771
And to City as follows:
City of Santa Clara
Attn: Chief of Police
601 El Camino Real
Santa Clara, CA 95050
or by facsimile at (408) 248-0276
And to Agency addressed as follows:
City Manager
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
If notice is sent via facsimile, a signed, hard copy of the material shall also be mailed.
The workday the facsimile was sent shall control the date notice was deemed given if
there is a facsimile machine generated document on the date of transmission. A facsimile
transmitted after 1:00 p.m. on a Friday shall be deemed to have been transmitted on the
following Monday.
14. LAW GOVERNING CONTRACT AND VENUE.
This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the statutes and laws
of the State of California. The venue of any suit filed by either Party shall be vested in
the state courts of the County of Santa Clara.
15. COUNTERPARTS.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, but both of which shall constitute one and the same instrument; and, the Parties
agree that signatures on this Agreement, including those transmitted by facsimile, shall be
sufficient to bind the Parties.
Law Enforcement Services Agreement/Palo Alto Page 6 of 10
Rev. 1-23-15
[Signatures on next pages.]
Law Enforcement Services Agreement/Palo Alto Page 7 of 10
Rev. 1-23-15
The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement as evidenced by
the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives. It is the intent of the Parties that
this Agreement shall become operative on the Effective Date.
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
a chartered California municipal corporation
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RICHARD E. NOSKY, JR.
City Attorney
ATTEST:
JULIO J. FUENTES
City Manager
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771
ROD DIRIDON, JR.
City Clerk
“CITY”
SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY
a Joint Powers Authority
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RICHARD E. NOSKY, JR.
Authority Counsel
ATTEST:
JULIO J. FUENTES
Executive Director
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771
ROD DIRIDON, JR.
Secretary
“AUTHORITY”
Law Enforcement Services Agreement/Palo Alto Page 8 of 10
Rev. 1-23-15
CITY OF PALO ALTO
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
City Manager
Clerk
“AGENCY”
I:\49ers\Stadium Authority\Law Enforcement Security Agreements\Super Bowl Law Enforcement Services Agreement Final.doc
Law Enforcement Services Agreement/Palo Alto Page 9 of 10
Rev. 1-23-15
MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT
by and between the
SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY, THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,
and
CITY OF PALO ALTO
EXHIBIT A
The rates listed below are effective as of ____________:
Law Enforcement Services Agreement/Palo Alto Page 10 of 10
Rev. 1-23-15
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5834)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/1/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Settlement Agreement with Palo Alto Police Officer's
Association
Title: Approval of a Settlement Agreement with Palo Alto Police Officers’
Association (PAPOA) Regarding Retirement Medical Benefits; Adoption of
Resolution Amending the Memorandum of Understanding Between the City
and PAPOA; Adoption of Resolution Fixing the Employer Contribution Under
the Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Human Resources
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1) Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached Retirement Medical
Settlement and Release Agreement (Settlement Agreement) between the City and the
Palo Alto Police Officers’ Association (PAPOA);
2) Adopt a resolution amending Section 20 of the 2012-2014 PAPOA Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) in accordance with the Settlement Agreement; and
3) Adopt a resolution fixing the employer contribution under the Public Employees Medical
and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) with respect to members of PAPOA.
BACKGROUND
In May 2012, the City and PAPOA completed bargaining on a successor MOA with a term lasting
from May 14, 2012 through June 30, 2014. The parties had reached agreement on all but one
issue – retiree medical benefits for employees hired before January 1, 2006 – and agreed to
adopt all agreed-upon provisions of the successor MOA immediately while engaging in a
factfinding process with respect to these retiree medical benefits. In July 2014, the factfinding
panel issued a final recommendation, rejecting both the City’s and the PAPOA’s proposals.
Following the completion of the fact-finding process, the City was free to impose its last, best,
and final offer from the prior negotiations. Over the course of the past several months,
City of Palo Alto Page 2
however, staff and PAPOA have negotiated a mutually agreeable settlement that would resolve
the long-standing dispute over these retiree medical benefits.
DISCUSSION
The City currently administers a multi-tiered system of retiree medical benefits with different
benefits and/or requirements based on hire date and retirement date. Most pertinent to this
discussion, employees hired before January 1, 2006 currently receive benefits under section
22892 of the PEMHCA upon retirement, while employees hired on or after January 1, 2006
currently receive benefits under section 22893 of the PEMHCA upon retirement. Section 22892
simply requires employers to provide benefits in an equal amount for both employees and
retirees. Section 22893, by contrast, provides benefits to retirees on a graduated scale based
on years of service and a statewide average of healthcare costs. Although the City originally
shifted new hires to benefits under section 22893 as a cost-saving measure, in recent years,
some employees have expressed a preference for the benefit structure under section 22893
(i.e. the post-2006 benefit) rather than the benefit structure of section 22892 (i.e. the pre-2006
benefit).
Shortly after the factfinding recommendation was issued, staff and PAPOA began exploring a
settlement framework that would permit the longer-tenured employees currently subject to
section 22892 to elect the benefits available upon retirement to the more recently hired
employees under section 22893.
Under the proposed Settlement Agreement, active employees hired before January 1, 2006
would have a one-time irrevocable option to elect benefits under section 22893. In exchange
for this opportunity, PAPOA would agree not to pursue or support any claim or litigation against
the City relating to retiree medical benefits for pre-2006 hires. In addition, PAPOA would
secure individual waivers and releases from the almost all of its eligible members. Finally, the
parties would agree to MOA language implementing a retiree medical benefit equal to the
current active medical benefit for those pre-2006 hires who do not elect the section 22893
benefit, which is the same retiree medical benefit applicable to similarly-situated employees in
the City’s other employee groups. As of the time of this writing, the Settlement Agreement is
pending ratification by PAPOA membership; staff will remove this item from the Council’s
agenda in the event the Settlement Agreement is not ratified prior to the Council meeting.
The attached resolutions will: (1) amend the 2012-2014 PAPOA MOA to reflect the newly
agreed-upon MOA language on retiree medical benefits; and (2) update the City’s PEMHCA
resolution on file with CalPERS to enable the new health benefit structure.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Approval of the proposed settlement and adoption of the associated resolutions is consistent
with the Council’s policy direction to seek structural changes in employee compensation,
including changes in active and retiree medical benefits.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The City’s actuarial consultant has advised that allowing employees to opt into the retiree
medical benefit provided under Government Code section 22893 is unlikely to have an
appreciable impact, positive or negative, on the City’s actuarial liability for retiree healthcare
benefits.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Approval of the Settlement Agreement and adoption of associated resolutions are not projects
for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act and therefore no environmental
review is required.
Attachments:
A: Retirement Medical Settlement Agreement (PDF)
B: Reso Amending PAPOA MOA and MSRR 1601 (PDF)
C: Reso Fixing Employers Contribution under PEMHCA (PDF)
Page 1 of 8
Retirement Medical Settlement and Release Agreement
The City of Palo Alto (hereinafter “City”) and the Palo Alto Police Officers’ Association
(hereinafter “the Association”) (the City and the Association are hereinafter collectively referred
to as “the Parties”) hereby enter into this Settlement and Release Agreement (“Agreement”)
based on the following recitals:
WHEREAS the City is and at all relevant times was a municipal corporation constituted
and operating as a charter city pursuant to the laws of the State of California, and a “public
agency” as defined in Government Code section 3501(c), subject to the mandates of the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act (“MMBA”) and Article I section 9 of the California Constitution;
WHEREAS the Association is and at all relevant times was the recognized employee
organization within the meaning of Government Code section 3501(b) representing sworn peace
officers employed by the City of Palo Alto Police Department (police trainee, police officer,
police agent, and police sergeant), including those hired prior to January 1, 2006 (hereinafter a
“Tier 1 Employee”, or collectively “Tier 1 Employees”), in all matters relating to its members’
wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment;
WHEREAS on or about October 5, 1992, the City took legislative action (City Council
Resolution No. 7146) to provide healthcare benefits to active Association members employed by
the City and annuitants (i.e., retired Association members) pursuant to the Public Employees
Hospital and Medical Care Act (hereinafter “PEMHCA”);
WHEREAS the existing City contribution for retirement health benefits provided to Tier
1 Employees upon their respective retirements is the cost of the applicable single-party, two-
party, or family premium, up to a maximum of the second-highest-cost plan offered under the
PEMHCA (hereinafter “Tier 1 Benefit”);
Page 2 of 8
WHEREAS in 2011, the Parties commenced negotiations for a successor MOA wherein
the City sought to reduce the costs of retirement medical benefits provided to active Tier 1
Employees;
WHEREAS the Parties recognize the existence of competing legal theories relative to the
ability of public employees to acquire a vested right to a defined retirement medical benefit;
WHEREAS the Parties recognize that it is in the best interest of the City, the Association,
and Tier 1 Employees to settle any questions, claims, disputes, ambiguities, and/or conflicts
relative to the retirement medical benefits to be provided to Tier 1 Employees upon their
respective retirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the mutual promises and conditions of this
Agreement, the Parties agree as follows:
SETTLEMENT TERMS
1. Retirement Medical Benefits for Tier 1 Employees.
Effective upon ratification of this Agreement, the City shall promptly take all necessary
legislative and administrative actions to exercise its authority pursuant to Government Code
section 22893(a)(6) to allow each Tier 1 Employee to individually elect to be subject to the
provisions of Government Code section 22893 as of June 8, 2015.
The Parties have distributed to each Tier 1 Employee a copy of the “Voluntary
Retirement Medical Option Form” to exercise their individual right to elect to be subject to the
provisions of Government Code section 22893. A copy of the “Voluntary Retirement Medical
Option Form” is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
The Parties mutually acknowledge and agree that by executing the “Voluntary
Retirement Medical Option Form”, and submitting a copy to the City’s People, Strategy, and
Operations Department (hereinafter “PSOD”) within the timeframe determined by the City, not
shorter than 90 days following ratification of this Agreement, participating Tier 1 Employees
Page 3 of 8
shall forfeit any rights and/or claims relative to the Tier 1 Benefit, and acquire an interest in
retiree healthcare benefits as provided in Government Code section 22893.
The Parties acknowledge that at the time of ratifying this Agreement, the PAPOA has, at
a minimum, submitted Voluntary Retirement Medical Option Forms for all but three (3) Tier 1
Employees, all of whom will receive the benefit individually selected on their respective
Voluntary Retirement Medical Option Forms. Once the Voluntary Retirement Medical Option
Form is submitted to the PSOD, CalPERS will implement these individual elections the first
(1st) day of the following month so long as such Voluntary Retirement Medical Option Forms
are submitted within the timeframe designated by the PSOD.
2. Memorandum of Agreement.
The Parties mutually acknowledge and agree to amend Section 20 of the existing MOA to
eliminate any reference to Appendix A, and provide the following:
(a) Retiree Medical Coverage - Employees hired before January 1, 2006 who have
not voluntarily elected to participate in the Retirement Healthcare Benefits
provided in Government Code section 22893:
Monthly City-paid premium contributions for a retiree-selected PEMHCA optional plan
will be made in accordance with the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act
Resolution for employees who retire on or before December 31, 2007.
Effective March 1, 2009, for an employee retiring on or after that date, the City will pay
up to the monthly medical premium for the second most expensive plan among the
existing array of plans during the Agreement term.
Effective April 1, 2015, for an employee retiring on or after that date, the City
contribution shall be the same contribution amount it makes for active City employees.
The parties mutually agree that the benefits provided in this paragraph for employees
retiring on or after April 1, 2015 will fluctuate from time to time based on the City’s
contributions to health care for active employees. Accordingly, Association members
who retire on or after April 1, 2015 and have not elected to participate in the Retirement
Healthcare Benefits provided in Government Code section 22893, do not maintain a
vested interest in any particular contribution by the City above the amount required under
the PEMHCA.
Page 4 of 8
(b) Retiree Medical Coverage - Employees who voluntarily elect to participate in
Government Code section 22893, and All Employees hired on or after January 1.
2006:
The CalPERS vesting schedule set forth in California Government Code § 22893 will
apply to all Association members hired on or after January 1, 2006, and employees hired
prior to January 1, 2006 who voluntarily elect to participate in the Retirement Healthcare
Benefits provided in Government Code § 22893. Under this law, an employee is eligible
for 50% of the specified employer health premium contribution after ten (10) years of
service credit, provided at least five (5) of those years were performed with the City of
Palo Alto. After ten (10) years of service credit, each additional year of service credit will
increase the employer contribution percentage by 5% until, at twenty (20) years' service
credit, the employee will be eligible upon retirement for 100% of the specified employer
contribution. However, the maximum contribution for family members will be 90% of
the specified employer contribution. Notwithstanding any other term of this section, the
City of Palo Alto's health premium contribution for employees hired on or after January
1, 2006, and employees who voluntarily elect to participate in Retirement Healthcare
Benefits provided by Government Code § 22893, will be the minimum contribution set
by CalPERS under California Government Code § 22893 based on a weighted average of
available health plan premiums.
3. Negotiations for a Successor MOA
As the term of the prevailing MOA between the Parties has expired, and the Parties are
currently negotiating terms for a successor MOA, by ratifying this Agreement, each Party shall
have withdrawn its respective proposal(s) concerning retirement healthcare benefits. Any further
negotiations relative to retirement medical benefits shall be contingent upon the approval of the
other Party.
4. Release of Claims and Agreement Not to Support Suit.
The Association, on behalf of itself, its corporate officers, representatives, agents,
attorneys, executors, and administrators hereby releases the City, including its officers and
employees, representatives, agents, attorneys, successors, and assigns, from any and all lawsuits,
claims, actions, grievances, demands or other legal responsibilities of any kind which the
Association has, or may have, against the City, its officers and employees that exist as of the date
of this Agreement related to the dispute regarding retirement medical benefits to be provided to
Tier 1 Employees.
Page 5 of 8
The Association further agrees not to finance (directly or indirectly), provide technical
assistance for, or otherwise support, any and all lawsuits, claims, actions, grievances, demands,
or other legal remedies of any kind initiated by third parties against the City, its officers and
employees, representatives, agents, attorneys, successors, and assigns, related to the dispute
regarding retirement medical benefits to be provided to Tier 1 Employees.
However, the Parties acknowledge that the Association does not maintain the right to
release, waive, modify, or otherwise alter the individual rights its members (past or present).
5. Waiver of Unknown Claims.
The Association agrees that this Agreement shall act as a release of any claims arising
from the dispute relative to the retirement medical benefits to be provided to Tier 1 Employees
prior to the date of this Agreement, whether such claims are currently known, unknown,
foreseen, or unforeseen, and will be in full settlement of every above-described dispute, claim,
and cause of action, notwithstanding California Civil Code section 1542, which provides as
follows:
A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does
not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of
executing the release, which if known by him or her must have
materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.
For purposes of clarity, the City recognizes that the Association does not maintain the right to
release, waive, modify, or otherwise alter the individual rights of its members (past or present).
6. Entire Agreement.
This Agreement is fully integrated and constitutes the entire agreement and
understanding between the Parties. There are no oral understandings, terms or conditions and
neither Party has relied upon any representation, express or implied, not contained in this
Agreement.
Page 6 of 8
7. No Admission of Liability.
This Agreement is a compromise of the differences between the parties concerning the
matters set forth in the recitals, above, and it is not and will never be considered to be an
admission of any fault, error, wrongdoing, or liability by the City.
8. No Precedent.
The Parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement is not to be considered precedent
setting in any other forum or matter.
9. Voluntary Agreement.
Each of the Parties acknowledges and agrees that they have, prior to the execution of this
Agreement, undertaken sufficient investigation and other due diligence through their own
sources or legal counsel to exercise their own judgment in deciding to execute this Agreement,
and that each Party is entering into this Agreement entirely upon their own volition.
10. Amendment.
This Agreement may be modified or superseded only by a written instrument executed by
the Parties, and not by any oral promise, representation, statement, agreement or performance
pursuant to such an oral promise, representation, statement, or agreement.
11. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
Each Party will bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs incurred through the effective date
of this Agreement.
12. Interpretation.
The language of all parts of this Agreement will, in all cases, be construed as a whole,
according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against either Party.
Page 7 of 8
13. Effective Date.
This Agreement will be deemed effective upon full execution by the Parties. The City, in
its sole discretion, may nullify this agreement and reinstate the status quo ante if more than three
(3) eligible Association members (active Tier 1 Employees), fail to complete the attached
Voluntary Retirement Medical Option Form within the timeframe provided in Section 1.
14. Execution in Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts such that the signature may appear on
separate signature pages. A copy or an original with all signatures appended together will be
deemed a fully executed Agreement. Signatures transmitted by facsimile or scanned and sent by
electronic mail will be deemed original signatures.
CITY:
By:____________________________ Dated: ___________, 2015
James Keene, City Manager
ASSOCIATION:
By:_____________________________ Dated: ___________, 2015
Jeremy Schmidt, Association President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
FOR THE CITY:
By:_____________________________ Dated: ___________, 2015
Molly Stump, City Attorney
FOR THE ASSOCIATION:
By:______________________________ Dated: ___________, 2015
Peter Hoffmann, Rains Lucia Stern, PC
CITY OF PALO ALTO
VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT MEDICAL OPTION FORM
I, __________________________________________, have been continuously employed by the City of
Palo Alto since at least December 31, 2005.
I understand that I am being provided with a one-time, option to become subject to the statutory retiree
medical benefit provided in Government Code section 22893. Under section 22893, I will be eligible
for 50% of the statutorily determined employer contribution for retiree medical premiums upon
completion of 10 years of service (at least five of which must be with the City of Palo Alto), with each
additional year of service increasing the employer contribution by five percent (5%) until, at 20 years of
service, I will be eligible for 100% of the employer contribution as determined each year by CalPERS.
I understand that by ELECTING to become subject to the provisions of Government Code section
22893, I am forfeiting any right to retirement medical benefits previously offered to me as an employee
of the City of Palo Alto and will instead accrue benefits under section 22893.
I understand that by DECLINING to become subject to the provisions of Government Code section
22893, I will receive retiree health benefits equal to the City’s contributions to active employees under
the PEMHCA. I further understand that by declining to become subject to section 22893, my retirement
medical benefit will be subject to change from year-to-year, as my benefit will be the same contribution
amount the City makes for active employees pursuant to negotiations between the City and the Palo Alto
Police Officers’ Association.
I hereby: ELECT ___ (initials) DECLINE ___ (initials)
to become subject to the provisions of Government Code section 22893.
I understand that by signing this VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT MEDICAL OPTION FORM, I am
entering into a binding agreement with the City, and I will waive any claims, grievances, and/or causes
of action against the City with respect to the retirement medical benefits available to me prior to the date
of executing this document.
I further agree not to directly or indirectly finance or otherwise support the claims, grievances, and/or
causes of action of third parties against the City with respect to retirement medical benefits provided by
the City.
I understand that I may not revoke my decision to elect the retirement medical benefits provided in
Government Code section 22893, and that I will be entitled only to receive the retirement medical
benefit as provided by statute. If any of the provisions herein are determined to be invalid by a Court,
arbitrator, or government agency of competent jurisdiction, I agree that such determination shall not
affect the enforceability of the other provisions herein.
I enter into this agreement with the City voluntarily, after having been given an opportunity to consult
with counsel.
______________________________________________________________________________
Name (Printed) Signature Date
NOT YET ADOPTED
Resolution No. ________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 20 of the 2012-2012 Memorandum of Agreement with the Palo Alto Police Officers’ Association and Amending Section 1601 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and declarations:
A. The Palo Alto Police Officers’ Association (PAPOA) is a recognized employee
organization representing an employee group consisting solely of Police Officer
Trainees, Police Officers, Police Agents, and Police Sergeants who are regularly
employed by the City and others who might be amended into the representation unit
from time to time under existing law and the Merit System Rules and Regulations.
B. Representatives of the City and PAPOA engaged in negotiations and reached a tentative
agreement to amend Section 20 of the 2012-2014 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the City and PAPOA.
SECTION 2. Section 20 of the 2012-2014 MOA between the City and PAPOA is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(a) Retiree Medical Coverage - Employees hired before January 1, 2006 who have not
voluntarily elected to participate in the Retirement Healthcare Benefits provided in
Government Code section 22893:
Monthly City-paid premium contributions for a retiree-selected PEMHCA optional plan will
be made in accordance with the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act Resolution
for employees who retire on or before December 31, 2007.
Effective March 1, 2009, for an employee retiring on or after that date, the City will pay up
to the monthly medical premium for the second most expensive plan among the existing
array of plans during the Agreement term.
Effective April 1, 2015, for an employee retiring on or after that date, the City contribution
shall be the same contribution amount it makes for active City employees. The parties
mutually agree that the benefits provided in this paragraph for employees retiring on or
after April 1, 2015 will fluctuate from time to time based on the City’s contributions to
health care for active employees. Accordingly, Association members who retire on or after
April 1, 2015 and have not elected to participate in the Retirement Healthcare Benefits
provided in Government Code section 22893, do not maintain a vested interest in any
particular contribution by the City above the amount required under the PEMHCA.
(b) Retiree Medical Coverage - Employees who voluntarily elect to participate in
Government Code section 22893, and All Employees hired on or after January 1. 2006:
NOT YET ADOPTED
The CalPERS vesting schedule set forth in California Government Code § 22893 will apply to
all Association members hired on or after January 1, 2006, and employees hired prior to
January 1, 2006 who voluntarily elect to participate in the Retirement Healthcare Benefits
provided in Government Code § 22893. Under this law, an employee is eligible for 50% of
the specified employer health premium contribution after ten (10) years of service credit,
provided at least five (5) of those years were performed with the City of Palo Alto. After ten
(10) years of service credit, each additional year of service credit will increase the employer
contribution percentage by 5% until, at twenty (20) years' service credit, the employee will
be eligible upon retirement for 100% of the specified employer contribution. However, the
maximum contribution for family members will be 90% of the specified employer
contribution. Notwithstanding any other term of this section, the City of Palo Alto's health
premium contribution for employees hired on or after January 1, 2006, and employees who
voluntarily elect to participate in Retirement Healthcare Benefits provided by Government
Code § 22893, will be the minimum contribution set by CalPERS under California
Government Code § 22893 based on a weighted average of available health plan premiums.
SECTION 3. Section 1601 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Upon adoption by the Palo Alto City Council and for the duration of its effective term, the
Memorandum of Agreement by and between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Police
Officers’ Association (PAPOA) for represented employees is hereby incorporated into these
Merit System Rules and Regulations by reference as though fully set forth herein. Said
memorandum shall apply to all employees in classifications represented by PAPOA, except
where specifically provided otherwise herein.
In the case of conflict with this chapter and any other provisions of the Merit System Rules
and Regulations, this chapter will prevail over such other provisions as to employees
represented by said PAPOA.
SECTION 4. Resolution 9249 is hereby rescinded.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
NOT YET ADOPTED
SECTION 5. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality
Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
_________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ _____________________________
Deputy City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Chief People Officer
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
NOT YET ADOPTED
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Fixing the Employer’s
Contribution under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act
for the Palo Alto Police Officers’ Association
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and declarations:
A. Government Code Section 22892(a) provides that a local agency contracting under the
Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act shall fix the amount of the employer's
contribution at an amount not less than the amount required under Section 22892(b)(1) of
the Act
B. City of Palo Alto, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency is local agency contracting under
the Act for participation by members of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 2. The employer's contribution for each employee or annuitant shall be the amount
necessary to pay the full cost of his/her enrollment, including the enrollment of his/her family
members in a health benefits plan up to a maximum of the minimum employer contributions per
month as prescribed in Section 22892(b)(1) of the Government Code.
SECTION 3. That the City of Palo Alto has fully complied with any and all applicable provisions of
Government Code Section 7507 in electing the benefits set forth above.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
1
NOT YET ADOPTED
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality
Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ _____________________________
Deputy City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Human Resources
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
2
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5701)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/1/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: City of Inglewood Contract Amendment
Title: Approval of an Amendment to Contract No. C12141854 With the City of
Inglewood for Handling, Processing, and Collections of Parking Citation and
Fees
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council authorizes the City Manager to amend the City’s existing
contract with the City of Inglewood (C12141854) by increasing the annual not-to-exceed
contract by $30,000 from $95,000 to $125,000 for years four and five of the contract to provide
continued services for handling and processing of parking citations and collection of parking
citation fees.
Discussion
The City has been contracting with Inglewood Citation Management Services (ICMS) since 1992,
and most recently entered into a five-year contract with ICMS in November 2011 (Attachment
C) for handling and processing the collection of parking citation fees throughout the City of Palo
Alto, unrelated to residential permit parking programs. This Government-to-Government joint
service serves more than 60 California municipal agencies, and provides the automated systems
and noticing for citation processing. ICMS enters citations into a database and provides
software that customers use to make payments. ICMS also sends out notices outlining payment
options and handles collection of penalties as necessary.
In January 2012, the Police Department elected to utilize ICMS Comprehensive Delinquent
Citation Collection Services offered via Law Enforcement Systems, Inc. (LES) to enhance the
collection rate of delinquent parking citation penalties. The contract compensation rate for LES
is 35% of the delinquent amount due (payable by the customer), which is to be paid directly to
LES; however, many customers pay delinquent penalties directly to the City (via online payment
or directly to City of Palo Alto Revenue Collections) including the 35% due to LES. This has
resulted in LES generating invoices to the City for the 35% collection fee, which the City is
required to refund to LES.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Since 2011, the City has issued an average of 41,000 citations per fiscal year, resulting in annual
citation revenue of approximately $1.6 million, of which approximately $500,000 is derived
from collections activities. Based on the average amount per year being paid to ICMS and the
increasing amount of customers paying their collections directly to the City of Palo Alto, rather
than through LES, staff requests an additional $30,000 be added to the original not to exceed
amount of $95,000 annually for each of the final two years of the contract in order to have
sufficient capacity to pay ICMS for their share of the collections fee. The amendment to the
contract can be found in Attachment A.
Resource Impact
There are sufficient savings in the Police Department’s non-salary budget to accommodate this
contract increase in Fiscal Year 2015. The Office of Management and Budget and the Police
Department will monitor the Department’s budget in Fiscal Year 2016 to determine if there are
sufficient savings to cover these costs or if additional funding will be needed.
Policy Implications
The actions requested in the staff report do not impact any City policies.
Environmental Review
The recommendations in this report do not constitute a project requiring review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
ATTACHMENT A - Inglewood Contract Amendment One (PDF)
ATTACHMENT B - Original Inglewood Contract 2011 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5840)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/1/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Employer’s Contribution under PEMHCA
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Fixing the Employer’s Contribution Under the
Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) with Respect to
Non-CalPERS Elected Council Members
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Human Resources
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution allowing for Council Member
participation in CalPERS medical under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act
(PEMHCA) for Non-CalPERS (non-pension) City Council Members.
Executive Summary
The purpose of this staff report is to complete the CalPERS contract amendment process
required to implement health care options for City Council Members who choose not to
participate in CalPERS pension.
Background
The City currently participates in CalPERS Health Program and offers this coverage to full time
employees, including City Council Members. The standard requirement of participation in the
CalPERS Health Program is participation in CalPERS Pension. Specific to Council Members,
however, CalPERS allows individual members to exclude themselves from pension while still
participating in the CalPERS healthcare program.
Discussion
In order to allow this provision (to participate in health but not pension) CalPERS requires the
attached resolution to establish “this” specific [Council Member] group.1 This resolution will
not change the City’s cost or administration of CalPERS Health plans. The City will continue to
make the same contribution to Council Members health premiums as it does to full time
benefited employees. For calendar year 2015, the City will contribute the same flat rate
monthly premium it implemented for SEIU and Management & Professional employees in the
1 CalPERS has explained that, solely for the purposes of this resolution, it treats the City as a “special district.”
City of Palo Alto Page 2
amount up to $708 - Employee Only, $1415 - Employee +1, and $1840 - Family coverage. By
allowing for Council members to participate in CalPERS Health without participation in CalPERS
Pension, the City avoids paying the required pension contribution.
Timeline
The Resolution must be adopted by Concil and signed by the Mayor by June 10 in order for
health benefits to be available beginning July 1, 2015.
Resource Impact
The implementation of this resolution does not change the budgeted medical premium
contribution for Council Members. Implementing this resolution may create some savings in
the required City contribution towards CalPERS pension for those Council Members who opt
out of pension but wish to elect health care coverage.
Attachments:
NEW NONPERS BY GROUP EQUAL 1 FIXED (DOC)
Health Resolution Cover Sheet (DOC)
NEW PERS ALL EQUAL 1 FIXED Revision July 2009
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT
AND FIXING THE EMPLOYER’S CONTRIBUTION AT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO OR
GREATER THAN THAT PRESCRIBED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 22892(b)
WHEREAS, (1) Government Code Section 22922(a) provides the benefits of the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (the “Act”) to employees,
retirees, and survivors of local agencies contracting with the Public
Employees' Retirement System on proper application by a local agency;
and WHEREAS, (2) Section 22892(a) of the Act provides that a local contracting agency shall
fix the amount of the employer's contribution; and
WHEREAS, (3) Government Code Section 22920(b) defines any Special District as a contracting agency, and
WHEREAS, (4) A Special District is hereby defined as a non-profit, self-governed public
agency within the State of California, and comprised solely of public
employees performing a governmental rather than proprietary function, or
a City seeking to provide to a class of employees the benefits of the Act but not CalPERS pension benefits, and
WHEREAS, (5) __City of Palo Alto_________________________, hereinafter referred to
as Special District is an entity meeting the above definition; and
WHEREAS, (6) The Special District desires to obtain for the members of __Non-PERS
City Council Members (i.e. non-pension Council members) _, who are
active and retired employees and survivors of the agency, the benefit of
the Act and to accept the liabilities and obligations of an employer under
the Act and Regulations; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, (a) That the Special District elects, and it does hereby elect, to be subject to
the provisions of the Act; and be it further
RESOLVED, (b) That the employer's contribution for each employee, retiree, or survivor shall be the amount necessary to pay the full cost of his/her enrollment,
including the enrollment of family members in a health benefits plan up to
a maximum of ___PEMHCA Minimum__________ per month, plus
administrative fees and Contingency Reserve Fund assessments; and be
it further
RESOLVED, (c) That __ City of Palo Alto___________________ has fully complied with
any and all applicable provisions of Government Code Section 7507 in
electing the benefits set forth above; and be it further
RESOLVED, (d) That the participation of the employees, retirees, and survivors of _ City of
Palo Alto_____ shall be subject to determination of its status as an
“agency or instrumentality of the state or political subdivision of a State”
that is eligible to participate in a governmental plan within the meaning of
Section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, upon publication of final
NEW PERS ALL EQUAL 1 FIXED Revision July 2009
Regulations pursuant to such Section. If it is determined that __ City of Palo Alto________ would not qualify as an agency or instrumentality of
the state or political subdivision of a State under such final Regulations,
CalPERS may be obligated, and reserves the right to terminate the health
coverage of all participants of the employer. RESOLVED, (e) That the executive body appoint and direct, and it does hereby appoint
and direct, _The City of Palo Alto City Council ____ to file with the Board
of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System a verified
copy of this Resolution, and to perform on behalf of said Special District all functions required of it under the Act and Regulations of the Board of Administration; and be it further
RESOLVED, (f) That coverage under the Act be effective on __July 1, 2015__.
Adopted at a regular/special meeting of the ________________________
at ____________________ this _________ day of __________________
20__.
Signed: _________________________________
Mayor
Attest: _________________________________
City Clerk
Approved as to form: ___________________________ Deputy City Attorney
To: California Public Employees’ Retirement System
CASD, Contract & Membership Services Section Health Contract Services PO BOX 942714
Sacramento, CA 94229-2714
From:
Health
Resolution
Please staple on top of the resolution or cover letter. This will ensure that
the CalPERS mailroom expedites delivery to our office.1
1 Rev. 11/12
Agency Name
Agency Code
or CalPERS ID#
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5757)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/1/2015
Summary Title: 2555 Park Blvd ROLUA and EIR
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) to
Allow the Demolition of an Existing 10,800 sq. ft. Two-Story Mid-Century
Modern Office Building and Construction of a New 24,466 sq. ft. Three-Story
Office Building for an Increase of 13,666 Net New sq. ft. The New Building
would Have One Level of Below Grade Parking and a Roof Terrace and is
Located in the Community Commercial (CC(2)) Zone District at 2555 Park
Boulevard. The Requested Action Includes Approval of Architectural Review
and Approval of a Design Enhancement Exception Request to Allow Two Stair
Towers and a Roof Top Canopy Structure to Exceed the Height Limit by Ten
and Thirteen Feet Respectively; Adoption of a Resolution Certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations. The Planning and Transportation Commission Has
Recommended Approval of the EIR. Environmental Impact Assessment:
Certification of an Environmental Impact Report and Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
RECOMMENDED MOTION
Staff recommends that City Council:
1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and Adopt the Resolution of Statement of
Overriding Considerations a project specific Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (Attachments C and D); and,
2. Adopt a Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) approving an Architectural Review
and Design Enhancement Exception applications for a new office building for the
property located at 2555 Park Boulevard.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Proposed is a new three-story office development of 24,466 new square feet (13,666 net new
square feet) with subterranean parking (92 spaces) at the subject property. The project results
in the demolition of an existing two story office building (10,800 square feet) that staff and the
ity’s environmental consultant have concluded is a significant historic resource pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). There is no feasible mitigation measure to
protect this resource and its removal requires the preparation of an environmental impact
report (EIR) and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration (SOC) to approve the
project. An SOC documents the ity’s conclusion that the benefits of the project outweigh the
loss of the historic building.
Prior to making a decision to approve the discretionary applications, the EIR must be certified.
Pursuant to the ity’s local EQ! Guidelines and historical practice, only the City Council has
the authority to certify EIRs. For this reason, the subject project is being considered by the City
Council instead of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, which would
otherwise be the typical process for Architectural Review projects not requiring an EIR.
The subject discretionary applications include an Architectural Review (AR) and Design
Enhancement Exception (DEE). The DEE is requested to allow rooftop stair towers and canopy
structure to extend beyond the 37 foot building height limit up to 50 feet.
The Architectural Review Board has reviewed and recommends approval of the project,
including the DEE. The Historic Resources Board has reviewed the historic resource proposed
for demolition and provided comment. Some Board members spoke in favor of the building’s
retention and others questioned its ability to be listed as an historic resource. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reviewed the Final EIR (FEIR) and recommends certification.
The record reflects public comments from individuals opposed to the project due to traffic,
parking and solar access impacts. Some have expressed particular objection to the DEE stating
that the findings cannot be met to grant this request.
A proposed Record of Land Use Action is included as Attachment A and documents proposed
application findings and conditions to approve the project. Attachment D includes the CEQA
Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
BACKGROUND
The project site is a trapezoidal-shaped property on the northeast side of Park Boulevard,
between Sherman and Grant Avenues. The attached location map shows the property, and
surrounding properties (Attachment B). The total area of the site is 12,518 square feet (sf). The
property is currently occupied by a two-story office building with at-grade parking. The existing
“H”-shaped building was built in 1964 in the Mid-Century Modern style of architecture. It
displays numerous character defining features of the style, including cantilevered overhangs, a
flat roof, an articulated primary façade, stucco cladding, stacked concrete block, strong right
angles and cubic forms, large aluminum framed windows, a painted finish in earth tones, a
City of Palo Alto Page 2
projecting box that frames the upper story, a glassed-in lobby that opens to a small courtyard,
sunshades, spandrel glass, integrated planters, and mounted signage. With all these elements,
the building embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and method of
construction. The inclusion of so many character-defining features of the Mid-Century Modern
style make the building eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources under
Criterion 3 (Architecture). The building is 50 years old and does not appear to have been
altered since its construction. Under CEQA, this qualifies the structure as a historic resource.
The property is zoned Community Commercial (CC (2)).
Site Context
The site’s omprehensive Plan land use designation is Regional ommunity ommercial. The
property’s primary street frontage is located on Park oulevard opposite the four-story County
Courthouse Building. Typical uses in the immediate vicinity include multifamily residential and
office uses. Slightly further to the north west of the site is the California Avenue Business
District with a multitude of restaurants and retail businesses. The site is also located
approximately 800 feet from the California Avenue Cal Train station.
Adjacent uses to the northwest include a two-story, single-family residence and a two-story,
professional office building. Adjacent uses to the northeast include office and other commercial
uses in a single story structure. To the southwest, across Park Boulevard, is the four-story
County Courthouse building surrounded by at-grade parking. To the southeast, across Grant
Avenue, are a single-story office building and three-story, multifamily residential buildings. To
the south, diagonally across from the intersection of Grant and Park Boulevard, is a surface
level parking lot.
Project Description
The project includes the demolition of the existing two-story office building and the
construction of a new 24,466 sf, three-story office building for an increase of 13,666 square
feet. Project plans are provided as Attachment M. A total of 92 parking spaces would be
provided on site in both at-grade and below grade areas beneath the new building. Most of the
parking spaces would be provided within mechanical lift systems, to improve the efficiency of
the garage space. Vehicle access to the parking areas would be provided from Grant Avenue.
The curb cut along Park Boulevard would be removed to improve bicycle safety.
The proposed building is a modern design with two horizontal board-form concrete finished
stair towers, designed to anchor the building at each end of the site. The two-story glass office
block would float between the open balconies. Three of the four balconies would have cable
railings, while the fourth balcony above the main entry would have a vertical painted metal
picket. Each of the four balconies would be exposed concrete. The building walls would be
stucco plaster with a curtain wall system using clear double glazed windows with aluminum
frames. The south and east facing facades would have double height, vertical sun shade
mullion fins, to reduce heat gain. The glass office block would float over a green wall with vines
City of Palo Alto Page 3
at the first level that would screen the at-grade parking. A concrete planter with a wood plank
bench, adjacent to the public sidewalk, would be placed in front of the green wall.
The building design also features a rooftop tensile structure, for which a DEE has been
requested, to allow greater usage of the roof deck and to assist in keeping the building cooler in
the hot summer months. The rooftop deck would provide an amenity space for building
occupants to use during normal business hours. All noise ordnance requirements would apply.
EIR Scoping
To initiate the EIR process, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study
(IS) to solicit agency and public comments on the scope of the environmental analysis to be
included in the EIR. On April 17, 2014 a scoping meeting was held at the ARB hearing to inform
the public that the City was beginning preparation of the DEIR for the redevelopment of the
property known as 2555 Park Boulevard. The existing building on the site has been identified as
being eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. Impacts, such as
demolition, are potentially significant and therefore an EIR must be prepared.
ARB Review
The ARB conducted a preliminary review of the conceptual project design on June 5, 2014. The
ARB provided comments related to building massing, interior setback, traffic/parking, the
rooftop tensile structure, and the second floor balcony railing. The ARB conducted a single,
formal hearing of the project on October 16, 2014 and recommended approval of the project,
including conditional approval of the DEE to allow the rooftop tensile structure and stair towers
to exceed the 37 foot height limit. The verbatim minutes of the ARB hearing are provided as
Attachment H.
Planning and Transportation Commission
On October 29, 2014, the P&TC reviewed the DEIR and provided comments. Those comments
and responses are provided in the attached FEIR. The P&TC reviewed the FEIR on April 29,
2014, and recommended Council approval of the FEIR. The P&TC staff report and the verbatim
minutes are provided as Attachments F and G. There were seven public speakers and the major
topics of discussion were traffic, parking, solar impact to the neighbor, and the DEE for
exceeding the height limit. The P&TC noted that they supported the version of the proposal
that includes a request for a parking exception; this version includes a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program offering CalTrain Go Passes, described further in the Discussion
section of this report.
The P&TC recommended that the applicant present to the Council additional information about
the proposed building’s shading impact upon the residential neighbor.
Historic Resources Board
On November 19, 2014, the HRB reviewed the DEIR and provided comments. While the HRB
review was not a required step in the Architectural Review process, the HR’s input was sought
City of Palo Alto Page 4
in conjunction with the Environmental document, since the only issue that cannot be mitigated
is the demolition of a historic resource. The HR’s comments and the environmental
consultant’s responses are provided in the FEIR. Some members of the HRB questioned if the
existing building would even qualify as an historic resource while others wanted to go on record
to state their preference for the preservation of the existing building. The HRB was not asked
to provide a recommendation, but their comments are provided in the attached verbatim
minutes (Attachment I). There was discussion regarding the need for Palo Alto to establish a
contextual reference document. The reference document would establish a City-specific
context for modern architecture, specifically mid-century modernism. This would allow the City
to evaluate properties comparatively, not just in a vacuum. If we had such a document, this
property could have been evaluated against a bank of other properties that were understood
and categorized to get a better understanding of the significance and what might be potentially
lost if the building is removed. It would also assist to create an inventory for this type of
building and help to then track whether there's clusters of these buildings that might be
potential districts or whether we're just looking at a change in building stock over time.
DISCUSSION
The project conforms to all Palo Alto zoning regulations with the exception of the 37 foot
building height standard. Approval of the requested DEE would allow two stair towers and the
tensile roof structure to exceed the height limit. The purpose of a DEE is to allow exceptions
when doing so will enhance the design. In this case, the request is to exceed the height limit by
approximately ten feet for two stair towers, and by 13 feet for the tensile structure. The stair
towers would anchor each end of the building and add visual interest. The tensile roof
structure would add a visual element to the building. It would be set back from the edges of the
building, to avoid adding to the perceived height and massing and to protect privacy.
Some public comments have suggested that the findings for the DEE cannot be met, stating
that the DEE requested is not minor, as is required by the findings within the Municipal Code
and that the requested features result in negative impacts to the community. They describe
the impacts as being a violation of privacy and concerns over noise from rooftop activities.
Staff and the ARB disagree and believe the DEE features are minor in nature and would not
have the negative impacts that are feared. It is true that the canopy would enable use of the
outdoor roof deck area as an employee amenity space, but it would also shade the roof of the
building, reducing the energy usage to cool the building. Also, conditions of approval would
limit the use of the roof top deck to normal business hours and not allow amplified music. The
roof deck is set away from the edges of the building such that it is not possible to view the
adjacent neighbors from the roof deck. The multifamily residential windows of the Palo Alto
Central project are quite limited relative to the proposed roof deck. There are few windows
and none with direct lines of site. They are also not located in close proximity to the project
and there are intervening trees that obscure possible views. The DEE findings are provided in
the RLUA (Attachment A). The zoning conformance table is provided as Attachment J.
Comprehensive Plan Conformance
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The proposed use is consistent with the site’s Regional/ommunity ommercial land use
designation in the ity’s omprehensive Plan. This land use designation allows office uses. The
project’s overall relationship with the Comprehensive Plan is discussed within Attachment K.
Public Comments
At many of the hearings, the ARB and neighbors expressed concern over the proposed
building’s relationship with the neighboring office building and single family residential home to
the west of the proposed project. The office and residential neighbors felt the building was too
tall and too close to their properties. The residential neighbor felt the design needed to be
more sensitive to his existing condition and expressed concerns about privacy, solar shading
and construction related disturbances. Please see the project revision section below for details
about how the design was altered to address these concerns. Other members of the public
voiced concerns about traffic, parking, pedestrian safety and the lack of guest parking spaces
proposed within the building. With all the vehicle access being located off of Grant Avenue,
the public also raised concerns over the potential increase in traffic volume that could occur on
that street as well as concerns about vehicles queuing onto Grant Avenue. The Parking
Alternative section below discusses how the guest parking issue could be resolved.
Project Revisions
During the ARB review process, the project was revised to reduce the building height and
proximity relative to the two adjacent neighboring properties. One affected neighboring
property is an office building and the other neighboring property is a single family home in an
area zoned for office. The single family home is characterized as a legal nonconforming use.
The elevator tower was shifted over to reduce the wall height relative to the office neighbor as
well as allowing that portion of the building to move six and half feet further away from the
office neighbor. The stair towers were also modified to appear less massive. Other changes
were made to reduce the building relative the residential neighbor. The parapet at the rear
corner was removed, reducing the height of the building by four feet. The closest portion of
the rear wall facing the residential neighbor was reduced by four feet nine inches and the
recessed portion of the wall was set back an additional two feet three inches. These changes
reduced the wall heights and moved the building further from the two neighboring properties.
This was done in an effort to improve solar access and reduce the mass and scale of the new
building.
In response to the public and P&TC comments on solar impact to the adjacent residential
neighbor, the applicant conducted additional solar shading analysis to clarify how much shadow
is created by the new project versus existing conditions. For CEQA purposes, shade and shadow
impacts are only “significant” if the impact public spaces. The EIR examined the impact to public
spaces and found no significant impact. However the Zoning Code requires new projects to
minimize shade and shadow impacts to existing neighboring buildings. The applicant looked at
the project with and without the stair tower and canopy structures for which the DEE was
requested. The P&TC asked that the study show Council how the shadow would impact the
City of Palo Alto Page 6
wall face of the neighbor’s building, not just how the shadow would fall over the property. The
applicant studied shadow impacts at nine times of the day and year. The study shows that the
structures for which the DEE is requested would result in a minimal shade impact on the
residential neighbor’s home.
The applicant has provided additional images within the project plans showing the shadow
impact at the nine separate times that were studied. The images provided show before and
after shots of the residential neighbor’s home. The images demonstrate the existing and new
shadows on the neighbors building face created by the canopy structure would not shade the
adjacent neighbor at any time. The study indicates that the rooftop mechanical equipment
screen would shade the building at 123 Sherman, at noon on the Equinox and Winter Solstice.
The roof top mechanical screens are not the subject of the DEE for height; they are compliant
with zoning standards and do not need a DEE approval.
The stair/elevator tower would cast a shadow on the building at 123 Sherman at 3pm on the
Winter Solstice. This shadow is responsible for roughly 5% of the facade (at the left upper
corner) and has no effect on the windows at this time. As can been seen in the shadow
exhibits, the existing conditions including the seven foot tall solid fence with additional lattice
top, existing awning at first floor windows, Silver Dollar Eucalyptus tree, and 15'-8" high wall of
the neighboring office building at 2501 Park Boulevard, cast significant shadow on the building
at 123 Sherman during the studied times. The DEE elements do not shadow windows at any of
the times studied. The shadow cast by the stair/elevator tower, which is part of the requested
DEE, on the building at 123 Sherman is minimal at its most extreme condition.
Another change to the plans was the addition of cross walks on Grant Avenue and Park
Boulevard to improve pedestrian safety. There are no other pedestrian crossings to get across
Park Boulevard within close proximity to the project so it was determined appropriate to add
one at this location
Parking Alternative
While the proposed project would provide the required number of parking spaces per the code,
nearly all the parking spaces would be provided within mechanized lifts. The ity’s Municipal
Code is silent on the use of lifts, but the City has accepted their use on other projects, and one
nearby project was approved with a similar “puzzle” lift system.
In this instance, the lifts could be pre-programed for each individual car that will be using the
lift. With the building’s close proximity to transit, the !R suggested that the applicant request
a parking reduction to eliminate some of the mechanized lifts and provide additional at grade
spaces within the project that could be used by visitors.
The code compliant parking proposal remains the same (92 spaces), but an alternative parking
solution has been proposed and was considered in the EIR as an option. This is referred to as
’the parking exemption’ option. This would include a 9.2% parking reduction along with a
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The TDM plan would include provision of
annual CalTrain Go Passes for all eligible employees in the building, and would be implemented
for the life of the building.1 This proposal would reduce the total number of parking spaces by
10. This would be accomplished by eliminating the machine stackers in the at-grade portion of
the parking garage. The removal of the parking lifts would free up 13 ground floor parking
spaces for guest parking.
Having fewer parking spaces within the building may also have the added benefit of reducing
the traffic volumes on Grant Avenue, by reducing the number of cars entering and exiting the
project. The free Go Passes are also likely to reduce the number of vehicles that would travel to
the site. Because the building is within such close proximity to the train station, the Go Passes
are likely to be widely used. Many of the Commissioners expressed that the parking alternative
option with the Caltrain Go Passes was their preferred option. Staff also favors the parking
reduction option as it would free up 13 spaces for guest parking, reduce the number of vehicles
traveling to the building, and potentially reduce traffic volumes in the area.
TIMELINE
Application submitted September 9, 2013
EIR scoping meeting before the ARB April 17, 2014
Preliminary ARB meeting June 5, 2014
Release of the DEIR for the 45 day public comment period September 5, 2014
ARB meeting recommendation on AR and DEE October 16, 2014
P&TC meeting on DEIR October 29, 2014
HRB meeting November 19, 2014
P&TC meeting on FEIR April 29, 2015
Final EIR Certification by City Council June 1, 2015
Final Decision on the Proposed Project by City Council June 1, 2015
RESOURCE IMPACT
One-time revenues would include development impact fees of approximately $396,291.00.
This total includes $64,882 for Parks, $3,489 for libraries, $3,662 for Community Centers,
$60,366 for Citywide Traffic Fees and $263,890 for the Comercial housing fee.
The additional demand created by this project for general City services, such as public safety,
will be absorbed within current service levels.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
1 The alTrain Go Pass allows companies, educational institutions and residential complexes (“Participants”) to
purchase annual unlimited-ride passes for all eligible employees, residents or students (“Users”). The Go Pass is
good for travel on Caltrans between all zones, seven days a week, for one low annual cost per user. The Go Pass is
not available for purchase by individuals and does not cover parking at Caltrain stations or travel on other transit
systems.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Many of the Context-Based Design Criteria and Comprehensive Plan policies are implemented
by this proposal. Attachment K includes a summary of the Comprehensive Plan policies that are
applicable to the project. The project realizes the elements of the various City Policy
documents and Guidelines such as the Comprehensive Plan, The draft California Avenue
Concept Plan, The Context Based Design Criteria and the South El Camino Real Guidelines.
While the project is not located on El Camino Real, many of the design principles put forth in
those guidelines for urban infill development are followed here. The building would provide a
strong street edge along Park Boulevard, while providing an eight to ten foot sidewalk, new
street trees, and various other pedestrian amenities including a recessed entry and a long
bench for seating at the sidewalk. The building façade would be well articulated with ample
fenestration, vertical sunshades, and multiple transitions in building materials with numerous
colors and textures. There are multiple balconies that relate to the street and break down the
massing of the building. The project would eliminate surface parking lots and includes at grade
and below grade parking facilities that would be hidden from public view.
The proposal would replace an existing office building with a new one in the Cal-Ventura Mixed
Use Area, a location specified in the Comprehensive plan as a mixed use district where a mix of
various landuses use are encouraged. Additional project elements have been added that work
together to improve pedestrian saftey. These include the new croswalks at Park Boulevard and
Grant Avenue as well as the larger bulbouts at the Park and Grant intersection. One of the
most significant policy implications relates to the ity’s determination to require the
preservation of the existing building versus allowing the building’s replacement in favor of the
benefits associated with that. The existing building lacks seismic integrity that could result in a
negative outcome in the event of an earthquake. There are also hazardous materials within the
building such as asbestos and lead. These issues would be eliminated with the replacement of
the building in favor of a building that is structuraly sound, meets ADA requirements, and has
no hazardous materials. Unlike the existing building, the new building would be more water
and energy efficient, would provide wider sidewalks with pedestrian amenities, and would
provide ample off street parking hidden from view.
Another policy question raised by the Planning and Trnasportation Commission is the use of the
parking lift machines within projects. There is concern that people would not use the lift spaces
in the same way as standard parking spaces and that they would be reluctant to use them.
Some members of the public have cited other projects where they say the lifts are not used
because of their constraints. The parking lifts greatly increase how efficiently the space within
the parking garage is used. The puzzle lifts in this project create five levels of parking within
two structural levels of garage. We currently don’t have any working examples of this
particular type of parking lift in Palo Alto, but there are many example in the bay area and
throughout the world. They are different than the parking lift systems that we may be familiar
with in other built projects in town. The puzzle lifts allow vehicles to move in and out of the
parking spaces whithout being dependant on other vehicles needing to first move out of the
way.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
A final policy question to consider is the approval of the Design Enhancment Exception (DEE).
The approval findings for the DEE are detailed in the RLUA but the primary justification is that
the three features seeking the height exception represent a visual improvement to the building
while at the same time have not been found to result in a negative impact to neighboring
properties.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City has prepared a FEIR to provide the public and responsible agencies information about
potential adverse effects on the local and regional environment associated with the proposed
2555 Park Boulevard project. The FEIR is provided as Attachment C. The initial 45 day public
comment period on the DEIR began on September 5, 2014 and ran through October 20, 2014.
