HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-10-05 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
October 5, 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.
1 October 5, 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.
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. Council Input for the Public Art Master Plan
Special Orders of the Day 7:00-7:30 PM
2. Resolution of the City Council Expressing Appreciation to Grant Kolling
Upon His Retirement
3. United Nations Association Film Festival (UNAFF) Proclamation
2 October 5, 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.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Comments 7:30-7:40 PM
Oral Communications 7:40-7:55 PM
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Minutes Approval 7:55-8:00 PM
4. April 13, 2015, April 14, 2015, April 20, 2015, and April 27, 2015
Consent Calendar
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
5. Approval of Amendment Number Three to Contract Number
S13149314 With Truepoint Solutions, LLC in the Amount of $290,000
to Provide Support for Accela Software Applications and Blueprint
Initiatives, for a Total Contract Amount Not to Exceed $942,800
6. Approval of Amendment Number One to Contract Number C14153485
With Canopy, for an Additional Amount of $45,000 for the Second Year
of a Three Year Term, for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $399,630 for
Implementation of Urban Forest Master Plan Programs 1.D.i: 'Analysis
of North-South Palo Alto Canopy Disparity', and 3.B.1: 'Recommendations for Reducing Tree and Sidewalk Conflicts'
7. Adoption of Two Resolutions Correcting Clerical Errors in Two Items
Previously Approved as Part of the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget
8. Approval of a Contract with BKF Engineers for a Total Amount not to
Exceed $538,547 for Design Services for the Embarcadero Road
Corridor Improvements Project and Adoption of a Budget Amendment
Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2016 to Provide an Additional Appropriation
of $337,766 to the Embarcadero Road Corridor Improvements Project
in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) PL-15001
9. Approval of a Contract With VIMOC Technologies for a Total of
$100,000 to Install Parking Occupancy Sensors and Bicycle/Pedestrian
Video Counters
10. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section
2.040.160 (City Council Minutes) of Chapter 2.04 (Council
3 October 5, 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.
Organization and Procedure) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require
Action Minutes and a Verbatim Transcript of all Council and Council
Standing Committee Meetings, and Delete the Requirement for Sense
Minutes (FIRST READING: August 31, 2015 PASSED: 8-0 Kniss
absent)
11. Council Approval of Appointment of Terence Howzell to the Position of
Principal Attorney
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 8:00-10:00 PM
12. Comprehensive Plan Update: Comprehensive Plan Structure and
Goals/Vision Statements for Each Element and Related Direction to
Staff and the Citizens Advisory Committee (Part II: Community
Services & Facilities and Land Use & Community Design Elements)
10:00-10:20 PM
13. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Making Permanent the
Interim Measures to Eliminate Certain Parking Exemptions Within Downtown by Amending Municipal Code Chapters 18.18, Downtown
Commercial (CD) District and 18.52, Parking and Loading
Requirements; the Planning and Transportation Commission
Recommended Adoption
10:20-10:35 PM
14. Colleagues' Memo Recommending Adoption of a Resolution Combating
Human Trafficking, Including Staff Training, Assistance in Identifying
Vulnerable Populations and Legislative Advocacy
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.
4 October 5, 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
Finance Committee Meeting Cancellation 10/6/15
Sp. Policy and Services Committee 10/6/15
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Informational Report
Significant Gifts to the City, Fiscal Year 2015
Public Letters to Council
Set 1
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6111)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 10/5/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Public Art Master Plan
Title: Study Session: Council Input for the Public Art Master Plan
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
This is a study session intended to provide an update on the Public Art Master Plan work to
date, no action is requested.
Background
The Public Art Commission and staff have been in discussions regarding the need for a public
art master plan for several years. With the implementation of the Public Art in Private
Development Ordinance in 2014, funds are and will continue to become available for the
commission of more temporary and permanent public art throughout the City. Having a public
art plan – a guiding vision for the future of public art in Palo Alto generated through public
engagement - will help inform staff, Public Art Commission and Council’s decisions regarding
the use of funds over the next five to ten years.
On August 20, 2014 Palo Alto released an RFP for a public art master planner. The call was sent
to five known public art master planners, as well as posted on the Americans for the Arts Public
Art Network and the City of Palo Alto website. Six proposals were submitted prior to the
September 30, 2014 deadline. A selection panel comprised of Public Art Commission (PAC)
Chair Kathleen Kavanaugh, PAC Vice-Chair Ben Miyaji, Palo Alto Art Center Director Karen
Kienzle, Parks and Open Space Manager Daren Anderson, Director of Arts and Sciences Rhyena
Halpern, and Public Art Program Manager Elise DeMarzo all independently reviewed and
ranked the proposals. The applicants were scored for: qualifications and experience, the
strength of previous master plan samples submitted, the outreach process and effective
creative outreach methods, demonstrated ability to tailor the plan process to a specific
community, and cost to the City. When staff compiled the scores, the applicant team of Barbara
Goldstein and Gail Goldman was ranked first for five of the six panelists and scored much higher
than any of the other proposers.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
In November 2014, Gail Goldman and Barbara Goldstein made a presentation to the selection
panel and were interviewed. The panel recommended that the applicant team move forward
for Commission approval. The Public Art Commission approved consultants Barbara Goldstein
and Gail Goldman to formulate a Public Art Master Plan at their December 2014 meeting.
Discussion
In early 2015, Barbara Goldstein & Associates with Gail M. Goldman Associates were awarded
the contract to create a Public Art Master Plan for the City of Palo Alto. They were charged with
developing a long term plan, approximately ten years in length, that will provide a clear vision
for the future of public art in Palo Alto. It will outline goals, identify relevant programmatic
themes and artistic approaches, explore strategic partnerships and possible sources of
alternative funding, and provide direction for ongoing program development and management.
The plan will also address ongoing public engagement, support increased opportunities for
public art, and celebrate art as an essential element of a thriving community.
Since late February 2015, the consultants have been conducting research into Palo Alto’s
existing public art policies and plans, the current public art collection, and City of Palo Alto’s
current planning efforts. The team has also assembled and met twice with the Public Art Master
Plan Advisory Committee (see attached list) representing a cross section of community
stakeholders, led a “boot camp” for City staff and Commissioners, conducted 14 focus groups,
two public meetings, and 32 interviews with internal and external stakeholders.
As part of the current Public Art Master Planning outreach efforts, the Public Art Program has
hired artists Peter Foucault and Chris Treggiari (Mobile Arts Platform - MAP) to go out into the
community to engage residents in a fun and dynamic exchange that will yield important
information for the Public Art Master Plan. The artists have custom-outfitted two bikes and
trailers that will convert to a pop-up art making and idea-generating space. The intent is to
engage residents who may not have the time or inclination to attend more formal community
outreach meetings and gather their thoughts on how public art might make Palo Alto a more
vibrant or livable city. Each participant will leave with a memento of their participation in this
important outreach effort – and hopefully have some fun in the process. MAP has conducted
activities in 12 venues to date with another 12 to come.
The following topics have emerged frequently during the meetings and focus groups:
Supporting teens
Caring for the environment
Enlivening neighborhoods
Creating an art-focused central gathering place
Commissioning pedestrian-friendly art
Capturing History
Installing temporary art
Addressing Palo Alto commuters
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Locating art in unexpected places
The following locations have been identified as priorities for artwork and/or artist engagement:
California Avenue
University Avenue
King Plaza
Rinconada Park
Cubberley Community Center
Midtown
South Palo Alto
Stanford Research Park
Hiking and bike trails
Timeline
Once Mobile Arts Platform outreach effort will conclude in October, the consultants will
compile all of the information gathered to date, including from this City Council Study Session,
and develop a draft Public Art Master Plan for review and comment by the Advisory
Committee, the Public Art Commission and other key stakeholders. That draft plan will be
revised and the final Public Art Master Plan will be presented to City Council for adoption. Staff
hopes to complete the Public Art Master Plan in the spring of 2016.
Resource Impact
The Public Art Master Planning Consultants are under a contract for $55,000 and the Mobile
Arts Platform artists are under contract for $10,000, both are funded through Art in Public
Places funds.
Policy Implications
The Public Art Master Planning efforts are consistent with Community Services section policy C-
23, “Explore a way to expand the space available in the community for art exhibitions, classes
and other cultural activities.”
Attachments:
Attachment A: Advisory Committee Roster (DOCX)
Members of the Public Art Master Plan Advisory Committee:
Ben Miyaji – Public Art Commission Vice Chair and Chair of Advisory Committee
Shagorica Basu - Institutional Giving Specialist, Columbia educated arts administrator with a particular
focus on art and community.
Amanda Ross –Public Art Commission member
Kahlid Birdsong – artist and teacher at Midtown Keyes School .
Joelle Dong Heller – student, Teen Arts Council member
Rachelle Doorley- Cubberley artist, TinkerLab Founder, experience in Museum Docent training and
education.
MJ Elmore – Angel Investor with a passion for the arts, she has over 30 years of experience in the
venture capital community.
Sid Espinosa- Director of Corporate Citizenship at Microsoft, Ex-Mayor and Council member, arts
advocate.
Steve Ferrera – PAUSD art teacher at Paly and artist.
Linda Gass – Cubberley Studio artist whose work focuses on water issues.
David Harris -Institute for the Future Research Director/ Executive Director of the Global Lives Project.
Jackson Kienitz – student, visual artist, Teen Arts Council member
Paula Kirkeby – Former Public art Commissioner and gallery owner (Smith Andersen Editions).
Yoriko Kishimoto – Former Mayor and Council Member (8 years), artist, Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District
Judy Kleinberg – CEO Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, Knight Foundation, Board of Thoits Bros., former
Mayor and Council Member.
Patty McGuigan –Commercial Real Estate Broker, Community Philanthropist, Palo Alto Chamber of
Commerce.
Deanna Messinger- PAUSD art teacher at Gunn and artist.
Ewa Nowicka – Performance artist with an interest in community engagement.
Meera Saxena - Architect and Project LOOK! Docent. Palo Alto Art Center board.
Sophie Swezey – student, Teen Arts Council member
Matthew Tiews- Associate Dean for Advancement of the Arts at Stanford University
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION
TO GRANT KOLLING UPON HIS RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Grant Kolling earned his Juris Doctorate at University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco and was admitted to the State Bar of California on December 1, 1981; and
WHEREAS, Grant Kolling, after having served as Counsel for Levi Straus, Computerland and as
Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Jose, joined the Palo Alto Office of the City Attorney in
January 1991; and
WHEREAS, within a year of starting his service to the citizens of the City of Palo Alto, Grant was
promoted to Senior Assistant City Attorney where he continued to serve the citizens of Palo Alto for nearly 25
years; and
WHEREAS, Grant Kolling worked on such high profile assignments as: the Cable TV Franchise transfer to Comcast in 2000, PG&E and Enron Bankruptcies, acquisition of Arastradero Preserve, the
Tour de California and National Senior Games, Social Media Policy & Procedures for the City, and
transfer of the Palo Alto Airport to the City of Palo Alto, to name a few; and
WHEREAS, Grant Kolling was a frequent presenter on legal topics, including for the League of
California Cities City Attorneys Department, the Northern California Power Agency, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, and the National Asian Pacific Islander Prosecutors Association; and
WHEREAS, Grant Kolling’s publications appear in European Taxation, the Public Law Journal, the
San Francisco and Los Angeles Daily Journals, Public Power Magazine, National Asian Pacific
American Bar Association (NAPABA) Lawyer, and Above Ground Level (AGL) Magazine; and
WHEREAS, Grant Kolling pursued his 25 years of public service with fairness, professionalism
and high standards.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto, hereby gratefully records and extends its sincere appreciation and the appreciation of the community to Grant Kolling for this faithful and excellent service rendered to the City.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: October 5, 2015
ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________ ______________________
City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________ ______________________
City Attorney City Manager
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PROCLAMATION
18th Annual United Nations Association Film Festival (UNAFF)
WHEREAS, October 15, 2015, marks the 18th anniversary of the United Nations Association Film Festival
(UNAFF), which was originally created to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights; and
WHEREAS, UNAFF was founded by Stanford educator and film critic Jasmina Bojic with the participation of
the Stanford Film Society and the United Nations Association Mid-peninsula Chapter, a community based
nonprofit organization in Palo Alto, California; and
WHEREAS, UNAFF gives five awards: UNAFF Grand Jury Award for Best Documentary, UNAFF Grand
Jury Award for Best Short Documentary, UNAFF Award for Best Cinematography, UNAFF Award for Best
Editing and the UNAFF Youth Vision Award; and
WHEREAS, UNAFF previously screened some of the most honored and talked about documentaries
including seven that went on to win Academy Awards and twenty-eight that were nominated; and
WHEREAS, UNAFF celebrates the power of films dealing with human rights, the environment, women’s
issues, homelessness, racism, disease control, universal education, war and peace with the theme this year of
“RUNNING OUT OF TIME”; and
WHEREAS, UNAFF Jury selected 60 films for this year’s festival dealing with topics from countries around
the world; and
WHEREAS, UNAFF will be held October 16 to October 26, 2015 at the Aquarius Theatre in Palo Alto, at
Stanford University, in East Palo Alto and in San Francisco; and
WHEREAS, UNAFF hosts international filmmakers and academics to discuss the topics in the films with
members of the audience, who are often separated by geography, ethnicity and economic status.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Holman, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council do
hereby proclaim October 15-25, 2015 as United Nations Association Film Festival Days, and encourage the
citizens of our community to attend UNAFF screenings and panels during the eleven day festival.
Presented: October 5, 2015
______________________________
Karen Holman
Mayor
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
October 5, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Minutes Approval: April 13, 2015 , April 14, 2015 , April 20, 2015 and
April 27, 2015
Staff has prepared four sets of Draft Action Minutes for review and approval by the City Council. Staff will include three to five sets of Draft
Action Minutes in subsequent City Council Packets for your approval. During the transition from Sense Minutes to Action Minutes with the preparation of a verbatim transcript, Staff and the City’s transcription consultant have worked to ensure the Motions included in the Action Minutes of each City Council Meeting match the Motions in the verbatim transcript. This review has taken longer than expected. Recommendation
Review and approve attached City Council Meeting Action Minutes. Background
On May 6, 2015 Council directed a change in the type of Minutes prepared
for City Council and Standing Committee Meetings via the following Motion:
2a. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation Regarding
Changes to City Council and Standing Committee Minutes.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid
to move to Action Minutes and video as the official permanent record of City
Council and Standing Committee meetings. Verbatim Minutes will also be
prepared.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER
AND SECONDER direct Staff to return with an Ordinance updating
Municipal Code Section 2.04.160(c) to read "As soon as possible
after each Council meeting, verbatim minutes would be made
publicly available digitally on the website and hard copies available
upon request."
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-2 DuBois, Kniss no
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: 04-13-15 DRAFT ACTION Minutes (DOC)
Attachment B: 04-14-15 DRAFT ACTION Minutes (DOC)
Attachment C: 04-20-15 DRAFT ACTION Minutes (DOC)
Attachment D: 04-27-15 DRAFT ACTION Minutes (DOC)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 3
Regular Meeting
April 13, 2015
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:07 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid,
Wolbach
Absent:
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
None.
Oral Communications
None.
Consent Calendar
MOTION: Council Member Dubois moved, second by Council Member
Filseth, third by Mayor Holman to pull Agenda Item Number 7- Approval of a
Construction Contract with Express Sign & Neon, Inc. Not to Exceed
$327,558 for the Wayfinding Portion of the City Hall Remodel Project PE-
12017, to be heard on a date uncertain.
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member
Berman to approve Agenda Item Numbers 1-6.
1. Approval of Contract Amendment No. Two to Contract No. C12142825
in the Amount of $668,000 with NV5, Inc. for Preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Newell Road/San
Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project, Capital Improvement
Program Project PE-12011, Approval of Amendment No. Two to a Cost
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 3
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 03/27/15
Share Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District Providing
Local Matching Funds in the Amount of $235,074 for Design and EIR
Preparation for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge
Replacement Project, and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance
5318 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto in the Amount of $668,000 to CIP Project PE-12011,
Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project.”
2. Approval of Contract No. C15156501 with SP Plus to Provide Online
Permit Sales Hosting for the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking
District in the Amount of $284,068 and a New Parking Website;
Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5319 entitled “Budget
Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Transferring $43,813 to the Residential Parking Permit Program Fund
and Appropriate $28,230 to the Planning and Community Environment
Department Operating Budget Offset with a Reduction of $72,043 from
the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve.”
3. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract C14151310 with Ghirardelli
Associates, to Add $68,000 for a Total Not to Exceed $706,600 for
Construction Management of the California Avenue Streetscape
Improvements Project (CIP- PL-11002).
4. Approval of and Authorization for the City Manager or His Designee to
Execute a Consent to Change of Control Agreement with Frontier
Solar, LLC. and Amendment No. 1 to the City's Power Purchase
Agreement with Frontier Solar, LLC.
5. Staff Recommendation to Initiate a Special Recruitment to Fill One
Unscheduled Vacancy on the Architectural Review Board.
6. SECOND READING: Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees:
Adoption of Ordinance 5320 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.58 Implementing New Public
Safety Facility and General Government Facility Impact Fees and
Direction to Draft Resolution Setting Initial Impact Fee Rates at 75
Percent of Levels Identified in Nexus Study” (First Reading: December
15, 2014 PASSED: 9-0).
7. Approval of a Construction Contract with Express Sign & Neon, Inc.
Not to Exceed $327,558 for the Wayfinding Portion of the City Hall
Remodel Project PE-12017.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 3
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 03/27/15
MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 1-6 PASSED: 9-0
Action Items
8. Hearing on Buena Vista Mobilehome Park Residents Association’s
Appeal of Hearing Officer’s Decision Relating to Mitigation Measures
Proposed by Buena Vista Mobilehome Park Owner in Connection with
Mobilehome Park Closure Application.
Council took a break at 8:34 P.M. and returned at 8:49 P.M.
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
None.
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
None.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 3
Special Meeting
April 14, 2015
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:10 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid,
Wolbach
Absent:
Oral Communications
None.
Action Items
8. Hearing on Buena Vista Mobilehome Park Residents Association’s
Appeal of Hearing Officer’s Decision Relating to Mitigation Measures
Proposed by Buena Vista Mobilehome Park Owner in Connection with
Mobilehome Park Closure Application (continued from April 13, 2015).
Council took a break at 9:08 P.M. and reconvened at 9:22 P.M.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Kniss to:
1) Approve the Hearing Officer’s decision with the following modifications:
a) Updated appraisals of the on-site fair market value of each mobile
home shall be completed within 6 months of the owner’s relocation
from Buena Vista, at the Park Owner’s expense. Updates shall be
prepared by Beccaria & Weber, according to the methodology utilized
in the 2013 reports. If for any mobile home the updated appraisal
amount is less than the appraisal calculated in the 2013 reports, the
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 3
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 04/14/15
Park Owner shall pay the higher of the two appraisals, as may be
modified by the Hearing Officer as described below; and
b) Within 6 months of the mobile home owner’s relocation from Buena
Vista, the Park Owner shall complete an updated market survey of
average apartment rents in the cities surrounding Palo Alto, using the
methodology in the RIR. This survey shall be the basis for calculating
the 12-month rent differential and start-up costs described in the
Hearing Officer’s decision; and
c) Within 30 days of receiving the updates described above, any mobile
home owner may submit a written objection, comment or
supplemental data to the Hearing Officer. The Park Owner shall have
15 days to rebut any such submissions. The Hearing Officer shall make
a determination regarding the appraisal amount and comparable
market survey based on the evidence submitted. The Hearing Officer
shall not award less than the amounts contained in the updated
analyses of the Park Owner, or more than the amounts supported by
evidence submitted by the mobile home owners. The Hearing Officer
shall not have jurisdiction to reopen any matter addressed by the
Council’s Decision or the Sept 30, 2014, Hearing Officer’s Decision.
The Hearing Officer shall issue a short written determination, which
shall be final. The Hearing Officer’s determination shall not be
appealable to the Council. Any appeal shall be to the Superior Court,
to the extent provided by law; and
d) Final determination of actual moving costs and additional mitigations
for disabled mobile home owners shall be determined by the
Relocation Specialist, as set forth in the Hearing Officer’s decision; and
e) In addition where a one bedroom mobile home unit has more than one
bedroom because of unpermitted additions, where family is greater
than three people, the rental compensation will provide for a two
bedroom rental unit.
2) Staff shall return to Council for adoption of written findings and decision
consistent with this Motion.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 3
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 04/14/15
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add “permitted and” to Section e) in the
Motion.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add “within thirty days or as soon as practical
thereafter,” to Section c) in the Motion.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to remove “In addition” from Section e) in the
Motion.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that the appraiser will revise the scope of
community amenities to include things such as safety and schools.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member
DuBois to add to the Motion “The closure plan shall be effective upon
approval by the Hearing Officer of the modified appraisal scope.”
AMENDMENT FAILED: 3-6 Burt, DuBois, Schmid yes
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:28 P.M.
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 5
Special Meeting
April 20, 2015
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:32 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid,
Wolbach arrived at 6:00 P.M.
Absent:
Utilities Advisory Commission:
Present: Cook, Eglash, Foster, Hall arrived at 6:49 P.M., Melton,
Waldfogel
Absent: Chang
Closed Session
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Berman to go into Closed Session.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Wolbach absent
Council went into Closed Session at 5:32 P.M.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Molly
Stump, Kathy Shen, Melissa Tronquet, Dania Torres Wong, Sandra
Blanch, David Ramberg, Joe Saccio, Walter Rossmann, Eric Nickel,
Dennis Burns)
Employee Organizations: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA);
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 1319.
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a).
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 5
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 04/20/2015
The Council reconvened from the Closed Session at 6:37 P.M.
Mayor Holman announced no reportable action.
Study Session
2. Joint Study Session of the City Council and the Utilities Advisory
Commission.
3. Annual Earth Day Report Study Session and Sustainability/Climate
Action Plan (S/CAP) Update.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
None.
Minutes Approval
4. February 23, 2015 March 2, 2015 March 9, 2015
MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach
to approve the minutes of February 23, March 2 and 9, 2015.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Consent Calendar
MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member
DuBois to approve Agenda Item Numbers 5-9.
5. Finance Committee Recommends Adoption of a Budget Amendment
Ordinance 5321 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council
of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2015 to
Adjust Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures in Accordance with the
Recommendations in the FY 2015 Midyear Budget Review Report” and
to Adopt a Resolution 9503 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto to Amend the Compensation Plan for the
Management/Professional Group to Add a Principal Attorney.”
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 5
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 04/20/2015
6. Staff Recommendation that the City Council Adopt a Resolution 9504
entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Gas Rate Schedule G-10 (Compressed Natural Gas Service) to Recover
Cap-and-Trade Regulatory Compliance Costs and Approving New Palo
AltoGreen Gas Rate Schedule G-10-G (Compressed Natural Green Gas
Service).”
7. Approval of Three Contracts with: 1) Delta Dental for Dental Claim
Administration; 2) Vision Service Plan for Vision Claim Administration
and Fully Insured Vision Plan; and 3) Life Insurance Company of North
America (CIGNA) for Underwriting of the City of Palo Alto’s Group Life,
Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD&D), and Long Term
Disability Insurance (LTD) Plans for up to Three Years for Each
Contract.
8. Approval of Loan Documents and Agreements Providing $1,000,000
for the Rehabilitation of the Stevenson House and Adoption of a
Budget Amendment Ordinance 5322 entitled “Budget Amendment
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Appropriating Funds
from the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund for this Purpose.”
9. Adoption of Amended Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.14 (Smoking
and Tobacco Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish
New Outdoor Smoking Restrictions in Commercial Areas and Outdoor
Dining.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Action Items
10. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of Ordinances Amending Chapters 16.14,
16.17, and 16.18 to Adopt Local Amendments to the California Green
Building Code and the California Energy Code.
Public Hearing opened at: 10:51 P.M.
Public Hearing closed at 10:59 P.M.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Burt to adopt:
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 4 of 5
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 04/20/2015
1) An Ordinance repealing and restating Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter
16.14 to adopt and amend the 2013 California Green Building Standards
Code, Title 24, Chapter 11, of the California Code of Regulations; and
2) An Ordinance repealing PAMC Chapters 16.17 and 16.18 and restating
Chapter 16.17 to adopt and amend the 2013 California Energy Code, Title
24, Chapter 6, of the California Code of Regulations.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to return with updates to these
Ordinances including any concerns generated by the Ordinances within
eighteen months.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0
11. Colleagues’ Memo from Mayor Holman, Council Members Burt, Schmid,
and Wolbach Regarding Strengthening City Engagement with
Neighborhoods (Continued from March 16, 2015).
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Wolbach to refer this item to the Policy and Services Committee.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
12. Discussion and Appointment of a Council Member to the Board of
Directors of the Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency
(BAWSCA) and the Bay Area Regional Water System Financing
Authority.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff
to appoint Vice Mayor Schmid to the Board of Directors and Council Member
Scharff as Alternate of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
and the Bay Area Regional Water System Financing Authority.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
None.
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 5 of 5
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 04/20/2015
Council Member Wolbach attended the Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s
(PAHC) Annual Meeting last week. At the meeting he learned about a new
organization, Silicon Valley At Home which focuses on advocacy and
education around affordable housing. At the meeting, a PAHC Board Member
stated that affordable housing is a community benefit. PAHC also discussed
density and how density relates to affordable housing. PAHC mentioned
some possible relocation options related to Buena Vista Mobilehome Park on
properties owned by PAHC.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:17 P.M.
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 4
Special Meeting
April 27, 2015
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:02 P.M.
Present: Burt, DuBois, Filseth arrived at 6:05 P.M., Holman, Schmid,
Wolbach
Absent: Berman, Kniss, Scharff
Closed Session
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid to
go into Closed Session.
MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Berman, Filseth, Kniss, Scharff absent
Council went into Closed Session at 6:03 P.M.
1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-Potential Litigation
Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b)
of Section 54956.9 (One Potential Case, as Defendant)
Communications and Power Industries: Amortization Study.
The Council reconvened from the Closed Session at 7:13 P.M. Mayor Holman
announced no reportable action.
Study Session
2. Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Budget Overview.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
None.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 4
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 04/27/2015
Consent Calendar
MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid
to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-6.
3. Approval of a Final Map to Subdivide One Parcel Totaling 12,375
Square Feet Into Six Condominium Units Within the RM-30 Zone
District located at 405 Curtner Avenue; Environmental Assessment:
Categorically Exempt From the Provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303
and 15061(b)(3).
4. Preliminary Approval of the Report of the Advisory Board for Fiscal
Year 2016 in Connection with the Palo Alto Downtown Business
Improvement District and Adoption of the Resolution 9505 entitled
“Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring its
Intention to Levy an Assessment Against Businesses within the
Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year
2016 and Setting a Time and Place for a Public Hearing on May 18, at
7:00 PM or Thereafter, in the City Council Chambers.
5. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Utility
Meter Audit: Procurement, Inventory, and Retirement.
6. Approval of the Revised Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement:
Workforce Development Services for NOVA Consortium to Include the
Addition of San Mateo County.
MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Berman, Kniss, Scharff absent
Action Items
7. Comprehensive Plan Update Planning Process Status and Review of
Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals and Vision Statements
MOTION: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to form
a working group to work through the Comprehensive Plan for the duration of
the process.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 4
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 04/27/2015
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to change “working group” to “working group of
diverse stakeholders.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to return to the Council with a
proposal for stakeholder selection process and the purposes of the
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add at the beginning of the Motion “to direct
the City Manager and Staff to form...”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to change “selection process and the purposes” to
“proposal of Stakeholder categories, along with a proposed purpose and
scope.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to change “to form a” to “to select a.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add “created from an open application process”
between “stakeholders” and “to work.”
CALL THE QUESTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council
Member DuBois to call the question.
CALL THE QUESTION PASSED: 5-1 Filseth no, Berman, Kniss, Scharff
absent
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 4-2 Filseth, Schmid no, Berman, Kniss,
Scharff absent
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
None.
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
None.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 4 of 4
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 04/27/2015
Closed Session
MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois
to go into Closed Session.
MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Berman, Kniss, Scharff absent
Council went into Closed Session at 10:52 PM
8. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Authority: Government Code section 54957.6
Agency Representatives: Mayor Karen Holman, CAO Chair Pat Burt,
PSO Director Kathryn Shen
Unrepresented employee: City Clerk
Council reconvened from the Closed Session at 11:40 P.M.
Mayor Holman advised no reportable action.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 P.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6079)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/5/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Amendment toTruepoint
Title: Approval of Amendment Number Three to Contract S13149314 with
Truepoint Solutions, LLC in the Amount of $290,000 to Provide Support for
Accela Software Applications and Blueprint Initiatives, for a Total Contract
Amount Not to Exceed $942,800
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Development Services Department
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment
Number Three with TruePoint Solutions, LLC (TruePoint) to increase compensation by
$290,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $942,800.
Executive Summary
Development Services originally contracted with TruePoint in March of 2013 to provide
on-site assistance and support for a two phase project that included upgrading Accela
to a newer version and identifying opportunities for Accela based applications. In
December of 2013 the contract was extended three years to accommodate phase three,
which related to project implementations and ongoing support at an anticipated 20
hours per week. Due to new initiatives and expansion of projects to other City
departments, Development Services has reevaluated the need at approximately 35
hours per week over the life of the contract. The request to increase compensation will
allow City departments to continue with projects in progress and in queue. The need
for technologist support will be reexamined upon expiration of the contract in December
of 2016.
Background
On September 6, 2011, the Council approved staff recommendations to implement the
City of Palo Alto Development Center “Blueprint” project to streamline and modernize
the City’s permit process, focusing on improving customer satisfaction and inter-
departmental efficiency. As directed by the Council, staff has focused on the
implementation and transition to the coordinated permit system design, restructuring of
the organization, technology upgrades, and performance measurements.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
On December 5, 2011, (Staff Report 2364) the Council approved a Budget Amendment
Ordinance (BAO 5134) for implementation of the Blueprint process plan for the
Development Center, including appropriations of $935,600 for technology
enhancements and a projection for an additional $802,401 for technology
enhancements in Fiscal Year 2013. In total, $1.7 million in funding was incorporated
into Capital Improvement Project (CIP) TE-12001 for Development Center Blueprint
Tech Enhancements.
Discussion
Accela provides the City with software licensing, software maintenance, and capabilities
to track, schedule, and bill planning and building permits. As this is a highly technical
vendor, the Blueprint plan called out for a “technologist” to provide technical and user
support in the office and in the field, create and support reporting data, and to serve as
a knowledge liaison between users, Accela, and the City staff and consultants.
In 2013, The City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for “technologist” support of
Blueprint enhancements, sending copies of the RFP to at least seven firms. TruePoint
was the only company to respond. As the City already has a contract in place with
TruePoint to support other Accela applications, Council is being requested to authorize
an increase in compensation to provide additional support necessary to complete
projects in progress and in queue.
As part of Blueprint initiatives, TruePoint has assisted with upgrading Accela Classic to
Accela Vantage 360 (V360), transitioning the use of Velocity Hall to Accela’s Citizen
Access (ACA), interfacing the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) with Accela,
implementing Accela Mobile Office (AMO) applications for inspectors in the field, and
creating reporting data to reflect performance measures, permit activity, and staff
workloads. These enhancements give users and/or City staff more flexibility and easier
access to schedule, submit, view, pay, or obtain status of permits.
With approval to increase compensation, TruePoint will assist Development Services,
Planning, Public Works, and Fire Prevention with projects such as expanding the
number of online permits offered, updating fee calculators in Accela, automating
expired permit notifications, enhancing scheduling capabilities, automating the Use &
Occupancy process, and developing an online plan review system that will allow for
paperless submittal and review. TruePoint will continue to act as a conduit between
Accela and the City to further enhance knowledge, utilization, and capabilities of the
Accela product, as well as offer support for new features, scripting, configuration, &
reporting. Development Services intends on re-assessing the need for technologist
support upon expiration of the contract in December of 2016.
Resource Impact
The requested extension will be funded through existing operating and capital budget
City of Palo Alto Page 3
resources, including the Development Center Blueprint Technology Enhancement CIP
Project (TE-12001). This CIP project has a total budget of $1.7 million, of which
$946,012 is remaining. The intended use of this budget is for the implementation of
new Blueprint project initiatives. The Development Services department will also utilize
funding sources available within the departments operating budget to support ongoing
Accela support and maintenance functions, including troubleshooting errors, report
writing, and minor enhancements or changes. A total of $120,000 is budgeted and
available in the Development Services department budget this fiscal year. Additionally,
as other departments utilize TruePoint services, sufficient funding is available in their
respective operating budgets to support multi-department initiatives.
Policy Implications
Approval of this contract is consistent with Council’s direction to implement the City of
Palo Alto Development Center “Blueprint” project to streamline and modernize the City’s
permit process.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Contract Number S13149314 TRUEPOINT AMENDMENT No 3 (PDF)
1 Revision April 28, 2014
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONTRACT NO. S13149314
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
TRUEPOINT SOLUTIONS, LLC
This Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. S13149314 (“Contract”) is entered into on the 5th day of
October, 2015, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal
corporation (“CITY”), and TRUEPOINT SOLUTIONS, LLC a California limited liability
company, located at 3262 Penryn Road, Suite 100-B, Loomis, California, 95650, and Telephone
(916) 259-1293 ("CONSULTANT").
R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of
specialized services to manage and mentor five primary divisions (Public Works, Utilities, Planning,
Building, and Fire) who use the Accela product.
B. CITY Intends to increase the compensation from $652,800.00 by $ 290,000.00
to $942,800.00 for the continuation of services as specified in Exhibits “A” Scope of Services &
“A1” Additional Scope of Services.
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, COMPENSATION is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. 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 Nine Hundred Forty Two
Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($942,800.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are
set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “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 “C”. 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 Additional Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A1”
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:
a. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 42B3B4C8-DCFE-46B1-9313-C7DE7CA59F45
2 Revision April 28, 2014
SECTION 3. 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
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TRUEPOINT SOLUTIONS, LLC
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "C": COMPENSATION
DocuSign Envelope ID: 42B3B4C8-DCFE-46B1-9313-C7DE7CA59F45
CEO
3 Revision April 28, 2014
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the rate schedule
attached as Exhibit C-1.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibits “A” & “A1” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$942,800.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable
expenses, within this amount. 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.
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included
within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall
reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for
which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are:
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile
transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information.
Any expense shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization
from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a
detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of
effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable
expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional
services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in
writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the
services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this
Agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 42B3B4C8-DCFE-46B1-9313-C7DE7CA59F45
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6021)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/5/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Contract Amendment No. 1 with Canopy to Implement Urban
Forest Master Plan Year
Title: Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract #C14153485 with Canopy,
for an Additional Amount of $45,000 for the Second Year of a Three Year
Term for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $399,630 for Implementation of
Urban Forest Master Plan Programs 1.D.i: 'Analysis of North-South Palo Alto
Canopy Disparity', and 3.B.1: 'Recommendations for Reducing Tree and
Sidewalk Conflicts'.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his
designee to execute Amendment No. 1 (Attachment A) to add $45,000 to
Contract C14153485 with Canopy for a total contract amount not to exceed
$399,630,for the completion of Urban Forest Master Plan Programs 1.D.i:
Analysis of North-South Palo Alto Canopy Disparity and 3.B.1: Recommendations
for Reducing Tree and Sidewalk Conflicts.
Background
On March 7, 2014, the City Council approved a three-year sole source contract
with Canopy (Staff Report #4468)to support Palo Alto’s urban forestry programs
and events by:
·Serving as a comprehensive information source about Palo Alto trees
·Educating and motivating Palo Alto residents to plant, care for and
celebrate trees
·Maintaining a credible, professional identity and high public visibility in
support of the Palo Alto urban forest
City of Palo Alto Page 2
·Assisting the City of Palo Alto in its planning and performance of urban
forestry programs on an ongoing basis
·Conducting assessments of the health of recently planted street trees
·Administering the Utilities Department’s Right Tree in the Right Place
program
Discussion
The City’s first Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) was adopted by Council on May
11, 2015, and mandates the Urban Forestry Division complete 28 new programs
during the first year of the ten-year master plan. Two of the 28 programs, 1.D.i,
and 3.B.i. will require significant research and extensive exploration to complete.