The public comment period was extended to November 19, 2014. The FEIR was prepared after
input was received during public hearings of the ARB, the HRB, and the P&TC. The FEIR
contains the comments prided during the comment period and the responses to those
coments. The P&TC staff resport of April 29, 2014, provided as Attachemnt F, contains a
discussion section that sumarizes the five master responses to comments within the FEIR.
The City began the environmental analysis with an Initial Study. The Initial Study determined
that the project could have a significant impact on the environment, which triggered the
requirement to prepare an EIR, and indicated that the EIR would need to discuss three
environmental topics: Cultural and Historic Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and
Transportation and Traffic.
For each of the three topics, the DEIR describes the existing environmental and regulatory
conditions, presents the criteria used to determine whether an impact would be significant,
analyses significant impacts identifies mitigation measures for each significant impact, and
discusses the significance of impacts after mitigation has been applied. Potential direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts are all considered.
Cultural and Historic Resources
Two possible impacts were identified under the Cultural and Historic Resources section. One
impact was identified as being significant and unavoidable. This impact is the demolition of the
existing mid-century modern building that has been identified as being eligible for listing on the
California Register of Historic Resources. The loss of the historic resources would be considered
a Significant and Unavoidable impact under CEQA. Mitigation measures are proposed, but
these measures cannot reduce the level of significance to a less than significant level, therefore
the City would need to adopt a statement of overriding considerations in order to approve the
proposed project. (See below for more information.) This is contained within the CEQA Findings
included as Attachment D. The other impact identified was the possible disturbance of
archeological remains during excavation, which can be mitigated to a less than significant
impact.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Palo Alto Page 10
There were five areas of this section that were identified as being potentially significant. These
are related to construction debris, the handling of existing hazardous materials within the
building, disturbance of contaminated soils, the release of VOC from the contaminated ground
water, and vapor intrusion from the contaminated ground water. Mitigation measures have
been included that reduce the level of significance to a less than significant level.
Transportation and Traffic
A traffic anlysis was conduted that looked at the potential traffic impacts, including cumulative
impacts. The environmental analysis found no significant impacts related to traffic, and no
mitigation measures are needed. However, it should be noted that the proposed project would
provide ample parking, is a short distance from CalTrain, and an option has been analyzed that
would provide a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program with CalTrain Go
Passes as an incentive for transit use. Due to the concerns voiced over the potential for vehicle
queuing onto Grant Avenue, a queuing analysis was conducted and found that a backup of cars
onto the street was unlikley to occur.
The FEIR contains the DEIR, the comments received during the public review period, responses
to the comments, and any revisions to the DEIR needed as a result of public agency and public
comments.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The primary purpose of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public as to the
environmental effects of a proposed project and to include feasible mitigation measures and
alternatives to reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance. CEQA recognizes
and authorizes the approval of such projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully
lessened or avoided. Before such a project can be approved, the public agency must consider
and adopt a “statement of overriding considerations” pursuant to EQ! Guidelines §§15043
and 15093. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines §15093(b) requires that when a public agency
approves a project that will result in the occurrence of significant and unavoidable impacts, the
agency must “state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or
other information in the record.” The agency’s statement of overriding considerations must
explain and justify the agency’s conclusion to approve such a project, setting forth the
proposed project’s general social, economic, policy or other public benefits which support the
agency’s informed conclusion to approve the project.
The following items are listed in the attached CEQA Findings, Attachment D. These items
identify why, in the ity ouncil’s judgment, the benefits of the project as approved would
outweigh the project’s unavoidable significant effects. The unavoidable impact in this case is
the demolition of the historic resource. The preservation of that resource would not allow the
City to enjoy the benefits listed below.
Implementation of the 2555 Park Boulevard project will provide for the following:
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Replacement of the existing office building at the 2555 Park Boulevard site with a
modern building that meets current standards for structural design, site and building
accessibility, and hazardous materials.
Replacement of the existing office building at the 2555 Park Boulevard site with an
energy and water efficient office building.
Doubling the usable square footage of a transit-accessible site by increasing the building
height to three stories and providing parking at grade and underground.
Creating a pedestrian and bicycle friendly street frontage with wide sidewalks,
amenities, and street trees.
Development of a new office building on the site that supports the vision of the ity’s
Draft California Avenue Area Concept Plan, specifically Goal CACP-3 which calls for
promoting Park Boulevard as a hub of innovation and entrepreneurship for small new
companies; and supports related planning initiatives such as the Pedestrian Transit-
Oriented Development overlay and Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
Increasing onsite parking to reduce off-site parking demands associated with the office
use at the site.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (DOCX)
Attachment B: Site Location Map (PDF)
Attachment C: Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) - Note Only (DOCX)
Attachment D: Reso Certifying Final EIR and Adopting Statement of Overriding
Considerations (PDF)
Attachment E: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (PDF)
Attachment F: Planning and Transportation CommissionStaff Report, April 29, 2015
(PDF)
Attachment G: Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes, April 29,
2015 (DOC)
Attachment H: Architectural Review Board Verbatim Minutes, October 16, 2014 (PDF)
Attachment I: Historic Resources Board Verbatim Minutes, November 19, 2014 (PDF)
Attachment J: Zoning Compliance Table (DOC)
Attachment K: Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table (DOC)
Attachment L: Public Correspondence (PDF)
Attachment M: Project Plans (TXT)
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Attachment A
ACTION NO. 2015-03
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 2555 PARK BOULEVARD:
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, CERTIFICATION OF FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND DESIGN
ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTIONS
(13PLN-00381)
On June 1, 2015, the Council of the City of Palo Alto
certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), approved the
Architectural Review and approved the Design Enhancement
Exception (DEE) for a three story office building in the
Community Commercial (CC(2)) zone district, making the
following findings, determinations and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Fergus Garber Young Architects, on behalf of Campbell
Avenue Portfolio, LLC has requested the City’s adoption and
approval for the following items:
(1) An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), prepared in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
(2) Architectural Review application for a new 24,466 s.f.
office building on a 12,518 s.f. site with structured parking
facilities (at grade and underground) providing 92 parking
spaces including a Design Enhancement Exception, one to allow
eleven feet in additional height for two stair towers and 13
feet in additional height for a rooftop canopy structure.
The property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use
map as Regional Community Commercial, and is located within the
Community Commercial (CC(2)) zone district.
B. The Planning and Transportation Commission
(Commission) reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) on October 29, 2014, and the Final Environmental Impact
report (FEIR) on April 29.2015 and recommended approval.
C. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the
application, the DEIR, and Design Enhancement Exception on
October 16, 2014, and recommended approval.
D. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) reviewed the
application and DEIR on November 19, 2014 and provided comment.
1
SECTION 2. Environmental Review.
The City, as the lead agency for the Project, has determined
that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be required for
the project subject to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Public Notice period for
the EIR began on September 5 2014, and concluded on November 19,
2014.
SECTION 3. ARB Findings
The design and architecture of the proposed project, as
conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review
as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76.
(1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable
elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. This finding
can be made in the affirmative in that the project
complies with the policies of the Comprehensive plan as
outlined in Attachment K and proposes a new office
building in a location where office uses are allowed.
(2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of
the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in
that the project is designed to make the most efficient
use of the available site area. The parking is designed
with mechanical lifts allowing the project to limit the
depth of excavation to one level below grade. The lifts
allow vehicles to be stacked, making more efficient use of
the space and the two parking levels. The design is also
responsive to the various external constraints of the site
such as the neighboring residential property. While the
zoning would allow the new building to be three stories
tall at the property line, the proposed design sets the
building away from the residential neighbor at the second
and third floors. It also has obscure windows to preserve
the privacy of the adjacent residential neighbor.
(3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
building has been designed to serve the future office
tenants. Ample outdoor spaces have been created for the
enjoyment of the future building occupants. There are
four balconies and a roof top deck with a large shade
canopy. The building would provide bike parking and
shower facilities to encourage alternative modes of
transportation such as biking to work or using the nearby
train. The design provides opportunities for natural
2
daylighting into the building and trash and recycling
facilities are provided within the building to ensure
these issues are handled internally and do not impact
adjacent properties.
(4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified
design character or historical character, the design is
compatible with such character. This finding is not
applicable to this project in that this area does not have
a unified design or historic character. The existing
building is considered to be a historic resource under
CEQA but the area is a very eclectic mix of architectural
styles.
(5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and
character in areas between different designated land uses.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
office building project would be built in a location that
is surrounded by commercially zoned properties. The
adjacent commercial properties all have similar office and
commercial uses except for one. There is an adjacent
single family residence that shares a portion of the rear
lot line with the proposed project. This home is somewhat
of an anomaly in this location. There are no other
single-family structures in the direct vicinity of the
project. The neighboring residential structure has an
industrial appearance with its corrugated metal siding
exterior and zero lot line design at the front and side
lot lines. The residential property has two structures, a
detached garage/accessory structure and the main
residence. These two structures are separated by an
interior courtyard. The primary residence is two stories
and has as shallow yard space that separates the residence
form the rear lot line of the proposed building. The
proposed building has been designed to consider this
adjacency by setting the upper two floors of the building
away from the rear lot line at this corner, providing a
landscape buffer element, and proving privacy windows.
(6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both
on and off the site. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the project’s design has thoughtfully
considered its surroundings. It is respectful of the
residential neighbor condition as described in finding #5.
It is responsive to the Park Boulevard bike route by
eliminating the existing curb cut to reduce the
interaction between bikes and cars along the projects
3
street frontage. It is designed to improve the pedestrian
experience by hiding the vehicle parking, providing public
amenities such as bike parking and seating, and activates
the street with a recessed building entry.
(7) The planning and siting of the various functions and
buildings on the site create an internal sense of order
and provide a desirable environment for occupants,
visitors and the general community. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that the new building is
designed to have multiple outdoor spaces for the enjoyment
of the future building occupants, bike parking at the
entry for the convenience of building visitors, seating at
the sidewalk for the enjoyment of any passerby, and a
pleasing aesthetic appearance for the general public.
(8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate
to the design and the function of the structures. This
finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
proposal provides four balconies, and a roof deck to meet
the outdoor space needs of the building’s users.
(9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the
main functions of the project and the same are compatible
with the project’s design concept. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that a new trash enclosure is
proposed to serve the needs of the new building.
(10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are
safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and
vehicles. This finding can be made in the affirmative in
that the proposal provides ample sidewalks to facilitate
pedestrian movement around the building and the entrance
to the below grade parking structure is located off of the
main street frontage to enhance vehicle and pedestrian
safety.
(11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and
integrated with the project. This finding can be made in
that the exiting street tree on the Grant Avenue elevation
will be preserved. There are other minor trees and shrubs
on the property that will be removed. Four new street
trees would also be added, one on the Grant Avenue
elevation and three along the Park Boulevard frontage.
(12) The materials, textures, colors and details of
construction and plant material are appropriate expression
4
to the design and function. This finding can be made in
the affirmative in that proposal includes a multitude of
materials common to current architectural building design
that would fit in with the eclectic nature of the
district. New street trees are also added to the project
frontage.
(13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown
by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale,
plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a
desirable and functional environment. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that the proposal includes
landscape materials that are used to screen and soften the
appearance of the building. There is a green wall at the
first level facing Park Boulevard that hides the at-grade
parking behind and plant material used at the rear
elevation to soften the wall relative to the adjacent
neighbors.
(14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site,
capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is
of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant to
reduce consumption of water in its installation and
maintenance. This finding can be made in the affirmative
in that the proposed landscape materials are well suited
for the proposed environment. Most all of the landscape
material proposed is known to be drought tolerant and the
plan species require little maintenance.
(15) The project exhibits green building and sustainable
design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable
and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled
content materials. The following considerations should be
included in site and building design:
Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading,
daylighting, and natural ventilation;
Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-
climates and reduce heat island effects;
Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit
access;
Maximize on site stormwater management through
landscaping and permeable paving;
Use sustainable building materials;
Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient
energy and water use;
Create healthy indoor environments; and
5
Use creativity and innovation to build more
sustainable environments.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
project would comply with the City’s green building
ordinance. The proposed office building will be a LEED
Silver building with several green building design
elements. The site is an infill site which is being
redeveloped for better density near a transportation hub.
The building utilizes passive cooling though the use of
deep overhangs created by balconies, vertical fins on
curtain wall glass, thermal mass walls and roof as well as
a tensile structure canopy to protect the roof surface
from the sun's heat. The building design uses fewer
materials than a typical office building through the raw
expression of the structure and highly efficient use of
volume allocated to parking through the use of parking
machines which stack 5 high to save roughly 25 additional
feet of basement depth. Where ever possible, the project
also incorporates energy and water savings as well as
recycled materials such as recycled steel, and fly ash and
slag in the concrete mix.
(16) The design is consistent and compatible with the
purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection
18.76.020(a). This finding can be made in the affirmative
in that the project design promotes visual environments
that are of high aesthetic quality and variety.
Section 4. Design Enhancement Exception Findings
DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION FINDINGS (DEE):
The requested Design Enhancement Exception is consistent with
the following findings as stated in PAMC 18.76.050 (c). Note:
Exception is requested for building height (10 feet over the 37
foot code limitation for the two stair towers and 13 feet over
the 37 foot code limitation for the tensile structure.)
(1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property or site
improvements involved that do not apply generally to
property in the same zone district. This Finding can be
made in the affirmative. The project site and the
adjacent property to the north are the only two properties
along this stretch of Park Boulevard that are not
permitted to reach 50 feet in height. This is due to the
fact that properties adjacent to the RM-40 zoning are
permitted to build up to the 50 foot height limit. The
subject property is one parcel away from the RM-40 zone
district which limits its ability to reach the height that
6
the other parcels along Park Avenue can. There are also
other taller buildings in the direct vicinity of the
project along Park Boulevard such as the County Courthouse
building and the multifamily building at the corner of
Park Boulevard and Sheridan Avenue.
(2) The granting of the application will enhance the
appearance of the site or structure, or improve the
neighborhood character of the project and preserve an
existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner
which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict
application of the minimum requirements of this title
(Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth
in Section 18.76.020(d). This Finding can be made in the
affirmative. The additional height would provide the
stair tower elements the ability to break the roof plane,
adding architectural interest to the building as well as
providing strong anchoring elements at each end of the
structure. The existing 37 foot height limit provides
little if any ability for such architectural expression.
The proposed tensile structure would allow for the
comfortable use of the roof deck, providing shade while
adding architectural interest to the top of the building.
The structure would add a softening aspect to the building
that is visually playful and functionally useful. This
exception for height does not contribute to additional
office space within the building.
(3) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature
or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience. This Finding can be made in the affirmative in
that the proposed height exception is for the stair towers
and the tensile structure and would provide architectural
interest without impacting adjacent properties. The areas
for additional height are limited to the towers and the
tensile structure such that the majority of the building is
within the required height limits. This would limit shading
and other visual impacts that may be perceived by adjacent
properties.
Section 5. Context Based Design Considerations and
Findings
In addition to Zoning Compliance and Architectural Review
approval findings, Context-Based Design Considerations and
Findings found in PAMC Chapter 18.18 are applicable to the
project.
7
1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment: The design of new
projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle
friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements.
The proposal is bike friendly, in that it would provide at-grade
bike racks at the main building entry as well as secured parking
within the below grade parking garage. Showers would also be
provided within the building, to promote bicycle ridership.
There are aspects of the proposal that meet the Context Based
Design Considerations relative to the pedestrian experience at
the street level, in that the building has been set back to
provide a minimum 10’-5” wide sidewalk. There is a raised
planter with a seat wall and a recessed entry. Three new street
trees would be planted along Park Boulevard in new bulb outs.
An existing curb cut on Park Boulevard would be removed to
improve bicycle safety.
2. Street Building Facades: Street facades shall be designed
to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the
street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages
pedestrian activity through design elements.
The building’s massing does provide a three story presence on a
street that contains other tall buildings. The long street
façade on Park Boulevard has been broken into three separate
elements to reduce the scale and massing of the building, and to
provide human scale. There is the stair tower element, the
recessed entry and upper floor balconies, and the floating glass
box above the green wall at the street level. The entry at the
street level is well defined with a deep recess, and provides
weather protection as well as bike parking, encouraging
pedestrian activity. While there is parking at grade level, the
parking area has been hidden behind a green wall with a long
seat wall for pedestrians.
3. Massing and Setbacks: Buildings shall be designed to
minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks.
The proposal has employed a number of design strategies to break
up the massing of the building at each façade. The two street
facing facades have solid stair towers that anchor the
elevations and deep recessed balconies that allow the glass box
of the office space to float at the corner. The Park
elevation has a deep recessed entry and a green wall to hide the
parking. Recesses have also been provided on the two property
line elevations to provide greater sensitivity to a residential
neighbor and to provide opportunities for additional daylight
into the building.
4. Low Density Residential Transitions: Where new projects
are built abutting existing lower-scale residential development,
8
care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of
neighboring properties.
While the project is within a commercial zone, the proposed
building does share a property boundary with a single-family
residence. The zoning would permit the building to be placed on
the property line, but the project has been designed to set the
building back, relative to the residence, to reduce the new
building’s impact upon it. The two-story residence has a small
outdoor yard space adjacent to the property line it shares with
the project. To create a greater sense of openness and to
create a greater distance away from the residence, the new
building has been set back two feet at the ground floor and more
than 12 additional feet at the second and third floors. The
height at the first level has been reduced to eight feet six
inches, to reduce the amount of solid wall in close proximity to
the residential yard. This is a four foot reduction from the
previous iteration of the plans. At this level, a planter is
provided to enable landscape material to buffer the views of the
building. The windows at the second and third floors have been
frosted at the lower levels, such that office building employees
would have no view into the residential yard or the residential
windows.
5. Project Open Space: Private and public open space shall be
provided so that it is usable for the residents, visitors,
and/or employees of a site.
The roof-top outdoor space for the office tenants would be a
functional space. The proposed tensile structure would provide
shade and weather protection for building occupants to enable
comfortable use of the space. The roof top location allows for
nice views of the area while still maintaining privacy by
keeping the useable area of the roof deck away from the edges of
the building. The building also includes four recessed and
covered balcony spaces that provide additional outdoor areas for
the building occupants.
6. Parking Design: Parking needs shall be accommodated but
shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project
or detract from the pedestrian environment.
Consistent with the Guidelines, the parking for the project has
been located below grade such that the parked cars are hidden
from view. The at-grade parking spaces are also hidden behind a
green wall that includes a long bench for convenient seating
along the public sidewalk. The entry to the garage has been
located on Grant Avenue to avoid impacting the faster moving
traffic on Park Boulevard and to improve bicycle safety by
eliminating the interaction between cars and bikes.
8. Sustainability and Green Building Design: Project design
9
and materials to achieve sustainability and green building
design should be incorporated into the project. Green building
design considers the environment during design and construction.
The project is required to meet the Cal Green requirements.
The proposed office building would be a LEED Silver building
with several green building design elements. The site is an
infill site which is being redeveloped for better density near a
transportation hub. The building utilizes passive cooling
though the use of deep overhangs created by balconies, vertical
fins on curtain wall glass, thermal mass walls and roof as well
as a tensile structure canopy to protect the roof surface from
the sun's heat. The building design uses fewer materials than a
typical office building through the raw expression of the
structure and highly efficient use of volume allocated to
parking through the use of parking machines which stack 5 high
to save roughly 25 additional feet of basement depth. Where
ever possible, the project also incorporates energy and water
savings as well as recycled materials such as recycled steel,
and fly ash and slag in the concrete mix.
SECTION 6. Environmental Impact Report Certified
The Environmental Impact Report is Certified and the Statement
of Overriding considerations are hereby adopted by the City
Council.
SECTION 7. Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Fergus
Garber Young Architects, consisting of 33 pages, dated October
16, 2014, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of
approval in Section Eight. A copy of these plans is on file in
the Department of Planning and Community Environment. This
document, including the conditions of approval in Section eight,
shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted
with the Building Permit application.
SECTION 8. Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with plans received on October 16,
2014, except as modified to incorporate the following
conditions of approval and any additional conditions placed
on the project by the Planning Commission, Architectural
10
Review Board, or City Council. The following conditions of
approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set
submitted with the Building Permit application.
2. All noise producing equipment shall not exceed the
allowances specified in Section 9.10 Noise of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
Planning Division
1. The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance
with the project plans dated on October 16, 2014 except as
modified by these conditions of approval.
2. The ARB approval letter shall be printed on the plans
submitted for building permit.
3. All noise producing equipment shall not exceed the
allowances specified in Section 9.10 Noise of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
4. Any existing city street trees shall be maintained and
protected during construction per City of Palo Alto
standard requirements.
5. All landscape material shall be well maintained and
replaced if it fails.
6. Any exterior modifications to the building or property
shall require Architectural Review. This includes any
new signs.
7. The roof top patio space shall only be used during normal
business hours (between 8:00am - 6:00 pm) and no
amplified music or other forms of amplification shall be
permitted.
8. The applicant must notify the Public Art Office of their
intent to fulfill the public art requirement by payment of
the in-lieu fee instead of commissioning art on site. The
applicant is required to submit the amount equal to 1% of the
estimated construction valuation into the public art fund
account prior to their application for a building permit and
provide a copy of the receipt to the Public Art office.
According to the original Public Art application form, the
estimated art budget is $160,000. At the time of their
building permit application, the estimated construction
valuation will be confirmed. If the estimated construction
valuation has increased at that time, the applicant will have
11
to submit 1% of the new estimated construction valuation
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
9. Automatic night shades shall be provided for the elevation of
the building facing the residential neighbor to ensure any
lighting associated with the new office building will not
impact the adjacent residential neighbor.
10. The project shall be subject to the mandatory Green
Building Ordinance.
11. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily
and more often during windy periods to prevent visible dust
from leaving the site; active areas adjacent to windy periods;
active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp
at all times, or shall be treated with non-toxic stabilizers
or dust palliatives.
12. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of
freeboard;
13. Pave, apply water at least three times daily, or apply
(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,
parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
14. Sweep daily (or more often if necessary) to prevent
visible dust from leaving the site (preferably with water
sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging
areas at construction sites; water sweepers shall vacuum up
excess water to avoid runoff-related impacts to water quality.
15. Sweep streets daily, or more often if necessary
(preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent public streets.
16. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall
indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its
officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)
from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a
third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant
to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval
authorized hereby for the Project, including (without
limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’
fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The
City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such
action with attorneys of its own choice.
17. In the event that human skeletal remains are encountered,
the applicant is required by County Ordinance No. B6-18 to
immediately notify the County Coroner and the Director of
12
Planning and Community Environment. Upon determination by the
County Coroner that the remains are Native American, the
Coroner shall contact the California Native American Heritage
Commission, pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of
the Health and Safety Code and the County Coordinator of
Indian Affairs. No further disturbance of the site may be made
except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian
Affairs in accordance with the provisions of State law and the
Health and Safety Code.
18. A sub-slab vapor barrier shall be installed to prevent
contaminated soil vapors from migrating into the building.
The vapor barrier shall be designed by a Registered
Professional Engineer in the State of California. The design
shall be submitted to the RWQCB and the City of Palo Alto for
review and approval.
19. Any impacted (contaminated) soil shall be off-hauled to a
Class 2 landfill for disposal.
20. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall
pay all Development Impact Fees.
21. The Applicant shall identify the Best Management
Practices (BMP’s) to be incorporated into a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. The SWPPP
shall include both temporary BMP’s to be implemented during
demolition and construction.
22. Construction hours shall be limited to 8:00am to 6:00pm
Monday through Friday and 9:00am to 6:00pm on Saturdays. No
construction is allowed on Sundays or Holidays as specified in
Title 9 of the Municipal Code.
23. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise
level exceeding one hundred ten dBA at a distance of twenty-
five feet.
24. The noise level at any point outside of the property
plane of the project shall not exceed 90 dBA.
25. Rules and regulation pertaining to all construction
activities and limitations identified in this permit, along
with the name and telephone number of a developer appointed
disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent
location at the entrance to the job site.
26. The applicant shall work with the Public Works Department
to create a logistics plan to manage construction activities
prior to building permit issuance.
13
27. MM-CUL-1: In the event that subsurface cultural resources
are encountered during ground disturbing activities, work in
the immediate vicinity shall be stopped and the City of
Palo Alto contacted. A qualified archaeologist, as defined by
the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of
Palo Alto, shall be
retained to evaluate the archaeological discovery for its
eligibility for local and state
listing. The discovery or disturbance of any identified
cultural resource shall be
reported as appropriate to the City of Palo Alto and the
Native American Heritage
Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on
California Department
of Parks and Recreation form 523 (archaeological sites).
Measures prescribed by
these groups and required by the City shall be undertaken
before construction
activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area
cultural resource cannot be
avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in
the City of Palo Alto’s
Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with
Sections 15064.5
and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented.
28. MM-CUL-2: The project proponent shall document the
existing building at 2555 Park
Boulevard and its setting. Generally, this documentation shall
be in accordance
with Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II, which
includes:
1. Drawings: select existing drawings, where available;
should be
photographed with large-format negatives or
photographically reproduced
on Mylar.
2. Photographs: photographs with large-format negatives of
exterior and
interior views, or historic views, where available.
3. Written data: history and description in narrative or
outline format.
HABS material standards regarding reproducibility, durability,
and size shall be
met. Copies of the photographs and report shall be presented to
repositories such
14
as the Palo Alto Historical Association Archives at the Palo
Alto Public Library,
the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources
Information System
at Sonoma State University, and/or the California State Library.
29. MM-HAZ-1: Hazardous materials shall not be disposed of or
released onto the ground,
the underlying groundwater, or any surface water. Totally
enclosed containment shall be provided for all trash. All
construction waste, including trash and litter, garbage, other
solid waste, petroleum products and other potentially
hazardous materials, shall be removed to a waste facility
permitted to treat, store, or dispose of such materials.
30. MM-HAZ-2: A project-specific Health and Safety Plan
(HASP) and Site Mitigation
Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by the project applicant and
approved by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) prior to issuance
of grading or building permits from the City of Palo Alto. The
HASP and SMP shall be implemented during construction
activities. The SMP shall outline strategies for managing
contaminated soil and groundwater encountered during project
construction and shall discuss the following:
s of previous environmental investigations at the
site
excavation
plan and contaminants of concerns identified, if any
ewatering contingency options
The SMP shall include provisions for hazardous substance
management, handling, storage, disposal, and emergency response.
Hazardous materials spill kits shall be maintained on site for
small spills. Copies of the HASP and SMP shall be maintained on
site during demolition, excavation, and construction of the
proposed project. All workers on the project site shall be
familiarized with these documents.
31. MM-HAZ-3: A scope of work for asbestos abatement and
guidelines for proper asbestos
removal shall be prepared following local, state, and federal
regulations for any necessary removal of asbestos in
accordance with the ProTech survey. The Bay Area Air Quality
15
Management District (BAAQMD) shall be notified at least 10
working days prior to any asbestos removal. Monitoring during
abatement shall be conducted to ensure regulatory
compliance. Following asbestos abatement and removal, a final
visual inspection and clearance air monitoring should be
performed to certify that industry clearance standards are
met.
32. MM-HAZ-4: Every contractor/employer who performs work at
project site shall assess California Division of Occupational
Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA) worker protection rules,
California Department of Public Health certification
requirements, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
standards, and state and federal disposal requirements. Any
demolition activities likely to disturb lead-based
paint/coatings or lead containing materials (LCMs) shall be
carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct
lead-related construction work, and all lead-related work
shall be performed in accordance with the U.S. Office of
Housing and Urban Development guidelines (ProTech 2013).
Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) must be disposed of in
accordance with the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and LCMs must be
handled in accordance with the Cal-OSHA Construction Lead
Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1) and disposed of in
accordance with California Department of Toxic Substances
Control and EPA requirements for hazardous waste. Demolition
plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any
necessary abatement measures required under these guidelines
and regulations.
33. MM-HAZ-5: A qualified environmental specialist shall
inspect the site buildings for the presence of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, and other hazardous building
materials prior to demolition. If found, these materials shall
be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act and
other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition
plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any
necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic
Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resource, Section
42160–42185), particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring
Special Handling for the removal of mercury switches, PCB
containing ballasts, and refrigerants.
34. MM-HAZ-6: Soil samples shall be collected at discrete
depth intervals to characterize impacted areas. Impacted soils
identified by this sampling shall be segregated and managed
per BAAQMD Rule 8-40, which regulates aeration of contaminated
soil, as applicable, and in accordance with state and federal
16
waste regulations. Excavated soil, particularly in the
vicinity of the former dry cleaner, shall be screened during
excavation using a field photoionization detector. Soil
thought to be potentially contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) shall be segregated and characterized. This
soil may potentially be profiled as listed dry cleaner wastes
for the purposes of proper disposal in accordance with local,
state, and federal regulations.
35. MM-HAZ-7: A dewatering plan and detailed groundwater
extraction design shall be prepared for the proposed project.
The dewatering plan shall outline procedures that will be used
to lower groundwater levels during excavation and specify the
number of groundwater dewatering wells with dedicated pumps
that will be installed around the site perimeter throughout
project duration. Extracted groundwater can go to a Publically
Owned Treatment Work (POTW) or to the storm drain network in
accordance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit. A plan for groundwater discharge pre
treatment shall be developed and kept on-hand should
implementation be necessary. The detailed groundwater
extraction design shall outline chemical testing and
thresholds as required by the POTW or NPDES permit. It shall
also provide the dewatering systems layout and well
construction information, including depths, screened
intervals, and pump settings.
36. MM-HAZ-8: The building plans shall include installation
of a Certco Corflex or similar waterproofing/vapor barrier
membrane to prevent the migration of vapor from groundwater
into the indoor air of the basement parking garage. The
building plans shall also demonstrate that garage ventilation
equipment is sufficient to meet the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 2011 Standard for Parking Structures (NFPA
88A) to continuously provide a minimum of 2 air changes per
hour. The applicant shall monitor indoor air quality in the
basement garage to confirm that the waterproofing/vapor
barrier membrane and garage ventilation effectively maintain
indoor air VOC concentrations at levels not harmful to health
(i.e., below appropriate environmental screen levels). An
initial round of sampling shall be conducted upon construction
completion and quarterly for the first year of operation. For
each sampling event, a minimum of two 24-hour integrated
indoor air samples shall be collected from the basement garage
along with one 24-hour integrated air sample from an exterior
location representative of ambient/background conditions.
Sampling and analytical procedures shall be conducted in
accordance with the Department of Toxic Substance Control
Vapor Intrusion Guidance (DTSC 2011). Results from the indoor
air sampling shall be compared to established regulatory
indoor air thresholds for residential and commercial use. The
17
data shall be evaluated following the 1-year monitoring
period.
Water Quality Control Plant
37. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater
The project is located in an area of suspected or known
groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs). If groundwater is encountered then the plans must
include the following procedure for construction dewatering:
Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering,
the water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602 or Method 624. The analytical
results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the
Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 650-329-2598.
Contaminated ground water that exceeds state or federal
requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be
discharged to the storm drain system or creeks. If the
concentrations of pollutants exceed the applicable limits for
discharge to the storm drain system then an Exceptional
Discharge Permit must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to
discharge to the sanitary sewer system. If the VOC
concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits
contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) a
treatment system for removal of VOCs will also be required
prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any
water discharged to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain
system must be free of sediment.
38. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water
Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or
indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system (e.g. any
uncovered ramp area must drain to storm drain).
39. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9) Covered Parking
If any, drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be
connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of
100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system
40. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled
Facilities
New buildings and residential developments providing
centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family
and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a
dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste
streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent
water runon and runoff from the area.
41. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper
On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper
metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule
containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on
18
any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a
building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under
tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from
this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts
on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing
material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the
purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall
be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category
2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical
and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.
37. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks
(i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be
allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent
device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and
during periods of loading dock operation.
(ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or
waste products are handled or used within the loading dock
area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be
allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be
allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent
device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and
during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which
the drain is located shall be covered or protected from
rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate
wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall
be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock
site.
38. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to
the storm drain system.
39. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping
Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass,
shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming
in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps
and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where
alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify
that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing.
16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches
Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm
drain sumps.
40. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas,
Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers
It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems,
pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the
storm drain system.
19
41. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling
Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No
dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent.
42. PAMC 16.09
Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion
of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need
to meet all requirements that would have been applicable
during design and construction. If such undesignated retail
space becomes a food service facility the food service
establishment (FSE) requirements must be met.
Fire Department
43. Fire sprinklers, fire standpipe and fire alarm systems
required in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA14, NFPA 24, NFPA
72 and State and local standards. Sprinkler, standpipe,
fire alarm and underground fire supply installations
require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
44. Sprinkler main drain must be coordinated with plumbing
design so that the 200 gpm can be flowed for annual main
drain testing for 90 seconds without overflowing the
collection sump, and the Utilities Department approved
ejector pumps will be the maximum flow rate to sanitary
sewer.
45. Applicant shall work with Utilities Department to
provide acceptable backflow prevention configuration.
46. Low-E glass and underground parking areas can
interfere with portable radios used by emergency
responders. Please provide an RF Engineering analysis to
determine if additional devices or equipment will be needed
to maintain operability of emergency responder portable
radios throughout 97% of the building in accordance with
the Fire Code Appendix J as adopted by the City of Palo
Alto.
47. All floor levels must be served by an elevator capable
of accommodating a 24 x 84 inch gurney without lifting or
manipulating the gurney. Elevator configuration shown will
not likely meet this requirement. This can be addressed
during the Building Permit application process.
48. A phase II environmental assessment and complete
closure of any hazardous materials on site shall be
required, under the oversight of the Palo Alto Fire
Department’s Hazardous Materials Bureau.
Water Gas Waste Water
49. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the
existing water meter sizes with CPA
20
numbers to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing
load. If the applicant does
not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the
existing water/wastewater
fixtures.
50. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all
utility services and/or meters
including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be
disconnected or removed within
10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition
permit will be issued by the
building inspection division after all utility services and/or
meters have been
disconnected and removed.
FOR BUILDING PERMIT
51. The applicant shall submit completed water-gas
wastewater service connection
applications - load sheets for City of Palo Alto Utilities for
each unit or place of business.
The applicant must provide all the information requested for
utility service demands
(water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in
fixture units/g.p.d.). The
applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new
loads, and the combined/total
loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain).
52. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for
utility construction. The new services
shall be from Park Blvd. The plans must show the size and
location of all underground
utilities within the development and the public right of way
including meters, backflow
preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer
cleanouts, sewer lift stations
and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater
laterals and mains need to
include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing
potentially conflicting utilities
especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct
banks. Existing duct
banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the
ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and
starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains
and laterals need to include profiles showing existing
potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas.
53. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of
any auxiliary water supply,
21
(i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment,
water storage tank, etc).
54. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and
upgrading the existing utility mains
and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads.
This responsibility includes all costs associated with the
design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the
utility mains and/or services.
55. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and
system capacity study
showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer
mains and services will
provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater
capacity needed to service
the development and adjacent properties during anticipated
peak flow demands. Field
testing may be required to determined current flows and water
pressures on existing
water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a
registered civil engineer.
The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a
flow monitoring study of the
existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The
report must include
existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum
monitoring period of seven
continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater
engineer. The study shall
meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering
section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will
be permitted.
56. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or
services, the applicant shall
submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities
Department four copies of the
installation of public water, gas and wastewater utilities
improvement plans (the portion
to be owned and maintained by the City) in accordance with the
utilities department
design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of
way shall be clearly shown on the
plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered
civil engineer. The
contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work,
method of construction and
the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for
approval by the utilities
engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be
allowed to begin work until
22
the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved
by the water, gas and
wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but
prior to sign off, the
applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the
contractor installed water and
wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities
record drawing procedures
(see last condition). For projects that take more than one
month to complete, the
applicant shall provide progress record drawings of work
completed on a monthly basis.
57. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA
backflow preventer device) is
required for all existing and new water connections from Palo
Alto Utilities to comply with
requirements of California administrative code, title 17,
sections 7583 through 7605
inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property
and directly behind the
water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for
domestic service shall be lead
free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans.
58. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required
for the existing or new
water connection for the fire system to comply with
requirements of California administrative code, title 17,
sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. reduced pressure
detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property
adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line.
Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on
the plans.
59. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW
engineering division.
Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is
required for the supply pipe
between the meter and the assembly.
60. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC,
or PE) shall be replaced at
the applicant’s expense.
61. Existing water services (including fire services) that are
not a currently standard material
shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense.
62. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection
fees associated with new utility
23
service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved
relocation of services,
meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the
cost of the person/entity
requesting the relocation.
63. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and
gas meter shown on the
plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas
service and sewer lateral
connection shown on the plans.
64. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to
irrigate the approved
landscape for landscaping areas in excess of 1,500 SF
(including tree canopies). Show
the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter
shall be designated as an
irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on
the account. The irrigation
and landscape plans submitted with the application for a
grading or building permit shall
conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards.
65. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is
required. For water meters 4”
and larger the applicant's contractor must provide and install
an 4’ by 8’ meter vault with
meter reading lid covers and other required control equipment
in accordance with the
utilities standard detail WD-05. Water meters 4” and larger
shall be in a PUE on private
property, water meters 2” and smaller shall be located in the
public right of way per the
CPA WGW Utilities Standards. Show the location of the new
water service and meter on
the plans.
66. A new water service line installation for fire system usage
is required. Show the location
of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall
provide to the engineering
department a copy of the plans for fire system including all
fire department's
requirements.
67. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the
new gas meter(s) location on
the plans. The gas meter(s) location must meet the WGW Utility
Standards. The City of
Palo Alto normal service pressure is 7” WC (.25 PSI).
Increased pressure must be
24
requested in writing and is only provided if the houseline
size calculates out at greater
than 2” diameter for domestic (note: domestic can only be
increased to 14” WC max.)
and greater than 4” diameter for commercial at standard
houseline pressure (7” WC) or
the appliance requires increased pressure at the inlet.
Further, due to meter limitations
there must a minimum of 800 CFH demand for pressures greater
than 14” WC. The
only available pressure increments above 7” WC are 14” WC (1/2
psi), 1#, 2# and 5#
after approval. Pressures in excess of 14” WC, will require
testing the house piping at
not less than 60 psig for not less than 30 minutes per the
California Plumbing Code
section 1204.3.2, witnessed by Palo Alto Building Inspection.
The City of Palo Alto will
not provide increased pressure just to save contractor money
on the houseline
construction. Requests to increase the pressure will be
evaluated with the following
submittals: The manufacturer’s literature for the equipment
requiring increased pressure;
the specific pressure you are requesting; the gas load; and
the length of house gas
piping from the gas meter to where the gas houseline starts
branching off.
68. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be
reused shall be abandoned at
the main per WGW utilities procedures.
69. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not
exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing
rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the
30 GPM flow to sewer.
70. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions:
1. The pump(s) shall be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity
and
2. The sewage line changes to a 4” gravity flow line at least
20’ from the City clean out.
3. The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time
not exceed 20 seconds each cycle.
71. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete
bases, or other structures can not
be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater
mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal
clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to
existing utilities as found in the
25
field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities,
Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated
from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions.
Trees may not be planted
within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater
mains/services or meters. New
water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed
within 10’ or existing
trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and
wastewater
services/mains/meters.
72. To install new gas service by directional boring, the
applicant is required to have a sewer
cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is
required so the sewer lateral can
be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service
is installed by directional
boring.
73. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the
City of Palo Alto utility standards for
water, gas & wastewater.
Green Waste
General Comments:
• Service Levels: 2-yard garbage, a 3-yard recycling, and a 1.5
yard compost.
74. PAMC 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling
(A) Assure that development provides adequate and accessible
interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash
and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that
trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from
abutting residences as is reasonably possible. (B)
Requirements: (i) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be
accessible to all residents or users of the property. (ii)
Recycling facilities shall be located, sized, and designed to
encourage and facilitate convenient use. (iii) Trash disposal
and recyclable areas shall be screened from public view by
masonry or other opaque and durable material, and shall be
enclosed and covered. Gates or other controlled access shall
be provided where feasible. Chain link enclosures are strongly
discouraged. (iv) Trash disposal and recycling structures
shall be architecturally compatible with the design of the
project. (v) The design, construction and accessibility of
recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by
the architectural review board, in accordance with design
guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city
council pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
75. PAMC 5.20.120 Recycling storage design requirements
26
The design of any new, substantially remodeled, or expanded
building or other facility shall provide for proper storage,
handling, and accessibility which will accommodate the solid
waste and recyclable materials loading anticipated and which
will allow for the efficient and safe collection. The design
shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections
18.22.100, 18.24.100, 18.26.100, 18.32.080, 18.37.080,
18.41.080, 18.43.080, 18.45.080, 18.49.140, 18.55.080,
18.60.080, and 18.68.170 of Title 18 of this code.
All Services:
1. Collection vehicle access (vertical clearance, street width
and turnaround space) and street parking are common issues
pertaining to new developments. Adequate space must be
provided for vehicle access.
2. Weight limit for all drivable areas to be accessed by the
solid waste vehicles (roads, driveways, pads) must be rated to
60,000 lbs. This includes areas where permeable pavement is
used.
3. Containers must be within 25 feet of service area or
charges will apply.
4. Carts and bins must be able to roll without obstacles or
curbs to reach service areas "no jumping curbs"
Garbage, Recycling, and Yard Waste/Compostables cart/bin
location and sizing
Office Building
The proposed commercial development must follow the requirements
for recycling container space . Project plans must show the
placement of recycling containers, for example, within the
details of the solid waste enclosures. Collection space should
be provided for built-in recycling containers/storage on each
floor/office or alcoves for the placement of recycling
containers.
• Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access to
all three waste streams – garbage, recycling, and
compostables.
• Collection cannot be performed in underground. Underground
bins locations require a minimum of 77” of vertical clearance.
Pull out charges will apply. In instances where push services
are not available (e.g., hauler driver cannot push containers
up or down ramps), the property owner will be responsible for
placing solid waste containers in an accessible location for
collection.
• All service areas must have a clearance height of 20’ for bin
service.
27
• New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to reduce ware
and tear on walls.
For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and compostables
collection issues, contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493
4894.
76. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled
Facilities
New buildings and residential developments providing
centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family
and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a
bin/dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste
streams (garbage, recycling, and yard waste/compostables) and
designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon
and runoff from the area.
Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC,
16.09.075(q)(2)
1. Newly constructed and remodeled Food Service Establishments
(FSEs) shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins,
carts or container used for the collection of trash,
recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease
(FOG) or tallow.
2. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent
water run-on to the area and runoff from the area.
3. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle
and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are
optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a
Grease Control Device (GCD).
4. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized,
segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the
covered area.
5. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted
facilities to the extent that the portion of the facility
being remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement.
It is frequently to the FSE’s advantage to install the next size
larger GCD to allow for more efficient grease discharge
prevention and may allow for longer times between cleaning.
There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in
different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced
fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal).
The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention
to the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution prevention. The
FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use Ordinance of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include
requirements for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures,
record keeping and construction projects.
28
77. PAMC 5.24.030 Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD)
Covered projects shall comply with construction and
demolition debris diversion rates and other requirements
established in Chapter 16.14 (California Green Building Code).
In addition, all debris generated by a covered project must
haul 100 percent of the debris not salvaged for reuse to an
approved facility as set forth in this chapter.
Contact the City of Palo Alto’s Green Building Coordinator for
assistance on how to recycle construction and demolition debris
from the project, including information on where to conveniently
recycle the material.
Public Works Engineering
78. ADJACENT NEIGHBORS: For any improvements that extend beyond
the property lines such as tie-backs provide signed copies of
the original agreements with the adjacent property owners. The
agreements shall indicate that the adjacent property owners
have reviewed and approved the proposed improvements (such as
soldier beams, tiebacks) that extend into their respective
properties.
79. TITLE REPORT: Provide a title report to verify that there
are no existing easements to be abandoned within the existing
3 parcels
80. PROPERTY LINE & 11-FOOT CONDEMNATION: Provide a copy of the
recorded documents that show the 11-foot condemnation. If the
condemnation was recorded, the property line should be behind
the sidewalk?
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING OR GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT
81. PRELIMINARY GRADING AND EXCAVATION: A preliminary Grading
and Drainage Plan, prepared by a licensed engineer shall
include the property boundary, existing grades, proposed
ground elevations, daylight lines, foundation elevation, top
and toe of banks, setback from adjacent properties, shoring
for existing structures (if any) and public improvements to
remain, earthwork quantities, existing grades along the
conforms. Plan shall also indicate limit of work, grading is
to be phased, staging and storage areas. Note staging and
storage area shall be located not encroach into the public
road right-of-way. Refer to PAMC Section 16.28.110 Site Plan
and Grading Plan.
82. FINAL GRADING AND EXCAVATION: A Final Grading and Drainage
Plan prepared by a licensed engineer shall include property
boundary, existing and proposed spot elevations, high and low
point elevations, contours. Plan shall not modify existing
drainage patterns.
29
83. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or
replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface.
Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the
existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the
building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for
Land Developments form and instructions are available at the
Development Center or on our website.
84. STORM DRAIN: The existing municipal storm drain system in
the area is unable to convey the peak runoff from the project
site. The applicant will be required to provide storm water
detention on-site to lessen the project’s impact on the City’s
storm drains. The applicant’s engineer shall provide storm
drain flow and detention calculations, including pre-project
and post-project conditions. The calculations must be signed
and stamped by a registered civil engineer.
85. DEWATERING: Add a note on the plans to indicate dewatering
is only allowed between April and October. If the applicant
intends to proceed with a grading permit that would extend
beyond October 31, applicant shall provide a preliminary
logistics plans to indicate how substantial grading will be
completed.
86. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized
"Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be
included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public
Works at the Development Center or on our website.
87. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the
storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the
NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and
incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11).
These regulations apply to land development projects that
create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious
surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts
of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall
incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design
measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve
to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the
Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size,
design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution
prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment
controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable
pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term
maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm”
specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the
municipal storm drain system. Effective February 10, 2011,
regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third-party
reviewer during the building permit review process to certify
that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention
30
measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal
Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of
approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of
Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City
from the third-party reviewer prior to approval of the
building permit by the Public Works department. Within 45 days
of the installation of the required storm water treatment
measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for
the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the
City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent
measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the
approved permit drawings.
88. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall
designate a party to maintain the control measures for the
life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance
agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance
of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance
measures. The maintenance
agreement shall be executed prior to the first building
occupancy sign-off. The City will inspect the treatment measures
yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is currently a $350
C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a
grading or building permit.
89. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: Add a note on the plans to indicate the
Contractor is responsible for obtaining an encroachment permit
from Public Works in accordance with PAMC 12.12.010. A
building permit or grading permit will not serve in lieu of an
encroachment permit and a permit shall be obtained prior to
issuance of a building or grading permit.
90. PARKING: Provide a turning template for the 2nd accessible
stall to demonstrate a vehicle will be able to exit the stall
without backing up into upcoming traffic exiting from the
garage. Provide a turning template for the vehicles parked in
Machine B to demonstrate how a vehicle will turn around within
the drive aisle and not back up directly onto Grant Avenue.
[PAMC 18.54.020 (5)]
91. MAILBOX: Will the mailbox on Grant Avenue be relocated
during the construction?
Applicant shall coordinate directly with the Post Office
directly. Provide a letter that has been signed and approved
by Post Office that indicates how the mail box location will
be coordinated during construction.
92. PEDESTRIAN & STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS: Streetscape design
elements and amenities such as bike racks, trash cans, shall
be placed in the public sidewalk. In addition, the City would
be interested in extending the landscape bulb-outs along the
project frontage. The off-site improvement plan shall include
31
the landscape bulb-outs and exact locations shall be
coordinated with staff and shall identify any existing utility
or sign relocation.
93. PAVEMENT RESTORATION: Park Boulevard was recently
resurfacing therefore full pavement width restoration would be
required throughout the project frontage.
94. SOILS REPORT: A detailed site-specific soil report prepared
by a licensed soils or geo-technical engineer must be
submitted which includes information on water table and
basement construction issues. This report shall identify the
current groundwater level, if encountered, and by using this
and other available information, as well as professional
experience, the engineer shall estimate the highest projected
ground-water level likely to be encountered in the future. If
the proposed basement is reasonably above the projected
highest water level, then the basement can be constructed in a
conventional manner with a subsurface perimeter drainage
system to relieve hydrostatic pressure. If not, measures must
be undertaken to render the basement waterproof and able to
withstand all projected hydrostatic and soil pressures. No
pumping of ground water is allowed. In general, however,
Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be
constructed in such a way that they do not penetrate existing
or projected ground water levels.
The following items shall be provided PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A
BUILDING PERMIT
95. STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS: Note 9 on sheet A1.1 indicate
storm water will be collected internally and ultimately hard
piped into the existing system. Note that this project is
required to comply with C3 and therefore shall retain or
reduce the overall surface runoff. The City storm drain system
was originally sized to handle the street runoff a direct
connection from the roof downspouts is not allowed.
96. NO DUMPING/FLOWS TO: The applicant is required to paint the
“No Dumping/Flows to San Francisquito Creek” logo in blue
color on a white background, adjacent to all on-site storm
drain inlets or a medallion for off-site storm drain inlet.
Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works
Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at
(650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return
of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on
the construction grading and drainage plan. Include
maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials
Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project.
97. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the
applicant must replace those portions of the existing
32
sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public
right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. The site
plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the
extent of the replacement work. The plan must note that any
work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’
standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a
Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development
Center. The new ramp (s) shall include a detectable warning
surface in compliance with City standards and State and
Federal Requirements. Contractor shall contact the City to
determine the color of the detectable warning surface prior to
ordering the material. Any existing driveway to be abandoned
shall be replaced with standard curb & gutter. This work must
be included within a Permit for Construction in the Public
Street from the Public Works Department. A note of this
requirement shall be placed on the plans adjacent to the area
on the Site Plan.
98. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan
to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that
addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including,
but not limited to: provisions for pedestrian and bicyclist,
traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries,
contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours,
noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention,
contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and
schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work
permit. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo
Alto’s Trucks and Truck and Truck Route per PAMC 10.48.
DURING CONTRUCTION
The contractor shall contact Public Works Inspector at 650-496
6929 prior to any work performed in the public road right-of
way.
The following items shall be provided PRIOR TO FINALIZATION OF
BUILDING PERMIT INSPECTION
Contractor shall contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929
to arrange a site visit. The inspector can discuss the extent of
replacement work along the Park Boulevard and Grant Avenue. Add
statement as a note on the plans.
Additional Conditions
99. The approved use and/or construction are subject to, and
shall comply with, all applicable City ordinances and laws and
regulations of other governmental agencies.
100. The development impact fees for this project are estimated
to be $396,291.00, California Government Code Section 66020
33
provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the
fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on
a development project must initiate the protest at the time
the development project is approved or conditionally approved
or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees,
dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the
Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting
these development fees, dedications, reservations and
exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF
YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR
FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE
VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS,
RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS.
If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in
Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide
notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day
period has begun in which you may protest these requirements.
101. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil
Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial
review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
102. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall
indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its
officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)
from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by
a third party against the indemnified parties and the
applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or
approval authorized hereby for the Project, including
(without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual
attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the
litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to
defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
SECTION 9. Term of Approval.
Project Approval. In the event actual construction of
the project is not commenced within one year of the date of
council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further
force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section18.77.090(a).
SECTION 10. Standard Conditions
A. Except as expressly specified herein, the site
plan, floor plans, building elevations and any additional
34
information or representations, submitted by the Applicant
during the Staff review and public hearing process leading to
the approval of this entitlement, whether oral or written, which
indicated the proposed structure or manner of operation, are
deemed conditions of approval.
B. The approved use and/or construction are subject
to, and shall comply with, all applicable City ordinances and
laws and regulations of other governmental agencies.
C. The development impact fees for this project are estimated
to be $396,291, itemized as follows: Park Fee $67,882.81,
Community Center Fee $3,662.04, Library Fee $3,489.71,
Commercial Housing Fee $263,890.46, and the Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee $60,366.00. California Government Code
Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to
protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions
imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at
the time the development project is approved or conditionally
approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees,
dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the
Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting
these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions
are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO
INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE
PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020,
YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR
REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND
EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes,
assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as
specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is
to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the
90-day period has begun in which you may protest these
requirements.
D. This matter is subject to the California Code of
Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which
judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section
1094.6.
E. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant
shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council,
its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)
from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a
third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to
attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized
hereby for the Project, including (without limitation)
reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs
incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its
sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys
of its own choice.
35
_________________________ ____________________________
___________________________
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
1. Those plans prepared by Fergus Garber Young Architects
consisting of 33 pages, dated October 16, 2014, and received on
May 13, 2014.
36
Attachment C
Final Environmental Impact Report
2555 Park Blvd.
Hardcopies have been initially distributed to the Planning
& Transportation Commission, City Libraries, 5th
Floor City Hall and Development Services Center at
285 Hamilton Avenue
Can also be found online at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2440&TargetID=319
Attachment D
NOT YET APPROVED
Resolution No _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the
Adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for 2555 Park
Boulevard Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
and Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations
I. OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION
This Statement of Findings is made with respect to approval of a Major Architectural Review
and Design Enhancement Exception for the 2555 Park Boulevard project and states the findings
of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) relating to the potentially significant
environmental effects of the project.
The project applicant, Tarlton Properties, has requested that the City take the following actions:
1. Certification of an Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the Mitigation
Monitoring Plan.
2. Approval of Major Architectural Review.
3. Approval of a Design Enhancement Exception.
Approval of the Major Architectural Review and other requested entitlements constitutes the
project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section
(§) 21000 et seq.) (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines § 15378, and these determinations of the
City Council.
R E C I T A L S
A. The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan designates land for Community Commercial
Development.
B. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and construct a new 24,466
square foot office building and onsite parking at 2555 Park Boulevard.
C. The City prepared an Initial Study and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to
prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) on April 4, 2014; prepared a Draft EIR and released
it for public comment in August 2014; received public comments on the Draft EIR until
November 19, 2014, including at a public hearing held before the Architectural Review Board
on October 16, 2014, a public hearing held before the Planning and Transportation
Commission on October 29, 2014, and a public hearing held before the Historic Resources Board
on November 19, 2014.
D. The Planning and Transportation Commission gave notice of a public hearing to
consider and provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Final EIR and the
150515 jb 0131441 1
NOT YET APPROVED
2555 Park Boulevard project, and a public hearing was held before the Planning and
Transportation Commission on April 29, 2015.
E. The City Council gave notice of a public hearing to consider and act upon the Final
EIR for the 2555 Park Boulevard project, and a public hearing was held before the City Council
on June 1, 2015.
F. After holding public hearings, the Planning Commission considered the Final EIR as
prepared for the project (which includes the NOP and Initial Study dated April 4, 2014, the
Draft EIR dated August 2014, the Final EIR dated April 2015), the comments of the public,
both oral and written, and all written materials in the record connected therewith.
G. At the conclusion of the public process described above for the project, the City
Council certified the Final EIR and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program, findings of fact
and a statement of overriding considerations, and approved the requested entitlements.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with all requirements
of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Environmental Impact Ordinance, codified in Title
11 of the City’s Municipal Code.
SECTION 2. The Final EIR was presented to and reviewed by the Planning Commission
and the City Council. The Final EIR was prepared under the supervision of the City and reflects
the independent judgment of the City. The City Council has reviewed the Final EIR, and bases
the findings stated below on such review and other substantial evidence in the record.
SECTION 3. The City finds that the Final EIR considers a reasonable range of
potentially feasible alternatives, sufficient to foster informed decision making, public
participation and a reasoned choice. Thus, the alternatives analysis in the EIR is sufficient to
carry out the purposes of such analysis under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR as complete, adequate and
in full compliance with CEQA and as providing an adequate basis for considering and acting
upon the 2555 Park Boulevard project and makes the following specific findings with respect
thereto.
SECTION 5. The City Council agrees with the characterization of the Final EIR with
respect to all impacts initially identified as “less than significant” and finds that those impacts
have been described accurately and are less than significant as so described in the Final EIR.
This finding does not apply to impacts identified as significant and unavoidable or
significant or potentially significant that are reduced to a less than significant level by
mitigation measures included in the Final EIR. The disposition of each of those impacts and the
mitigation measures adopted to reduce them are addressed specifically in the findings below.
150515 jb 0131441 2
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 6. All mitigation measures in the Final EIR are adopted and incorporated
into the 2555 Park Boulevard project.
SECTION 7. The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) includes all mitigation
measures adopted with respect to the project and explains how and by whom they will be
implemented and enforced.
SECTION 8. The mitigation measures and the MMP have been incorporated into the
Conditions of Approval for the Major Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception
and have thus become part of and limitations upon the entitlements conferred by the Major
Architectural Review, Design Enhancement Exception and other project approvals.
SECTION 9. The descriptions of the impacts in these findings are summary
statements. Reference should be made to the Final EIR for a more complete description.
SECTION 10. The Planning Division is directed to file a Notice of Determination with
the County Clerk within five (5) working days in accordance with CEQA §21152(a) and
CEQA Guidelines §15094.
III. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS
This Statement of Findings addresses the environmental effects associated with the proposed
2555 Park Boulevard project, located in the City of Palo Alto on APN 124-29-011 located at 2555
Park Boulevard. This Statement of Findings is made pursuant to CEQA §§21081 and 21081.6
and CEQA Guidelines §15091.
Significant effects of the 2555 Park Boulevard project were identified in the Draft EIR. CEQA
§21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091 require that the Lead Agency prepare written findings for
identified significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each
finding. Less than significant effects (without mitigation) of the project were also identified in
the Draft EIR and Initial Study. CEQA does not require that the Lead Agency prepare written
findings for less than significant effects.
CEQA requires that the Lead Agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible,
to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur with
implementation of the project. Project mitigation or alternatives are not required, however,
where substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that they are infeasible or where
the responsibility for modifying the project lies with another agency. Specifically, CEQA
Guidelines §15091 states:
4. No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified
which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the
public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects,
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible
findings are:
150515 jb 0131441 3
NOT YET APPROVED
• Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
final EIR.
• Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
• Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
5. The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in
the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has
concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation
measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific
reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a
program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the
project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant
environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit
conditions, agreements, or other measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other
material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based.
The “changes or alterations” referred to in §15091(a)(1) above, that are required in, or
incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of
the project, may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in Guidelines
§15370, including:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted
environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action.
150515 jb 0131441 4
NOT YET APPROVED
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or
environments.
Legal Effects of Findings
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in
the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City of
Palo Alto hereby binds itself to implementing or ensuring the project applicant implements
these measures. These findings, in other words, constitute a binding set of obligations that will
come into effect when the City Council formally approves the 2555 Park Boulevard project.
CEQA requires that when a public agency has made the findings under CEQA Guidelines
§15091(a)(1) relative to an EIR, the public agency must also adopt a program for monitoring or
reporting on the revisions and mitigation measures that will avoid significant impacts.
The mitigation measures required of the 2555 Park Boulevard project are identified in the MMP.
The MMP is adopted concurrently with these findings as required by CEQA §21081.6(a)(1), and
will be implemented throughout construction and operation of the project. The Planning and
Community Environment Department will use the MMP to track and enforce compliance with
all mitigation measures. The MMP will remain available for public review during the
compliance period.
IV. DEFINITIONS
The following definitions apply where the subject words or acronyms are used in these
findings:
“ARB” means the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board.
“ACM” means asbestos-containing material.
“BAAQMD” means the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
“Cal-OSHA” means California Division of Occupational Safety and Health.
“City Council” means the City of Palo Alto City Council.
“CEQA” means the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code §21000
et seq.).
“Comprehensive Plan” means the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as adopted
in 2007 with subsequent amendments.
“Condition” means a Condition of Approval adopted by the City in connection with
approval of the project.
“City” means the City of Palo Alto.
“Draft EIR” means the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated August 2014 for the
proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project.
150515 jb 0131441 5
NOT YET APPROVED
“DTSC” means the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.
“EIR” means environmental impact report.
“Environmental Impact Ordinance” means the City of Palo Alto Environmental Impact
Ordinance, as codified in Title 11 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code.
“EPA” means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
“Final EIR” means the Final EIR as prepared for the project (which includes the NOP
and Initial Study dated April 4, 2014, the Draft EIR dated August 2014, the Final EIR
dated April 2015).
“HASP” means Health and Safety Plan.
“HRB” means the City of Palo Alto Historic Resources Board.
“LCM” means lead-containing material.
“MMP” means the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project.
“NOP” means Notice of Preparation of an EIR.
“P&TC” means the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission.
“PCE” means the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department.
“Project” means the proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project.
“PTOD” means Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development.
“RWQCB” means the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
“SMP” means Site Mitigation Plan.
“Zoning Ordinance” means the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, including all
amendments thereto.
V. PROJECT BACKGROUND
The project would demolish the existing 10,800-square-foot building at 2555 Park Boulevard
and construct a new 24,466 square foot office building and onsite parking. The existing
building was constructed in 1964 and appears eligible for inclusion in the California Register
under Criteria 3. The existing and proposed office use is consistent with the land use and
zoning designations for the site.
VI. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION
Project Objectives
As reported in the Draft EIR, the applicant’s stated objectives of the proposed 2555 Park
Boulevard project include:
1. Redevelop the 2555 Park Boulevard site with a safe, healthy, and energy-efficient
building that meets current standards for structural design, site and building
accessibility, and hazardous materials.
150515 jb 0131441 6
NOT YET APPROVED
2. Develop a new office building on the site that generates increased rental income and
supports the vision of the City’s Draft California Avenue Area Concept Plan, specifically
Goal CACP-3, which calls for promoting Park Boulevard as a hub of innovation and
entrepreneurship for small new companies and supports related planning initiatives
such as the Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development overlay and Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
3. Increase the usable square footage of a transit-accessible site by increasing the
building height and providing parking at grade and underground.
4. Create a pedestrian and bicycle friendly street frontage with wide sidewalks, amenities,
and street trees.
5. Provide adequate parking to ensure the project is fully parked on site.
Project Description
The proposed project would involve the demolition of an existing two-story, 10,800-square-foot
general office building and 28 surface parking spaces, and the construction of a new three-story,
24,466-square-foot office building with a roof deck and 92 parking spaces. A conceptual site plan
of the proposed project is shown in Draft EIR Figure 2.4, and conceptual renderings are shown
in Draft EIR Figure 2.5.
A complete description of the project as proposed by the project applicant is provided in Section
2.4 of the Draft EIR, as modified in the Final EIR.
VII. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
In accordance with CEQA §21167.6(e), the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the
2555 Park Boulevard project includes, without limitation, the following documents:
♦ The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the
project;
♦ All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment
period on the NOP (provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR);
♦ The Draft EIR (August 2014) for the project;
♦ All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment
period on the Draft EIR;
♦ All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the Project,
in addition to timely comments on the Draft EIR;
♦ The Final EIR (April 2015) for the project, including comments received on the Draft
EIR and responses to those comments;
♦ Documents cited or referenced in the Draft and Final EIRs;
♦ The project MMP;
♦ All findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the project and all
documents cited or referred to therein;
150515 jb 0131441 7
NOT YET APPROVED
♦ All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents
relating to the project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or
trustee agencies with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA
and with respect to the City’s action on the project;
♦ All documents submitted to the City (including the P&TCand City Council) by other
public agencies or members of the public in connection with the project;
♦ Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings,
and public hearings held by the City in connection with the project;
♦ Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information
sessions, public meetings and public hearings;
♦ The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and all environmental documents prepared
in connection with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan;
♦ The City of Palo Alto Environmental Impact Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance (City of
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 11 and Title 18), and all other City Code provisions
cited in materials prepared by or submitted to the City;
♦ Any and all resolutions and/or ordinances adopted by the City regarding the project,
and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those
resolutions;
♦ Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state,
and local laws and regulations;
♦ Any documents cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and
♦ Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by CEQA §21167.6(e).
The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the
project, even if not every document was formally presented to the City Council, P&TC or City
Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the project. Without exception, any
documents set forth above not found in the project files fall into one of two categories. Many
of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the City Council was aware
in approving the 2555 Park Boulevard project. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency
Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392; Dominey v. Department of Personnel
Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6.) Other documents influenced the expert
advice provided to City staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City Council. For
that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City Council’s
decisions relating to approval of the 2555 Park Boulevard project. (See Public Resources
Code §21167.6(e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries c. City Council of City of San Jose (1986)
181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33
Cal.App.4th 144, 153, 155.)
The official custodian of the record is the Planning and Community Environment Director, 285
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301.
VIII. GENERAL FINDINGS
150515 jb 0131441 8
NOT YET APPROVED
Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant
The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all impacts
identified as “no impact” or “less than significant” and finds that those impacts have been
described accurately and are less than significant as so described in the Final EIR.
This finding applies to the following impacts determined to be “less than significant” based on
the analysis in the Initial Study (circulated with the NOP and provided in Appendix A to the
Draft EIR) or in the Draft EIR. Some impacts that were identified in the Initial Study as being
“potentially significant” were later determined through the analysis in the Draft EIR to be “less
than significant.”
Aesthetics
Substantially Damage Scenic Resources along a Scenic Highway
Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site and Its
Surroundings
Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect on a Public View or View Corridor
Violate Existing Comprehensive Plan Policies Regarding Visual Resources
Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare Which Would Adversely Affect Day or
Nighttime Views in the Area
Substantially Shadow Public Open Space (Other Than Public Streets and Adjacent
Sidewalks) Between 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. from September 21 to March 21
Agriculture and Forestry
Convert Prime, Unique, or Important Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use Conflict
with Agricultural Zoning or a Williamson Act Contract
Conflict with Forest Land or Timberland Zoning
Result in Loss or Conversion of Forest Land
Cause Other Changes to the Existing Environment Which Could Result in Conversion of
Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use or Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest
Use
Air Quality
Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan
Violate Any Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Existing or Projected Air
Quality Violation
Contribute to Direct or Indirect Operational Emissions Exceeding the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District Criteria Air Pollutants of 80 Pounds Per Day and/or
15 Tons Per Year for Nitrogen Oxides, Reactive Organic Gases, and Fine
Particulate Matter
150515 jb 0131441 9
NOT YET APPROVED
Contribute to Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Exceeding the State Ambient Air
Quality Standard
Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Levels of Toxic Air Contaminants
Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People
Fail to Implement Applicable Construction Emission Control Measures Recommended
in Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines
Biological Resources
Adversely Affect Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species
Adversely Affect Riparian Habitat, Federally Protected Wetlands, or Other Sensitive
Natural Community
Conflict with Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community
Conservation Plan
Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources, Including the
City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance
Interfere Substantially with Wildlife Movement or Native Wildlife Nursery Sites
Cultural and Historic Resources
Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Local Cultural Resource Recognized by City Council
Resolution
Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Geologic Feature
Disturb Human Remains, Including Those Interred Outside Formal Cemeteries
Geology and Soils
Exposure to Rupture of an Earthquake Fault, Seismic Ground Shaking, Seismic-Related
Ground Failure, Liquefaction, or Landslides
Create Substantial Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Cause
Substantial Siltation
Exposure to Unstable Earth Conditions or Changes in Geologic Substructures
Located on Expansive Soils
Exposure to Geologic and Geomorphological Hazards
Located on Soils Incapable of Adequately Supporting the Use of Septic Tanks or
Alternative Waste Water Disposal Systems, If Sewers Are Not Available
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Create Hazardous Emissions or Waste or Use Hazardous Substances Within One-
Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School
Construct a School on a Property Subject to Hazards
Located on a Site Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5
150515 jb 0131441 10
NOT YET APPROVED
Expose Residents or Workers to Risks Associated with Public or Private
Airport/Airstrip
Expose People or Structures to Risks Involving Wildland Fires
Interfere with an Emergency Response Plan
Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or Environment through Routine Transport,
Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials During Project Operation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Expose People or Structures to Flood Risks from a Levee or Dam Failure Adversely
Affect Groundwater Supplies, Recharge, and Existing Flow Patterns Violate Any
Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
Alter the Existing Onsite Drainage Pattern in a Manner Which Would Result in
Substantial Erosion or Siltation On-or Off Site
Alter the Existing Onsite Drainage Pattern in a Manner Which Would Substantially
Increase Surface Runoff or Result in Flooding On-or Off Site
Create or Contribute Runoff Water Which Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or
Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems or Provide Substantial Additional
Sources of Polluted Runoff
Place Structures within a 100-year Flood Hazard Area
Expose People or Structures to Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow
Cause Stream Bank Instability
Land Use and Planning
Physical Division or Disruption of an Established Community
Conflict with Any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose
of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect
Conflict with Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community
Conservation Plan
Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Type or Intensity of Existing or Planned
Land Use in the Area
Create a Land Use Incompatibility
Conflict with Established Residential, Recreational, Educational, Religious, or Scientific
Uses of an Area
Convert Prime, Unique, or Important Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use
Mineral Resources
Result in the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource Valuable to the Region
or State
Result in the Loss of Availability of a Locally-Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site
150515 jb 0131441 11
NOT YET APPROVED
Noise
Expose Residents to Noise Levels in Excess of Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance
Standards
Cause a Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Above Levels Existing
without the Project
Expose People to Excessive Noise Associated with a Public Airport or Public Use Airport
Expose People to Excessive Noise Associated with a Private Airstrip
Cause the Average 24 Hour Noise Level to Increase by 5.0 dB or More in an Existing
Residential Area
Cause the Average 24 Hour Noise Level to Increase by 3.0 dB or More in an Existing
Residential Area where the Average 24 Hour Noise Level Currently Exceeds 60 dB
Result in Indoor Noise Levels for Residential Development to Exceed an Average 24 Hour
Noise Level of 45 dB
Result in Instantaneous Noise Levels of Great than 50 dB in Bedrooms or 55 dB in Other
Rooms in Areas with an Exterior Average 24 Hour Noise Level of 60 dB or
Greater
Generate Construction Noise Exceeding the Daytime Background Ambient Noise Levels
at Sensitive Receptors by 10 dBA or More
Population and Housing
Induce Substantial Population Growth, Directly or Indirectly Displace
Housing or People
Create a Substantial Imbalance between Employed Residents and Jobs
Public Services
Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated with the Provision of New or
Physically Altered Governmental Facilities or Interfere with the Service Ratios or
Performance Objectives of Local Fire Protection, Police Protection, School, Park,
or Other Public Facilities
Recreation
Contribute to the Substantial Physical Deterioration of Existing Recreational Facilities
Create an Adverse Physical Effect on the Environment Due to the Construction or
Expansion of Recreational Facilities
Transportation and Circulation
Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Design Feature or Incompatible Uses
Result in a Change in Air Traffic Patterns
Exceed the Capacity of the Existing Circulation System, Including Intersections, Streets,
Highways and Freeways, Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths, and Mass Transit
150515 jb 0131441 12
NOT YET APPROVED
Conflict with an Applicable Congestion Management Program
Result in Inadequate Emergency Access
Result in Inadequate Parking Capacity that Impacts Traffic Circulation and Air Quality
Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs Supporting Alternative Transportation
Cause a Local Intersection to Deteriorate Below LOS D and Cause an Increase in the
Average Stopped Delay for Critical Movements by Four Seconds or More and the
Critical Volume/Capacity Ratio Value to Increase by 0.01 or More
Cause a Local Intersection Already Operating at LOS E or F to Deteriorate in the
Average Stopped Delay for the Critical Movements by Four Seconds or More
Cause a Regional Intersection to Deteriorate from LOS E or Better to LOS F or Cause
Critical Movement Delay at an Intersection Operating at LOS F to Increase by
Four Seconds or More and the Critical Volume/Capacity Ratio Value to Increase
by 0.01 or More
Cause a Freeway Segment to Operate at LOS F or Contribute Traffic in Excess of 1% of
Segment Capacity to Freeway Segment Operating at LOS F
Cause any Change in Traffic that Would Increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment Index by 0.1 or More
Cause Queuing Impacts Based on a Comparative Analysis between Design Queue
Length and Available Queue Storage Capacity
Impede Development or Function of Planned Pedestrian or Bicycle Facilities
Impede Operation of Transit System as Result of Congestion
Utilities and Service Systems
Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements of the Applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board
Require or Result in the Construction of New or Expansion of Existing Water or
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Require or Result in the Construction of New or Expansion of Existing Storm Water
Drainage Facilities
Require New or Expanded Entitlements to Provide Water Service to the Project
Result in a Determination by the Applicable Wastewater Treatment Provider that It Has
Inadequate Capacity to Serve the Project’s Demand in Addition to the Provider’s
Existing Commitments
Generate an Amount of Solid Waste that Would Exceed the Permitted Capacity of the
Applicable Landfill
Violate Federal, State, and Local Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste
Result in the Substantial Physical Deterioration of a Public Facility Due to Increased Use
as a Result of the Project
150515 jb 0131441 13
NOT YET APPROVED
Cumulative Impacts
Generate Noise Levels in Excess of General Plan and Community Plan Standards or Cause
a Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Criteria Pollutant for Which the
Project Region is Non-Attainment
Generate Substantial Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Directly or Indirectly
Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Contribute to a Cumulative Excess of Population Beyond Local or Regional Projections
Contribute to Cumulative Loss of Cultural and Historic Resources Listed or Eligible for
Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register
of Historic Resources
Contribute to Cumulative Increase in Exposure to Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Cause an Increase in Delay or the Volume/Capacity Ratio that Would Exceed Local Traffic
Standards in the Cumulative Traffic Scenario
Significant and Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant With
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all impacts
initially identified as “significant” or “potentially significant” that are reduced to less than
significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15091(a), a specific finding is made for each impact and its
associated mitigation measures in the discussions below. This section includes impacts that
were evaluated in the Initial Study and determined to be reduced to less than significant levels
with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study as well as
impacts evaluated in the EIR.
Cultural and Historic Resources
Impact CUL-1: Given the site’s location in an area identified as having “moderate”
archaeological sensitivity, there is limited potential for inadvertent impact to
presently unknown subsurface encountered archaeological deposits that may be
encountered during earth moving activities onsite. Such deposits may be important
examples of a major period of California pre-history. Therefore, impacts would be
significant.
Mitigation Measure:
MM-CUL-1: In the event that subsurface cultural resources are encountered during
ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity shall be stopped and the
City of Palo Alto contacted. A qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of Palo Alto, shall be
retained to evaluate the archaeological discovery for its eligibility for local and state
150515 jb 0131441 14
NOT YET APPROVED
listing. The discovery or disturbance of any identified cultural resource shall be reported
as appropriate to the City of Palo Alto and the Native American Heritage Commission.
Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on California Department of Parks and
Recreation form 523 (archaeological sites). Measures prescribed by these groups
and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are
resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a
mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City of Palo Alto’s Cultural
Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4
of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included
in the MMP will ensure that the potential for the project to adversely impact
archaeological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Explanation: This mitigation measure will ensure that in the event cultural resources are
discovered, proper evaluation, handling, and treatment measures as dictated by
federal, State, and local regulations are implemented, and the potential for
identification and listing are evaluated by qualified individuals.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: Due to the use of potentially hazardous substances during construction of the
proposed project, the project could expose people or the environment to a release
of hazardous materials.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Hazardous materials shall not be disposed of or released
onto the ground, the underlying groundwater, or any surface water. Totally enclosed
containment shall be provided for all trash. All construction waste, including trash and
litter, garbage, other solid waste, petroleum products and other potentially hazardous
materials, shall be removed to a waste facility permitted to treat, store, or dispose
of such materials.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: A project-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and Site
Mitigation Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by the project applicant and approved by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) prior to issuance of grading or building
permits from the City of Palo Alto. The HASP and SMP shall be implemented during
construction activities. The SMP shall outline strategies for managing contaminated
soil and groundwater encountered during project construction and shall discuss the
following:
• Results of previous environmental investigations at the site
• Anticipated contaminants of concern to be encountered
• The procedures and protocols of determining of the extent of the impact of
soil gas from the former dry cleaner
150515 jb 0131441 15
NOT YET APPROVED
• Development plans
• Likely disposal fate of excavated material based on excavation plan and
contaminants of concerns identified, if any
• Dewatering contingency options
• Stormwater management options
• Monitoring and soil management procedures
• Regulatory considerations
• Planned procedures and notifications.
The SMP shall include provisions for hazardous substance management, handling,
storage, disposal, and emergency response. Hazardous materials spill kits shall be
maintained on site for small spills.
Copies of the HASP and SMP shall be maintained on site during demolition, excavation,
and construction of the proposed project. All workers on the project site shall be
familiarized with these documents.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified above and included
in the MMP will ensure that the potential for the project to result in hazardous
material exposure during construction would be reduced to a less than significant
level.
Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that hazardous materials are controlled
and disposed of properly during construction. Hazardous material handling and
disposal protocol will be listed in a HSP and a SMP, which will be available to
construction workers. These mitigation measures will reduce the potential for people
or the environment to be exposed to hazardous construction materials on-or
offsite to less than significant levels.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Impact HAZ-2: Due to the potential for the existing building to contain asbestos-containing
materials and lead-based paint/coatings, demolition of the building could result in
the release of hazardous materials into the environment, which would be a
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: A scope of work for asbestos abatement and guidelines for
proper asbestos removal shall be prepared following local, state, and federal regulations
for any necessary removal of asbestos in accordance with the ProTech survey. The Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) shall be notified at least 10 working
days prior to any asbestos removal. Monitoring during abatement shall be conducted to
ensure regulatory compliance. Construction teams working with ACMs must possess a
handling license and a certificate of registration issued by the California Department of
150515 jb 0131441 16
NOT YET APPROVED
Industrial Relations-Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). All
abatement workers shall have annual Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
(AHERA) training. The minimum level of training that construction workers must
complete also includes annual EPA Asbestos Operations and Maintenance training.
Only particular types of equipment and methods of demolition are permitted under
State and Federal regulations. ACMs and LCMs are wetted down to prevent the
formation of dust within (and outside of) the project site, or they are vacuumed up with
a high-efficiency particulate absorption (HEPA) machine to ensure the containment of
95% of particles 0.3 microns (10-6 meters) or larger in diameter (HEPA Corporation
2004). Prior to permitting demolition workers and other construction workers to
enter the site, the hazardous waste construction team shall inspect the site for final
clean-up. Final clean-up of ACMs shall be conducted by visual inspection and phase
contrast microscopy or transmission electron microscopy. Final clean-up of LCMs shall
be conducted by visual inspection and HEPA vacuuming of suspect dust and debris
(SCA Environmental 2012). Demolition shall not commence until the removal of ACMs
and LCMs from the site has been confirmed by a certified contractor.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: Every contractor/employer who performs work at project
site shall assess California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA)
worker protection rules, California Department of Public Health certification
requirements, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards, and state and
federal disposal requirements. Any demolition activities likely to disturb lead-based
paint/coatings or lead containing materials (LCMs) shall be carried out by a contractor
trained and qualified to conduct lead-related construction work, and all lead-related
work shall be performed in accordance with the U.S. Office of Housing and Urban
Development guidelines (ProTech 2013). Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) must be
disposed of in accordance with the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, and LCMs must be handled in accordance with the Cal-
OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1) and disposed of in
accordance with California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA
requirements for hazardous waste. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall
incorporate any necessary abatement measures required under these guidelines
and regulations.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-5: A qualified environmental specialist shall inspect the site
buildings for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, and other
hazardous building materials prior to demolition. If found, these materials shall be
managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act and other state and federal
guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall
incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards
Act of 1991 (California Public Resource, Section 42160–42185), particularly Section
42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling for the removal of mercury switches, PCB-
containing ballasts, and refrigerants.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included
150515 jb 0131441 17
NOT YET APPROVED
in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to the release of ACMs and LCMs
into the environment would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that ACMs, LCMs, and related
hazardous materials are removed from the project site in compliance with federal,
state, and local standards which prescribe handling protocols to ensure ACMs and
LCMs are not released to the air. Project construction will not be permitted to
commence until registered professionals have confirmed the removal of ACMs and
LCMs from the project site.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Impact HAZ-3: Due to the potential for contaminated soils to be encountered, disposed of
during excavation, construction activities could expose individuals or the
environment to hazardous materials should contaminated soils be handled
improperly.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: Soil samples shall be collected at discrete depth intervals to
characterize impacted areas. Impacted soils identified by this sampling shall be
segregated and managed per BAAQMD Rule 8-40, which regulates aeration of
contaminated soil, as applicable, and in accordance with state and federal waste
regulations. Excavated soil, particularly in the vicinity of the former dry cleaner, shall be
screened during excavation using a field photoionization detector. Soil thought to be
potentially contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) shall be segregated
and characterized. This soil may potentially be profiled as listed dry cleaner wastes for
the purposes of proper disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-7: A dewatering plan and detailed groundwater extraction
design shall be prepared for the proposed project. The dewatering plan shall outline
procedures that will be used to lower groundwater levels during excavation and specify
the number of groundwater dewatering wells with dedicated pumps that will be
installed around the site perimeter throughout project duration. Extracted groundwater
can go to a Publicly Owned Treatment Work (POTW) or to the storm drain network in
accordance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A
plan for groundwater discharge pre-treatment shall be developed and kept on-hand
should implementation be necessary. The detailed groundwater extraction design shall
outline chemical testing and thresholds as required by the POTW or NPDES permit. It
shall also provide the dewatering systems layout and well construction information,
including depths, screened intervals, and pump settings.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included
in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to contaminated soils would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
150515 jb 0131441 18
NOT YET APPROVED
Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that contaminated soils and
groundwater are removed from the project site and disposed of in an appropriate
treatment facility.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Impact HAZ-4: Groundwater contaminated with VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons may be
encountered during excavation and could be released into the environment,
resulting in a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: Soil samples shall be collected at discrete depth intervals to
characterize impacted areas. Impacted soils identified by this sampling shall be
segregated and managed per BAAQMD Rule 8-40, which regulates aeration of
contaminated soil, as applicable, and in accordance with state and federal waste
regulations. Excavated soil, particularly in the vicinity of the former dry cleaner, shall be
screened during excavation using a field photoionization detector. Soil thought to be
potentially contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) shall be segregated
and characterized. This soil may potentially be profiled as listed dry cleaner wastes for
the purposes of proper disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-7: A dewatering plan and detailed groundwater extraction
design shall be prepared for the proposed project. The dewatering plan shall outline
procedures that will be used to lower groundwater levels during excavation and specify
the number of groundwater dewatering wells with dedicated pumps that will be
installed around the site perimeter throughout project duration. Extracted groundwater
can go to a Publicly Owned Treatment Work (POTW) or to the storm drain network in
accordance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A
plan for groundwater discharge pre-treatment shall be developed and kept on-hand
should implementation be necessary. The detailed groundwater extraction design shall
outline chemical testing and thresholds as required by the POTW or NPDES permit. It
shall also provide the dewatering systems layout and well construction information,
including depths, screened intervals, and pump settings.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified above and included
in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to contaminated groundwater
would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that contaminated soils and
groundwater are removed from the project site and disposed of in an appropriate
treatment facility.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Impact HAZ-5: Although it is unlikely that vapor intrusion from contaminated groundwater
would create a significant hazard, there is the potential for the release of hazardous
150515 jb 0131441 19
NOT YET APPROVED
materials during operation of the proposed project. Therefore, the impact would
be significant.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-8: The building plans shall include installation of a Certco
Corflex or similar waterproofing/vapor barrier membrane to prevent the migration of
vapor from groundwater into the indoor air of the basement parking garage. The
building plans shall also demonstrate that garage ventilation equipment is sufficient to
meet the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2011 Standard for Parking
Structures (NFPA 88A) to continuously provide a minimum of two air changes per hour.
The applicant shall monitor indoor air quality in the basement garage to confirm that the
waterproofing/vapor barrier membrane and garage ventilation effectively maintain
indoor air VOC concentrations at levels not harmful to health (i.e., below appropriate
environmental screen levels). An initial round of sampling shall be conducted upon
construction completion and quarterly for the first year of operation. For each sampling
event, a minimum of two 24-hour integrated indoor air samples shall be collected from
the basement garage along with one 24-hour integrated air sample from an
exterior location representative of ambient/background conditions. Sampling and
analyticalprocedures shall be conducted in accordance with the Department of Toxic
Substance Control Vapor Intrusion Guidance (DTSC 2011). Results from the indoor air
sampling shall be compared to established regulatory indoor air thresholds for
residential and commercial use. The data shall be evaluated following the 1-year
monitoring period.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included
in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to vapor intrusion during project
operation would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Explanation: This mitigation measure will limit migration of hazardous vapor into the
basement parking garage and ensure concentrations of hazardous vapors in the
parking garage and office building remain below applicable standards and do not
pose a health risk. Air quality monitoring will ensure that vapor levels are
compatible with existing regulations.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all Impacts
initially identified as “significant” or “potentially significant” that are not reduced to less than
significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR
and are therefore determined to be “significant and unavoidable” impacts of the proposed
project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15091(a), a specific finding is made for each
impact and its associated mitigation measures in the discussions below.
Cultural and Historic Resources
150515 jb 0131441 20
NOT YET APPROVED
Impact CUL-2: Demolition of the existing building at 2555 Park Boulevard, which is
considered eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, would cause a
significant impact to a historic resource and would eliminate an example of a major
period of California history.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: The project proponent shall document the affected
historical resource and its setting. Generally, this documentation shall be in
accordance with Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II, which
includes:
1. Drawings: select existing drawings, where available; should be photographed
with large-format negatives or photographically reproduced on Mylar.
2. Photographs: photographs with large-format negatives of exterior and
interior views, or historic views, where available.
3. Written data: history and description in narrative or outline format.
HABS material standards regarding reproducibility, durability, and size shall be
met. Copies of the photographs and report shall be presented to repositories such
as the Palo Alto Historical Association Archives at the Palo Alto Public Library,
the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System
at Sonoma State University, and/or the California State Library.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which reduce the severity of a significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR. However, implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and
included in the MMP will not reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Therefore, this impact remains Significant and Unavoidable as discussed in Section
XII of these findings.
Explanation: This mitigation measure will create records of existing drawings, the current
condition of the building, and the current condition of any historic views. The
mitigation measure will create a written record of the history of the existing building
to be submitted to the appropriate repositories for historical records, thereby
ensuring that this impact is mitigated to the extent feasible.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.
IX. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES FINDINGS
Feasibility of Project Alternatives
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects
as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which
would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such project[s].” Where a
lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures,
a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot
be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated,
must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project
alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA.
150515 jb 0131441 21
NOT YET APPROVED
Although an EIR must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an agency
decision-making body may ultimately conclude that a potentially feasible alternative is
actually infeasible. (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th
957, 1001-1002.) CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(1) provides that among the factors that may be
taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are “site suitability,
economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or
regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can
reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.”
Grounds for a conclusion of infeasibility might be the failure of an alternative to fully satisfy
project objectives deemed to be important by decision-makers, or the fact that an
alternative fails to promote policy objectives of concern to such decision-makers. (Id. at pp.
992, 1000-1003.) It is well established under CEQA that an agency may reject alternatives
based on economic infeasibility. (Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage v. City
and County of San Francisco (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 893, 913-914; San Franciscans Upholding
the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 774;
Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1399-1400;
Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1510.) In addition, the definition of
feasibility encompasses “desirability” to the extent that an agency’s determination of
infeasibility represents a reasonable balancing of competing economic, environmental, social,
and technological factors supported by substantial evidence. (City of Del Mar v. City of San
Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410; 417.) Thus, even if a project alternative will avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of a proposed project as
mitigated, the decision-makers may reject the alternative for such reasons.
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f) states that the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed
by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to
permit a reasoned choice. Further, CEQA Guidelines §15126(a) requires that an EIR describe a
reasonable range of alternatives that would “feasibly obtain most of the basic project
objectives” but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental
effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. CEQA case
law has further indicated that the lead agency has the discretion to determine how many
alternatives constitute the requisite “reasonable range” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of
Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 566), and that an EIR need not present alternatives that are
incompatible with fundamental project objectives (Save San Francisco Bay Association vs. San
Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 908). Thus,
the project objectives described above in section VI of these findings provided the
framework for defining the possible alternatives. Based upon guidance contained in the CEQA
Guidelines and applicable case law as well as the project objectives, the Draft EIR considered
two project alternatives to the 2555 Park Boulevard project: the Building Preservation
Alternative and the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Alternative. The Draft EIR
also considered the no project alternative as required by CEQA.
The City Council finds that that a good-faith effort was made to evaluate a reasonable range of
potentially feasible alternatives in the EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the project
and could feasibly obtain most of the basic objectives of the project, even when the
alternatives might impede the attainment of the project’s objectives and might be more costly.
150515 jb 0131441 22
NOT YET APPROVED
Alternatives were considered that would result in a substantial reduction or elimination of
identified significant cultural resources and hazards and hazardous materials impacts.
However, mitigation measures would continue to be required for each of these impacts under
either of the two project alternatives. The Building Preservation Alternative studied in the EIR
would also reduce, but not to a level of less than significant or entirely avoid, the
proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources.
No Project Alternative
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(1) provides the following direction relative to the No Project
Alternative:
The specific alternative of “no project” shall also be evaluated
along with its impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a
no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare
the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of
not approving the proposed project.
The No Project Alternative assumes that the proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project would not
be constructed and that the existing 10,800-square-foot general office building and
surface parking for 28 cars would remain. No demolition would occur, and there would be no
change in use or increase in office space. The EIR concluded that this alternative would
avoid the Cultural and historic resource and hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the
proposed project. No impacts to transportation and traffic would occur. The No Project
Alternative would not meet any of the proposed project objectives.
Feasibility of the No Project Alternative: The City Council finds that this alternative is
infeasible in that it meets none of the project objectives. Specifically, it does not support
the project objectives of increasing the usable square footage and associated rental income
of the site, enhancing the street frontage to create a pedestrian and bike-friendly
environment, or meeting current building standards. For all of the foregoing reasons, and
for any of them individually, the City Council determines that the No Project Alternative is
infeasible and is hereby rejected.
Building Preservation Alternative
The Building Preservation Alternative assumes that the existing building is retrofitted rather
than demolished and no new building is constructed. This alternative was considered and
analyzed for the possibility that maintaining and improving the existing building could
potentially reduce the proposed project’s significant impacts.
In order to bring the existing building up to current codes, several improvements would be
necessary, while others would not be feasible due to site constraints. For example, 15
additional parking spaces would be needed to meet the City’s code; however, the site
cannot accommodate additional parking spaces within its current limits. Some of the
improvements to the existing building that would be necessary under this alternative include
seismic retrofitting, restroom upgrades, addition of an elevator, replacement of the interior
150515 jb 0131441 23
NOT YET APPROVED
stairway, lead-based paint and asbestos removal, mechanical and electrical system upgrades,
and installation of interior fire safety sprinklers and building insulation. In order to maximize
preservation of the building’s historic features and reduce impacts to Cultural and historic
resources, all retrofitting activities would need to reflect consideration of the historic
character and quality of the building, including preservation of historic materials and visual
compatibility of improvements.
The Building Preservation Alternative would meet some of the project objectives by achieving
compliance with many code requirements. However, it would not be feasible to comply with all
code requirements. This alternative would not meet the project objectives of increasing
the usable square footage onsite, reducing the need for offsite parking, or improving the bicycle
and pedestrian environment.
Because this alternative does not propose to demolish the existing historic building, the
Building Preservation Alternative would reduce the significant and unavoidable impact on the
historic resource relative to the proposed project. However, because this alternative would
require extensive building repairs and retrofitting, the building’s historic character may be
diminished and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
This alternative does not propose demolition or a subterranean parking lot, both of which
would result in impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials under the proposed project.
The project would implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-8 to reduce all hazards
and hazardous materials impacts to less-than-significant levels. The Building Preservation
Alternative would further reduce these impacts and eliminate the need for implementation
of Mitigation Measures HAZ-6 through HAZ-8. The Building Preservation Alternative would
result in similar impacts to traffic and transportation as the proposed project but, unlike the
proposed project, this alternative would not provide for adequate onsite parking. The EIR
concluded that the Building Preservation Alternative is Environmentally Superior to the
proposed project because it avoids or reduces some of the project’s significant effects.
Feasibility of the Building Preservation Alternative: The City Council finds that this
alternative is infeasible for the reasons that it does not substantially reduce impacts
compared to the proposed project. The Building Preservation Alternative results in the same
significant and unavoidable impacts as the proposed project and would not provide the
potential project benefit of reducing the demand for off-site parking. Further this alternative
would not support the project objectives of increasing the usable square footage and
associated rental income of the site, enhancing the street frontage to create a pedestrian
and bike-friendly environment.
For all of the foregoing reasons, and for any of them individually, the City Council
determines that the Building Preservation Alternative is infeasible and is hereby rejected.
PTOD Alternative
The PTOD Alternative assumes requires that the project site would be rezoned as part of the
California Avenue PTOD Combining District, which allows for higher density residential uses
within walking distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station. The project site would be
150515 jb 0131441 24
NOT YET APPROVED
redeveloped as a mixed-use development with both multifamily residential and commercial
uses. This alternative was considered and analyzed as an alternative that would meet the stated
objective of generating increased rental income and supporting the vision of the City’s Draft
California Avenue Area Concept Plan, including the Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development
overlay and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
The EIR concluded that the PTOD Alternative meets most of the project objectives by
redeveloping the site with a building that meets current standards and increasing the usable
square footage of the site. This alternative would also meet the objectives related to
pedestrian and bicycle friendly features and the provision of adequate onsite parking.
Under the PTOD Alternative, the impacts to Cultural and historic resources, hazardous
materials, and traffic would be generally the same as under the proposed project. Impacts to
the historic resource onsite would remain significant and unavoidable, and impacts related
to traffic and hazardous materials would remain less than significant or significant but mitigable.
Feasibility of Alternative C: The City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible for the
reasons that it does not substantially reduce impacts compared to the proposed project.
The PTOD Alternative results in the same significant and unavoidable impacts as the
proposed project and would require the same mitigation measures as would be required
under the proposed project.
For all of the foregoing reasons, and for any of them individually, the City Council
determines that the PTOD Alternative is infeasible and is hereby rejected.
X. GROWTH INDUCEMENT FINDINGS
As required by CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d), an EIR must discuss ways in which a proposed
project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing,
either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also, the EIR must discuss the
characteristics of the project that could encourage and facilitate other activities that
could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.
Growth can be induced in a number of ways, such as through the elimination of obstacles to
growth, through the stimulation of economic activity within the region, or through the
establishment of policies or other precedents that directly or indirectly encourage additional
growth. Induced growth would be considered a significant impact if it can be demonstrated
that the potential growth would directly or indirectly have a significant effect on the
environment.
Residential development can induce growth by increasing the local population, which may lead
to increased commercial activity, which may increase the local supply of jobs. Extension of
public infrastructure or services can accommodate growth by removing constraints to
development. A growth-inducing project directly or indirectly:
♦ Fosters economic or population growth or additional housing;
♦ Removes obstacles to growth;
150515 jb 0131441 25
NOT YET APPROVED
♦ Taxes community services or facilities to such an extent that new services or facilities
would be necessary; or
♦ Encourages or facilitates other activities that cause significant environmental effects.
The 2555 Park Boulevard project would provide additional office space in the City by increasing
the usable office space by approximately 12,469 square feet. This increase in office space
would accommodate additional employees and could indirectly induce a small amount of
growth because some employees would seek housing and purchase foods and services in the
area.
Finding: The 2555 Park Boulevard project would not induce substantial growth in the
project area or region.
Explanation: The potential for growth inducement due to the increase in office space is
not considered substantial. The increase in employment opportunities the
project would provide would be insufficient to trigger noticeable changes in the
housing market or demand for local goods and services. In addition,
construction of the proposed project would be temporary and these short-term
construction jobs are anticipated to be filled by workers who, for the most part,
reside in the surrounding areas.
XI. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FINDINGS
The City Council finds that the methodology used in the EIR to determine cumulative impacts
complies with CEQA in that it assumed growth in accordance with the City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan as well as considering other known development projects in the region,
and it provides an analysis of potential for the 2555 Park Boulevard project to contribute to
cumulative impacts in the project area.
Finding: The City Council finds that the project would result in a less than considerable
contribution to significant cumulative impacts in the project area.
Cultural and Historic Resources: Cumulative impacts to cultural resources may
jeopardize the eligibility of one or more cultural resources eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR). Other than the existing building onsite, the project would not
impact other listed buildings or buildings with the potential to be listed in the project
vicinity. Other examples of Mid-Century Modern architectural style are in the
vicinity of the project. While it is not anticipated that a past, present, or reasonably
foreseeable project would adversely impact these buildings, the City’s development
history suggests that other buildings constructed in the early 1960s may be proposed
for alteration or demolition. Many of these buildings have already been altered and
may not be eligible for listing on the NRHP or the CRHR. The 2555 Park Boulevard
project would not increase the likelihood of other projects to be proposed that
would affect historic resources. As required for the 2555 Park Boulevard project and
may be required during the City’s review of other projects with the potential to
150515 jb 0131441 26
NOT YET APPROVED
adversely affect historic resources, requirements to record historic features and
information would preserve the knowledge of historic structures in the area.
The proposed project’s contribution to potentially ongoing impacts to cultural
and historic resources would not be cumulatively considerable.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects in the vicinity of the proposed project have the potential to result in similar
impacts related to hazardous materials as the proposed project, including the
presence of contaminated groundwater and hazardous materials that could be
released during demolition and remodeling. Other projects in the vicinity could also
use hazardous materials. However, the majority of hazardous materials issues
related to contaminated groundwater or hazardous building materials are site-
specific. Releases of trichloroethylene (TCE) from groundwater or air contaminants
from demolished buildings would not result in a local or regional increase in air
contaminants that could lead to health hazards. The established land use
designations in the project vicinity do not indicate that use, transport, or exposure of
hazardous materials would increase as the planning area is developed. The project
would not contribute to cumulative increases in impacts to hazards and hazardous
materials.
Transportation and Traffic: In the cumulative condition, it is expected that some
local roadways and intersections in the project vicinity would operate at
unacceptable levels of service. However, addition of traffic generated by the 2555
Park Boulevard project would not significantly increase the average delay or
volume/capacity ratios for any intersection. The proposed project’s contribution
to the cumulative traffic scenario is considered less than cumulatively
considerable.
Explanation: The potential impacts of project activities are limited to site specific
conditions and would not result in any cumulatively considerable contributions
to cumulative impacts in the project vicinity or region.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The 2555 Park Boulevard EIR concluded that even with implementation of all feasible
mitigation measures and project alternatives, the project will cause the following
significant unavoidable impact:
Impact CUL-2: Demolition of the existing building at 2555 Park Boulevard, which is
considered eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, would cause
a significant impact to a historic resource and would eliminate an example of a
major period of California history.
The City of Palo Alto has considered and adopted all feasible mitigation measures with
respect to this impact, which lessens the impact but does not entirely avoid or reduce it
below a level of significance, as discussed in Section VIII of these Findings.
150515 jb 0131441 27
NOT YET APPROVED
The environmentally superior alternative (Building Preservation Alternative) would lessen
some impacts of the proposed project, but would not avoid the Significant and
Unavoidable impact of the project. Further, as described above in Section IX, the
environmentally superior alternative is not feasible.
The primary purpose of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public as to
the environmental effects of a proposed project and to include feasible mitigation
measures and alternatives to reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance.
CEQA recognizes and authorizes the approval of such projects where not all adverse impacts
can be fully lessened or avoided. Before such a project can be approved, the public agency
must consider and adopt a “statement of overriding considerations” pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §§15043 and 15093. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines §15093(b) requires that
when a public agency approves a project that will result in the occurrence of significant and
unavoidable impacts, the agency must “state in writing the reasons to support its action
based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record.” The agency’s statement of
overriding considerations must explain and justify the agency’s conclusion to approve
such a project, setting forth the proposed project’s general social, economic, policy or
other public benefits which support the agency’s informed conclusion to approve the
project.
The following statement identifies why, in the City Council’s judgment, the benefits of
the project as approved outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. Any one of these
reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude
that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would stand by
its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence
supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are
incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents included in the Record of
Proceedings.
The City Council finds that the significant and unavoidable impact previously identified
and briefly explained above is acceptable because mitigation measures have been required
to reduce this impact to the extent feasible, and on balancing the benefits to be realized by
approval of the proposed project against the remaining environmental risks, the following
economic, social, and other considerations outweigh the impacts and support approval of
the proposed project.
Accordingly the City Council recognizes that a significant and unavoidable impact would
result from implementation of the proposed project. Having (1) adopted all feasible
mitigation measures; (2) rejected the alternatives to the project as infeasible, as discussed
above; (3) recognized all significant, unavoidable impacts; and (4) balanced the benefits of
the proposed project against the significant and unavoidable effect, the City Council finds
that the benefits outweigh and override the significant unavoidable effect for the reasons
stated below.
The City Council finds that the 2555 Park Boulevard project meets the following stated
project objectives – which have substantial social, economic, policy and other public
150515 jb 0131441 28
NOT YET APPROVED
benefits – justifying its approval and implementation, notwithstanding the fact that not all
environmental impacts were fully reduced below a level of significance:
Implementation of the 2555 Park Boulevard project will provide for the following:
♦ Development of a new office building on the site that generates increased rental
income and supports the vision of the City’s Draft California Avenue Area Concept
Plan, specifically Goal CACP-3 which calls for promoting Park Boulevard as a hub of
innovation and entrepreneurship for small new companies; and supports related
planning initiatives such as the Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development overlay
and Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
♦ Replacement of the existing office building at the 2555 Park Boulevard site with a
modern building that meets current standards for structural design, site and
building accessibility, and hazardous materials.
♦ Replacement of the existing office building at the 2555 Park Boulevard site with an
energy and water efficient office building.
♦ Doubling the usable square footage of a transit-accessible site by increasing the
building height to three stories and providing parking at grade and underground.
♦ Creating a pedestrian and bicycle friendly street frontage with wide sidewalks,
amenities, and street trees.
♦ Increasing onsite parking to reduce off-site parking demands associated with the
office use at the site.
Balancing Competing Goals
The City Council further finds that it is necessary to balance competing goals in approving the
2555 Park Boulevard project and the environmental documentation for the project. Not
every environmental concern has been fully satisfied due to infeasibility and there is a need
to satisfy competing concerns to some extent. The City Council has chosen to accept the
significant and unavoidable environmental impact resulting from the 2555 Park Boulevard
project because complete avoidance or reduction of the impact to a less than significant
level is infeasible and not approving the project would unduly compromise other important
economic, social, or other goal. The City Council finds and determines that the 2555 Park
Boulevard project, the supporting environmental documentation, and the evidence in the
administrative record as a whole provide for a positive balance of the competing goals and
that the economic, fiscal, social, environmental, land-use and other benefits to be obtained
by the project outweigh any remaining environmental and related potential significant
impacts of the project.
150515 jb 0131441 29
______________________________ _________________________________
_________________________________
_______________________________
_________________________________
NOT YET APPROVED
XIII. CONCLUSION
The mitigation measures listed in conjunction with each of the findings set forth above,
as implemented through the MMP, will eliminate or reduce to a less than significant level
most adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project, except for the significant
and unavoidable impact listed in Section XII above.
Taken together, the Final EIR, the mitigation measures, and the MMP provide an adequate basis
for approval of the 2555 Park Boulevard project.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
150515 jb 0131441 30
ATTACHMENT E
2555 Park Boulevard Project
Mitigation Monitoring Program
INTRODUCTION
Section 15097 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires
that, whenever a public agency approves a project based on an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), the public agency shall establish a mitigation monitoring or reporting program to ensure
that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented.
This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is intended to satisfy this requirement of the
CEQA Guidelines as it relates to the 2555 Park Boulevard project (proposed project). This MMP
would be used by City staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with
mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this
MMP were developed in the EIR prepared for the proposed project, State Clearinghouse
#2014042050.
As noted above, the intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and
enforcement of all adopted mitigation measures. The MMP will provide for monitoring of
mitigation measure implementation through the plan check process, construction monitoring
and inspections, post-construction building inspections, and in the field identification and
resolution of environmental concerns.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The City of Palo Alto will coordinate monitoring activities and ensure appropriate
documentation of mitigation measure implementation. The table below identifies each
mitigation measure for the proposed project and the associated implementation, monitoring,
timing and performance requirements.
The MMP table presented on the following pages identifies:
1. the full text of each applicable mitigation measure;
2. the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure;
3. the timing of implementation of each mitigation measure including any ongoing
monitoring requirements; and
4. performance criteria by which to ensure mitigation requirements have been met.
Following completion of the monitoring and documentation process, the final monitoring
results will recorded and incorporated into the project file maintained by the City’s Department
of Planning and Community Environment.
It is noted that the mitigation measure numbering reflects the numbering used in EIR prepared
for the project (Dudek 2014).