Program 1.D.i involves investigating reasons for less canopy in South Palo Alto and
developing strategies to end the trend of decreasing canopy in this area.
Research will include the evaluation of:
·Development review procedures
·Maintenance activities and contracts
·Property-owner objections to street trees
·Prohibitive physical conditions such as soil type, absence of planting strip,
etc.
Program 3.B.i.involves exploring alternatives beyond matching growth
characteristics to planting site conditions to avoid root damage to sidewalks by
exploring root barriers and additional solutions such as:
·Meandering sidewalks around trees
·Suspending sidewalks above tree roots
·Replacing concrete sidewalks with recycled rubber sidewalks
This information will supplement the Sidewalk Capital Improvement Program
Assessment that is being conducted in FY 2016 to develop recommendations for
goals and priorities related to sidwalk repairs and replacements throughout the
City.
Methodology for both programs will include research analysis, interviews,
community meetings and potential pilot or model projects. Deliverables for both
City of Palo Alto Page 3
research projects will be reports recommending methods and alternatives to
reduce conflicts and improve operations by detailing or providing:
·An outreach program to ensure residents, property owners and business
owners understand how their decisions affect the canopy and encourage
them to plant trees
·New planting sites
·Policies to ensure staff and contractors performing maintenance in South
Palo Alto understand the City’s priorities
·Recommendations of alternatives based on best management practices
·Performance and cost data for solutions,citing existing locations and
possible differences to Palo Alto
·Standard details and conditions of approval for solutions
·Permit language for uses such as encroachment permits
·Fee structures for inspections of the various solutions
·A list of vendors who sell or install solutions, alternate or similar products,
and consumer comparisons
Completion of Program 1.D.i. will satisfy Policy 1.D. in the UFMP,which states
Palo Alto shall “Strive for canopy equity by prioritizing areas in which the UC Davis
report indicated a decrease between 1982 and 2010.” Similarly, completion of
Program 3.B.i. will satisfy Policy 3.B. to “Ensure exhaustive exploration into the
common concerns that emerged from the responses to the Master Plan survey
and ensure that the resulting information is well communicated.”
Canopy is specifically mentioned as a partner in the Goals, Policies and Programs
throughout the UFMP and several Year 1 programs are listed in their current
scope of services. Due to the scope and expertise needed to complete Programs
1.D.i. and 3.B.1, staff feels these programs are best suited for Canopy to complete
as Canopy has a relationship deeply rooted with the residents of Palo Alto and
they have the unique expertise, proven experience, professional stature and key
personnel to provide this level of service to the City of Palo Alto.
Canopy has provided the following quotes for completion of Programs 1.D.i. and
3.B.i. with cost estimates of $27,000 and $18,000,respectively.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Resource Impact
Funding for the analysis of North-South Palo Alto Canopy Disparity ($27,000) is
available in the Public Works Department’s General Fund budget and funding for
the Recommendations for Reducing Tree and Sidewalk Conflicts ($18,000) resides
in CIP PO-89003, Sidewalk Repairs.
Policy Implications
This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies.
Environmental Review (If Applicable)
The recommended action is exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(h)
(maintenance of existing landscape).
Attachments:
·Attachment A -C14153185 Canopy Amendment 1 (PDF)
1 Revision April 28, 2014
AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO CONTRACT NO. C14153485
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
CANOPY
This Amendment No. One to Contract No. C14153485 (“Contract”) is entered into
September 4, 2015, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal
corporation (“CITY”), and Canopy, a nonprofit organization, located at 3921 East Bayshore Road,
Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone Number: 650-964-6110 (“Contractor”).
R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of serving
as a comprehensive information source about Palo Alto trees and educating, motivating, and
assisting the residents and City to plant, care for, and celebrate trees.
B. The parties wish to amend the Contract by increasing the compensation from
Three hundred fifty four thousand six hundred thirty Dollars ($$354,630.00) to a not to
exceed total amount of Three hundred ninety nine thousand six hundred thirty Dollars
($399,630.00) for services as specified in Exhibit “A-1 and Exhibit “A”.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and
provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree:
SECTION 1. Section 1, SCOPE OF SERVICES is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“CONTRACTOR shall perform the Services described in the attached Exhibit “A-1”
as an addition to the Scope of Services described in “Exhibit A” of the original Contract and in
accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all
Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY”
SECTION 2. Section 5, COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as not-to-exceed compensation for the full
performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any:
A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit C-1(which replaces Exhibit
“C” of the original contract), not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of Three
Hundred Ninety nine Thousand six hundred thirty dollars($399,630.00) for all three years.
SECTION 3. 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:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 44C75802-805D-452B-B89E-B2364162A4A7 Attachment A
2 Revision April 28, 2014
a. Exhibit “A-1” SCOPE OF SERVICES
b. Exhibit “B-1” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
c. Exhibit “C-1” SCHEDULE OF FEES
SECTION 4. 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.
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "A-1" SCOPE OF SERVICES
EXHIBIT “B-1” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF FEES
DocuSign Envelope ID: 44C75802-805D-452B-B89E-B2364162A4A7
Catherine Martineau
Executive Director
EXHITBIT “A-1”
Scope of services
Amendment No. 1
The Palo Alto City Council recently adopted Palo Alto’s first Urban Forest Master Plan. To assist
the Urban Forestry Section with the plan’s implementation of year 1 programs, Canopy shall
provide services to carry out Program 1. D. i. and 3. B. i. described below.
1. Program 1. D. i. North-South Canopy Disparity
The Urban Forest Master Plan includes a study conducted by Dr. Xiao of UC Davis that
provides tree canopy cover rates for the neighborhoods of Palo Alto in 1982 and 2010. While
the total canopy cover rose from 32.8% in 1982 to 37.6% in 2010, most of the increase in
canopy cover happened in North Palo Alto neighborhoods, while tree cover in most South Palo
Alto neighborhoods stagnated or even decreased.
The goal of this program is to strive for canopy equity between North and South Palo Alto by
prioritizing areas identified by Dr. Xiao’s report where canopy cover decreased between 1982
and 2010.
a. Methodology
i. Review UC Davis data, maps, and documents that can shed light on the
reasons for canopy disparities. Interview professionals (arborists,
planners, etc., current and past.)
ii. Reach out to community leaders and members to gather property owners
and residents’ feedback on South Palo Alto tree canopy cover, perceived
objections to street and property trees, and preferred solutions.
iii. Visit representative sites.
iv. Meet regularly with the City of Palo Alto Public Works Urban Forestry
Project Manager to review progress, receive feedback, and discuss major
findings such as proposed tree canopy goals and timeframe.
b. Deliverables
i. Report (electronic format draft and final, two printed copies of final report)
addressing the following:
- Catalog of reasons for lower canopy cover in South Palo Alto
(such as physical conditions, development, tree maintenance,
residents’ behaviors, etc.)
- Evaluation and prioritization of possible solutions for each.
- Proposed canopy cover goal for each neighborhood by agreed
upon date.
- Define strategy for reaching proposed goal, including outreach
program to residents, residential and commercial property
DocuSign Envelope ID: 44C75802-805D-452B-B89E-B2364162A4A7
owners, City staff and contractors.
- Evaluate opportunities for the creation of new public right of way
and parks planting sites.
- Detailed plan for first two years’ implementation.
ii. Community outreach, including:
- Online survey
- Residents interviews
- Two community meetings (one at the beginning of the process,
the other to present results and draft recommendations)
2. Program 3. B. i.
The goal of Program 3. B. i. of the Urban Forest Master Plan is to explore and recommend ways
to avoid tree root damage to sidewalks. It is an important component of the toolbox needed to
achieve the plan’s overall canopy cover goals.
a. Methodology
i. Interview Public Works Public Services and Engineering staff to
understand issues and needs in particular with regards to the sidewalks
CIP project.
ii. Conduct brief literature review to identify promising solutions. Conduct
phone interviews with other communities staff to gather pros and cons.
Build list of relevant criteria.
iii. Assess success of past pilot projects involving innovative sidewalk
alternatives.
iv. Gather specs and cost information from vendors.
v. Assemble a focus group to gauge resident and business perceptions and
preferences.
b. Deliverables
i. Report (electronic format draft and final, two printed copies of final report)
addressing the following:
- Performance and cost data for solutions citing locations they
were applied and possible differences to Palo Alto (ex: rubber
pavers may perform differently because of climate)
- Standard details and conditions of approval for solutions
DocuSign Envelope ID: 44C75802-805D-452B-B89E-B2364162A4A7
- Permits or permit language for uses such as encroachment
permits
- Fee structures associated with inspection of solutions
- Vendors who sell or install solutions, alternate or similar
products, and consumer comparisons
ii. Community outreach:
- Focus groups will be used
DocuSign Envelope ID: 44C75802-805D-452B-B89E-B2364162A4A7
EXHIBIT B-1
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
AMENDMENT NO.1
CONTRACTOR shall perform the Services so as to complete each task within the time period
specified below. The time to complete each task may be increased or decreased by mutual
written agreement of the project managers for CONTRACTOR and CITY so long as all work is
completed within the term of the Agreement. Upon request CONTRACTOR shall provide a
detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below.
Task Completion Date
1. Program 1. D. i. Analysis of NorthSouth
Canopy Disparity (Final Draft) May 31, 2016
2. Program 3. B. i. Recommendations for Reducing
Tree and Sidewalk Conflicts (Final Draft) May 31, 2016
DocuSign Envelope ID: 44C75802-805D-452B-B89E-B2364162A4A7
EXHIBIT C-1
SCHEDULE OF FEES
CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR according to the following rate schedule. The maximum amount of
compensation to be paid to Contractor, including both payment for services and reimbursable
expenses, shall not exceed One hundred eighteen thousand two hundred ten Dollars
($118,210.00) per year for a total not to exceed $354,630.00 for all three years. Any services
provided or hours worked for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum
amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to City.
Canopy Staff
Hourly Rate $
Executive Director 110.00
Program Director 65.00
Communication & Development Director 65.00
Education and Community Outreach Manager 40.00
Program Coordinator 40.00
Administrative Associate 40.00
Interns/ Youth Staff 23.00
Volunteers (Palo Alto only) 25.00
AMENDMENT NO. 1 COMPENSATION:
CONTRACTOR shall perform the tasks as described and budgeted below. CITY’s Project Manager
may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories
listed below provided the total compensation for the Services including reimbursable expenses,
does not exceed $45,000. Any services provided or hours worked for which payment would
result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at
no cost to CITY.
1. Program 1. D. i. Analysis of North-South Canopy Disparity $27,000
2. Program 3. B. i. Recommendations for Reducing
Tree and Sidewalk Conflicts $18,000
Original Contract (Staff ID No.4468) $354,630.00
Amendment No.1 (Staff ID No. 6021) $45,000.00
Total Compensation: Not to exceed $399,630.00
DocuSign Envelope ID: 44C75802-805D-452B-B89E-B2364162A4A7
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
October 5, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Adoption of Two Resolutions Correcting Clerical Errors in Two Items
Previously Approved as Part of the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget
RECOMMENDATION
To correct clerical errors associated with two items approved on May 27, 2015 and June 15,
2015 as part of the FY 2016 annual budget, staff recommends that Council approve the
attached Resolutions.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this action is to correct errors that occurred with respect to two items that the
Council approved as part of the FY 2016 budget:
On May 27, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9512 modifying the City’s
CLEAN Program. At the time of adoption of Resolution 9512, Exhibit A-1 was
inadvertently omitted. Exhibit A-1 contains Eligibility Rules and Requirements associated
with implementation of the CLEAN program. Adoption of the attached Resolution, with
the correct Exhibit A-1, corrects this clerical error and confirms adoption of the CLEAN
program Eligibility Rules and Requirements.
On June 15, 2015 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9526 adopting a residential
Refuse Rate increase ranging between 9.0 and 19.0 percent as part of the
implementation of a new residential food scrap collection program and amending Utility
Rate Schedule R-1 to reflect the new rates. The new rates have gone into effect.
Although the correct Rate Schedule was attached to the resolution, an incorrect
resolution was inadvertently used. Adoption of the attached Resolution corrects this
clerical error by amending Resolution 9526 to include the appropriate text. Rate
Schedule R-1 is unchanged and those rates remain in force.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Resolutions correcting clerical errors are not projects subject to environmental
review.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Resolution correcting Resolution 9512 CLEAN Program (DOCX)
Attachment A1 to Resolution (PDF)
B: RESO Amending Resolution 9526 Refuse Collection July 1 2015 (DOCX)
Page 2
Utility Rate Schedule R1 (PDF)
Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney
Page 3
1
RESOLUTION NO.:
[Correcting Resolution No.: 9512]
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Correcting
Resolution No.: 9512 Reducing The Contract Price For The Palo Alto Clean
Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN) Program from 16.5 ¢/kWh to
between 10.3-10.4 ¢/kWh for Solar Resources, Expanding the CLEAN
Program’s Eligibility to Non-Solar Renewable Energy Resources and adding
a 25-year Contract Term Option and adopting revised Palo Alto CLEAN
Program Eligibility Rules Requirements
RECITALS
A. On May 27, 2015, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“the City”) adopted
Resolution No.: 9512 modifying the City’s CLEAN Program to:
i. Add a 25-Year Contract Term Option in Addition to the CLEAN Program’s Existing 20-
Year Contract Term Option;
ii. Continue the Palo Alto CLEAN Program for solar energy resources, reducing the
contract price from 16.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh) to a contract price equal
to the avoided cost of solar energy resources of 10.3 ¢/kWh for a 20-year contract,
and 10.4 ¢/kWh for a 25-year contract term, and to continue with a CLEAN
Program limit for solar energy resources of 3 megawatts (MW); and
iii. Expand the CLEAN Program to allow non-solar eligible renewable energy
resources to participate, and offer such resources a contract price equal to their
avoided cost of 9.3 cents per kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh) for a 20-year contract, and 9.4
¢/kWh for a 25-year contract term, with a program limit of 3 MW; and
iv. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to sign contracts for the output of one or
more solar, or other non-solar eligible renewable energy resource meeting the CLEAN
Program Eligibility Rules and Requirements described in Section 1. The total CLEAN
Program cost commitment made by the City during the life of the program shall not
exceed $75,000,000, which is sufficient for a program cap of 3 MW of local solar
generating capacity and 3 MW of local, non-solar generating capacity over a 25-year
contract term.
2
B. At the time of adoption of Resolution 9512, Exhibit A-1 to the Resolution was
inadvertently omitted from the resolution. Exhibit A-1 contains CLEAN Program Eligibility Rules
and Requirements necessary to implement changes to the Palo Alto CLEAN Program.
C. Based on the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
determines it advisable to amend Resolution 9512 of the City to add Exhibit A-1, CLEAN Program
Eligibility Rules and Requirements.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City”) RESOLVES:
SECTION 1: Resolution 9512 is hereby amended to include Exhibit A-1, attached here to.
SECTION 2: This resolutions supplements, amends and corrects the original resolution No.:
9512 only to the extent necessary to include Exhibit A-1 and, except to the extent specifically
amended by this resolution, the original resolution shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution is not subject to
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review under California Public Resources Code
section 21080(b)(8), because the rate adopted reflects the reasonable cost of the CLEAN
Program’s operating expenses. Approval of the amended CLEAN Program Eligibility Rules and
Requirements is not a project under CEQA, and therefore, no environmental assessment is
necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
________________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
________________________________ ______________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
3
______________________________
Director Administrative Services
Not Yet Approved
150924 gk 00710614B 1
Resolution No. ______
[Amending and Correcting Resolution: 9526]
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Refuse
Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedule R-1
A. On June 15, 2015, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“the City)” adopted
Resolution No.: 9526 (“Original Resolution”) adopting a Refuse Rate Increase and Amending Utility
Rate Schedule R-1.
B. Although the Rate Schedule attached to the Original Resolution was correct, the
resolution itself was not.
C. Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds and determines it is advisable to amend
Resolution 9526 to properly reflect the actions of the City Council.
Therefore, the City Council RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1: Resolution 9526 previously adopted on June 15, 2015 is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:
1. Pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Council may
by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing utility services and the fees and charges
therefore.
2. The Council has considered residential refuse rate increases ranging between 9.0
and 19.0 percent as part of the implementation of a new residential food scrap collection
program.
3. Pursuant to Article XIIID Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, on June 8, 2015, the
City of Palo Alto held a public hearing to consider all protests against the proposed wastewater
collection rate amendments.
4. The total number of written protests presented by the close of the public hearing
was less than fifty percent (50%) of the total number of customers and property owners subject
to the proposed wastewater collection rate amendments.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto further RESOLVES:
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule R-1 (Domestic Refuse Collection) is hereby amended to read in accordance with
Sheets R-1-1 and R-1-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The foregoing Utility Rate
Schedules, as amended, shall become effective on July 1, 2015.
Not Yet Approved
150924 gk 00710614B 2
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized
adjustments of the refuse collection rates shall be used only for the purposes set forth in Article VII,
Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet
the California Environmental Quality Act’s definition of a project, pursuant to California Public
Resources Code section 21065, therefore, no environmental assessment is required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Public Works
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6093)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/5/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Embarcadero Road Corridor Improvements Project
Title: Approval of a Contract with BKF Engineers for a Total Amount of Not To
Exceed $538,547 for Design Services for the Embarcadero Road Corridor
Improvements Project and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for
Fiscal Year 2016 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $337,766 to the
Embarcadero Road Corridor Improvements Project in the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) PL-15001
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute, the attached
contract with BKF Engineers (Attachment A) in an amount of $489,589 for design and
environmental services and $48,958 for additional services for a total of not to exceed
$538,547, for the Embarcadero Road Improvements Project at the Embarcadero Road &
El Camino Real Intersection. (Capital Improvement Program Project PL-15001,
Embarcadero Road Corridor Improvements); and
2. Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment B) to increase funding in the
Capital Improvement Fund for the Embarcadero Road Improvements Project (PL-15001)
in the amount of $337,737, offset by a reduction to the Infrastructure Reserve in the
Capital Improvement Fund of $235,686, and recognition of revenue currently held in the
Ellis Partners Deposit Account in the amount of $102,151.
Background
The Embarcadero Road corridor provides direct east-west connections between Highway 101
and Stanford University for visitors to the city and supports local travel with connections to
Town & Country, Palo Alto High School, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and El Camino Real. The
segment of Embarcadero Road between High Street and El Camino Real has been an area of
community concern for many years with three closely spaced traffic signals within 750 feet of
City of Palo Alto Page 2
one another at El Camino Real (Caltrans-maintained), the driveways serving Town & Country
and Palo Alto High School, and Trader Joe’s Market.
In 2013 the City initiated a preliminary planning study to provide near-term improvements
along this section of Embarcadero Road and to set in motion a focused and community driven
process for final improvements.
The City recently completed phase one of this project with the installation of a new traffic
signal and controller cabinet at the Town & Country and Palo Alto High School intersection. This
provided for the signals at Embarcadero Road and Town & Country/Paly and the Embarcadero
Road and Trader Joe’s Market to operate as one traffic signal through the use of the newly
updated traffic signal controller. The Trader Joe’s Market, right turn only traffic signal was also
removed and replaced with stop control signage.
Discussion
The scope for the second phase of the Embarcadero Road Improvements includes preparation
of plan line concepts, final design plans,environmental documentation, construction documents
and all required permitting from Caltrans for intersection improvements at El Camino Real and
Embarcadero Road/Galvez Street. Improvements may include, but are not limited to, traffic
signal modifications, sidewalk realignment, high visibilty crosswalks, signing & striping, bicycle
treatments, landscaping and traffic calming elements.
This project will also examine bicycle/pedestrian connection opportunities using the existing
multi-use trail adjacent to the Caltrain tracks which crosses over Embarcadero Road, rather
than the current crosswalk between Town & Country and Paly.
During the design phase, City will be seeking grant funding opportunities for the construction
phase of the project. Having a completed design will provide for an increased chance for
obtaining funding opportunities.
On May 27, 2015, the City realeased the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the design of the
Embarcadero Road Improvements Project and received four proposals in response to the
Project. The solicitation and selection process is outlined below.
Proposal Description/Number Design Services
Proposed Length of Contract: Approx 1 year
Total Days to Respond to RFP: 35 days
Pre-proposal Tele-Conference: June 3, 2015
Number of Proposals Received: 4
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Proposals Received from: Location (City, State) Selected for
oral interview?
Hatch Mott MacDonald
Sandis
BKF
Mark Thomas
San Mateo, CA
Oakland, CA
Oakland, CA
San Francisco, CA
No
Yes
Yes
No
The proposals were judged by the following criteria:
Quality and effectiveness of proposed solutions;
Qualifications and experience of the staff assigned to the project
Community Outreach Experience;
Proposal quality and completeness;
Cost to the City
Two firms were selected for oral interviews upon review of the proposals and BKF Engineers
was selected as the preferred consultant team because they demonstrated superior knowledge
of roadway design projects, and had a strong background in public outreach skills and working
with Caltrans for environmental and design approval.
Timeline
Immediately upon execution of the contract, BKF Engineers will begin a field survey of the
project area and will begin development of project plan line alternatives and the public
outreach process. Consultation with Caltrans will also commence immediately and the design
and environmental phase is scheduled to be completed in the Winter of 2016. Construction will
be scheduled thereafter; the timing will be contingent on Caltrans approval and funding.
Resource Impact
The contract with BKF Engineers will be in the amount of $498,589. Additional services of
$48,958 is to provide for additional environmental assessment studies and additional
coordination with Caltrans that may be required as part of the project approval process
bringing the total contract amount to $538,547.
Funding in the amount of $200,710 is currently available in the Embarcadero Road Corridor
Improvements Project (PL-15001) for the design of the second phase of the Embarcadero Road
Corridor Improvements project. A funding request for Phase II of this project was inadvertantly
not included during the Fiscal Year 2016 budget process, therefore the project requires an
increase of $337,837, recommended as part of this report.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
In 2009, during the construction of Trader Joe’s market in Town & Country Shopping center, the
developer, Ellis Partners, paid the City $225,000 in a deposit account for City to use for signal,
intersection capacity and pedestrian improvements at the Town & Country and Trader Joe’s
driveways. A portion of that funding was used, leaving a balance of $102,151. As part of this
report it is recommended that the remaining balance in the deposit account of $102,151 be
used to partially offset the necessary budget increase of $337,837. The remaining unfunded
amount of $235,686 will need to be funded through a reduction to the Infrastructure Reserve.
While the Infrastructure Reserve has sufficient funding to support this additional cost, it is
important to note that the utilization of the Infrastructure Reserve is an integral part of the
June 2014 City Council-approved Infrastructure Plan. Consequently, it is anticipated that as
part of the Fiscal Year 2015 year-end close, the Infrastructure Reserve will be replenished with
Fiscal Year 2015 surplus funding.
Policy Implications
The following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies support the Embarcadero Road Corridor
Improvements Project:
Goal T-3: Facilities, Services, and Programs that encourage and promote walking and
bicycling.
Goal T-4: An efficient roadway network for all users.
Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destination,
including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employments district,
shopping centers, and mulit modal transit stations.
Policy T-29: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street
network without compromising the need of pedestrians and bicyclists also using
this network.
Environmental Review
This project focuses on the intersection at Embarcadero and El Camino Real. El Camino Real
(Route 82) is a state highway, so Caltrans is the lead agency for the environmental review
requirements for the California Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The City and the selected consultant will be working with Caltrans to obtain
environmental clearances prior to the completion of the design of the project and in advance of
future grant funding. No environmental review is required for approval of this contract.
Attachments:
Attachment A: BKF Contract (PDF)
Attachment B: Budget Amendment Ordinance - Embarcadero Road Corridor
Improvements (DOCX)
ATTACHMENT A
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. 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 Four Hundred
Eighty Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Nine Dollars ($489,589.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Five Hundred Thirty Eight Thousand Five Hundred
Forty Seven Dollars ($538,547.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at
Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “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 “C”. 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 at Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly
invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an
identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The
information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY.
CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in
Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt.
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be
performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT
represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and
subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all
licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally
required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the
professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or
similar circumstances.
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of
and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that
may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to
perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses,
pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services.
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any
and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or
other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct
any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of
construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works
project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of
design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent
(10%) of CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to
CITY.
SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act
as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY.
SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of
CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager.
Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete
the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are:
Callander Associates 311 7th Avenue
San Mateo, CA. 94401
Hexagon Transportation Consultants
111 W. Saint John Street San Jose, CA. 95113
Dudek
853 Lincoln Way, Suite #208
Auburn, CA. 95603
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any
compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning
compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a
subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Janine O’Flaherty
as the Principal-in-Charge to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and
execution of the Services and Jason Mansfield as the Project Manager to represent
CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or
replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project
manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY
finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property.
CITY’s project manager is Shahla Yazdy, Planning & Community Environment Department,
Transportation Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650) 617-3151. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project
manager from time to time.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the
exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT
agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall
be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the
prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no
representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not
contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time
during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records
pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and
retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this
Agreement.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect,
indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability
of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss,
including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court
costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an
Indemnified Party.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed
to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the
active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall
survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions,
ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term,
covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law.
SECTION 18. INSURANCE.
18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in
full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in
Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies.
18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through
carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in
full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming
CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the
approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is
primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the
insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of
the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the
Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business
days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for
ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief
Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement.
18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be
construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification
provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance,
CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement,
including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has
expired.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will
immediately discontinue its performance of the Services.
19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY.
19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the
City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such
materials will become the property of CITY.
19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or
termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that
portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement:
14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25.
19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by
certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director
at the address of CONSULTANT recited above
SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently
has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest.
CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this
Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance
with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California.
21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant”
as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission,
CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read
and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to
Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all
requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally
Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department,
incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second,
reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall
comply with the following zero waste requirements:
All printed materials provided by CCONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes,
invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and
printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless
otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed
by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks.
Goods purchased by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in
accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not
limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s office.
Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no
additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide
documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION
24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the
following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only
appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available.
This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such
action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California.
25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that
action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties.
25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will
apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and
consultants of the parties.
25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in
any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and
will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement.
25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d)
about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable
and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the
security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for
direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent.
25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they
have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when
executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized
representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BKF ENGINEERS
Attachments:
EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION
EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES
EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
CFO
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES
CONSULTANT shall perform the following tasks:
Task 1 – Concept Plan Lines & Permit Engineering Evaluation Report (PEER)/
Encroachment Permit: The Concept Plan Lines & Permit Engineering Evaluation Report
(PEER)/ Encroachment Permit stage includes the identification of various alignment alternatives
for the Embarcadero Road Corridor Improvement Project for the consideration of the Palo Alto
community. The community preferred alignment alternative will then move forward with the
PEER/Encroachment Permit process with Caltrans. Up to three alignment alternatives are
anticipated for consideration by the community before identification of a community preferred
alignment alternative that will be advanced and submitted with an Encroachment Permit and/or
PEER to Caltrans. The CONSULTANT will coordinate for review/approval of all documents
submitted for Caltrans approval.
At the start of the project, the CONSULTANT will prepare for and attend a single project kick-
off meeting with design team and City staff. The kick-off meeting will review scope, schedule
and milestones, communications, project program including review of existing plans, and
outreach program and strategies.
The CONSULTANT will be responsible for outreach to and organizing meetings with the
following agencies: Palo Alto community, Caltrans, Stanford University, Palo Alto Unified
School District, and management of the Town and Country Shopping Center (Ellis Partners).
The proposed roadway changes will incorporate, or further enhance, the upcoming traffic signal
modifications. Additional coordination will also be provided with the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
project, as well as the City’s various bicycle, pedestrian, and related plans.
As part of the identification of alignment alternatives for the Embarcadero Road Corridor
Improvement project, the CONSULTANT will take into account the following Design
Considerations:
Utilities (Above and Below Ground)
Real property acquisition (temporary construction easements and design)
Safety
Walk-ability, Bicycle ride-ability, and transit connectivity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
Adjacent public facilities or facilities of interest, such as Palo Alto High School,
Stanford University, Town & Country Shopping Center, and connection with
existing and planned bicycle routes and or bay area bicycle share stations
Project mitigations that may result for roadway capacity improvements
Cost
As part of the traffic evaluation, the CONSULTANT will prepare the necessary analyses to
develop and test improvement alternatives. The CONSULTANT will conduct AM and PM peak-
hour traffic counts at the intersections of Embarcadero/El Camino Real, Embarcadero/Paly High
Entrance, and Embarcadero/Town & Country Driveway (pedestrian crosswalk). The counts will
include bicycles and pedestrians. The counts will be completed when schools are in session. The
CONSULTANT also will observe traffic conditions during the peak hours to determine cycle
lengths and splits, queue lengths, pedestrian cycles, and other operating conditions not obvious
from the traffic counts. Hexagon will use the counts to calculate levels of service for the study
intersections under existing conditions and with the proposed improvement schemes. The project
budget allows for up to four improvement plan alternatives. Levels of service will be calculated
for existing conditions and for 2030 conditions. The 2030 conditions volumes will be obtained
from the General Plan forecasts recently completed by Hexagon for the City of Palo Alto.
After the development of a community preferred alignment alternative for the Embarcadero
Road Corridor Improvement Project, the CONSULTANT will begin coordination with Caltrans
and to seek any design exceptions and appropriate permits required for the implementation of the
project.
Upon successful approval of the PEER/Encroachment Permit with Caltrans, the CONSULTANT
will present the project to the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), Planning &
Transportation Commission (PTC), Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) – Board of
Directors, Town and Country Shopping Center management, and the City Council for final
approval.
Deliverables for Task 1 include the following items:
10% Design – Concept Plan Line Alignments
Preliminary cost estimates for alignment alternatives
Identifying of Probable Impact and Mitigation Alternatives for Quality of Life
preservation
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
Final Caltrans Approved PEER
The CONSULTANT will undertake the following meeting schedule to successfully develop the
project toward an approved preferred alternative:
Three (3) community outreach meetings
Two (2) Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee meetings
Two (2) Palo Alto Unified School District meetings
One (1) Town and Country meeting
City-School Traffic Safety Committee meeting
Up to two (2) PTC meetings
Up to two (2) City Council meetings
The City will be responsible for securing community meeting facilities. The CONSULTANT
will prepare the outreach materials, including media ads to be coordinated for publication by the
City, meeting notice flyers for mailing to residents by the City, and community meeting
presentations. Meeting materials may also include existing conditions aerial/project limits
diagram, existing conditions photo boards, materials and inspiration image boards to illustrate
range of potential improvements, and 8 ½”x11”graphic meeting announcement. Up to three
alternative concept plans will be rendered in color for presentation purposes. A single preferred
concept plan will be rendered in color for presentation purposes. In addition, the
CONSULTANT will prepare up to three photorealistic cross sections illustrating existing
conditions and proposed improvements. The CONSULTANT will also serve as Scribe at all
community meetings.
Task 2 – Bicycle/Pedestrian Connectivity Study:
Based on preliminary observations even during non-peak hours, and especially during high
demand periods such as a Stanford football game, pedestrian traffic can significantly limit the
vehicular capacity of the area. Because of the historic focus on vehicular traffic, pedestrian
capacity and accommodations are limited.
The City anticipates the need for PS&E of Embarcadero Road between the intersections of El
Camino Real/Galvez Street and the Town & Country/Paly Driveway intersection to provide
roadway capacity improvements. One key to success of this effort is to better integrate
pedestrians and bicyclists. To identify the appropriate long-term bicycle/pedestrian connectivity
improvements along Embarcadero Road east of the Town & Country-Paly driveways
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
intersection, a connectivity study as part of this project is required.
Existing bicycle-pedestrian connections along the project study area include a grade-separated
multi-use trail over Embarcadero Road adjacent to the Caltrain railroad tracks, a signalized
pedestrian-only crossing to Paly adjacent to Trader Joe’s in the Town & Country Shopping
Center, and signalized pedestrian facilities at the El Camino Real intersection. The grade-
separated multi-use trail is accessed on the west of the Caltrain tracks from Town & Country
Shopping Center and a temporary access point at Paly. The temporary Paly access point at Paly
is being provided as part of active construction on the school campus.
As part of the traffic evaluation, the CONSULTANT will observe pedestrian and bicycle
circulation in the area. As part of Task 1 the CONSULTANT will count pedestrian and bicycle
volume and make observations during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. For this task the
CONSULTANT will count and observe during the peak school times, which could include the
lunch time, and before and after a Stanford football game. These observations of peak pedestrian
flows will help inform the range of improvement options. During the observations the
CONSULTANT will make note of where the pedestrians come from and go to. The
CONSULTANT will conduct a qualitative evaluation of the pedestrian and bicycle improvement
options. The budget includes up to four options. The CONSULTANT could conduct a
quantitative assessment of pedestrian and bicycle operations using transportation simulation
software as part of an optional task described below.
Through an extensive data-driven community-outreach process the CONSULTANT will identify
a recommended long-term connectivity option. The connectivity study will explore the following
options:
Existing multi-use trail access improvements
Removal of the existing Embarcadero Road & Paly pedestrian crossing
Addition of a pedestrian/bicycle focused facilities at the Embarcadero Road &
Town & Country-Paly driveways intersection
Relocation of Town & Country-Paly driveways
A new grade-separated facility
The CONSULTANT will utilize community meetings identified as part of task one to gather
feedback regarding bicycle and pedestrian circulation in the area, present multiple alternates, and
works to building consensus for a single preferred plan for the long term connectivity
improvements in the area. Based upon input received, the direction for proceeding on a single
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
preferred long-term connectivity plan will be determined. In addition to the overall plan, revised
image boards and up to two enlargement plans will be prepared to better illustrate concepts to the
public. All plans will be rendered in color for presentation purposes.
Task 3 – Environmental Analysis Study:
Historic and archaeological resources have been identified as the key environmental issues for
this project. These resources are likely to be the primary drivers of the environmental budget
and schedule. The CONSULTANT will manage the entire compliance process and ensure that
the key environmental issues discussed below are resolved efficiently but with a high level of
environmental stewardship befitting the City of Palo Alto.
Archaeological and Historic Resources
The proposed project will include signal modifications and relocated signals, which require deep
excavation (up to 15 feet) for new signal mast arm foundations. Due to this depth of excavation,
it is anticipated that Caltrans will require a technical evaluation of the archaeological sensitivity
in the project area and the potential for the project to impact buried archaeological resources.
PALY is included on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory List and may be eligible for the California
Register of Historic Resources and/or the National Register of Historic Places. Both widening
options would require right-of-way from PALY and, therefore, they have the potential to cause
an impact to an historic resource under NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. It is not anticipated that the minor effects to the PALY property would be
substantial under CEQA. However, in its capacity as NEPA/Section 106 lead agency, Caltrans
will require a technical evaluation of the potential impacts to the PALY campus.
Section 4(f)
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act mandates that federally-funded
transportation projects avoid the use of recreational, historic, or wildlife refuge resources unless
there are no prudent and feasible alternatives. Since both project alternatives are expected to
require right-of-way from an historic property (PALY), it will be necessary to complete the
Section 4(f) compliance process to document that the City has considered alternatives that do not
affect the PALY property. This requirement would not occur if the City decides not to pursue
federal funding.
The CONSULTANT will complete the following tasks necessary for the project obtain CEQA
and NEPA clearance. This Scope of Work includes the CONSULTANT’s attendance at six
community and/or team meetings, not including the Caltrans field review discussed under
‘NEPA Compliance’ below.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
Environmental Scoping, Purpose & Need, and Project Description
The environmental team will complete a field review of the project alignment to further define
existing environmental conditions and to establish the principal locations of environmental
concern. The CONSULTANT will assist in the accurate definition of the study alternatives, with
an emphasis on the inclusion of sufficient detail for finalizing the scopes of the environmental
studies. Examples of such details are the width and exact locations of widening, the maximum
depth of excavations, and the extent of right-of-way acquisition along the project alignment.