2555 Park Boulevard Project Page 1
Mitigation Monitoring Program December 2014
2555 Park Boulevard Project
Mitigation Monitoring Program
2555 Park Boulevard Project Page 12
Mitigation Monitoring Program December 2014
2555 Park Boulevard Project
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Intentionally Left Blank
2555 Park Boulevard Project Page 13
Mitigation Monitoring Program December 2014
Attachment F
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5749)
Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 4/29/2015
Summary Title: 2555 Park Boulevard
Title: Request for Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Review of a
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Recommendation for EIR
Certification for a Proposal by FGY Architects on Behalf of Campbell Avenue
Portfolio LLC to Demolish an Existing 10,800 sq. ft. Two-story Mid-century
Modern Office Building and Construct a new 24,466 sq. ft. Three-story Office
Building with One Level of Below Grade Parking and a Roof Terrace in the
Community Commercial (CC(2)) Zone District. The Architectural Review
Board has Recommended Approval of the Application, Which Includes a
Design Enhancement Exception Request to Allow Two Stair Towers and a
Roof Top Canopy Structure to Exceed the Height Limit by 10 and 13 Feet
Respectively.
From: Russ Reich, Interim Planning Manager
Lead Department: Planning & Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend City
Council approval of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed project at
2555 Park Boulevard.
Executive Summary
The P&TC is requested to review and recommend approval of the Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) for a new 24,466 square foot (sf), three story office building on a 12,518 sf site.
The Draft Environmental Impact report (DEIR) was reviewed by the P&TC on October 29, 2014.
The P&TC comments, along with the comments of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and
the Historic Resources Board (HRB), have been summarized in the attached FEIR (Attachment
A). Responses to each of the comments have also been provided within the document. The
discussion section of this staff report summarizes the commonly raised comments and the
responses to those comments.
The proposed project includes one level of below grade parking for 92 vehicles to meet the
City of Palo Alto Page 1
P&TC Packet page 1 of 59
parking demand for the new building, which would replace a 10,800 sf, two-story, mid-century
modern office building. The existing building is over 50 years old and has been unaltered since
its original construction. A historic analysis supports that the existing building is eligible for
listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. As the structure is proposed to be
demolished, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to inform the public and
responsible agencies of the potential adverse effects.
P&TC Purview
The project outlined above is subject to ARB review and Director Decision. However, because
the FEIR must be certified by the City Council prior to any final decision whether to approve the
project, the Council will also make the final decision on the Architectural Review application.
The P&TC’s role is to review and consider recommending certification of the FEIR and provide
its recommendation to the City Council. The ARB has recommended approval of the ARB
application and DEE request, and its recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for
a final decision on the project, along with the P&TC’s recommendation on the FEIR.
Background
To initiate the EIR process, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study
(IS) to solicit agency and public comments on the scope of the environmental analysis to be
included in the EIR.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building, which is eligible for listing on the
California Register of Historic Resources; therefore, the project would result in a significant
impact and an EIR has been prepared.
Architectural Review Board
The EIR scoping meeting was held during the April 17, 2014 ARB hearing, to provide the public
an early opportunity to provide input and learn about the DEIR process. The ARB then
conducted a preliminary review of the conceptual project on June 5, 2014, providing comments
related to building massing, interior setback, traffic/parking, the tensile structure, and the
second floor balcony railing. On October 16, 2014 the ARB reviewed and unanimously
recommended the formal project and the DEIR, and asked for specific details to return to the
ARB subcommittee to satisfy approval conditions (and this review will take place prior to the
City Council action on the project).
Planning and Transportation Commission
On October 29, 2014 the P&TC reviewed the DEIR and provided comments. Those comments
and responses are provided in the attached FEIR. The commonly raised issues, and responses
to those issues, are summarized in the discussion section below.
Historic Resources Board
On November 19, 2014 the HRB reviewed the DEIR and provided comments. While the HRB
review was not a required step in the Architectural Review process, the HRB’s input was sought
City of Palo Alto Page 2
P&TC Packet page 2 of 59
in conjunction with the Environmental document, since the only issue that cannot be mitigated
is the demolition of an historic resource. The HRB’s comments and the environmental
consultant’s responses are provided in the FEIR.
Site Information
The project site is a trapezoidal-shaped property on the northeast side of Park Boulevard,
between Sherman and Grant Avenues. A location map showing the property, and surrounding
properties, is attached (Attachment B). The total area of the site is 12,518 sf. The property is
currently occupied by a two-story office building with at-grade parking. The existing “H”-
shaped building was built in 1964 in the Mid-Century Modern style of architecture. Since the
building is 50 years old and does not appear to have been altered since its construction, it has
been determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources under
Criterion 3 (architecture). Under CEQA, this qualifies the structure as a historic resource. The
property is zoned Community Commercial (CC(2)).
Context
The site’s Comprehensive Plan land use designation is Regional Community Commercial. The
property’s primary street frontage is located on Park Boulevard. Typical uses in the immediate
vicinity include multifamily residential and office uses. Slightly further to the north west of the
site is the California Avenue Business District with a multitude of restaurants and retail
businesses. The site is also located about 800 feet from the California Avenue Cal Train station.
Adjacent uses to the northwest include a two-story, single-family residence and a two-story,
professional office building. Adjacent uses to the northeast include office and other commercial
uses in a single story structure. To the southwest, across Park Boulevard, is the four-story
County Courthouse building surrounded by at-grade parking. To the southeast, across Grant
Avenue, are a single-story office building and three-story, multifamily residential buildings. To
the south, diagonally across from the intersection of Grant and Park Boulevard, is a surface
level parking lot.
Project Description
The project includes the demolition of the existing two-story office building and the
construction of a new 24,466 sf, three-story office building. A total of 92 parking spaces would
be provided on site in both at grade and below grade facilities beneath the new building. Most
of the parking spaces would be provided within mechanical lift systems to improve the
efficiency of the garage space. Vehicle access to the parking areas would be provided from
Grant Avenue. The curb cut along Park Boulevard would be removed to improve bicycle safety.
The proposed building is a modern design with two horizontal board-form concrete finished
stair towers, designed to anchor the building at each end of the site. The two-story glass office
block would float between the open balconies. Three of the four balconies would have cable
railings, while the fourth balcony above the main entry would have a vertical painted metal
picket. Each of the four balconies would be exposed concrete. The building walls would be
City of Palo Alto Page 3
P&TC Packet page 3 of 59
stucco plaster with a curtain wall system using clear double glazed windows with aluminum
frames. The south and east facing facades would have double height, vertical sun shade mullion
fins, to reduce heat gain. The glass office block would float over a green wall with vines at the
first level that would screen the at-grade parking. In front of the green wall would be a
concrete planter with a wood plank bench adjacent to the public sidewalk.
The building design also features a rooftop tensile structure to allow greater usage of the roof
deck and to assist in keeping the building cooler in the hot summer months. This structure is
the subject of the requested Design Enhancement Exception (DEE).
Discussion
During the comment period on the DEIR the City received a total of 10 comment letters and
multiple verbal comments during three public hearings. The FEIR includes master responses to
commonly raised comments; five master responses provide a detailed discussion of particular
project issues and environmental effects. These issues include concerns over the Function of
the Grant-Park Intersection, Queuing onto Grant Avenue, the Design Enhancement Exceptions,
Visitor and Guest Parking, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety.
Grant-Park Intersection Function
Some commenters raised concerns regarding the intersection of Grant Avenue and Park
Boulevard; specifically, the concerns were about the difficulty for vehicles exiting Grant and
circulating onto Park. Some neighbors felt the lack of visibility at the busy intersection would
be exacerbated by the new project. Others asked that the City install a new stop sign at the
intersection. This intersection was analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis, which found the
intersection currently operates at acceptable levels, and the existing and proposed volume of
traffic would not warrant a new stop sign at this location.
Staff identified measures to improve visibility and pedestrian safety at this intersection. The
project includes a new cross walk, signs and pavement striping in conjunction with the new
project. The project also includes a new curb extension or “bulb-out” at the north-west corner
of Grant and Park. This would ensure greater visibility by moving parked cars further from the
intersection and providing protection for vehicles exiting Grant, allowing drivers to pull farther
forward into the street within the width of the bulb-out. The applicant is also required to paint
the bike lane through the intersection to assist drivers to pull forward to check for oncoming
traffic.
Queuing onto Grant Avenue
Some commenters voiced concern about vehicle back-ups, or queuing, onto Grant Avenue as a
result of drivers trying to park within the proposed project. Since the parking is provided within
mechanical lift systems, there was concern that the time it may take to park a vehicle within the
lift may cause cars to back up onto Grant Avenue and onto Park Boulevard. The question is
understandable, considering most people are not familiar with mechanical parking lift systems.
The traffic consultant prepared a supplemental analysis to study this concern and has
City of Palo Alto Page 4
P&TC Packet page 4 of 59
determined that backups onto Grant are highly unlikely. The lifts are designed to operate very
quickly, taking only a minute or two to load a vehicle. The statistical analysis looked at the time
it takes to load a vehicle at the busiest part of the day based on the anticipated peak demand.
The resulting determination is that backups are not likely to occur.
Design Enhancement Exception
Some of the commenters expressed concern over the requested Design Enhancement
Exception (DEE) for height. The proposed DEE would allow two stair towers and a roof top
canopy structure to exceed the allowable height by 11 feet and 13 feet respectively. The ARB
has recommended approval of the DEE with the condition that the canopy structure be reduced
in size. The Board had no objection to the aesthetics of the features. Privacy and shading were
also listed as concerns. The roof top patio would be located away from the edges of the
building such that people on the rooftop patio would not be able to stand at the edges of the
building and be able to look down onto the neighboring properties. A shadow analysis was
conducted to review existing and proposed shading of the neighboring single-family residence.
The study found that the neighboring residence was already impacted to some degree by the
existing privacy fence between the properties and the existing office building on the adjacent
property. While the proposed project will cast additional shadow, design changes in the project
have reduced the shadow impact to the adjacent residential neighbor from the shadow impact
of the initial submittal. The revised design reduced the building height and increased the
building setback.
Visitor and Guest Parking
Several commenters raised the concern over the availability of guest parking within the project.
The proposed project meets the parking requirements of the code by providing all 92 required
parking spaces on site. These are provided within mechanical lift systems to make the most
efficient use of a limited amount of space. The mechanical lift systems require individual
remotes for access to the spaces making the parking spaces within the building only accessible
to building occupants. This scenario does not accommodate parking for guests, visitors, or non-
building occupants. This concern was raised early in the process and the EIR considered a
parking exemption option that would eliminate some of the parking lifts and free up some of
the machine parking lift spaces with regular parking spaces that could be used by guests and
visitors. Elimination of these parking machine lifts would reduce the number of overall parking
spaces within the building by ten spaces. To offset this reduction in parking spaces, the parking
exemption scenario would be coupled with a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan
that would provide Go Passes for the building occupants. With close proximity to Cal-Train and
VTA buses, the Go Pass strategy would likely reduce the overall number of vehicles traveling to
and from the site.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
Some respondents commented that the new vehicle trips generated by the project would lead
to increased safety issues for cyclists and pedestrians. The concern is that there would be an
increase in the bicycle-car interactions and that the cumulative increase in vehicle and bicycle
City of Palo Alto Page 5
P&TC Packet page 5 of 59
trips would lead to unsafe interactions with pedestrians. The desire for a stop sign at the Grant
and Park intersection was again suggested. The traffic analysis determined that the project
would not substantially increase the traffic on Park, and would therefore not substantially
increase the potential for conflicts to occur. By eliminating the driveway into the project from
Park, the number of locations in which a vehicle could cross over the bicycle lane on Park would
be reduced thus improving bicycle safety. The project would also add a cross walk at this
intersection improving pedestrian safety as well.
Timeline
Application submitted September 9, 2013
EIR scoping meeting before the ARB April 17, 2014
Preliminary ARB meeting June 5, 2014
Release of the DEIR for the 45 day public comment period September 5, 2014
ARB meeting recommendation on AR and DEE October 16, 2014
P&TC meeting on DEIR October 29, 2014
P&TC meeting on FEIR April 29, 2015
Final EIR Certification by City Council June 1, 2015
Final Decision on the Proposed Project by City Council June 1, 2015
Environmental Review
The City has prepared a FEIR to provide the public and responsible agencies information about
potential adverse effects on the local and regional environment associated with the proposed
2555 Park Boulevard project. The FEIR is provided as Attachment A. The initial 45 day public
comment period on the DEIR began on September 5, 2014 and ran through October 20, 2014.
The public comment period was extended to November 19, 2014. The FEIR was prepared after
input was received during public hearings of the ARB, the HRB, and the P&TC.
The City began the environmental analysis with an Initial Study. The Initial Study determined
that the project could have a significant impact on the environment, which triggered the
requirement to prepare an EIR, and indicated that the EIR would need to discuss three
environmental topics: Cultural and Historic Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and
Transportation and Traffic.
For each of the three topics, the DEIR describes the existing environmental and regulatory
conditions, presents the criteria used to determine whether an impact would be significant,
analyses significant impacts identifies mitigation measures for each significant impact, and
discusses the significance of impacts after mitigation has been applied. Potential direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts are all considered.
Cultural and Historic Resources
Two possible impacts were identified under the Cultural and Historic Resources section. One
impact was identified as being significant and unavoidable. This impact is the demolition of the
existing mid-century modern building that has been identified as being eligible for listing on the
City of Palo Alto Page 6
P&TC Packet page 6 of 59
California Register of Historic Resources. The loss of the historic resources would be considered
a Significant and Unavoidable impact under CEQA. Mitigation measures are proposed, but
these measures cannot reduce the level of significance to a less than significant level, therefore
the City would need to adopt a statement of overriding considerations in order to approve the
proposed project. The other impact identified was the possible disturbance of archeological
remains during excavation. With mitigation, this impact was less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
There were five areas of this section that were identified as being potentially significant. These
are related to construction debris, the handling of existing hazardous materials within the
building, disturbance of contaminated soils, the release of VOC from the contaminated ground
water, and vapor intrusion from the contaminated ground water. Mitigation measures have
been included that reduce the level of significance to a less than significant level.
Transportation and Traffic
The environmental analysis found no significant impacts related to traffic, and no mitigation
measures are needed. However, it should be noted that the proposed project would provide
ample parking, is a short distance from CalTrain, and an option is being analyzed that would
provide a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program with CalTrain Go Passes
as an incentive for transit use.
The FEIR contains the DEIR, the comments received during the public review period, responses
to the comments, and any revisions to the DEIR needed as a result of public agency and public
comments.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Final EIR (PDF)
Attachment B: Site Location Map (PDF)
Attachment C: CEQA Findings(PDF)
Attachment D: Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) (PDF)
Attachment E: 2555 Park Blvd. Project Plans (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 7
P&TC Packet page 7 of 59
P&TC Packet page 8 of 59
Attachment A
Final EIR
2555 Park Blvd.
Hard copies to Planning & Transportation Commissioners, staff,
libraries and Development Services Center
Can be found on-line at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=46951
P&TC Packet page 9 of 59
P&TC Packet page 10 of 59
P&TC Packet page 11 of 59
P&TC Packet page 12 of 59
ATTACHMENT C
2555 Park Boulevard Project
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations
SCH # 2014042050
April 2015
P&TC Packet page 13 of 59
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................... 1
I. Overview and Introduction......................................................................................................... 1
II. Procedural History ........................................................................................................................ 1
III. Statutory Requirements for Findings ......................................................................................... 3
Legal Effects of Findings................................................................................................. 4
IV. Definitions...................................................................................................................................... 5
V. Project Background....................................................................................................................... 6
VI. Project Objectives and Description............................................................................................. 6
Project Objectives ............................................................................................................. 6
Project Description........................................................................................................... 6
VII. Record of Proceedings.................................................................................................................. 7
VIII. General Findings........................................................................................................................... 8
Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant ........................................................ 8
Significant and Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant
With Implementation of Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 14
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ......................................................................... 20
IX. Project Alternatives Findings .................................................................................................... 21
Feasibility of Project Alternatives ................................................................................ 21
X. Growth Inducement Findings ................................................................................................... 25
XI. Cumulative Impacts Findings ................................................................................................... 26
XII. Statement of Overriding Considerations ................................................................................. 27
Balancing Competing Goals ......................................................................................... 29
XIII. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 29
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations i April 2015 P&TC Packet page 14 of 59
I. OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION
This Statement of Findings is made with respect to approval of a Major Architectural Review
and Design Enhancement Exception for the 2555 Park Boulevard project and states the findings
of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) relating to the potentially
significant environmental effects of the project.
The project applicant, Tarlton Properties, has requested that the City take the following actions:
1. Certification of an Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the Mitigation
Monitoring Plan.
2. Approval of Major Architectural Review.
3. Approval of a Design Enhancement Exception.
Approval of the Major Architectural Review and other requested entitlements constitutes the
project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code
Section (§) 21000 et seq.) (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines § 15378, and these determinations of the
City Council.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan designates land for Community Commercial
development; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and construct a new 24,466
square foot office building and onsite parking at 2555 Park Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to
prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) on April 4, 2014; prepared a Draft EIR
and released it for public comment in August 2014; received public comments on the
Draft EIR until November 19, 2014, including at a public hearing held before the
Architectural Review Board on October 16, 2014, a public hearing held before the
Planning and Transportation Commission on October 29, 2014, and a public hearing
held before the Historic Resources Board on November 19, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission gave notice of a public hearing to
consider and provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Final EIR
and the 2555 Park Boulevard project, and a public hearing was held before the
Planning and Transportation Commission on April 29, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the City Council gave notice of a public hearing to consider and act upon the Final
EIR for the 2555 Park Boulevard project, and a public hearing was held before the
City Council on DATE, 2015; and
WHEREAS, after holding public hearings, the Planning Commission considered the Final EIR as
prepared for the project (which includes the NOP and Initial Study dated April 4,
2014, the Draft EIR dated August 2014, the Final EIR dated April 2015), the
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 1 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 15 of 59
comments of the public, both oral and written, and all written materials in the record
connected therewith; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public process described above for the project, the City
Council certified the Final EIR and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program,
findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations, and approved the
requested entitlements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council as follows:
1. The foregoing statements of procedural history are correct and accurate.
2. The Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with all requirements of CEQA, the
CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Environmental Impact Ordinance, codified in Title 11
of the City’s Municipal Code.
3. The Final EIR was presented to and reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City
Council. The Final EIR was prepared under the supervision of the City and reflects the
independent judgment of the City. The City Council has reviewed the Final EIR, and
bases the findings stated below on such review and other substantial evidence in the
record.
4. The City finds that the Final EIR considers a reasonable range of potentially feasible
alternatives, sufficient to foster informed decision making, public participation and a
reasoned choice. Thus, the alternatives analysis in the EIR is sufficient to carry out the
purposes of such analysis under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
5. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR as complete, adequate and in full
compliance with CEQA and as providing an adequate basis for considering and acting
upon the 2555 Park Boulevard project and makes the following specific findings with
respect thereto.
6. The City Council agrees with the characterization of the Final EIR with respect to all
impacts initially identified as “less than significant” and finds that those impacts have
been described accurately and are less than significant as so described in the Final EIR.
This finding does not apply to impacts identified as significant and unavoidable or
significant or potentially significant that are reduced to a less than significant level by
mitigation measures included in the Final EIR. The disposition of each of those impacts
and the mitigation measures adopted to reduce them are addressed specifically in the
findings below.
7. All mitigation measures in the Final EIR are adopted and incorporated into the 2555
Park Boulevard project.
8. The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) includes all mitigation measures adopted
with respect to the project and explains how and by whom they will be implemented
and enforced.
9. The mitigation measures and the MMP have been incorporated into the Conditions of
Approval for the Major Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception and
have thus become part of and limitations upon the entitlements conferred by the Major
Architectural Review, Design Enhancement Exception and other project approvals.
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 2 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 16 of 59
10. The descriptions of the impacts in these findings are summary statements. Reference
should be made to the Final EIR for a more complete description.
11. The Planning Division is directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County
Clerk within five (5) working days in accordance with CEQA §21152(a) and CEQA
Guidelines §15094.
III. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS
This Statement of Findings addresses the environmental effects associated with the proposed
2555 Park Boulevard project, located in the City of Palo Alto on APN 124-29-011 located at 2555
Park Boulevard. This Statement of Findings is made pursuant to CEQA §§21081 and 21081.6
and CEQA Guidelines §15091.
Significant effects of the 2555 Park Boulevard project were identified in the Draft EIR. CEQA
§21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091 require that the Lead Agency prepare written findings for
identified significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each
finding. Less than significant effects (without mitigation) of the project were also identified in
the Draft EIR and Initial Study. CEQA does not require that the Lead Agency prepare written
findings for less than significant effects.
CEQA requires that the Lead Agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible,
to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur with
implementation of the project. Project mitigation or alternatives are not required, however,
where substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that they are infeasible or where the
responsibility for modifying the project lies with another agency. Specifically, CEQA
Guidelines §15091 states:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified
which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the
public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects,
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible
findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in
the record.
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 3 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 17 of 59
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has
concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation
measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific
reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a
program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the
project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant
environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit
conditions, agreements, or other measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other
material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based.
The “changes or alterations” referred to in §15091(a)(1) above, that are required in, or
incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of
the project, may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in Guidelines §15370,
including:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted
environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or
environments.
Legal Effects of Findings
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the
Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City of Palo
Alto hereby binds itself to implementing or ensuring the project applicant implements these
measures. These findings, in other words, constitute a binding set of obligations that will come
into effect when the City Council formally approves the 2555 Park Boulevard project.
CEQA requires that when a public agency has made the findings under CEQA Guidelines
§15091(a)(1) relative to an EIR, the public agency must also adopt a program for monitoring or
reporting on the revisions and mitigation measures that will avoid significant impacts.
The mitigation measures required of the 2555 Park Boulevard project are identified in the MMP.
The MMP is adopted concurrently with these findings as required by CEQA §21081.6(a)(1), and
will be implemented throughout construction and operation of the project. The Planning and
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 4 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 18 of 59
Community Environment Department will use the MMP to track and enforce compliance with
all mitigation measures. The MMP will remain available for public review during the
compliance period.
IV. DEFINITIONS
The following definitions apply where the subject words or acronyms are used in these
findings:
“ARB” means the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board.
“ACM” means asbestos-containing material.
“BAAQMD” means the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
“Cal-OSHA” means California Division of Occupational Safety and Health.
“City Council” means the City of Palo Alto City Council.
“CEQA” means the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code §21000
et seq.).
“Comprehensive Plan” means the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as adopted in
2007 with subsequent amendments.
“Condition” means a Condition of Approval adopted by the City in connection with
approval of the project.
“City” means the City of Palo Alto.
“Draft EIR” means the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated August 2014 for the
proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project.
“DTSC” means the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.
“EIR” means environmental impact report.
“Environmental Impact Ordinance” means the City of Palo Alto Environmental Impact
Ordinance, as codified in Title 11 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code.
“EPA” means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
“Final EIR” means the Final EIR as prepared for the project (which includes the NOP
and Initial Study dated April 4, 2014, the Draft EIR dated August 2014, the Final EIR
dated April 2015).
“HASP” means Health and Safety Plan.
“HRB” means the City of Palo Alto Historic Resources Board.
“LCM” means lead-containing material.
“MMP” means the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project.
“NOP” means Notice of Preparation of an EIR.
“P&TC” means the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission.
“PCE” means the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department.
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 5 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 19 of 59
“Project” means the proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project.
“PTOD” means Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development.
“RWQCB” means the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
“SMP” means Site Mitigation Plan.
“Zoning Ordinance” means the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, including all
amendments thereto.
V. PROJECT BACKGROUND
The project would demolish the existing 10,800-square-foot building at 2555 Park Boulevard
and construct a new 24,466 square foot office building and onsite parking. The existing
building was constructed in 1964 and appears eligible for inclusion in the California Register
under Criteria 3. The existing and proposed office use is consistent with the land use and
zoning designations for the site.
VI. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION
Project Objectives
As reported in the Draft EIR, the applicant’s stated objectives of the proposed 2555 Park
Boulevard project include:
1. Redevelop the 2555 Park Boulevard site with a safe, healthy, and energy-efficient
building that meets current standards for structural design, site and building
accessibility, and hazardous materials.
2. Develop a new office building on the site that generates increased rental income and
supports the vision of the City’s Draft California Avenue Area Concept Plan, specifically
Goal CACP-3, which calls for promoting Park Boulevard as a hub of innovation and
entrepreneurship for small new companies and supports related planning initiatives
such as the Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development overlay and Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
3. Increase the usable square footage of a transit-accessible site by increasing the building
height and providing parking at grade and underground.
4. Create a pedestrian and bicycle friendly street frontage with wide sidewalks, amenities,
and street trees.
5. Provide adequate parking to ensure the project is fully parked on site.
Project Description
The proposed project would involve the demolition of an existing two-story, 10,800-square-foot
general office building and 28 surface parking spaces, and the construction of a new three-story,
24,466-square-foot office building with a roof deck and 92 parking spaces. A conceptual site
plan of the proposed project is shown in Draft EIR Figure 2.4, and conceptual renderings are
shown in Draft EIR Figure 2.5.
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 6 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 20 of 59
A complete description of the project as proposed by the project applicant is provided in Section
2.4 of the Draft EIR, as modified in the Final EIR.
VII. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
In accordance with CEQA §21167.6(e), the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the
2555 Park Boulevard project includes, without limitation, the following documents:
The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the
project;
All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment
period on the NOP (provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR);
The Draft EIR (August 2014) for the project;
All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment
period on the Draft EIR;
All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the Project, in
addition to timely comments on the Draft EIR;
The Final EIR (April 2015) for the project, including comments received on the Draft
EIR and responses to those comments;
Documents cited or referenced in the Draft and Final EIRs;
The project MMP;
All findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the project and all
documents cited or referred to therein;
All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents
relating to the project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or
trustee agencies with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA
and with respect to the City’s action on the project;
All documents submitted to the City (including the P&TCand City Council) by other
public agencies or members of the public in connection with the project;
Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings,
and public hearings held by the City in connection with the project;
Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information
sessions, public meetings and public hearings;
The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and all environmental documents prepared in
connection with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan;
The City of Palo Alto Environmental Impact Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance (City
of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 11 and Title 18), and all other City Code provisions
cited in materials prepared by or submitted to the City;
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 7 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 21 of 59
Any and all resolutions and/or ordinances adopted by the City regarding the project,
and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those
resolutions;
Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state,
and local laws and regulations;
Any documents cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and
Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by CEQA §21167.6(e).
The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the
project, even if not every document was formally presented to the City Council, P&TC or City
Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the project. Without exception, any
documents set forth above not found in the project files fall into one of two categories. Many of
them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the City Council was aware in
approving the 2555 Park Boulevard project. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation
Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration
(1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6.) Other documents influenced the expert advice provided
to City staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City Council. For that reason, such
documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City Council’s decisions relating to
approval of the 2555 Park Boulevard project. (See Public Resources Code §21167.6(e)(10);
Browning-Ferris Industries c. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866;
Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 153, 155.)
The official custodian of the record is the Planning and Community Environment Director, 285
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301.
VIII. GENERAL FINDINGS
Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant
The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all impacts
identified as “no impact” or “less than significant” and finds that those impacts have been
described accurately and are less than significant as so described in the Final EIR.
This finding applies to the following impacts determined to be “less than significant” based on
the analysis in the Initial Study (circulated with the NOP and provided in Appendix A to the
Draft EIR) or in the Draft EIR. Some impacts that were identified in the Initial Study as being
“potentially significant” were later determined through the analysis in the Draft EIR to be “less
than significant.”
Aesthetics
Substantially Damage Scenic Resources along a Scenic Highway
Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site and Its
Surroundings
Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect on a Public View or View Corridor
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 8 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 22 of 59
Violate Existing Comprehensive Plan Policies Regarding Visual Resources
Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare Which Would Adversely Affect Day
or Nighttime Views in the Area
Substantially Shadow Public Open Space (Other Than Public Streets and Adjacent
Sidewalks) Between 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. from September 21 to March 21
Agriculture and Forestry
Convert Prime, Unique, or Important Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use
Conflict with Agricultural Zoning or a Williamson Act Contract
Conflict with Forest Land or Timberland Zoning
Result in Loss or Conversion of Forest Land
Cause Other Changes to the Existing Environment Which Could Result in Conversion of
Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use or Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest
Use
Air Quality
Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan
Violate Any Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Existing or Projected
Air Quality Violation
Contribute to Direct or Indirect Operational Emissions Exceeding the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District Criteria Air Pollutants of 80 Pounds Per Day
and/or 15 Tons Per Year for Nitrogen Oxides, Reactive Organic Gases, and Fine
Particulate Matter
Contribute to Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Exceeding the State Ambient Air
Quality Standard
Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Levels of Toxic Air Contaminants
Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People
Fail to Implement Applicable Construction Emission Control Measures Recommended
in Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines
Biological Resources
Adversely Affect Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species
Adversely Affect Riparian Habitat, Federally Protected Wetlands, or Other Sensitive
Natural Community
Conflict with Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural
Community Conservation Plan
Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources, Including the
City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance
Interfere Substantially with Wildlife Movement or Native Wildlife Nursery Sites
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 9 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 23 of 59
Cultural and Historic Resources
Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Local Cultural Resource Recognized by City Council
Resolution
Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Geologic Feature
Disturb Human Remains, Including Those Interred Outside Formal Cemeteries
Geology and Soils
Exposure to Rupture of an Earthquake Fault, Seismic Ground Shaking, Seismic-Related
Ground Failure, Liquefaction, or Landslides
Create Substantial Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Cause Substantial Siltation
Exposure to Unstable Earth Conditions or Changes in Geologic Substructures
Located on Expansive Soils
Exposure to Geologic and Geomorphological Hazards
Located on Soils Incapable of Adequately Supporting the Use of Septic Tanks or
Alternative Waste Water Disposal Systems, If Sewers Are Not Available
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Create Hazardous Emissions or Waste or Use Hazardous Substances Within One-
Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School
Construct a School on a Property Subject to Hazards
Located on a Site Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5
Expose Residents or Workers to Risks Associated with Public or Private
Airport/Airstrip
Expose People or Structures to Risks Involving Wildland Fires
Interfere with an Emergency Response Plan
Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or Environment through Routine Transport,
Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials During Project Operation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Expose People or Structures to Flood Risks from a Levee or Dam Failure
Adversely Affect Groundwater Supplies, Recharge, and Existing Flow Patterns
Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
Alter the Existing Onsite Drainage Pattern in a Manner Which Would Result in
Substantial Erosion or Siltation On- or Off Site
Alter the Existing Onsite Drainage Pattern in a Manner Which Would Substantially
Increase Surface Runoff or Result in Flooding On- or Off Site
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 10 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 24 of 59
Create or Contribute Runoff Water Which Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or
Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems or Provide Substantial Additional
Sources of Polluted Runoff
Place Structures within a 100-year Flood Hazard Area
Expose People or Structures to Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow
Cause Stream Bank Instability
Land Use and Planning
Physical Division or Disruption of an Established Community
Conflict with Any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the
Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect
Conflict with Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural
Community Conservation Plan
Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Type or Intensity of Existing or Planned
Land Use in the Area
Create a Land Use Incompatibility
Conflict with Established Residential, Recreational, Educational, Religious, or Scientific
Uses of an Area
Convert Prime, Unique, or Important Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use
Mineral Resources
Result in the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource Valuable to the Region
or State
Result in the Loss of Availability of a Locally-Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site
Noise
Expose Residents to Noise Levels in Excess of Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance
Standards
Cause a Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Above Levels Existing
without the Project
Expose People to Excessive Noise Associated with a Public Airport or Public Use
Airport
Expose People to Excessive Noise Associated with a Private Airstrip
Cause the Average 24 Hour Noise Level to Increase by 5.0 dB or More in an Existing
Residential Area
Cause the Average 24 Hour Noise Level to Increase by 3.0 dB or More in an Existing
Residential Area where the Average 24 Hour Noise Level Currently Exceeds 60
dB
Result in Indoor Noise Levels for Residential Development to Exceed an Average 24
Hour Noise Level of 45 dB
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 11 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 25 of 59
Result in Instantaneous Noise Levels of Great than 50 dB in Bedrooms or 55 dB in Other
Rooms in Areas with an Exterior Average 24 Hour Noise Level of 60 dB or
Greater
Generate Construction Noise Exceeding the Daytime Background Ambient Noise Levels
at Sensitive Receptors by 10 dBA or More
Population and Housing
Induce Substantial Population Growth, Directly or Indirectly
Displace Housing or People
Create a Substantial Imbalance between Employed Residents and Jobs
Public Services
Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated with the Provision of New or
Physically Altered Governmental Facilities or Interfere with the Service Ratios or
Performance Objectives of Local Fire Protection, Police Protection, School, Park,
or Other Public Facilities
Recreation
Contribute to the Substantial Physical Deterioration of Existing Recreational Facilities
Create an Adverse Physical Effect on the Environment Due to the Construction or
Expansion of Recreational Facilities
Transportation and Circulation
Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Design Feature or Incompatible Uses
Result in a Change in Air Traffic Patterns
Exceed the Capacity of the Existing Circulation System, Including Intersections, Streets,
Highways and Freeways, Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths, and Mass Transit
Conflict with an Applicable Congestion Management Program
Result in Inadequate Emergency Access
Result in Inadequate Parking Capacity that Impacts Traffic Circulation and Air Quality
Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs Supporting Alternative
Transportation
Cause a Local Intersection to Deteriorate Below LOS D and Cause an Increase in the
Average Stopped Delay for Critical Movements by Four Seconds or More and the
Critical Volume/Capacity Ratio Value to Increase by 0.01 or More
Cause a Local Intersection Already Operating at LOS E or F to Deteriorate in the
Average Stopped Delay for the Critical Movements by Four Seconds or More
Cause a Regional Intersection to Deteriorate from LOS E or Better to LOS F or Cause
Critical Movement Delay at an Intersection Operating at LOS F to Increase by
Four Seconds or More and the Critical Volume/Capacity Ratio Value to Increase
by 0.01 or More
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 12 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 26 of 59
Cause a Freeway Segment to Operate at LOS F or Contribute Traffic in Excess of 1% of
Segment Capacity to Freeway Segment Operating at LOS F
Cause any Change in Traffic that Would Increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment Index by 0.1 or More
Cause Queuing Impacts Based on a Comparative Analysis between Design Queue
Length and Available Queue Storage Capacity
Impede Development or Function of Planned Pedestrian or Bicycle Facilities
Impede Operation of Transit System as Result of Congestion
Utilities and Service Systems
Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements of the Applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board
Require or Result in the Construction of New or Expansion of Existing Water or
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Require or Result in the Construction of New or Expansion of Existing Storm Water
Drainage Facilities
Require New or Expanded Entitlements to Provide Water Service to the Project
Result in a Determination by the Applicable Wastewater Treatment Provider that It Has
Inadequate Capacity to Serve the Project’s Demand in Addition to the Provider’s
Existing Commitments
Generate an Amount of Solid Waste that Would Exceed the Permitted Capacity of the
Applicable Landfill
Violate Federal, State, and Local Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste
Result in the Substantial Physical Deterioration of a Public Facility Due to Increased Use
as a Result of the Project
Cumulative Impacts
Generate Noise Levels in Excess of General Plan and Community Plan Standards or
Cause a Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Criteria Pollutant for Which the
Project Region is Non-Attainment
Generate Substantial Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Directly or Indirectly
Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Contribute to a Cumulative Excess of Population Beyond Local or Regional Projections
Contribute to Cumulative Loss of Cultural and Historic Resources Listed or Eligible for
Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register
of Historic Resources
Contribute to Cumulative Increase in Exposure to Hazards and Hazardous Materials
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 13 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 27 of 59
Cause an Increase in Delay or the Volume/Capacity Ratio that Would Exceed Local
Traffic Standards in the Cumulative Traffic Scenario
Significant and Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant
With Implementation of Mitigation Measures
The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all impacts
initially identified as “significant” or “potentially significant” that are reduced to less than
significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15091(a), a specific finding is made for each impact and its
associated mitigation measures in the discussions below. This section includes impacts that
were evaluated in the Initial Study and determined to be reduced to less than significant levels
with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study as well as
impacts evaluated in the EIR.
Cultural and Historic Resources
Impact CUL-1: Given the site’s location in an area identified as having “moderate”
archaeological sensitivity, there is limited potential for inadvertent impact to
presently unknown subsurface encountered archaeological deposits that may be
encountered during earth moving activities onsite. Such deposits may be important
examples of a major period of California pre-history. Therefore, impacts would be
significant.
Mitigation Measure:
MM-CUL-1: In the event that subsurface cultural resources are encountered during
ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity shall be stopped and the
City of Palo Alto contacted. A qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of Palo Alto, shall be
retained to evaluate the archaeological discovery for its eligibility for local and state
listing. The discovery or disturbance of any identified cultural resource shall be reported
as appropriate to the City of Palo Alto and the Native American Heritage Commission.
Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on California Department of Parks and
Recreation form 523 (archaeological sites). Measures prescribed by these groups and
required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If
disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program,
including measures set forth in the City of Palo Alto’s Cultural Resources Management
Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines,
shall be implemented.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included
in the MMP will ensure that the potential for the project to adversely impact
archaeological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Explanation: This mitigation measure will ensure that in the event cultural resources are
discovered, proper evaluation, handling, and treatment measures as dictated by
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 14 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 28 of 59
federal, State, and local regulations are implemented, and the potential for
identification and listing are evaluated by qualified individuals.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: Due to the use of potentially hazardous substances during construction of the
proposed project, the project could expose people or the environment to a release of
hazardous materials.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Hazardous materials shall not be disposed of or released
onto the ground, the underlying groundwater, or any surface water. Totally enclosed
containment shall be provided for all trash. All construction waste, including trash and
litter, garbage, other solid waste, petroleum products and other potentially hazardous
materials, shall be removed to a waste facility permitted to treat, store, or dispose of
such materials.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: A project-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and Site
Mitigation Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by the project applicant and approved by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) prior to issuance of grading or
building permits from the City of Palo Alto. The HASP and SMP shall be implemented
during construction activities. The SMP shall outline strategies for managing
contaminated soil and groundwater encountered during project construction and shall
discuss the following:
Results of previous environmental investigations at the site
Anticipated contaminants of concern to be encountered
The procedures and protocols of determining of the extent of the impact of soil
gas from the former dry cleaner
Development plans
Likely disposal fate of excavated material based on excavation plan and
contaminants of concerns identified, if any
Dewatering contingency options
Stormwater management options
Monitoring and soil management procedures
Regulatory considerations
Planned procedures and notifications.
The SMP shall include provisions for hazardous substance management, handling,
storage, disposal, and emergency response. Hazardous materials spill kits shall be
maintained on site for small spills.
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 15 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 29 of 59
Copies of the HASP and SMP shall be maintained on site during demolition, excavation,
and construction of the proposed project. All workers on the project site shall be
familiarized with these documents.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified above and included
in the MMP will ensure that the potential for the project to result in hazardous
material exposure during construction would be reduced to a less than significant
level.
Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that hazardous materials are controlled
and disposed of properly during construction. Hazardous material handling and
disposal protocol will be listed in a HSP and a SMP, which will be available to
construction workers. These mitigation measures will reduce the potential for people
or the environment to be exposed to hazardous construction materials on- or offsite
to less than significant levels.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Impact HAZ-2: Due to the potential for the existing building to contain asbestos-containing
materials and lead-based paint/coatings, demolition of the building could result in
the release of hazardous materials into the environment, which would be a
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: A scope of work for asbestos abatement and guidelines for
proper asbestos removal shall be prepared following local, state, and federal regulations
for any necessary removal of asbestos in accordance with the ProTech survey. The Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) shall be notified at least 10 working
days prior to any asbestos removal. Monitoring during abatement shall be conducted to
ensure regulatory compliance. Construction teams working with ACMs must possess a
handling license and a certificate of registration issued by the California Department of
Industrial Relations-Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). All
abatement workers shall have annual Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
(AHERA) training. The minimum level of training that construction workers must
complete also includes annual EPA Asbestos Operations and Maintenance training.
Only particular types of equipment and methods of demolition are permitted under
State and Federal regulations. ACMs and LCMs are wetted down to prevent the
formation of dust within (and outside of) the project site, or they are vacuumed up with
a high-efficiency particulate absorption (HEPA) machine to ensure the containment of
95% of particles 0.3 microns (10-6 meters) or larger in diameter (HEPA Corporation
2004). Prior to permitting demolition workers and other construction workers to enter
the site, the hazardous waste construction team shall inspect the site for final clean-up.
Final clean-up of ACMs shall be conducted by visual inspection and phase contrast
microscopy or transmission electron microscopy. Final clean-up of LCMs shall be
conducted by visual inspection and HEPA vacuuming of suspect dust and debris (SCA
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 16 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 30 of 59
Environmental 2012). Demolition shall not commence until the removal of ACMs and
LCMs from the site has been confirmed by a certified contractor.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: Every contractor/employer who performs work at project
site shall assess California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA)
worker protection rules, California Department of Public Health certification
requirements, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards, and state and
federal disposal requirements. Any demolition activities likely to disturb lead-based
paint/coatings or lead containing materials (LCMs) shall be carried out by a contractor
trained and qualified to conduct lead-related construction work, and all lead-related
work shall be performed in accordance with the U.S. Office of Housing and Urban
Development guidelines (ProTech 2013). Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) must be
disposed of in accordance with the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, and LCMs must be handled in accordance with the Cal-
OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1) and disposed of in
accordance with California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA
requirements for hazardous waste. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall
incorporate any necessary abatement measures required under these guidelines and
regulations.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-5: A qualified environmental specialist shall inspect the site
buildings for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, and other
hazardous building materials prior to demolition. If found, these materials shall be
managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act and other state and federal
guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall
incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards
Act of 1991 (California Public Resource, Section 42160–42185), particularly Section 42175,
Materials Requiring Special Handling for the removal of mercury switches, PCB-
containing ballasts, and refrigerants.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included
in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to the release of ACMs and LCMs
into the environment would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that ACMs, LCMs, and related
hazardous materials are removed from the project site in compliance with federal,
state, and local standards which prescribe handling protocols to ensure ACMs and
LCMs are not released to the air. Project construction will not be permitted to
commence until registered professionals have confirmed the removal of ACMs and
LCMs from the project site.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Impact HAZ-3: Due to the potential for contaminated soils to be encountered, disposed of
during excavation, construction activities could expose individuals or the
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 17 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 31 of 59
environment to hazardous materials should contaminated soils be handled
improperly.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: Soil samples shall be collected at discrete depth intervals to
characterize impacted areas. Impacted soils identified by this sampling shall be
segregated and managed per BAAQMD Rule 8-40, which regulates aeration of
contaminated soil, as applicable, and in accordance with state and federal waste
regulations. Excavated soil, particularly in the vicinity of the former dry cleaner, shall be
screened during excavation using a field photoionization detector. Soil thought to be
potentially contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) shall be segregated
and characterized. This soil may potentially be profiled as listed dry cleaner wastes for
the purposes of proper disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-7: A dewatering plan and detailed groundwater extraction
design shall be prepared for the proposed project. The dewatering plan shall outline
procedures that will be used to lower groundwater levels during excavation and specify
the number of groundwater dewatering wells with dedicated pumps that will be
installed around the site perimeter throughout project duration. Extracted groundwater
can go to a Publicly Owned Treatment Work (POTW) or to the storm drain network in
accordance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A
plan for groundwater discharge pre-treatment shall be developed and kept on-hand
should implementation be necessary. The detailed groundwater extraction design shall
outline chemical testing and thresholds as required by the POTW or NPDES permit. It
shall also provide the dewatering systems layout and well construction information,
including depths, screened intervals, and pump settings.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included
in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to contaminated soils would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that contaminated soils and
groundwater are removed from the project site and disposed of in an appropriate
treatment facility.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Impact HAZ-4: Groundwater contaminated with VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons may be
encountered during excavation and could be released into the environment,
resulting in a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: Soil samples shall be collected at discrete depth intervals to
characterize impacted areas. Impacted soils identified by this sampling shall be
segregated and managed per BAAQMD Rule 8-40, which regulates aeration of
contaminated soil, as applicable, and in accordance with state and federal waste
regulations. Excavated soil, particularly in the vicinity of the former dry cleaner, shall be
screened during excavation using a field photoionization detector. Soil thought to be
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 18 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 32 of 59
potentially contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) shall be segregated
and characterized. This soil may potentially be profiled as listed dry cleaner wastes for
the purposes of proper disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-7: A dewatering plan and detailed groundwater extraction
design shall be prepared for the proposed project. The dewatering plan shall outline
procedures that will be used to lower groundwater levels during excavation and specify
the number of groundwater dewatering wells with dedicated pumps that will be
installed around the site perimeter throughout project duration. Extracted groundwater
can go to a Publicly Owned Treatment Work (POTW) or to the storm drain network in
accordance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A
plan for groundwater discharge pre-treatment shall be developed and kept on-hand
should implementation be necessary. The detailed groundwater extraction design shall
outline chemical testing and thresholds as required by the POTW or NPDES permit. It
shall also provide the dewatering systems layout and well construction information,
including depths, screened intervals, and pump settings.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified above and included
in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to contaminated groundwater
would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that contaminated soils and
groundwater are removed from the project site and disposed of in an appropriate
treatment facility.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Impact HAZ-5: Although it is unlikely that vapor intrusion from contaminated groundwater
would create a significant hazard, there is the potential for the release of hazardous
materials during operation of the proposed project. Therefore, the impact would be
significant.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-8: The building plans shall include installation of a Certco
Corflex or similar waterproofing/vapor barrier membrane to prevent the migration of
vapor from groundwater into the indoor air of the basement parking garage. The
building plans shall also demonstrate that garage ventilation equipment is sufficient to
meet the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2011 Standard for Parking
Structures (NFPA 88A) to continuously provide a minimum of two air changes per hour.
The applicant shall monitor indoor air quality in the basement garage to confirm that the
waterproofing/vapor barrier membrane and garage ventilation effectively maintain
indoor air VOC concentrations at levels not harmful to health (i.e., below appropriate
environmental screen levels). An initial round of sampling shall be conducted upon
construction completion and quarterly for the first year of operation. For each sampling
event, a minimum of two 24-hour integrated indoor air samples shall be collected from
the basement garage along with one 24-hour integrated air sample from an exterior
location representative of ambient/background conditions. Sampling and analytical
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 19 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 33 of 59
procedures shall be conducted in accordance with the Department of Toxic Substance
Control Vapor Intrusion Guidance (DTSC 2011). Results from the indoor air sampling
shall be compared to established regulatory indoor air thresholds for residential and
commercial use. The data shall be evaluated following the 1-year monitoring period.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included
in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to vapor intrusion during project
operation would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Explanation: This mitigation measure will limit migration of hazardous vapor into the
basement parking garage and ensure concentrations of hazardous vapors in the
parking garage and office building remain below applicable standards and do not
pose a health risk. Air quality monitoring will ensure that vapor levels are
compatible with existing regulations.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all Impacts
initially identified as “significant” or “potentially significant” that are not reduced to less than
significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR
and are therefore determined to be “significant and unavoidable” impacts of the proposed
project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15091(a), a specific finding is made for each
impact and its associated mitigation measures in the discussions below.
Cultural and Historic Resources
Impact CUL-2: Demolition of the existing building at 2555 Park Boulevard, which is
considered eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, would cause a
significant impact to a historic resource and would eliminate an example of a major
period of California history.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: The project proponent shall document the affected
historical resource and its setting. Generally, this documentation shall be in
accordance with Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II, which
includes:
1. Drawings: select existing drawings, where available; should be photographed
with large-format negatives or photographically reproduced on Mylar.
2. Photographs: photographs with large-format negatives of exterior and
interior views, or historic views, where available.
3. Written data: history and description in narrative or outline format.
HABS material standards regarding reproducibility, durability, and size shall be
met. Copies of the photographs and report shall be presented to repositories such as
the Palo Alto Historical Association Archives at the Palo Alto Public Library, the
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 20 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 34 of 59
Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System at
Sonoma State University, and/or the California State Library.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which reduce the severity of a significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR. However, implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and
included in the MMP will not reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Therefore, this impact remains Significant and Unavoidable as discussed in Section
XII of these findings.
Explanation: This mitigation measure will create records of existing drawings, the current
condition of the building, and the current condition of any historic views. The
mitigation measure will create a written record of the history of the existing building
to be submitted to the appropriate repositories for historical records, thereby
ensuring that this impact is mitigated to the extent feasible.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.
IX. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES FINDINGS
Feasibility of Project Alternatives
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects
as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which
would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such project[s].” Where a
lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a
project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be
substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must
first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that
are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. Although an EIR
must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an agency decision-making body
may ultimately conclude that a potentially feasible alternative is actually infeasible. (California
Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001-1002.) CEQA
Guidelines §15126.6(f)(1) provides that among the factors that may be taken into account when
addressing the feasibility of alternatives are “site suitability, economic viability, availability of
infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional
boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have
access to the alternative site.”
Grounds for a conclusion of infeasibility might be the failure of an alternative to fully satisfy
project objectives deemed to be important by decision-makers, or the fact that an alternative
fails to promote policy objectives of concern to such decision-makers. (Id. at pp. 992, 1000-1003.)
It is well established under CEQA that an agency may reject alternatives based on economic
infeasibility. (Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage v. City and County of San
Francisco (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 893, 913-914; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v.
City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 774; Association of Irritated Residents
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 21 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 35 of 59
v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1399-1400; Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004)
121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1510.) In addition, the definition of feasibility encompasses “desirability”
to the extent that an agency’s determination of infeasibility represents a reasonable balancing of
competing economic, environmental, social, and technological factors supported by substantial
evidence. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410; 417.) Thus, even if a
project alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects
of a proposed project as mitigated, the decision-makers may reject the alternative for such
reasons.
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f) states that the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed
by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to
permit a reasoned choice. Further, CEQA Guidelines §15126(a) requires that an EIR describe a
reasonable range of alternatives that would “feasibly obtain most of the basic project objectives”
but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the
project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. CEQA case law has further
indicated that the lead agency has the discretion to determine how many alternatives constitute
the requisite “reasonable range” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d
553, 566), and that an EIR need not present alternatives that are incompatible with fundamental
project objectives (Save San Francisco Bay Association vs. San Francisco Bay Conservation &
Development Commission (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 908). Thus, the project objectives described
above in section VI of these findings provided the framework for defining the possible
alternatives. Based upon guidance contained in the CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law
as well as the project objectives, the Draft EIR considered two project alternatives to the 2555
Park Boulevard project: the Building Preservation Alternative and the Pedestrian Transit
Oriented Development (PTOD) Alternative. The Draft EIR also considered the no project
alternative as required by CEQA.
The City Council finds that that a good-faith effort was made to evaluate a reasonable range of
potentially feasible alternatives in the EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the project and
could feasibly obtain most of the basic objectives of the project, even when the alternatives
might impede the attainment of the project’s objectives and might be more costly. Alternatives
were considered that would result in a substantial reduction or elimination of identified
significant cultural resources and hazards and hazardous materials impacts. However,
mitigation measures would continue to be required for each of these impacts under either of the
two project alternatives. The Building Preservation Alternative studied in the EIR would also
reduce, but not to a level of less than significant or entirely avoid, the proposed project’s
significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources.
No Project Alternative
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(1) provides the following direction relative to the No Project
Alternative:
The specific alternative of “no project” shall also be evaluated
along with its impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a
no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the
impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not
approving the proposed project.
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 22 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 36 of 59
The No Project Alternative assumes that the proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project would not
be constructed and that the existing 10,800-square-foot general office building and surface
parking for 28 cars would remain. No demolition would occur, and there would be no change
in use or increase in office space. The EIR concluded that this alternative would avoid the
Cultural and historic resource and hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the proposed
project. No impacts to transportation and traffic would occur. The No Project Alternative would
not meet any of the proposed project objectives.
Feasibility of the No Project Alternative: The City Council finds that this alternative is
infeasible in that it meets none of the project objectives. Specifically, it does not support the
project objectives of increasing the usable square footage and associated rental income of the
site, enhancing the street frontage to create a pedestrian and bike-friendly environment, or
meeting current building standards. For all of the foregoing reasons, and for any of them
individually, the City Council determines that the No Project Alternative is infeasible and is
hereby rejected.