As part of the environmental scoping process, the CONSULTANT will develop a Purpose and
Need Statement to include in the Project Description. This is a critical step in the environmental
process because it will be the basis for the Section 4(f) compliance process. The Purpose and
Need Statement will be included in a comprehensive Project Description that will contain
accurate definition of the alternatives as well as the necessary environmental details
CEQA Compliance
Given the nature of the proposed improvements, the project is anticipated to qualify for a Class 1
Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This class of
exemptions covers minor alterations to existing facilities so long as they involve no or negligible
expansion of use. Although the project design would include additional turning lanes on
Embarcadero Road, the overall roadway capacity increase would be negligible.
The CONSULTANT will prepare the Notice of Exemption for the City of Palo Alto and file the
Notice at the Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder’s office.
If new through lanes are added to the project design or if other potentially significant
environmental impacts are encountered, then the project may not qualify for a Categorical
Exemption from CEQA. In such a circumstance, the CONSULTANT could prepare an Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration under a separate scope of work.
NEPA Compliance
The City of Palo Alto may pursue federal funding for the project and therefore would like to
obtain environmental clearance under NEPA. This scope of work assumes that the federal funds
and compliance process would be administered by the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance. This
task will occur after a final project alternative has been selected (that is, the NEPA process will
not evaluate multiple alternatives). This will allow the project to be processed through the
Caltrans Office of Local Assistance as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under NEPA.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
The CONSULTANT will complete the following tasks as part of the NEPA compliance process.
The first step in the NEPA process will be to complete the Caltrans Preliminary Environmental
Studies (PES) form, including all required attachments (visual, endangered species, floodplain,
hazmat). The next step will be to attend the formal Caltrans field review. Caltrans staff will
likely require the following technical memos and studies for this project:
• Right-of-Way/Community Impact Memo
• Equipment Staging Memo
• Air Quality Conformity Documentation
• Water Quality Memo
• Traffic [Construction and Long-Term] Memo
• Visual Impact Memo
• Initial Site Assessment
• Archaeological Survey Report (ASR)
• Historic Resource Evaluation Report (HRER)
• Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR)
• Finding of Effect
• Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation (Minor Involvement with Historic Sites)
• Biology Memo (trees and nesting birds)
These studies are included in this scope and are described more fully in the following
paragraphs. This scope assumes that no more than two rounds of revisions based on Caltrans
comments will be completed on each memo and report. If additional studies or revisions are
required, the CONSULTANT can prepare a supplemental scope and budget for submission to,
and approval by, the City of Palo Alto.
Right-of-Way/Community Impacts Memo
The CONSULTANT will prepare a brief memo that documents the right-of-way and TCE’s
required for this project. The memo will also discuss the impacts of the project on adjacent land
uses along El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road, which are anticipated to be minimal or
beneficial. This scope assumes that no relocations or full right-of-way takes will be required.
Air Quality Conformity Documentation
Caltrans requires that local project sponsors, in this case the City of Palo Alto, provide evidence
that the project conforms to the federal Clean Air Act. This requires that the project be included
in MTC’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and evaluated by MTC’s Air Quality Task
Force, which will likely determine that it is exempt from the project-level conformity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
requirements. The CONSULTANT will assist the City in coordinating with MTC staff for the
purpose of having the project included in the TIP and evaluated by the Air Quality Task Force.
Equipment Staging Memo
The CONSULTANT will prepare a brief memo that describes the location(s) where construction
equipment and materials will be staged. This scope assumes that those location(s) will be along
roads within the existing right-of-way. It also assumes that such location(s) will not impact any
sensitive biological habitats.
Water Quality Memo
A brief water quality memorandum will be prepared. The memorandum will focus on the
measures and best management practices (BMPs) included in the project to reduce water quality
impacts. The memorandum will also describe how the project will comply with the latest
regulations designed to prevent or reduce water quality impacts. This applies to both the
construction phase and the operational phase.
Traffic Memo
Caltrans will require a brief memo that summarizes the short- and long-term traffic impacts of
the project. This scope assumes that such a memo will be prepared by the civil engineer or a
traffic engineering firm contracted to the civil engineer for the project. The short-term needs to
discuss whether there will be any road closures, detours, loss of on-street parking, or other
impacts. The long-term needs to show the improvement in LOS with the project in place, as
compared to the “no project.” Also, the memo should describe any benefits such as
improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists. The CONSULTANT will review the memo for
consistency with the Caltrans requirements and coordinate the submittal to Caltrans.
Visual Impact Memo
The CONSULTANT will prepare a qualitative visual study that describes the changes to the
visual setting due to the proposed roadway modifications, as well as changes resulting from any
tree removal. The visual study will include photographs to illustrate the text and will include
completion of the Caltrans visual impact questionnaire.
Initial Site Assessment
An Initial Site Assessment (ISA) will be required to document the potential for hazardous
materials or contamination to be present in the project disturbance area. The CONSULTANT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
will prepare a Caltrans-compliant ISA that will include a site reconnaissance, a review of
historical documents and environmental databases, and preparation of the ISA checklist for
hazardous waste. The CONSULTANT will review the ISA and coordinate submittal of the
report to Caltrans. Soil and groundwater sampling, chemical analyses, and subsurface
explorations are not included in this scope of work.
Cultural Resource Studies
The project will require compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
The following tasks will be undertaken for this purpose.
Area of Potential Effects Map
The CONSULTANT will prepare an Area of Potential Effects (APE) map based on the project
description. This scope of work assumes that right-of-way will only be required from the PALY
property.
Archaeological Survey Report
The CONSULTANT will prepare a Caltrans-compliant Archaeological Survey Report (ASR)
that will include the following tasks:
• A records search will be conducted at the Northwest Information Center of the California
Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) of all cultural resources within a half mile
and studies within a quarter mile of the project area, along with any additional resources or
investigations that might be applicable. This will include an archival research and review of
their maps and literature on file as well as those in Holman & Associates’ library.
• Native American consultation will be conducted beginning with the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) and continuing with anyone on a contact list they provide. Those that do
not respond will be re-contacted after two weeks.
• An archaeological survey will be conducted of the entire project area. Inventory methods will
be determined in the field, depending on the findings of the NWIC review, ground surface
visibility, and other factors that have a bearing on archaeological sensitivity.
• An Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) will be prepared based on Caltrans guidelines and
consultation with their Professionally Qualified Staff (PQS). These will include a summary of
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
the records search results, Native American consultation, and field survey as well as applicable
maps. This report will be submitted to Caltrans’s PQS for review. This scope assumes there will
be only one round of Caltrans review.
This scope assumes that no cultural resources are present, or are likely to be present, within the
project impact area. It also assumes that no subsurface testing will be warranted or required.
Historic Resource Evaluation Report
DPR 523 forms (Primary, and Building, Structure, and Object Records) will be prepared for Palo
Alto High School, 50 Embarcadero Road. The campus includes up to 20 buildings, however,
only two original 1918 buildings may be of historic significance. The historic research and
documentation will include an overview of the high school’s development. DPR 523 forms will
include descriptions, photographs, historical background, and an historic evaluation under
National and California Register criteria. The scope of work will include field survey and
photographing the buildings and archival research. A Historic Resource Evaluation Report
(HRER) will be prepared and will include a Historic Context Statement for the Palo Alto area
and the other report sections as per the Caltrans guidelines.
Finding of Effect
A Finding of Effect (FOE) will be prepared per Caltrans Guidelines if any of the Palo Alto High
School buildings are eligible for the National or California Register.
Historic Property Survey Report
A Historic Properties Survey Report (HPSR) will be prepared that incorporates the
archaeological information prepared in the ASR, HRER, and FOE into the current Caltrans form.
This scope assumes there will be only one round of Caltrans review for the HPSR.
Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
Assuming the preferred alternative will require right-of-way from the PALY property, the
CONSULTANT will prepare a Section 4(f) Evaluation consistent with the Federal Highway
Administration’s Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation for projects with Minor Involvement
with Historic Sites. This analysis will evaluate the project’s consistency with the Programmatic
4(f) criteria as well as a discussion of the three required alternatives: 1) Do Nothing, 2) Avoid,
and 3) New Location. Lastly, this process will include identification of minimization measures,
coordination with state agencies, and development of findings regarding the feasibility of the
three alternatives. This evaluation will be based in part upon conceptual designs developed by
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
the City and/or design team.
Biology Memo
The CONSULTANT will prepare a brief memo describing the trees that will be removed by the
project as well as the potential for them to support nesting birds and raptors. Replacement tree
planting and landscaping will be described based on information provided by the City and/or the
design team. Mitigation and avoidance measures to avoid impacts to nesting birds will be
identified.
Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report
The CONSULTANT will prepare a brief memorandum (for City approval) for the community-
preferred bicycle-pedestrian alignment alternatives on Embarcadero Road between El Camino
Real and High Street. The memorandum will summarize the environmental resources that could
be affected by the various alternatives, and will include a comparison of the impacts of the
alternatives. If appropriate, the memorandum will identify which of the alternatives is
“environmentally superior” and why.
Limitations and Assumptions
At this time, until the final project alternative has been determined and until Caltrans has
reviewed all relevant information, the scope of the above studies cannot be determined with
complete certainty. For example, Caltrans can require subsurface archaeological testing on
streetscape projects because of the potential for wiring and irrigation systems, as well as digging
for traffic signal mast arms, trees, sidewalk modifications etc., to affect archaeological resources.
For a project of this size, such a requirement would add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of
the archaeological report.
For the purpose of this preliminary scope and corresponding budget, it is assumed that the
preferred design will not be one that requires subsurface testing and does not result in substantive
impacts. Budgets may need to be refined after Caltrans provides input to the City.
Task 4 – Development of Plans, Specifications and Engineer’s Estimate:
Upon approval of the final environmental documents for the Embarcadero Road Corridor
Improvements project, the CONSULTANT will proceed to prepare final plans, specifications,
and engineer’s estimates for the construction of the project.
The improvement plans may include the following sheets:
Cover Sheet
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
Project Notes
Project Plan and Profile
Demolition Plans
Plan Details for Improvements, including but not limited to:
o Multi-Use Trail Sections
o Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings
o Accessible Pedestrian Ramps
o Drainage Plans
o Transit Station Plans
o Landscape Improvement Plans
o Signage & Striping Plans
o Traffic Signal and Street lighting Improvement Plans
o Utility Preservation and Connections
o Utility Plans
o Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
o Construction Staging Plan
Project Specifications consistent with Palo Alto Standard Specifications, Special
Provisions and Caltrans Design guidelines to match the Project Improvement Plan
requirements
The CONSULTANT will provide 35%, 65%, 95% and 100% Engineer’s Estimates
based on improvement plans and comparable bids for similar projects to ensure the
project remains within the project budget (City may elect to hire an outside
Construction Management (CM) firm for Value Engineering and outside PEER
review. The CONSULTANT will work with CM cooperatively.)
The CONSULTANT will apply for and complete forms required from Caltrans for design
exceptions and encroachment permits. The CONSULTANT will submit a detailed schedule
based on the improvements plans to the City which would include the following tasks:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
Base 35% Plans Revised from Environmental Process
o Community Outreach Meeting to Identify Landscape/Hardscape and
Streetscape palette
o Study Session with Architectural Review Board for approval of
landscaping palettes and decorative pavement treatments recommended by
the Project Landscape Architect and Project Engineer
65% Improvement Plans
o Final Community Outreach Meeting
95% Check Print Plan Set
o Presentation of Project to Planning & Transportation Commission
100% Bid Set
o City Council Presentation of Final Project
Meetings with City staff for the review of design plans, specifications and construction staging
will be held on-site on a monthly basis. The City will be responsible for securing community and
project team meeting facilities. The CONSULTANT will prepare all outreach materials,
including media ads to be coordinated for publication by the City, meeting notice flyers for
mailing to residents by the City, and community meeting presentations. The CONSULTANT
will also serve as scribe at all community meetings and provide the City with meeting notes and
action notes within 5- business days of each meeting.
The CONSULTANT has assumed adequate review times for Caltrans review/approval process
for the PEER/Encroachment Permit process.
Deliverables for the development of the PS&E stage for this project will also include the
following elements:
100% PS&E Bid Package
100% Engineers Cost Estimate
Procurement of necessary encroachment permits to allow for the construction of the
project
The City anticipates procurement of an outside Construction Management Firm during this stage
to assist the City in reviewing plans prepared by the CONSULTANT and to conduct Value
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
Engineering alternatives to ensure that the project remains on-budget. The CONSULTANT will
work with the Construction Management firm during the development of the plans.
The City will make available any survey and CAD files prepared as part of past studies. The
CONSULTANT will prepare a project-specific survey to properly analyze the project area.
The CONSULTANT will research and prepare a resolved boundary for the roadway on the
above projects based on record information. This boundary will be used as the basis for the
topographic and aerial mapping.
Please note that the setting of boundary monumentation is NOT included in this scope. This
boundary scope assumes that sufficient record data and monumentation exist to retrace the
location of the El Camino and Embarcadero right of ways inside the project limits. It is also
assumed that the monumentation will match record data. If sufficient monumentation does not
exist or a discrepancy is found between the record information and the found monumentation,
the CONSULTANT is required by the PLS Act to produce and file a Record of Survey with the
County of Santa Clara. If a Record of Survey is required, the CONSULTANT will notify the
client of the estimated scope and fee that will be needed to comply with the PLS Act.
The CONSULTANT will complete a topographic survey of the El Camino and Embarcadero
intersection. The topographic survey will be drafted at 20’ scale and be delivered as an electronic
file to the design team.
The horizontal and vertical datum of the surveys will be determined during coordination and
prior to the start of work.
The overall aerial topographic survey will include:
Embarcadero Road – Emerson St to El Camino Real
Galvez Street – El Camino Real to Arboretum Road
El Camino Real – Encina Avenue to Churchill Avenue
Town & Country Driveway
Palo Alto High School Driveway
Caltrain Multi-Use Trail – 100-FT North and South of Town & Country/Paly Access
Points
A conventional ground survey will supplement the aerial survey in areas anticipated to include
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
improvements as part of this project. The limits of the ground survey will be:
El Camino Real - 50’ North and South of the curb returns at the intersection with
Embarcadero, 10’ behind the face of curb or 5’ behind the back of walk
Galvez -50’ east of the curb return at the intersection of El Camino, 10’ behind the
face of curb or 5’ behind the back of walk
Embarcadero - 50’ east of the Palo Alto High School crosswalk and crosswalk traffic
signal and 10’ behind the face of curb or 5’ behind the back of walk.
Pedestrian Access Route - The pedestrian access route on the North and South side of
Embarcadero will be surveyed from the limits of the Embarcadero scope above, under
the railroad Track Bridge and ending at the curb returns and crosswalks to Alma
Street at Embarcadero. This pedestrian route survey will be limited to both sides of
the sidewalk or elevated walkway at intervals sufficient for ADA mapping.
Task 5 – Grant Assistance, Etc.:
The Embarcadero Road Corridor Improvements project is funded through the design stage only.
The CONSULTANT has capabilities to provide additional On Call Support Services during the
design of the project to assist the City in pursuing grant funding for construction, architectural
renderings, or other services as necessary to successfully implement the project. The
CONSULTANT can provide a proposal for other services for design support during the
construction phase of the project, and other tasks, once the project is better defined, and as
requested by the City.
Other services may also include:
Visual Simulations: Computer generated visual simulations are powerful tools that help
community members better visualize proposed improvements. The CONSULTANT would
propose to develop up to three visual simulations to illustrate various intersections, connections,
etc. Includes up to two revisions of each alternative.
Transportation Simulation. As an optional task the CONSULTANT will prepare a simulation
of transportation conditions with and without the proposed improvements. The primary purpose
of the simulation would be to demonstrate the effectiveness of the pedestrian improvements.
However, the effectiveness of the vehicular improvements also would be demonstrated. The
simulation would provide a visual tool that could be used to communicate transportation
concepts to the public. For budgeting purposes, this task assumes that the simulation would be
prepared with and without two improvement alternatives for two time periods. The time periods
would be chosen in consultation with the City and study team.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
Lighting Design. As an optional task the CONSULTANT can provide street (or other lighting)
design. While standard traffic signal and safety lighting at intersections is included in the
proposal, the CONSULTANT can also provide decorative pathway lighting, street lighting, or
other lighting enhancements that help to create a sense of place and increase safety.
Record of Survey. As an optional task the CONSULTANT would prepare a Record of Survey
documenting found monuments, and/or setting new monuments, that would establish the right of
way, if needed.
Right of Way Acquisition Documents and Coordination. As an optional task the
CONSULTANT can provide plat and legal descriptions for right of way and/or easement
acquisition. Additional related tasks can be provided to assist the City with the property
acquisition, if needed or requested.
Additional Services: Additional services may be required for Caltrans reports, studies and
alternatives analysis that will be required for project approval.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY
so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement.
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors
1 Authorization to proceed 0 days Thu
10/1/15
Thu 10/1/15
2 Kick-off Meeting 0 days Mon 10/5/15 Mon 10/5/15 1FS+3 days
3 Encroachment Permit application 1 wk Tue
10/6/15
Mon
10/12/15 2
4
Existing information - as-builts, record maps, traffic counts, topographic survey
6 wks Tue 10/6/15 Mon 11/16/15 2
5 Stakeholder outreach 16 wks Tue
10/6/15
Mon 1/25/16 2
6 Community meeting #1 0 days Mon
11/2/15
Mon 11/2/15 2FS+4 wks
7 Concept Plan Line alternatives 6 wks Tue 11/17/15 Mon 12/28/15 6,4
8 Bike/Ped Connectivity Study 12 wks Tue
11/17/15
Mon 2/8/16 6,4
9 Community meeting #2 0 days Mon 12/28/15 Mon 12/28/15 7
10 PABAC meeting #1 0 days Mon 1/4/16
Mon 1/4/16 9FS+1 wk
11 Preferred Alternative refinement 3 wks Tue 1/5/16 Mon 1/25/16 10
12 PABAC meeting #2 0 days Mon
2/8/16
Mon 2/8/16 11FS+2 wks
13 Council meeting #1 0 days Mon
2/8/16
Mon 2/8/16 11FS+2 wks
14 Community meeting #3 0 days Mon
2/15/16
Mon 2/15/16 13FS+1 wk
15 Environmental - CEQA/NEPA,
Caltrans Field Review & PES
20 wks Tue 2/9/16 Mon 6/27/16 13
16 35% PS&E 8 wks Tue
2/16/16
Mon 4/11/16 13,14
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
17 Council meeting #2 0 days Mon 6/27/16 Mon 6/27/16 16,15
18 PEER application 6 wks Tue
6/28/16
Mon 8/8/16 17
19 65% PS&E 6 wks Tue 6/28/16 Mon 8/8/16 17
20 City review 4 wks Tue 8/9/16 Mon 9/5/16 19
21 95% PS&E 4 wks Tue 9/6/16 Mon 10/3/16 20
22 City review 4 wks Tue
10/4/16
Mon
10/31/16 21
23 100% PS&E 3 wks Tue
11/1/16
Mon
11/21/16 22,15
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed
in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the
budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate
schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.
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
$489,589.00. 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 $538,547.00. 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.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted
below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget
amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total
compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed
$489,589.00 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $48,958.00.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 $62,680.00 (Plan Line Concepts, Peer/Ep)
Task 2 $26,084.00
(Bike/Ped Connectivity Study)
Task 3 $10,967.00 (Environmental Analysis/Assessment)
Task 4 $92,224.00
(PS&E) Task 6 $28,495.50
(Grant Assistance, Etc.)
Task 7 $9,900.00 (Aerial topography)
Task 8 $49,500.00
(Hexagon (Subconsultant –
Traffic Analysis)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
Task 9 $110,925.10
(Callander Associates
(Subconsultant - Public Outreach/Landscape Design)
Task 10 $93,054.50
(David J. Powers & Assoc.
Subconsultant - Environmental)
Sub-total Basic Services $483,830.10
Reimbursable Expenses $5,758.90
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $489,589.00
Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $48,958.00
Maximum Total Compensation $538,547.00
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are
included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost.
Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are:
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be
reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees.
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile
transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup
information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $3000.00 shall be approved in
advance by the CITY’s project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written
authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s
request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of
services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set
forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum
compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project
Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
EXHIBIT “C-1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
Task
Description Principal
Janine O'Flaherty
@ $215
Proj. Manager
[1] Jason
Mansfield
@ $177
Engineer III [2]
Jason Yee
@ $151
2-Person Survey Crew
@ $249
Surveyor II
Dustin Solt
@ $133
Subtotal
hrs $'s hrs $'s hrs $'s hrs $'s hrs $'s hrs $'s
1 PLAN LINE CONCEPTS, PEER/EP
Meetings (14) 32.0 $ 6,880.00 32.0 $ 5,664.00 28.0 $ 4,228.00 - $ - - $ - 92.0 $ 16,772.00 Concept Plan Line Alternatives 24.0 $ 5,160.00 44.0 $ 7,788.00 96.0 $ 14,496.00 - $ - - $ - 164.0 $ 27,444.00 PEER/EP 8.0 $ 1,720.00 40.0 $ 7,080.00 64.0 $ 9,664.00 - $ - - $ - 112.0 $ 18,464.00 Subtotal 64.0 $ 13,760.00 116.0 $ 20,532.00 188.0 $ 28,388.00 - $ - - $ - 368.0 $ 62,680.00
2 BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITY STUDY
Additional Meetings (2) 4.0 $ 860.00 8.0 $ 1,416.00 8.0 $ 1,208.00 $ - - $ - 20.0 $ 3,484.00 Study 16.0 $ 3,440.00 40.0 $ 7,080.00 80.0 $ 12,080.00 $ - $ - 136.0 $ 22,600.00 Subtotal 20.0 $ 4,300.00 48.0 $ 8,496.00 88.0 $ 13,288.00 - $ - - $ - 156.0 $ 26,084.00
3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS/ASSESSMENT Additional Meetings (2) 4.0 $ 860.00 8.0 $ 1,416.00 4.0 $ 604.00 - $ - - $ - 16.0 $ 2,880.00 Coordination 1.0 $ 215.00 24.0 $ 4,248.00 24.0 $ 3,624.00 - $ - - $ - 49.0 $ 8,087.00 Subtotal 5.0 $ 1,075.00 32.0 $ 5,664.00 28.0 $ 4,228.00 - $ - - $ - 65.0 $ 10,967.00
4 PS&E PS&E 24.0 $ 5,160.00 80.0 $ 14,160.00 320.0 $ 48,320.00 56.0 $ 13,944.00 80.0 $ 10,640.00 560.0 $ 92,224.00
Subtotal 24.0 $ 5,160.00 80.0 $ 14,160.00 320.0 $ 48,320.00 56.0 $ 13,944.00 80.0 $ 10,640.00 560.0 $ 92,224.00
5 GRANT ASSISTANCE, ETC. Misc. services, as requested TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD $ -
Subtotal - $ - - $ - - $ - - $ - - $ - - $ 28,495.50
[1] Project Manager category may also be billed to by: Alex Calder (survey Project Manager)), Ed Boscacci (Stormwater), or Roland Haga (QC/constructibility), depending on task requirements.
[2] Engineer III role may also be served by others as needed to meet project needs, including a combination of Engineer II and Engineer I
[3] Assumes project scope remains similar to initial concept. Expanded project limits, or revised concept, may require revisiting the number of hours required.
[4] Subconsultant fee includes additional BKF 10% markup.
Subtotal $ 220,450.50
Reimbursables (3%) [5] $5,758.65
Aerial topography [4] $9,900.00
Hexagon (Subconsultant - Traffic Analysis) [4] $49,500.00
Callander Associates (Subconsultant - Public Outreach/Landscape Design) [4] $110,925.10
David J. Powers & Assoc. (Subconsultant - Environmental) [4] $93,054.50
Total $ 489,588.75
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW:
REQUIRE
D TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
MINIMUM LIMITS
EACH
OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES
YES
WORKER’S COMPENSATION
EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY
STATUTORY
STATUTORY
YES
GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY
BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED.
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED
BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
YES
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS,
MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE
ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY
RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN
COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS”
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
B. CROSS LIABILITY
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL
LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A
TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE EMAILED OR MAILED TO:
InsuranceCerts@CityofPaloAlto.org
PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO
P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D60C6F-48AE-4954-BB3D-B8444553142F
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Number: 10D60C6F48AE4954BB3DB8444553142F Status: Completed
Subject: Please DocuSign this document: C16158064 BKF EMBARCADERO CONTRACT.pdf
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 33 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 0 Christopher Anastole
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto , CA 94301
chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org
IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Record Tracking
Status: Original
9/2/2015 12:15:47 PM PT
Holder: Christopher Anastole
chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Linda Schmid
lschmid@bkf.com
CFO
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)Using IP Address: 107.1.109.10
Sent: 9/2/2015 1:10:35 PM PT
Viewed: 9/2/2015 1:15:42 PM PT
Signed: 9/2/2015 1:16:19 PM PT
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered ID:
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
Janine O'Flaherty
joflaherty@bkf.com
Vice President
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)
Sent: 9/2/2015 1:10:36 PM PT
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered
ID:
Robin Ellner
robin.ellner@cityofpaloalto.org
Admin Associate III
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)
Sent: 9/2/2015 1:16:20 PM PT
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 2/11/2015 9:51:24 AM PT ID: efb775a7-f39e-4c9f-817a-5ec939666ecf
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Sherry Nikzat
Sherry.Nikzat@CityofPaloAlto.org
Sr. Management Analyst
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)
Sent: 9/2/2015 1:16:21 PM PT
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered
ID:
Notary Events Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 9/2/2015 1:16:21 PM PT
Certified Delivered Security Checked 9/2/2015 1:16:21 PM PT
Signing Complete Security Checked 9/2/2015 1:16:21 PM PT
Completed Security Checked 9/2/2015 1:16:21 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: Robin Ellner
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.
1
Revised September 20, 2013
130920 dm 0131136
Ordinance No. XXXX
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 TO INCREASE THE EMBARCADERO ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT (PL-15001) IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF
$337,766, TO BE OFFSET BY A REDUCTION TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE RESERVE OF
$235,615 AND BY REVENUE FROM THE ELLIS PARTNERS DEPOSIT ACCOUNT OF
$102,151.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of
Palo Alto, the Council on June 15, 2015 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2016; and
B. The Embarcadero Road corridor provides direct east-west connections between
Highway 101 and Stanford University. The segment of Embarcadero Road between High
Street and El Camino Real has been an area of community concern for many years with
three closely spaced traffic signals within 750 feet of one another; and
C. In 2013 the City initiated a preliminary planning study to provide near-term
improvements along this section of Embarcadero Road and set in motion a focused and
community driven process for final improvements; and
D. The City recently completed the installation of a new traffic signal and controller
cabinet at the Town & Country and Palo Alto High School Intersection. The scope for the
second phase of Embarcadero Road Improvements includes preparation of plan line
concepts, final design plans, environmental documentation, construction documents, and
all required permitting from Caltrans for intersection improvements at EL Camino Real and
Embarcadero Road/Glavez Street. During the design phase, the City will be seeking grant
funding opportunities for the construction phase of the project; and
E. The anticipated cost for the design of the second phase of this project is
$538,547, inclusive of a ten percent contingency. With funding of $200,710 currently
available, a shortfall of $337,737 currently exists; and
F. In 2009, during the construction of Trader Joe’s market in Town & Country
Shopping Center, a public benefit contribution of $225,000 from Ellis Partners was made
into a deposit account for signal, intersection capacity, and pedestrian improvements at the
Town & Country and Trader Joe’s driveways. A balance of $102,151 within the deposit
account currently remains.
SECTION 2. Therefore, the sum of Three Hundred and Thirty Seven Thousand
Seven Hundred and Thirty Seven Dollars ($337,737) is hereby appropriated in the Capital
Attachment B
2
Revised September 20, 2013
130920 dm 0131136
Improvement Fund for the Embarcadero Road Corridor Improvements Project (PL-15001),
offset by revenue from the Ellis Partners deposit account in the amount of One Hundred
and Two Thousand, One Hundred and Fifty One Dollars ($102,151) and a reduction to the
Infrastructure Reserve in the amount of Two Hundred and Thirty Five Thousand, Six
Hundred and Eighty Six Dollars ($235,686).
SECTION 3. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this
ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
SECTION 4. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this is not a project
under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact
assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: Enter Date Here
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
____________________________
Director of Public Works
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6018)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/5/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Contract with VIMOC Technologies
Title: Approval of Contract with VIMOC Technologies for a Total of $100,000
to Install Parking Occupancy Sensors and Bicycle/Pedestrian Video Counters
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute
a one-year contract with VIMOC Technologies in the amount of $100,000 to be funded by CIP
PL-00026 to implement a total of 45 Bicycle/Pedestrian Video Counters, simultaneously adding
100 additional parking occupancy sensors to the trial program in Downtown at no charge to the
City (Attachment A).
Executive Summary
The proposed contract would provide for additional data collection to inform ongoing
transportation planning activities in Palo Alto. The vendor previously implemented a trial
program, installing parking sensors to monitor on-street parking occupancy and turnover, and
this contract would extend that trial to 100 additional on-street spaces at no cost to the City.
The contract would also provide for 45 bicycle and pedestrian counters at a cost of $100,000.
80% of the project costs can be reimbursed by the Valley Transportation Authority through the
Safe Routes to Schools program. Bike/Ped counters are peripheral sensor units that include a
camera and a processing box. Locations would be finalized after public noticing/outreach. To
address privacy concerns, the equipment will use very low-resolution cameras incapable of
identifying individuals. In addition, all videos and images are stored only long enough to
generate: (1) a count; (2) a classification-car/bike/ped; and (3) a direction. Data is then reported
to the cloud for display on the user interface when requested by a user. The video is eliminated
shortly after the data is recorded.
Background & Discussion
As part of the infrastructure necessary to collect data that can inform transportation and
parking programs, the contract with VIMOC Technologies provides for the installation of
hardware on city-owned facilities to provide a landscape computing solution to collect data on
parking occupancy and bicycle/pedestrian counts. Parking sensors will be mounted on-street on
City of Palo Alto Page 2
one hundred automobile parking spaces within the vicinity of the University Avenue Downtown
Business District, tracking both parking occupancy and parking turnover and providing the City
with information which can be used to inform the creation of parking management policies.
The bicycle/pedestrian count stations will be video-based, capable of distinguishing between
bicycles and pedestrians and able to classify the direction of travel of each of the two travel
modes.
The information collection enabled through this technology, such as School Pedestrian
Classification Counts, Video Bicycle and Pedestrian Data and Parking Occupancy Counts,
provides data necessary for the Transportation Planning Division to improve and manage
various parking and Safe Routes to School initiatives throughout the community.
The City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Automated Parking, Bicycle, &
Pedestrian Count System on May 6th, 2015, and received two proposals in response; VIMOC
Technologies and Frog Parking. Transportation Division staff reviewed both proposals and
recommended moving ahead with the selection of VIMOC Technologies. The evaluation
criteria utilized during the proposal included: Proposer’s experience, including the experience
of staff to be assigned to the project; Engagements of similar scope and complexity; Equipment
specifications/technology and Cost to the City.
City staff concluded that VIMOC Technologies has a strong background in the types of data
collection required to support the Transportation Division and has demonstrated the ability to
complete similar projects in a timely fashion. Staff had previously been engaged in a trial sensor
installation of Parking Sensors on Hamilton Avenue, and has been pleased with the user
interface provided by VIMOC.
Parking Sensors
The VIMOC parking solution uses a system of in-ground sensors to detect the occupancy of
vehicles parked over them. Simple sensors send information to “nBox” computing nodes,
located in the field (usually on utility poles) within 100 meters of the sensors they support. By
processing images and video at the nBoxes, the system lowers bandwidth consumption and
also eliminates the risk of a single point of failure, as multiple nBoxes are distributed in the
area. The occupancy data and analysis is presented via a web-based user interface or accessed
via an open API which allows integration into most information management systems. The
VIMOC API has already been integrated with the Trafficware Advanced Management System so
new parking sensors will be able to viewed via the Trafficware ATMS in addition to the VIMOC
user interface.
Bicycle Pedestrian Counters
The Bike/Ped counters are peripheral sensor units that include a camera and a processing box.
The unit works by connecting a camera feed to the processing box, where changes in the video
feed demonstrating that pedestrians or bicyclists are present are registered by the computer.
The output from this device is connected to an nBox, which stores the data in the landscape
City of Palo Alto Page 3
computing network, in a user interface to which the City has access. This technology has the
capability of counting more than one person at a time. All data storage for Parking and
Bike/Ped Count Stations is located in the field in the nBox. Staff has identified potential count
station locations that serve schools in the Palo Alto Unified School District - Attachment B:
Count Station Locations. The final locations would be subject to public noticing and possible
adjustment. To address privacy concerns, the equipment will use very low-resolution cameras
incapable of identifying individuals. In addition, all videos and images are stored at the nBox on
the pole only long enough to generate: (1) a count; (2) a classification-car/bike/ped; and (3) a
direction. Data is then reported to the cloud for display on the user interface when requested
by a user. The video is eliminated shortly after the data is recorded.
Timeline
The City anticipates that the entire project will be completed within four months of VIMOC
receiving notice to proceed.
Resource Impact
The proposal outlines costs for equipment installation of 100 parking occupancy sensors and 45
bicycle/pedestrian counters. The installation costs will be $100,000 for the bike/ped counters
and $0.00 for the parking sensors. The first 12 months of service fees are also included in the
hardware and installation bid; if the City decides to continue to receive the data from the
installation, an amendment to the contract would be required after one year. VIMOC is offering
the parking counters free of charge for the first 12 months to allow the City access to the data
which can be gathered from this type of a system and see the benefits associated with
capturing this data; however, in order to secure the data for any time period after 12 months,
the City would be charged a monthly service fee.
Funding for the bike/ped counters will come from CIP PL-00026 (Safe Routes to School) Fiscal
Year 2016 Adopted Budget. However, this project is partially funded by a grant from the Valley
Transportation Authority – Safe Routes to School Program and the City may be reimbursed up
to $80,000 to purchase and install the bicycle and pedestrian counting system.
Policy Implications
Data collected through this technology will help staff develop forward-looking solutions for
Parking management and Safe Routes to School programs and be consistent with the following
Comprehensive Plan goals:
GOAL T-1 Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles
GOAL T-3: Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling
GOAL T-5: A Transportation System with Minimal Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods.
Goal T-6: A High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
GOAL T-8: Attractive, Convenient Public and Private Parking Facilities
Environmental Review
Approval of this contract will result in installation of 145 small devices and associated
controllers within existing public right of ways in Palo Alto. The scale of the installation is such
that the project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class One, Existing Facilities).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Contract with VIMOC (PDF)
Attachment B: Bicycle/ Pedestrian Counter locations (PDF)
Rev. April 20, 2015
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C16158201
GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on the 28th day of September, 2015, by and between
the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and VIMOC
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, located at 201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 104
(“CONTRACTOR”). In consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree as
follows:
1.SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall provide or furnish the services (the “Services”) described
in the Scope of Services, attached at Exhibit A.
2. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement:
“A” - Scope of Services
“B” - Schedule of Performance
“C” - Compensation
“D” - Insurance Requirements
CONTRACT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL EXHIBITS ARE ATTACHED.
3. TERM.
The term of this Agreement is from September 28, 2015 to September 27, 2016
inclusive, subject to the provisions of Sections Q and V of the General Terms and
Conditions.
4. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. CONTRACTOR shall complete the Services within the
term of this Agreement in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the
circumstances and direction communicated to CONTRACTOR, and if applicable, in
accordance with the schedule set forth in the Schedule of Performance, attached at
Exhibit B. Time is of the essence in this Agreement.
5. COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM. CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to
accept as not-to-exceed compensation for the full performance of the Services and
reimbursable expenses, if any:
A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth at Exhibit C, not
to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of One Hundred Thousand
dollars ($100,000.00).
CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not to exceed the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D Attachment A
Rev. April 20, 2015
General Services Agreement
total maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services performed
by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum
amount of compensation set forth above for performance of the Services shall be at no
cost to CITY.
6. COMPENSATION DURING ADDITIONAL TERMS (Not Applicable).
7. INVOICING. Send all invoices to CITY, Attention: Project Manager. The Project Manager
is: Ruchika Aggarwal, Planning & Community Environment Department, Transportation
Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650)617-3136.
Invoices shall be submitted in arrears for Services performed. Invoices shall not be
submitted more frequently than monthly. Invoices shall provide a detailed statement of
Services performed during the invoice period and are subject to verification by CITY.
CITY shall pay the undisputed amount of invoices within 30 days of receipt.
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. ACCEPTANCE. CONTRACTOR accepts and agrees to all terms and conditions of this
Agreement. This Agreement includes and is limited to the terms and conditions set forth
in sections 1 through 6 above, these general terms and conditions and the attached
exhibits.
B. QUALIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it has the expertise and
qualifications to complete the services described in Section 1 of this Agreement, entitled
“SERVICES,” and that every individual charged with the performance of the services
under this Agreement has sufficient skill and experience and is duly licensed or certified,
to the extent such licensing or certification is required by law, to perform the Services.
CITY expressly relies on CONTRACTOR’s representations regarding its skills, knowledge,
and certifications. CONTRACTOR shall perform all work in accordance with generally
accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry, including all
federal, state, and local operation and safety regulations.
C. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in the performance of
this Agreement, CONTRACTOR and any person employed by CONTRACTOR shall at all
times be considered an independent CONTRACTOR and not an agent or employee of
CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons
necessary to complete the work required under this Agreement.
D. SUBCONTRACTORS. CONTRACTOR may not use subcontractors to perform any Services
under this Agreement unless CONTRACTOR obtains prior written consent of CITY.
CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for directing the work of approved
subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors.
The subcontractors authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are:
Behr Electric
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D
Rev. April 20, 2015
General Services Agreement
1341 Archer Street
Alviso, CA. 95002
102 Workshop
116 University Avenue
Palo Alto, CA. 94301
E. TAXES AND CHARGES. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for payment of all taxes, fees,
contributions or charges applicable to the conduct of CONTRACTOR’s business.
F. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall in the performance of the Services
comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and
orders.
G. DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole expense,
repair in kind, or as the City Manager or designee shall direct, any damage to public or
private property that occurs in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the
Services. CITY may decline to approve and may withhold payment in whole or in part to
such extent as may be necessary to protect CITY from loss because of defective work
not remedied or other damage to the CITY occurring in connection with CONTRACTOR’s
performance of the Services. CITY shall submit written documentation in support of
such withholding upon CONTRACTOR’s request. When the grounds described above are
removed, payment shall be made for amounts withheld because of them.
H. WARRANTIES. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all services provided under this
Agreement shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance
with generally accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry
and the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all
materials, goods and equipment provided by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall
be fit for the particular purpose intended, shall be free from defects, and shall conform
to the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to promptly replace or
correct any material or service not in compliance with these warranties, including
incomplete, inaccurate, or defective material or service, at no further cost to CITY. The
warranties set forth in this section shall be in effect for a period of one year from
completion of the Services and shall survive the completion of the Services or
termination of this Agreement.
I. MONITORING OF SERVICES. CITY may monitor the Services performed under this
Agreement to determine whether CONTRACTOR’s work is completed in a satisfactory
manner and complies with the provisions of this Agreement.
J. 1. CITY’S PROPERTY. With the exception of any intellectual property that is owned or
developed by CONTRACTOR, any reports, information, data or other material (including
copyright interests) developed, collected, assembled, prepared, or caused to be
prepared will become the property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their
use.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D
Rev. April 20, 2015
General Services Agreement
2. CONTRACTOR’S PROPERTY. All intellectual property developed and managed by
CONTRACTOR prior to, during or subsequent to this Agreement shall remain the sole
property of CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall grant a non-exclusive, non-transferrable,
non-sublicensable license to use the Services during the Term of the Agreement,
according to the compensation terms set in Exhibit C. Services is defined as access to the
the software and API and the use thereof for the purposes contemplated by this
Agreement.
K. AUDITS. CONTRACTOR agrees to permit CITY and its authorized representatives to audit,
during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years from the date of final
payment, CONTRACTOR’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement.
CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain accurate books and records in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles for at least three (3) following the term of this
Agreement.
L. NO IMPLIED WAIVER. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance
by CITY shall operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this
Agreement.
M. INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost, shall purchase and maintain in full force
during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described at Exhibit D.
Insurance must be provided by companies with a Best’s Key Rating of A-:VII or higher
and which are otherwise acceptable to CITY’s Risk Manager. The Risk Manager must
approve deductibles and self-insured retentions. In addition, all policies, endorsements,
certificates and/or binders are subject to approval by the Risk Manager as to form and
content. CONTRACTOR shall obtain a policy endorsement naming the City of Palo Alto as
an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy. CONTRACTOR
shall obtain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not
be canceled or materially reduced in coverage or limits until after providing 30 days
prior written notice of the cancellation or modification to the Risk Manager.
CONTRACTOR shall provide certificates of such policies or other evidence of coverage
satisfactory to the Risk Manager, together with the required endorsements and
evidence of payment of premiums, to CITY concurrently with the execution of this
Agreement and shall throughout the term of this Agreement provide current certificates
evidencing the required insurance coverages and endorsements to the Risk Manager.
CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall obtain
and provide to CITY separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor that
meet all the requirements of this section. The procuring of such required policies of
insurance shall not operate to limit CONTRACTOR’s liability or obligation to indemnify
CITY under this Agreement.
N. HOLD HARMLESS. To the fullest extent permitted by law and without limitation by the
provisions of section M relating to insurance, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend and
hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents from and
against any and all demands, claims, injuries, losses, or liabilities of any nature, including
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D
Rev. April 20, 2015
General Services Agreement
death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss and including without
limitation all damages, penalties, fines and judgments, associated investigation and
administrative expenses and defense costs, including, but not limited to reasonable
attorney’s fees, courts costs and costs of alternative dispute resolution), arising out of,
or resulting in any way from or in connection with the performance of this Agreement.
CONTRACTOR’s obligations under this Section apply regardless of whether or not a
liability is caused or contributed to by any negligent (passive or active) act or omission of
CITY, except that CONTRACTOR shall not be obligated to indemnify for liability arising
from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY. The acceptance of the Services
by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of
this Section survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Agreement.
O. NON-DISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510,
CONTRACTOR certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender,
age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status,
marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONTRACTOR
acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties
for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining
to nondiscrimination in employment.
P. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, certifies that
it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require
every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and certifies
that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before commencing and during
the performance of the Services.
Q. TERMINATION. The City Manager may terminate this Agreement without cause by
giving ten (10) days’ prior written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR. If CONTRACTOR fails
to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other
remedies provided by law, the City Manager may terminate this Agreement immediately
upon written notice of termination. Upon receipt of such notice of termination,
CONTRACTOR shall immediately discontinue performance. CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR
for services satisfactorily performed up to the effective date of termination. If the
termination if for cause, CITY may deduct from such payment the amount of actual
damage, if any, sustained by CITY due to CONTRACTOR’s failure to perform its material
obligations under this Agreement.
R. ASSIGNMENTS/CHANGES. This Agreement binds the parties and their successors and
assigns to all covenants of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be assigned or
transferred without the prior written consent of CITY. No amendments, changes or
variations of any kind are authorized without the written consent of CITY.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D
Rev. April 20, 2015
General Services Agreement
S. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In accepting this Agreement, CONTRACTOR covenants that it
presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or
otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of this
Contract. CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in the performance of this Contract, it
will not employ any person having such an interest. CONTRACTOR certifies that no CITY
Officer, employee, or authorized representative has any financial interest in the
business of CONTRACTOR and that no person associated with CONTRACTOR has any
interest, direct or indirect, which could conflict with the faithful performance of this
Contract. CONTRACTOR agrees to advise CITY if any conflict arises.
T. GOVERNING LAW. This contract shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of the
State of California.
U. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including all exhibits, represents the entire
agreement between the parties with respect to the services that may be the subject of
this Agreement. Any variance in the exhibits does not affect the validity of the
Agreement and the Agreement itself controls over any conflicting provisions in the
exhibits. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, representations, statements,
negotiations and undertakings whether oral or written.
V. NON-APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter
of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate
without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not
appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the
event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this
Contract are no longer available. This Section shall take precedence in the event of a
conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Contract.
W. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS.
CONTRACTOR shall comply with CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies
which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Division, which are incorporated by reference
and may be amended from time to time. CONTRACTOR shall comply with waste
reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program.
Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing
waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONTRACTOR shall
comply with the following zero waste requirements:
All printed materials provided by CONTRACTOR to CITY generated from a
personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes,
invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and
printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless
otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed
by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-
consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks.
Goods purchased by Contractor on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in
accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including, but not
limited to, Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D
Rev. April 20, 2015
General Services Agreement
packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s office.
Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONTRCATOR, at no
additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONTRACTOR shall provide
documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are
not being disposed.
X. AUTHORITY. The individual(s) executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties
represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf
of their respective legal entities.
Y. CONTRACT TERMS: All unchecked boxes do not apply to this Agreement.
Z. DIR REGISTRATION. In regard to any public work construction, alteration, demolition,
repair or maintenance work, CITY will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this
Agreement with CONTRACTOR without proof that CONTRACTOR and its listed
subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations
(“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. City requires
CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854.
CITY provides notice to CONTRACTOR of the requirements of California Labor Code
section 1771.1(a), which reads:
“A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid
proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or
engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter,
unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section
1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid
that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section
10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to
perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.”
CITY gives notice to CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors that CONTRCATOR is
required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation and CONTRACTOR is
subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR.
CITY requires CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to comply with the
requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including:
Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work
classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the
actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee
employed by, respectively, CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors, in connection
with the Project.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D
Rev. April 20, 2015
General Services Agreement
The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made
available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of CONTRACTOR
and its listed subcontractors, respectively.
At the request of CITY, acting by its project manager, CONTRACTOR and its listed
subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or
furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of CITY’s
request. CITY requests CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to submit the
certified payroll records at the end of each week during the Project.
If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within the 10-
day period, then CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty
of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker,
and CITY shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then
due and payable to CONTRACTOR.
Inform the project manager of the location of CONTRACTOR’s and its listed
subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement
of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager within five (5) business
days of any change of location of those payroll records.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this Agreement on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO VIMOC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Approved as to form:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D
CEO
Rev. April 20, 2015
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Scope of Work: Bicycle/Pedestrian Counters and Parking Occupancy Sensors
CONTRACTOR will install the following equipment in area to be determined between
CITY and CONTRACTOR near the vicinity of the University Avenue Downtown.
Infrastructure Description Quantity
Parking sensors Smart parking sensors and associated
software
minimum
100*
Routers (parking) &
integration
Router managing parking sensors 12
Parking data collectors &
integration
Data collector integrated to nBox 5
nBox nBox with integrated wireless infrastructure
back up battery
10
* during the Term of the agreement, up to 500 sensors may be installed at CONTRACTOR’s option and with
CITY’s approval as to location of sensors.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Counters
CONTRACTOR will install the following equipment in the areas identified in Attachment
B: Count Station Locations. The quantities provided in the following table are estimates
based on an assumption of one video unit per count station, one data processing box
per 5 camera stations, and one cellular data box per school site.
Infrastructure Description Quantity
Bicycle/Pedestrian Video
Counter
Video sensor to track and count bicycle and
pedestrian activity
45
Data Processing Box Converts video data to count data in the field 20
Cellular Station Box Sends data to the Cloud 10
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D
Rev. April 20, 2015
Field equipment will adhere to the following technical specifications.
Video-Based Automated Bicycle & Pedestrian Count Stations
Camera Unit
Resolution Minimum 480p
Signal Connection Coaxial cable to Image Processing Box or IP-Based Camera
Weather Rating NEMA Outdoor Rated
Power Source Solar-Power 12V DC Max
Data Processing Box
Position to Cameras Integrated to Camera Unit or Stand Alone
Connection to Cell Link Integrated or Wireless Ethernet Link
Power Source Solar-Power 12V DC Max
Cell Data Module
Position to Cameras Integrated to Camera Unit or Stand Alone
Connection to Cell Link Integrated or Wireless Ethernet Link
Power Source Solar-Power 12V DC Max
Other specifications include the following:
- Counter will be able to completely view a street from back-of-sidewalk of one
side of the street to the back-of-sidewalk of the other side of the street.
- The count station solution may include one or two cameras per count station
location.
- Each count station will be capable of processing data at the count station or at a
remote location and send data to the Cloud via a cellular data link.
- System should not require video streaming to the Cloud.
User Interface and Setup
Each count station will include a setup and calibration module to allow the CITY to
change the calibration of each station. Each count station will be programmable by
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D
Rev. April 20, 2015
the CITY to define the direction of travel of travel mode (North, South, East, West)
and by side of the street.
The setup and calibration module will include a real-time video monitoring screen to
help visually validate bicycle/pedestrian activity in the field on the unit. A data
processing screen that shows the user how the count station is interpreting video
images in the field along with a real-time classification counter is required.
WEB BASED MANAGEMENT PLATFORM
CONTRACTOR will provide the City free access and management accounts to a web-
based data management solution for the bicycle/pedestrian and parking occupancy
management solutions (Services) during the original Term of this agreement. Access to
the Services shall cease at the end of the Term unless otherwise extended by an
amendment that is agreed upon in writing by both parties. Such amendment can extend
the use of the Services or expand the number of installations.The Services will allow for
unlimited access to both historical data and real time data.
Reporting Module
The web-based management platform will include query report tools to assist in
viewing historical data captured by the count stations. The following reports are
required:
o 24-Hour reports aggregated to 15-minute increments with separate bike/ped
count banks
o Bicycle Travel Report
24-Hour Bicycle Reports, aggregated to 15-minute increments showing both by
direction the volume of bicyclists riding in the appropriate direction of travel by
side of street and the wrong direction of travel by the side of street
o Pedestrian Travel Report
24-Hour Bicycle Reports showing both by direction of travel the volume of
pedestrian activity and travel direction from each side of a street
o Daily and Weekly Graph Charts
Showing the volume of bicycle and pedestrian activity per hour of each day.
CONTRACTOR will provide CITY access to the web-based data modules (the Services)
for the system for free during the first year of service, including cellular data
charges.
Historical Data Logging
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D
Rev. April 20, 2015
The web-based count station will include web-data storage solutions and options for
the system to export raw data to the City in Microsoft Excel (.XLSX) format. Data
storage and data management services will be included for free in the first year of
the project.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATION
CONTRACTOR will designate a project manager to support the execution of the project.
The scope of responsibility will include:
Manage the installation and maintenance of equipment
Manage communication with CITY by providing monthly reports on the
engineering performance of the different components of the landscape
computing platform
Procure and install sensors
Procure and installation sensory wireless network
Provide nBox network and services
Provide Cloud services
Maintain monthly contact with other stake holders and CITY service providers
Facilitate and support the CITY to conduct an operational evaluation
methodology and process
CITY-SUPPORT SERVICES
CONTRACTOR will be solely responsible for the procurement, installation, and
maintenance of all equipment installed as part of this project. However, CITY will
provide the following support services to the project:
Field Infrastructure
- CITY will provide CONTRACTOR use of city-owned streetlight infrastructure to
mount and power nBox computer boxes, network monitoring equipment and
video sensors.
- CONTRACTOR will provide equipment that includes a combination of
o solar-powered solutions that require use of streetlight poles for
mounting-purposes only and
o A/C power based equipment that may require use of existing receptacle
outlets on streetlight poles.
CITY will make available its streetlight pole and power for the equipment at no cost.
CITY shall waive any encroachment permits or fees for the installation of the hardware.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D
Rev. April 20, 2015
Management Platform Input
City staff will provide input during site meetings regarding the capabilities of the web-
based data management platform.
WARRANTY
Each count station must include a minimum 1-year manufacturer warranty against
equipment failure. Failures encountered in the field during the 1-year warranty period
must be replaced at the sole cost of the manufacturer. CITY will provide removal and
reinstallation service during the warranty period but equipment costs must be covered
by the manufacturer.
Should the City determine that these parking sensors do not meet City’s needs, CONTRACTOR
shall remove them at no cost to the City.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D
Rev. April 20, 2015
ATTACHMENT “B” Count Station Locations (Page 1 of 2)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D
Rev. April 20, 2015
ATTACHMENT “B” Count Station Locations (Page 2 of 2)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D
Rev. April 20, 2015
EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
The following schedule will be used for initial deployment of the project. Updates
to the schedule will be made available during quarterly reporting.
Task
No.
Task Description 2015 2016
A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
1 Network
Diagram Plan
2 nBox
Installation
3 Network
Routing
Installation
4 Parking Sensor
Installation
5 Bike/Ped Sensor
Installation
6 Web-Based
Mng Tool
Access
7 Quarterly
Reporting
8 Final Report
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D
Rev. April 20, 2015
EXHIBIT C SCHEDULE OF FEES
CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR according to the following rate schedule. The maximum amount of
compensation to be paid to CONTRACTOR during the original Term, including both payment for services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00). Any services
provided or hours worked for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to CITY. Payment terms will be as follows: $2,000 per count
station installed, which will be invoiced by the CONTRACTOR at the end of each month when their installation is completed (to by paid by CITY in Net 30 days). A final payment of $6,000 will be invoiced after
the system is in production (also to be paid by CITY in Net 30 days).
Task
Scope
Category (Product &
Labor)
Units
Cost/Unit
Extended
Rate (Not To
Exceed Cost)
1 Bike/Ped
Count
Station
Bicycle/Pedestrian Video
Counter (VIMOC will
include all data
processing and cell
stations necessary*)
1 lot of
qty 45
stations
$100,000 $100,000
2 Parking
Occupancy
System
Surface Mount Parking
Sensors (includes all
routers, data collectors,
and nBoxes necessary*)
1 lot of
sensors
to
manage
100
spaces
included
$0.00
TOTAL TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED
FOR TASKS 1 & 2
$100,000
CONTRACTOR will actively license the sensory data to commercial third parties, including but not limited to data aggregators and application developers, and share the resulting revenue with the City according to
the following schedule:
Third Party License
Fees (per sensor)
CITY Revenue
Share Rate
Up to $10 50%
Above $10 20%
If CITY opts to no longer continue accessing the Platform services after the first 12 months,
CONTRACTOR shall continue to have access to the sensors and system for as long as it is licensing access to Third Parties and sharing the revenue with CITY.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D
Rev. April 20, 2015
EXHIBIT D INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE
SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW:
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS
EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES YES
WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY
YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY
BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED.
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED
BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000
NO
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT
PERFORMANCE
ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT
ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE
INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE
IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE
FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL.
II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D
Rev. April 20, 2015
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED,
INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
B. CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY
REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT
LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO:
PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CE00018-EFA4-443B-BC0E-C0577677F64D
Attachment B
Count Station Locations
Attachment B
Count Station Locations
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
October 5, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section
2.040.160 (City Council Minutes) of Chapter 2.04 (Council Organization
and Procedure) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require Action
Minutes and a Verbatim Transcript of all Council and Council Standing
Committee Meetings, and Delete the Requirement for Sense Minutes
(FIRST READING: August 31, 2015 PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent)
This is the second reading of the Ordinance presented to Council on August 31, 2015.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: 0140136 REVISED FINAL Ord Council Minutes v3 (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
*REVISED*
150923 sh 0140136 1
ORDINANCE NO. ________
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.040.160
(City Council Minutes) of Chapter 2.04 (Council Organization and Procedure) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require Action Minutes and a Verbatim
Transcript of all Council and Council Standing Committee Meetings, and Delete
the Requirement for Sense Minutes
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as
follows:
A. On May 6, 2015 the City Council discussed the recommendation from the Policy
and Services Committee to move to action minutes and the video of Council and Council
Standing Committee meetings as the official record of those meetings. The purpose of this
change is to increase the accuracy and decrease the time and cost of preparing the Council’s
official record of action. The Council endorsed the Committee’s recommendation and added an
additional requirement that verbatim minutes be prepared and made digitally available to the
public, with hardcopies provided on request.
B. Action minutes are to be approved by Council in “real time” during the meeting,
as Council motions are transcribed, projected for viewing by the Council and the public, and
adopted, rejected or amended by Council.
SECTION 2. Section 2.04.160 (City Council Minutes) of Chapter 2.04 (Council
Organization and Procedure) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2.04.160 City council minutes.
(a) The minutes of the council shall be kept by the city clerk. The minutes shall be
neatly typewritten or printed in a book kept for that purpose, with a record of each particular
type of business transacted set off in paragraphs, with proper subheadings.
(b) The minutes shall include a record of all business discussed and all actions taken
at regular or special meetings of the council. The minutes shall be sense action minutes. As
soon as possible after each council meeting, the city clerk shall post draft action minutes on the
City’s website and transmit a copy to each council member. and need not be a verbatim
transcript of the proceedings. Sense minutes include all actions taken and a short synopsis of
the remarks of such council members, staff and members of the public as speak upon a
particular matter under discussion. A record shall be made of the names and addresses of
persons addressing the council, together with a brief summary of their remarks indicating
whether they spoke in support of or in opposition to such matter. Nothing in this section shall
be construed to compel registration as a condition to attendance at a meeting.
*REVISED*
150923 sh 0140136 2
(c) A verbatim transcript of the proceedings shall also be prepared. As soon as
possible after each council meeting the city clerk shall cause a copy of the minutes to be
forwarded to each council member, the city manager, other officers and department heads of
the city, all newspapers of general circulation within the city, and be made available to the
public at the front counter in the city clerk's office, the table and bulletin board in the council
chambers, and all city libraries, except the Children's Librarythe verbatim transcript shall be
made publicly available digitally on the City’s website and hard copies available upon request.
(d) At the meeting following publicationposting of the draft action minutes, council
minutes shall be agendized by the city clerk for the council's approval. Corrections to the
minutes shall be made at the meeting. Council members may submit their corrections in writing
or orally to the city clerk's office before the time of the meeting. The city clerk shall distribute a
written copy of all corrections received during regular business hours to all council members at
the meeting.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance
are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA
Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance
will have a significant effect on the environment.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
*REVISED*
150923 sh 0140136 3
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
October 5, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Council Approval of Appointment of Terence Howzell to the Position
of Principal Attorney
Recommendation
The City Attorney recommends that the Council approve the appointment of Terence J. Howzell
to the position of Principal Attorney.
Background
The City Attorney makes appointments to positions in the City Attorney’s Office. The City
Attorney’s appointments to senior attorney positions are subject to approval of the Council.
(Municipal Code section 2.08.120(4).)
The Principal Attorney position was approved by the City Council as part of the Fiscal Year 2015
Midyear Budget Review report. The position is intended to strengthen strategic legal services
with respect to both transactional/counseling and litigation functions. The Principal Attorney
will assist the City Attorney in managing the day-to-day operations of the City Attorney’s Office,
support the legal team, and handle a variety of specialized areas with a significant role advising
on complex projects and managing the City’s litigation portfolio. Filling the position at this time
will promote effective operations of the City and provide strategic resources to advance Council
priorities.
Discussion
The City Attorney requests approval of the appointment of Terence J. Howzell to the position of
Principal Attorney.
Mr. Howzell has been practicing law for 27 years, 18 of them in the San Francisco City
Attorney’s Office, where he has served in increasingly senior positions. He has extensive
experience counseling San Francisco City departments in the areas of employment law, labor
relations, public contracting and general advice matters. He has litigated numerous disputes in
state and federal courts and before a variety of administrative agencies. Mr. Howzell has
served as a team leader with a track record of mentoring and supporting attorneys. He earned
his Juris Doctor from the University of California, Berkeley (Boalt Hall), and holds a Bachelor of
Arts in English Literature from Dartmouth College.
Mr. Howzell will begin work on November 16, 2015.
Page 2
Resource Impact
Mr. Howzell will be an “at will” employee, which means he will serve at the pleasure of the City
Attorney and can be terminated or asked to resign at any time. His annual salary will be
$215,000, which is within the Council-approved range for the Principal Attorney position. Mr.
Howzell will receive benefits as provided in the Council-approved Compensation Plan for
Management and Professional Personnel.
Policy Implications
This appointment is consistent with existing City policies.
Environmental Review
Approval of the appointment is not a project subject to environmental review.
Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney
Page 3
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6114)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/5/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Comprehensive Plan Update - Goals and Structures
Title: Comprehensive Plan Update: Comprehensive Plan Structure and
Goals/Vision Statements for Each Element and Related Direction to Staff and
the Citizens Advisory Committee (Part II: Community Services & Facilities
and Land Use & Community Design Elements)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council review and discuss the organizational structure of the
Community Services & Facilities and the Land Use & Community Design Elements in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, including the vision statement and goals for each individual element and
related issues, in order to provide guidance to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and staff
regarding necessary updates and adjustments. NOTE: This is the second of several meetings on
this subject scheduled for the summer/fall of 2015 intended to provide immediate direction to
the CAC.
Executive Summary
Completion of the Comprehensive Plan update is one of City Council’s priorities, and this
agenda item is a continuation of a process intended to give the Council an opportunity to
discuss the organizational structure of the Comprehensive Plan, including the vision statements
and goals of each element of the Plan as well as selected policies and programs that the City
Council would like to take the lead on, as opposed to delegating them to the CAC.
On August 31st, the City Council adopted a motion providing guidance on the vision statement
and goals they would like to use in the updated Transportation Element. Tonight’s discussion is
intended to provide the same guidance on the Community Services & Facilities Element, and
the Land Use & Community Design Element.
The Comprehensive Plan Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) has already begun its discussion of
the Community Services & Facilities Element, which is scheduled to come back to the group for
review in late November. Council direction on the vision and goals for this element would
City of Palo Alto Page 2
facilitate this upcoming work. Staff is also seeking Council’s input on the suggestion that
revisions to the element’s Policy C-28, which contains 1990s-era quantitative standards for
neighborhood and district parks from the National Recreation and Park Association, be
assessed and updated as necessary during the separate and ongoing master planning effort for
parks, trails, and open space.
The CAC is scheduled to begin its review of the Land Use & Community Design Element in mid-
December, so this is another element for which Council direction is desirable, so that it can be
used to shape the online digital commenter and the staff report for the CAC’s December
meeting. In addition to the Council’s input on the vision and goals for the Land Use &
Community Design Element, staff is seeking Council’s input on the suggestion that Policy L-8,
which contains a city-wide cap on non-residential development, be maintained and
supplemented with an additional growth control policy. The additional policy could be an
annual limit on office development like the one currently being developed for implementation
on an interim or trial basis, or another City-wide cap that would apply to office space in all
commercial districts (i.e. it wouldn’t apply to all non-residential uses, but it would apply City-
wide, rather than to the “monitored areas” shown in Comp Plan Map L-6.
Background
The City’s Comprehensive Plan, Embracing the New Century, Palo Alto 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan, was adopted in 1998 and sets goals, policies, and programs related to
land use and development issues, including transportation, housing, natural resource,
community services, and safety. The City recognized the need to update the plan in 2006 and
began the process in earnest in 2008, when a consultant was retained to work with staff and
the City’s Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC).
The PTC’s draft work product was submitted to the City Council in early 2014 and focused on
organizational changes to delete redundancies and make the text more accessible and user
friendly, emphasizing the existing themes and ensuring they were represented throughout
document, and incorporated environmental sustainability issues. When the PTC’s work product
was brought forward to the City Council, staff proposed a process that would complete the plan
and an associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in parallel with expanded community
engagement (Staff Report 4415 from March 3, 2014).
Public workshops and “scoping” meetings were held in the summer of 2014 and at a series of
meetings culminating on December 8, 2014, the City Council discused their desire to consider
zoning changes concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan Update and discussed a number of
issues they would like to consider during the update process (Staff Report ID# 5236 from
December 8, 2014). The discussion led to a motion directing staff to: Update Zoning Ordinance
to address retail preservation, discuss parameters of annual office/R&D growth management
program and potential interim zoning changes, schedule series of community meetings to
discuss “big picture” planning issues utilizing simplified planning scenarios to test the growth
management programs and review goals, policies, and programs from the existing Comp Plan
City of Palo Alto Page 3
with the recommendations forwarded by the PTC in early 2014. Concurrent with the Comp
Plan Update effort, staff was directed to work on preparation of the impacts analysis (Draft
EIR), and preparation of a draft zoning ordinance(s) for consideration that would implement
different aspects of the Comp Plan. Because the Comprehensive Plan Update has not been
completed yet, The Draft EIR will utilize a series of simplified planning scenarios to bracket
potential outcomes of the planning process; the results can be used to inform ultimate
decisions on key aspects of the Plan.1
Since the Council’s action on December 8, 2014, the City Council has held work sessions on
growth management strategies, including the idea of an annual limit on office space and retail
preservation strategies, and transportation priorities. A community “summit” took place on
May 30, 2015 and a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was appointed to assist with the
planning process.
An analysis of community input from the summit related to transportation was transmitted to
the Council in advance of their August discussion of transportation priorities. A second analysis
of community input from the summit related to housing and growth is included as Attachment
C for the Council’s review/information. This analysis has been produced by Dr. Tanja Aitamurto,
Kaiping Chen, and associates at Stanford University, who have offered City staff their advice
regarding open sourcing input for the Comprehensive Plan Update. Dr. Aitamurto is the Deputy
Director and a Brown Fellow (post doc) at the Brown Institute for Media Innovation at the
School of Engineering and Ms. Chen is a doctoral student in the Department of
Communications, where her research is focused on deliberative democracy and social choice.
On April 27, 2015, the City Council began their review of the organizational structure of the
existing Comprehensive Plan, and the Council’s direction on the vision statements contained
within each element is reflected in the comparison of current and PTC recommended vision
statements and goals included as Attachment A. On August 31, 2015, the City Council
continued their review of the organizational structure of the existing comprehensive plan,
focusing on the vision statement and goals for the Transportation Element.
After tonight’s discussion, the City Council is scheduled to hold at least one additional session
(November 2nd) on the vision statements and goals for other elements of the Comprehensive
Plan. At each session, the Council has also requested a review of the draft schedule (attached
as Attachment B).
1 As Vice Mayor Schmid has pointed out in the past, the City has developed its own projections of housing and
population growth for 2030 and intends to use these to inform the Comprehensive Plan Update and in the EIR
analysis. These City projections are based on historic data on dwelling unit construction. The City does not have a
comparable data set regarding job growth and as a result, the EIR scenarios will analyze a range of possible
projections of job growth. These can inform a decision as to which should be embraced and supported by policies
in the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Draft EIR is currently scheduled for discussion and dissemination in
January 2016.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Discussion
Each element of the Comprehensive Plan begins with a vision statement. This statement lays
out the overall objective and spirit of its element. Following the vision statement, the plan’s
organization is achieved via a series of headings, subheadings and goals. Goals are high-level
statements articulating an end point towards which the City will direct its efforts. The goals
provide a structure for the subsequent policies and implementation programs that will serve to
advance the goals.
Table 1. Structural Framework of the Comprehensive Plan (Used in All Elements)
Vision Statement summarizing what Palo Alto will be like at the end of the planning
horizon.
Goal “General end towards which the City will direct effort.”1
Policy
“Specific statement of principle or of guiding actions that implies clear
commitment but is not mandatory. A general direction that a governmental
agency sets to follow, in order to meet its goals and objectives before
undertaking an action program.”2
Program “An action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to an adopted policy to
achieve a specific goal or objective.”3
1Embracing the New Century, Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, p. I-4.
2Ibid.
3Ibid. A distinction can be made between ongoing programs and programs intended to be
completed at some point within the planning horizon.
Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, August 2015
Review of Comprehensive Plan Goals
As the CAC begins its work on Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, guidance from the
City Council is necessary to properly frame the community discussion. Staff requests the Council
continue to review the existing Comprehensive Plan’s vision statements and goals alongside the
recommendations developed by the PTC and provide direction regarding the desired goals and
structure for the updated plan, as started at the August 31st meeting.
To facilitate the Council’s discussion, staff has provided the workbook included as Attachment
A, which contains the following for each element:
An introduction summarizing the intent and scope of the element, contents of the
existing element, and necessary changes/updates (based on prior Council direction,
changes in State law, etc.)
A comparision of the vision statements in the existing Comprehensive Plan element with
those recommended by the PTC, with a summary of the City Council’s input from April.
A short overview of the existing Comprehensive Plan element and the PTC’s
recommended revisions, with an explanation of the PTC’s recommended structure.
A detailed, side-by-side list of the major headings and goals in the existing
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Comprehensive Plan element and the PTC revisions, with a summary of the intention or
rationale behind the PTC’s changes.
In most cases, the PTC’s recommended revisions were intended to reorganize, but not alter the
meaning of the existing elements in significant ways, and to address the necessary
changes/updates identified in the introductory section. In reviewing the workbook, the Council
will be able to determine if they wish to accept the PTC’s recommenations, if they would like to
maintain a structure of goals closer to the original, or if there are specific adjustments to
individual goals that are needed.
In staff’s view, there is no “wrong answer” when it comes to organizing the material, and the
most important question is whether the desired range of topics is addressed by the goals.
Providing guidance on desired goals within the plan before the CAC makes their
recommendations regarding policies and programs will ensure that the CAC’s work is consistent
with the Council’s expectations.
Policy C-28 and Policy L-8
In addition to providing direction regarding the vision statements and goals for the Community
Services & Facilities Element and the Land Use & Community Design Element, staff is seeking
direction regarding one specific policy in each of these elements.
Policy C-28 in the Community Services & Facilities Element utilizes 1990s-era quantitative
standards for neighborhood and district parks from the National Recreation and Park
Association. Staff seeks Council’s direction on the suggestion that this policy be assessed and
updated as necessary during the separate and ongoing master planning effort for parks. Part of
the reason for this is that parks planning is a somewhat specialized discipline, and the staff,
consultants, and Parks & Recreation Commission, who are working on the Parks, Trails, and
Open Space Master Plan are likely to be better equipped to evaluate the currency of these
types of quantitative standards and today’s best practices. The Comprehensive Plan Update is
expected to incorporate the Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan by reference, and to
support its more detailed and specific vision for related services and facilities.
Policy L-8 in the Land Use & Community Design Element establishes a City-wide limit of
3,257,900 new square feet of nonresidential development in specific areas of the City evaluated
in a 1989 study and shown on Comprehensive Plan Map L-6. Planning staff has been
monitoring and tracking development pursuant to this policy on an annual basis since the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted. As of December 2014, 1,539,891 square feet had been
added.2&3
2 This figure included an estimate of “pipeline” projects pending at the time.
3 As discussed in CMR #5565 from March 2, 2015, there are a number of drawbacks to the Policy L-8 data set as
compared to another data set developed to support the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) maintained by the
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Specifically, the Policy L-8 data combines all non-residential development
so a project that removes 5,000 square feet of retail and adds 10,000 square feet of office is recorded as an
City of Palo Alto Page 6
With approximately 1,718,009 square feet remaining under the cap established by Policy L-8,
staff is requesting the City Council’s input on the suggestion that Policy L-8 be maintained in the
Comprehensive Plan Update for the year 2030. In addition, staff would appreciate an indication
whether the Council would like to supplement this policy with an additional growth control
policy, which could be (a) an annual limit on office development similar to the policy currently
being developed for implementation on an interim or trail basis, or (b) another City-wide cap
for the year 2030 that would apply specifically to office space and encompass the entire City,
not just the “monitored areas” shown in Comp Plan Map L-6.
Finally, if the Council would like to reserve for themselves (rather than the CAC) further
discussion of these or other policies and programs within these elements, it would be useful to
understand this desire now.4
Timeline
The Comprehensive Plan Update has been underway for many years and the City Council
“reset” the process in 2014 in an effort to ensure broad community input, to identify and
address critical issues facing our community, and to ensure concurrent consideration of needed
zoning changes. In April of this year, the City Council requested formation of a Community
Advisory Committee (CAC) to assist staff in completing this work. As shown in the draft
schedule included as Attachment B, CAC meetings are likely to continue through next year.