Building Preservation Alternative
The Building Preservation Alternative assumes that the existing building is retrofitted rather
than demolished and no new building is constructed. This alternative was considered and
analyzed for the possibility that maintaining and improving the existing building could
potentially reduce the proposed project’s significant impacts.
In order to bring the existing building up to current codes, several improvements would be
necessary, while others would not be feasible due to site constraints. For example, 15
additional parking spaces would be needed to meet the City’s code; however, the site
cannot accommodate additional parking spaces within its current limits. Some of the
improvements to the existing building that would be necessary under this alternative
include seismic retrofitting, restroom upgrades, addition of an elevator, replacement of the
interior stairway, lead-based paint and asbestos removal, mechanical and electrical system
upgrades, and installation of interior fire safety sprinklers and building insulation. In order
to maximize preservation of the building’s historic features and reduce impacts to Cultural and
historic resources, all retrofitting activities would need to reflect consideration of the historic
character and quality of the building, including preservation of historic materials and visual
compatibility of improvements.
The Building Preservation Alternative would meet some of the project objectives by achieving
compliance with many code requirements. However, it would not be feasible to comply with all
code requirements. This alternative would not meet the project objectives of increasing the
usable square footage onsite, reducing the need for offsite parking, or improving the bicycle and
pedestrian environment.
Because this alternative does not propose to demolish the existing historic building, the
Building Preservation Alternative would reduce the significant and unavoidable impact on the
historic resource relative to the proposed project. However, because this alternative would
require extensive building repairs and retrofitting, the building’s historic character may be
diminished and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 23 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 37 of 59
This alternative does not propose demolition or a subterranean parking lot, both of which
would result in impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials under the proposed project.
The project would implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-8 to reduce all
hazards and hazardous materials impacts to less-than-significant levels. The Building
Preservation Alternative would further reduce these impacts and eliminate the need for
implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-6 through HAZ-8. The Building Preservation
Alternative would result in similar impacts to traffic and transportation as the proposed project
but, unlike the proposed project, this alternative would not provide for adequate onsite parking.
The EIR concluded that the Building Preservation Alternative is Environmentally Superior to
the proposed project because it avoids or reduces some of the project’s significant effects.
Feasibility of the Building Preservation Alternative: The City Council finds that this
alternative is infeasible for the reasons that it does not substantially reduce impacts
compared to the proposed project. The Building Preservation Alternative results in the same
significant and unavoidable impacts as the proposed project and would not provide the
potential project benefit of reducing the demand for off-site parking. Further this alternative
would not support the project objectives of increasing the usable square footage and
associated rental income of the site, enhancing the street frontage to create a pedestrian and
bike-friendly environment.
For all of the foregoing reasons, and for any of them individually, the City Council
determines that the Building Preservation Alternative is infeasible and is hereby rejected.
PTOD Alternative
The PTOD Alternative assumes requires that the project site would be rezoned as part of the
California Avenue PTOD Combining District, which allows for higher density residential uses
within walking distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station. The project site would be
redeveloped as a mixed-use development with both multifamily residential and commercial
uses. This alternative was considered and analyzed as an alternative that would meet the stated
objective of generating increased rental income and supporting the vision of the City’s Draft
California Avenue Area Concept Plan, including the Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development
overlay and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
The EIR concluded that the PTOD Alternative meets most of the project objectives by
redeveloping the site with a building that meets current standards and increasing the usable
square footage of the site. This alternative would also meet the objectives related to pedestrian
and bicycle friendly features and the provision of adequate onsite parking.
Under the PTOD Alternative, the impacts to Cultural and historic resources, hazardous
materials, and traffic would be generally the same as under the proposed project. Impacts to the
historic resource onsite would remain significant and unavoidable, and impacts related to
traffic and hazardous materials would remain less than significant or significant but mitigable.
Feasibility of Alternative C: The City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible for the
reasons that it does not substantially reduce impacts compared to the proposed project. The
PTOD Alternative results in the same significant and unavoidable impacts as the proposed
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 24 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 38 of 59
project and would require the same mitigation measures as would be required under the
proposed project.
For all of the foregoing reasons, and for any of them individually, the City Council
determines that the PTOD Alternative is infeasible and is hereby rejected.
X. GROWTH INDUCEMENT FINDINGS
As required by CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d), an EIR must discuss ways in which a proposed
project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing,
either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also, the EIR must discuss the
characteristics of the project that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could
significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.
Growth can be induced in a number of ways, such as through the elimination of obstacles to
growth, through the stimulation of economic activity within the region, or through the
establishment of policies or other precedents that directly or indirectly encourage additional
growth. Induced growth would be considered a significant impact if it can be demonstrated
that the potential growth would directly or indirectly have a significant effect on the
environment.
Residential development can induce growth by increasing the local population, which may lead
to increased commercial activity, which may increase the local supply of jobs. Extension of
public infrastructure or services can accommodate growth by removing constraints to
development. A growth-inducing project directly or indirectly:
Fosters economic or population growth or additional housing;
Removes obstacles to growth;
Taxes community services or facilities to such an extent that new services or facilities
would be necessary; or
Encourages or facilitates other activities that cause significant environmental effects.
The 2555 Park Boulevard project would provide additional office space in the City by increasing
the usable office space by approximately 12,469 square feet. This increase in office space would
accommodate additional employees and could indirectly induce a small amount of growth
because some employees would seek housing and purchase foods and services in the area.
Finding: The 2555 Park Boulevard project would not induce substantial growth in the
project area or region.
Explanation: The potential for growth inducement due to the increase in office space is
not considered substantial. The increase in employment opportunities the project
would provide would be insufficient to trigger noticeable changes in the housing
market or demand for local goods and services. In addition, construction of the
proposed project would be temporary and these short-term construction jobs are
anticipated to be filled by workers who, for the most part, reside in the surrounding
areas.
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 25 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 39 of 59
XI. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FINDINGS
The City Council finds that the methodology used in the EIR to determine cumulative impacts
complies with CEQA in that it assumed growth in accordance with the City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan as well as considering other known development projects in the region, and
it provides an analysis of potential for the 2555 Park Boulevard project to contribute to
cumulative impacts in the project area.
Finding: The City Council finds that the project would result in a less than considerable
contribution to significant cumulative impacts in the project area.
Cultural and Historic Resources: Cumulative impacts to cultural resources may
jeopardize the eligibility of one or more cultural resources eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR). Other than the existing building onsite, the project would not
impact other listed buildings or buildings with the potential to be listed in the project
vicinity. Other examples of Mid-Century Modern architectural style are in the
vicinity of the project. While it is not anticipated that a past, present, or reasonably
foreseeable project would adversely impact these buildings, the City’s development
history suggests that other buildings constructed in the early 1960s may be proposed
for alteration or demolition. Many of these buildings have already been altered and
may not be eligible for listing on the NRHP or the CRHR. The 2555 Park Boulevard
project would not increase the likelihood of other projects to be proposed that would
affect historic resources. As required for the 2555 Park Boulevard project and may be
required during the City’s review of other projects with the potential to adversely
affect historic resources, requirements to record historic features and information
would preserve the knowledge of historic structures in the area. The proposed
project’s contribution to potentially ongoing impacts to cultural and historic
resources would not be cumulatively considerable.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects in the vicinity of the proposed project have the potential to result in similar
impacts related to hazardous materials as the proposed project, including the
presence of contaminated groundwater and hazardous materials that could be
released during demolition and remodeling. Other projects in the vicinity could also
use hazardous materials. However, the majority of hazardous materials issues
related to contaminated groundwater or hazardous building materials are site-
specific. Releases of trichloroethylene (TCE) from groundwater or air contaminants
from demolished buildings would not result in a local or regional increase in air
contaminants that could lead to health hazards. The established land use
designations in the project vicinity do not indicate that use, transport, or exposure of
hazardous materials would increase as the planning area is developed. The project
would not contribute to cumulative increases in impacts to hazards and hazardous
materials.
Transportation and Traffic: In the cumulative condition, it is expected that some
local roadways and intersections in the project vicinity would operate at
unacceptable levels of service. However, addition of traffic generated b ythe 2555
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 26 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 40 of 59
Park Boulevard project would not significantly increase the average delay or
volume/capacity ratios for any intersection. The proposed project’s contribution to
the cumulative traffic scenario is considered less than cumulatively considerable.
Explanation: The potential impacts of project activities are limited to site specific
conditions and would not result in any cumulatively considerable contributions to
cumulative impacts in the project vicinity or region.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The 2555 Park Boulevard EIR concluded that even with implementation of all feasible
mitigation measures and project alternatives, the project will cause the following significant
unavoidable impact:
Impact CUL-2: Demolition of the existing building at 2555 Park Boulevard, which is
considered eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, would cause a
significant impact to a historic resource and would eliminate an example of a major
period of California history.
The City of Palo Alto has considered and adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect
to this impact, which lessens the impact but does not entirely avoid or reduce it below a level of
significance, as discussed in Section VIII of these Findings.
The environmentally superior alternative (Building Preservation Alternative) would lessen
some impacts of the proposed project, but would not avoid the Significant and Unavoidable
impact of the project. Further, as described above in Section IX, the environmentally superior
alternative is not feasible.
The primary purpose of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public as to the
environmental effects of a proposed project and to include feasible mitigation measures and
alternatives to reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance. CEQA recognizes
and authorizes the approval of such projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully lessened
or avoided. Before such a project can be approved, the public agency must consider and adopt
a “statement of overriding considerations” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§15043 and 15093.
Specifically, CEQA Guidelines §15093(b) requires that when a public agency approves a project
that will result in the occurrence of significant and unavoidable impacts, the agency must “state
in writing the reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in
the record.” The agency’s statement of overriding considerations must explain and justify the
agency’s conclusion to approve such a project, setting forth the proposed project’s general
social, economic, policy or other public benefits which support the agency’s informed
conclusion to approve the project.
The following statement identifies why, in the City Council’s judgment, the benefits of the
project as approved outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. Any one of these reasons is
sufficient to justify approval of the project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every
reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would stand by its determination
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 27 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 41 of 59
that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various
benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this
section, and in the documents included in the Record of Proceedings.
The City Council finds that the significant and unavoidable impact previously identified and
briefly explained above is acceptable because mitigation measures have been required to reduce
this impact to the extent feasible, and on balancing the benefits to be realized by approval of the
proposed project against the remaining environmental risks, the following economic, social, and
other considerations outweigh the impacts and support approval of the proposed project.
Accordingly the City Council recognizes that a significant and unavoidable impact would result
from implementation of the proposed project. Having (1) adopted all feasible mitigation
measures; (2) rejected the alternatives to the project as infeasible, as discussed above; (3)
recognized all significant, unavoidable impacts; and (4) balanced the benefits of the proposed
project against the significant and unavoidable effect, the City Council finds that the benefits
outweigh and override the significant unavoidable effect for the reasons stated below.
The City Council finds that the 2555 Park Boulevard project meets the following stated project
objectives – which have substantial social, economic, policy and other public benefits –
justifying its approval and implementation, notwithstanding the fact that not all environmental
impacts were fully reduced below a level of significance:
Implementation of the 2555 Park Boulevard project will provide for the following:
Development of a new office building on the site that generates increased rental income and
supports the vision of the City’s Draft California Avenue Area Concept Plan, specifically Goal
CACP-3 which calls for promoting Park Boulevard as a hub of innovation and entrepreneurship
for small new companies; and supports related planning initiatives such as the Pedestrian
Transit-Oriented Development overlay and Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
Replacement of the existing office building at the 2555 Park Boulevard site with a modern
building that meets current standards for structural design, site and building accessibility, and
hazardous materials.
Replacement of the existing office building at the 2555 Park Boulevard site with an energy and
water efficient office building.
Doubling the usable square footage of a transit-accessible site by increasing the building height to
three stories and providing parking at grade and underground.
Creating a pedestrian and bicycle friendly street frontage with wide sidewalks, amenities, and
street trees.
Increasing onsite parking to reduce off-site parking demands associated with the office use at the
site.
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 28 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 42 of 59
Balancing Competing Goals
The City Council further finds that it is necessary to balance competing goals in approving the
2555 Park Boulevard project and the environmental documentation for the project. Not every
environmental concern has been fully satisfied due to infeasibility and there is a need to satisfy
competing concerns to some extent. The City Council has chosen to accept the significant and
unavoidable environmental impact resulting from the 2555 Park Boulevard project because
complete avoidance or reduction of the impact to a less than significant level is infeasible and
not approving the project would unduly compromise other important economic, social, or other
goal. The City Council finds and determines that the 2555 Park Boulevard project, the
supporting environmental documentation, and the evidence in the administrative record as a
whole provide for a positive balance of the competing goals and that the economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land-use and other benefits to be obtained by the project outweigh any
remaining environmental and related potential significant impacts of the project.
XIII. CONCLUSION
The mitigation measures listed in conjunction with each of the findings set forth above, as
implemented through the MMP, will eliminate or reduce to a less than significant level most
adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project, except for the significant and
unavoidable impact listed in Section XII above.
Taken together, the Final EIR, the mitigation measures, and the MMP provide an adequate basis
for approval of the 2555 Park Boulevard project.
2555 Park Boulevard
Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations 29 April 2015 P&TC Packet page 43 of 59
P&TC Packet page 44 of 59
ATTACHMENT D
2555 Park Boulevard Project
Mitigation Monitoring Program
INTRODUCTION
Section 15097 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires
that, whenever a public agency approves a project based on an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), the public agency shall establish a mitigation monitoring or reporting program to ensure
that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented.
This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is intended to satisfy this requirement of the
CEQA Guidelines as it relates to the 2555 Park Boulevard project (proposed project). This MMP
would be used by City staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with
mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this
MMP were developed in the EIR prepared for the proposed project, State Clearinghouse
#2014042050.
As noted above, the intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and
enforcement of all adopted mitigation measures. The MMP will provide for monitoring of
mitigation measure implementation through the plan check process, construction monitoring
and inspections, post-construction building inspections, and in the field identification and
resolution of environmental concerns.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The City of Palo Alto will coordinate monitoring activities and ensure appropriate
documentation of mitigation measure implementation. The table below identifies each
mitigation measure for the proposed project and the associated implementation, monitoring,
timing and performance requirements.
The MMP table presented on the following pages identifies:
1. the full text of each applicable mitigation measure;
2. the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure;
3. the timing of implementation of each mitigation measure including any ongoing
monitoring requirements; and
4. performance criteria by which to ensure mitigation requirements have been met.
Following completion of the monitoring and documentation process, the final monitoring
results will recorded and incorporated into the project file maintained by the City’s Department
of Planning and Community Environment.
It is noted that the mitigation measure numbering reflects the numbering used in EIR prepared
for the project (Dudek 2014).
2555 Park Boulevard Project Page 1
Mitigation Monitoring Program December 2014 P&TC Packet page 45 of 59
2555 Park Boulevard Project
Mitigation Monitoring Program
2555 Park Boulevard Project Page 12
Mitigation Monitoring Program December 2014
P&TC Packet page 56 of 59
2555 Park Boulevard Project
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Intentionally Left Blank
2555 Park Boulevard Project Page 13
Mitigation Monitoring Program December 2014 P&TC Packet page 57 of 59
P&TC Packet page 58 of 59
Attachment E
Project Plans
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=43778
(Hard copies to Planning & Transportation Commission, staff, libraries
and Development Center)
P&TC Packet page 59 of 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Attachment G
Planning and Transportation Commission
Draft Verbatim Minutes
April 29, 2015
EXCERPT
2. 2555 Park Boulevard [13PLN-00381]: **Quasi-Judicial Request for Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC) review of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and
recommendation for EIR Certification for a proposal by FGY Architects on behalf of Campbell
Avenue Portfolio LLC to demolish an existing 10,800 sq. ft. two-story mid-century modern office
building and construct a new 24,466 sq. ft. three-story office building with one level of below
grade parking and a roof terrace in the Community Commercial (CC(2)) zone district.
Environmental Assessment: The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was published on
September 5, 2014 for a 45 day public comment period and the initial comment period was
extended through November 19, 2014 for input by the PTC and Historic Resources Board. The
PTC discussed the DEIR on October 29, 2014. The FEIR will be available Friday April 17, 2015 on
the City’s webpage for this project. For more information contact Russ Reich at
russ.reich@cityofpaloalto.org
Chair Tanaka: We are going to continue with the next item. Can Commissioners please return to the
Dais? So we now begin the 2555 Park Boulevard item. This item is quasi-judicial so before we begin
does any Commissioner have disclosures they wish to make? If so, hit the lights. Commissioner
Downing.
Commissioner Downing: I don’t have a disclosure per se to make, but I do want to confirm with our
attorney that I am not conflicted out of this one.
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Let’s see, Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. So
refresh my memory, your lease is less than a year?
Commissioner Downing: It’s a year and I’m on Pepper Avenue.
Ms. Silver: Ok. So the lease is one year? You know I think in an abundance of caution you probably
should recuse yourself on this.
Commissioner Downing: Ok. That’s fine. Should I get out of here?
Ms. Silver: Yes, we have one more matter. I can contact you when (interrupted)
Commissioner Downing; Ok, if someone could text me or email me when you’re done with this matter, I’ll
come back.
Chair Tanaka: Ok, one other thing is Commissioner Alcheck has told me that he has a hard stop at 9:45.
He’s catching a flight. So that will be four of us and that’s still ok, correct?
Ms. Silver: Yes, that’s fine.
Chair Tanaka: Ok, great. So let’s begin then. Does staff have a presentation they wish to review?
Russ Reich, Interim Planning Manager: Yes, good evening. Thank you, Chair Tanaka and Commissioners.
This evening you’re being asked to review the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the mixed-
use project at 2555 Park Avenue. You had the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Report (DEIR) back in October 29th of last year. At that time you provided comments which are included
in the FEIR along with responses to those comments. In addition to your comments included are also
comments from the Historic Resources Board (HRB) as well as the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and
comments from the public. So the FEIR does respond to each of those and you’re asked to review and
provide a recommendation to the City Council on the environmental document.
With me tonight is Kathryn Waugh. She prepared the environmental document that’s before you this
evening so she will do a presentation. Also with us this evening is Rafael Ruiz our Transportation Traffic
Engineer as well as the applicant’s traffic consultant that prepared the traffic analysis for the project. So
with that I will turn it over to Kathryn.
Kathryn Waugh, Consultant, Dudek: Thanks, Russ. As Russ said I’m Kathryn Waugh. I’m a Senior
Project Manager with Dudek. And I am, also Russ indicated we were here in October to present the
DEIR to you and tonight you’re asked to consider the FEIR and whether it adequately addresses the
issues as required under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the California Environmental
Quality Act. So my presentation will be fairly brief. I’m just going to go over the highlights of the topics
that were addressed in that FEIR.
First I’ll start with a quick project overview. The project would demolish an existing two-story office
building that contains about 10,800 square feet and construct a new three-story building. I apologize I
have a typo on this slide. The proposed building would be 24,466 square feet and would provide 92
parking spaces. Those parking spaces would be in the at grade and below grade mechanized parking
garage and all vehicle access to the site is proposed to be from Grant Avenue. That’s the base project
proposal. There’s also a parking exemption alternative that is considered in the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) that would implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM), a Transportation
Demand Management plan and thereby reduce the overall parking that’s required for the building. That
would free up some of the spaces to not be parking machines.
Couple other project highlights, the project requires a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) due to the
height of this, the proposed stair towers and then the canopy, the tensile structure that would be a
canopy over the proposed rooftop patio. The project or the building would be set back from Park
Boulevard to create a 10 foot wide sidewalk. There would be planters, a seat wall, and street trees. And
then the project is proposed to be built and certified to the Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design
(LEED) Silver standards.
This slide just gives you a quick overview of the key steps in the CEQA environmental review process for
an EIR. And we have brought the documents to the public for public review at each of these steps. So
with the notice of preparation there was a scoping meeting. We brought the DEIR out for public review
and had three separate public hearings to receive comments including the one here at the Planning
Commission in October. And then as I said tonight we have brought the FEIR to you for your review and
consideration.
As Russ noted the Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council as to
whether or not to certify the EIR. And so I wanted to remind you of the key goals and legislative intent
behind the CEQA. Primarily a CEQA document is intended to be an informational document that provides
the decision makers and the public with a good understanding of what the environmental effects of that
project would be and where those effects may be a significant impact CEQA requires that we provide
ways to mitigate those impacts either through mitigation or project alternatives to avoid or lessen or
reduce or compensate for the impacts.
So again in terms of the FEIR the specific content requirements under CEQA are listed on this slide.
Primarily that the intent of the FEIR is to provide a record of all the public comments that were received
on the DEIR and provide responses to those comments. At times when we’re responding to a comment
we find that it would be helpful to revise the text of the DEIR itself, so you’ll see that in this FEIR there
was some informational, information added to the DEIR as well as a few revisions to mitigation
measures.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
When we reviewed the comments on the DEIR we found that there were generally five key themes that
were addressed in a lot of those comments and so we addressed those in master responses. Those
come towards the front of the FEIR to give us a good comprehensive summary of those key issues. So
that’s where I’m going to focus my, the rest of my presentation.
The first of the master responses relates to the operation of the intersection at Grant and Park. Primarily
or particularly folks were concerned about the ability to turn from Grant Avenue onto Park Boulevard.
The DEIR found that the project would increase traffic in the area, but that that increase would be less
than significant in terms of its effect on the intersection Level of Service (LOS) and the amount of delay
that individual vehicles experience at that intersection. Comments on the DEIR specifically suggested
that a stop sign at this intersection on Park Boulevard at this intersection would be helpful. The analysis
in the DEIR though evaluates the traffic volumes through that intersection and finds that they do not
meet the warrants for a traffic, for a stop sign. And really what that would, the effect of a stop sign
would be to slow down traffic on Park, which could reduce the LOS that’s experienced generally at that
intersection. So while in the EIR we did not find that there was a significant impact here requiring
mitigation the project applicant has added a few intersection improvements to their proposal. The
project proposes to do a bulb out or curb extension at that intersection, to paint crosswalks through the
intersection, and also to extend the striping for the bike lane through the intersection. All of those
measures would help increase visibility both of oncoming cars as well as bicycles and pedestrians to
address those concerns that people had at that intersection.
The second master response was related to queuing of cars that are waiting to use the parking machines
in the garage; whether or not so many cars could stack up there that they would spill out onto Grant
Avenue and cause delays on Grant Avenue. So in the FEIR we presented some additional analysis done
on specifically on that queuing, queuing question based on how the parking lifts operate, how long it
takes for a car to get parked, and the pattern at which cars would arrive at the project site to be parked.
And that analysis found that there was a less than three percent probability assuming that each car
requires 2 minutes to be parked that there would be a queue that would spill out onto Grant Avenue. So
again we found that that would have a less than significant impact on the physical environment of traffic
circulation in the area. But also note that the analysis there was done based on a two minute loading
time. The way that this parking machine is proposed to operate is that each space would be assigned to
a specific individual, a specific car and that parking lift manufacturer has indicated that that actually
speeds up the time that it requires to park. So instead of a two minute parking time it would be closer to
a one minute parking time. So that probably that, three percent probability that the queues could extend
onto Grant Avenue would be even lower if the analysis had been based on that 1 minute or slightly over
1 minute.
The third master response is related to the requirement for the project to have, to need a DEE and within
the context of the CEQA that the DEE is required for the building’s height or the height of some of those
elements on the rooftop. And so in terms of an environmental affect the issues that we look at they are
aesthetics, privacy, and shadow and shade that might be cast on neighboring properties. So with respect
to privacy we did find that the roof deck the way that it’s set back from the building edge helps to limit
the amount of visibility that could occur between existing residences in the area and that rooftop deck as
well as intervening vegetation and just the orientation of various windows in the area. So we found that
that would be a less than significant impact.
And then with respect to shadow the applicant prepared an analysis of the shadowing effects of the
building on the adjacent property, the adjacent residential property at 123 Sherman. And that shadowing
analysis found that while the building would cast some shadows onto the neighboring property there
have been design modifications made to the project compared to the original proposal that would reduce
that so that the project does comply with the City’s municipal code requirement to limit the amount of
shading on a neighboring property. And so the analysis showed that particularly or increasing the
setback between the two buildings and bringing down the height of the building just in that corner that’s
closest to 123 Sherman positively affected the amount of shadow that would be cast on that neighboring
property.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
The fourth master response related to visitor and guest parking. so as I explained the way that that
parking lift is proposed to operate is that each space within the parking garage would be assigned to a
specific user and so that obviously limits the ability for visitors or guests to park in the garage so there
was concern raised in public comments regarding where the, where visitors and guests could park. So
the EIR identifies that there are other parking facilities in the area. There’s on street parking as well as a
few parking lots in the vicinity.
And then as I mentioned earlier the project that’s evaluated in the EIR we’ve evaluated two versions; one
that is as proposed with the 92 parking spaces all being in parking machines and the other is the parking
exemption requirement as I said by implementing a TDM plan the project could lower their total parking,
total amount of parking that’s required onsite. And that would allow them a little more flex, the applicant
a little more flexibility to get some of those parking spaces into a standard parking space instead of a
machine parked space. Under either option we found that there is sufficient parking in the vicinity that
the, that parking demand from visitors and guests would not cause a significant environmental affect. So
it would not adversely affect traffic circulation patterns to a way that would reduce LOS and it wouldn’t
put so many cars out circulating that it would cause air quality problems.
The final master response is regarding bicycle and pedestrian safety and there’s a lot of similarities
between this response and the first response just in terms of the general operation of the intersection at
Grant and Park. And so again the analysis found that there is the traffic volumes there would not meet
the warrants to convert the intersection to a four way stop. And instead we talked about the intersection
improvements: the bulb out, the crosswalks, painting the bike lane though the intersection that those
would increase visibility for pedestrians and bicyclists and thereby ensuring that the safety impacts would
not be significant as a result of this project. Again the project, the traffic volumes that were evaluated in
the EIR we found that the proposed project would not substantially increase traffic in the vicinity and so
pedestrians and bicyclists would basically be exposed to very similar conditions to what is currently
experienced.
So then I just have a couple more slides to review some of the other text changes that were made within
the DEIR as, in response to comments. So I will go through those quickly. In terms of hazards and
hazardous materials there were two additions made to the mitigation measures. So the site formally
supported a dry cleaning establishment and so we added some language to the mitigation measure
related to the soil that might have been contaminated as a result of that prior use of the site. And then
the building that is proposed to be demolished is known to contain some asbestos and lead based
materials and so we added some language to the mitigation measure to clarify how that, what the
requirements are for demolishing a building with those substances to ensure that there aren’t safety
hazards for nearby residents.
In the transportation and traffic chapter as well as in the project description we added a mention to the
DEIR that five of the proposed parking spaces would have Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations and
then we provided a little more explanation of how the mechanized parking operation works. Again the
amount of time it takes to park and some of those other features. In the noise chapter or in the noise
discussion, we didn’t have a chapter on noise, but we did add text to clarify the amount of noise that
could be generated by the mechanized parking lifts and how much of that noise could be audible from
outside the building. And just in general terms it’s about the equivalent to the noise that a standard
residential garage door opening would make.
So finally I just wanted to reiterate the key conclusions of the DEIR in terms of the significant
environmental impacts of the project and none, and note that none of the comments in the, on the DEIR
that have been evaluated in the FEIR, none of those comments or our responses to them required us to
change any of the conclusions reached in the DEIR. So this slide lists for you some of the key, the
significant impacts that would require mitigation as described in the EIR and the only significant and
unavoidable impact that was identified is the impact to historic resources because the building is
considered potentially eligible for listing as a historic resource demolition of that building would be
considered a significant and unavoidable impact. There is mitigation identified to do a recordation
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
process to preserve some of the history of that building, but there’s really nothing that you can do to
mitigate fully for demolishing a building that’s considered a potential historic resource.
The other impacts that we found were potential disturbance to cultural resources that might be present
below the ground surface, health and safety risks primarily onsite due to exposures to contaminated,
vapor from the contaminated groundwater, but also as I mentioned concerns for adjacent neighbors
during the construction process. And then whether or not the traffic increases would be significant. So
in each of those cases we either found that the impact was less than significant or could be mitigated to
a less than significant level with the implementation of the mitigation measures. So that concludes my
presentation. As I said I just wanted to kind of focus on the highlights and I’m happy to answer any
questions you might have.
Chair Tanaka: Ok, thank you. So before we get into the questions for the Commission I think we have
eight speaker cards. So we’ll go through each one each at a time. We’ll give two minutes each. So can
the Vice-Chair, Acting Vice-Chair please read off the names?
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. So Peter Brewer comes first followed by Terry Holzemer.
Peter Brewer: Hi, I’m Peter Brewer. I own the, own and occupy the building that’s immediately to the
left of the subject property and abuts the properties. My concern is that the project does not meet the
criteria for a DEE, a Design Enhancement Exception, and in the rush to approve this project nobody has
looked at that, nobody’s questioning it, nobody’s challenging it and the EIR totally sidesteps that. My
letter or my comments are as Exhibit C to the EIR their Comment C, C2 in my letter says that the project
exceeds the allowable height, the 37 feet that’s allowed by Zoning CC2 and it explains the DEE is for
minor exceptions to zoning when doing so will enhance the design without altering the function or use of
the site or its impact on the surrounding properties. You cannot sit there with a straight face and tell me
that putting an observation deck on what’s essentially a permanently covered fourth story that takes the
building height to 50 feet that that does not have any impact on the surrounding properties. Of course it
does. To say otherwise would be nonsense.
The municipal code goes on to say neither the Director nor the City Council on appeal shall grant a DEE
unless it is found that and please note these are in the conjunctive unless it is found that there’s
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions unique to the property or site unless it is found
that it will enhance the appearance of the site or structure or improve the neighborhood character or
preserve and existing or proposed architectural style and that the exception is related to a minor
architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or
improvements.
Is that the total of my time? I’d like you to read my letter. It’s C. I’d like you to examine whether or not
you think it actually meets the municipal code. It does not and nobody’s challenging that and I don’t
want the City to invite a CEQA lawsuit. That’s just nonsense. Somebody has to look at this.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. Terry Holzemer followed by (interrupted)
Ms. Silver: Excuse me, Chair Tanaka, since this is a quasi-judicial matter we typically allow the applicant
to go first and then have public comment and a rebuttal. But…
Chair Tanaka: Oh, ok. I forgot about that.
Ms. Silver: But I actually I was just informed by staff that there is no applicant presentation, so…
Chair Tanaka: Ok, would the applicant like to have a rebuttal?
Ms. Silver: Yes, the rebuttal would come at the end.
Chair Tanaka: Ok.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Ok, so we’re coming back to the speaker cards. So Terry Holzemer followed
by I believe it’s Elizabeth Zitale if I’m reading this correctly.
Terry Holzemer: Holzemer, yes. Very quickly I’m going to mention some things. I’d like to mention a lot
of things that are wrong with this project, but I’m going to focus in on the FEIR. On Page 1 there is a
section called the CEQA requirements. On Page 2 if you turn to the very next page the most important
segment of this is the very last sentence. It says the lead agency, which in this case the City must
provide each agency, I guess that means us, the parties that commented on the DEIR with a copy of the
lead agency’s response to such comments in a minimum of 10 days before certifying the FEIR. This did
not happen. This is a violation of CEQA. And if you want proof of that I can give it to you tonight.
I’d like to talk about also some other issues. In the EIR there were several claims by the writer of this
document with no data or evidence to support these conclusions. Among these was a claim that there
were few windows “few windows from our complex facing the proposed building.” A few usually means
two or three. As a member of our homeowner’s board I can guarantee you that there are over 25
windows facing this project. In addition there’s also a claim made in this document that there’s adequate
parking on the streets and parking lots available to the building tenant’s visitors. I’d like to ask what
dream world does this writer live in? I live in this area and some of you have visited the area at 12:00
noon. Have you ever tried to find a parking place in the California area at 12:00 noon? It’s impossible.
It’s very hard to find one.
Next the EIR claims that our residents of Palo Alto Central will all go to work at the same time every day.
It says before 8:00 a.m. most of the residents will be gone. This is a fabrication. I don’t know why they
would even make that claim. They don’t even know our complex. They’ve never talked to us. They’ve
never talked to our association. No one has ever approached us, including this body.
Lastly, but not least, it’s clearly stated that the EIR does not cover the DEE; however, adding this
exception to this project does not meet the standard as Peter said earlier of a minor architectural feature
unless you want to change the word minor. There is nothing minor about adding a really a fourth floor
with a canopy roof that’s 13 feet above the design limit. In addition, there are two massive concrete
towers at either end of the building and these, these are not that exceed the limits as well. I think this
needs to be looked at in much closer terms especially what’s happened with the CEQA. Thank you.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. Do we have [unintelligible Vitale] on the floor? She left and she
wrote on her speaker card that she would yield her time to Bill Ross. So you may come next and I don’t
know does he get double time because of this?
Ms. Silver: We typically don’t do that, but it would be at the discretion of the Chair to allow it.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Ok.
Bill Ross: I’m sorry.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Yes, please go ahead.
Mr. Ross: Ok, thank you. My name’s Bill Ross, I’m a resident and taxpayer. This is a quasi-judicial
proceeding. I would respectfully suggest there isn’t substantial evidence to support the proposed
findings of overriding consideration presented to you. Any environmental document has to be evaluated
at the time that it comes before you. I would suggest that the environmental setting and the cumulative
analysis portions of this document as to traffic and water supply are inadequate, not supported by
substantial evidence.
First of all with respect to the issue of traffic this is just another case where it is a standalone analysis of
the traffic generated by this project. I would respectfully suggest that the following projects need to be
cumulatively analyzed with this project for there to be full compliance with CEQA: 2180 El Camino Real,
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
2209 El Camino Real, 2259 El Camino Real, 260 South California, 385 Sherman, the upper and lower
California/Stanford projects, I believe one of them is 2780 El Camino Real, 1050 Page Mill, 380
Cambridge, and 2650 Birch among others. The same cumulative analysis is also applicable to the water
supply with respect to each of those developments. I would also add in to the current analysis the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) lane reduction for purposes of traffic.
First let’s go to water. Yesterday, yesterday emergency regulations were issued by the State Water
Quality Control Board implementing the Governor’s emergency order of April 1, 2015. The City is already
deficient for the prior water year in its voluntary conservation efforts to achieve a reduction consistent
with the state standards. You’re going to go ahead and approve another development while the rest of
us have to engage in mandatory water restrictions? That’s the policy question. The evidentiary question
is: is that analyzed in the cumulative section of this EIR? And the answer is no. I would respectfully
submit that that is a basis in and of itself to refer this back for further environmental review. The same is
true with respect to traffic.
And one more thing, if we had a cumulative number of 500 units or 5,000 square feet of development
there would have to be a water supply analysis under applicable law, which would have to say these are
our guaranteed supply providers and these are the projected consumption that would be associated with
this. That’s a standard. That’s another reason why the cumulative analysis for water is inadequate. I
assume I have about two more minutes? The same would be applicable with respect to traffic. So quite
respectfully I would suggest that on that basis alone the EIR is inadequate and the findings for overriding
considerations are inadequate.
I would also respectfully reference for Council and your own consideration the recent case of Woody’s
Group versus the City of Newport Beach which deals with many procedural and substantive due process
issues associated with a quasi-judicial hearing. I would suggest the restriction to two minutes is one of
those even though I’m getting four. I would also suggest that two of your members have annunciated
continually the position that you are in favor of high density development. That you want to implement
new urbanism provisions in the City. I’m doing this quite respectfully. I suggest that that disqualifies you
from participating in this hearing.
Finally I would go back to the water issue a moment and say a residual for some jurisdictions is to fall
back on the Urban Water Management Plan (interrupted)
Chair Tanaka: Excuse me, your time is up.
Mr. Ross: Let me finish this concept please, Mr. Chairman. To say that this development was
contemplated in that Urban Water Management Plan. First of all, that Urban Water Management Plan is
in the year in which it should be revised, but I would respectfully suggest that the existing environment is
not described in this document for either traffic or water, water supply. Thank you.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. Doria Summa is next and followed by Jeff Levinsky.
Doria Summa: Good evening, Chair and Planning Commissioners. As a resident of College Terrace
California Avenue is my downtown and I’m very familiar with the area around it. I would urge you not to
approve this recommendation to Council tonight based on the EIR. The project doubles the square
footage of office space, nearly triples the parking spaces, and adds no housing despite its proximity to
fixed transit and the fact that it’s in the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD). It further
contributes to an already huge jobs/housing imbalance in Palo Alto and the problems that that creates.
To say it will have no impacts on traffic and congestion around the project or intersections of regional
importance nearby that are already very congested doesn’t make sense. Even more difficult to
understand is how the claim can be made of no negative traffic impacts without considering the many
projects already started, those in the pipeline, and those anticipated for the Cal Avenue Concept Area.
That’s even more incredible.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Among other problems there’s the issue of the DEE. There’s no basis for considering the height violation
requested here as a design exception from City code. City codes 1876050, DEE, the purpose of a DEE is
to permit a minor exception, minor, to zoning regulations when doing so will enhance the design of a
proposed project without altering the function or use of a site or impact its surrounding properties or
enable the preservation of an architectural style already existing of already existing improvements on the
site. And unfortunately since this is could be considered a historic building and it’s being torn down
instead of added to in a way that is aesthetic, you can’t really say it’s a DEE. Whoops. Guess my time is
up.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Jeff Levinsky followed by Jared Jacobs.
Jeff Levinsky: Good evening, Commissioners. First of all I’d like to read from what appear to be the rules
for this Commission. It says the presiding officer may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes
if necessary to accommodate a large number of speakers. I would ask the City Attorney representative
here to address that to the Commission because frankly it appears that these are the current rules that
you are not operating legally on this item nor on the prior item that you voted on.
Secondly, if you look at the rules in the municipal code for DEE’s among the things other speakers have
mentioned it says it requires that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the
same zone district. I think you should identify what is unique about this build and its site that enables it
to have this upper roof deck. There are roof decks in other buildings around town. As far as I know they
meet the height restrictions. If you’re going to allow one for this building it should meet the height
restrictions unless you find what’s extraordinary.
Third, the whole notion that there’s no significant impact on traffic from this building is absurd. And I
think it’s almost become offensive to many including on the City Council that staff has not realized that
we have a huge traffic problem in this City. We have a huge parking problem in parts of the City as well.
This building will increase its size by 226 percent. If every building you approve did that can you imagine
the traffic nightmares we would have in the City? You are the Planning and Traffic Commission. You are
supposed to take the big picture. You are not supposed to look at each building one at a time you’re
supposed to also think about how this policy will impact us overall. The logic of this EIR is that it’s ok to
smoke because each cigarette only adds an insignificant amount of harm to your health. So according to
our EIR smoke away, no problems, no one will ever die according to this logic. I ask you to restore
sanity and restore the law to our City. Thank you.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. Jared Jacobs followed Rainer Pitthay, if I’m reading this correct.
Jared Jacobs: I guess I’ll get started, but it would be great if you could show… I have some data to
show. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jared Jacobs. I live at 123 Sherman Ave. next to the
proposed project. I’ve lived in Palo Alto 13 years and in this house coming on three years with my
family.
So tonight I’m going to focus on two of the master responses in the FEIR. First the queuing issue.
There’s a statistical analysis done to say that it’s an insignificant and that that’s very remote probability
that queuing will affect Grant Avenue and Park Boulevard. There is a couple of flawed assumptions in
that analysis. I have them on my slides. First, there’s an assumption that a fixed percentage of inbound
vehicles will be delayed and in reality how many vehicles get delayed is entirely determined by when the
vehicles arrive and where they need to park and how long the parking takes. So that should have been
an output of the model rather than an input of the model. And this artificial limit makes the model
underestimate the severity of queuing in the worst case scenarios. Secondly, it assumes uniformly
random arrivals, which is a fine assumption in some cases. There’s a unique geography here where
there’s some major intersections that are gating the traffic into this area. All the incoming traffic goes
through El Camino and Page Mill and as a result there’s bursty traffic coming in. I measured for an hour
this morning, I measured the traffic coming to the Courthouse, which is right across the street and I have
charts to show you that using the model that they use what the distribution would look like and then
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
what I actually measured it to be and there’s much more it show that there’s bursty traffic arrivals and
that will make this problem much worse.
Secondly I’d like to address the shading issue. The EIR justifies the severe shading of my house by
pretending that my house doesn’t exist. The entire analysis there is the shading of the parcel as if there
were no house on the property and if you look in the Palo Alto municipal code it shows that the shading
and the other requirements for abutting properties all have to do with the structures on the properties,
not just the empty parcels. So asked it before and I’m asking again I would like them to study how much
light is going to the house. I say it’s 85 percent reduction for half of the year and they have no figures to
counter my claims here. Thank you for your time. I would urge you not to recommend this project.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. And the final speaker is Rainer Pitthay.
Rainer Pitthay: The Japanese pronunciation makes Pitthay.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Sorry for this.
Mr. Pitthay: It’s ok. Other people have trouble with it. My name is Rainer Pitthay and I’m an expert in
traffic in this location because my car is parked in the underground garage at Grant. It is already now
sometimes impossible to get out because at any time of the day there’s FedEx and UPS and other
deliveries and people coming and going [unintelligible] to say there won’t be any further impact this is
absurd.
I studied Pages 1 through 59 of the package which was available and it became clear to me that whoever
wrote it thinks that building of office space is the highest and best use of land in Palo Alto because they
rejected any other alternative. They went [unintelligible] and then there was one sentence which says a
good faith effort was made to evaluate a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives in the EIR.
I have been on all kinds of committees in Germany, France, Japan, and the United States. I was a
professional committeer that sets all alarm bells off. So there was no good faith effort and we will see
about this especially to reject the alternative of a PTOD overlay out of that, I doubt that will sit well with
the new City Council and we had an election about this which was quite clear. If you don’t know what
I’m talking that PTOD that requires or enables to have more residence units and that’s what we need in
the town.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you.
Chair Tanaka: So that will conclude our public hearing for this item unless anyone else has any other
cards. So now I’d like to give the applicant a chance and actually I did want to ask the City Attorney
about one of the comments in terms of the time. So can you speak on that item?
Ms. Silver: Yes, Chair. Excuse me. Your procedural rules specify that on agenda items, quasi-judicial
items that speakers are given five minutes but that the Chair can reduce that time to three minutes if
there are a large number of speakers.
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so it looks like we should have given more time. So what should we do now to correct
that?
Ms. Silver: Well you did give some of the speaker’s additional time and if there’s anybody in the audience
who would like to speak for another minute you certainly should offer that.
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so before we offer, we have the applicant speaker rebuttal does anyone who spoke
want to speak for another minute? Ok. So let’s… ok so, ok. We’ll give you three minutes.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: I’m going to call the names along the same sequence so Terry you’re first.
We’re going to give you three minutes, right?
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Mr. Holzemer: I’m probably not going to take that long, but ok. Actually he was. Actually Peter was first.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Ok, my apologies.
Mr. Brewer: I’m not comfortable with my presentation having been broken in half like this, so I will
attempt to begin where I left off, but if I go over one additional minute I’m going to continue talking until
I’m finished. The as I was explaining this, the DEE is not within any of the criteria for allowing it and the
response that was given in the EIR was refer to master comment, refer to master response three.
Master response three deals with no significant impacts to visual resources protected by state or City
regulations. The roof deck is designed to be set back, it won’t cast a shadow. That does not even come
close to addressing the fact that this fourth story does not meet any of the criteria for the DEE.
My comment C3 says the requested variance is not minor, it does not impact the surrounding properties,
and it does not overcome any site infirmity. Their response to that is only part of the structure would be
47 foot monolithic wall and they intend vining vegetation, most of the building would be 37 feet. Well
that’s most of the building if you don’t count the fact that they’re talking about a permanent roofed
fourth floor on this thing, which is not 37 feet. And my C4 comment C4 was there are no exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances that make a DEE applicable. Their response to that is we don’t give a
response that’s outside the scope of the EIR. My comment C5 was it does not enhance the site or
neighborhood, only the developer’s financial interest. Their response to that is again refer to master
response three. The observation deck would be set back, few windows as was mentioned here, few
windows of the surrounding residences directly face the deck, the vegetation would mitigate it, few views
would be impacted. That doesn’t address the point. These, this thing was written with a broom
sweeping everything under the rug, not with a pen. You all have to consider the municipal code and
study what is allowable for a design exception and tell me if you can justify this one. I assert you cannot.
Thank you for the additional time.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. Terry Holzemer next.
Mr. Holzemer: I’d just like to make two additional quick points. On Page I guess its 3-25 in the EIR
clearly at the top it says a few parking spaces on the ground floor would be used, would not be used by
the parking machines. No one understands what that means. What does that mean, two? Five? Ten?
Very unclear. Also on the same page it goes on and it says, it says “However, it is expected that the time
of peak travel, traffic associated with the proposed project using Grant Avenue would be the 8:00 a.m. to
9:00 a.m. hour.” Well I, my wife works at a high tech company. Most people don’t arrive until much
later, 10:00 or 11:00 and they work to 7:00 or 8:00. This is the normal working hours for high tech
workers today. And I don’t understand this. And then it goes on and says the residents using Grant
Avenue would occur before 8:00 a.m. How do they justify these times? They know nothing about our
complex. They know nothing about the people that live there, nothing.
Ok, another page… 3-30 under G Number 4. It says, it says the parking machines are designed to be
safe in an earthquake. It talks about earthquake preparations and stuff, but it doesn’t explain how
they’re making them safe. There’s no specific data and this is a major concern to our residents that live
right across the street. If there’s a major quake in this area and 12 cars fall on 12 more cars there’s
bound to be an explosion. Gasoline will spill out, hazardous waste will occur. How will that be handled?
Is the Fire Department been alerted that this type of operation is being planned for this area? How will
they, how will that operate, how will it deal with these type of hazards? It’s not explained at all. And this
is an environmental report. It should be explained. These are just two examples of after reading this
report how frustrated our residents are. Thank you.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you very much. Doria Summa would you like to speak?
Ms. Summa: Just briefly because I touched on the traffic and parking issues and the lack of cumulative
consideration in the DEE I’d further like to say that I think that the single family home on Grant Avenue
has been sort of ignored in this process, which is pretty sad. If any one of us lived there we wouldn’t
want to be so lightly considered. And I don’t specifically see where it says in the code that a DEE in fact
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
is allowed to shade a building. There’s discussion of daylight planes, etcetera, but not with regard to a
DEE. In fact, in the code it says Number 3 under the findings that will not, the DEE, the exception will
not be detrimental to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. So it’s pretty hard to make
that argument. And I do feel that the loss of historic architecture rather than the creative repurposing of
it and indeed even to get a bigger building has become a little all too common in Palo Alto to the
detriment of the character of our City. Thank you very much.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. We have Bill Ross, Mr. Ross? No? Ok. Jeff Levinsky.
Mr. Levinsky: Thank you, I appreciate the extra moment and I appreciate Commissioner Tanaka and Ms.
Silver for clarifying the issue. I think another issue though to be looked at is the other half of the
question, which is given that you just had a session tonight where you did not provide the speakers with
the time allowed under the law, was your vote on that legal? And in fact have there been other prior
votes by this Commission that are not legal for that same reason? I would also, I mean your bylaws
aren’t that long and I would urge you all to read your own bylaws so that these issues would not come
up in the future. Thank you.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. And we have two more possible options; Jared Jacobs would you
like to return to the floor?
Mr. Jacobs: Ok, if you wouldn’t mind opening the file that would be very helpful. Thanks. There’s only
one. It’s the .pdf file 2555. And if you could full screen or presentation mode, that would be great. Next
page, you can skip a couple of pages here. These are the assumptions in the traffic.
So this is using the written the assumption of uniformly random arrivals. Thanks, great, thank you. This
is what the distribution would have looked like in time between arrivals. I used the next building across
the street this morning and measured 39 arrivals over 50 minutes over the peak a.m. hours 7:50 to 8:40
and the actual arrivals looked like this, which you can see they’re clustered more toward short, short
times between arrivals so there’s bursty arrivals because of the traffic signals that regulate the flow into
the area. So because of that the analysis it has flawed assumptions, it should take this into account,
people shouldn’t make assumptions when they can actually measure things like this. So the conclusions
are not, are not, they don’t hold.
So secondly the shading issue. I have sections here from the Palo Alto municipal code showing basically
this entire section shows the effect on neighboring properties with the structures there and actually
pointing to windows. It’s indicating that you need to take into account the structures that exist on the
properties and not just the empty lots. And the architects have a model that shows my windows because
they used it for the line of sight analysis, but they didn’t use it for the shading analysis. And if you come
stand in my home you’ll see very clearly what a new building much closer and much taller will do. It’ll
block all the light during the fall and winter that comes into the first floor and most of it that comes into
the second floor, all of it. And I mean this little tactic of saying well hey this is smaller than we originally
proposed that’s, that’s like a sales tactic like and I don’t think we should fall for that. Thank you for your
time.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you, and Rainer Pitthay if you would like to return.
Mr. Pitthay: You should have heard the Mayor mishandle my name, then you would feel good. I would
recommend that you really take serious what is it before that the alternatives which are brushed over
here and quite illogically negated. They really should get a better look from the staff. I think this is an
extremely well in a logic and English class I would give it a D. It’s really bad. You should go back and
look at it and maybe get some advice from outside circles, independent people, and do it over. Thank
you.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Chair Tanaka: Ok, I’d like to ask just so I don’t get it wrong the City Attorney. So how much time does
the applicant get to speak? In the rebuttal.
Ms. Silver: Well, the opening is 15 minutes. I’d have to look up to see what the rebuttal is. It’s three?
Ok, three.
Chair Tanaka: Three minutes. Ok. So the applicant, you have three minutes.
Heather Young, FGY: Good evening Commissioners. I’m Heather Young, I’m representing the applicant.
And first off I’d like to thank all of the community members who came tonight to speak on this issue. I
don’t have answers to all of the points that were brought up. I’ll need to defer to Cara, Assistant City
Attorney for some of them, to Kathryn Waugh the writer and preparer of the FEIR for some of them, to
Rafael Ruiz, City Transportation for the definition of some of the standards, and also our consultant Luke
Schwartz from Kimley-Horn on some of the traffic.
The things I can I hope shed a little light on are one, Mr. Ross had a question about water consumption
for the building? Sorry, water consumption for the building. And as you probably know this building and
many of the new buildings are required to meet California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen)
Tier 2 standards. Because the building is going for LEED Silver it actually surpasses the state mandated
requirement by a 40 percent additional reduction in water consumption. I hope that that helps to satisfy
your concerns about this particular project’s water consumption.
The DEE I think Cara will address as far as the PTC’s role in reviewing that. And I think Kathryn can
refresh all of you on how the EIR and the FEIR are intertwined with the DEE. The traffic standards by
which the project is judged I believe are adopted and established by the City and Rafael may not have it
all with him, but he should be able to tell you which of the additional sites that were routed off, the
different addresses are in fact included in the projects traffic analysis. And sorry, I need my glasses.
And Kimley-Horn can address when the traffic report original data was taken on the site to help address
Jared’s concerns about the potential discrepancies between his personal observations and those that
were used for the project. The queuing question also I believe Matt has some information. An additional
study was prepared to support Kathryn’s responses to the DEIR public comments on the queuing.
There is in your packet and sorry I’m trying to go very quickly. There was sorry, could I? I’ll just run
very quickly. Page 28 in your packet has a brief shadow study on the peak winter solstice and summer
solstice and vernal and the spring and fall dates for the peak shadows at 9:00 a.m., noon, and 3:00 p.m.
The PTOD option was studied and is discussed in the FEIR. It results in a significantly smaller project
and was not deemed by the applicant as a feasible project. The… it’s true. The question about the
number of parking spaces there are 92 spaces in the base case analysis including four accessible spaces
which are surface parking. The TDM alternate included 10, a reduction of 10 parking spaces and the
remaining 82 spaces 4 were surface accessible, 13 would become surface open to any visitor or guest to
the building, and then the remainder of them would be in the parking machines. The hazmat mitigated
measures I believe are detailed in the full EIR, which was not part of the 59 pages that were included in
the report this evening. And I believe, we believe the FEIR and the DEIR actually had a great deal of
depth and research in their review. And we all take this very seriously so I thank you very much.
Chair Tanaka: So I’d like to bring this back to the Commission. And the basic format I’d like to use is
kind of similar where we’ll go for some question and answers (Q&A) from the staff or applicant or even
members of the public. And also I think it would be good for us to [unintelligible] issues that we want to
deliberate as well and I’ll write them down and itemize them and then we can go through them. So if
anyone has questions about this please hit your lights. Commissioner Alcheck.