During the same period, the City Council will have multiple meetings to provide direction, and a
Draft EIR will be prepared, along with a fiscal analysis, both of which will provide data and
analysis to inform Council and community discussions. A revised draft Comprehensive Plan
Update will be prepared for consideration by the City Council by the end of 2016/early 2017.
Resource Impact
General plan updates are significant undertakings for any jurisdiction and since 2008, the City of
Palo Alto has invested time and resources in the project. The need to allocate multiple
members of City staff, significant time on the City Council’s agenda, and financial resources for
consultant assistance and event/meeting programming will continue until the adoption of the
updated Comprehensive Plan and its companion environmental document.
Policy Implications
The City’s Comprehensive Plan sets forth the City’s policies with regard to the topics addressed.
addition of 5,000 square feet. Also, Policy L-8 only applies to the “monitored areas” identified, so the data does
not present a full picture of non-residential development in the City. (The Stanford Hospital projects approved in
2012 added 1.2 Million square feet but were expressly excluded from the cap by way of a Comp Plan amendment.)
By contrast, the CMP data set differentiates between non-residential land uses and provides information that is
truly Citywide.
4 Several Council members will need to recuse themselves from any discussion of Program L-8 about the
Downtown development cap, and as a result, staff plans to bring this item back for a separate discussion at a later
date.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
The structure comprised of vision statements and goals will inform discussions regarding
updated policies and programs.
Environmental Review
Adoption of an updated Comprehensive Plan will require preparation and certification of a
program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Comp Plan Elements Comparison Workbook (PDF)
Attachment B: Revised Comprehensive Plan Schedule (PDF)
Attachment C: Housing and Growth Management Report (PDF)
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 1
OUR PALO ALTO 2030
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
STRUCTURE & GOALS
COMPARISON MATRIX
ATTACHMENT A
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 2
Table of Contents
Objectives & Use of This Matrix page 3
Community Services and Facilities Element page 4
Introduction page 5
Vision Statement Comparison page 7
Comparison of Comp Plans
Summary page 8
Detail page 10
Transportation Element page 13
Introduction page 14
Vision Statement Comparison page 16
Comparison of Comp Plans
Summary page 17
Detail page 19
Land Use and Community Design Element page 22
Introduction page 23
Vision Statement Comparison page 25
Comparison of Comp Plans
Summary page 26
Detail page 28
Natural Environment Element page 31
Introduction page 32
Vision Statement Comparison page 34
Comparison of Comp Plans
Summary page 35
Detail page 37
Business and Economics Element page 41
Introduction page 42
Vision Statement Comparison page 44
Comparison of Comp Plans
Summary page 45
Detail page 46
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 3
Objectives & Use of This Matrix
The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains chapters or “elements” that address topics required by State law, as well as
optional elements and topics. Each element begins with a vision statement. The vision statement lays out the overall
objective and spirit of the element. Following the vision statement, the organization of each element is achieved via a
series of headings, subheadings and goals. The goals describe what the City is trying to achieve1 and provide a structure for
the policies and implementation programs that follow.
This matrix is intended to provide the City Council with a framework to begin examination of the existing Comprehensive
Plan’s goals and goal organization, as well as revisions recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission
(PTC) in 2014. The matrix compares the vision statements and goals of the current Comprehensive Plan 1998‐2010 with
the revisions recommended by the PTC and summarizes the rationale behind the PTC’s recommendations. The matrix also
includes a summary of the City Council’s input regarding the vision statements of each element and a general introduction
to each element of the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council may use this information to consider their own desired
approach to organizing the material within the Comprehensive Plan and specific goals that they would like to include.
The Council’s input and direction will provide the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) with needed guidance as they focus on
policies and programs to implement the Council’s goals. The elements are presented in the order they will be considered by
the CAC to facilitate this guidance.
1 P. I‐4 of the Comprehensive Plan defines a goal as “a general end towards which the City will provide effort.”
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 4
COMMUNITY SERVICES and FACILITIES ELEMENT
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 5
The Community Services and Facilities Element is not a State requirement. It is included in the Comprehensive Plan to reinforce the
significance and importance of services like libraries and schools in Palo Alto and the vital role they play in shaping community life. The
Community Services and Facilities Element explains that Palo Alto is a full‐service City, with park and recreation divisions and police and fire
departments, library and cultural arts programs, and youth, senior and childcare services. In each of these areas, the City is committed to
providing responsive customer service for residents and businesses, even going so far in this Element to specify staff management techniques,
performance review criteria, and public contact processes in an effort to ensure the quality of service delivery.
The Current Plan
Palo Alto residents have access to a rich array of public services that cater to all ages, cultures, and levels of mobility and education. The City
provides a range of direct services to all citizens, and also partners with community organizations and jurisdictions to assist those with
disabilities. Palo Altans also have access to cultural and recreational opportunities on the adjacent campus of Stanford University. The
Community Services and Facilities Element calls for maintaining and enhancing all of the services, and it supports the excellent schools run by
the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), an independent local government institution separate from the City of Palo Alto.
The Community Services and Facilities Element acknowledges that parks and recreational and social services play a significant role in shaping a
healthy and dynamic community and calls for the City to encourage and enhance access for all Palo Altans. The Element also recognizes that
there are fiscal limits to what the City can provide and calls for collaboration with outside agencies and jurisdictions to fill any service gaps.
The Community Services and Facilities Element provides a solid framework to help the City deliver the services required to meet the needs of
the community and add to quality of life in Palo Alto. The majority of its policy themes are expected to be carried forward into Our Palo Alto
2030 to continue to maintain and strengthen public services, including:
Providing services that meet the needs of all cultures, ages, and abilities.
Meeting fiscal challenges by partnering with other agencies, jurisdictions, non‐profits, and businesses.
Partnering with PAUSD to maximize the use of school facilities for community use during non‐school hours.
Maintaining parks and facilities so they can be enjoyed by future generations.
Ensuring and expanding access to recreational and public services for disabled and low‐income residents.
Locating public facilities and services near children and seniors.
Expanding new parks and community facilities to meet the needs of a growing community.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 6
Updates Anticipated for Our Palo Alto 2030
In light of the Council’s priorities and issues that have emerged since the adoption of the existing Comprehensive Plan, the Community Services
and Facilities Element in Our Palo Alto 2030 is expected to include a number of new concepts, including:
Advocating for healthy lifestyles for all residents.
Helping teens combat depression, isolation, stress, and other mental health issues.
Expanding programs to engage seniors in the community.
Encouraging universal access to parks, public places, and community facilities.
Carrying out the recommendations of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee regarding the potential need for new and/or
upgraded public facilities.
The updated Community Services and Facilities Element is also expected to reference the Parks Trails and Open Space Master Plan that is
currently being prepared, and it is likely to be in that context that the City will decide whether to maintain the quantitative National Recreation
and Park Association standards for Neighborhood and District park size, service area radius, and acres per person currently contained in
Comprehensive Plan Policy C‐28.
The PTC consulted with other boards and commissions, City staff, and other stakeholders in developing their recommended revisions to the
existing Comprehensive Plan, which address the new concepts referenced here. City Council guidance is required to determine whether the
updated plan should maintain the current element’s organizational structure or use the structure of goals recommended by the PTC, and what
specific goals should be included.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 7
COMMUNITY SERVICES and FACILITIES ELEMENT VISION STATEMENT COMPARISON
EXISTING PALO ALTO 1998‐2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PTC RECOMMENDATION
APRIL 2014
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
APRIL 27, 2015
CO
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
AN
D
FA
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
EL
E
M
E
N
T
“Palo Alto will provide high quality community services to
its residents, businesses, and visitors. Its schools,
libraries, parks, community facilities, and performing arts
and cultural centers are treasured and will be enhanced
to serve current and future generations. Its police and
fire services will be managed to provide consistently high
levels of public safety. The City will continue to provide
services and programs that meet the needs of special
populations—including children, seniors, and people with
disabilities—as well as programs in recreation, lifelong
learning, and the arts that benefit all populations. Palo
Alto’s success in providing these services will be
expressed and measured by the satisfaction of its
customers, the public at large. The City will pursue new
ways to deliver community services in the most efficient
and cost‐effective way possible. It will coordinate its
efforts with other public agencies, nonprofits, and the
private sector to reduce overlap and maximize the use of
resources.”
“This generation must invest in the people,
places, programs and environment of Palo Alto
to ensure that the quality and vitality of
community services and facilities are present
and responsive to the generations to come.”
City Council Comments:Majority of the Council
members felt that the existing Vision Statement is
better and all inclusive.
Some Council members preferred including portions
of existing Vision Statement and add it to the PTC
version to strengthen it.
Following are the suggestions made by individual
Councilmembers:
Animal services not mentioned in the CSE
vision statement. It should be added
because it adds community value.
Mention of cultural activities in addition to
arts and science.
Exclude the word “generation must” from
the PTC Vision Statement to make it
stronger;
Add “Palo Alto’s success in providing these
services will be expressed and measured by
the satisfaction of its customers, the public
at large” to the PTC Version.
Based on this input, staff will develop minor revisions
to the existing version for City Council review.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 8
SUMMARY COMPARISON ‐ COMMUNITY SERVICES and FACILITIES ELEMENT ORGANIZATION & GOALS
Current Organization
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND
FACILITIES ELEMENT
C 1. Efficient Service Delivery
C2. Customer Service
C3. Social Services
C4. Parks and Public Facilities
C5. Access
Explanation of Proposed Revisions
The PTC’s recommended revisions re‐organized the existing element and added a
new goal related to community health. The revisions address concepts related to a
healthy lifestyle, engaging seniors in the community, and implementing
recommendations from Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee to maintain and
support City’s infrastructure. Specifically, the recommendations reorganize the
Element’s structure by:
• Renaming and renumbering existing Goal C1 to C2: Community Partnership;
• Renaming and renumbering existing Goal C2 to Goal C5:Public Services in Palo
Alto;
• Distributing existing Goal C3 policies and programs to new Goal C1 and C4;
• Renaming and distributing existing Goal C4 policies and programs to Goals C3
and C4; and
• Distributing existing Goal C5 policies and programs to Goal C3.
• Change all Goal headings and introduce Sub‐Sections to improve clarity.
• Added a new Goal 1 on Health and Well Being of residents;
These organizational/goal changes facilitated other changes and additions to
policies and programs. Specifically, the PTC recommended:
• Policies and programs on meeting the needs of growing senior population and
advocating for healthy lifestyles for all residents;
• Strengthening existing policies and adding new policies on physical and
mental health wellbeing of youth and teens;
• Strengthening existing policies on importance of City's partnership with
PAUSD, business community, nonprofit partners and Stanford University;
• New policies on resources sharing with different organizations and the City;
• New policies on implementing recommendations of Infra Structure Blue
Ribbon Committee and
• Policies on planning for new open spaces, providing sufficient public services
to serve new developments, and encouraging universal access to parks.
The revisions were developed in consultation with other boards and commissions
Proposed PTC Revisions
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND
FACILITIES ELEMENT
C1‐Health and Well Being (New)
• Commitment to Responsive
Community Services
• Healthy Lifestyles through
Community Services
• Community Programs and Services
for Children
• Places for Teens in the Community
• Engaging Seniors in the Community
• Celebrating Cultural Diversity
C2‐Community Partnership
• Engaging the Community (New)
• Regional Relationships
• Partnering with our Schools
• Non‐profit Community Partners
• Business Partnerships
C3‐Maintaining Parks and Facilities
• Maintaining our Parks and Facilities
Expanding Access
C4‐Planning for the Future
• Preserving the Aesthetic Legacy of
our Parks
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 9
and City staff, and referenced the following studies:
• Baylands Master Plan 2008;
• Project Safety Net Report 2010;
• Recreation Strategic Plan 2008‐2011;
• Community Services Strategic Action Plan 2005‐2010;
• White Paper on Impact of the Aging Baby Boom Population on Palo Alto’s
Social and Community Services 2006;
• California Parks and Recreation Society – Creating Community in the 21st
Century; and
• Youth Master Plan 2003.
There is now an opportunity to coordinate with the Parks, Trails and Open Space
master planning effort that started in 2014.
• Community Facilities with
Adaptability for Diverse Uses
• Opportunities to Develop New Parks
and Recreational Facilities
C5‐ Public Services in Palo Alto
• Working with the Community
Note: Staff believes that either organizational structure will work as a framework for a robust set of policies and programs. Because the PTC’s recommendation places
emphasis on a new goal related to community health, it may be preferable. The PTC’s emphasis on partnerships is also constructive. If the City Council would like to retain
the existing structure, staff would recommend replacing the third goal (social services) with the PTC’s goal about health and well being.
Staff would also appreciate the City Council’s input on the suggestion to the CAC that Policy C‐28, which contains 1990s‐era quantitative standards for neighborhood and
district parks from the National Recreation and Park Association, be assessed and updated as needed during the ongoing planning process related to parks, trails, and open
space.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 10
DETAIL COMPARISON ‐ COMMUNITY SERVICES and FACILITIES ELEMENT GOALS
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
This is a new goal, but also includes policies and programs of
existing Goal C3 on social services and community programs
for children. This goal has a lot of new policies advocating for
healthy lifestyles, places for teens in our community and
engaging seniors in our community.
NEW
Health and Well Being
GOAL C1: Prioritize implementation of
programs and strategies that sustain the
health, well‐being, recreation and safety of
residents and visitors
Efficient Service Delivery
GOAL C‐1: Effective and
Efficient Delivery of Community
Services.
Renamed and renumbered existing Goal C1 to C2: Community
Partnership.
This goal includes new polices on engaging citizen volunteers
for community services, developing regional relationships and
partnering with nonprofit agencies.
Community Partnerships
GOAL C2: Engage the community, work with
regional partners, reach out to schools,
collaborate with non‐profits and create
business partnerships in order to provide
community services for all age groups
Customer Service
GOAL C‐2: A Commitment to
Excellence and High Quality
Customer Service Among City of
Palo Alto Officials and
Employees
Renamed and renumbered existing Goal C2 to Goal C5: Public
Services in Palo Alto.
This goal focuses on providing high quality, responsive
customer service and reinforces the customer‐service ethic.
The PTC has recommended that this goal be included in Goal 5
in the “Working with the Community” section.
Public Service in Palo Alto
GOAL C5: Commit to providing high quality
public services and to the manner in which
those services are provided to our residents,
businesses and visitors
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 11
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed Goals
Social Services
GOAL C‐3: Improved Quality, Quantity, and
Affordability of Social Services, Particularly for
Children, Youth, Seniors, and People with
Disabilities
Distributed appropriate existing Goal C3 policies and
programs to new Goal C1 and C4.
This goal focuses on services for children, youth,
seniors and persons with disabilities. It also includes
opportunities for coordination among the various
agencies and organizations providing services given the
limited resources. PTC’s recommendation included
eliminating this goal and redistributing its contents
under new goals C1 and C4; “Health and Well Being”
and “Planning for the Future.”
Parks & Public Facilities
GOAL C‐4: Attractive, Well‐maintained
Community Facilities That Serve Palo Alto
Residents.
Renamed and distributed existing Goal C4 policies and
programs to Goals C3, and C4.
This goal focuses on Palo Alto’s parks, community
centers and libraries. The PTC has recommended that
this goal be changed to “Maintaining Parks and
Facilities” since it relates to existing parks, open spaces
and community facilities and that existing Goal 5
related to “Access” be included under this goal.
Maintaining Parks and Facilities
GOAL C3: Recognize the intrinsic value and
everyday importance of our parks and community
centers, libraries and civic buildings by investing in
their maintenance and improvement
This is a new goal. This goal includes some policies and
programs from existing Goal C3 and C4 but primarily
new policies on adaptability of community facilities for
various uses, and meeting the need of multi‐
generational community. It also includes new policies
on meeting city’s future need for parks and recreation
facilities.
Planning for the Future
GOAL C4: Plan for a future in which our parks,
libraries and community facilities continue to
thrive and adapt to the growth and change of Palo
Alto
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 12
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed Goals
Access
GOAL C‐5: Equal Access to Educational,
Recreational, and Cultural Services for All
Residents
Distributed existing Goal C5 policies and programs to
Goal C3.
This goal refers to the location of facilities, their design,
and the availability to transportation to reach them.
The PTC has recommended that this goal be
incorporated into Goal C3 on maintaining parks and
facilities. In addition, they recommend changing the
goal heading name to “Expanding Access”.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 13
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 14
The Transportation Element is required by State law to address transport of people and goods and related infrastructure such as streets
and highways, truck and transit routes, bus and rail stations, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and airports. Its policies take into account the
physical, social, and economic effects of circulation, as well as regional impacts and coordination needs. The Element supports traffic safety,
roadway improvement, parking and transportation management solutions, special transportation needs for mobility‐impaired persons, and
efforts to increase bus and rail use.
A significant focus of the Transportation Element is congestion, which contributes to air, water, and noise pollution, and to frustration for
drivers, bicyclists, and other travelers. Increases in roadway capacity are not anticipated in Palo Alto, so the Transportation Element
addresses congestion with policies aimed at reducing automobile dependency, increasing travel alternatives, and encouraging fewer trips.
Since 2011, transportation elements have been required to “plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs
of all users of streets, roads and highways for safe and convenient travel...” ‐‐ a concept that is referred to as “complete streets.”
The Current Plan
The Transportation Element lays the foundation for a multi‐modal circulation network that serves vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and transit
users. Transportation and land use are inextricably linked, as higher density and mixed use generally lead to more transit usage and
pedestrian activity. The Transportation Element encourages a land use pattern that supports reduced dependence on cars and guides City
decision‐makers to take into account the environmental and social costs of increased traffic when considering future projects.
The Element capitalizes on the fact that Palo Alto is the second largest generator of weekday Caltrain trips behind San Francisco and a
nationally recognized leader in innovative bicycle projects and programs. Transportation Element policies call for more northeast‐southwest
bike routes, easier navigation at railroad tracks and freeways, and better accommodation for bicycles on trains and buses. Much of Palo
Alto is ideal for pedestrians, but additional policies emphasize filling in gaps in the sidewalk system and making intersection crossing easier.
Goals, policies, and programs in the Transportation Element are still current, supporting the community’s vision of a less congested and
more walkable, transit‐rich environment. As a result, the majority of its policies should be considered for retention in the updated plan,
including those addressing the following concepts:
Reducing auto use through carpooling, increased emphasis on electronic information services, and education about
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 15
transportation alternatives.
Encouraging employers to develop shuttle services connecting employment areas with the multi‐modal transit stations and
business districts.
Supporting efforts to integrate train, bus, and shuttle schedules at multi‐modal transit stations to make public transit use more
time‐efficient.
Acquiring easements for bicycle and pedestrian paths through new private developments.
Reducing neighborhood street and intersection widths and widening planting strips to slow speeds and improve safety.
Providing sufficient parking in business districts to address long‐range needs.
Updates Anticipated for Our Palo Alto 2030
The effort to update the Comprehensive Plan is expected to build on the existing Transportation Element, fine‐tuning it to respond to
emerging trends and community concerns by:
Reinforcing “complete streets” concepts and policies.
Supporting Caltrain modernization and grade‐separated crossings.
Requiring proposed development to implement robust transportation demand management strategies that can be effectively
monitored and enforced.
Supporting reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through vehicle trip reduction and by promoting electric and alternative fuel
vehicle technology.
Reflecting the City’s control of the Municipal Airport.
Strengthening policies on preservation of neighborhood residential streets, Safe Routes to School, and general traffic safety.
Addressing the regional Grand Boulevard Initiative for El Camino Real, and opportunities for improving transit and
pedestrian/bicycle facilities in the corridor.
The updated element also provides an opportunity for the City Council to articulate its objectives (e.g. 30% reduction in SOV trips?), and the
strategy for transportation investments discussed on August 17, 2015. City Council guidance is also required to determine whether the
updated plan should maintain the current element’s organizational structure or use the structure of goals recommended by the PTC, and
what specific goals should be included.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 16
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT VISION STATEMENT COMPARISION
EXISTING PALO ALTO 1998‐2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PTC RECOMMENDATION
APRIL 2014
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
APRIL 27, 2015
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
EL
E
M
E
N
T
“Palo Alto will provide accessible, attractive,
economically viable and environmentally sound
transportation options that meet the needs of residents,
employers, employees and visitors for safe, convenient
and efficient travel by a variety of methods. Streets will
be safe and attractive, and designed to enhance the
quality and aesthetics of Palo Alto neighborhoods.
Emphasis will be placed on alternatives to the
automobile, including walking, bicycling, public transit,
and car and van pooling. The adverse impacts of
automobile traffic on the environment in general and
residential streets in particular, will be reduced. Solutions
that reduce the growth in the number of automobiles on
City streets, calm or slow traffic, and save energy will be
supported. It is hoped that individuals will reduce their
automobile trips by 10 percent by 2010, as alternative
transportation methods are implemented. The City will
seek out innovative funding sources and approaches to
construct and maintain needed transportation systems.
Palo Alto recognizes the regional nature of our
transportation system, and will be a leader in seeking
regional transportation solutions through long‐term
planning.”
“Maintain and promote a sustainable network
of safe, accessible and efficient transportation
and parking solutions for all users and modes,
while protecting and enhancing the quality of
life in Palo Alto neighborhoods including
alternative and innovative transportation
practices and supporting regional transit
facilities and reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions.”
City Council Comments:Majority of the Council
members preferred the PTC version of the Vision
Statement along with inclusion of language from
existing Vision Statement to strengthen it. (Some
Council members preferred the existing Vision
Statement stating it is still relevant, viable and
meaningful in spite of PTC version adding updated
language on Green House Gas reduction.) Following
are the suggestions made by the Council to
incorporate to the PTC version:
Add language on flexible, dynamic, performance
measures and alternatives to driving for all;
Replace the word neighborhoods with
“Citywide” in the PTC drafted Vision statement;
The word “Network” does not adequately
describe the vision. Add diversity of modes and
integrated systems of modes in the PTC Version;
Add the following language from the existing
Vision Statement “. The adverse impacts of
automobile traffic on the environment in
general and residential streets in particular, will
be reduced.”
Based on this input, staff will develop revisions to the
PTC’s version for City Council review.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 17
SUMMARY COMPARISON ‐TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Current Organization
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
T 1. Reducing Auto Use
T2. Public Transit
T3. Bicycling and Walking
T4. Roadways
T5. Neighborhood Impacts
T6. Traffic Safety
T7. Special Needs
T8. Parking
Explanation of Proposed Revisions
The PTC recommended very little revision to the existing Transportation Element,
with primary focus on deleting redundant language and editing to make the
document more readable. Although the existing element is fairly comprehensive,
some new ideas have surfaced in transportation planning since the Element was
adopted in 1998 and the PTC’s draft reflects these changes. Revisions suggested
to better organize material in the element included the following:
Consolidation of existing Goals T1, T2, and T3 under Sustainable
Transportation as Goal T1;
Renumbering existing Goal T4 to Goal T2: Roadways;
Renumbering and renaming existing Goal T5 to Goal T3: Residential
Streets;
Renumbering existing Goal T6 to Goal T5: Traffic Safety;
Renumbering existing Goal T7 to Goal T6: Special Needs;
Renumbering and renaming existing Goal T8 to Goal T4: Motor Vehicle
and Bicycle Parking;
Renumbering and renaming existing Goal T9 to Goal T7: Regional
Collaboration
Renumbering existing Goal T10 to Goal T8: Airport
Changing three Goal headings and introducing Sub Sections to improve
organizational clarity.
The PTC’s recommendation also includes new policies and programs to address
community concerns on parking, traffic mitigation, and neighborhood street
traffic safety, and to provide consistency with the adopted Bicycle Pedestrian
Transportation Plan, the Rail Corridor Study, and the Climate Protection Plan.
Specifically, the PTC’s version:
• Added a new section under Goal 1 to incorporate the Rail Corridor Study,
including support for grade separating Caltrain in a trench below grade;
• Strengthened the section on Complete Streets;
• Added new policies on Level of Service at Protected Intersections and
Multimodal Level of Service Evaluation;
Proposed PTC Revisions
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
T1. Sustainable Transportation
• Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
• Public Transit
• Bicycles and Pedestrians
• Rail Corridor (New)
T2. Roadways
T3. Residential Streets
T4. Motor Vehicle and Bicycle Parking
• Parking in Business Districts
• Parking Technologies
• Parking in Residential Districts
• General Parking Policies
• Parking Facility Design
• Bicycle Parking
T5. Traffic Safety
T6. Special Needs
• Accessible Streets
• Accessible Public Transit
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 18
• Strengthened Safe Routes to School policies; bicycle safety policies, and
preservation of residential street policies;
• Added new policies on Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Requirements;
• Included new policies on alternative modes of transport, trip reduction
strategies, no net new trip for new developments, and GHG emissions
reduction strategies;
• Added Parking policies on adoption of new parking technologies for business
districts; parking facilities design, bicycle parking;
• Included policies on Regional Transportation efforts and Highway 101 and
Interstate improvements and
• Reflected transition of the Municipal Airport from County to City.
The revisions were developed in consultation with City staff and stakeholders,
and referenced the following studies:
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2012;
• Rail Corridor Study 2013 and
• City of Palo Alto’s Climate Protection Plan (in process of being updated)
There is now an opportunity to incorporate input from the May 30 Summit,
incorporate information on ongoing parking and TDM initiatives, and describe the
State’s transition away from using intersection Level of Service as a key metric for
impact evaluations.
T7. Regional Collaboration
• Regional Transportation Planning
Agencies
• Highway 101 and Interstate
Improvements
• Regional Transit Networks
T8. Airport
Note: Staff believes that either organizational structure will work as a framework for a robust set of policies and programs. The current Comprehensive Plan’s emphasis on
reducing auto use is somewhat more direct than the broader goal of “sustainable transportation,” but the PTC’s addition of goals related to regional collaboration and the
airport are desirable, and the PTC’s overall organizational structure seems clearer. If the City Council would like to retain the existing structure, goals related to reducing
auto use and public transit could be revised somewhat to reference greenhouse gas reductions and the rail corridor, and goals related to regional collaboration and the
airport could be added. If the City Council prefers the PTC’s organizational structure, reducing SOV trips could be further emphasized, along with desired transportation
infrastructure investments.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 19
DETAILED COMPARISON ‐ TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Reducing Auto Use
GOAL T‐1: Less Reliance on Single‐Occupant
Vehicles
Consolidated existing Goals T1, T2, and T3 under
Sustainable Transportation Goal T1.
This goal added new policies and programs on reducing
GHG, supporting electric or alternative fuel vehicle
technology, improving bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure, ensuring consistency with Bicycle
Pedestrian Transportation Plan and Rail Corridor study.
Sustainable Transportation
GOAL T1: Create a sustainable transportation
system that emphasizes walking, bicycling, and
use of public transportation, and other methods
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the use
of
Public Transit
GOAL T‐2: A Convenient, Efficient, Public Transit
System that Provides a Viable Alternative to
Driving
Bicycling and Walking
GOAL T‐3: Facilities, Services, and Programs that
Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling.
Roadways
GOAL T‐4: An Efficient Roadway Network for All
Users.
Renumbered existing Goal T4 to Goal T2: Roadways.
This goal retained all the existing policies and added
new policies on “Complete Streets” to satisfy
requirements of AB1358 and Multi Modal Level of
Service.
Roadways
GOAL T2: Maintain an efficient roadway network
for all users.
Neighborhood Impacts
GOAL T‐5: A Transportation System with Minimal
Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods.
Renumbered and renamed existing Goal T5 to Goal
T3: Residential Streets.
All existing policies are carried over, in addition, new
policies on minimizing traffic impacts from new
developments in residential neighborhoods has been
added.
Residential Streets
GOAL T3: Protect neighborhood streets that
support residential character and provide a range
of local transportation options.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 20
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Traffic Safety
GOAL T‐6: A High Level of Safety for Motorists,
Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets.
Renumbered existing Goal T6 to Goal T5: Traffic
Safety.
Apart from adding new policies and programs on
improving bicycle safety, multi modal safety at
intersections and technology enhancements, all the
relevant existing polices are carried over to the PTC
draft.
Traffic Safety
GOAL T5: Provide a high level of safety for
motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists on Palo Alto
streets.
Special Needs
GOAL T‐7: Mobility for People with Special
Needs.
Renumbered existing Goal T7 to Goal T6: Special
Needs.
This goal includes policies on addressing needs of
people with disabilities. New policies on Universal
Design standards to accommodate persons with special
needs, beyond standards prescribed by American
Disabilities Act have been added.
Special Needs
GOAL T6: Provide mobility options that allow
people with special needs to reach their
destinations.
Parking
GOAL T‐8: Attractive, Convenient Public and
Private Parking Facilities.
Renumbered and renamed existing Goal T8 to Goal T4:
Motor Vehicle and Bicycle Parking.
This goal includes policies on automobile parking, to
this; the PTC draft has added programs on innovative
parking management strategies for both residential
and commercial areas, programs on improved parking
technologies and requirements for new developments.
Motor Vehicle and Bicycle Parking
GOAL T4: Encourage attractive, convenient public
and private motor vehicle and bicycle parking
facilities.
Regional Leadership
GOAL T‐9: An Influential Role in Shaping and
Implementing Regional Transportation Decisions.
Renumbered and renamed existing Goal T9 to Goal T7:
Regional Leadership.
This goal includes regional transportation
improvement policies and encourages regional
transportation collaborations to reduce GHG
emissions.
Regional Leadership
GOAL T7: Influence the shape and
implementation of regional transportation
policies to reduce traffic congestion and
greenhouse gas emission.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 21
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Airport
GOAL T‐10: A Local Airport with Minimal Off‐site
Impacts.
Renumbered existing Goal T10 to Goal T8: Airport.
In addition to the existing policies and program this
goal includes new policies on transition of airport
management to City from the County of Santa Clara.
Airport
GOAL T8: Maintain a local airport with minimal
environmental off‐site impacts.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 22
LAND USE and COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 23
The Land Use and Community Design Element is the guiding force behind the physical form of our city. It lays out a framework for conservation
and development to preserve neighborhoods, protect historic and natural resources, channel growth and commercial activity to suitable sites, respond to
climate change, reduce pollution, and promote active and healthy lifestyles.
State law requires a Land Use Element to establish the location and intensity of housing, business, industry, open space, recreation, natural
resources, and public facilities. The added Community Design component reflects a special interest in Palo Alto in maintaining historic integrity
and enriching the built environment.
The Current Plan:
Palo Alto was an early adopter of compact development principles, as embodied in the Urban Service Area designated to manage growth in
the current Comprehensive Plan. Through this strategy, the City has endeavored to direct new development into appropriate locations—such
as along transit corridors and near employment centers—while protecting and preserving low‐scale residential neighborhoods and open space
lands that together comprise about 80% of the city.
The Land Use and Community Design Element identifies the residential areas, commercial centers, and employment districts that together
constitute the city’s “structure.” Understanding how these parts of the community are connected to each other and the region is essential to
resolving transportation and traffic issues and ensuring that businesses can thrive in places where they can serve residents and visitors without
increasing impacts on neighborhoods. As the appearance of buildings and public spaces greatly affects how people experience Palo Alto, the
Element calls for high‐quality design to encourage social gathering in attractive settings.
The existing Land Use and Community Design Element is ably supporting the community’s objectives for growth management, and its
cornerstone goals and policies are about:
Supporting the city’s future needs by accommodating an appropriate mix and amount of residential, commercial, and employment
uses within the Urban Service Area.
Maintaining and enhancing Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods, while ensuring that new development respects existing
neighborhood character.
Providing adequate public services and facilities, parks, and open space.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 24
Reducing emissions through energy efficiency standards and land use decisions that support walking, biking, and transit.
Fostering high quality design by improving streetscapes, maintaining and increasing connectivity, and enhancing gateways.
Preserving and protecting historic buildings and cultural and natural resources.
Updates Anticipated for Our Palo Alto 2030
The updated Plan is intended to build on the solid foundation of the existing Land Use and Community Design Element to direct growth to
urbanized area where services and transit are available, provide clear development standards, reexamine the growth management strategies
(i.e. cumulative growth caps) adopted for the City and Downtown, and focus on the relationship between infrastructure, transportation
investments, land use, and development. The updated element is also expected to respond to emerging trends and community concerns,
including:
Limiting the conversion of retail to residential use.
Requiring proposed development to demonstrate that adequate public services are available and that its design supports walking,
biking, and transit.
Instituting new California Green Building Code requirements.
Distributing priority infrastructure improvements equitably across the city.
Providing infrastructure to strengthen Downtown as a regional economic center.
Expanding the City’s tree network, and restoring the Baylands.
Meeting the City’s adopted greenhouse gas reduction targets.
City Council guidance is required to determine whether the updated plan should maintain the current element’s organizational structure or
use the structure of goals recommended by the PTC, and what specific goals should be included.
The City Council has already provided direction on concurrent zoning changes it would like to see, and is separately considering growth
management strategies, retail preservation strategies, an update to the City’s Climate Protection Plan, and reforms to the PC zoning process.
Specific City Council input on Policy L‐8 about the Citywide cap on non‐residential development and Program L‐8 about the Downtown Cap will
be requested separately.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 25
LAND USE and COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT VISION STATEMENT COMPARISON
EXISTING PALO ALTO 1998‐2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PTC RECOMMENDATION
APRIL 2014
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
APRIL 27, 2015
LA
N
D
U
S
E
AN
D
CO
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
DE
S
I
G
N
EL
E
M
E
N
T
“Palo Alto will be a vital, attractive place to live,
work, and visit. The elements that make Palo Alto a
great community—its neighborhoods, shopping and
employment centers, civic uses, open spaces, and
natural resources—will be strengthened and
enhanced. The diverse range of housing and work
environments will be sustained and expanded to
create more choices for all income levels. All Palo
Alto neighborhoods will be improved, each to have
public gathering spaces, essential services and
pedestrian amenities, to encourage less reliance on
the automobile.”
“Palo Alto’s land use decisions shall balance our
future growth needs with the preservation of our
neighborhoods, address climate protection
priorities and focus on sustainable development
near neighborhood services, and enhance the
quality of life in our community.”
City Council Comments: The majority of the Council
members preferred the existing Vision Statement
because it is simple and elaborative, it calls out
specific uses and neighborhoods, does not use buzz
words, and does not dilute the concepts present in
the existing Introduction section. Some Council
members felt the existing Vision Statement is too
long, with absolute statements that are difficult to
live up to.
The following are the comments by Council on the
PTC version of Vision Statement:
Use of the word “future” growth is
redundant and use of word “ growth”
implies that it was needed;
Broaden Climate protection priorities to
”environmental protection priorities”;
Following are the suggestions made by the Council to
incorporate in the existing Vision Statement :
Integrate concepts of urban forest and
canopy into our built environment;
Include languages present in the
Introduction section(Themes) of the
Comprehensive Plan to the Vision Statement
of Land use Element
Based on this input, staff will develop minor revisions
to the existing version for City Council review.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 26
SUMMARY COMPARISON LAND USE and COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT GOALS
Current Organization
LAND USE and COMMUNITY
DESIGN ELEMENT
L 1. Local Land use and
Growth Management
• Extent of Urban
Development
• Commercial Growth Limits
• Mixed Use Areas
• Land Use and Circulation
Map
• Land Use Definitions
L2. City Structure: Fostering a
Sense of Community
L3. Residential
Neighborhoods
L4. Centers
• All Centers
• Regional Centers
• Multi‐Neighborhood Centers
• Neighborhood Centers
L5. Employment Districts
Explanation of Proposed Revisions
The PTC recommended substantial revisions to the Land Use and Community Design
Element intended to improve the clarity and readability of the document. The
proposed element contains five consolidated goals with corresponding policies and
programs. Goal 3 of includes a referral to the two new Concept Area Plans: the East
Meadow Circle/Fabian Way Concept Plan and the California Avenue/Fry’s Area
Concept Plan. Reorganization of the Element’s structure included:
• Distributing existing Goal L1policies and programs to Goal L1, L2, L3 and L5;
• Distributing existing Goal L2 and L3 policies and programs to Goal L2 and L3:
Sustaining Public Places and Guiding Private Development;
• Distributing existing Goal L4 to Goal L2, L3 and L5: Sustaining Public Places,
Guiding Private Development and Regional Land use;
• Distributing existing Goal L5 to Goal L5: Regional Land use;
• Renaming and renumbering existing Goal L6 to Goal L2: Sustaining Public
Places;
• Renumbering and renaming existing Goal L7 to Goal L4: Preserving Historic and
Archaeological Resources;
• Renaming and renumbering existing Goal L8 to Goal L2: Sustaining Public
Places and
• Distributing policies and programs in existing Goal L9 to Goal L2: Sustaining
Public Places
• Changing all Goal headings and
• Adding new Sub Sections to improve organization of the document.
Existing, policies and programs were revised to incorporate key City Council
priorities at the time, including limiting the conversion of non‐residential land to
residential uses, encouraging economic development including limiting the loss of
neighborhood serving retail, strengthening provision of services and addressing
sustainable development. New sections were added on climate change, sustainable
land use development and urban design, retail retention, below grade alignment for
fixed rail and airport and baylands land uses.
Proposed PTC Revisions
LAND USE and COMMUNITY DESIGN
ELEMENT
L1. Land use to Support the City’s Future
Needs
• Climate Protection (New)
• Land use in Urban Service Area
L2. Sustaining Public Places
• Urban Design Guidelines
• Downtown Public Spaces
• Mixed Use Guidelines
• Public Facilities Design Guidelines
L3. Guiding Private Development
• Citywide Residential Guidelines
• Guidelines for Neighborhood Centers
and Employment Districts
• East Meadow Circle Concept Area Plan
• California Avenue Concept Area Plan
L4. Preserving Historic and
Archaeological Resources
• Encourage Preservation
• Archeological Resources
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 27
All Employment Districts
• Stanford Research Park
• Stanford Medical Center
• East Bayshore and San
Antonio Road/Bayshore
Corridor
L6. Design of Buildings Public
Places
L7. Historic Character
L8. Civic Uses
L9. Public Ways
• Streets & Paths • Street Trees
• Gateways • Public Arts
• Parking Lots • Infrastructure
Specifically, the Commission recommended a new section on Climate Protection
goals and policies under Goal 1, added policies and programs to improve
consistency with Baylands Master Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Rail
Corridor Study, and added two Concept Area Plans: East Meadow Circle Concept
Area Plan and California Avenue Concept Area Plan.
The revisions were developed in consultation with City staff and stakeholders, and
referenced the following studies:
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2012
• Rail Corridor Study 2013.
• Baylands Master Plan 2008
• City of Palo Alto’s Climate Protection Plan
There is now an opportunity to re‐look at some of the issues and incorporate more
recent Council priorities related to managing the pace of office growth, providing for
a range of housing opportunities as called for in the updated Housing Element,
preserving ground floor retail, and making some adjustments to commercial zoning
regulations.
L5. Regional Land Use
• Regional Land use
• Stanford Land use (Shopping Center,
Research Park and Medical Center)
• Downtown Palo Alto
• Airport Land use
• Baylands Land use
Note: Staff believes that either organizational structure will work as a framework for a robust set of policies and programs, however many Palo Altans are familiar with the
current structure of the element and may find it difficult to adjust to a new structure. If the City Council would like to retain the existing structure, some of the goals could
be renamed or expanded to encompass issues such as climate protection.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 28
DETAIL COMPARISON ‐ LAND USE and COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT GOALS
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Local Land use and Growth Management
GOAL 1:A Well‐designed, Compact City, Providing
Residents and Visitors with Attractive
Neighborhoods, Work Places, Shopping Districts,
Public Facilities, and Open Spaces.
Distributed existing policies and programs of Goal L1 to
Goals L1, L2, L3 and L5.
This goal includes policies on land use in urban service
area, and new policies on maintaining consistency with
City’s Climate Protection Plan. The goal language adds
the concept of balancing natural resources and
community needs to support growth.
Land use to Support the City’s Future Needs
GOAL L1: Urban space is a limited resource;
therefore, development needs to be compact
and the best use made of land to balance natural
resources and community needs.
City Structure: Fostering a Sense of Community
GOAL L‐2: An Enhanced Sense of “Community”
with Development Designed to Foster Public Life
and Meet Citywide Needs.
Distributed existing Goal L2 policies and programs to
Goals L2 and L3: Sustaining Public Places and Guiding
Private Development.
This was done to consolidate all goals related to urban
design guidelines which guide private residential and
commercial developments.
Residential Neighborhoods
GOAL L‐3: Safe, Attractive Residential
Neighborhoods, Each With Its Own Distinct
Character and Within Walking Distance of
Shopping, Services, Schools, and/or other Public
Gathering Places.
This goal consolidates its existing policies and programs
with sections from existing Goals L1, L2, L3, and L4 on
guiding private development. This goal identifies
distinct qualities of individual Palo Alto residential and
commercial neighborhoods, and adds new policies on
preserving these unique characters. This goal also
includes policies and programs referring to the two
concept area plans.
Guiding Private Development
GOAL L3: Guide growth, change and preservation
of residential and business areas through
planning policies that sustain their unique
character.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 29
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Centers
GOAL L‐4: Inviting, Pedestrian‐scale Centers that
Offer a Variety of Retail and Commercial Services
and Provide Focal Points and Community
Gathering Places for the City’s Residential
Neighborhoods and Employment Districts.
Distributed existing Goal L4 policies and programs to
Goal L2, L3 and L5: Sustaining Public Places, Guiding
Private Development and Regional Land use.
This was done to consolidate all policies and programs
on urban design guidelines for private developments
including neighborhood centers and employment
districts.
Employment Districts
GOAL L‐5: High Quality Employment Districts,
Each With Their Own Distinctive Character and
Each Contributing to the Character of the City as
a Whole.
Distributed existing Goal L5 policies and programs to
Goal L5: Regional Land use.
This consolidation was done to facilitate all policies
related to Stanford Research Park and Medical Center
under Regional Land Use.
Design of Buildings Public Places
GOAL L‐6: Well‐designed Buildings that Create
Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance
City Streets and Public Spaces.
Renamed and renumbered existing Goal L6 to Goal
L2: Sustaining Public Places.
This goal provides distinct guidelines for all public
developments including public facilities design, mixed
use building design, urban streetscape and Downtown
public spaces. Policies and programs from existing
Goals L1, L2, L3, L4, L6, L8 and L9 are consolidated to
make the goal comprehensive.
Sustaining Public Places
GOAL L2: Plan for streets and public spaces to
enrich Palo Alto’s sense of place and community.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 30
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Historic Character
GOAL L‐7: Conservation and Preservation of Palo
Alto’s Historic Buildings, Sites, and Districts.
Renumbered and renamed existing Goal L7 to Goal L4:
Preserving Historic and Archaeological Resources.
This goal includes all existing policies on historic
preservation as well as new policies on archeological
resources.
Preserving Historic and Archaeological Resources
GOAL L4: Recognize the value and importance of
archeological resources, historic buildings and
places and their importance to a sustainable
environment in Palo Alto.
Civic Uses
GOAL L‐8: Attractive and Safe Civic and Cultural
Facilities Provided in All Neighborhoods and
Maintained and Used in Ways that Foster and
Enrich Public Life.
Renamed and renumbered existing Goal L8 to Goal L2:
Sustaining Public Places. Distributed existing Goal L8
policies and programs to Goal L2 to consolidate all
policies on public facilities design.
Public Ways
GOAL L‐9: Attractive, Inviting Public Spaces and
Streets that Enhance the Image and Character of
the City.
Distributed policies and programs in existing Goal L9 to
L2: Sustaining Public Places.
This is not a new goal and includes policies and
programs from existing Goals L1, L4, and L5. This goal
acknowledges the regional influence Palo Alto has in
the area and highlights them.
Regional Land use
GOAL L5: Encourage development in Palo Alto to
provide public benefits and employment to
neighboring cities and counties while improving
land uses, streets, infrastructure and character of
the City
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 31
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 32
The Natural Environment Element in the Comprehensive Plan currently addresses the management of open land and natural resources in
Palo Alto and the protection of life and property from natural hazards. It is one of the broadest elements of the Comprehensive Plan, satisfying
the requirements for four of the State‐ mandated General Plan elements:
Open Space—with policies describing the use of open space for the preservation of natural resources, the managed production of
natural resources, outdoor recreation, and public health and safety.
Conservation—with policies to protect creeks and riparian areas, wetlands, the urban forest, water resources, wildlife, and air quality;
to regulate and limit the use and transport of hazardous materials; and to minimize solid waste disposal and promote clean energy.
Safety—with policies describing how exposure will be reduced to natural hazards such as earthquakes, flooding, and wildfires.
Noise—with policies to decrease exposure to undesirable levels of noise in the community.
State requirements have evolved in the last several years to require policies related to flood hazards, fire hazards and fire hazard severity zones, and to
require consistency with local hazard mitigation plans. Also, the new topic of climate change ‐‐ including curbing greenhouse gas emissions and
adapting to climate change ‐‐ is a natural fit for the Natural Environment Element.
Safety elements are the only element other than the Housing Element that is subject to State review and must be submitted to the California Geological
Survey and the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection for their review. The State also requires agencies to use their Urban Water Management
Plans as source documents and to maintain consistency with adopted airport land use plans.
The Current Plan
Palo Alto has vast open space resources for a city of our size. The Natural Environment Element seeks to protect the 29 neighborhood and
district parks, large holdings in the Baylands, Foothills Park, Montebello and Arastradero Preserves, and Barron, Matadero, and San
Francisquito Creeks. All of these areas provide important habitat, scenic, and recreational value.
With more than 300 tree species, Palo Alto’s urban forest is an extension of the natural woodland and grassland plant communities and
provides a bridge for wildlife between the foothills and the Bay. The Element supports this resource both for its biological benefits and
contribution to the aesthetic appeal of Palo Alto. The Natural Environment Element has also proven effective in protecting the health and
safety of our community by limiting noise and exposure to hazards. Its goals and policies are about:
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 33
Seeking opportunities for adding open space, including connections between Skyline Ridge and San Francisco Bay.
Re‐establishing riparian and other natural features that have been diminished by development, and protecting surface and ground
water from pollutants.
Expanding the urban forest, including by requiring development to provide landscaping and street trees.
Conserving water and energy, and securing long‐term water supplies and renewable, clean energy.
Reducing waste, recycling construction materials, and encouraging reusable, returnable, recyclable, and repairable goods.
Protecting the community from noise, air pollution, hazardous chemicals, and natural hazards.
Updates Anticipated for Our Palo Alto 2030
The Planning & Transportation Commission recommended renaming the element as the “Natural and Urban Environment and Safety Element”
to better describe its importance and recommended adding major concepts, including:
Monitoring and adapting to impacts caused by climate change.
Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Emphasizing and supporting community emergency preparedness.
Protecting sensitive habitat from human threats.
Balancing conservation with improved open space access and encouraging low impact recreational use.
Addressing State regulations requirements for transportation noise generated from roadways, airways, and railways, and limiting
construction noise around sensitive receptors.
Since the Commission’s recommendation was completed, members of the community and members of the City Council have suggested that
safety and noise are two important topics that could receive more attention if they are separated into a separate element. City Council
direction is required to affirm this suggestion, and to determine whether the updated plan should maintain the current element’s
organizational structure or use the structure of goals recommended by the PTC, and what specific goals should be included.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 34
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT VISION STATEMENT COMPARISON
EXISTING PALO ALTO 1998‐2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PTC RECOMMENDATION
APRIL 2014
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
APRIL 27, 2015
NA
T
U
R
A
L
EN
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
EL
E
M
E
N
T
“Palo Alto will meet today’s needs without
compromising the needs of future generations. Palo
Alto will respect and manage natural resources in a
way that sustains the natural environment and
protects our foothills, baylands, creeks, parks,
wildlife and open space legacy. Elements of the
natural environment will be conserved where they
remain intact and restored where they have been
degraded by past development. A substantial portion
of the City will remain as open space. Even in built‐up
areas, a network of parks will provide access to
nature and an urban forest will provide ecological
benefits and a source of beauty for residents. Palo
Alto will strive for cleaner air and cleaner water. Its
policies and programs will foster energy and water
conservation, reduced solid waste generation, and
cleanup of contaminated sites. The City will be well
prepared for natural disasters and will grow and
change in a way that minimizes public exposure to
hazards like fire, flood, and earthquake.”
“Palo Alto shall preserve its ecosystems, including
its open space, creeks, habitats, and air quality
while working towards a sustainable urban
environment of urban forests, water quality, waste
disposal reduction, emergency preparedness,
community safety and a plan for climate change
mitigation.”
City Council Comments:All of the Council members
preferred the existing Vision Statement. Council felt
that the PTC version blends the concepts of parks,
open space together and there is no mention of
conservation in the vision statement.
Following are some suggestions made by individual
Council members:
Add “wildlife” to Vision Statement of
Natural Environment Element;
Add language on “conservation” in the
Vision Statement;
Recommendation to add “restoring” our eco
systems to PTC version;
Add language to maintain sustainable
water supply for future and
Add language on Climate change
adaptation and implementation
Based on this input, staff will develop minor revisions
to the existing version for City Council review.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 35
SUMMARY COMPARISON ‐ NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT
Current Organization
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
ELEMENT
N 1. Open Space
• Sensitive Plant Species List
• City of Palo Alto Open
Space Development criteria
N2. Creeks And Riparian
Areas
• Special Status Wildlife
Species List
• City of Palo Alto Open
Space Development criteria
N3. Urban forest
N4. Water Resources
• Historic Water
Consumption and Projected
Demand in Palo Alto
• Best management Practices
to Address Water Pollution
N5. Air Quality
N6. Hazardous Waste
Explanation of Proposed Revisions
The PTC recommended extensive reorganization and consolidation of this element
based on input from different stakeholder groups, boards and commissions. They
recommended strengthening the Safety component of the plan, including the
addition of two new goals along with several policies and programs. Several new
topics were addressed, including adapting, monitoring, and mitigating climate
change. The PTC also proposed a name change for this element to Natural and
Urban Environment and Safety Element. Organizational changes recommended
included:
Consolidating existing Goals N1, N2, and N3 under Natural Ecosystems as
Goal N1;
Renumbering and renaming existing Goal N4 to Goal N5: Water Quality
and Conservation;
Consolidating existing Goals N5 and N8 to Goal N6: Environmental
Quality; Air Quality and Noise Level Mitigation and Reduction
Consolidating existing Goals N6 and N7 to Goal N4: Solid and Hazardous
Waste;
Renumbering and renaming existing Goal N9 to Goal N3: Energy Sources
and Conservation;
Splitting and renumbering existing Goal N10 to Goal N7 and N8: Natural
Hazards and Community Safety And Emergency Management
Changing five Goal headings and introducing Sub Sections to improve
organizational clarity and
Adding new Goal 2 to be consistent with the City’s the Climate Protection
Plan.
The PTC’s recommendation also included new policies addressing effects of sea
level rise and flooding, and policies to achieve City’s GHG reduction targets. New
policies and programs were suggested regarding Energy conservation, use of
alternative energy (solar), and on maximizing recycling and composting. The PTC’s
suggestion was also intended to strengthen policies on conservation and efficient
use of water resources, and maximizing use of recycled water. Policies were
added regarding the California and Palo Alto Green Building codes, Demolition and
Proposed PTC Revisions
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT
N1. Natural Ecosystems
• Foothills, Bay Lands and Public
Open Space
• Creeks and Riparian Areas
• Urban Forest
N2. Climate Change and Adaptation
(New)
N3. Energy Sources and Conservation
N4. Solid and Hazardous Waste
• Hazardous Materials
• Solid Waste
N5. Water Quality and Conservation
• Water Resources: Water
Conservation, Recycling, and
Quality
• Stormwater Quality
• Wastewater Treatment
N6. Environmental Quality
• Air Quality
• Noise Level Mitigation and
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 36
N7. Solid Waste
N8. Noise
N9. Energy
N10. Natural Hazards
General Safety Measures
Seismic and Other Geologic
Hazards
Flood Hazards
Fire Hazards
Emergency Management
Construction Debris Diversion program, and planning for zero waste. Additional
policies were also suggested regarding transportation related noise (roadways,
airways and railways) and construction noise; and on community safety and
emergency management.
The revisions were developed in consultation with City staff and stakeholders, and
referenced the following studies:
• Urban Forest Master Plan;
• Baylands Master Plan 2008;
• Tree Technical Manual and Tree Preservation Regulations;
• City of Palo Alto’s Climate Protection Plan (in process of being updated);
• California Green Building Code & Palo Alto Green Building Regulations;
• Zero Waste Operational Plan;
• Integrated Pest Management Plan;
• Foothills Fire Management Plan and Cal Fire Plan;
• Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Emergency Ops Plan and Seismic Hazard Ord
As noted above, there is now an opportunity to re‐visit whether the topics of
safety and noise should be included in a separate element. There is also an
opportunity to view contents of the element through the lens of the current
drought, and ensure consistency with ongoing planning related to water resources
and sustainability/climate action.
Reduction
N7. Natural Hazards
• Seismic Activity and Geologic
Hazards
• Flood Hazards and Mitigation
N8. Community Safety And
Emergency Management
• Public Awareness and General
Safety Measures
• Fire Protection and Awareness
• Community Safety (New)
• Emergency Management
Note: Staff believes that either organizational structure will work as a framework for a robust set of policies and programs. The existing goal regarding the urban forest
highlights this issue (which was subsumed within Natural Ecosystems by the PTC), although the PTC’s recommendations effectively incorporate new subjects/focus on
sustainability and climate change. Also, separating‐out safety and noise into a separate element would provide for greater focus on these issues.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 37
DETAIL COMPARISION ‐ NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT GOALS
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Open Space
GOAL N‐1: A Citywide Open Space System
that Protects and Conserves Palo Alto’s
Natural Resources and Provides a Source of
Beauty and Enjoyment for Palo Alto
Residents.
Consolidated existing Goals N1, N2, and N3 under Natural
Ecosystems as Goal N1.
All elements of natural eco systems are included in this goal.
Additional policies on protecting our sensitive habitats from
all types of impacts, human or animal, conservation and
protection of native plant and animal species have been
added. New policies on meeting compliance with City’s
Foothills Fire Management Plan, Stream Corridor Protection
Ordinance, Urban Forest master Plan etc. are added under
this goal.
Natural Ecosystems
GOAL N1: Preserve our open space, natural and
urban habitats, and protect our ecosystems and
natural resources that are the foundations of our
environment.
Creeks And Riparian Areas
GOAL N‐2: Conservation of Creeks and
Riparian Areas as Open Space Amenities,
Natural Habitat Areas, and Elements of
Community Design.
Urban Forest
GOAL N‐3: A Thriving “Urban Forest” That
Provides Ecological, Economic, and
Aesthetic Benefits for Palo Alto.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 38
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
This is a new goal to address climate change and adaptation.
It includes polices on complying with City’s Climate
Protection goals, including meeting goals in reduction of
GHG, achieving Net Zero energy home goals, and addressing
sea level rise.
NEW
Climate Change and Adaptation
GOAL N2: Actively support regional efforts to
reduce our contribution to climate change while
adapting to the effects of climate change on land
use and city services.
Water Resources
GOAL N‐4: Water Resources that are
Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and
Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and
Protect Public Health and Safety.
Renumbered and renamed existing Goal N4 to Goal N5:
Water Quality and Conservation.
This goal includes all existing policies and programs and also
adds new policies on conservation and efficient use of
water, use of recycled water whenever possible, and
retention and use of rain water.
Water Quality and Conservation
GOAL N5: Conserve water resources and protect
water quality to support our natural environment,
public health and safety, plant and animal life, and
the vitality of our diverse urban activities.
Air Quality
GOAL N‐5: Clean, Healthful Air for Palo Alto
and the San Francisco Bay Area.
Renumbered existing Goals N5 to Goal N6: Environmental
Quality; Air Quality.
This goal includes all existing policies as well as new policies
on reduction of air pollution through enforcing existing
ordinances and maintaining existing tree canopy to reduce
air pollution.
Environmental Quality
GOAL N6: Reduce environmental pollutants to
protect and enhance air quality and to reduce
ambient noise levels in every neighborhood.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 39
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Based on City Council direction of April 2015, staff will
include a new Safety and Noise Element. This will
modify the PTC proposed structure of the element.
Contents of both existing Noise and safety sections are
moved to the new Safety and Noise Element.
Hazardous Waste
GOAL N‐6: An Environment Free of the Damaging
Effects of Biological and Chemical Hazardous
Materials.
Consolidated existing Goals N6 and N7 to Goal N4:
Solid and Hazardous Waste.
This goal has been rewritten to include efforts by the
City to strive for Net Zero solid waste generation by
maximizing recycling and composting efforts.
Additional new policies on educating residents and
developers on available City incentives to reduce
carbon footprints are included in this goal.
Solid and Hazardous Waste
GOAL N4: Strive for zero solid waste generation
and an environment free of the harmful effects of
hazardous and toxic materials.
Solid Waste
GOAL N‐7: Reduced Volumes of Solid Waste;
Solid Waste Disposed in an Environmentally Safe,
Efficient, Manner.
Noise
GOAL N‐8: An Environment That Minimizes the
Adverse Impacts of Noise.
Based on City Council’s discussion in April 2015, a
separate Safety and Noise element is recommended
and can incorporate this Goal.
Noise Level Mitigation and Reduction
GOAL N6: Reduce environmental pollutants to
protect and enhance air quality and to reduce
ambient noise levels in every neighborhood.
Energy
GOAL N‐9: A Clean, Efficient, Competitively‐
priced Energy Supply That Makes Use of Cost‐
effective
Renumbered and renamed existing Goal N9 to Goal
N3: Energy Sources and Conservation.
This goal carries over all existing policies and programs
in
Energy Sources and Conservation
GOAL N3: Move towards a clean efficient energy
supply that makes use of new technologies and
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 40
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Renewable Resources. addition to new policies on maximizing use of
photovoltaic energy, as well as other renewable energy
sources.
cost‐effective renewable resources and promote
energy conservation.
Natural Hazards
GOAL N‐10: Protection of Life and Property From
Natural Hazards, Including Earthquake,
Landslide, Flooding, and Fire.
Based on City Council’s discussion in April 2015, a
separate Safety and Noise element is recommended
and can incorporate this Goal as well as one addressing
community safety and emergency management.
Resiliency and climate adaptation can also be
addressed.
This goal was previous Goal 8 of the PTC revised
Natural Environment Element. On City Council’s
direction this goal has been moved to the new Safety
and Noise Element.
This goal includes new policies and programs on
educating the community and creating awareness to
prevent loss of life and property from all types of
disasters, community safety and emergency
management.
NEW
Community Safety and Emergency Management
GOAL N8: Develop and coordinate a plan for fire,
police protection and effective emergency
preparedness and response.
Public Awareness and General Safety
Measures
Fire Protection and Awareness
Community Safety
Emergency Management
This goal was previous Goal 10 of the existing Natural
Environment Element. On City Council’s direction this
goal has been moved to the new Safety and Noise
Element.
This goal includes policies and programs on earthquake
safety, flood hazards and mitigation, and other natural
disasters.
Natural Hazards
GOAL N7: Protect life, ecosystems, and property
from natural and man‐made hazards and
disasters, including earthquake, landslides,
flooding, fire, and hazardous materials.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 41
BUSINESS and ECONOMICS ELEMENT
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 42
The Business and Economics Element is not required by State law, but was deemed equally important by authors of the current
Comprehensive Plan. Renowned globally for innovation in research and technology, Palo Alto has regional commercial districts and
neighborhood shopping centers that play a major role in local quality of life. The Element offers policies that emphasize diversity, growth, and
flexibility of businesses, as well as compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses, including residential neighborhoods.
The Current Plan
The City has long acknowledged that revenue generation and other positive effects of business growth have the potential to be offset by
impacts on the community, especially concerning traffic and parking but also including loss of community character if not properly addressed.
Accordingly, the Element calls for modest economic growth in balance with preservation of residential neighborhoods.
In addition to growth limits, the City uses zoning, development review, environmental review, coordinated area plans, and other planning tools
to maintain compatibility between residential and nonresidential areas. The Business and Economics Element addresses:
Maintaining distinct business districts as a means of retaining local services and diversifying the City’s economic base.
Ensuring that neighborhood shopping areas, including California Avenue, are attractive, accessible, and convenient to nearby residents.
Promoting public/private partnerships as a means of revitalizing selected areas and providing community benefits and services.
Supporting advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that facilitate the growth of emerging industries.
Encouraging pedestrian‐oriented neighborhood retail along El Camino Real.
The Element also recognizes the important role that Stanford University plays in our local economy as the largest employer in Palo Alto and as
an incubator of new technologies that have helped make Palo Alto a global leader in innovation. The policy framework in the Element supports
Stanford Research Park as a thriving employment district and seeks to sustain Stanford Shopping Center as a major regional commercial
attraction.
Anticipated Updates for Our Palo Alto 2030
The Business and Economics Element provides an opportunity to highlight the City’s place in the region, as well as the City’s desire to direct
growth and change to commercial and mixed‐use areas of the City. Policies can be framed to ensure that economic prosperity does not result
in unconstrained growth and unacceptable impacts on Palo Alto neighborhoods. Other policy guidance can address:
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 43
Encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation.
Enhancing and diversifying the retail mix through business retention and attraction.
Developing positive parking solutions for businesses in California Avenue and Downtown.
The new business registry.
Enhancing Palo Alto’s appeal to visitors and tourists.
Potential alternatives to the cumulative cap on non‐residential development in the City and in Downtown (also see the Land Use and
Community Environment Element).
City Council guidance is required to determine whether the updated plan should maintain the current element’s organizational structure or use the
structure of goals recommended by the PTC, and what specific goals should be included.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 44
BUSINESS and ECONOMICS ELEMENT VISION STATEMENT COMPARISON
EXISTING PALO ALTO 1998‐2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PTC RECOMMENDATION
APRIL 2014
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
APRIL 27, 2015
BU
S
I
N
E
S
S
AN
D
EC
O
N
O
M
I
C
S
EL
E
M
E
N
T
“Palo Alto’s business environment will be exciting,
dynamic and vital. Businesses will have access to a
wide array of support services and will enjoy positive
relationships with Palo Alto residents, officials, and
City staff. The competing needs of residents and
businesses will be balanced so that neighborhoods
are protected and enhanced while business districts
are competitive and attractive. The local economy
will thrive, and a diverse array of goods and services
will be provided to Palo Alto consumers. Most
development will occur within Palo Alto’s
employment areas, and will be consistent with the
role and character designated for each area by this
Plan.”
“Palo Alto supports a culture of innovation and
entrepreneurship that welcomes innovators,
entrepreneurs, business professionals, the
University, visitors and the community. The City’s
business policies, balanced economic goals, vibrant
downtown, and diverse local and regional‐serving
businesses combine to stimulate and support viable
business opportunities.”
City Council Comments: Majority of the Council
members preferred the PTC Vision Statement
because of its clarity and felt with some additional
language from the existing Vision Statement it can
be strengthened.
Following are some suggestions made by individual
Councilmembers:
Add the following language from the
existing Vision Statement, to strengthen it:
“The competing needs of residents and
businesses will be balanced so that
neighborhoods are protected and enhanced
while business districts are competitive and
attractive.”
Based on this input, staff will develop revisions to the
PTC’s version for City Council review.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 45
SUMMARY COMPARISON ‐ BUSINESS and ECONOMICS ELEMENT
Current Organization
BUSINESS and ECONIMICS ELEMENT
B1. CITYWIDE: Compatibility
B2. Diversity
B3. Growth
B4. Flexibility
B5. Centers
• All Centers
• Regional Centers
University Av./ Downtown,
South of Forest Mixed Use Area,
Stanford Shopping Center
• Multi‐Neighborhood Centers
California Av.,
Cal‐Ventura,
El Camino Real,
Town & Country Village
• Neighborhood Centers
B6. All Employment Districts
• All Employment Districts
Stanford Research Park, Stanford
Medical Center, E. Bayshore & San
Antonio/Bayshore Corridor
Explanation of Revisions
The PTC proposed significant updates to both the structure and
content of the Business and Economics Element while simultaneously
retaining the intent of existing goals, policies and programs. Though
the number of goals remains the same in existing and proposed plan,
two new goals were added to the element to make it more
comprehensive and some goals were consolidated to reduce
redundancy and improve clarity. The element also highlights
Downtown Palo Alto and California Avenue as two distinct major
business centers of the City. The suggested reorganization of the
Element’s structure included:
• Adding a new goal encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship
and another new goal on enhancing Palo Alto’s Visitors and
Tourism;
• Distributing policies and programs under existing Goal B1 and
B2, to Goal B4 and B5: Thriving Retail Districts and Doing
Business in Palo Alto;
• Consolidating existing Goals B3 and B4 to Goal B5: Doing
Business in Palo Alto;
• Moving existing Goal B5 to Goal B4: Thriving Retail Districts;
• Moving and renaming existing Goal B6 to Goal B3: Palo Alto as a
Regional Shopping, Services and Employment Destination
• Changing all Goal headings and introducing Sub Sections to
improve organizational clarity.
Policies were added addressing diversity in retail mix, ground floor
retail design guidelines, creating positive parking solutions for
Downtown and California Avenue business districts. Policies were
also added about enhancing visitor experience in Palo Alto, providing
more opportunities for arts, entertainment, and night life.
Proposed PTC Revisions
BUSINESS and ECONIMICS ELEMENT
B1. Encouraging Innovation and
Technology (NEW)
B2. Business Centers: Downtown and
California Avenue (NEW)
B3. Palo Alto as a Regional Shopping,
Services and Employment
Destination
• Stanford Shopping Center Stanford
Research Park
• East Bayshore, San Antonio and East
Meadow Circle Area
B4. Thriving Retail Districts
• Retail Districts:
• El Camino Real
• South of Forest Mixed Use Area
(SOFA)
• Town and Country Village
• Neighborhood‐Serving Retail Districts:
• Mid‐Town
• Charleston Shopping Center
• Edgewood Plaza
• Alma Village
B5. Doing Business in Palo Alto
• Business and the Community
B6. Visitors and Tourism (NEW)
Note: Staff believes that either organizational structure will work as a framework for a robust set of policies and programs.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 46
DETAIL SUMMARY‐ BUSINESS and ECONOMICS ELEMENT GOALS
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
This is a new goal encouraging entrepreneurship, in support of Palo Alto’s
image as a global center for innovation.
NEW
Encouraging Innovation and Technology
GOAL B1: Foster the next generation of
entrepreneurship in Palo Alto that builds on
the City’s legacy of innovation.
CITYWIDE: Compatibility
GOAL B‐1: A Thriving Business
Environment that is Compatible
with Palo Alto’s Residential
Character and Natural
Environment.
Consolidated and distributed policies and programs under existing Goal B1
and B2, to Goal B4 and B5: Thriving Retail Districts and Doing Business in Palo
Alto.
These two goals contain policies and programs on Palo Alto’s neighborhood
retail districts, and ways of doing business in Palo Alto. New policies on
improving the viability of the El Camino corridor following the guidelines of
Grand Boulevard initiative, retaining grocery store and neighborhood serving
retails at Alma Plaza is added in Goal 4. Goal 5 includes policies on
sustainable business practices, encouraging local sourcing of materials to
minimize carbon footprint.
Thriving Retail Districts
GOAL B4: Preserve and improve existing
retail districts, and enhance the vitality of
businesses that serve Palo Alto’s
neighborhoods, commercial districts and
visitors
Diversity
GOAL B‐2: A Diverse Mix of
Commercial, Retail, and
Professional Service Businesses.
Doing Business in Palo Alto
GOAL B5: Support businesses that serve our
residents, our visitors, and our workers, that
provide needed local services and local
revenues, and contribute to the economic
vitality.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 47
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
This is new goal highlights the two important business
centers of Palo Alto. New policies include making
these two centers as destination shopping center and
entertainment center. Policies on making these centers
attractive, pedestrian friendly with adequate parking
have been added.
NEW
Business Centers: Downtown and California
Avenue
GOAL B2: Maintain and enhance the
attractiveness of our two primary business
centers by supporting an attractive and
sustainable mix of commercial and office uses
with pedestrian‐oriented neighborhood shopping,
dining and entertainment experiences.
Growth
GOAL B‐3: New Businesses that Provide Needed
Local Services and Municipal Revenues,
Contribute to Economic Vitality, and Enhance the
City’s Physical Environment.
Consolidated existing Goals B3 and B4 to Goal B5:
Doing Business in Palo Alto.
Doing Business in Palo Alto
Flexibility
GOAL B‐4: City Regulations and Operating
Procedures that Provide Certainty and
Predictability and Help Businesses Adapt to
Changing Market Conditions.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 48
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Centers
GOAL B‐5: Attractive, Vibrant Business Centers,
Each with a Mix of Uses and a Distinctive
Character.
Moved existing Goal B5 to Goal B4: Thriving Retail
Districts.
Thriving Retail Districts
Employment Districts
GOAL B‐6: Thriving Employment Districts at
Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical
Center, East Bayshore/San Antonio Road Area
and Bayshore Corridor that Complement the
City’s Business and Neighborhood Centers.
Moved and renamed existing Goal B6 to Goal B3: Palo
Alto as a Regional Shopping, Services and Employment
Destination
This goal highlights Palo Alto as regional shopping
destination, employment destination. New policies are
added to encourage retail and neighborhood service
uses in East Meadow Circle, San Antonio and
Charleston areas.
Palo Alto as a Regional Shopping, Services and
Employment Destination
GOAL B3: Support Palo Alto’s research parks,
shopping centers and employment centers to
improve and enhance economic vitality of the
region.
This is a new goal focusing policies on increasing visitor
appeal, providing space for conference centers, art,
and entertainment centers.
NEW
Visitors and Tourism
GOAL B6: Enhance Palo Alto’s role as an
international attraction to visitors and guests for
its cultural, educational and civic appeal.
ATTACHMENT B
1
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update
Idea Analysis of Our Palo Alto Summit May.30th
Sep.15th
2015
Introduction
I. Background
On 30th of May 2015 about 300 Palo Altans gathered to ideate and deliberate in the
Palo Alto Summit about three issues facing their city: Transportation, housing and
growth management. The Summit was organized by the City of Palo Alto. The Summit
participants were divided to several small groups that discussed and brainstormed about
those three topics. After each brainstorming session, the group leaders sent three top
ideas from the group to the Summit organizers. Besides the Summit day, City Council
had posted questions asking the top three things that motivate citizens to drive less on
Nextdoor (a forum for community discussion) months before the Summit, and after the
Summit, on the Open City Hall of Palo Alto website, a virtual meeting is going on,
collecting citizens’ feedbacks on city’s major corridor and innovations to maintain the
treasured quality and livability of Palo Alto’s neighborhoods.
II. Methodology: Idea Categorization
We analyzed and categorized the ideas gathered in the Summit by using an open coding
method (Strauss and Corbin, 1998)1. We first analyzed a pilot patch of the ideas in each
main category: Housing and Growth Management, and we assigned initial subcategories
in each main category. Each text message contained several ideas, and therefore,
before categorizing, we separated the ideas for the analysis. For instance, the following
text message was sent from a group discussion on Housing:
“Small unit housing for both seniors and young people (need single floor units for seniors)..
"Diverse density"... multiple demographics living in same multi-unit housing complex.. Infill
development: allow granny units and 2nd kitchen to be built in R1.”
There are several ideas here: small unit targeted for senior and young; multi-unit
housing complex; and granny units. We separate this kind of group idea cluster into
separate ideas for analysis. For growth management, we also before categorizing,
separating group idea clusters into each idea as our unit of analysis. For instance, the
following text message was sent from a group discussion on Growth Management:
“Promote diversity while trying to better balance the housing to jobs issue..,Continue emergency
ordinance for retail, allowing for future situational requirements.”
There are several ideas here: Housing-Job balance, Retail preservation and Emergency
Ordinances. Thus, they were separated as different ideas for the analysis.