Commissioner Alcheck: In light of the discussion or the comments from our community members, I’m
wondering if staff could do one of two things: first is address which of the comments are within the
purview of our review tonight, to what extent are we reviewing the design exception legality or its
whether or not it was proper or improper at this time. And then the second question is and this came up
last time too because I remember that the applicant’s neighbor had a home and we were talking about it
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
then too about whether or not the analysis required discussion or of shading the same way that it would
in a residential neighborhood. I think I can’t remember clearly particularly because I think this home is
not, is, doesn’t really comply with R-1 setbacks. It’s much closer to its rear fence if I recall? I just
remember it being a very uniquely placed home that wouldn’t necessarily compare well with a normal R-1
sort of establishment. So I guess without going into every single comment I’m wondering if you can
narrow down the items that we should be reviewing tonight and maybe take off our plate the items that
are not supposed to be covered by our discussion?
Ms. Silver: Sure. I’m happy to, to do that. So under the City’s local CEQA guidelines the Commission is
required to review all EIR’s and to conduct a public hearing on EIR’s and to recommend certification to
the City Council. And so that’s what you’re doing today and your purview is over the EIR itself. This
particular project did not require an entitlement that goes to you for a recommendation or on appeal and
so you’re not reviewing the entitlement aspects of the project. The entitlements will go to the City
Council. So basically your review is the same as your, as the review that you conducted earlier this year
on the EIR.
With respect to the single family home it’s my understanding that it’s a legal nonconforming use. It’s a
commercially zoned piece of property I believe and but there’s a residence there. So it is a unique
situation. With respect to shade and shadows the way we look at those impacts in an EIR is we look at
impacts to public spaces like parks and publicly accessible courtyards and that type of thing. For, from
an environmental standpoint EIR’s don’t typically look at impacts to personal private property. That
being said there was a shade and shadow analysis done on this property and it appears you know the
applicant has a different way of preforming that analysis and that’s a fair issue and all of that was
discussed in the EIR.
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so just for extra just to clarify here, the compliance with the municipal codes
from the Planning Department’s perspective that this is the sort of building that would be entitled in this
lot is not on the table. We’re really discussing the EIR and the impacts and the analysis of those
impacts?
Ms. Silver: Exactly.
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok.
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum.
Commissioner Rosenblum: Thank you. There were a lot of points raised. I think the ones that concern
me most there are a few that I think are interesting and justified, but I don’t think are in the scope so the
question around cumulative effects, the example of every incremental cigarette perhaps is not found to
be deadly, but there’s a cumulative effect to smoking which I think is the purpose of the Comp Plan and
specific plans to look at cumulative effects. We also have implemented a building cap, which is obviously
looking at cumulative effects. I think the purpose of this is around an individual project.
I am troubled by some of the comments about the DEE. I looked at the ARB findings and they found
that the shading size would have to be reduced, which the applicant agreed to. Looking at the picture of
the initial rendering itself it does appear to be a shade on a top floor. It is a 37 foot building I believe. It
doesn’t appear to be, this is not a permanent structure even in the original application, but post ARB
review I think that that has been addressed.
In terms of the other piece that troubles me is the impact on light for the single family home which is
noncomplying. I remember this last round through this did disturb me because it does, it is a significant
degradation of quality for that individual. I actually accept that the way the shade study should be
interpreted is with the way the commenter expressed, which is we should be looking at his dwelling not
just the theoretical lot. But to the point of if the point of the EIR is to check for shade in public spaces
and not impact on private property then I’m not sure why we’re doing that analysis to begin with. If you
are doing that analysis and you find it as a legal matter that it’s an important part of the analysis then I
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
would agree with, with the complaint that we need to look at the impact on the building itself and his
windows and not just a theoretical empty lot. So that is the one piece remaining that if that does seem
like a decisive issue for some reason then we should do it properly. If it’s not and it’s not part of an EIR
scope then it should have been excluded.
Other than that I found the responses, the master responses to be satisfying. The only piece and I
would like guidance from Cara perhaps on this one, which is I do like the option of potentially reducing
the parking spaces in exchange for Caltrain passes for everyone in the building. I think that would be a
valuable thing to do. I think that the economics would work. I think it would reduce traffic. I don’t
know how that’s done. There are parking requirements, you can’t go below them. Is this something that
Council if I were to recommend that or PTC were to recommend that that Council could consider making
an exception or procedurally how that even works.
Ms. Silver: So again the entitlements really aren’t part of your purview. That would typically come up
through the entitlement process. If you can tie it to the environmental process it would be within your
purview. So if there were perhaps again in the environmental process what we’re looking at is an impact
and different ways to mitigate that impact. So you would have to tie it in that way.
Commissioner Rosenblum: I see. Ok. Those were, those were all my questions. So to summarize the
complaint about cumulative effects I don’t think belongs here. The DEE I do think is an issue. It doesn’t
seem like the argument about this shade is legitimate in this case or at least in my view, so I’m less
troubled actually after reading through the ARB report. And then finally around the parking issue I would
have preferred to have less parking in exchange for TDM measures, but I don’t have, I don’t think that I
meet the standard that Cara has just set forward. But let me think about it while others, while others
smarter than I am talk.
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael.
Commissioner Michael: So my overall impression is there’s a lot to like about the project. I think that the
applicant has put together a fairly innovative design and it’s got a very impressive team of architects and
experts and so forth. At the same time I’m troubled by a number of issues and I think that I’m perhaps
unclear as to exactly what our purview is under CEQA, but I will just identify what concerns I have. I
think that and this is in no particular order of importance. On the EIR discussion relative to the issues
potentially around parking and the conclusion that their solution about using lifts I don’t really find that
satisfying or persuasive. I think that it may be a different situation entirely, but the City parking lots
where you have permits and you have a lot of empty spaces on the top floor I think a lot of the because
the lifts would be dedicated to a single user I’m concerned that you’re going to have an underutilization
in a sort of a new innovative parking technology and just intuitively I’m not persuaded that this is going
to be ideal and I share Commissioner Rosenblum’s yearning for a TDM plan as part of this. I don’t think
that the mitigation proposed in parking kind of passes my, my good housekeeping test.
I’m not clear whether tonight we get to weigh in on the DEE standard. I think that there was some
impassioned arguments by people that may have been improper, but I’ll maybe leave that to the Council
or if there’s a lawsuit filed. But it seem to be something that if we were to continue this to a date
uncertain perhaps that would be an area that further work should be done and then that might persuade
me to vote differently.
I think although again it’s probably outside our scope tonight I think that every major project and this is
certainly a significant project is going to have a cumulative impact. The California Avenue area is got a
lot of projects going and I think that maybe jumping ahead I’m not, I’m beginning to despair that the City
is ever going to update the Comprehensive Plan. When they do update the Comprehensive Plan there
will be potentially the what’s now the Draft California Avenue Area Concept Plan and a lot of work has
been done on that and a lot of discussion and other than possibly this fits in with the proposed ideas
about having a technology corridor it doesn’t necessarily reflect kind of the aspirations that I underst00d
of the Draft Area Concept Plan and so it’s sort of a preemptive move into a, in a different direction.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
I think the shading on the non-conforming legal use of the personal home is really unfortunate. I would
it just seems wrong to me that this is going to block all that light. Perhaps this home should be
demolished and you should build a 50 foot multi-million dollar townhouse there and then you wouldn’t
have a shading problem because you could go up to the 4th floor and have your own deck, but that may
not be an option for this, this resident. And I think the, there’s nothing wrong with building an office
building. I think this area is sort of an opportunity for mixed-use. This whole issue of the ratio of jobs
and housing in the area is something where there are other mixed-use buildings in this general area
going in which I think are very, very exciting. This is sort of a lost opportunity, but I would probably
favor continuing this to a date uncertain or possibly voting against our approval this evening based on my
concerns.
Chair Tanaka: Let’s see, Commissioner Alcheck.
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I share Commissioner Rosenblum’s perspective that the responses are
sufficient. I don’t want to suggest that our, that my review of this project tonight reviewed whether or
not the project is compliant with the zoning codes requirements, but I don’t think that’s in the purview. I
actually think that talking about whether or not a commercial building is a good idea is muddying the
water here. This site is zoned commercial. The Planning Department’s review of municipally compliant
projects is not part of our review and so there is a different body that will review whether this, there’s a
different hearing where discussing the proposals compliance with our code should take place where
individuals can articulate different interpretations of the code that differ with our staff’s interpretation and
that’s not tonight. If that was tonight I would respectfully ask Mr. Reich to explain to us why in their
view the DEE is a proper, is proper here. But I actually think that would be a mistake because we would
be asking them to do something that we actually are not; it’s not under our purview to review whether or
not this is in compliance with the height of our municipal code. This is not a Planned Community (PC).
We’re not reviewing the project’s municipal compliance and I want to stress again this is not also a
debate about whether or not commercial buildings should be here. And I think we really need to respect
that division of review because it’s one thing for us to discuss PC’s and projects that are seeking all sorts
of variances or exceptions when they come before us, but at this stage as an EIR we have to respect that
there’s a different hearing for that.
So I there are I think that there are I think some of the comments that have been raised could
theoretically be addressed more completely in the packet and I think it would be worthwhile to add to the
analysis that I think is actually very good the specifics about potentially the impact of the most recent
regulations regarding water particularly because of the recent I guess changes. I’m not entirely sure that
this project is any less compliant than it was 15 days ago or 24 days ago, but I just think that one of the
commenters mentioned that we should be evaluating the EIR as in the current environment and so if I
guess theoretically the regulations may have changed in the last 20 days or if there is a new order we
should at least acknowledge that in our packet and maybe that would be a good piece to include as it
makes its way to Council. Before we even entertain the idea of pushing this to a meeting at an unknown
date I think we should determine whether or not there is consensus here that the issues identified in the
EIR weren’t addressed properly or addressed in our Commissioner’s view sufficiently by the let me use
the right term here, by the staff report and its findings. So I’ll stop it there.
Chair Tanaka: Ok. So what we’re going to do also because it’s almost 10:00 is we’re going to start using
the timer again. So let’s, let’s make it three minutes for each (interrupted)
Ms. Silver: Excuse me, Chair Tanaka can I just (interrupted)
Chair Tanaka: Yeah.
Ms. Silver: Correct two things for the record.
Chair Tanaka: Sure.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Ms. Silver: So with respect to the water supply assessment and the water impacts that was I thought a
very good comment from Mr. Ross. The CEQA analysis is based on the existing conditions at the time
the notice of preparation is filed. And so of course conditions are constantly changing and so the law
says that it’s frozen in time at the day that the notice of preparation. So that’s why the new regulations
that were adopted a few weeks ago were not applied. Also in this case CEQA sets forth certain triggers
for when water supply assessments should be prepared and this particular project was not big enough to
implement that trigger.
And then one other comment I wanted to correct on cumulative impacts. So EIR’s and Negative
Declarations are required to examine cumulative impacts that are triggered by the project. So it
recognizes that maybe one project might not trigger an impact, but if there are other projects in the area
cumulatively there could be an environmental impact. And so the EIR did look at cumulative impacts and
so that is also within your purview. With respect to the projects that Mr. Ross specified the way our
traffic analysis works is that those projects are factored in in the background model or by using a growth
rate projection to incorporate those projects. So there was a cumulative traffic analysis done for this
project.
Chair Tanaka: Ok. I want to call on Vice-Chair and you have three minutes.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. So going back to shading, Page 28, this analysis are not a proof
that there is no impact on the light rights of the abutting properties. So my request is to provide
appropriate drawings that would prove that there is no shade on the adjacent properties because from
this plan as you may see, there is, I mean there is no property that would be, that’s not shown here and
there is no cross section that would prove to us that there’s no impact. Sure.
Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: So, you want us to respond to these Chair or how do you want us to?
Chair Tanaka: No, please respond to the questions.
Mr. Lait: Ok and I’ll look to others to fill in where I may need some help here, but when we’re doing our
CEQA analysis the City actually has adopted its own local thresholds of significance and that’s what we
look to when we are evaluating a proposal. And particularly with respect to shade and shadow impacts
that falls under the aesthetics section of, of our local criteria. And I’ll read the bullet that is pertinent to
the shadows and it says, “A visual impact is considered significant if the project will substantially shadow
public open space other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21.” It, there’s no criteria for or criterion for shading, causing
shadows on private development, private properties.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: I understand this, but then since the structure goes above the height limit with
the umbrella that’s on the roof that pretty much creates impact on the neighborhood by pretty much just
taking away something that these people enjoy today. So I understand that the pronouncement of this
letter, but pretty much there is no law that would allow, that would just restrict us from, from looking
into this if we’re just pretty much encroaching into the height limit.
Mr. Lait: Ok, thank you, and I guess what I would offer then in response to that is for the purposes of
your review this evening you’re looking at the FEIR and so we need to be mindful of the criteria that this
document evaluates the project on or against. There is an opportunity for those who are concerned
about that aspect of the project to express those concerns to the City Council to talk about the DEE and
how that might affect the neighbor specifically and the general vicinity as it relates to the findings that
the ARB reviewed when considering the project. So there continues to be an opportunity to voice and
express those concerns, but I would suggest that the Commission’s review this evening that is not that
forum.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Right, I understand. I mean I spoke because of this reason, right, that this
drawings they don’t, they don’t reveal that entire shading, shaded areas. And then for this reason may
remove from consideration some impact on adjacent buildings that would be, that would be looked at at
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
ARB meetings. Do you understand this? And then for this reason the other Commission may pretty
much overlooked that aspect because they may just look at this, say ok well this is within the purview of
this Commission, there is nothing for us to do. So it’s pretty much closing the gap between these two
commissions. That’s what it is.
Mr. Lait: So thank you.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Sure.
Mr. Lait: So it’s the Chair’s, excuse me, it’s the Chair’s call to decide if there’s more commentary, but I
will offer this if I can still conclude my remarks. Thank you for those comments and what we can do is
speak to the applicant and see what kind of additional materials we can get in preparation for the City
Council’s hearing when that is scheduled.
Chair Tanaka: Ok, why don’t you go?
Ms. Young: Thank you. Just to clarify the drawing that you have that Sheet 28 was part of the ARB
submittal so the ARB did have a chance to review that. Also the purpose of that document was not to
claim that the building had no impact on the adjacent sites, it was to document the existing building’s
impact, which is the little red dash line versus the impact of the new structure. Does that help you to
understand the intent of that drawing?
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Yes, I understand, but the intent of this what I was alluding to was that, that
the other Commission could have overlooked the impact of the structure on the roof because there is no
sufficient documentation to show the impacts on the other properties from the architectural perspective.
Ms. Young: Sure, the structures on the roof were included in the shadow model. So if they’re not
showing up on that diagram then there is no impact. The, in fact, pardon me, one of the primary
purposes for the tensile structure was to shade the roof of the building itself. So the majority of it, its
shadows stay on the building. Does that make sense?
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: No, sorry. I disagree. I mean this, I think that this is not complete, but I was
hoping for understanding. I understand this is not within our purview, but pretty much if there is, there
could be a gap between one and the other Commission if certain materials are not shown, right?
Chair Tanaka: So here’s what I suggest, I’ve been listening to all the Commissioner’s comments and I’ve
made a list of the issues that we want to deliberate and it’s been pretty clear to us that our purview
tonight is only the EIR, not the entitlement, right? We’re not doing a PC. We’re reviewing an EIR. And
so let me read each of these issues and if I missed one that you guys mentioned that I didn’t have on
here we could add it, but I think I got a pretty good list here. And what I’d like the City Attorney to say
is whether the item is in the purview or not and if it’s not we’ll cross it off and not talk about it more
because it means there’s no point for us to do it. So shadows?
Ms. Silver: That’s within your purview if you applied the criterion that Mr. Lait (interrupted)
Chair Tanaka: Ok, ok, ok. One issue that came up is the EIR legal aspects, like notice and all that kind of
stuff.
Ms. Silver: That’s within your purview.
Chair Tanaka: Ok. Circulation?
Ms. Silver: That’s within your purview under parking impacts I guess.
Chair Tanaka: Cumulative traffic, I think you already said yes. Ok. DEE?
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Ms. Silver: That’s not within your purview.
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so we don’t have to talk about that. Height?
Ms. Silver: To the extent it has an aesthetic impact.
Chair Tanaka: Ok. Water?
Ms. Silver: That’s analyzed in the EIR, yes.
Chair Tanaka: Ok. Well we kind of talked about parking, yes?
Ms. Silver: Parking, yes.
Chair Tanaka: Ok. Including reduction of parking spaces as suggested by Commissioner Rosenblum?
Ms. Silver: Including the what?
Chair Tanaka: The possible reduction of parking.
Ms. Silver: Yeah, as I outlined to him if it’s (interrupted)
Chair Tanaka: Ok, ok.
Ms. Silver: EIR issue.
Chair Tanaka: And then the structures on the roof, which is somewhat related to the height.
Ms. Silver: Height.
Chair Tanaka: Ok. Is this looking at my fellow Commissioners did I miss something here? Is there
anything that’s on this list, is there anything that’s not on this list that should be on this list that we
should talk about?
Commissioner Alcheck: I guess I’m curious because you mentioned water. I’m satisfied with the
response that our staff has given me with respect to the issue with water that I raised. And so I think
the list it would be more helpful if there were any items on the list that Commissioners feel are still
unresolved.
Chair Tanaka: Ok, that’s actually a good comment. So ok before I get to the… Commissioner Rosenblum.
Commissioner Rosenblum: I was going to just answer that question for myself, but I don’t know if you
want to get to that later. I, I made a statement that I think is erroneous earlier, which is that we’re not
looking at the cumulative traffic impact here and reread through the report. Indeed we are and I don’t
think it’s resolved on the way they’ve stated it in the report. I think they are looking at the incremental
and not the cumulative. But I’m not sure if that’s the question you were just asking.
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so here’s what I think we should do. Ok so there are one, two, three, four, five, six,
seven, eight. There are eight possible issues and it’s 10:09 right now. So we have a couple of choices
here, right? First thing is we have to see whether which one of these have been resolved or not
resolved. Like for instance I think water I think we all kind of are good on. So I could go through each
one of these, we could all nod and say yeah, we’re good or no, no, we have an issue. Ok, we could do
that.
The second thing we have to do is we would have to determine whether the report is sufficient because
maybe for some of these items the report is not sufficient and if that’s the case then it might be
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
worthwhile for us to be very clear to staff why it’s not sufficient so that staff and the applicant can do
more work if necessary. And then basically if the items are sufficient as a body we should look at that,
deliberate, and say yeah or nay. Ok? So… how’s that? Whether this meets the EIR or not, whether this
is sufficient or not.
Commissioner Alcheck: Can I just ask a question? In the process of determining insufficiency can we I
just feel like it’ll be nice to hear staff respond to the concerns of insufficiency. So I’m not sure what they
are yet because I don’t know if they’ve been articulated exactly. I think we just heard one that there is a
noncumulative analysis maybe we could give at least staff a chance to respond to the concerns before we
conclude.
Chair Tanaka: Ok, what I think we should do I think the first order of business is I think this list is
actually longer than it needs to be because I think some of these items have already been addressed. So
here’s what we’ll do, I’ll read each one of these items and you raise your hand up if you think that we still
need to talk about it. Ok? That sound good to everyone?
Commissioner Alcheck: One person is enough?
Chair Tanaka: One person is enough. Ok. Shadows. Ok, we can talk about shadows. EIR the legal
aspect, the notice, all that stuff. Ok. Circulation. Ok. Cumulative traffic. Height. Water. Parking.
Structures on the roof, structures on the roof. Ok. So we’re left with four: shadows, circulation,
cumulative traffic, and parking. Those are the four. So maybe what we should do is walk though and I
think if any one of these ok, here’s what I think we should do. I think we should go through because if
any one of these we think is there’s not sufficient information in the report or cannot be satisfactorily
answered by the applicant or staff this is almost means that more homework needs to be done before it
comes back to us. Ok? So maybe before we dive into any one of these items we should talk
(interrupted)
Commissioner Alcheck: Just to be clear the decision that it’s not satisfied by staff though that decision is
not made by just one Commissioner alone.
Chair Tanaka: No. We can talk about that.
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok.
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so let’s start with that first. Shadows; ok, so as a body do we feel that there’s
sufficient information in the report or from what we heard from the testimony today to consider this item
thoroughly? Do we feel that or is there something missing? If there’s something missing we should say
something. Ok, so we’ll talk about… sure.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: So I want to reiterate the point, right, from perspective of PTC I don’t think
that I’m comfortable that we covered shadow aspect. But from perspective of bridging the gap between
these two commissions, ARB and our Commission I believe that there should be a disclosure of the
structure and its shadow that it creates on the adjacent properties because the drawings they simply
don’t show it.
Mr. Lait: Ok, so the ARB has already evaluated the project and made its recommendation to the City
Council. The, I hear what you’re saying with respect to the documents that you’re looking at today.
We’ll continue to take a look at that. We believe it’s addressed, but we’ll look at that and we’ll ask the
applicant to provide some additional plans to effectuate the illustration that you’re seeking for and we’ll
present that, ask that to be presented to the City Council so the City Council has that information
available to them because they’re the ones who are actually going to be acting on the project.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Yes, and (interrupted)
Mr. Lait: Is that fair?
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47 48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: It will be fair (interrupted)
Mr. Lait: Thank you.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you.
Mr. Lait: Thank you.
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so Commissioner Alcheck.
Commissioner Alcheck: Just really quickly because I think it might be informative is it, my impression is
that the, that the municipal code does actually discuss potentially shading on adjacent structures and that
that would have been reviewed at some level in the Planning Department. The fact that it’s not
presented here is because our review doesn’t cover adjacent structures. Is that a safe assumption? Just
to make sure that I don’t want there to be this assumption, I feel like we’re fishing for a failure and I
don’t know if there was one so I’m just curious.
Mr. Reich: It is noted in the environmental document that within the zoning ordinance 18.16 under the
context based design criteria there is one line that says that a project shall limit its impact on sun and
shadow to adjacent properties. There’s no threshold or criteria given and so the, you look at the
environmental document it does, it does state that.
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so it sounds like shadows (interrupted)
Mr. Lait: And I’m sorry, so and that is a, that is an affirmative finding that needs to be made by the ARB.
Chair Tanaka: So it looks like for shadows we have sufficient information. Ok. Circulation; does anyone
feel that in terms of circulation we didn’t, there’s not sufficient information in the report or from what we
heard from either the public or the applicant to discuss this item? Ok. Cumulative traffic. Ok.
Commissioner Rosenblum do you want to talk about that? What’s insufficient?
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, so looking at the cumulative traffic analysis it seems to me that it’s
simply an incremental traffic analysis. So it’s hard for me, so first I was erroneously under the impression
that that wasn’t even part of the EIR. So that’s my, that’s my fault and it’s clearly part of the EIR. The
wording that you have is in the cumulative condition it is expected that some local roadways,
intersections will operate at unacceptable LOS; however, the addition of traffic generated by this project
would not significantly increase the average delay or volume capacity ratios for any intersection. The
proposed project’s contribution to cumulative traffic scenarios considered less than cumulatively
considerable. And the language I think makes it clear that it’s an incremental analysis. So I just don’t
understand how it’s a cumulative analysis meaning that you would have to include all of the pipeline
projects together and the current level of traffic in concurrence with this otherwise you’re simply just
doing incremental analysis followed by another incremental analysis. And so it’s possible that I don’t
understand, well it’s clear I don’t understand the standard for cumulative analysis and how that differs
from simply an incremental analysis of the number of seconds added by this project. So it’s possible I
misunderstand the standard, but it seems to me that’s just another incremental analysis.
Ms. Waugh: So I can try and give you a little context for how we approach the cumulative traffic analysis.
So we first start by evaluating the cumulative impacts so the impacts in a future year, which this year or
this EIR uses 2035, so we look at all of the projects that are included in the City’s traffic model, which are
based on the designations that are in the Comprehensive Plan as well as other reasonably foreseeable
projects and calculate what the LOS would be without the proposed project. That allows us to determine
where in the study area there would be a significant impact in the cumulative condition. Then what
CEQA requires is that we figure out which, to what degree the proposed project contributes to that
impact and that the language I know it’s cumbersome whether or not the project makes a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the cumulative impact. I did not write the CEQA, those are the words that
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
we, that’s what’s in the statute itself. So it’s a little bit confusing, but it is, it is basically what we’re
concerned about is the increment that the project would add, but we first have established what the
conditions would be in the cumulative scenario. So that lets us know if there’s a lot of development
going on say there’s an intersection today that’s operating unacceptably, but in the future it would be
right at the edge of being on the, on a unacceptable level that’s the most common time when you’ll see a
project that might individually have less than significant impacts, but in the cumulative condition could
contribute to a significant impact.
Commissioner Rosenblum: So I think I understand this. So on the incremental basis your standard is
number of seconds added? So if it’s over four seconds then it’s considered significant. Below it’s
considered minimally significant or something. And then the cumulative concept is that if an intersections
LOS is downgraded or becomes unacceptable as a result of this project that’s the cumulative impact
standard?
Ms. Waugh: The standards for whether or not an impact is significant are the standards that the City has
adopted so they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But the way that the City of Palo Alto’s standards
work is a combination of both. So there’s a bright line that if an intersection falls below a certain LOS
then that would be a significant impact, but there is also the consideration of how many seconds does
the project add to the overall delay and is that a substantial change. And both of those thresholds can
be used in the individual project analysis as well as in the cumulative.
Commissioner Rosenblum: Alright, thank you.
Chair Tanaka: Ok. So yeah I’m just looking for if folks feel that or disagree with Commissioner
Rosenblum in terms of sufficiency of information. Commissioner Michael.
Commissioner Michael: Yeah, so if someone could clarify my understanding on the existing situation at
the City’s worst intersection which is at Page Mill, Oregon, and El Camino which is close to this project, to
what extend do you have sort of the straw that broke the camel’s back with respect to any project is
adding 100 cars a day or whatnot to the neighborhood in which you have the City’s worst intersection
LOS F? Because it occurred to me in the past that if we really are sensitive about this we would I mean
the word moratorium isn’t my favorite, but if you definitely slow down on development in the area where
you’ve got this unresolved the City’s worst intersection. So for example there was a, I think the stock of
Yelp went down 18 percent today. The reason is because they missed their revenues by $5 million. It
swung them from a penny profit to a penny loss. So it was like a 200 percent impact. So anyway you
have these situations where you’ve got sort of a vulnerable condition and traffic in the California Avenue
area strikes me as one of an area of big concern in the City. So how do we deal with it?
Ms. Waugh: I would refer you to Page 3.3-8 of the DEIR, which is included in your FEIR. It’s towards the
end. The, that page lists out the significance criteria that are used. These are the criteria that have been
adopted by the City as well as influenced by the standards of the County for intersections that the County
controls. And so the applicable ones for this LOS and how intersection operations are changed by a
project are H, I, and J. So these specifically set out that the LOS requirement, the number of seconds of
delay, and the increase in the volume to capacity ratio. So for any, any intersection the worst one in
town or the best one in town these are the standards that are applied. And so even at the worst
intersection if you also refer to the cumulative impact analysis here there’s a table on Page 4-5 that
shows you specifically the number of seconds of delay that would be experienced at that intersection that
you mentioned without the project and with the project in that cumulative condition. And you can see
that the increase of delay is less than one second for both a.m. and p.m. peak hour and so that is, these
are the standards that have been adopted by the City to determine whether an impact is significant or
not and those are the standards that are used for the EIR.
Commissioner Michael: Thank you.
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so (interrupted)
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Ms. Silver: If I could just perhaps ask Kathryn a question on that. So and then so this was for 2035 and
it takes into account roadway improvements that are anticipated for that particular intersection. And so
that’s why it is not showing an impact perhaps for this particular project.
Ms. Waugh: I think it’s also due to the size of the project and how many trips the project would generate
relative to background traffic volumes. This project wouldn’t add very many trips. I don’t know what the
total number of trips are that go through that intersection on a daily basis, but the proposed project
would add such a small amount as to not noticeably or significantly affect the amount of delay that each
individual vehicle experiences and the overall LOS.
Commissioner Michael: So again it’s an excellent answer and I really appreciate that you understand this
at this level. I’m very impressed, but on this chart that you reference the condition of the LOS in the p.m.
peak hour for if F and it stays F and so you wonder as a policy matter the City if it’s F do you have to like,
like stop already. But I guess not tonight.
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so it sounds like both concerns about sufficiency of information for cumulative traffic is
ok. What about parking? Do we feel that there’s sufficient information in the report about parking? Ok,
so maybe let’s take each item one by one. So the good news is that we should have sufficient
information to talk about these last four issues. So the first one is shadows, right? Now this is, this is in
context of the EIR. Does anyone feel that based on the information that we have at hand that the issue
about shadows is not sufficiently dealt with? Commissioner Michael.
Commissioner Michael: So I’m persuaded that it’s not our purview to come in after the ARB and have and
re-litigate their issue nor is it our view to sort of update the language of the municipal code, but I think
that Commissioner Gardias’ suggestion that you have the clarification with additional disclosure to the
Council about the shadow on the adjacent property is important and with that I think we will have done
our job.
Chair Tanaka: Ok, seeing no other lights I assume that we think at least on this topic we’re good. Ok,
circulation. Does anyone have issues about the circulation in terms of the sufficiency’s in context of only
the EIR? Ok. I see no lights. Ok, cumulative traffic. Commissioner Rosenblum.
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, I’ll just I’ll finish this [unintelligible]. I think the information, the
explanation given makes sense and I think that the definition and standard are odd, but that’s not again
the discussion for tonight. So just to note I’ll try to take this up at another time, but the information that
you have supplied I think was very helpful and it’s clear. I understand the standard by which you were,
by which you were measuring this.
Chair Tanaka: Any other comments on cumulative traffic? Ok, last one, parking. And one of the kind of
sub issues of this is Commissioner Rosenblum’s proposal for a reduction in parking spaces. Does anyone
have any comments on this one in terms of is it not sufficient? Otherwise does Commissioner Rosenblum
want to talk about your proposal?
Commissioner Rosenblum: Well the proposal was proposed by the applicant initially saying that there
could be an option to reduce the number of spaces by I think 10 in exchange for that there would be a
supply of Caltrain Go Passes for all the users of the building for I believe 30 years. Is that something, it
was a… for the length of the project. I love that idea. I think it’s excellent. I think it would reduce the
number of trips; it would reduce the number of cars. I think that it’s the right thing to do in that area. I
don’t know how to do it from just procedurally that doesn’t it means the project doesn’t meet the
minimum parking standards. I think it’s something that if it could be entered in the record that if other
Commissioners agree with this that PTC would like Council to consider this. I think it would be a great
thing to do, but and I think the logic that of the 10, of all the people in that building getting free Caltrain
that it would displace 10 cars I think that seems like a fairly good bet and it’s the, and I think it’s the
right thing to do.
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck.
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Commissioner Alcheck: I think actually I don’t even think we need to vote on that or if you will because I
think I my hope is that City Council will hear Commissioner Rosenblum’s view and I also think, I don’t,
I’m curious to know what the procedural process for that, but I assume that it’s, I assume the City
Council has to make the decision that they would allow a site to be under parked in exchange for that
concession if you will. But I think, I think that’s tremendous, let me just put it that way. Especially
considering that the life of this building is probably going to be in excess of 30 years and in light of the
fact that in the next 10 years we may see the most dramatic change in transportation vehicle use. So
that doesn’t even seem like a fair, a fair trade from the perspective of the amount of value that would be
returned to users of that building from the community I guess because the users of that building would
be have such enhanced access to public transportation. So I echo that and I don’t know if we need to
vote on it, but I hope City Council discusses that or at least maybe Planning staff can discuss that with
them.
Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael.
Commissioner Michael: Yeah so tonight we’ve had a meeting that’s going on four and a half hours
already and counting. It’s unlikely that all of the members of the Council are going to wade through our
verbatim minutes in their final glory so I think this would be a situation where if staff could undertake to
include an explicit mention in your report about this aspect of the PTC discussion and/or the Chair could
provide an executive summary that highlights any issues that we ultimately have that would be great.
Chair Tanaka: I guess I’d like to speak on this item. In principle I think the proposal from Commissioner
Rosenblum makes a lot of sense, but the only issue is I think is that in the Cal Ave. area especially it’s
there aren’t that many parking structure and it’s relatively there’s certainly a big need of parking in that
area so while I like that idea I do know that parking is kind of scarce in that area and so I’m a bit
reluctant to reduce the parking space just because parking is so precious in that area, but at the same
time I do like the Go Passes. That’s also good. So you kind of want both, but I, I think parking is
actually very important there.
Ok so we’ve come to the end of the list and now is the time for us to make a decision in terms of what
we want to do. So I would like to see if any Commissioners would like to make a Motion. If so hit your
lights. Commissioner Alcheck.
MOTION
Commissioner Alcheck: At this time I would like to make a Motion that this Commission recommend City
Council approval of the FEIR for 2555 Park Boulevard.
Chair Tanaka: Does anyone want to second?
SECOND
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: I will second.
Chair Tanaka: Ok.
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: I will second it.
Chair Tanaka: Does the maker of the Motion wish to speak on about the Motion?
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I want to reiterate that there are clearly impassioned opinions about the
interpretation of our code as it relates to the design of this project and as a land use attorney I know
that, I know, I’m confident that there are opportunities to pursue some of these issues in a different
forum. And I want to I just I want to the only comment I want to make is that your confidence in your
Planning Commission shouldn’t be shaken because tonight wasn’t that forum. And we take this role very
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
I
seriously. And I think that I hope that every individual in our community that wants to address an issue
will find the forum to do that successfully. And I’m glad that we were able to sort of work through these
complicated items tonight while still being very professional and I want to just articulate how impressed I
was with staff’s knowledge and presentation of the issues.
Chair Tanaka: Does the seconder of the Motion wish to speak?
Acting Vice-Chair Gardias: Yeah, just briefly a couple of other items that we didn’t, we didn’t discuss.
believe that the applicant made a significant gestures toward the neighbors at our prior meeting so
certain concerns that were to the nonconforming residential property were addressed and I think that
from this perspective the applicant went beyond the requirement just by setting building back and
providing balcony with a tree so that’s good. The only thing that I would like to understand but this
would be probably for the, for some other conversations after we hopefully approve this project would be
to understand at what point of time our overlay district kicks in and becomes profitable for developers to,
to have services in the ground floor as opposed to just takes this area for the parking structure which
may not be very attractive for the City. So that’s maybe something that staff would just keep in mind
when we going to work on the Comprehensive Plan because we would like to understand it ourself and
as opposed to using this valuable space for parking how to just deal with it so it just becomes a service
floor. Thank you.
VOTE
Chair Tanaka: Ok, so it’s now time for deliberation on this Motion so hit your lights if you have any
comments or if you have any amendments that you would like to make to this Motion otherwise we will
take it to a vote. Ok, let’s take a vote. So everyone that’s in favor raise your hand. Ok, so we have four
and all opposed raise your hand. Ok, one abstain, four in favor. Thank you, this item is closed.
MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-2, Commissioner Michael abstained, Vice-Chair Fine absent, Commissioner
Downing recused)
City of Palo Alto Page 24
Attachment H
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES EXCERPT
2 3 Thursday, October 16, 2014, Meeting 4 8:30 A.M., Council Chambers 5 6 New Business 7 8 1. 2555 Park Boulevard [13PLN-00381]: Request by FGY Architects on behalf of Campbell 9 Avenue Portfolio, LLC for Architectural Review of the construction of a new three story, 24,466 10 square foot office building replacing a 10,800 sq. ft. mid-century modern office building in the 11 Community Commercial (CC(2)) zone district. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental 12 Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared and circulated for public review and the comment 13 period runs from September 5, 2014 through October 20, 2014. 14 15 Chair Lippert: If you have any comments on the Draft EIR, get those in. If staff would like to introduce 16 the item. Okay, we're ready to go, staff. 17 18 Russ Reich, Senior Planner: All right, thank you for waiting. We are here today to review a proposal for 19 a new three-story office building to replace an existing two-story mid-century modern office building. 20 The fact that the existing building is over 50 years old and the fact that the building has been found to be 21 historic requires that we have done a EIR for the project. We have Katherine Waugh of Dudek, who did 22 the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and she will be providing a presentation on that to you. This is 23 the first of two public hearings where we will be taking public comment on the Draft EIR. You have seen 24 this proposal twice before, once in a scoping session for the environmental document and once in a 25 preliminary review application. The applicant has made a number of revisions to the project. I'll let them 26 go into details about that. One of the primary changes that they've made is the two stair towers that 27 kind of anchor the building at each end. The Board had felt that they were kind of too large and too 28 massive, and they have reduced those in height and dimension in response to your comments. They've 29 also reduced the overall height of the building around the back side. Staff had commented that they 30 were concerned about the parapet height for the hiding of the equipment on the rooftop was too 31 extensive, you know, wrapping around the whole part of the back building. They've reduced that and 32 eliminated it and pulled the equipment enclosure in such that it doesn't add to the perceived height of 33 the building. With that, I will introduce Katherine Waugh of Dudek to do the presentation on the 34 environmental review. 35 36 Katherine Waugh: Okay, thank you, Russ. Good morning. It's nice to be here again. As Russ said, I'm 37 Katherine Waugh with Dudek, and I have a short presentation to go over the findings of the Draft EIR, 38 and then it would be appropriate to open it up for public comment. Do I just click to advance the slides? 39 Oh, roll it. There we go, all right. As I mentioned, the goal of the hearing today would be to receive 40 comments on the adequacy of the EIR, to what degree the EIR addresses the environmental impacts that 41 the project might have, and whether the public have concerns about how that analysis was presented. 42 My presentation overview is listed here. Quickly review the purpose of CEQA and talk about the 43 proposed project; a real brief project description; and then review the key findings of the EIR. Sorry, 44 also talk about the next steps in the process. As you're aware, the project proposes to demolish an 45 existing two-story office building which contains a little over 10,000 square feet and 28 parking spaces, to 46 replace that with a three-story structure that would provide 24,466 square feet and 92 parking spaces, 47 one level of at-grade parking and one level below grade. The parking would be accommodated with
1
1 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d
48 mechanized parking machines. There was also a second project option that is evaluated in the EIR, 49 called a parking exemption option. This contemplates the project using a transportation demand 50 management program to reduce their total parking requirement. By doing that, they would be able to 51 eliminate some of those parking machines and, therefore, some of those onsite parking spaces could be 52 available for guests and visitors. Both options have vehicle access entirely from Grant Avenue as 53 opposed to the current office building has access from Grant as well as from Park. The slide here shows 54 a site plan. The project requires a Design Enhancement Exception for the height of some of the elements 55 on the roof. The project would provide a wider sidewalk than is currently there. It would effectively 56 provide a 10-foot wide sidewalk. The building would be certified at the LEED Silver level. The purpose of 57 CEQA is to describe the existing conditions in the project's setting; provide a detailed description of the 58 proposed project; and then evaluate whether that proposed project would have a significant adverse 59 effect on the environmental conditions that are described as the existing conditions. Where significant 60 impacts are identified, the Environmental Impact Report must identify feasible mitigation measures that 61 could effectively reduce or avoid those impacts, sometimes provide compensation for those impacts. 62 Then reach a determination as to what is the residual level of significance. Were those mitigation 63 measures effective at bringing the impacts down to a less than significant level or do any significant 64 impacts remain? The primary goal of CEQA is to provide all of this information for the public and decision 65 makers, you know, to inform the decision making process and ensure that, where there are significant 66 impacts, those are fully understood before a project might reach the approval. The environmental review 67 process is outlined on this slide. We started with the Notice of Preparation, which was supported by a 68 detailed Initial Study. That Initial Study analysis allowed us to focus in on the topics where there was a 69 potential for a significant environmental impact. We also held a public scoping meeting here with your 70 Board in April of this year and used the comments that were provided by the public and by the Board 71 Members at that time to make sure that we covered those issues in the Environmental Impact Report. 72 We've released the Environmental Impact Report for public review. There's actually two different end 73 dates floating around. I think you mentioned October 20th. That's the date that the document's made it 74 to the State clearing house allows for the October 20th end date. Actually I believe that based on the 75 date that the newspaper notice was published, the comment period is actually open until October 23rd, 76 only a couple of extra days there. Once the comment period has ended, we will prepare a Final EIR. 77 That entails that I would prepare responses to all of the comments that are received, just either providing 78 additional information where necessary or providing clarifying edits if required to ensure that any 79 environmental issues raised in comments are adequately addressed. There would also be a hearing at 80 the Planning and Transportation Commission for their recommendation on the EIR similar to what you're 81 being asked to provide today. Then the City must certify the EIR before any decision is made on whether 82 to approve the project or not. Now I'll go over the key findings in the EIR. We focused the EIR on three 83 different topics: cultural and historic resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and transportation and 84 traffic. I'll quickly go over what we found relative to those three topics. The building was originally 85 constructed in 1964 and has been determined to be an example of the mid-century modern architectural 86 style. Because relatively little improvements or modifications have been made to the building, it has been 87 determined that it's eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Places, which makes it a 88 historic resource under CEQA. The project would propose to demolish that building and under CEQA it's 89 determined that anytime you demolish a historically significant building, there is no way to adequately 90 mitigate that to a less than significant level. The EIR does require as mitigation that photo 91 documentation would be completed for the existing building, but remains with a significant and 92 unavoidable impact as our conclusion there. We also found that there's a slim chance that cultural 93 resources might be encountered during the site work. It's considered to be a very low potential, but we 94 have identified a standard mitigation measure stipulating what actions need to be taken should that 95 occur. With respect to hazards and hazardous materials, there are issues related to the age of the 96 building and the materials that may be contained in that building that most likely do contain asbestosis-97 containing materials, lead-based paints, and other substances that need to be controlled appropriately 98 during the demolition procedure to ensure that that doesn't result in health impacts for anyone 99 surrounding the site. Then there's also the contaminated groundwater plume in the area that this project 100 sits on top of. As excavation occurs to create the below-grade level of parking, we've identified 101 mitigation measures that need to be implemented to ensure that that construction process itself doesn't 102 release hazardous materials into the environment. Then also building construction requirements such as
2 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d
103 a water vapor barrier and garage ventilation to ensure that any of the contaminants in the groundwater 104 don't build up an unhealthy concentration within the building. The final topic that we looked at was 105 transportation and traffic. A detailed traffic impacts analysis was performed and evaluated the degree to 106 which the proposed project could increase traffic in the area. We found that there was a total of 246 107 total daily new trips that would be added as a result of the project with about 35—sorry, I had to make 108 sure I got my numbers right—35 of those would occur during the A.M. peak hour and 18 during the P.M. 109 peak hour. The traffic analysis found that these trips, once they're distributed through the City's road 110 network, would not add significant delays to any intersection. All intersections would continue to operate 111 at the acceptable levels of service as defined by the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Valley 112 Transportation Authority's standards. There was no mitigation measures that are required under the 113 traffic section. I should note, we also found that the parking exemption option would have slightly 114 reduced impacts relative to traffic and transportation. With that TDM program in place, you would 115 assume that some percentage of the workers would be using public transit to commute to and from work 116 and, therefore, there'd be slightly fewer trips. That same conclusions holds that the impacts would be 117 less than significant. I also intended to mention during the discussion of cultural and hazardous materials 118 that the exact same mitigation measures would apply to either of the project options. This slide is about 119 next steps, but I realized in looking through the materials this morning that I had left out an important 120 slide regarding project alternatives. That's another key component of CEQA, is that you look at project 121 alternatives that may be capable of reducing or avoiding some of the project's significant impacts while 122 still being feasible to attain most of the project's basic objectives. There were three project alternatives 123 that we evaluated in this EIR. The no project alternative assumes that the proposal is not approved and 124 the existing building is retained in place. We did find that this wouldn't meet the objectives of the project 125 applicant though. Although, of course, it would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact of 126 demolishing that building. We also looked at a building preservation alternative. This would contemplate 127 are there things that can be done to the building to improve the, you know, life and safety standards or 128 to meet current standards while still retaining the historic components or historic elements of the existing 129 structure. We did find that, you know, there are some options in there that could be some improvements 130 made to the building. However, they would, you know, materially affect the integrity of those historic 131 elements of the building. We did find that the impact would be slightly reduced, but it would still remain 132 as a significant and unavoidable impact. Any time you contemplate modifying a historic resource, it's 133 very difficult to avoid altering those components that make it historic. The final alternative that we 134 looked at was the PTOD—I'm sorry—the pedestrian transit overlay district, I believe is what that would 135 be. That would envision a product that might include some residential units as well as a lesser amount of 136 commercial space than what's proposed. We found that that alternative again would still have the same 137 significant and unavoidable impact of demolishing a historic resource, would have the same types of 138 impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, and might slightly reduce the trip generation relative 139 to what's proposed. It would slightly reduce some of the traffic effects but, as all of those effects were 140 determined to be less than significant, CEQA doesn't require that you adopt this alternative based on that 141 reduction in vehicle trips. Now, I'll continue with the scheduled presentation of next steps. As I 142 mentioned, at the end of the public comment period we will review all of the comments that are received 143 and prepare responses to them. That would include written comments that are received as well as the 144 comments received today verbally and at the Planning Commission hearing. The Final EIR is then 145 prepared. It would include any revisions to the Draft EIR that might be necessary as a result of those 146 comments. Then that is the document that would be considered by the City for certification, and then it 147 could be used to support any actions taken on the project. If the City determines to approve the project, 148 we would also support the City in filing a Notice of Determination which begins a 30-day statute of 149 limitations for anyone who wants to appeal or challenge that decision. As I mentioned earlier, the close 150 of the comment period is actually October 23 which I believe is next Thursday. Comments that are 151 received during the comment period will be included in the final EIR. The address to submit comments is 152 shown on this slide. That wraps up my presentation. I have one last slide that just has, you know, 153 comments, question mark, but I think maybe we'll leave up the address for now until there's another. 154 155 Chair Lippert: I have one quick question for you, and then we'll go to the other Board Members for 156 questions and then the public hearing. With regard to the public comment period on the Draft EIR,
3 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d
157 people can speak to that today in the public hearing. Next week there is a Planning and Transportation 158 Commission meeting. Can people speak—is there one? 159 160 Mr. Reich: No. We anticipated October 29th for a Planning and Transportation Commission meeting. 161 162 Chair Lippert: Okay, so this is the only time. 163 164 Mr. Reich: That's a tentative date. 165 166 Chair Lippert: Okay. People may speak to the Draft EIR today or they may submit their comments in 167 writing. After a week from today, next Thursday, the public comment period is closed on the Draft EIR. 168 169 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Which means the initial comment period is closed and the responses 170 to those comments in writing, you know, after that date public comments are still welcome. In fact, at 171 the Planning Commission after the close of the initial period, those comments can still come in. It's just 172 that our obligation to respond in detailed comments falls off after that initial public comment period. 173 174 Chair Lippert: Okay. When we go to the public hearing, it would be great if people could identify 175 whether they're speaking to the Draft EIR or whether they're speaking to the proposal. I just want to 176 clarify that, because there's two things going on here. 177 178 Mr. Reich: I just wanted to add one item that I forgot to mention. At places you should have comments 179 from one of the neighbors. He could not attend today, Mr. Peter Brewer. Hopefully you received at 180 places comments from him. If not, then I can make sure we run off copies. I had left instruction to 181 make sure that that happens. If you don't have that, please let me know and I'll make sure that you get 182 it. Thanks. 183 184 Chair Lippert: I don't think any of us have it. If you could get those comments, that'd be great. Okay, 185 I'm going to return to the Board for any questions. We'll do a round of questions and then we will open 186 the public. Oh, we have to have the presentation by the applicant. That would be good. That's what 187 happens when you sit in the back row. I'm sorry about that, Ms. Young. 188 189 Heather Young: No worries. Good morning. Oh, sorry. Good morning, Board Members. I'm Heather 190 Young from Fergus Garber Young Architects. Thank you, Russ and Katherine, for the introduction. 191 Because Katherine's done such a great job in talking about the EIR and I think you're all familiar with the 192 site, I'll just jump directly to the revisions and changes from the last presentation to where we are today, 193 if that makes sense. 194 195 Chair Lippert: Actually, you know, this is the first real presentation of the formal proposal. The last one 196 was a prelim. 197 198 Ms. Young: Okay. 199 200 Chair Lippert: Prior to that, it was a scoping sessions for the Draft EIR. For the members of the public, if 201 you could make a full presentation and do it, that'd be great. 202 203 Ms. Young: Absolutely. That's fine. The subject site is on the corner of Park and Grant Boulevards. It's 204 a little bit southeast of the California Avenue Shopping District. Here's Cal. Ave., El Camino, Alma and 205 the rail line, and our site is here. The site is highlighted in yellow. It is a corner site. Adjacent to it is 206 one of the members that you just spoke to. One of the neighbors is a office. There's a single-family 207 residence, and then the through lot here is another owner for commercial activity. There's a 208 condominium project here, and then you've got a mix of residential and commercial. There's the County 209 Courthouse across the street. It's a very diverse neighborhood. The design proposes that the existing 210 structure be replaced with a new three-story office building. The building has a below-grade parking 211 level as well as partially covered parking on-grade. It also proposes a tensile roof structure at the top.