1 Strauss, A. L, and J. M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
ATTACHMENT C
2
We then analyzed all these ideas, and utilized multiple-round independent coding to find
the common main categories and subcategories for Housing and Growth Management
Issue. Some categories were merged and some new categories emerged. Finally, we
compared the coding categories between the main categories, and summarized the
finding. There were four researchers conducting the coding, and unclear ideas and
category allocations were discussed and resolved collaboratively, and in most cases,
clarity could be found. The ideas were submitted as short lists, typically without further
reasoning or background, and therefore, in some cases, the idea remained ambiguous,
and could have belonged to several categories. However, we assigned a primary
category for each idea.
III. Constraints of the data
It is important to note that the ideas are from a small group of Palo Altans, from about
300 Summit participants. That is not a statistically representative sample of the residents
in Palo Alto, and therefore, the ideas shouldn’t be treated as a “the voice of the Palo
Altans.” Furthermore, the Summit ideas were summarized from group discussions in the
Summit. Each group leader was asked to summarize the top three ideas to a text
message, which was then sent to the Summit organizer. Most likely, not all the ideas that
were presented and discussed ended up to the text messages, yet there most likely was
some degree of consensus about the top ideas.
In this report, we present the Housing and Growth Management issue results from
Summit ideas, starting from a summary of main trends in each issue,
Summary on Housing
I: Categorizing Ideas
This report analyzes housing ideas from group discussions in the Our Palo Alto
2030 Summit, May 30th in Palo Alto.
There are total of 44 housing idea clusters sent by the group leaders in the
Summit in the raw dataset. Each group idea actually contains several different ideas and
therefore, we first separate different ideas from the idea clusters to organize the dataset.
After the separation, we obtain 94 ideas about housing in Palo Alto. Some of the
ideas are replicates, and therefore, we also counted the unique number of ideas, which
is 77.
We found three common themes emerging from those ideas: Increase/Limit
Housing Density, Improve Housing Design, and Housing Support. “Increase/Limit
Housing Density” captures participants’ ideas on zoning and density. Participants raised
ideas on how to modify the current zoning in both suburban and urban part of Palo Alto.
They also proposed the appropriate density for Palo Altans. “Improve Housing Design”
captures participants’ ideas on enhancing the current design of buildings, particularly
with a focus on height design and mixed-use design. “Housing Support” captures
participants’ ideas on providing more housing for the senior and young generation
3
though making the price affordable and through more efficient design of the current
house.
The rationales for the three common themes are as below:
First, we found out from the raw dataset that participants offered three types of
suggestions regarding housing. The first type of suggestion tells whether participants
want to increase or decrease the housing space. For instance, participants said that they
want to increase the housing density and build new housing to infill the current zone; in
contrast, some of the participants also mentioned that they do not want to increase the
housing density and emphasize the importance of enough space for everybody.
Therefore, we see conflicting ideas: increase or decrease the housing space. To capture
this, we developed the first two main categories: Increase Housing and Limit Housing.
Rather than focusing on the amount of housing, the second type of suggestion in the
ideas focuses on improving the current building. The idea proposers mentioned using
design, location convenience, and surrounding amenities as ways to improve the current
building. Therefore we coded these ideas in the “Improve Housing” category.
The third type of suggestions, different from the previous two, this group of people
emphasizes more on the people living in the house. They raised suggestions on how to
support people who are in need. Therefore, we coded them as “Housing Support”.
It is important to note two things from the common theme seeking. First, for some
ideas in the dataset, for instance, “granny units for the young and senior”, this idea
implies two themes: both Housing density and Housing Support. Under this kind of
situation, we put this idea into one common theme (not to repeat it in the other theme).
Second, we tried our best effort to make the three themes as exclusive as possible to
capture the ideas. Increase/Limit Housing focuses on the density, which is a broader
housing space issue. Improve Housing focuses on the design issue. And Housing
support focuses on the “support” aspect. Nevertheless, due to the first aspect that some
ideas imply multiple-themes, it is crucial to combine proposals in different themes when
designing policies.
After we came up with the three main categories, the next step was to extract key
words from the ideas in each main category. These key words constitute the main
subcategory.
To achieve housing increase, participants raised methods mainly on zoning, density,
and design. They also mentioned specific locations to increase housing. Therefore, the
main subcategories under Increase Housing are: zoning, density, location, and design.In
contrast to the housing increase, participants also raised methods to Limit Housing
through zoning, density, location, and design, too, but in the opposite direction.
To achieve housing improvement, participants proposed ideas mainly about design
and environment that surrounds the housing. Some participants also mentioned using
incentives and citywide design programs to help facilitate the housing design.
4
To achieve housing support, participants raised what the targeted groups are in need
of support. Beyond mentioning the targeted groups, they also proposed ideas on how to
achieve housing support for them.
Table 1 lists the main subcategory under each main category.
Table 1
Main Category Main Subcategory
Increase Housing
Limit Housing
Zoning
Density
Location
Design
Preservation
Density
Location
Zoning
Improve Housing
Design
Environment
Surroundin
g facilities
Area plan
New
housing
type
Housing Support
Targeted
Group
Affordability
Diversity
City
program
Besides the main category and main subcategory, under each main sub
category, we further categorized different ideas.
Therefore, our categorization displays a layer of categories and ideas.
II: Analyzing Ideas
1. General Trends
Adjust zoning to encourage more development;
Increase densities to generate more housing;
- Main proposals: raise height, make unit smaller, and use space more efficiently.
Ensure a mix of uses and housing types;
Develop more affordable housing for the seniors and the young.
2. Details
2.1 Increase/Limit Housing
Table 2 and Table 3 below show the ideas mentioned in the Increase/Limit Housing
category. When participants mention the main subcategory, they also proposed
suggestions to achieve the main subcategory. For instance, in order to reach goals in
adjusting zoning, participants offered a rich package of methods for doing that. Thus, we
also captured these proposals in Table 2 (3), column 3.
Table 2
Main Category
Main subcategory
Proposed Ideas
Increase Housing
Zoning
Infill/Granny Units + Multi-Family Housing +
Secondary Units and Micro-Housing + Target Area:
R-1 + Multi-generational units
Density
Increase Height + Build Parking Garage to offset
density + Target Area: University Ave and California
Ave + Allow 80 foot limit + Support for Young
Employees, Affordability in the Core.
5
Location
Transit focused (transit-housing go hand by
hand)/transit convenience
Specific areas more housing: specific areas and
other potentially walkable areas, Downtown, El
Camino, Midtown Shopping Area, Charleston
Fabian, Stanford Research Park 2, Stanford
shopping center, Near San Antonio (mixed use)
Design
Multi-family developments, co-housing, multiple
types of housing in specific areas
Table 3
Main Category
Main subcategory
Proposed ideas
Limit Housing
Preserve Character
Preserve suburban and residential
neighborhood communities
Zoning
Keep residential zoning
Density
For any new development, make
sure the density is low with lots of
green space and amenities that
promote community; stop building
new offices
Location
Don't eliminate housing sites near
San Antonio, No housing NE of
101 and SW of Foothill Expy.
2.2 Improve Housing
Participants offered many interesting methods under each sub main category of the
Improve Housing. Table 4 captures these ideas. Methods on improving the design of the
current housing are a focused topic.
Table 4
Main category
Main subcategory
Proposed Ideas
Improve
Housing
Design
Height Design: modify the current height
restriction policy considering whether to
increase/decrease height, and also considering
different housing types, such as mixed-use
properties;
Mixed Use: combine retail/office/housing,
industrial/research/office parks; build downtown
eco-center;
Aesthetic: improve setback/parks/open spaces
Size: design smaller units, 10% increase in sq ft
for granny unit.
Environment
Consider the usage of solar panels; improve
landscaping and greenery in multiunit housing;
6
Increase the environmental sustainability via
“net zero trip2”
Surrounding Facilities
Make the lot size smaller, decrease parking
space requirement, legalize the usage of
garages
Area plan3
SOFA
New Type Housing
Build Intentional communities, cottages
2.3 Housing Support
When participants offered ideas on providing housing support, they not only
mentioned the groups of people that should be targeted for help, but also raised
methods such as us affordability, design, location convenience, and law/plan to help
realize the needs for those people. We captured these proposals in table 5 below.
Table 5
Main category
Main subcategory
Proposed Ideas
Housing Support
Targeted groups
People: Senior, young, teacher, police,
maintenance workers, low income, nurses;
Design: Multi-family housing, single floor units,
walkable mixed use development, smaller
units for new housing, higher density, housing
quality should improve;
Location convenience;
Zoning: increase flexibility in building code
and zoning for senior housing.
Affordability
Rent control;
Subsidize housing (follow NY/Amsterdam
System, combine rental and owner);
(Smaller) affordable housing
City program
City programs for housing dedicated to people
working in Palo Alto in certain professions
(teachers, nurses, maintenance workers, etc)
Diversity
Multiple-demographic living together;
Allow more people of all ages, all incomes and
all professions, to live together;
Grandparents share house with next
generation
Outlier Ideas:)
The following ideas raised in the Summit in the housing dataset are not clearly
belonging to any of the category. However, we found it interesting to list:
Making SRP a complete community.
2
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/07/09/palo-alto-considers-a-net-zero-growth-vision
3
SOFA:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/area/sofa.asp
7
Pushback on Sacramento's growth mandates due to drought and limited resources
Let's do housing insourcing!
Support Grand Boulevard idea with better traffic flow.
Summary on Growth Management
I. Categorizing Ideas
This section analyzes growth management ideas from group discussions in the
Our Palo Alto 2030 Summit, May 30th in Palo Alto.
There are total of 46 growth management idea clusters sent by the group leaders
in the Summit in the raw dataset. Each group idea actually contains several different
ideas and therefore, we first separate different ideas from the idea clusters to organize
the dataset. Altogether 69 ideas were identified from 46 group idea clusters on growth
management from the Our Palo Alto 2030 Summit on May 30th.We found out that three
common themes emerged from those ideas from participants (Table 1).
“Housing-Job Balance” captures participants’ ideas on tightening the gap
between the number of employed residents and jobs, that is, the ratio of employed
residents to jobs. Participants’ ideas in this main category respond to the question in put
forward in the Palo Alto growth management video4. Currently, job growth is outpacing
housing growth and based on current trends, jobs growth will continue to outpace
housing growth in the next fifteen years meaning that Palo Alto will continue to have a “3
jobs : 1 employed resident” ratio. To cope with this challenge, participants raised
suggestions on increasing mixed-use buildings and heights of buildings. Some
participants proposed to limit the office growth.
“Growth Strategy Choice” captures participants’ ideas discussing the efficiency of
three different approaches to managing the growth in Palo Alto: the cap approach, the
meter approach and the offset approach. Participants’ ideas in this main category
respond to the question on growth tools in the Palo Alto growth management video5. The
offset approach refers to a growth strategy that allowing future growth only if it can offset
its negative impacts. The cap approach consists in a multi year cumulative cap limit on
non-residential square footage6. The meter approach means to manage growth by
having an annual limit on office development7. We capture the details of suggestions on
these approaches in the analysis section. Overall, participants not only expressed their
preferences on which approach they think more suitable for Palo Alto in the next 15
years, but also proposed a strategy to combine different approaches.
4
http://www.peakdemocracy.com/portals/5/Forum_94/Issue_2779
5ibid.
6
Source:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/45530
7
Source:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/45530
8
Retail Preservation captures participants’ ideas on short or long term solution to
preserve retail stores from being converted into office spaces. In this main category,
participants proposed to make the emergency ordinances permanent citywide (the city
council has already been working this). Meanwhile, other participants called for more
affordable retail spaces.
Table 1. Categorizing Growth Management
Main Category
Subcategory
Housing-job balance
Housing design
Reducing office growth
Affordable housing
Increase Density
Restricting retail to a certain size
Growth Strategy Choice
Offset approach
Metering growth approach
Metering growth combined with offset
approach
Cap on growth approach
Retail preservation
Ground floor retails
Permanent ordinance
Retail zoning laws
Retail Incentives
Conditional use permits
Local retail support
Encourage maintenance of retails
Selective retail protection
II. Analyzing Ideas
1. Key trends
Taller and Mixed buildings, Fewer offices, More Space for housing and retail.
Across the four categories, we saw the following five key trends emerge:
i) Quantitative models to forecast impact of growth
ii) Mixed-use buildings
iii) Reduce office growth
iv) Ground-floor retail
v) Permanent ordinances
2. Summary about each main category
A) Housing-job balance
9
Ideas in Housing-Job Balance category were further divided to five
subcategories: housing design, reducing office growth, density, affordable housing and
restricting retail to a certain size. The subcategories capture participants’ suggestions on
how to achieve housing-job balance.
Table 2. Housing-Job Balance.
Main Category
Subcategory I
Subcategory II
Housing-job balance
Housing design
Mixed-use buildings
→ (bottom retail, middle office, top
residential housing)
Micro-housing
Increasing building height limits
Houses above parking lots
Supporting micro housing and increasing building
height limits
Maximizing ground floor use
More granny units
Reducing office growth
Minimizing office amount
Rezoning office space to housing
Surtaxing office space owners
Affordable housing
Citywide central funds for affordable housing
More affordable housing for teachers, police, fire,
service employees calculated according to
respective salaries of each group.
More affordable housing for city employees
Density
Zoning changes to encourage more density
Less density: sized livable neighborhoods
10
Restricting retail to a
certain size
Housing design
Suggestions on the housing design aspect capture participants’ ideas on how we could
design more efficient buildings to accommodate more employees and thus, more
employees can find places to live.
This category has seven subcategories summarizing seven kinds of key suggestions
from participants: mixed-use buildings, micro housing, increasing building height limits,
houses above parking lots, supporting micro housing and increasing building height
limits, maximizing ground floor use, more granny units.
Reduce office growth
This category concerns incentives that would reduce the rate of growth of office spaces
as opposed to housing growth. For instance, participants proposed to surtax office space
owners, rezone office space to housing and to minimize office numbers.
Affordable housing
This category captures participants’ ideas that raised to make housing more affordable
especially for city employees. For instance, In this category, participants proposed
Citywide central funds for affordable housing, more affordable housing for teachers,
police, fire, service employees calculated according to respective salaries of each group
and also more affordable housing for city employees.
Adjust Density
Opinions differ about whether or not, the city should increase density to provide more
housings: While some participants suggested to decrease density in order to have more
sized livable neighborhoods, other participants proposed to change zoning in order to
encourage more density.
Restricting retail to a certain size
In this category, participants proposed to restrict retail stores to a certain size in order to
increase their number.
B) Growth Strategy Choice
Ideas in Growth Strategy Choice category were further divided to four
subcategories: the offset approach, the metering growth approach, the cap on growth
approach, and combining the metering growth approach and the offset approach.
The offset approach
In this subcategory, participants proposed a large array of ideas: making any new
development offset its impact by using quantitative models, favoring enforceable offsets
to growth as the only balanced approach, offsets for growth like no new trips, net energy
& water use, better define and enforce agreed mitigations, tie increased intensity of use
11
of a site to requirements for mitigation, real, full-cost mitigation fees effectively linked to
programs that address the impacts, and tie growth of commercial space with comparable
growth in retail/housing space, calculate and charge full impact fees on all new
development.
The metering growth approach
In this subcategory, participants suggested to use a quantitative model to forecast
impact of growth, tie commercial space bonuses in new buildings to residential units
rather than residential square footage, and meter office growth to housing growth.
The metering growth approach combined with the offset approach
This subcategory contains three main suggestions: metering and offset growth focused
on traffic congestion, annual growth limits—adjusted based on mitigating impact and
metering with built in offsets.
The cap on growth approach
In this category, participants proposed: ultimate cap based on a water maximum
availability and other finite resources, office development must have a hard cap and cap
on commercial office space growth to .25% a year.
Table 3: Ideas on Growth Strategy Choice
Main Category
Subcategory I
Subcategory II
Growth
Strategy Choice
The offset approach
Making any new development offset its impact by using quantitative
models;
Favor enforceable offsets to growth as the only balanced approach;
Offsets for growth like no new trips, net energy & water use;
Better define and enforce agreed mitigations;
Tie increased intensity of use of a site to requirements for mitigation,
real, full-cost mitigation fees effectively linked to programs that address
the impacts;
Tie growth of commercial space with comparable growth in retail/housing
space;
Calculate and charge full impact fees on all new development
The metering growth
approach
Using quantitative models to forecast impact of growth;
Tie commercial space bonuses in new buildings to residential units
rather than residential square footages;
Metering overall growth to 0.25%/year;
Metering office growth to housing growth
The metering growth
approach combined
to the offset
approach
Metering and offset growth focused on traffic congestion;
Annual growth limits—adjusted based on mitigating impact;
Metering with built in offsets
The cap on growth Ultimate cap based on a water maximum availability and other finite
12
approach
resources;
Office development must have a hard cap;
Cap on commercial office space growth to .25% a year
C) Retail preservation
Ideas in retail preservation category were further divided into eight
subcategories: ground floor retail, permanent ordinance, retail zoning laws, retail
Incentives, conditional use permits, local retail support, encouraging maintenance of
retail, selective retail protection.
Ground floor retail
Force building owners to use ground floors as a retail spaces.
Permanent ordinance
Making the emergency ordinance permanent and citywide.
Retail zoning laws
Protecting and zoning for "local serving"/small businesses.
Retail Incentives
Subsidizing retail
Conditional use permits
Require conditional use permits to encourage rational growth of diverse retail.
Selective retail protection
Some retail should be protected, but where and how should be carefully analyzed
Table 4. Ideas on Retail Preservation
Main Category
Subcategory I
Retail preservation
Ground floor retails
Permanent ordinance
Retail zoning laws
Retail Incentives
Conditional use permits
Local retail support
Encouraging maintenance of retails
Selective retail protection
III: Outlier Ideas
Preserve and encourage class diversity
Develop a systems map showing interrelationships --growth, traffic, sustainability,
quality.
Parks/open space have not kept pace with building
Street friendly design.
Satellite parking with shuttles.
13
Welcome your comments!
If there is any knowledge and skill we could contribute with to your deliberation and
evaluation, don’t hesitate to contact us:
Dr. Tanja Aitamurto: tanjaa@stanford.edu
Kaiping Chen: kpchen23@stanford.edu
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6162)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/5/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Parking Exemptions Ordinance
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Making Permanent the
Interim Measures to Eliminate Certain Parking Exemptions Within Downtown
by Amending Chapters 18.18, Downtown Commercial (CD) District and 18.52,
Parking and Loading Requirements; The Planning and Transportation
Commission Recommended Adoption
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that Council adopt an
Ordinance (Attachment A) to amend PAMC Chapters 18.18, Downtown Commercial (CD)
District, and 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), to permanently eliminate certain
parking exemptions within the downtown area previously adopted by Council via Interim
Ordinance No. 5214 that will otherwise “sunset” on November 4, 2015.
Executive Summary
On November 4, 2013, the Council adopted a series of code modifications via Interim Ordinance
No. 5214 that will expire or “sunset” on November 4, 2015. The proposed Ordinance
(Attachment A) would make these changes permanent, eliminating three parking exemptions
related to bonus floor area in the Downtown as well as an esoteric parking exemption for once-
vacant buildings. The changes in this ordinance are consistent with the previous Council
direction and action.
Given the continuing parking shortage Downtown and Council’s direction to address it through a
variety of strategies, staff recommends the permanent elimination of these parking exemptions.
The Planning and Transportation Commission also reviewed these changes to the zoning
regulations, and recommended that Council adopt the ordinance.
Background
On March 18, 2013, the Council gave direction on several items related to parking policy. This
included directing staff to review and provide recommendations on Municipal Code parking
City of Palo Alto Page 2
exemptions and the City’s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program.
On October 21, 2013, the City Council held a public hearing to consider two ordinances relating
to parking exemptions. The first ordinance made permanent the elimination of a parking
exemption for one level of existing FAR, known as the 1:1 parking exemption. The second
ordinance was a two year interim ordinance eliminating a variety of other Parking Exemptions
available in the Downtown only (Attachment B). The most substantive of these parking reforms
deleted Section 18.18.090(b) which previously had exempted from parking requirement the
bonus floor area derived from seismic or historic rehabilitation. Council also asked staff to
return with replacement incentives (other than parking) for historic and seismic bonus.
On August 12, 2015, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) conducted a noticed
public hearing on whether to implement these parking reforms on a permanent basis. There
was no public opposition to the permanent ordinance, and the PTC recommended that Council
adopt the ordinance.
Discussion
The proposed ordinance makes permanent the interim changes that focused on several parking
exemptions that only affect downtown properties zoned Commercial Downtown (CD), whether
inside or outside the assessment district.1 Below is a summary of the proposed code changes
necessary to permanently eliminate the parking exemptions subject of the interim ordinance as
well as a description of some additional clarifying amendments staff is recommending.
1. Elimination of 200 Square Foot Bonus: Modify Section 18.18.070(a)(1), and delete
Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(C) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(D) to eliminate the parking
exemption for the 200 square foot Minor Floor Area Bonus for buildings not eligible
for Historic or Seismic Bonus.
2. Elimination of Parking Exemption for On Site Use of Historic and Seismic Bonus: Eliminate
the parking exemption for on-site use of Historic and Seismic Bonus Floor Area by
deleting Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(B) (Historic and Seismic), 18.52.070(a)(1)(B)
(Seismic) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i) (Historic).
3. Elimination of Parking Exemption for Off Site Use of Historic and Seismic Bonus Amend
Section 18.18.080(g) and (h), respectively, to:
a. Remove the off-site parking exemption for floor area bonuses derived
through historic and seismic upgrades via the transfer of development rights
1 Within the SOFA 2 Plan Area are four sites within the Downtown Assessment District. The sites are located north
of Forest Avenue, between Alma and Emerson Streets. The SOFA 2 Plan allows for parking reductions and
exemptions. Residential Transition (RT) zoned sites in the SOFA 2 area are allowed to participate in the City’s TDR
program by transferring bonus floor area achieved via historic and seismic rehabilitations to CD zoned receiver
sites. Bonuses can also be used within the SOFA 2 area with parking exemptions. This ordinance does not make
any modifications to the SOFA 2 regulations and policies.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
(TDR) program (where up to 5,000 square feet (SF) of floor area for each type
of upgrade is allowed for receiver sites in the CD or downtown PC zoning
districts), and
b. Correct the Architectural Review chapter number referenced in the interim
ordinance to Chapter 18.76.
4. Elimination of Vacant Property Exemption: Amend Section 18.52.070(a)(3) to disallow
the parking exemption for floor area developed or used previously for non-
residential purposes and vacant at the time of the engineer’s report during the
parking district assessment.
5. Additional Clarifying Language: Amend Section 18.18.070(a) (2), (3) and (4) to add
language clarifying that the bonus floor area is not exempt from parking
requirements, and citing the code-allowed options to meet parking requirements.
PTC Review
On August 12, 2015, the PTC reviewed the draft ordinance. The Commission clarified that the
interim ordinance did not appear to have any significant impact on pending development and
that in lieu parking fees would be available to satisfy parking requirements associated with Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) bonuses. The Commission unanimously voted (4-0-3) to recommend approval
to the Council. The excerpt minutes are attached to this report (Attachment C).
Policy Implications
The Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan contains a primary goal
regarding parking to provide attractive, convenient public and private parking facilities. To
implement this goal, Policy T-45 states: “Provide sufficient parking in the University
Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business district to address long-range needs.” The
proposed changes to the zoning regulations to eliminate some of the exemptions to the existing
parking requirements will improve parking availability in these areas and would be consistent
with the goals and policies of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (Refer to
Attachment E, Transportation Element Goals and Policies regarding Parking).
The Land Use and Natural and Urban Environment Elements contain the following policies and
programs which encourage the use of incentives to preserve historic buildings and encourage
seismic retrofits.
Land Use Element:
Policy L-56: To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown, promote the
preservation of significant historic buildings.
Program L-59: Allow parking exceptions for historic buildings to encourage rehabilitation.
Require design review findings that the historic integrity of the building exterior will be
maintained.
Program L-60: Continue to use a TDR Ordinance to allow the transfer of development rights
from designated buildings of historic significance in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone to
City of Palo Alto Page 4
non-historic receiver sites in the CD zone. Planned Community (PC) zone properties in the
Downtown also qualify for this program.
Program L-66: Revise existing zoning and permit regulations as needed to minimize constraints
to adaptive reuse, particularly in retail areas.
Natural And Urban Environment Element:
Program N-70: Continue to provide incentives for seismic retrofits of structures in the
University Avenue/Downtown area.
Staff believes the proposed permanent changes remain consistent with the policies above, as
historic rehabilitation incentives would still be provided through the provision of additional floor
area associated with the TDR program. Furthermore, the proposed ordinance would still allow
historic buildings to be renovated and restored to retain their “grandfathered” status.
Resource Impact
This ordinance can be implemented within the currently approved work program of the
Planning and Community Environment Department.
Timeline
In order for these provisions to stay in effect, the permanent ordinance will need to be adopted
by the City Council 31 days prior to the expiration (November 4, 2015). City Council action on
an Ordinance requires two actions, an introduction of the ordinance and a second reading.
Environmental Review
The proposed Ordinance eliminates certain exemptions to the parking regulations within the
Downtown, which will result in projects that will comply with the remaining parking regulations
established in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Further, each individual project submitted under
the revised regulations will be subject to its own environmental review. Consequently, this
ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this
Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that these
proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Parking Exemptions Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B: Council Reports and Minutes of Oct 21, 2013 and Nov 4, 2013 (PDF)
Attachment C: Excerpt Verbatim Minutes of P&TC August 12, 2015 (PDF)
NOT YET APPROVED
150715 jb 0131463 1 Revised 9-17-15
Ordinance No. _______
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapters
18.18, Downtown Commercial (CD) District and 18.52, Parking and
Loading Requirements, to Eliminate Certain Parking Exemptions within
the Downtown Area
The Council of the City of Palo ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
declares as follows:
A. Parking demand in downtown Palo Alto has increased since the end of the
recession, with parking occupancies in the Downtown neighborhoods increasing to over 100
percent during peak noontime hours.
B. In the same period, there have been increasing spill-over impacts on nearby
residential streets as employees and customers seek parking outside of the commercial
core, causing the City to pursue the first ever residential preferential parking program in
downtown.
C. Development of new office space has continued to occur, and existing office
space is fully occupied, evidenced by the low 2.83 vacancy rate at the end of 2014, as
reported by Newmark Cornish & Carey.
D. No new public parking structures have been added to the City’s inventory since
2003.
E. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has resulted in
complaints from both merchants and other businesses about the lack of parking for their
employees. At the same time, the lack of available daytime downtown parking for
employees has also resulted in complaints from residents in the downtown and adjacent
areas about congested parking in their neighborhoods.
F. The lack of available daytime downtown parking results in traffic seeking
available parking spaces to circulate for longer periods of time, resulting in related impacts
on air quality from increased emissions.
G. The Downtown Parking Code was adopted at a time when the downtown was
underdeveloped and incentives for redevelopment were needed. One of the primary
incentives incorporated into the Code was a series of parking exemptions. These parking
exemptions contributed to encouraging both the rehabilitation of historic and seismically
unsafe buildings and redevelopment in the Downtown core in general. The City is now at a
point where most of the historic and seismically unsafe buildings have been renovated and
the downtown has transformed into an economically thriving area.
ATTACHMENT A
NOT YET APPROVED
150715 jb 0131463 2 Revised 9-17-15
H. Recognizing these facts, on November 4, 2013, the City Council adopted an
interim ordinance eliminating a number of these parking exemptions on an interim basis.
These included the parking exemption related to the 200 square foot Minor Floor Area
Bonus for buildings not eligible for Historic Bonus; the Transfer of Development Rights
provision that allows a 5,000 square foot floor area exemption from on-site parking
requirements and for floor area transferred to a receiver site within the CD zone district;
and the parking exemption for floor area developed or used previously for non-residential
purposes and vacant at the time of the engineer’s report during the parking district
assessment.
I. Unless a new ordinance is adopted to permanently establish these provisions,
these zoning code amendments shall “sunset” on November 4, 2015.
J. The Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance Chapters 18.18 (Downtown Commercial District)
and 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) provide for a variety of exemptions and
reductions to parking requirements within the downtown area that result in less parking
being provided than the calculated demand for parking in new projects.
K. The Transfer of Development Rights provisions for Historic and Seismic Upgrades
to Structures and the minor floor area bonuses were enacted to encourage restoration of
historic buildings and to make existing structures seismically safe and the program has been
successful. However continued application of the parking exemptions granted by these
provisions will exacerbate Downtown parking deficiencies.
SECTION 2. Subsection 18.18.070(a) (Floor Area Bonuses) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
(a) Available Floor Area Bonuses
(1) Minor Bonus for Buildings Not Eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus
A building that is neither in Historic Category 1 or 2 nor in Seismic Category I, II, or III
shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 200 square feet without having this increase
count toward the FAR, subject to the restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in floor
area shall not be permitted for buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict
or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts. This bonus is not subject to transfer and
must be fully parked. In addition to any applicable parking provisions, this bonus may be
parked by the payment of in lieu parking fees under Section 18.18.090.
(2) Seismic Rehabilitation Bonus
A building that is in Seismic Category I, II, or III, and is undergoing seismic
rehabilitation, but is not in Historic Category 1 or 2, shall be allowed to increase its floor
area by 2,500 square feet or 25% of the existing building, whichever is greater, without
having this increase count toward the FAR, subject to the restrictions in subsection (b). Such
NOT YET APPROVED
150715 jb 0131463 3 Revised 9-17-15
increase in floor area shall not be permitted for buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the
CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts. This bonus area must be
fully parked. In addition to any applicable parking provisions, this bonus may be parked by
the payment of in lieu parking fees under Section 18.18.090.
(3) Historic Rehabilitation Bonus
A building that is in Historic Category 1 or 2, and is undergoing historic rehabilitation,
but is not in Seismic Category I, II, or III, shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 2,500
square feet or 25% of the existing building, whichever is greater, without having this
increase count toward the FAR, subject to the restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in
floor area shall not be permitted for buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C
subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts, except as provided in
subsection (5). This bonus area must be fully parked. In addition to any applicable parking
provisions, this bonus may be parked by the payment of in lieu parking fees under Section
18.18.090.
(4) Combined Historic and Seismic Rehabilitation Bonus
A building that is in Historic Category 1 or 2, and is undergoing historic rehabilitation,
and is also in Seismic Category I, II, or III, and is undergoing seismic rehabilitation, shall be
allowed to increase its floor area by 5,000 square feet or 50% of the existing building,
whichever is greater, without having this increase count toward the FAR, subject to the
restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall not be permitted for buildings
that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-N or CD-S
subdistricts, except as provided in subsection (5). This bonus area must be fully parked. In
addition to any applicable parking provisions, this bonus may be parked by the payment of
in lieu parking fees under Section 18.18.090.
(5) Historic Bonus for Over-Sized buildings
A building in Historic Category 1 or 2 that is undergoing historic rehabilitation and
that currently exceeds a FAR of 3.0:1 if located in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0:1 if located in
the CD-S or CD-N subdistricts shall nevertheless be allowed to obtain a floor area bonus of
50% of the maximum allowable floor area for the site of the building, based upon a FAR of
3.0:1 if in the CD-C subdistrict and a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts, subject
to the restrictions in subsection (b) and the following limitation:
(A) The floor area bonus shall not be used on the site of the Historic Category 1 or 2
building, but instead may be transferred to another property or properties under the
provisions of Section 18.18.080.
SECTION 3. Section 18.18.080 (Transfer of Development Rights) of Title 18 (Zoning)
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
18.18.080 Transfer of Development Rights
NOT YET APPROVED
150715 jb 0131463 4 Revised 9-17-15
(a) Purpose
The purpose of this section is to implement the Comprehensive Plan by encouraging
seismic rehabilitation of buildings in Seismic Categories I, II, and III, and encouraging historic
rehabilitation of buildings or sites in Historic Category 1 and 2, and by establishing
standards and procedures for the transfer of specified development rights from such sites
to other eligible sites. Except as provided in subsection (e)(1) and for city-owned properties
as provided in Chapter 18.28, this section is applicable only to properties located in the CD
district, and is the exclusive procedure for transfer of development rights for properties so
zoned.
(b) Establishment of Forms
The city may from time to time establish application forms, submittal requirements,
fees and such other requirements and guidelines as will aid in the efficient implementation
of this chapter.
(c) Eligibility for Transfer of Development Rights
Transferable development rights may be transferred to an eligible receiver site
upon:
(1) certification by the city pursuant to Section 18.18.070 of the floor area from the
sender site which is eligible for transfer, and
(2) compliance with the transfer procedures set forth in subsection (h).
(d) Availability of Receiver Sites
The city does not guarantee that at all times in the future there will be sufficient
eligible receiver sites to receive such transferable development rights.
(e) Eligible Receiver Sites
A site is eligible to be a receiver site only if it meets all of the following criteria:
(1) It is located in the CD commercial downtown district, or is located in a planned
community (PC) district if the property was formerly located in the CD commercial
downtown district and the ordinance rezoning the property to planned community (PC)
approves the use of transferable development rights on the site.
(2) It is neither an historic site, nor a site containing a historic structure, as those
terms are defined in Section 16.49.020(e) of Chapter 16.49 of this code; and
(3) The site is either:
NOT YET APPROVED
150715 jb 0131463 5 Revised 9-17-15
(A) located at least 150 feet from any property zoned for residential use, not
including property in planned community zones or in commercial zones within the
downtown boundaries where mixed use projects are.
(B) separated from residentially zoned property by a city street with a width of
at least 50 feet, and separated from residentially zoned property by an intervening property
zoned CD-C, CD-S, or CD-N, which intervening property has a width of not less than 50 feet.
(f) Limitations On Usage of Transferable Development Rights
No otherwise eligible receiver site shall be allowed to utilize transferable
development rights under this chapter to the extent such transfer would:
(1) Be outside the boundaries of the downtown parking assessment district, result in
a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5 to 1 above what exists or would otherwise be permitted
for that site under Section 18.18.060, whichever is greater, or result in total additional floor
area of more than 10,000 square feet.
(2) Be within the boundaries of the downtown parking assessment district, result in
a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1 above what exists, or would otherwise be permitted
for that site under Section 18.18.060, whichever is greater, or result in total additional floor
area of more than 10,000 square feet.
(3) Cause the development limitation or project size limitation set forth in
Section 18.18.040 to be exceeded.
(4) Cause the site to exceed 3.0 to 1 FAR in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0 to 1 FAR in
the CD-S or CD-N subdistricts.
(g) Parking Requirements
The first 5,000 square feet of floor area transferred to a receiver site, whether
located in the CD District or in the PC District, shall be exempt from the otherwise
applicable on-site parking requirements. Any additional square footage allowed to be
transferred to a receiver site pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the parking
regulations applicable to the district in which the receiver site is located.
(h) Transfer Procedure
Transferable development rights may be transferred from a sender site (or sites) to a
receiver site only in accordance with all of the following requirements:
(1) An application pursuant to Chapter 18.76 16.48 of this code for major ARB
review of the project proposed for the receiver site must be filed. The application shall
include:
NOT YET APPROVED
150715 jb 0131463 6 Revised 9-17-15
(A) A statement that the applicant intends to use transferable development
rights for the project;
(B) Identification of the sender site(s) and the amount of TDRs proposed to
be transferred; and
(C) Evidence that the applicant owns the transferable development rights or
a signed statement from any other owner(s) of the TDRs that the specified amount of
floor area is available for the proposed project and will be assigned for its use.
(2) The application shall not be deemed complete unless and until the city
determines that the TDRs proposed to be used for the project are available for that
purpose.
(3) In reviewing a project proposed for a receiver site pursuant to this section, the
architectural review board shall review the project in accordance with Section
18.76.02016.48.120 of this code; however, the project may not be required to be modified
for the sole purpose of reducing square footage unless necessary in order to satisfy the
criteria for approval under Chapter 18.76 16.48 or any specific requirement of the municipal
code.