4 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d
212 The project, as you can see from the site plan, is proposing to reinforce the bike boulevard along Park. 213 The existing curb cut has been removed on Park. Then the curb cut off of Grant has been relocated. 214 Vehicular traffic is now focused on the Grant side. The Park façade now has new trees and bulb-outs and 215 parallel parking and a bicycle parking area that we will look at a little bit more as we move forward. 216 You're also seeing a light and tree well on the project's north side. Another light and tree well on the 217 northwest corner, and additional trees on the Grant side. The elevations--I apologize to members of the 218 audience because they're fairly washed out here, but it should be a fairly good graphic in the Board 219 Members packet. These are the two primary elevations on Park and on Grant. What they show is the 220 proposed design and then there's an orange-shaded zone adjacent to, above many locations where the 221 building has been shortened or pulled inboard either from a property line or a reduction of mass. That's 222 in direct response to some of the comments that we received not only from the Board but from the 223 neighbors to look at finding ways to reduce the height and the apparent mass of the building. We've 224 worked with our co-consultant and with the mechanical engineers to be able to in many locations reduce 225 the height by 2 feet; in other locations to move the elevator tower away from the property line about 6-226 plus feet. As you know the elevator overrun is allowed to extend beyond the roofline. It's a physical 227 requirement, and we've been able to move that mass inboard. Another item that you'll see here is the 228 primary design of the project which is the concrete poured-form stair tower with the feature window on 229 the left side of Park. An open, covered balcony area with setback glazing at the main entrance. The 230 ground-level parking is behind a landscaped green wall at street level, and then there are two floors of 231 open office on the corner and the tensile structure above. On Grant, you see the wrap-around of that 232 two-levels of open office. The setback terraces and again the second stair tower anchoring the other 233 corner. We've also modified the railing at the second-floor balcony in response to some earlier 234 comments. It's now an open, more transparent picket system that adds warmth and visual transparency 235 to that area of the building. We've relocated the building address which was at the corner over to the 236 front entry. As we move forward with the presentation, you'll see that there's also a new planter area 237 and a small monument sign proposed to further reinforce the entry to the building as this area. The two 238 interior facades—again I apologize. The graphic is not as strong as what you see in your package. At 239 the rear façade, there had been a mechanical screen on both sides. That has been reduced 4 feet and 240 the mechanical area has been pulled much further away from the property line. Now this is literally the 241 most minimal parapet that we can do by Building Code. Also you're seeing the planter in the northwest 242 corner has been reduced another, I believe, 4-plus feet. it's very faint here, but this façade in elevation 243 has been pulled back another 2-foot-6, so now that facade sits back from the residence which is here 12244 feet-6 from the property line. I'm sure I don't need to remind you, but other members may not know the 245 building is zoned to allow for a zero lot line setback on both of the interior facades. We've actually, I 246 think, worked pretty hard to pull back in those areas to bring light and air into the surrounding neighbors 247 as well as into the building. This is a further graphic of that area I was just describing. With the 248 residence, there's an existing fence that the residence has. The new proposed height of the planter there 249 is, I would say, less than 1 1/2 feet above the existing fence. This orange area that you see is the 250 reduction in planter height, the pushback of the wall and the reduction of parapet height. It's a much 251 greater sun and light window to come into that adjacent residence. This section is cut closer to Grant 252 where the elevator has been moved inboard and the wall has been reduced to, again, help to open up 253 and reduce the mass on that side of the building. Here's another graphic where again you're seeing the 254 parapet walls coming down, the elevator reducing in width and in height, and the stair tower reducing in 255 height and then the planter reducing in height more sections similarly. This is actually a good section to 256 demonstrate the overall building design, grade being here. You come in off of Grant and there are car-257 stacking machines on the ground-floor level two high. You go down the ramp and, in the below-grade, 258 there are three-level car stacking machines. You're parking at the middle level and there's a pit below. 259 The alternative that was mentioned in Katherine's presentation would remove 10 cars from the project as 260 part of a TDM, a traffic demand management, program. In that scenario, the ground level would have 261 no stackers. It would just be surface spaces, and then you would have the stackers in the basement. 262 The other elements that you see in the design are the entry lobby and the second and third floor open 263 office plan which extends over to Grant. The stair tower that goes from the basement up to the roof and 264 then the tensile structure. There's a new tensile structure over here, which is a companion to the main 265 one. I'll get there in just a moment. Another item that the Board asked us to look at was perhaps 266 brightening and enlivening the proposed color palette. What has been done is the more neutral,
5 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d
267 chocolaty-brown tones have been replaced with a golden rod stucco color. The green wall color at the 268 base of the building that wrapped around the areas has been replaced with a taupe. I mentioned the 269 semi-transparent picket-railing here which is painted a brown tone to reinforce the wood epee seating 270 along the pedestrian way. There's also this—sorry. 271 272 Chair Lippert: If you could just wrap it up. 273 274 Ms. Young: Sure. You can see the tensile structure here. Unfortunately, we could not change the color 275 of the tensile structure. We had several meetings with the Fire Department and the Building Department. 276 They were very clear that the product we needed to use had to be this particular rated product. We did 277 talk with them about using this colored product here, because we have wall-mounted fire sprinklers. 278 They were understanding that that particular one could have a lesser rating to it. There's an accent 279 color, a pop of accent color. The side elevation on Grant with the new feature window which was also 280 requested revised elevations to show this as a perspective view. The elevator tower now being set 281 further back, the mass being reduced. The Board had asked for additional perspectives from the end of 282 Grant where you're seeing the inset with the stucco and the taupe rear wall. Oops, one too many. Also 283 from the other end of the adjacent neighbor's property where you're seeing the setback wall, the lowered 284 planter, and the inset here. There is a little ... 285 286 Chair Lippert: Thank you. 287 288 Ms. Young: ... fly through if you want—I'll sit down. 289 290 Chair Lippert: Okay. We'll return to the Board for just clarifying questions here, and then we'll open the 291 public hearing. Board Member Gooyer. 292 293 Board Member Gooyer: I don't have anything at the moment. 294 295 Chair Lipper: Board Member Lew. 296 297 Board Member Lew: Yes. A question for staff. Thank you for getting the copies of the letter from 298 Mr. Brewer. Right. And Mr. Jacobs. I mean they're saying that they didn’t get proper notification. For 299 the Brown Act we have to have 72-hours notice, and they're saying that they got less than 48 hours. 300 Can we even be having this meeting today? I would make just a comment that there was a holiday on 301 Monday. Like the mail schedule, I think you probably sort of anticipated the regular schedule, but there 302 was a holiday. I think everything could have been delayed. 303 304 Ms. French: First of all, our requirement is newspaper notification of the meeting, which we did. That 305 was done in a timely manner. We do send out courtesy notices to a radius. We do have evidence that 306 Mr.—is it Mr. Brewer—by email did know that the meeting was today. That was nine days in advance. 307 Russ might have more detail on that. 308 309 Mr. Reich: Just the detail on that. The applicant actually reached out to a few of the interested parties 310 that had been kind of in communication with us throughout this process. As we noted earlier, it's already 311 been to two prior hearings before this Board. I believe it was nine days prior to the hearing they had 312 mentioned that this hearing was upcoming. They even gave them the date, mentioned the availability of 313 the Draft EIR. I'd also like to mention, you know, that all that information has also been on our website, 314 letting people know when the ARB hearing date would be. That was posted over a month ago. The 315 information has been out there. 316 317 Board Member Lew: Okay. Do you have any other thoughts about this? I mean I think we tried to be 318 accommodating to them. Also too, how does it factor in that the EIR has not been finalized? Sometimes 319 with environmental review we postpone a decision until after all of the EIR issues have been finalized. 320
6 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d
321 Ms. French: The nature of EIRs, right, is that there's a draft EIR and then that's going through an 322 extended process in this case. I mean this is an architectural review level application, but you know 323 there's a couple of aspects of it that go into other venues, one of them being the HRB that is, you know, 324 tasked with, you know, looking at the demolition delay of 60 days and making a recommendation to 325 Council. The Council isn't going to be involved in the EIR and that demolition delay determination. This 326 is not the last opportunity for public speaking on this matter, on the EIR or the project. 327 328 Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you. 329 330 Chair Lippert: Vice Chair Popp, any clarifying questions? 331 332 Vice Chair Popp: I just have a quick question for staff in regard to the property that's adjacent to this, if 333 there's information available to us about 123 Sherman. I looked online briefly and it looked to me like 334 that changed hands in and around 2012. Do we know, has the zoning for that property been CC(2) for a 335 period of time, a long period of time? 336 337 Mr. Reich: In my time here, I'm not aware of that having changed, but that's not something we've 338 researched. 339 340 Vice Chair Popp: The residential use that's there has been on a CC(2) parcel for ... 341 342 Ms. French: Over 16 years. 343 344 Vice Chair Popp: More than 16 years. Okay. Thank you very much. I think that was the only question I 345 had for staff at this time. Thank you. 346 347 Chair Lippert: My clarifying question was similar to Board Member Lew's. I think you've answered that 348 adequately. Okay, so this is the time when we'll open the public hearing. I have several speaker cards 349 here. Each of you will have three minutes apiece. The first speaker will be Judith Fields followed by 350 Jarrod Jacobs. If you'd be so kind as to introduce yourself, just your name, and then indicate whether 351 you're speaking to the Draft EIR or the design proposal. 352 353 Judith Field: My name is Judith Fields, and I live at 2581 Park Boulevard. I'm in one of the condominium 354 units behind the project. I'm speaking to the EIR. Something has not been included in the EIR that I 355 think is important. I guess I'm speaking to the project in the sense that the added traffic on Grant Street 356 is going to exacerbate an already bad, dangerous problem. That problem is when you go to the stop 357 sign on Grant and Park, you cannot see literally because there is parking on three sides of the corners up 358 to the end of the, I guess, to the corner. You can't see, so what you start doing is creeping out into the 359 road, which is what everyone does. Sometimes it feels like you're beyond the bike lane and you are in 360 the middle of the street before you can really see. It's a frustrating situation. I know there's been some 361 fender-benders. I don't know if there's been anything more dramatic. I see in the future with more 362 traffic from this project as well as more traffic on Park Street, as it develops it's going to become a much 363 worse problem. Park is not pedestrian friendly at all, partly because people are picking up speed as they 364 go to the freeway entrances and partly because there's really no place to stop. There's no stop signs of 365 any kind. You just have to depend most of the time on the good graces of the drivers. I think there 366 needs to be some mitigation for the dangerousness of this. We need to consider safety for everybody, 367 and I think that a four-way stop or some other kind of traffic controls can go a long way to mitigate the 368 present and future traffic. Thank you much. 369 370 Chair Lipper: Thank you, Ms. Fields. Jarrod Jacobs followed by Alice Jacobs. 371 372 Jarrod Jacobs: Hi. I'm the owner and I live in the residence behind the proposed project. My wife had 373 to leave; she won't be able to speak today. I had some slides. Are those available? 374
7 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d
375 Chair Lippert: If you wouldn't just mind indicating when you're speaking to the Draft EIR and then also 376 the architectural design. 377 378 Mr. Jacobs: I intended to speak more broadly to the project in general. I did review through the draft 379 EIR. It was very carefully written, I can tell. Yeah, it was very thorough. 380 381 Chair Lippert: It's fine. We just wanted to make sure that we capture all of the public comment so that 382 they can be addressed in the final Draft EIR. 383 384 Mr. Jacobs: Sure. 385 386 Chair Lippert: Take your time. 387 388 Mr. Jacobs: I guess I could begin without the slides. This is just another photograph that I took from, I 389 guess, the report that came from the architects. This is just showing the proposed project—sorry—the 390 existing building today and then this here's our residence behind the law firm. I'm just showing kind of 391 the nature of the spacing that exists today. The main concern I brought up the last time we were here is 392 just that we feel that the new proposed building is very large for the site, for the nature of the 393 neighborhood. This is also taken from the latest proposal. Now, I'd like to acknowledge that they've 394 made some efforts to reduce the massing, you know, 2 feet here and 4 feet there. It's great. I 395 appreciate that they're hearing us and they're making some changes. However, I'd just like to say that 396 we still feel that this is an inadequate spacing in that anybody who sees this, not just me, I feel like an 397 impartial observer would look at this situation here and say, "Wow. I feel sorry for the person who lives 398 there." They must, I mean, this looks, I mean, it's not, it looks like it was done—maybe you could say it's 399 almost kind of like an architectural slap in the face. I don't know if there's a term for this. I mean I'm 400 glad that there's a notch taken out of here, out of the building so it's not just a stark wall. This isn't even 401 as wide as our house. You know, from part of the house, you'll still be looking at this wall. I appreciate 402 that they're doing some studies to see what it looks like. I've modified one of their drawings from the 403 report here. This is what they had, showing that you could see a tree. I've added here where the actual 404 wall is past the notch, because part of the house will be looking at that. I've added the first floor 405 observer. You can see that on both floors of our windows, we have, you know, all these windows facing 406 southeast toward the sun. I mean they're looking into walls here. Whether it's this surface or this 407 surface, there's very little sky. I know I need to wrap this up. I know. This is also from their report. I 408 just wanted to highlight that the backyard area and those walls are in 100 percent shadow for three 409 seasons of the year. I'm happy to answer any questions. We moved into the place 2 1/2 years ago. We 410 bought it from the original owner. We were told from the City that the house was allowed to be there 411 and it's allowed to be rebuilt if there's a fire. We feel like we're there legitimately. Thanks. 412 413 Chair Lippert: Thank you. Please let your wife know that there'll be other opportunities for her to speak 414 to this item. Thank you. Peter Lockhart followed by Mark Weiss. Mark is my last speaker. If any other 415 members of the public wish to speak, please get in a speaker card. 416 417 Peter Lockhart: Good morning. I'm Peter Lockhart, and I'm speaking in support of this—nope. Am I on 418 here? 419 420 Chair Lippert: If you might just wait for a second. Could somebody please ask the ... Everybody got 421 that? Okay. 422 423 Mr. Lockhart: Okay, am I on? Okay. I'm Peter Lockhart and I'm speaking in support of the project at 424 2555 Park. I've either lived there or worked on Olive Avenue, just a few blocks south, since 1973. 425 Actually I've known the building since the mid '60s when Alfred Leon was the gardener, and he was one 426 of my first employers in the landscape contracting business. He took care of that building and I've 427 known that personally for years. Anyway, oh, at that time El Camino had telephone poles, gravel 428 sidewalks. Sundance Mine Company was a Stanford U malt shop. I've know the place a long time. The 429 building was built with low cost in mind, and it served its purpose well for years. It is a disaster waiting
8 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d
430 to happen, though if you look at it structurally at this point, it's time to move on. The proposal is cutting 431 edge for Palo Alto and for Silicon Valley. To me, it really speaks of what we're all about now. Times are 432 different than they were in the '60s whether we like it or not. I'm having to adjust as well. It's an 433 architectural clean up. The project, to me it's fun, it's friendly, and it's functional. How FGY was able to 434 make the modifications and concessions they have is architecturally beyond belief. I think it's incredible 435 what they've been able to do in response. Now John Tarleton seems to have a wonderful track record. I 436 know him personally. I can see what he's done. I think he wants to do a quality project, and I think he's 437 put together a tremendous team. FGY's done an amazing job from what I've seen. I've looked at the 438 drawings in detail and gone over them. They look, like I said, I think it's excellent. I think it's a vast 439 improvement for the area. As far as traffic, there are other projects that are going to bring far more 440 traffic than this. This is almost a drop in the bucket compared to what's happening at (inaudible) just 441 down south. We don't have to like traffic, but it's going to be here for a while. Anyway, I think it's a 442 good team they put together. I think it's a good project. I've looked at it thoroughly. It's exciting, and I 443 wanted to support it. 444 445 Chair Lippert: Thank you, Mr. Lockhart. Mark Weiss, and Mark is our last speaker. If I don't get any 446 other cards, I'm going to close the public hearing after Mr. Weiss speaks. 447 448 Mark Weiss: Good afternoon. Mark Weiss, 1788 Oak Creek Drive. I lived briefly on Pepper. I know the 449 area. I don't know Mr. Lockhart, but I remember the Spilettas who lived on Olive, Argentinean 450 immigrants would host charreadas in the backyard, barbeques. It's an interesting neighborhood. For 451 whatever reason, my heart goes out to Ventura. It's an interesting part of town. I haven't studied this 452 thoroughly. I'm a little bit of a knee jerk reaction here. Predictably, you'll guess what I'm going to say, 453 and I'll have an opportunity to open my mind even farther at further proceedings, if necessary. I'll go by 454 today on my way to the PO Box or Molly Stone's or whatnot to walk around it. I happen to meet, I don't 455 know them personally; I happened to meet the Jacobs earlier today, the young mother with the babe in 456 arms and the two well-behaved kids who waited three hours to have their say and then decided enough 457 was enough. I guess I would simply put, like many residentialists in Palo Alto, we would rather invest in 458 5 1/2 month old Dash Jacobs than invest with John Tarleton. 459 460 Chair Lippert: Thank you, Mr. Weiss. Okay. We will close the public hearing and return to the Board for 461 questions and any comments they have. We'll begin with Board Member Gooyer. 462 463 Board Member Gooyer: I think this is a great improvement over the last time we saw the building. A 464 couple of things. The front, the balcony where the signage is now, which I think is a better location. I'm 465 still not happy with the fact that I think that that treatment should then turn the corner and hit the 466 building, so you don't see that sort of phony façade concept. If you look at it from the angle or 467 whatever—this one, that little couple of feet there. It ... 468 469 Mr. Reich: Doesn't wrap around. 470 471 Board Member Gooyer: Right, right. I don't like where it looks like it's applied to it. I'd rather just see 472 the whole—yeah, that one. I'd like to see it wrap around and actually hit the wall again. Also, I'm just 473 really not a fan of, at least at this elevation, floor to ceiling glass in the office spaces. It's the proverbial 474 you see all the junk and everything else. What I'd like to see, and I think it would help the design 475 somewhat, is that if the—I like the yellow banding much more than this sort of chocolate brown or 476 copper color. I'd like to see that made a little stronger. In other words, the bands a little deeper. I think 477 that would also go a long ways toward adding a couple of feet at the bottom or a foot and a half at the 478 bottom to get rid of a lot of the clutter that invariably you see crammed up against the window walls, the 479 cabling and the wiring and that sort of thing. I think it would help the horizontality, because it's sort of a 480 fight now whether it's sort of a vertical building or a horizontal building. I think adding those three bands 481 to the two yellow ones and the silver one in the middle and making them a little larger, I think, would 482 help. The treatment of the corner elements, I think, is great. I would be able to support this building 483 the way it is now with a couple of, like I said, minor modifications. 484
9 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d
485 Chair Lipper: Board Member Lew. 486 487 Board Member Lew: Thank you, Heather, for the changes. You know, I'm on the fence with regard to 488 this project. The basic design I like. Really I've been struggling with the DEE and I've been sort of 489 rereading like the staff draft findings for the DEE. I spent a lot of time looking at the zoning map and 490 rereading like the Zoning Ordinance. My inclination now is to go against the DEE. In past projects, 491 we've sort of said that these roof decks on top of the offices were okay because the neighboring 492 buildings were taller, the existing buildings were taller than the proposed projects. Now, we're saying 493 theoretically the zoning on the neighboring sites could allow for a bigger building, but the buildings are 494 smaller. To me, that seems like the logic isn't following through from, you know, our previous approvals. 495 The Comp Plan, right, is pretty clear on maintaining the scale of California Avenue, and that's generally 496 37 feet high. Some of the RM-40s can be higher. I think the staff report says that they could be 50 feet 497 on the parcel in back of the proposed project. That's only true for mixed use, and that's not true for a 498 pure commercial project like this project is. If you have a mixed-use project, you get the extra height, 499 but you also have a setback from the RM-40 property. Generally, mixed-use projects have to have a lot 500 more windows and balconies for the residential uses. This is a different shape building. I'm trying to 501 interpret the Zoning Code, that there's no difference in floor area between mixed use and all commercial. 502 It's 2.0 floor area. Really the difference is in the height. I'm interpreting it as saying that if you have a 503 mixed-use building, you have to have setbacks for the residential use and then we'll let you go taller 504 because you're building for the setbacks. To me this doesn't quite settle on my mind, saying that 505 because the project in the back could be 50 feet then, therefore, I get to build the elevator and the stair 506 towers and the roof canopy. I generally support like roof decks and all that. This one doesn't have any 507 planting. The tensile structure is 45 or 40 feet by 85 feet, which is really big. I mean I don't know what 508 plant needs to go there, but that's not like an employee break area or whatnot. I mean this is really very 509 substantial size. I think that the impact of it in terms of massing isn't that big, because it's located in the 510 center of the building. The language of the DEE is minor, like cornices, trellises, stairs, and whatnot. To 511 me, I think it's kind of hard to justify something that big as saying it's minor. I mean I like the project, 512 but it doesn't quite seem to me to meet the language of the Zoning Code. I think, as we all know, we 513 have like lots of people in public who are scrutinizing every word in the Zoning Code. I think I'm going to 514 tip my hat and sort of err on the side of being conservative and say that it doesn't meet the DEE findings. 515 516 Chair Lippert: We'll come back to you. Vice Chair Popp. 517 518 Vice Chair Popp: Board Member Gooyer stole my thunder with the two comments that he brought up. I 519 agree very much with what he has said in regard to the wood paneling wrapping around the edge. I 520 think that that would improve the look of that. The drum that I often beat is the floor to ceiling glass is 521 really problematic for me. There's just no way to control what goes on inside the building. My recent 522 experience walking around, driving around is all of the buildings that have that are less attractive than I 523 would hope they would be. I don't mind the glass going full height if you can incorporate a frit pattern or 524 some other aspect of vision control into the building at the lower edge. I think there's a whole series of 525 concerns about this. He's brought up a couple with the wiring and people loading boxes or furniture and 526 things up against it, you know, modesty issues and all sorts of things. I just think it's appropriate to 527 consider some type of a visual alternative to the full height glass at that area. In regard to the DEE, I 528 very much appreciate Alex's comments, Board Member Lew's comments. Excuse me. I was struggling 529 with this as well. I think that we have a building that is in an unusual location and has some unusual 530 circumstances. The logic that he's applied, I think, is absolutely valid. I had come to a different 531 conclusion. I think that this building is a transition between the lower buildings that are around it and 532 the 50-foot buildings that are near it. I like the idea that there is a very soft transition by the use of this 533 roof deck between the areas that are more dense and the areas that are less dense in terms of height. 534 The one comment that I would have, again aligned with Board Member Lew, is that I just think that the 535 canopy is too large. I think it could even be a little bit smaller than it is. It would be very nice to be able 536 to get up there onto the roof. I think it would be great to utilize that area for employee breaks, etc. 537 Contrary to what I had described for the Borders book space, the Varsity Theater space where I was 538 saying we need more shade, we need more shade. I think that in this case having a little bit less would 539 be nice. Getting up there and having some space where you can get out into the sun and have some
10 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d
540 chairs out there that would give people the choice of being in the shade or in the direct sunlight would be 541 great. The way it's pulled back from the edges and the character of the canopy structure itself, I think, is 542 very appropriate to the architecture, very considerate of the neighbors. I'm more inclined to support the 543 DEE at this point. I think that, you know, the question of why do you have to go up on the roof is a fair 544 question. But I think that there's so much benefit of going up on the roof that I don't really need to have 545 the answer to that for me. It's pretty clear to me. I did want to just ask briefly, as we're talking about 546 that though, why not the PTOD alternate that the EIR is proposing, this mixed-use concept? Yeah, if you 547 don't mind. Could I just get you to weigh in on, you know, it's clear that the no building alternative has a 548 certain implication to it. It's clear that the preserve, upgrade, improve has a series of implications as 549 well. You have chosen to go with the project as proposed, but there is this third alternative, the PTOD 550 alternative, that would be for a mixed used building. That is certainly something that would be possible 551 at this site, and I'm just wondering what the thought process was behind purely commercial versus 552 something that might have been mixed use and go higher, bigger, other constraints. 553 554 Ms. Young: We actually did study the mixed use scenario very early on. I'm trying to recall. Did we 555 have the same 37-foot height limit or did ... Yeah, that was the rub, is that we had the setback and the 556 same 37-foot height limit. It became a nonviable project. At that point we focused on the purely 557 commercial. (inaudible) No, it's the same, I think it's the same 2.0 for the CC(2). We'll have to go back 558 and double check, but my recollection was that we had the same height limit for this particular site for a 559 mixed use, because of its relationships around it. Yet, we still had the setbacks. You couldn't actually 560 develop it in the same way. Frankly, that's one of the reasons why we were very excited about the TDM 561 option to reduce parking on the site, because that was a way to reduce vehicle trips to the area and also 562 to address some of the neighbors' concerns about traffic on Grant. 563 564 Vice Chair Popp: Thank you. I have more, but I can wait until the next round. 565 566 Chair Lippert: First of all I want to say thank you for coming back with the formal proposal. My 567 comments are very much in line with Vice Chair Popp's. I'm in agreement with him on the canopy and 568 the DEE. That's not a problem at all. Where I think the building is very successful is in that in so many 569 office buildings today where we have obscured windows, we have buildings that are not connecting with 570 the street. This building has a variety of indoor and outdoor spaces that communicate and connect with 571 the street really well. I really like what you're doing with regard to the windows on the Park Boulevard 572 side of the building. I really like the notion of these terraces. I think that that is particularly important to 573 connecting to the street. It also allows for a tiered, you know, terraced-type connection, because you 574 have the first floor, second floor and then you have the roof garden. The roof with the canopies, I think, 575 begins to become a very exciting dynamic space. I'm not terribly concerned about the roof structures in 576 relationship to the residential properties that are around it, because generally, you know, offices are 577 during the day time. The residences are mainly at night. Weekends, yeah, people are home in their 578 houses or their apartments. Not a lot of activity generally goes on on the weekends. If it does, people 579 are there for a very brief time. They're in the office; they're not generally out on the roof. Even if they 580 were, I mean, what are we talking about? A couple of people maybe? I don't know. However, I think 581 where I have difficulty is on the back side of the building. I don't think the backside of the building is as 582 successful as the front side of the building. Where I have the sort of rub, so to speak, is why not push 583 the building out, the front terraces out towards the street and have that enclosed and begin to pull the 584 back side of the building away from the property line so that you could have terraces on the back side of 585 the building. It's a push-pull type of thing. I know that it's a very dynamic element to the building. Can 586 you just talk a little bit more about how we might be able to get more interest and visibility on the back 587 side of the building? You know, I guess where the difficulty is—we recently reviewed a project, the 240 588 Hamilton building, it has sort of the same issues 589 590 Ms. Young: Yeah. You've actually hit on one of the big challenges. It's wanting very much ... 591 592 Chair Lippert: Could you pull the microphone a little closer? Thank you. 593
11 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d
594 Ms. Young: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Wanting very much to enliven the property line facades and 595 trying to find ways to bring light and air and views deeper into the floor plates. The challenge of 596 occupiable space outboard is actually pretty severe. In order to have occupiable space, we've got 597 required setbacks and fire separations, and then even if you do that, in order for you to be able to 598 occupy it, the occupancy has to be a minimum of 10 feet away from the opening on the property line. I 599 think this is 11 feet setback here and it's 12-foot-6 setback there. We would have to set this wall back at 600 least another 10 feet in order to begin to get people out there. Even then they still couldn't come to the 601 edge. They couldn't come any further than the wall actually is right now. We've tried to find ways to 602 increase that engagement. You can see—sorry—there are more of those floor to ceiling windows that 603 are not very well received by everyone on the two sides. It's an attempt to open up views and get more 604 light and visual connectivity there. Having people occupy that interior property line is actually a much— 605 well, you all know. It's actually a pretty intense challenge. 606 607 Chair Lippert: We'll go for another round of questions and comments. Board Member Gooyer. 608 609 Board Member Gooyer. Actually I'm okay. Most of the other comments that I had thought about have 610 already come out. 611 612 Chair Lippert: Board Member Lew, if you want to continue with your questioning and comments. 613 614 Board Member Lew: I don't have anything else at this time. 615 616 Chair Lippert: Vice Chair Popp: 617 618 Vice Chair Popp: Wow, okay. I do have a couple of other things. First, in terms of your site plan and I 619 really appreciate the choice to remove the driveway and maintain the driveway that's on Grant. I think 620 that the stop sign that's there helps to control the traffic flow in and out of Park, and it's a very smart 621 way to do that. I'm appreciative of that move. I also wanted to just note my appreciation for your 622 choice to create setbacks on walls where actually you don't have a setback requirement to do that in 623 ways that is considerate of the buildings that are around you. I think, you know, for Mr. Jacobs the 624 challenge here is really that you have a very unusual use in the midst of what would otherwise be a very 625 commercial property. I think that the applicant has done a respectable job here of trying to 626 accommodate the concerns that you are raising in respect to your site lines and lights and shade shadow. 627 The separation between your building wall and their building wall is now 32 feet, or something like that. 628 I mean it's pretty significant. I'm having a hard time coming to some request for more than that. I think 629 they've done an appropriate job. The presentation that you gave today describing the notch in the 630 corner and the placement of that, it all seems very appropriate to me in terms of the architecture and the 631 way that they're siting their building and drawing away from yours. I hear very clearly what you're 632 saying, and I think that to the degree that we can ask the applicant to be thoughtful about color and 633 reflectivity and the planting that goes on there, perhaps even encouraging a discussion and a dialog 634 between you and Mr. Jacobs in regard to those items, that the species of trees that might occur in those 635 planters, all of those things, I think it would be very appropriate and nice for you to interact with him 636 about that as much as possible, he and his family. The details that you provided on Sheets 22 and 23 637 were very helpful for me. I did have a question for you in regard to the spandrel material at the window 638 box along the edge. It's not clear to me what that material is. Is that an aluminum panel? Is it ... 639 640 Ms. Young: That's correct. It's an aluminum panel that's inset from glass, so you're seeing through the 641 glass to a shadowbox surface. 642 643 Vice Chair Popp: Okay, that's great. Thank you. It's the same glass that would be ... 644 645 Ms. Young: That's correct. 646 647 Vice Chair Popp: ... on the face. Okay. I do want to just raise a concern about the horizontal members 648 at the guardrails, the roof deck, and at the balconies. That immediately just becomes a ladder. Anybody
12 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d
649 that's out there that's young, not as careful, you know, still a low center of gravity but they go right over 650 those things. I wanted to encourage you to think about potentially a different guardrail design for that 651 area. I'm talking about the ... 652 653 Ms. Young: For the office building? 654 655 Vice Chair Popp: The office building, right. I'm talking about the railing that's at the roof level and the 656 railing that's at the balconies. You're showing a horizontal design for those railings ... 657 658 Ms. Young: That's correct. 659 660 Vice Chair Popp: ... that would be very climbable. 661 662 Ms. Young: Yes, that is correct. 663 664 Vice Chair Popp: I'm very concerned about that. I'd like to suggest that perhaps you come forward with 665 some alternates for that. 666 667 Ms. Young: For the young children who are in the office building? 668 669 Vice Chair Popp: I get your point but, you know, people have parties. They have events. That's a nice 670 roof deck that's up there and I imagine that people will bring their children to the office with them 671 occasionally. I'm not telling you that you have to change. I'm just suggesting that you should consider 672 some other type of railing system potentially. I think this is a comment that I've heard raised at the 673 Architectural Review Board a number of times in the past. I think it's valid. I just wanted to raise that 674 concern. Let's see. Painted middle balcony, glazing, sections. I think that's everything that I had. I'm 675 pretty comfortable moving this project forward at this point. I'll wait to hear what the Chair has to say 676 here. Thank you. 677 678 Chair Lipper: We do see the age of programmers coming down. They're now in preschool, I think. 679 Okay. There are just a couple of things here. On the back side of the building, I'm sort of in variance 680 with Board Member Gooyer. I think that those windows along the back are fine having them come down 681 to the floor. In fact, you know, the other flip side of the comments that I was going to have is on the 682 back side where you've got this whole wall. It can in some ways be mitigated by where you've got the 683 high clerestory windows, maybe having those come down even further. Let me ... 684 685 Ms. Young: May I? 686 687 Chair Lippert: Please. 688 689 Ms. Young: Sorry. Those two right here? 690 691 Chair Lippert: No. The ones ... 692 693 Ms. Young: Oh, those. 694 695 Chair Lippert: Those. 696 697 Ms. Young: Oh, okay. 698 699 Chair Lippert: Let me explain where I'm going. Federal regulations now are trying to get more and more 700 light into buildings, more natural light. I believe that this is on the north side or the northeast facing side 701 of the building. It's rather benign. It's not heat-generated sort of light. There is an opportunity to get 702 more daylight into the building; thereby, not having the necessity of using office lights. Also, I know that 703 there may be some issues with the views, but I think that because of the blank nature of this wall, you
13 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d
704 know, the back side of the building, that this really begins to add interest as well as light on the back side 705 of the building. I would entertain that. One other comment I had is with regard to the other set of 706 windows that you have on the corner that's facing the Jacobs' unit. You know, I think that having a 707 colored wall finish on an outside corner is always problematic where you have a change of material or a 708 change of color. I always, you know, think that having it return around the wall and finish on the interior 709 corner is a much better way to go. It's not an egregious sort of eye sore here, but it's something that I 710 think is problematic. 711 712 Ms. Young: Thank you. I agree with you 100 percent, except that in this condition we have a cast 713 concrete wall which is 10 inches think. The infill wall here is stucco. The cast concrete wall will be in 714 place probably a few months prior to the construction of the stucco wall and its finish. We're anticipating 715 that it's actually a very clean condition. I don't know if we (inaudible). Yeah, there's an offset of, I 716 believe, 4 inches that the concrete will project and then the stucco comes in. We're very concerned 717 about that exact same issue, because it's a constructability issue. It's a durability and a waterproofing 718 issue. We want to make sure that that's a good, clean connection. Thank you. If I might go back to 719 this. These are actually already at their maximum allowed percentage of opening on that wall. Are you 720 proposing that the windows be lowered? 721 722 Chair Lippert: Correct. 723 724 Ms. Young: Lower them? 725 726 Chair Lippert: Not widened, but lowered. 727 728 Ms. Young: Sorry. Not increased in depth, but physically the whole thing lower. 729 730 Chair Lippert: Correct. 731 732 Ms. Young: Oh, okay. We tend to put windows close to the ceiling because the ceiling acts as a 733 reflective plane, and it increases its perception on the interior. Otherwise, you get more of a contrast in 734 the sort of a dark corner when you lower a window. (inaudible) Deeper into the space, that's true. We 735 can look at it. As you know, we're applying for LEED Silver certification. I think one of our points is also 736 the daylight and the exterior views. We thought this was the preferred approach to achieve that. I may 737 be out of the loop. I think there's a section that he may have seen. Do you have a different experience 738 where a lowered window is better? 739 740 Chair Lippert: My take on it is that if you have a full height piece of glass, you know, like a curtain wall, 741 it's not problematic because what happens is there's usually a recess or a return where the ceiling is a 742 dropped ceiling or a soffit of some kind, maybe even pocketed where you have some sort of mechanical 743 shade, you know, up there. However, with a window like this, you know, it could in fact be problematic 744 and you may in fact be reducing the amount of light if there's a dropped ceiling in the space. Why not 745 just avoid that all to begin with and drop the window down. Also, I don't necessarily think that the 746 window pattern has to be the way you've got it arranged. I want to create more of a visual interest and 747 connection, you know, using those windows. How that's achieved, you know, is up to you. I mean they 748 could be, you know, a window is a pierced opening. 749 750 Ms. Young: We hadn't thought about shades on this wall. It's sort of the northeast wall, but you're right. 751 Somebody could put in shades and they could also come in with a dropped ceiling. We could look at 752 that. 753 754 Chair Lippert: Okay. Those are basically my comments. Oh, and one other thing. I just want to say 755 that this is really a high quality project in terms of your material palette. There's a real authenticity to 756 the materials, and I think that's particularly important. Any other comments here or do I have a motion? 757 Board Member Lew. 758
14 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d
759 Board Member Lew: I was looking for things in the set. Do you have transformer locations, location 760 meters, final land—I think you have like an illustrative landscape plan, but I don't see any hardscape and 761 all that kind of stuff. 762 763 Tim Shockey: Tim Shockey with Fergus Garber Young. The transformer is going into an existing vault in 764 Park, and we're upgrading the existing one that's there. The fire backflow is down in the basement 765 behind the accessible stall, not in the path of travel, but in an area that's not being used for anything. 766 We've got the irrigation and domestic backflows behind the monument sign in the entry area there. I 767 think that covers all the utilities. 768 769 Board Member Lew: Great. Hardscape. Like I think the sidewalk is wider, right, you have the 10-foot 770 sidewalk, effective sidewalk. What is that? Is that just regular city gray? 771 772 Mr. Shockey: Yes, it's the lamp black city sidewalk. I think we have a 10-foot-5 setback at the planter, 773 and then we have 11-foot-9 setback at the Park stair tower. 774 775 Board Member Lew: Okay, thank you. I think for staff too, I think normally we have a standard like 776 boilerplate condition of approval that the final planting and hardscape get submitted. I didn't see it here. 777 I didn't look very carefully, but I just checked quickly. I think that's normal, right, and I didn't see that. 778 They haven't really submitted a final in the set. 779 780 Ms. French: I think not all plans need that condition, or projects. Certainly if it's not there, we should 781 add it. 782 783 Board Member Lew: I just have—on my page 33, it's just a tree protection plan. 784 785 Mr. Reich: 28, 29, and 30. Excuse me, it's 29 and 30. 786 787 Board Member Lew: Oh, I see. I was just looking at the pictures on 29, and I didn't see the schedule on 788 30. Like hardscape in your entry plaza, is that just, that's the same as the sidewalk? 789 790 Ms. Young: It's actually a pedestal paver system similar to the one that'll be used on the roof terrace for 791 drainage. At that entry terrace, we're above the garage, so we're working on a waterproofing detail so 792 that, again, you know the water has to be treated. 793 794 Board Member Lew: Right. Okay. I think my last question is how do you maintain the trees in the 795 second floor planters. 796 797 Ms. Young: Great question. We didn't show you the floor plans, but there are wall mounted ladders off 798 of the flat top-part of the ramp so that you can get up. 799 800 Board Member Lew: Oh, I see. You go through those openings? 801 802 Ms. Young: Yes, that's correct. 803 804 Board Member Lew: Okay, interesting. Thank you. 805 806 Chair Lippert: Anyone wish to make a motion or do I have other discussion here? 807 808 Vice Chair Popp: Yeah, I'll make a motion. I'd like to move that we approve the project as conditioned 809 and in accordance with the staff report with a more detailed landscape plan to return to subcommittee 810 along with a concept for reduction of the canopy structure, a reduced area plan. I don't know. I don't 811 know how to say that exactly, but make it smaller. I thought that was part of the package, but I should 812 say it specifically, okay. As part of that approval, we would be approving the DEE, recommending 813 approval of the DEE as proposed. Pardon me?
15 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d
814 815 Ms. French: Am I hearing that your motion includes recommendation for approval of the DEE with a 816 reduced ... 817 818 Vice Chair Popp: Of the DEE with a reduced canopy. Sorry. That's a big mess, but yeah. 819 820 Chair Lippert: Do I have a second on that? 821 822 Board Member Gooyer: Could I suggest a ... 823 824 Chair Lippert: We need a second. 825 826 Board Member Gooyer: Okay, I'll second. 827 828 Chair Lippert: Okay. Do you wish to speak to your motion? Okay. Do you want to speak ... 829 830 Board Member Gooyer: Yeah. I wanted to recommend the wrapping back of the balcony. 831 832 Chair Lippert: Is that a friendly amendment? 833 834 Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, a friendly amendment. 835 836 Vice Chair Popp: I'm happy to accept that. I think we had given the applicant some comments about 837 that and the glass and some other things that I'm anticipating that they'll incorporate into the project 838 (crosstalk). 839 840 Board Member Gooyer: Okay. 841 842 Chair Lippert: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? 843 844 Board Member Lew: Would the maker of the motion clarify how much smaller you were thinking for the 845 roof canopy? I mean like half or 20, I don't know. I'm just trying to—because it makes a difference in 846 how I might vote for the project. 847 848 Vice Chair Popp: I would suggest it be about a third smaller than it is. About a 30 percent, 33 percent 849 reduction, something like that. 850 851 Chair Lippert: So you're amending your motion? 852 853 Vice Chair Popp: I'm just clarifying for Alex what my expectation is. 854 855 Chair Lippert: It should be in the motion. We're reducing it by a third? 856 857 Vice Chair Popp: I'll amend my motion to include an approximate reduction in scale of the canopy 858 structure by a third. 859 860 Chair Lippert: Is that okay with the seconder? 861 862 Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, that's fine. 863 864 Chair Lippert: Okay, good. Any other comments? Board Member Lew. 865 866 Board Member Lew: Question for the applicant. Is there a photometric? 867
16 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d
868 Ms. Young: Excellent question. Our electrical consultant promised us that it would be ready today, and it 869 was not. I'm sorry. 870 871 Board Member Lew: Can I add a friendly amendment that the photometrics go to the subcommittee as 872 well? 873 874 Chair Lippert: You may. 875 876 Vice Chair Popp: I'll accept that. 877 878 Ms. Young: We do have the light fixtures as you saw on the elevations. 879 880 Board Member Lew: They're very nice, very expensive fixtures. Very nice. Thank you. 881 882 Ms. Young: Quality. 883 884 Chair Lippert: Is that acceptable to the seconder? 885 886 Board Member Gooyer: Yes. 887 888 Chair Lippert: Great. We have a motion with several minor amendments, that the wood—is that what it 889 is? 890 891 Vice Chair Popp: Right. 892 893 Chair Lippert: Wood continue around the corner on the lower balcony, that the canopies be reduced by a 894 third, approximately a third, and that photometrics return to the subcommittee. Anything else? Okay, 895 with that ... 896 897 Board Member Lew: The floor to ceiling glass? 898 899 Chair Lippert: Oh, the floor to ceiling glass. 900 901 Board Member Lew: It seemed to me that a majority of the Board was—or maybe it was me. It seemed 902 like a couple of members of the Board were concerned about the floor to ceiling glass. I would echo 903 that. 904 905 Chair Lippert: But there was not motion, there was no amendment for that. Do you have an 906 amendment? 907 908 Vice Chair Popp: I'll amend the motion to include a reconsideration of the floor to ceiling glass with 909 either some type of a pattern or some other methodology to control visual access into the building at the 910 lower portion of the glass. 911 912 Chair Lippert: Is that acceptable to the seconder? 913 914 Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I'm fine with that with the thought that, as you said, it could be a variety 915 of ways it's done. Just something in that sense. That's fine. 916 917 Chair Lippert: And landscaping details to return to subcommittee. Okay. We have a motion and several 918 amendments. Have you caught all those, Russ? 919 920 Mr. Reich: Yes. 921
17 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d
922 Chair Lippert: Okay, great. With that, we'll vote on the motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. 923 That passes 4-0-0-1. Great. Thank you very much for your time. 924 925 Ms. Young: Thank you.
18 | 2 5 5 5 P a r k B l v d
Attachment I
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
EXCERPT OF MINUTES
1 2
3 Wednesday, November 19, 2014, Meeting
4 8:00 A.M., Council Chambers
5
6
7 1. 2555 Park Boulevard [13PLN-00381]: Request for Historic Resources Board review of a
8 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared regarding a request by FGY
9 Architects on behalf of Campbell Avenue Portfolio LLC for Architectural Review of a
10 proposal to demolish an existing 10,800 sq. ft. two-story mid-century modern office
11 building and construct a new 24,466 sq. ft. three-story office building with one level of
12 below grade parking and a roof terrace in the Community Commercial (CC(2)) zone
13 district. The Architectural Review Board has recommended approval of the application,
14 which includes a Design Enhancement Exception request to allow two stair towers and a
15 roof top canopy structure to exceed the height limit by 10 feet and 13 feet
16 respectively. Environmental Assessment: The Initial Study and Draft Environmental
17 Impact Report (DEIR) were published on September 5, 2014 for a 45 day initial public
18 comment period. The initial comment period on the DEIR has been extended through
19 November 19, 2014, to allow input by the PTC and Historic Resources Board.
20
21 Chair Kohler: Staff, would you like to fill us in on this?
22
23 Russ Reich, Senior Planner: Good morning. Thank you, Chair Kohler and Board Members. The
24 purpose of today's meeting is to take additional public comment on the Draft EIR for the
25 preparation of the Final EIR. The Board is not required to comment on the environmental
26 document, but your comments are welcome as are additional comments from the public.
27 Today is the final day to provide oral or written comments on the draft environmental
28 document to be included in the Final EIR. There will be other public hearing opportunities to
29 comment on the project, but this will be the final opportunity to get comments that will be
30 incorporated into the Final EIR. I'd like to introduce Katherine Waugh of Dudek. She's the
31 environmental consultant who has prepared the Draft EIR, and she will give you a presentation.
32 Thank you.
33
34 Katherine Waugh: Thanks Russ. Good morning. My name is Katherine Waugh. I'm a senior
35 project manager with Dudek. As Russ stated, I'll be giving you a presentation to give you a
36 quick overview of the project and the findings of the Environmental Impact Report. As Russ
37 indicated, the intent here is to provide an opportunity for public and the Board Members to
38 make any comments on the Draft EIR to ensure that the EIR adequately addresses the
39 environmental effects of the project. My presentation will give you, as I said, a quick overview
1 | 2555 Park Blvd
40 of the project, the background on the California Environmental Quality Act and the process of
41 preparing a Draft and Final EIR, the key findings that we reached in the EIR, and then what the
42 next steps in the process will be. As is summarized in the meeting agenda, the project proposes
43 to demolish an existing building that's 10,800 square feet and 28 surface parking spaces at that
44 site and replace the building with a 24,000—sorry, I always forget these numbers—24,466
45 square foot building with parking incorporated at the ground level and one level below ground
46 to provide 92 parking spaces. The project site is designated Community Commercial and there
47 are a mix of uses surrounding the site including offices and residential. This slide shows an
48 overview of the building floor plan at the ground level. You can see that the parking is
49 incorporated in a garage, an enclosed structure with office space on the ground level as well as
50 on the two upper stories. The project would provide a wider sidewalk by setting the building
51 back and provide some planters and benches to help activate the street and would provide a
52 couple of new street trees as well. There are two project options that are considered in the EIR.
53 One is the proposed project which is designed to be compliant with the City's parking
54 requirements and provide the 92 parking spaces. The way those parking spaces are provided is
55 in a mechanized parking machine that is fitted to each car that's going to be parked in that
56 structure. Each employee at the building would have a designated parking space. The
57 applicant also provided a parking exemption option which would incorporate a transportation
58 demand management program that allows the project to reduce their parking requirement. By
59 doing that, the project would be able to eliminate some of the parking machines, making those
60 parking spaces a little bit more flexible and able to be used by multiple people rather than
61 being assigned to a specific employee. The project requires a Design Enhancement Exception
62 for building height. It proposes to construct the third floor roof deck, and there are a couple of
63 roof elements that would exceed the height limit in the zone district. The project is proposed
64 to be LEED Silver certified. This slide gives you an overview of the intent of the California
65 Environmental Quality Act or CEQA. The primary intent is to disclose to the public and to the
66 decision makers the environmental effects that would result from a proposed project. We also
67 look at ways to mitigate those effects by either avoiding or reducing the environmental effects
68 or providing compensation for them. We evaluate those impacts based on thresholds of
69 significance that are explained in the Environmental Impact Report and, as I said, implement
70 feasible mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to levels that are less than the thresholds
71 identified. We also look at project alternatives to see if there's a different way to design the
72 project or a different project that might fit better in the location and avoid environmental
73 impacts. The public review process is key to the Environmental Quality Act, to CEQA. The
74 document has been available since September 5th for people to review and to provide public
75 comments on. As Russ indicated, today is the final day for submitting either verbal or written
76 comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Those comments are then incorporated
77 into a Final EIR where we provide direct responses to each comment that's provided. This slide
78 outlines kind of the key steps in the process. We started with a Notice of Preparation that gave
79 the public notice that we would be preparing this Environmental Impact Report and solicited
80 comments from the public at that time as to what topics need to be addressed in the EIR. We
81 then prepared the Draft EIR and are now in the public review period for that process. As I said,
82 we'll be preparing a Final EIR that provides responses to any comments that have been
83 received. The Final EIR then will be presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission
84 for their review and then, before the City can determine whether or not to approve the project,
2 | 2555 Park Blvd
85 the City would need to certify the EIR stating that it has been prepared and adequately
86 evaluates the environmental impacts as is required under CEQA. The next few slides will review
87 the key findings of the EIR. There were three topics that we looked at in detail, the first being
88 cultural and historic resources. The building was originally constructed in 1964 and is an
89 example of the mid-century modern architectural style. It is not currently listed as a historic
90 resource either on the City's Inventory or the National or State Registries. The analysis
91 prepared by Turnbull, or Page & Turnbull, I believe—thank you—found that it is potentially
92 eligible for listing on the California Register. The building embodies the mid-century modern
93 architectural style and has a number of contributing features and design elements that make it
94 a good representation of that style and eligible for listing on the California Register. Because
95 the project would demolish the building, that is considered to be a significant impact under
96 CEQA. The mitigation measure that's recommended in the EIR is to prepare the photo
97 documentation and recordation of this building, so that the records of it can be preserved.
98 Under CEQA, there is no way, if you're going to demolish a historic building or a building that's
99 potentially eligible for listing, there really is no way to mitigate that impact to a less than
100 significant level. The EIR concludes that this would be a significant and unavoidable impact of
101 the proposed project. Another issue that we looked at in the EIR is the hazards and hazardous
102 materials. Due to the age of the building, it does contain asbestos-containing materials and
103 lead-based paint. During demolition, there are mitigation measures that explain that the
104 procedures that need to be followed to ensure that demolition of the building doesn't release
105 those materials into the air and cause any health hazards. The project site is also above the
106 contaminated groundwater plume, and there was a former drycleaner operation on the project
107 site; so there are contaminants in the soil and in the groundwater. Again the EIR includes
108 mitigation measures that explain the procedures and regulations that need to be followed to
109 ensure that all of those materials are handled appropriately. There's also mitigation measures
110 that describe requirements for building construction, such as a vapor barrier and waterproof
111 membrane, to ensure that contaminants in the groundwater plume don't build up in the air
112 within the proposed building. With implementation of all those mitigation measures, the EIR
113 finds that the impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than
114 significant. The final issue that we looked at in the EIR is transportation and traffic. We found
115 that the existing intersections operate at acceptable levels of service and that with the
116 proposed project, should it be constructed, that that would remain to be true. The project
117 would not generate enough additional traffic to cause any intersection to fall below an
118 acceptable level of service. Those levels of service are based on the City's Codes and
119 requirements as well as the County VTA's standards for intersections that they have jurisdiction
120 over. We found that the project would generate a total of 246 new daily vehicle trips with
121 about 35 of those occurring in the A.M. peak hour and 18 in the P.M. peak hour. We found, as I
122 said, all of that additional traffic would not trigger any new significant impacts and, therefore,
123 there's no mitigation required with respect to parking. As I mentioned earlier, the EIR looks at
124 two different project options. For each of these impact areas, we considered both project
125 options and found that impacts would be relatively the same. Under transportation and traffic,
126 use of the transportation demand management program under the parking exemption option is
127 expected to slightly reduce the number of vehicle trips that would be coming in and out of the
128 building. Even though the impacts with the proposed project, the parking compliant option are
129 less than significant and they would be slightly under the parking exemption option. Go ahead.
3 | 2555 Park Blvd
130
131 Chair Kohler: No. I was going to ask if, you know, so open for questions or comments or ...
132
133 Ms. Waugh: I do have a few more slides. I don't know if we should finish that first and then ...
134 Okay. The project alternatives that we looked at. CEQA requires that you consider a no project
135 alternative. That would assume that nothing happens at the site; the existing building remains.
136 Obviously that would avoid the impact of demolishing a historic resource. We also looked at a
137 building preservation alternative that would make some improvements to the building to bring
138 it closer or up to Code with respect to some of the life and safety requirements. We found that,
139 while that would reduce the impact because the building would be preserved in place, it could
140 result in changes to the building that would reduce the integrity of the historic qualities of that
141 building. However, we did find that that impact would be reduced with the building
142 preservation project alternative. The final alternative we looked at is a pedestrian transit
143 overlay concept to develop a mixed-use building there that would include some commercial
144 and retail as well as eight dwelling units. We found that that project alternative would actually
145 reduce traffic compared to the proposed project. Again, those impacts under the proposed
146 project are less than significant, but they would be slightly reduced under the mixed-use
147 scenario. Again, that project would result in demolition of the historic resource, so it would not
148 reduce or avoid that impact. As I mentioned, the next steps in the process are to prepare a
149 Final EIR where we will document all of the comments that are received and provide responses
150 to those comments. Sometimes that requires just more explanation of the analysis that has
151 already been provided, and sometimes that requires a few edits to the text of the Draft EIR. All
152 of that will be presented in a Final EIR which will be presented to the Planning and
153 Transportation Commission and then, as I mentioned, the City would need to certify that the
154 EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA before determining whether to approve the
155 project. Once a determination has been, if the City certifies the EIR and approves the project,
156 the City would file a Notice of Determination, and that starts a 30-day period of review to allow
157 for any appeals on the approvals. This slide provides the address where comments can be
158 submitted. Obviously we're here this morning to accept any comments that the public wants to
159 make verbally, and then folks are still welcome to email comments to Russ throughout today.
160 That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
161
162 Chair Kohler: You want to start, Beth?
163
164 Board Member Bunnenberg: Just for the benefit of the public to get a picture again, the actual
165 height of this building, that has become a real issue in the City. Can you state in very brief
166 terms how tall the building is and what the electrical and all the things on top are?
167
168 Ms. Waugh: Mm-hmm. I want to make sure I get the numbers correct.
169
170 Board Member Bunnenberg: Okay.
171
172 Ms. Waugh: I believe that the height limit in the district is 35.
173
4 | 2555 Park Blvd
174 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yeah, it's 37 feet. Just to note, since I'm jumping in, the
175 applicant is here for the project to answer other questions about the project if need be.
176
177 Mr. Reich: Just following up on that, Commissioner Bunnenberg.
178
179 Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes.
180
181 Mr. Reich: The 37 feet is the height of the building. There are three elements that exceed that
182 height and going up to 13 feet. There is a roof canopy structure which the Architectural Review
183 Board required to be reduced in size by a third of what you saw on that elevation image at the
184 beginning of the hearing. Then the two stair towers, they also exceed the height limit. I believe
185 that's by 10 feet.
186
187 Board Member Bunnenberg: What's the total after you've taken it off?
188
189 Mr. Reich: It's 47 feet for the stair towers and then 50 feet for the canopy.
190
191 Board Member Bunnenberg: (inaudible) 50 feet for the canopy, okay.
192
193 Board Member Wimmer: Can I just, can you restate what the maximum height is?
194
195 Mr. Reich: 37 feet.
196
197 Board Member Wimmer: 37 is the maximum height, okay.
198
199 Chair Kohler: But clarify, the canopy goes up to 40-something feet.
200
201 Mr. Reich: It's 13 feet higher than the 37-foot building, so it's 50 feet.
202
203 Chair Kohler: That doesn't count as building because it's a canopy?
204
205 Mr. Reich: It asked for a Design Enhancement Exception in order to exceed the 37-foot height
206 limit.
207
208 Chair Kohler: The building height with the canopy is what?
209
210 Mr. Reich: 50 feet, but the building itself is not 50 feet. It is a ...
211
212 Chair Kohler: What is the canopy then? Isn't that part of the building?
213
214 Mr. Reich: It is attached to the building, yes.
215
216 Chair Kohler: So it's the building. It's like a roof.
217
218 Mr. Reich: There is no argument as to whether it's part of the building.
5 | 2555 Park Blvd
219
220 Chair Kohler: Yeah. So I mean, it seems kind of, it seems kind of ...
221
222 Mr. Reich: But we would not categorize the building as being 50 feet.
223
224 Chair Kohler: It seems a little fuzzy. The building is 50 feet high. It's not 37 feet high.
225
226 Mr. Reich: As I said, we would not categorize the building as 50 feet high, but the canopy does
227 reach a 50-foot height.
228
229 Chair Kohler: Well, I don't quite understand. I mean I'm looking at it. The canopy is visible. It's
230 part of the height. I mean you should put a little asterisk then by it's 37 feet plus 13-foot high
231 canopy, or whatever it is, I would think.
232
233 Mr. Reich: It's thoroughly explained in the ad, in the description as to what's happening in
234 terms of the 37-foot height building and then the exceptions for the additional height of the
235 canopy and stair towers.
236
237 Board Member Bunnenberg: Okay. Let's look at it again.
238
239 Chair Kohler: David.
240
241 Board Member Bower: Russ, why was this exception granted? I mean if we have a height limit
242 of 37 feet, why are we allowing the entire structure, you know, to go another 13 feet higher? I
243 understand that you've stepped it back. I don't think you actually can see it from the ground.
244 You probably can see it from the courthouse. I don't understand what the benefit to the
245 community is by allowing this.
246
247 Mr. Reich: I'm a little confused by the question, in terms of what the benefit to the community
248 is. The intention isn't necessarily to provide a community benefit. There's no requirement to
249 do that. The applicant has requested a Design Enhancement Exception to improve the
250 architecture of the building. They think that the canopy structure helps to enliven the
251 architecture. The ability to use the roof of the building as an employee amenity necessitates
252 the stair towers which exceed the height limit. The Architectural Review Board, which has
253 purview over the DEE, felt that the three requested exceptions were reasonable and did not
254 create a negative impact to off-site properties and approved the recommended DEE.
255
256 Ms. French: I would follow on to say the ARB recommended approval of the DEE. This entire
257 project is going to the, this is going higher than the Director. Oh, okay.
258
259 Board Member Bower: Meaning it's going to the Council?
260
261 Ms. French: Regardless, there has not been a determination that the DEE is approved. It's a
262 recommendation by the Architectural Review Board.
263
6 | 2555 Park Blvd
264 Board Member Bower: Russ, my feeling is that the, to elaborate on my questions. The
265 planning and zoning ordinances are for the public benefit. I mean they're not there for anybody
266 else's benefit. We as residents have through our Council enacted these ordinances for the
267 purpose of making the buildings that we allow to be erected in the City accommodating and
268 attractive. What I would think the developer could do, if they want that roof space, is simply
269 not develop the second floor. What this does is basically add an entire level of occupied space
270 that otherwise would not be occupiable. I think that's a really significant expansion of the
271 project. It is what we just had an election about, I think, in this City. I'm wondering, again, I just
272 am a little confused by why the height limit should be exceeded so that the developer, property
273 owner can have another floor of habitable space at the expense of a limit that was established
274 just to keep these structures smaller.
275
276 Mr. Reich: Thank you, Commissioner Bower. Your comments assume that there is a cost to
277 someone for allowing the developer to take advantage of this roof space. The findings would
278 suggest otherwise, that there isn't an impact as a result of that. It is a request that a developer
279 has made, and it is up to the City to determine. The purpose of today's hearing is to just take
280 comments. We can certainly note that you don't feel that the exception should be approved.
281 That will be taken into consideration in the decision making on the project.
282
283 Board Member Bower: Just to clarify, I actually think the building is more attractive with the
284 canopy. I just don't think it needed to exceed the height limit. That's why we have limits. If
285 we're going to keep granting these exceptions, you know, we just keep getting bigger and
286 bigger buildings, and I don't think that's a benefit to us.
287
288 Board Member Bunnenberg: May I ask whether our comments will be as a Board or will they
289 be as individuals?
290
291 Mr. Reich: In this instance, you represent the Board, so any comments that you make here
292 today would be as a Board Member. You can certainly follow up with any personal comments
293 outside of your purview as a Board Member later today.
294
295 Board Member Bunnenberg: Well then, just as a Board Member, there was a wooly mammoth
296 bone discovered under the Oregon Expressway when they went down deep. If there is a way—
297 this is way past history—but if there is a way to caution the digging operation that they might
298 be looking for that kind of thing. That I would see as a good kind of caution to make. I know it
299 says the overall thing that you should look for antiquities any time you dig, but this may be a
300 fairly sensitive area. Also as a Board Member, I feel that we have not truly looked carefully at
301 many of our mid-century modern buildings. This building has some real merit as a mid-century
302 modern building. I would like to express some wish that it could be retained.
303
304 Board Member Wimmer: I wanted to comment on the height issue. I'm sure that there are a
305 lot of other people who are speaking in response to that. I think in terms of the City and how
306 the City handles it, it seems like if you make exceptions for one person, you have to make
307 exceptions for everyone who lines up thereafter, because you've set a precedent. I'm sure that
308 you know that. I just think that once you grant exceptions for this building—I mean it's
7 | 2555 Park Blvd
309 beautiful. I think there are a lot of really exciting features about it. I just think that that justifies
310 the next person to say, "Well, they got 13 feet. Can I have 15 feet more?" Also, I wanted to get
311 back to the significant and unavoidable impact of removing the existing building. I was able to
312 drive by the building last night, and I've driven by it many times but never really studied it
313 closely. It's just a cute little building. It's very simple. In driving around it, I saw some things
314 that made me a little nervous, like two whole second-story masses that are being supported by
315 a single steel pole. That made me a little bit nervous. I see that there's a challenge in assessing
316 the value of the existing structure and possible Code issues and things. I did; I thought it was
317 just a nice little example of that mid-century architecture. I kind of see some similar elements
318 being threaded through this new building. I don't know. I just wanted to maybe hear a little bit
319 more about that significant impact and what that means.
320
321 Ms. Waugh: As you're, you know, aware especially in a city that has a lot of historic
322 architecture, you know, as projects come forward and propose to demolish some of those
323 buildings, you know, it can affect the overall historic character of the community. That is kind
324 of the main issue that we look at when we think about demolition of a historic building or a
325 building that's potentially eligible for listing as a historic resource. CEQA, you know, is an issue
326 that certainly comes up frequently in communities across the state. There are some specific
327 guidelines in CEQA that really prioritize treating, you know, considering the historic nature of a
328 building. As I said, under CEQA there is no mitigation for demolition of a historic resource.
329 CEQA makes that very clear, that that's always going to be a significant and unavoidable impact
330 if you do determine to demolish a building that's historic or potentially eligible for listing.
331
332 Board Member Bunnenberg: Roger, do you want to make a comment? It also brings up the
333 aspect of cumulative impacts. Is there a way that the City keeps up with these? What do we do
334 about the fact that we have expressed concern that it will happen again and again?
335
336 Ms. French: This is a great question. I think it's one of those topics that when I think about a
337 retreat, I think that this would be a great topic, the mid-century buildings. It's definitely ripe for
338 discussion here. We have Matt Weintraub here now that is going to be helping with looking at
339 our program and, you know, where we go from here. We do have data about buildings that
340 have been demolished. Some of them before the 50 year, you know, and some after or, you
341 know, modified significantly. If you would like data such as that, certainly we can look towards
342 getting that data as part of a look at what's happening in the City. I'll see if Matt has anything
343 to add.
344
345 Matthew Weintraub, Planner: Sure, thank you. As Board Members Bunnenberg and Wimmer
346 noted, there is some interest in and increasingly more interest in mid-century modern
347 architecture. What the City of Palo Alto lacks, that some communities have, is a well-developed
348 historic context statement for that period of time and for those types of properties. You might
349 note that in the evaluation that was done for this property, context statements for other
350 communities were referenced, because those were the ones that were available. What we
351 really do need for this City is a City-specific context for modern architecture, mid-century
352 modernism. That would do a couple of things. It would allow us to evaluate properties
353 comparatively, not just in a vacuum. For instance, this property could have been evaluated
8 | 2555 Park Blvd
354 against a bank of other properties that were understood and categorized to get a better
355 understanding of the significance and what might be potentially lost if the building is removed,
356 which was kind of one of the questions that was asked. It would also give us a sense of at least
357 starting to create an inventory for this type of building and being able to then track, you know,
358 whether there's clusters of these buildings that might be potential districts or whether we're
359 just looking at, you know, a certain change in building stock over time, but having a sense of the
360 change to that building stock over time. In a long-range sense, those are some of the initiatives
361 that we can start looking at. Lacking that specific information for Palo Alto, we do have the
362 evaluation that we have for this building today essentially. If that helps in terms of framing this
363 particular evaluation.
364
365 Chair Kohler: I've been sitting here thinking and looking at the photograph. Today, I have two
366 meetings with the consulting architect and homeowners to do, single-family homes today in the
367 room next door. I'm trying to see the relationship. I know it's just single-family homes, but the
368 requirements for the design of a single-family home are very precise. They have limits, height
369 limits, setback limits. You're required to go through and get a design approval with staff and
370 the consulting architect, Arnold Mammarella. I'm looking at this building and my first thought
371 is, "Oh, it's three buildings. They went to the local store and bought the yellow portion of the
372 project and decided, well, that's too much to do the whole building, so we'll buy the middle
373 section, which is the gray and totally different from the yellow portion. Oh, we need stairs, so
374 we bought this stairway section." Kind of an assemblage of shapes. It's not really a building.
375 It's three different shapes and buildings. To me it's pretty random. If you take away the
376 canopy, then it looks like three different buildings, like they each ought to have their own
377 address. With the canopy, it kind of ties it altogether, and of course you can't see the canopy
378 from the street. From an overall view, I like the old building better. I think it could have been
379 remodeled and added onto and have a better assemblage. I know this is the style that's in
380 vogue right now. When you look at it, each one should have its own number. I don't know
381 what we're supposed to say today. I mean I would prefer the old building to stay and be
382 remodeled and enhanced. I don't think this is much of an improvement. It's going to look big.
383 You know, it's just these things that we're seeing. I think it ought to be a requirement in the
384 way of ARB, and they sort of seemed to chime in in this new look. So some of the new buildings
385 that are going up are, I don't get it in a way. Our goal here is to say what? Are we supposed to
386 say this building's okay, it complies or it conforms to the historic rules of Palo Alto? I'm not sure
387 what we're supposed to do. Can someone explain to me what our role is today?
388
389 Ms. Waugh: In terms of the California Environmental Quality Act process, the main intent in
390 that context is to receive public comments on the Draft EIR. Your comments in terms of, you
391 know, do you think that the analysis in the EIR adequately addresses the environmental effects
392 of the project, including the discussion of historic resources? Have we adequately captured
393 what's important about the building and how that would change as a result of the project? It
394 would also be an opportunity for members of the public to make their comments as well, if
395 anyone's interested.
396
397 Chair Kohler: How does a whole new building not have an impact on the old building which is
398 being torn down? That's sort of what you just said. We're tearing the old building down.
9 | 2555 Park Blvd
399
400 Ms. Waugh: Right. That is what the conclusion.
401
402 Chair Kohler: That's a pretty big impact (crosstalk).
403
404 Ms. Waugh: Sure. That is the conclusion in the EIR, is that it would be a significant and
405 unavoidable impact. As far as I understand, the Board does not need to take any formal action
406 or make any recommendation. It's simply an opportunity for you to offer your comments. I
407 know it's difficult to separate, you know, your comments on the project from your comments
408 on the Environmental Impact Report. I'm taking notes and I'll review the comments that are
409 made and make sure that I elaborate on issues in the Final EIR to the extent.
410
411 Chair Kohler: I would say tearing the building down is a pretty significant impact on the
412 building, right?
413
414 Ms. Waugh: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.
415
416 Chair Kohler: Once you say that, then there's not much discussion. Why even do an EIR?
417 Basically you're destroying a potentially historic property. Beyond that, what's to talk about? I
418 don't get it. This is what we do all the time, and I still don't get it, because we're tearing the
419 building down. Does the environmental report make us feel better because we have a report
420 and yet the building's gone? We ought to be stating here, "No, you can't tear it down." It's an
421 historic building. You need to refurbish it and reuse it. Recycle it. That's the way to do it.
422
423 Board Member Bunnenberg: Isn't that one of the options listed as something that can be.
424
425 Ms. Waugh: Mm-hmm.
426
427 Chair Kohler: Well, good. Yeah.
428
429 Board Member Bunnenberg: Let's find where that is in the report.
430
431 Ms. Waugh: It's in the alternative section. We talked about the building.
432
433 Board Member Bunnenberg: Okay. That can be altered (crosstalk).
434
435 Ms. Waugh: The no project alternative would just be to leave everything the way it is. The
436 building preservation alternative would provide for some of the updates that would be needed
437 to, you know, improve the life and safety conditions as Board Member Wimmer (crosstalk).
438
439 Chair Kohler: Is there any?
440
441 Board Member Bunnenberg: It's 5.3 at the very back of this booklet. The options are no
442 project alternative, building preservation alternative, or the pedestrian transit oriented
443 development alternative which is what you're presenting to us today. Is that correct?
10 | 2555 Park Blvd
444
445 Ms. Waugh: That third alternative would be different than what's proposed.
446
447 Board Member Bunnenberg: It's also different.
448
449 Ms. Waugh: The pedestrian transit overlay alternative is that would develop a different product
450 here. It would develop a mixed-use building that would include some commercial and some
451 residential. That alternative was suggested by one of the ARB members as something we
452 should evaluate in the EIR.
453
454 Chair Kohler: What we're approving is the demolition of the building. Is that what we're doing?
455
456 Mr. Reich: Chair Kohler, I'd like to clarify. We're not asking for the HRB to make a
457 recommendation today. We're solely here to take public comment on the environmental
458 document. As I said originally, the Board is also welcome to provide comment on the
459 environmental document, but we are not asking for the Board to make a decision or make a
460 recommendation. It is a bit unusual for the HRB to be seeing an environmental document. The
461 only reason that we had to prepare an environmental document or the EIR—we would have
462 done some form of environmental documentation. It is the demolition of the historic structure
463 that State law requires and necessitates and qualifies as a significant impact under CEQA.
464 When you have a significant impact that cannot be mitigated as is the case here, you have to do
465 an EIR versus a Mitigated Negative Declaration or a Negative Declaration. It is the demolition of
466 the structure that necessitates us having to do the Draft EIR under State law. That's the reason
467 that we're here. Because this historic structure would be demolished, we wanted to have the
468 HRB have the opportunity to weigh in to see how you feel about that. We're not asking for
469 your approval or recommendation as to whether you think it's appropriate to remove the
470 building or not. If you do have feelings or comments about that then, you know, it's good to
471 enter that into the record.
472
473 Board Member Bunnenberg: Does that preclude our voting on the building preservation
474 alternative?
475
476 Mr. Reich: There's not going to be a vote today.
477
478 Board Member Bunnenberg: There's not a vote.
479
480 Mr. Reich: Again, it's an opportunity for you to provide comment.
481
482 Board Member Bunnenberg: Can we do that each individually?
483
484 Mr. Reich: Certainly. Again, there wouldn't be a Board consensus.
485
486 Board Member Bunnenberg: Okay. I would like to be on record as much preferring the building
487 preservation alternative.
488
11 | 2555 Park Blvd
489 Board Member Wimmer: I just wanted to—maybe this is a back step. I don't know. I was
490 reading the Page & Turnbull report, which is the Historic Resource Evaluation. It makes an
491 interesting comment here. It says, "2555 Park Boulevard is not listed in the Palo Alto Historic
492 Inventory nor was it surveyed as part of the Palo Alto Historic Survey Update by Dames &
493 Moore in 2000. Page & Turnbull understands that the City of Palo Alto Planning Staff have
494 recently stated to the property owner that they do not believe that 2555 Park Boulevard would
495 meet the criteria for listing in any category of the Palo Alto Historic Inventory." They are
496 professionals who have done an historic analysis. I was reading that and I thought, "Hmm,
497 maybe it's not a historic resource." But then the Draft Environmental Impact Report is
498 addressing that it is a historic resource. Maybe that's the duty of maybe our Board. I don't
499 know. I know that when I was recently re-interviewed for this position, someone was giving me
500 a hard time about not putting Eichlers on the Historic Inventory. I thought, "Didn't think that
501 was my job to do that." Apparently it is. Maybe that's our job as a Board, to reach out to some
502 of these buildings that are, you know, unfortunately—or the City. I don't know. I'm the new
503 person on the Board. I guess what I'm saying is that one report says it's not on the Inventory;
504 one report says that it is historic. Maybe the City or we need to establish what buildings we
505 think are historic, because we're sad that this building might be torn down and saying, "Oh, no,
506 we can't do that." It's not on our list of things that are historic. It's a little confusing.
507
508 Mr. Weintraub: If I may, Board Members. One of the aspects of the analysis of the EIR is to
509 determine whether or not there's a historical resource present. Yes, that is within the purview
510 of the Board Members to comment on. I did notice that when I read through the report as well,
511 in addition to what Board Member Wimmer noted about a lack of designation or previous
512 evaluation, it was also noted to be not the work of a master architect. It was also not known to
513 have any important historical association, whether related to the occupants or the uses or to
514 the development of the area around it. It was really seen as really just an example of the
515 architectural period. Then I would come back to the question of whether or not that really rises
516 to the level of a significant example. Again, lacking a local historic context, I think the
517 evaluation was to assume that it is a representative of that period. If we were to have, I think,
518 greater analytical tools and more comparative tools, we might be able to come to a different
519 determination. Again, I think that is one of the questions that Board Members can comment
520 on, is the actual evaluation of the property as a resource. Also just to clarify, I think a topic that
521 came up, the Board Members can agree or disagree with the findings of the EIR, and that's
522 different than agreeing with whether or not the project should proceed. Really the EIR is
523 stating that there is an impact to a resource, so the Board could agree with that and still feel
524 differently and provide comments that are different on the actual approval of the project itself.
525 Thank you.
526
527 Board Member Bower: When I went over the materials that were provided for us to review for
528 this meeting, my first review or first pass was whether this building would rise to the level of
529 being a protected building for historic reasons. Of course, as the reports note and you have just
530 pointed out, it doesn't have a significant architect. By significant I mean an architect that we
531 would recognize as significant enough to meet that requirement. It doesn't have an owner that
532 was significant in terms of Palo Alto's development. It wasn't developed at a time that was
533 particularly significant; although, that's questionable because the '60s saw a huge increase in
12 | 2555 Park Blvd
534 Palo Alto's population and development. If this project were brought to the Board for historic
535 designation, I don't think it would meet the requirements. From that standpoint, even though
536 it might be eligible and that's why CEQA captures this building in the CEQA review, you know, I
537 don't think that the Board could justifiably stop the demolition. Now, that said, this type of
538 building, I think, is significant to Palo Alto's development. I remember when the California
539 Avenue area was significantly changed in character, which also is noted in this report. This type
540 of building, this '60s modernist style, was very popular in Palo Alto. The old Palo Alto Medical
541 Foundation building which was demolished—thank God, because I didn't much like the
542 architecture. It was another example of that modernist architecture that has not survived. My
543 concern as a Board Member is that these smaller buildings are one by one being lost because of
544 the economic pressures to develop the underlying land, which is so valuable, to the maximum
545 extent. We as a City have not made a commitment to save buildings. We have made a
546 commitment to think about saving some. We have established Professorville and—there's
547 another Eichler—Green Meadow as protected or at least semi-protected. I don't see that this
548 building or any of the buildings like this that we could actually move to protect, because we just
549 don't have the tools yet. That ought to be something we could recommend to the Council. As I
550 read the EIR, obviously demolition, as Roger has pointed out, is significant in the extreme.
551 Photographic records are not serious mitigation, because those records go some place and who
552 knows if anyone will ever see them. That's what they teach us at the CEQA seminars when you
553 are evaluating a project. It is the only thing we can do in this circumstance, but it's not really
554 mitigation. The other impacts that this project have that are significant, there's a parking
555 impact, there's a hazardous waste exposure impact, more traffic. I mean, you know, in today's
556 community here, these are really significant impacts. They're noted. I'm assuming that this will
557 all go into the record. I kind of see this as a sort of a done deal and we're just going through the
558 motions so that this can move on. I think we could have spent our time better. I know why it's
559 here. I'm not criticizing anybody. I think we should just move on.
560
561 Chair Kohler: One last comment. When I look at the photo here on page 4 of the Page &
562 Turnbull, you can see the existing foliage and how the existing building kind of floats above the
563 sidewalk. I used to go there. There was somebody I had to go see there. I don't remember. It
564 was a lawyer I think. It's kind of fun. You look at that, then you get the view from Park. It says
565 on—I don't know what page. It's not a page, but it's the rendering. It's a solid wall. In fact, the
566 doors there are solid doors like they're back doors. There's no reference that this is a
567 pedestrian walkway. This is the view you see when you drive down the street. At that eye
568 level, it's a blank wall. I mean how is that neighborhood friendly? For one thing, if I was on the
569 ARB, I would have tossed it out right away. Yeah, right there on the far right side. That's all
570 wall. According to this drawing, it's a blank wall which it is there, I guess. I don't know what
571 those are. I can't quite tell.
572
573 Mr. Reich: Those are vines. It's a green wall.
574
575 Chair Kohler: Oh, I see. The drawing here doesn't have the vines yet. They haven't grown out
576 yet. You get a wall of ivy. All right.
577
13 | 2555 Park Blvd
578 Mr. Reich: There's also a pedestrian bench along that hedge. That whole edge has a planter
579 (crosstalk).
580
581 Chair Kohler: I think it's a pretty crummy building. Well, I guess we have not much else to talk
582 about. We don't make a vote or a statement or anything. We just discuss. Okay.
583
584 Board Member Bunnenberg: Suddenly I lost my thought. We still have some, I think, real
585 responsibility to think about these buildings. Even though we don't have the context
586 statement, I think there's some responsibility at least as individuals for us to make some
587 statement about whether we prefer the current building.
588
589 Ms. French: If I could jump in before you get to a statement. Can we open the public hearing
590 and hear if there's anyone in the audience that wishes ...
591
592 Board Member Bunnenberg: We didn't close the public hearing (crosstalk).
593
594 Ms. French: Oh, okay. But call for speakers.
595
596 Chair Kohler: We never opened it or closed it.
597
598 Board Member Bunnenberg: Well, they may not have been here.
599
600 Chair Kohler: I have no cards (crosstalk).
601
602 Ms. French: Oh, there's no cards, okay.
603
604 Chair Kohler: I guess this just goes to City Council eventually, is that correct? Or not?
605
606 Mr. Reich: It's undetermined at this point as to whether it'll be City Council or Director level
607 approval.
608
609 Board Member Bower: It does not go back.
610
611 Mr. Reich: No. It does go to the Planning Commission, the Final EIR will go to the Planning
612 Commission for their recommendation. Beyond that, it's unclear as to whether the Council will
613 see it or if it'll be a Director level decision.
614
615 Chair Kohler: Will that happen this year? I mean will it go before the end of the year?
616
617 Mr. Reich: No, it will not happen this year.
618
619 Chair Kohler: There will be new Planning Commissioners and new Council Members as of
620 January, right?
621
622 Mr. Reich: Yeah. It's likely to go to the Commission in January.
14 | 2555 Park Blvd
623
624 Board Member Bunnenberg: Do we have some responsibility to allow if there are people in the
625 audience who want to .speak.
626
627 Chair Kohler: We just did.
628
629 Chair Kohler: We've made our comments. That's all you're asking for, right?
630
15 | 2555 Park Blvd
ATTACHMENT J
ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE
2555 Park Boulevard / File No. 13PLN-00381
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR CC(2) ZONE DISTRICT
ZONE DISTRICT
STANDARD
PROPOSED
PROJECT
CONFORMANCE
Minimum Building setback
Front Yard (Grant Avenue) 0-10’ to create a 8-
12’effective
sidewalk width
1”-9” setback for a
13 Foot effective
sidewalk width
conforms
Rear Yard No setback required 2 feet conforms
Interior Side Yard (right) No setback required 1 foot conforms
Street Side Yard (left)
(Park Boulevard)
No setback required 3 feet setback for a
10’-5” effective
sidewalk width
conforms
Maximum Site Coverage No requirement 94% 11,840 sq. ft. conforms
Maximum Height 37 feet 37 feet
Stair towers
exceeds by 10 feet.
Tensile structure
exceeds by 13 feet
conforms
DEE requested
DEE requested
Maximum Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
2.0:1 (25,036) sq ft 1.98:1 (24,466) sq
ft.
conforms
Parking Requirement
(The parking requirement may be
reduced by 10 spaces with a TDM
plan approved by the Director)
Office
1 per 250 = 92
spaces
1,346 sq. ft. for
break room space is
exempt from parking
calculation
92 spaces provided conforms
ATTACHMENT K
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE
2555 Park Boulevard / File No. 13PLN-00381
Policy L-28: Maintain the existing scale,
character, and function of the California
Avenue business district as a shopping,
service, and office center intermediate in
function and scale between Downtown and
the smaller business areas.
The three-story height of the proposed project is
consistent with the height of other buildings in the
immediate area. The proposed office and use fits
within this mixed use area just outside the
California Avenue business district.
Policy L-31: Develop the Cal-Ventura
area as a well-designed mixed use district
with diverse land uses, two-to three-story
buildings, and a network of pedestrian
oriented streets providing links to
California Avenue.
The proposal is a three-story office building with
setbacks providing wide sidewalks for pedestrian
access. The design of the new building fits well
with the pedestrian environment of the California
Avenue commercial district by creating a pleasant
pedestrian experience along Park Boulevard.
Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative
design and site planning that is compatible
with surrounding development and public
spaces.
While the building is of a contemporary
architectural style, the district is eclectic with a
multitude of architectural styles that coexist
together. High quality materials are proposed
throughout the project. Site planning included
consideration for the adjacent single-family
residence by stepping back the upper floors
adjacent to the residential property. While the
project does meet the required setback adjacent to
the residential neighbor, concerns have been
raised by the neighbor regarding the building’s
proposed proximity to their property.
Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize The project is consistent with this policy in that
streets and public spaces and to enhance a the new building would improve this location
sense of community and personal safety. with architectural interest at the street level. The Provide an ordered variety of entries, building would provide a pronounced building porches, windows, bays and balconies entry point on Park Boulevard along with along public ways where it is consistent multiple balconies and a large bench at the with neighborhood character; avoid blank sidewalk for pedestrian seating. Blank and solid or solid walls at street level; and include wells are avoided for the street facing elevations human-scale details and massing. with the exception of the ground floor wall that
hides the at-grade parking. This wall would be
planted with vines to soften the wall’s
appearance.
Policy L-66: Maintain an aesthetically The proposal provides wider sidewalks for greater
pleasing street network that helps frame
and define the community while meeting
the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and
motorists.
pedestrian access that include new street trees,
landscaping, bike racks, and seating.
Policy L-70: Enhance the appearance of The proposal does preserve the existing street tree
streets and other public spaces by on Grant Avenue and will add four new street
expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s trees, one on grant Avenue and three new trees on street tree system. Park Boulevard.
Policy L-73: Consider public art and
cultural facilities as a public benefit in
connection with new development projects.
Consider incentives for including public art
in large development projects.
The project does not currently include public art
as a component of the design. The applicant must
pay an in-lieu fee as part of the City’s 1% for art
program. Prior to building permit issuance, the
applicant may still have the opportunity to
incorporate art into the design.
Policy L-75: Minimize the negative
physical impacts of parking lots. Locate
parking behind buildings or underground
wherever possible.
The proposal provides the parking at grade and
underground. The parking would be hidden from
view behind a solid wall planted with vines.
Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that
encourage walking, bicycling, and public
transit use.
The proposal places new office space in close
proximity to transit facilities. Bicycle usage is
encouraged with ample bike parking and shower
facilities. Bike safety is also improved with the
removal of the curb cut on Park boulevard.
Policy T-19: Improve and add attractive,
secure, bicycle parking at both public and
private facilities, including multi-modal
transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City
parks, in private development, and at other
community destinations.
The project will add new bicycle parking at grade
and below grade within the parking garage.
Policy N-15: Require new commercial, The project is required to plant and irrigate new
multi-unit, and single family housing street trees.
projects to provide street trees and related
irrigation systems.
Attachment L City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/20/2015 7:46 AM
Carnahan, David
From: Rainer Pitthan <Rainer.Pitthan@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 6:27 PM
To: Reich, Russ
Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; Council, City; Jared Jacobs
Subject: 2555 Park Traffic: establishing a realistic baseline for # of trips
Attachments: Table1.pdf; CommonTripGenerationRatesITE.pdf
Dear Russ,
I have questions wrt to Attachment G
in Attachment A, also called
AttachmentA_FinalEIRCombined.pdf
Can you explain to me the
scientific/engineering reasoning
behind the different equations in Table
1 of the subject report, which I have
attached a Table 1.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/20/2015 7:46 AM
Day Ln(T
rips) = 0.76 x Ln(Size) + 3.68
AM
Peak Ln(Trip
s) = 0.80 x Ln(Size) + 1.57
PM
Peak Trips =
1.12 x Size + 78.45
I assume Ln is not the logarithm with
the basis e? Or? What is it? And why
3.68, 1.57, 78.45, except that is
minimizes the additional PM trips
which you wanted.
But in contrast to the equations you
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/20/2015 7:46 AM
used, the in determining reasonable
trip estimates, the Institute of Traffic
Engineers, (as do other organizations)
except in very special circumstances,
which then require a lot of explaining,
only goes by square footage and units.
Since the ratio of sqft for 2555 Park is
2.3, the "Total" has to be in the same
ratio
Daily from
206 ==> 474 (and not 434)
AM fro
m 27 ==> 62 (and not 60)
PM fro
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/20/2015 7:46 AM
m 88 ==> 202 (and not 105)
This is a total of Tarlton Project
originated 737 for the stub of Grant.
I will explain further down why you
have to take the total, not the
incremental.
And then there is the inconvenient fact
of the 90 cars parked at the end of the
stub, which belong to 90 different unit
owners..
According to ITE and the Community Guide
to Development Impact Analysis, Condominiums build
as separate town houses with several bedrooms with
separate garages create 1 daily peak hour trip per
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/20/2015 7:46 AM unit. That makes 90 peak hour trips. I have not not
researched if this is one AM and 1 PM trip
90 Units also create 940 daily trips. Let's assume
this includes the peak trips.
That adds up to 1677 cars entering and leaving Grant Ave stub, Plus FEDEX,
UPS, USPS, other deliveries, visitors, etc. etc.
In the PTC hearing 2 weeks ago I hear to my surprise that PTC proudly only
looks at each project by self. No look at accumulative effect needed, or
desired. OK, that is up to the City Council to deal with, as they
should. http://bit.ly/1Bgp1WG
The often falsely invoked common sense fails most spectacularly in non-linear systems.
So maybe not common sense, but at least Continuing Education and Study as a Planner should have told you
that in a system which is known to be non-linear, as in traffic, you have to work with the absolute
numbers, and not just increments, because an increase of 10% may have an effect of 100% or more, and
not 10%.
In City Council sessions I have heard more than once the Palo Alto traffic situation compared to the straw
and the camels back, even so it is more like the famous drop and the bucket.
Any city planner should know in his sleep, for example, that for traffic flow up to about 30 cars
distributed per mile on the road, for one additional car you have one more car t go through a given
point, but then the curve turns over and at 60 cars stacked up per mile , the flow may drop more than
half. These numbers are known to be very independent of country, lets say they more less give good
guidance in Portugal and in Switzerland.
And at 150 - 200 cars stacked per mile (in the unstable region) any hard braking car or an impudent lane
changer can get the system to collapse.
to
So disregard my traffic observations for now, and tell me how you calculated the trips in Table 1, or
accepted the calculation , you understood, by somebody else.
Best Regards
Rainer
--
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/20/2015 7:46 AM
I am out of town from Wednesday noon to Saturday noon. Since time is of the essence, please copy Jared
Jacobs at Mailto:Jared.Jacobs@gmail.com
Rainer Pitthan
(650)327-9497
157 S. California Ave
Palo Alto CA 094306
The #1 enemy of the
United States is AutoComplete
Council Members Only
13899.txt
Page 1
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5689)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/1/2015
Summary Title: Establishment of an Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit
Title: Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding Establishment of an
Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit Applicable to Downtown, the California
Avenue Area, and the El Camino Corridor on an Interim Basis
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction to staff regarding parameters of an
ordinance to limit the amount of new office and research & development (R&D) development
that can occur in Downtown, the California Avenue Area, and the El Camino Corridor to 50,000
square feet per year until the Comprehensive Plan Update is adopted or for the next two years,
whichever is longer.
Direction is needed regarding (1) precise boundaries of the designated areas; (2) applicability of
the limit to land uses as they are defined in the ity’s zoning ordinance-(3) the process and
criteria that shall be used to evaluate applications for compliance with the annual limit; and (4)
effect of the limit on applications that are currently in the “pipeline/” Specific alternatives and
recommendations in each of these areas are provided in the Discussion section below.
Executive Summary
The ity’s omprehensive Plan contains an overall cap on the amount of non-residential
development that can occur in Downtown and in the City as a whole, but does not currently
limit the pace of development. This issue was discussed at public workshops regarding the
Comprehensive Plan Update in the summer of 2014, and the City Council took up the idea of
limiting the pace of new office/R&D development on February 9, 2015, March 2, 2015, and
March 23, 2015. (See CMR5565 ; CMR5621.)
On March 23rd, the City Council adopted a series of motions directing staff to (among other
things) prepare an interim ordinance to effectuate an annual limit on new office/R&D
development in those areas of the City experiencing the most rapid change: Downtown, the
California Avenue Area, and the El Camino Corridor. The ouncil’s motions are included as
Attachment A and also identified measures to be considered for adoption on a permanent basis
City of Palo Alto Page 1
as part of the ity’s omprehensive Plan Update/ oth the interim and permanent measures
were seen as a way to address the pace of change as well as parking intrusion into residential
areas, traffic congestion within the commercial districts, and the quality or aesthetics of new
buildings that are seen as changing the character of key sections of the City.
The objective of this evening’s discussion is to flesh out the specific parameters of an interim
ordinance so that staff can prepare the ordinance and bring it forward for the ouncil’s
consideration and adoption. Most importantly, staff needs City Council direction on the specific
boundaries of the area that would be affected by the interim ordinance, which types of office
uses defined in the zoning ordinance would be subject to the limit, whether there would be any
exemptions to the limit, what process and criteria would be used to evaluate applications, and
the effect of the interim ordinance on applications that are currently in the “pipeline/” (For
purposes of this discussion, “pipeline” projects are those for which an application for
entitlement is currently pending with the ity’s Department of Planning & ommunity
Environment.)
!n “urgency” ordinance is a short term, emergency measure adopted to address an immediate
need while a longer term strategy is being developed (California Government Code Section
65858). Urgency ordinances require specific findings and a super majority (eight out of nine
votes) for adoption. They do not require Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review
and do not require two readings before becoming effective. They can be effective for up to 45
days, and extended for just over 22 months.1
While the City Council has discussed adoption of an urgency ordinance in this instance, staff
recommends the ouncil’s proposed “interim” annual limit be considered for adoption as a
traditional zoning ordinance because it would not require eight votes and is not subject to a
challenge based on the required findings of an urgency ordinance. A traditional ordinance can
be adopted quickly as an “interim” strategy that will sunset when the omprehensive Plan
Update and associated zoning changes are adopted or in two years, whichever is less. The
difference between the two procedures will be the time it takes to notice the traditional
ordinance for a hearing and obtain a recommendation from the PTC, the time for two readings
by the City Council, and 30 additional days for the ordinance to take effect.
Background
Palo Alto and the region have been experiencing job growth since the end of the great
recession, as well as increasing housing costs and traffic congestion, and these trends are
expected to continue.
Table 1. Recent Job Growth in the Region
1 Sometimes “urgency” ordinances are referred to as “interim” ordinances because urgency ordinances adopted
under State law may only last for up to two years/ “Interim” ordinances may also be adopted on a non-emergency
basis in which case the statutory emergency findings need not be made and the State time periods do not apply.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Source: Stephen Levy, CCSCE, January 2015
While a large percentage of the job growth in Palo Alto has been accommodated in existing
buildings, there has been an uptick in non-residential development since the recession, and
over a longer period, Palo Alto has experienced a substantial amount of non-residential
development in the “monitored” and “non-monitored” areas referred to in Comprehensive
Plan Policy L-8.2
For a variety of reasons explained in prior staff reports (See CMR #5565), the data associated
with monitoring of Comprehensive Plan Policy L-8 is considered less intuitive and useful than
data on development approvals that is submitted by the City to the Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) for use in the Congestion Management Plan (CMP). This CMP data provides a
similar, though more refined picture of non-residential development in Palo Alto since it
separates office uses from retail and from other non-residential uses. The one disadvantage is
the MP data’s use of the Fiscal Year, rather than the calendar year for reporting purposes/
Also, the CMP data is only considered reliable as an estimate of square footage changes for the
period from 2001 to the present.
Table 2 below and Table 3 in Attachment C, present the CMP data for the years 2001 thru 2014
for geographic areas identified by the ity ouncil’s motion on March 16, 2015 and are based
on the boundaries shown in Attachment B. As explained further in the Discussion section,
2 Policy L-8 established a cumulative “cap” of 3/25 million net new square feet of non-residential development in
“monitored” areas of the ity since 1989/ y the end of 2014, the ity had seen approximately 1/54 million square
feet of development in those areas. A separate Downtown cap addresses non-residential development in
Downtown since 1986 and current monitoring suggests that development is within about 75,000 square feet of the
total of 350,000 net new square feet allowed.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Figure 1: Map of Palo Alto showing areas where office and/or R&D uses are permitted or
conditionally permitted and areas where an annual limit of 50,000 sq. ft. per year is
proposed.
Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, April 2015
Land Uses & Exemptions
The ouncil’s motion on March 23, 2015 requested that staff return with options for the uses
that would be governed by the annual limit. The simplest option would be to include all of
those uses listed and defined in Table 4 above, without exception.
Recommendation: Apply the annual limit to all of the uses listed and defined in Table 4,
above.
Another option would be to include all of the above except for medical office, and a third would
be to include all of the above, except when the office space is provided in the context of a
mixed-use project where the number of dwelling units is such that the project would improve,
rather than degrade, the ratio of jobs to employed residents in Palo Alto. (This would be an
incentive for multifamily housing.)
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Some may suggest a fourth alternative, which would exempt offices for non-profit
organizations, however staff would caution against using zoning to distinguish between types of
business entities rather than land uses. This is not just because monitoring and enforcement
could become an issue, but also because once a building is constructed it is difficult to ensure a
particular user would remain. Staff would also caution against an alternative that would apply
to General Business Office, and not to Administrative Office and/or Professional Office, since it
would be difficult to enforce the distinctions between these.
Another issue that should be raised is the way gross floor area of office uses are calculated
pursuant to Section 18.104.030(a)(65). This section of the code often requires interpretation,
with the result that there can sometimes be debate as to whether a proposed project would
add square footage or simply replace what already exists on the site. This lack of clarity argues
for clarifying code amendments, but could also suggest that exempting small projects (e.g.
those adding less than 1,000 or 2,000 gross square feet) may be warranted, at least on an
interim basis.
Recommendation: Consider exempting projects proposing to add less than 1,000 or
2,000 square feet of office/R&D until the definition of gross floor area can be
reexamined.
Process
One of the biggest challenges involved with implementation of an annual limit is establishment
of the process by which new applications will be reviewed and considered for an allocation. As
indicated in prior staff reports, Walnut Creek has an annual limit but allocates the available
square footage on a first come first served basis, rather than via a competitive process. San
Francisco has used a competitive process to allocate available square footage in the past, but
their annual allocations roll forward indefinitely if they are not used. As a result, the recession
created a surplus of available square footage that is being used up on a first come first served
basis and new procedures for some kind of prioritization or competitive process will probably
not be developed until 2016. In other jurisdictions, like Mountain View, there are limited
allocations for specific planning areas, and these can be “offered” much like a request for
proposals, until they are used up.
The State’s Permit Streamlining !ct (PSA) adds another layer of complexity and is meant to
ensure prompt processing of discretionary permits. There are two relevant points in the
application process to consider: the date on which an application is deemed complete; and the
date on which review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is complete.
Under the PSA, CEQA is expected to commence once the application is deemed complete.
CEQA contemplates that negative declarations will be completed within six months and EIRs
within one year. Under the PSA, the formal project approvals must be acted on once the CEQA
is completed. The PSA requires a local agency to act on projects within 60 days of completion
of a negative declaration or exemption and within 180 days of certification of an Environmental
Impact Report. The City has also adopted the PSA time limits in Section 18.77.040.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
One way to administer an annual limit would be to accept and process applications in the same
way they are currently processed, except that no applications could be approved until late in
the fiscal year (say March or April). If at that point, the sum total of the applications “ready” for
action did not exceed the annual limit, all of the applications could be acted upon in the normal
way/ However, if at that point, the sum total of the applications “ready” for action exceeded
the annual limit, the applications would be ranked based on scoring criteria, and provided to
the City Council for a decision regarding which should be approved and which should be denied
or deferred to the next year.
Recommendation: Establish a procedure by which applications are accepted and
processed as they are currently, except no applications would be approved until after
March 31. At that point, if the square footage proposed by all applications combined
would exceed the annual limit, completed applications that have been recommended
for approval by an advisory body like the Architectural Review Board would be ranked
based on scoring criteria and provided to the City Council for evaluation and action. If
the square footage proposed by all applications combined would not exceed the annual
limit, the completed applications that have been recommended for approval would be
acted upon using the usual process.
One drawback to this procedure would be the time and cost to applicants who wish to add
even a small amount of new office space. It may be that some potential applicants would
simply not make the investment, so that the City would see a very few, large applications within
the designated areas, rather than many smaller ones. To comply with the PSA, applicants
would either have to waive permit streamlining requirements or would have to incur the cost of
environmental review without the assurance that their project would be selected to move
forward.
Another way to administer an annual limit would be to devise a process wherein applicants
would be required to specifically apply for an office/R&D allocation. This application could be
processed when CEQA review is complete and proceed concurrently with other necessary
entitlements (e.g. design review, site and design). With this process, allocations could only be
granted late in the fiscal year, when it was clear whether the annual limit was going to be
exceeded. If the annual limit was not going to be exceeded, the allocation could be granted as
part of the usual entitlement process. But if the annual limit was going to be exceeded, the City
Council could consider the application for allocation concurrent with the other entitlement
applications. The disadvantage of this alternative would be that the Council would not have the
benefit of recommendations from the ARB and other recommending bodies.
Another option would be to allow small applications or applications received early in the fiscal
year to be considered for approval on a first come first served basis (based on the date of
application completeness), and only institute a competition if/when the cumulative total
reached 25,000 or 30,000 square feet. The disadvantage of this approach, is that the
City of Palo Alto Page 9
evaluation criteria and competitive process would only apply to larger projects submitted later
in the fiscal year.
Criteria
The ity ouncil’s March 23, 2015 motion included proposed criteria for evaluating projects in a
competitive process, and the interim ordinance could reiterate these criteria.
Recommendation: Evaluate applications subject to the annual limit using the following
criteria: (1) their intensity of use; (2) their ability to avoid or address potential impacts
on traffic and parking; (3) the quality of their design, including their attention to human
scale where the building(s) meet the street, their compatibility with surroundings, and
their overall architectural quality; (4) their environmental quality; and (5) the monetary
and/or non-monetary value of public benefits offered.
As an alternative, or addition to these criteria, the City Council could indicate their intent to
give priority to mixed use projects providing sufficient housing such that job increases would
not worsen the ity’s jobs/housing balance/
“Pipeline” Projects
The Department of Planning and Community Environment currently (as of March 31, 2015) has
13 pending applications for discretionary projects that would result in a net increase in office or
R&D square footage, not counting applications for preliminary architectural review, since such
applications do not result in a planning entitlement.3 The pending applications are listed in
Attachment D and segregated into those within the recommended boundaries (10) and those
outside those boundaries (three).
As shown below, the sum total of pipeline projects within the recommended boundaries
currently pending exceeds the proposed annual limit of 50,000 gross square feet by
approximately 100,000 square feet. Individual projects include those that have been in process
for over one year (for example, the mixed-use project at 441 Page Mill Road), and applications
that have been filed quite recently (for example, the 901 High Street application filed in
February 2015).
The pending projects are also at different stages of “readiness,” based on their categorization
as complete or incomplete, their status in terms of CEQA review, and their having been
recommended (or not) for a final action. Also, before the end of the fiscal year, some of these
applications could be approved (adding them to the FY2015 column in Table 4), and/or new
3 Note that there may be projects for which entitlements have been granted, but for which building permits have
not been issued, and/or construction has not yet commenced. These projects have not legally “vested” but are so
far along in the process that they have not been included in the definition of “pipeline” projects used here/ Also,
there may be a possibility that some property owners can add new office space without a discretionary application
by obtaining a Use & Occupancy permit to convert an existing building from one permitted use to another. With
the ity ouncil’s adoption of an interim retail preservation ordinance, this possibility would be extremely limited.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
applications could be received, particularly if projects that are currently the subject of
preliminary architectural review applications materialize into applications for formal review.
Generally property owners who file applications for planning entitlements with the City invest
substantial time and money in preparing those applications and the materials that accompany
them, which include architectural plans and technical studies. Applications are prepared based
on the zoning rules in effect at the time and applicants invest time and money in revising/re-
submitting materials to achieve application “completeness” and pay for environmental review
consultants if/as needed. The Council may conclude that these investments --as well as the
time already involved in processing some of the pipeline projects --weigh in favor of applying
the new annual limit process to new applications or at least to applications that are
“incomplete” at the start of the new program/
Recommendation: Test the annual limit in Fiscal Year 2016 by applying the procedure
described above to applications for office/R&D development within the designated
areas that are on file and “incomplete” as of July 1, 2015 (or the effective date of the
ordinance) and to new applications filed after that date.
This approach would effectively exempt pending applications at 441 Page Mill Road, 2555 Park
Blvd, 425/29 University, and 3877 El Camino Real, as well as any other “pipeline” (or new)
project applications which are deemed “complete” by the end of the fiscal year or the effective
date of the ordinance. If more than one or two of these applications are approved before the
end of FY2015, then FY2015 would exceed the 50,000 square foot annual limit (since
approximately 29,000 square feet have been approved already this fiscal year). Similarly, if
these applications are ultimately approved in FY2016, they would total about 44,000 square
feet, or close to that year’s annual limit/
Alternatively, the City Council could apply the procedure described above to all pending
applications on file as of July 1, 2015 (or the effective date of the ordinance) regardless of their
status. This would be disadvantageous for those “pipeline” applications that are ready for
consideration but don’t manage to secure an entitlement (whether because of scheduling, an
appeal, or other issues) between now and July 1, 2015 or the effective date of the ordinance.
In a sense, these applications that are “ready” would be forced to compete with new
applications that are received and processed such that they reach a comparable state of
readiness any time before March 31, 2016.
Staff would welcome City Council input and suggestions regarding other approaches to the
pipeline projects and their relationship to the initiation of the proposed interim annual limit.
Timeline
Establishment of an annual limit on development of net new office/R&D square footage, even
on an interim basis, is a complex endeavor potentially affecting the value of property inside and
outside the designated district. It also has the potential to substantially affect property owners
City of Palo Alto Page 11
who have already invested in pending applications. For these reasons, staff anticipates
significant interest and input from property owners and applicants, as well as interest groups
and stakeholders on all sides of the issue.
If the City Council wishes to proceed with development and consideration of an ordinance
establishing procedures consistent with the recommendations or alternatives provided here,
staff would prepare and review a draft ordinance with the Planning and Transportation
ommission (PT) during the ity ouncil’s June/July summer break, and bring the ordinance to
the Council with a recommendation from the PTC in August. (This could effectively mean
beginning the FY16 trial as of an effective date in September 2015 rather than July 1, 2015.)
onsistent with the ouncil’s direction on March 16, 2015, the proposed ordinance would make
the annual limit effective for two years (FY16 and FY17), at which time it would cease, unless it
were affirmatively continued or modified/replaced. (By separate action, the City Council could
also choose to make adjustments, cease, or extend the program at any time before the end of
two years.)
Policy Implications
The proposed program would seek to moderate the pace of development without changing the
zoning regulations that affect land uses and densities. The annual limit program would be
tested on a short term basis, and during that period would complement – and not replace –
growth management strategies in the current Comprehensive Plan, which consist of a
cumulative cap on non-residential Downtown and Citywide. In this way, the proposal would
implement Comprehensive Plan Policy B-1 ”Use a variety of planning and regulatory tools,
including growth limits, to ensure that business change is compatible with the needs of Palo Alto
neighborhoods.”
If the annual limit approach is adopted on a permanent basis after the two year trial, it would
likely involve amendments to the policies and programs about growth management in the
Comprehensive Plan, for example Program L-8 about the Downtown cap.
Environmental Review
Adoption of an ordinance implementing a short term (two year) limit on the amount of office
space that can be entitled in a subsection of the City will have the effect of perpetuating the
status quo if it discourages new applications for development or slows down the processing of
pending applications. Also, while a longer-term annual limit might have the effect of directing
office development to other areas of the City or stimulating alternative development (such as
housing), these market shifts are unlikely to occur within the two year time frame. For these
reasons, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed temporary annual limit would not have
the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment and no review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15061(b)(3) and require review.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
The program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) regarding the ity’s omprehensive Plan
Update will evaluate the potential long-term impacts of the proposed annual limit on
office/R&D development and will be used to inform a decision to extend the short term
(interim) program at the end of two years if desired.
Attachments:
A: Excerpt Minutes of March 23 City Council Meeting (PDF)
B: Map of Potential Office/R&D Cap Boundaries and 1989 Citywide Commercial Growth
Monitoring Areas (PDF)
C: Annual Non-Residential Growth in Subject Areas between FY 2001 and the Present
Based on CMP Classifications (DOCX)
D. “Pipeline” Projects(DOCX)
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Attachment A -
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
ACTION MINUTES
Special Meeting
March 23, 2015
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:09 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois arrived at 6:20 P.M., Filseth, Holman,
Kniss, Scharff arrived at 6:46 P.M., Schmid, Wolbach
Absent:
Page 1 of 7
Action Items
9. Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding Establishment of an
Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit (Continued from March 2, 2015).
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to direct Staff to return with discussion of elements of an interim
Ordinance along the following lines, and that Staff will have discretion to
provide certain alternatives under the following guidelines and other aspects
that Staff recommends for consideration:
1) Cap would run until the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan; and
2) Areas would cover University Avenue, California Avenue and El Camino
Real districts; and
3) Limit of ~50,000 sq. ft. of new office/commercial development net gain
per year; and
4) That it have a set of scoring standards to attempt to drive quality,
including:
A. Traffic impacts; and
B. Parking impacts; and
C. Design: Human scale of urban design, compatibility with surroundings,
architectural quality; and
D. Environmental quality of building; and
E. Other potential public benefits.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to return with options of what uses
to include in the Cap.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add “Potential intensity of use,” under Number
4.
ACTION MINUTES
AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council
Member Scharff, that the Cap would run until the adoption of the new
Comprehensive Plan or two years, whichever is sooner.
AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-4 Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman no
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to return with alternatives with
types of development that might be excluded from the interim Ordinance.
AMENDMENT: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to
exclude the Stanford Research Park only with a clear and definitive means of
addressing:
1. Single occupancy vehicle trips; and
2. Looking at minimizing the conversion of R&D to Office.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to include discussion of any additional zoning
change measures.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0
MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to direct Staff to include an alternative of no new net car trip
increase in the Comprehensive Plan update.
MOTION PASSED: 8-1 DuBois no
MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member XX to
direct Staff as part of the Comprehensive Plan update to investigate a
35,000 sq. ft. office development limit within the Congestion Management
Plan.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Wolbach to direct Staff to further define and evaluate as part of the
ACTION MINUTES
Comprehensive Plan update ways to encourage mixed-use that are not
predominately office space.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid
to direct Staff to include consideration of an employee fee or tax in the
context of the Comprehensive Plan discussion in regards to office and job
growth.
MOTION WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Mayor Holman to direct
Staff to consider under the Comprehensive Plan discussion of Stanford
Research Park including comprehensive Traffic Demand Management, and a
limitation of conversion of R&D to office in the Research Park.
Council Member DuBois advised he would not participate in this Motion due
to his wife working at Stanford.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 DuBois not participating
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:36 A.M.