(4) Following ARB approval of the project on the receiver site, and prior to issuance
of building permits, the director of planning and community environment or the director's
designee shall issue written confirmation of the transfer, which identifies both the sender
and receiver sites and the amount of TDRs which have been transferred. This confirmation
shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder prior to the issuance of building
permits and shall include the written consent or assignment by the owner(s) of the TDRs
where such owner(s) are other than the applicant.
(i) Purchase or Conveyance of TDRs - Documentation
(1) Transferable development rights may be sold or otherwise conveyed by their
owner(s) to another party. However, no such sale or conveyance shall be effective unless
evidenced by a recorded document, signed by the transferor and transferee and in a form
designed to run with the land and satisfactory to the city attorney. The document shall
clearly identify the sender site and the amount of floor area transferred and shall also be
filed with the department of planning and community environment.
(2) Where transfer of TDRs is made directly to a receiver site, the recorded
confirmation of transfer described in subsection (h)(4) shall satisfy the requirements of this
section.
SECTION 4. Subsection 18.18.090(b) (Exceptions to On-Site Parking Requirement) of
Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
NOT YET APPROVED
150715 jb 0131463 7 Revised 9-17-15
(b) Exceptions to On-Site Parking Requirement
The requirement for on-site parking provided in subsection (a) of this section shall
not apply in the following circumstances:
(1) The following square footage shall be exempt from the on-site parking
requirement of subsection (a):
(A) Square footage for handicapped access which does not increase the
usable floor area, as determined by Section 18.18.060(e);
(B) An increase in square footage in conjunction with seismic or historic
rehabilitation, pursuant to Section 18.18.070;
(C) An increase in square footage for buildings not in Seismic category I, II, or
III or Historic category 1 or 2 pursuant to Section 18.18.070(a)(1);
(DB) Square footage for at or above grade parking, though such square
footage is included in the FAR calculations in Section 18.18.060(a).
(2) A conversion to commercial use of a historic building in Categories 1 and 2 shall
be exempt from the on-site parking requirement in subsection (a), provided that the
building is fifty feet or less in height and has most recently been in residential use. Such
conversion, in order to be exempt, shall be done in conjunction with exterior historic
rehabilitation approved by the director of planning and community environment upon the
recommendation of the architectural review board in consultation with the historic
resources board. Such conversion must not eliminate any existing on-site parking.
(3) Vacant parcels shall be exempt from the requirements of subsection (a) of this
section at the time when development occurs as provided herein. Such development shall
be exempt to the extent of parking spaces for every one thousand square feet of site area,
provided that such parcels were at some time assessed for parking under a Bond Plan E
financing pursuant to Chapter 13.16 or were subject to other ad valorem assessments for
parking.
(4) No new parking spaces will be required for a site in conjunction with the
development or replacement of the amount of floor area used for nonresidential use equal
to the amount of adjusted square footage for the site shown on the engineer's report for
fiscal year 1986-87 for the latest Bond Plan G financing for parking acquisition or
improvements in that certain area of the city delineated on the map of the University
Avenue parking assessment district entitled, "Proposed Boundaries of University Avenue
Off-Street Parking Project #75-63 Assessment District, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa
Clara, State of California," dated October 30, 1978, and on file with the city clerk. However,
NOT YET APPROVED
150715 jb 0131463 8 Revised 9-17-15
square footage which was developed for nonresidential purposes or which has been used
for nonresidential purposes but which is not used for such purposes due to vacancy at the
time of the engineer's report shall be included in the amount of floor area qualifying for this
exemption. No exemption from parking requirements shall be available where a residential
use changes to a nonresidential use, except pursuant to subsection (2).
SECTION 5. Subsection 18.52.070(a) (Parking Regulations for CD Assessment District,
On Site Parking) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as
follows:
(a) On Site Parking
Any new development, any addition or enlargement of existing development, or any use of
any floor area that has never been assessed under any Bond Plan G financing pursuant to
Title 13, shall provide one parking space for each two hundred fifty gross square feet of
floor area, with the following exceptions:
(1) Square footage for:
(A) Handicapped access which does not increase the usable floor area,
pursuant to Section 18.18.070(CD District Floor Area Bonuses).
(B) An increase in square footage granted for seismic rehabilitation, pursuant
to Section 18.18.070 (CD District Floor Area Bonuses).
(CB) Category I or II Historic Structures may take advantage of the following
exceptions during the life of the historic building:
(i) An increase in square footage pursuant to CD FAR Exceptions for Historic
Structures as contained in Section 18.49.060(b)(3), and
(ii) A conversion to commercial use that is 50 feet or less in height and that
has most recently been in residential use, if such conversion is done in conjunction with
exterior historic rehabilitation approved by the director upon recommendation by the
Architectural Review Board and in consultation with the Historic Resource Board. Such
conversion must not eliminate any existing on-site parking.
(D) A minor increase of two hundred square feet or less, pursuant to CD
district FAR Exceptions for Historic Structures as contained in Section 18.49.060(b)(4).
(EC) At or above grade parking, though included in the site FAR calculations
(pursuant to CD district FAR Exceptions for non-historical/non-seismic buildings in Section
18.49.060(a)) shall not be included in the on-site parking regulations of this section.
NOT YET APPROVED
150715 jb 0131463 9 Revised 9-17-15
(2) Vacant parcels subject to redevelopment shall be exempt at the time when
development occurs from the on-site parking requirements of one parking space for each
two hundred fifty gross square feet of floor area to the extent of 0.3 parking spaces for
every one thousand square feet of site area, provided that such parcels were at some time
assessed for parking under a Bond Plan E financing pursuant to Chapter 13.16 or were
subject to other ad valorem assessments for parking.
(3) No new parking spaces will be required for a site in conjunction with the
development or replacement of the amount of floor area used for nonresidential use equal
to the amount of adjusted square footage for the site shown on the engineer's report for
fiscal year 1986-87 for the latest Bond Plan G financing for parking acquisition or
improvements in that certain area of the city delineated on the map of the University
Avenue parking assessment district, entitled Proposed Boundaries of University Avenue Off-
Street Parking Project #75-63 Assessment District, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara,
State of California, dated October 30, 1978, and on file with the city clerk. However,
square footage which was developed for nonresidential purposes or which has been used
for nonresidential purposes but which is not used for such purposes due to vacancy at the
time of the engineer’s report shall be included in the amount of floor area qualifying for this
exemption. No exemption parking requirements shall be available where a residential use
changes to a nonresidential use, except pursuant to subdivision (1)(C) of this subsection.
SECTION 6. CEQA. The proposed Ordinance eliminates certain exemptions to the
parking regulations within the Downtown area of the City of Palo Alto, which will result in
projects that will comply with the remaining parking regulations established in the Palo Alto
Municipal Code. Further, each individual project submitted under the revised regulations
will be subject to its own environmental review. Consequently, this ordinance is exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this
Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this
proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities.
SECTION 7. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance
are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 8. Applicability to Pipeline Projects. This ordinance shall not apply to any
projects which have received all final planning entitlement approval as of the ordinance’s
effective date. Any bonus square footage certified and recorded under Sections 18.18.070
prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall continue to be exempt from parking to the
extent previously allowed under Sections 18.18.080 and 18.52.070. Staff is authorized to
NOT YET APPROVED
150715 jb 0131463 10 Revised 9-17-15
establish administrative regulations to administer the inventory and transfer of this bonus
square footage.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date
after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning & Community
Environment
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4139)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/21/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Parking Exemptions Code Ordinances
Title: Parking Exemptions Code Review: Review and Recommendation to City
Council to Adopt: 1. Ordinance to Repeal Ordinance 5167 and Amend the
Palo Alto Municipal Code to Delete Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c)
Related to Parking Assessment Districts to Eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area”
Parking Exemption Which Allows for Floor Area up to a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
of 1.0 to 1.0 to be Exempt From Parking Requirements Within the Downtown
Parking Assessment Area and Floor Area up to an FAR of 0.5 to 1.0 to be
Exempt Within the California Avenue Area Parking Assessment District. 2.
Interim Ordinance to Amend Chapters 18.18, Downtown Commercial (CD)
District, and 18.52, (Parking and Loading Requirements) to Make the
Following Changes to be Effective for a Period of Two Years: a. Delete
Sections 18.18.070(a)(1), 18.18.090(b)(1)(C) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(D) to
Eliminate the 200 Square Foot Minor Floor Area Bonus and Related Parking
Exemption for Buildings not Eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus. b. Delete
Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(B), 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i) to
Eliminate the Parking Exemption for On-site Use of Historic and Seismic
Bonus. c. Amend Section 18.18.080(g) to Remove the On-site Parking
Exemption for Historic and Seismic Transfer of Development Rights up to
5,000 Square Feet of Floor Area to a Receiver Site in the CD or PC Zoning
Districts. d. Amend Section 18.18.120(a)(2) and (b)(2) Related to
Grandfathered Uses and Facilities to Clarify that a Grandfathered Use May be
Remodeled and Improved, But May Not be Replaced and Maintain its
Grandfathered Status. e. Amend Section 18.52.070(a)( 3) Related to Remove
the Sentence Allowing Square Footage to Qualify for Exemption That Was
Developed or Used Previously for Nonresidential Purposes but was Vacant at
the time of the Engineer's Report. These actions are exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061 and 15301
of the CEQA Guidelines.
From: City Manager
Attachment B
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that Council adopt:
1.An Ordinance to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to permanently delete
Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c) related to Parking Assessment Districts to
eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemption which allows floor area up to a
floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 to 1.0 to be exempt from parking requirements within the
Downtown Parking Assessment Area, and floor area up to an FAR of 0.5 to 1.0 to be
exempt within the California Avenue area parking assessment district (Attachment A);
and
2.An Interim Ordinance (Attachment B) to amend PAMC Chapters 18.18, Downtown
Commercial (CD) District, and 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), to make the
following changes, to be effective for a period of two years:
a.Delete Sections 18.18.070(a)(1), 18.18.090(b)(1)(C) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(D) to
eliminate the 200 square foot Minor Floor Area Bonus and related parking
exemption for buildings not eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus.
b.Delete Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(B), 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and
18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i) to eliminate the parking exemption for on-site use of
Historic and Seismic Bonus.
c.Amend Section 18.18.080(g) to remove the on-site parking exemption for
floor area bonuses derived through historic and seismic upgrades via the
transfer of development rights (TDR) program (where up to 5,000 square feet
(SF) of floor area for each type of upgrade is allowed for receiver sites in the
CD or downtown PC zoning districts).
d.Amend Sections 18.18.120(a)(2) and (b)(2) related to Grandfathered Uses and
Facilities to clarify that a grandfathered use/facility may be remodeled and
improved while maintaining ‘grandfather’ status, but that the floor area may
not be demolished and replaced onsite while maintaining such
‘grandfathered’ status.
e.Amend Section 18.52.070(a)(3) to disallow the parking exemption for floor
area developed or used previously for non-residential purposes and vacant at
the time of the engineer’s report during the parking district assessment.
Executive Summary
The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.80 sets forth the process for amendments to
the City’s zoning regulations. The attached ordinances would amend the City’s zoning
regulations related to exemptions from provision of parking spaces for the development of new
floor area. The ordinances are recommended unanimously by the PTC and staff and would
City of Palo Alto Page 3
become effective 31 days following Council adoption. The City Council is requested to consider
and adopt the first ordinance (Attachment A) before mid-November, as it amends Chapter 18.52
to address “Exempt Floor Area parking exemption” in both the Downtown and California
Avenue Parking Assessment Districts. Adoption by mid-November would allow this ordinance to
become effective before the end of the current moratorium on Exempt Floor Area Parking
Exemptions, December 28, 2013. The Interim Ordinance (Attachment B) addresses parking
exemptions related to floor area bonuses, and is proposed to expire in two years (sunset) from
the date of Council action unless the ordinance is replaced by a permanent code change or
otherwise modified.
Pursuant to Section 18.80.090, the attached Ordinances include findings as to why the public
interest or general welfare requires these amendments. The findings cited to support the urgent
need for limiting parking exemptions in the Downtown Assessment District include the increase
in development within the past five years, including eight projects approved between 2008 and
2012 which included seismic, historic and minor floor area bonuses totaling 28,676 square feet
with parking exemptions granted equivalent to 115 parking spaces. In addition, as of October 1,
2013, there are three additional projects pending in the downtown totaling approximately
77,788 square feet and requesting exemptions equivalent to 100 parking spaces. Also, there
have been no new parking structures added to the City’s inventory since 2003 and there has
been a drop in the downtown commercial vacancy rate from a high of 6.39 per cent in 2008-
2009 to a 1.6 per cent rate in the 2011-2012 reporting period. The Downtown Parking Survey
conducted in Spring of 2013 shows that within the downtown core area, the on-street parking
occupancy between 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m. reached 87.9 per cent overall, and parking in
hourly public lots and garages was at 87.2 per cent occupancy, while permit parking was at 65.9
per cent occupancy. The parking surveys also show that compared to previous years, on-street
parking use has increased in the Downtown North, Professorville and South of Forest Avenue
neighborhoods.
Background
Planning and Transportation Commission Review
On September 25, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed and
recommended, by a 5-0-2 vote (Commissioners Tanaka and Martinez absent), the two attached
ordinances relating to parking exemptions in the zoning code. The PTC Report and meeting
minutes are provided as Attachments F and G. The Commissioners noted that the ordinances
are a step in the right direction. They discussed how charging higher in-lieu fees for not
providing required parking on a site could incentivize providing parking on site, and how an
update to the parking ratio and further progress in transportation demand management, such
as looking at incentives for other modes of transportation to bring fewer cars downtown and
using a business registry to obtain mode data from businesses, are needed. The PTC wanted to
ensure there are clear guidelines for what constitutes “remodel”, given that the interim
ordinance was written to disallow only replacement of grandfathered facilities. Commissioners
City of Palo Alto Page 4
also noted that the parking exemptions were put in place as incentives based on conditions at
that time; however, based on current conditions they are no longer needed. The
Commissioners would like to see the long term planning efforts, such as the update of the
Comprehensive Plan and the California Avenue Concept Plan move forward to provide guidance
on development and parking issues.
There were four public speakers, including three residents of Professorville or Downtown North
and one property owner with a planning application pending review by the Architectural Review
Board (scheduled October 17, 2013). The residents noted concern with destruction of
neighborhoods and the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that
the intrusion of parking into the neighborhoods has increased over the years. Two of these
speakers asked that the City stop approvals of all permits via a moratorium. The property
owner (of 636 Waverley) noted that his project would be directly affected by a moratorium. He
also noted that his project included a 200 sf bonus floor area. Staff looked into this and can
confirm that the bonus floor area is requested for additional residential area above the 1:1
allowable residential floor area. However, it is not associated with exemption for parking since
residential parking is determined by the number of bedrooms; i.e. two or more bedrooms
require the provision of two covered parking spaces on site, not total floor area.
Council Direction
On July 16, 2012, the City Council considered the status of ongoing parking efforts for the
Downtown and directed staff to look at a variety of approaches to address the concerns of
businesses and neighbors. Council requested an evaluation of existing zoning regulations, and
an assessment of realistic parking ratios and the desirability and viability of parking exemptions.
Following that meeting, staff identified one particular parking exemption, applicable to the
Downtown and California Avenue assessment districts likely to exacerbate the parking problems
without providing a public purpose. This provision had allowed exemptions from parking
requirements for any property within the two parking assessment districts; specifically, up to a
1:1 floor area ratio (FAR) in the Downtown Assessment District and up to a 0.5:1 ratio in the
California Avenue Assessment District.
On October 15, 2012, the City Council adopted an Interim Urgency Ordinance that established a
45-day moratorium on the use of this “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemption pending further
study of Downtown and California Avenue parking issues (refer to Attachment C, CMR Report
and Minutes Excerpt dated October 15, 2012). On December 10, 2012, the City Council adopted
another Interim Urgency Ordinance to extend this moratorium for a period of one year through
December 28, 2013 (refer to Attachment D, CMR Report and Minutes Excerpt dated December
15, 2012).
On March 18, 2013, the Council gave additional direction on several items related to parking
City of Palo Alto Page 5
policy. This included directing staff to review and provide recommendations on Municipal Code
parking exemptions and the City’s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. Since that
time, staff has examined the Municipal Code, and is recommending the subject changes. It is
important to note that this is the first step. Staff will most likely have additional
recommendations in the coming year. While the staff recommended interim suspension of the
subject parking exemptions is narrowly focused in the Downtown area, future
recommendations may be citywide and/or more comprehensive in nature. Furthermore, the
subject “interim” changes may or may not be recommended for permanent inclusions after
additional analysis is conducted during the two-year, interim stage.
Description of Proposed Ordinances
There are two types of ordinances under review. The first is a standard ordinance revision
permanently eliminating the Chapter 18.52 definition and rules for “Exempt Floor Area” within
the boundaries of the City’s two assessment districts. The ordinance would permanently
eliminate the use of this parking exemption for floor area of a building “at or nearest grade”.
This would affect the Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment Districts.
The second ordinance focuses on several parking exemptions that only affect downtown
properties zoned Commercial Downtown (CD), whether inside or outside the assessment
district. This is an interim ordinance which would be in effect for a trial 2-year period.
Ordinance to Eliminate the Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemptions: The first ordinance would
make permanent the elimination of the “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemptions related to the
Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment Districts. There is currently a one year
moratorium on the use of this exemption that expires on December 28, 2013. In the Downtown
Assessment District Area, this zoning code section allows floor area equal to the lot size to be
“un-parked”. For example, on a 10,000 sq. ft. property, the first 10,000 sq. ft. of building would
have to provide zero parking spaces. This provision was originally included in the zoning code in
the 1980s to encourage downtown development by providing a benefit to offset the parking
assessments enacted at that time. This was also done at the same time when properties were
downzoned within the downtown area. This strategy was successful in its time, but the
downtown area is now thriving and the exemption is no longer needed to encourage
development.
In the California Avenue Assessment District Area, this code section allows floor area equal to
half the lot size to be un-parked. For example, on a 10,000 square foot lot in the California
Avenue area, the first 5,000 sq. ft. of building would have to provide zero parking. Given that
there is no longer a need to incentivize development in the Downtown and California Avenue
areas and parking shortages are prevalent, the permanent elimination of this unnecessary
parking exemption is recommended.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Interim Ordinance to Eliminate other Parking Exemptions within the Downtown Area: Since the
Council direction given in March, staff identified four (4) key areas where additional code
changes could be made to eliminate future use of parking exemptions for properties in the
Downtown area zoned CD. The second ordinance would be an interim ordinance for a period of
two years to eliminate the following four code provisions related to floor area and parking only
within the CD zone district.
1.Parking Exemptions Associated with the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program:
The TDR program encourages seismic and historic rehabilitation of buildings within the
CD district by allowing for the transfer of certain development rights to eligible CD-zoned
sites that are not historic properties. These provisions include both transfer of bonus
floor area to another site and provisions for exempting some of the bonus floor area
from parking requirements. The program has been successful and has resulted in
seismic and historic restoration of many older buildings in the Downtown area.
However, staff believes an incentive can still be provided through bonus FAR area,
without increasing nearby parking issues. The Interim Ordinance, therefore, would
prohibit the creation of new bonuses as they relate to parking. Specifically, 5,000 SF of
transferred bonus floor area to a site would no longer be exempt from on-site parking
requirements. This exemption has been applied to floor area transferred to a receiver
site within a CD or PC district from another CD-zoned site or even from an RT zoned site
within the SOFA district. TDRs that have already been approved and earned under
existing zoning code provisions before the effective date of this ordinance would still be
allowed to be utilized. Likewise, “receiver” properties could still utilize TDRs for parking
exemptions that were transferred after the effective date of the ordinance provided they
came from qualfiying “sender” sites that had earned the TDRs before the effective date
of the ordinance. Eliminating the use of already approved and earned TDRs would likely
be subject to judicial challenge under a “takings” or “vested rights” legal theory. Staff is
expecting to address the provision of parking related to already earned TDRs during
future recommendations.
2.Minor Exemptions for Buildings Not Eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus: The CD zone
district regulations also contain an exemption that allows a one time 200 square foot
floor area bonus increase for any building that does not qualify for the seismic or historic
bonuses. This increase, which has been used to increase floor area in both new buildings
and existing buildings, does not count towards the site’s gross floor area (GFA) and floor
area ratio (FAR), and is exempt from on-site parking requirements. Although it is minor,
any CD zoned property not eligible for the other bonuses may request it and the impacts
have been and will continue to be cumulative. The Interim Ordinance proposes to
eliminate this 200 square foot minor floor area bonus.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
3.Grandfathered Uses and Facilities: The CD Zone District contains provisions for
“grandfathered uses and facilities” that allow continuation of uses and rebuilding of
facilities that were in place prior to August 28, 1986 but which are no longer conforming
to the standards of the district. One of the provisions allows that the grandfathered
uses/facilities are permitted to remodel, improve or replace site improvements on the
same site as long as it is within the same footprint and does not result in an increase in
floor area, height, building envelope or building footprint. Because the existing code
language allows replacement of a grandfathered facility’s “site improvements”, this
provision has been used when completely rebuilding a structure to allow the same
amount of floor area without providingparking for the replacement floor area that is
considered “grandfathered”. Any additional square feet beyond that grandfathered must
be served by on site parking. The Interim Ordinance proposes to clarify that one may
remodel or improve the grandfathered floor area and keep the parking exemption, but
the floor area may not be demolished and rebuilt into a replacement structure. Staff
believes that this exemption will not be proposed for permanent elimination in entirety
after the interim ordinance as it could “lock” property owners into older buildings that
do not function well for modern businesses. However, during this interim period, staff
would like to quantify the impact of building modernization, particularly in terms of
parking, so that suitable impact fees, conditions and/or municipal code provisions can
be incorporated.
4.Unoccupied/Vacant Floor Area Exemption: This portion of the interim ordinance would
eliminate, with respect to properties within the CD assessment district, a sentence in
Section 18.52.070(a)(3) allowing exemption for existing floor area developed or used
previously for nonresidential purposes but unoccupied at the time of the engineer’s
report for the parking district assessment. In other words, as currently written, the
Municipal Code allows for floor area that was unoccupied at the time the Downtown
Assessment District was created, and therefore not assessed, to be “grandfathered” for
rebuilding purposes. These properties are not responsible for providing or paying for
additional parking when a building is razed and rebuilt, even though payments were not
made to the assessment district for the previously unoccupied square footage. The
interim ordinance will eliminate this existing inequity in the Code.
Discussion
TDR Categories
In 1986, the City enacted its TDR program designed to encourage private property owners to
upgrade seismically unsafe buildings and to encourage preservation of known historic buildings
in the downtown area zoned CD. Lacking the financial resources to provide monetary incentives
for safety upgrades and historic preservation, the City instead adopted development regulations
that would provide property owners in the downtown area incentive to upgrade and preserve
their properties through a bonus program. In 2002, the TDR program was expanded to the
City of Palo Alto Page 8
SOFA 2 area.
According to City records, the downtown has approximately 78 buildings that are eligible for a
seismic or historic bonus under the TDR program. These buildings fall into three general
categories: (1) properties which have applied for and received TDRs under the City’s ordinance;
(2) properties which have been seismically or historically upgraded, but which have not applied
for or received TDRs and (3) properties which may be eligible for TDRs, but which have chosen
not to upgrade.
Table 3 summarizes the potential TDR bonuses and parking exemptions of the 78 eligible
historic and seismic buildings previously identified by the City. (Note that some of the City’s
records are incomplete and therefore this table is subject to further refinement.)
Table 3: TDR Bonuses for Originator Sites by Entitlement, October 2013
Origination Type Floor Area Parking
Exemptions
Number of
Properties
Properties with Documented Bonuses & TDRs
Downtown 123,783 471 32
SOFA 7,813 31 3
City Owned 7,500 30 3
Sub-Total 139,095 532 38
Property Upgraded, No Claim
Downtown 29,307 117 11
SOFA 7,500 30 3
City Owned 0 0 0
Sub-Total 36,807 147 14
Eligible Properties but not Upgraded
Downtown 65,976 264 25
SOFA 2,500 10 1
City Owned 0 0 0
Sub-Total 68,476 274 26
GRAND TOTAL 244,378 998 78
Notes:
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1.City Owned properties include three properties outside of the Downtown area that could only be used in
the Downtown area. Properties included: Children’s' Library, College Terrace Library, and Sea Scout
Building.
2.TDRs generated in the SOFA may be used on site or transferred into the downtown area. Assumption is
that SOFA current remaining 5,000SF (20 parking) TDRs will be transferred into the downtown area.
Thus, if all TDR bonuses were in fact utilized, there would be a total of 244,378 additional
square feet added to the downtown and a total of 953 exempt parking spaces.
While all properties in fact did not take advantage of the TDR program, the City’s data collected
to date shows that the TDR program was successful in incentivizing the private redevelopment
and upgrade of historic and seismically unsafe buildings in the downtown. Table 4 summarizes
the TDRs that were created, the TDRs that were transferred to a receiver site, the TDRs that
were used on site and finally the TDRs that were created but which still remain. (Again note
that some of the City’s records are incomplete and it is expected that these numbers will be
further refined.)
Table 4: Documented TDR Bonuses Used in the Downtown Area by Origin, October, 2013
Floor Area Parking
Exemptions
Number of
Properties
Properties with Documented Bonuses & TDR's By Origination
Downtown 123,783 471 32
SOFA 7,813 31 3
City Owned 7,500 30 3
Total 139,095 532 38
TDR's Transferred
Downtown 57,926 212 14
SOFA 2,000 8 1
City Owned 2,500 10 1
Total 62,426 230* 16
TDR's Used On Site
Downtown 47,586 219 20
SOFA 2,000 8 1
City Owned 0 0 0
Total 58,022 229* 21
City of Palo Alto Page 10
TDR's Remaining
Downtown 10,334 40 7
SOFA 3,313 13 2
City Owned 5,000 20 2
Total 18,647 73 11
*Some FAR transferred was not eligible for parking exemption.
Thus, according to the City’s records there are currently 18,647 square feet of TDRs that have
not been used and 73 available parking space exemptions.
Approved and Pending Projects
The Council has fairly broad discretion to decide how new regulations should be applied to
projects that have begun planning review but not received final planning entitlements. (These
pending projects are generally referred to as “pipeline” projects.) However, under State law,
projects that have obtained their entitlements and building permits and have begun work in
reliance on the building permit are largely exempt from new zoning provisions. (This is
sometimes referred to as the “vested rights doctrine.”) A key issue raised when the moratorium
on use of the “exempt floor area” parking was adopted in 2012 was the applicability of the
ordinance to projects that were in process (on file, pending decisions by the Director, Council or
building permit issuance). At that time, Council elected to exempt projects that had received
building permits, and those who had received Planning Permit approval. Planning projects that
had been submitted, but not yet approved, were subject to the moratorium. While Council is
required to exempt projects receiving building permits, it is a policy call whether to exempt
projects that are in earlier phases of entitlement review. As noted in the table below, there are a
number of projects that have received recent planning approval or are currently under planning
review.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Table 5 – Summary of Approved Planning Entitlements with Parking Exemptions
Address Description Subject Parking
Exemptions
Applied
(# of spaces)
Planning
Entitlement
Status
Building Permit
Status
135 Hamilton A four-story 28,085 square foot mixed-use
building (19,998 square feet commercial
and two residential units) and below grade
parking on a vacant lot. Zone: CD-C(P)
(exemption using 5000 Sf TDR and 200 SF
exemption)
TDR 20
Bonus 1
Total 21
Approval
Effective 2/7/13
Building Permit
under review.
It is expected
that this permit
will be issued
prior to
ordinance
adoption.
611 Cowper A 34,703 square foot four-story mixed use
building (three floors commercial and one
floor residential) with below grade
parking, replacing two buildings totalling
7,191 SF commercial floor area and 1,270
SF residential floor area. Zone: CD-C(P)
(Exemption using grandfathered spaces,
10,000 SF TDR exemption and 400 SF
exemptions for two parcels)
Grandfather: 11
TDR 40
Bonus 2
Total 53
Approval
Effective 8/16/13
No Building
Permit
Application
submitted to
date
Table 6 – Summary of Pending Applications Requesting Subject Exemptions
Address Request Subject Parking
Exemptions
Applied
(# of spaces)
Planning
Entitlement
Status
Building Permit
Status
240 Hamilton A 15,000 square foot mixed use building,
replacing an (approx.) 7,000 SF building
(building plus mezzanine). Zone: CD-C(P)
(Exemption using 4,327 SF TDR exemption,
200 SF bonus, and “grandfathered” floor
area, including 2,000 that was not
assessed)
Grandfather: 8
TDR 17
Bonus 1
Total 26
Approved 7/23/13
but
Appealed to
Council. Hearing
to be scheduled.
Not Applicable
261 Hamilton Application for relocation of basement SF
in retail storage use to third story office
atop an historic category III,
“grandfathered” commercial building (over
3.0:1 FAR) having 38,926 SF (37,800 SF
assessed for parking); 37,800 SF
retail/office at end. Zone: CD-C(GF)(P).
(requesting creation of 15,000 SF FAR TDR
via rehabilitation).
No Subject
Exemptions
Applied – Bonus
Floor Area to be
used off site equal
to 60 parking space
exemption
Formal ARB
submitted
6/18/13
Not applicable
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Address Request Subject Parking
Exemptions
Applied
(# of spaces)
Planning
Entitlement
Status
Building Permit
Status
429 University 22,750 SF building with below grade
parking for 29 cars, replacing
“grandfathered” building. Zone: CD-
C(GF)(P).(exemption using 5,000 SF TDR,
200 SF bonus and grandfathered building).
Grandfather:TBD1
TDR 20
Bonus 1
Total TBD2
Prelim ARB
submitted
9/12/13
Not applicable
261 Hamilton Application for relocation of basement SF
in retail storage use to third story office
atop an historic category III,
“grandfathered” commercial building (over
3.0:1 FAR) having 38,926 SF (37,800 SF
assessed for parking); 37,800 SF
retail/office at end. Zone: CD-C(GF)(P).
(requesting creation of 15,000 SF FAR TDR
via rehabilitation).
No Subject
Exemptions
Applied – Bonus
Floor Area to be
used off site equal
to 60 parking space
exemption
Formal ARB
submitted
6/18/13
Not applicable
640 Waverley ARB application for a new 10,463 SF mixed
use building with 2 dwelling units and
5,185 SF commercial area (replacing 1,829
SF of “grandfathered” floor area) providing
17 spaces. Zone: CD-C(P). (exemptions
grandfathered, mixed-use parking
reduction and 200 SF bonus).
TBD3 Prelim ARB
submitted
9/16/13
Not applicable
500 University Three-story 26,806 SF commercial building
replacing 15,899 SF previously assessed
for 64 spaces not provided on site;
includes 24 parking spaces below grade.
Zone: CD-C(GF)(P). (Exemption using
grandfathered building, TDR and 200 SF
bonus).
TDR 20
Bonus 1
Total 21
Prelim ARB
reviewed. No
formal submittal.
Not applicable
301 High Addition and remodel of existing building.
Proposes 6,706 SF (including existing 6,255
SF plus bonus an ADA area). Zone: CD-
N(P). (requests 200 SF bonus).
Bonus 1 Formal ARB
Submitted
5/20/13
Not applicable
1 TBD = To be determined; project was recently submitted and floor area and parking determination are still under
review.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
In light of Council’s previous policy decision on this issue, staff makes the following
recommendations for pipeline projects:
1:1 Exemption Elimination: Apply new ordinance to all pipeline projects that have not
received final planning entitlement approval
200 Square Foot Bonus Exemption Elimination: Apply interim ordinance to all pipeline
projects that have not received final planning entitlement approval
On and Off site use of TDR Parking Exemption: Only apply to newly created TDRs. TDRs
approved and created before effective date of interim ordinance eligible for on or off site
parking exemption. TDRs created after effective date of ordinance would be eligible for
square footage bonus, but not parking bonus.
Grandfather Exemption Elimination: Apply interim ordinance to all pipeline projects that
have not received final planning entitlement approval
Vacant Building Exemption: Apply to all pipeline projects that have not received final
planning entitlement approval
Next Steps
The Interim Ordinance is proposed to be in place for a period of two years, during which time
staff will study the impacts on development of permanently removing these floor area bonuses
and parking exemptions. Much of this will be done during the policy recommendation phases
of the Downtown Development Cap Study. The following are some of the items that have been
identified for further analysis and consideration: residential parking program, in-lieu parking
provisions, adjustments to parking requirements, SOFA 2 parking exemptions (additional details
below), and other, city-wide parking exemptions. Other adjustments to the Municipal Code may
also be considered. Furthermore, historically made interpretations of the Municipal Code may
be taken to the PTC for consideration and recommendation to Council.
SOFA 2 Plan Area Policies and Programs:
Within the SOFA 2 Plan Area are several sites within the Downtown Assessment District. The
sites are located north of Forest Avenue, between Alma and Emerson Streets. The SOFA 2 Code
allows for parking reductions and exemptions. Residential Transition (RT) zoned sites in the
SOFA 2 area are allowed to participate in the City’s TDR program by transferring bonus floor
area achieved via historic and seismic rehabilitations to CD zoned receiver sites. Bonuses can
also be used within the SOFA 2 area. The same parking exemptions are currently available for
bonus floor area generated in the SOFA 2 area. Following Council action on the propeosed
ordinances, the SOFA 2 regulations and policies related to incentives for bonus floor area may
need to be reviewed in light of the proposed ordinances.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Policy Implications
The Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan contains a primary goal
regarding parking to provide attractive, convenient public and private parking facilities. To
implement this goal, Policy T-45 states: “Provide sufficient parking in the University
Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business district to address long-range needs.” The
proposed changes to the zoning regulations to eliminate some of the exemptions to the existing
parking requirements will improve parking availability in these areas and would be consistent
with the goals and policies of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (Refer to
Attachment E, Transportation Element Goals and Policies regarding Parking).
The Land Use and Natural and Urban Environment Elements contain the following policies and
programs which encourage the use of incentives to preserve historic buildings and encourage
seismic retrofits.
Land Use Element:
Policy L-56: To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown, promote the
preservation of significant historic buildings.
Program L-59: Allow parking exceptions for historic buildings to encourage rehabilitation.
Require design review findings that the historic integrity of the building exterior will be
maintained.
Program L-60: Continue to use a TDR Ordinance to allow the transfer of development rights
from designated buildings of historic significance in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone to
non-historic receiver sites in the CD zone. Planned Community (PC) zone properties in the
Downtown also qualify for this program.
Program L-66: Revise existing zoning and permit regulations as needed to minimize constraints
to adaptive reuse, particularly in retail areas.
Natural And Urban Environment Element:
Program N-70: Continue to provide incentives for seismic retrofits of structures in the
University Avenue/Downtown area.
Staff believes the proposed changes remain consistent with the policies above, as historic
rehabilitation incentives would still be provided through the provision of additional floor area
associated with the TDR program. Furthermore, the proposed ordinance would still allow
historic buildings to be renovated and restored to retain their “grandfathered” status.
Resource Impact
The zoning evaluation work would be done within the currently approved work program of the
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Planning and Community Environment Department.
Timeline
The Ordinance establishing the moratorium on the use of Parking Exemptions within the
Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment areas will expire on December 28, 2013.
In order for these provisions to stay in effect the permanent ordinance will need to be adopted
by the City Council 31 days prior to the expiration ((by November 27, 2013). City Council action
on an Ordinance requires two actions, an introduction of the ordinance and a second reading.
Environmental Review
The proposed Ordinances eliminate certain exemptions to the parking regulations within the
Downtown and California Avenue areas of the City of Palo Alto, which will result in projects that
will comply with the remaining parking regulations established in the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Further, each individual project submitted under the revised regulations will be subject to its
own environmental review. Consequently, these ordinances are exempt from the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14
of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on
the environment and Section 15301 in that these proposed ordinances will have a minor impact
on existing facilities.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Ordinance for Elimination of 1 to 1 Parking Exemption (PDF)
Attachment B: Interim Ordinance to Eliminate Certain Parking Exemptions within the
Downtown Area (PDF)
Attachment C: CMR and Excerpt Minutes dated October 15, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment D: CMR and Excerpt Minutes dated December 15, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment E: Transportation Element Parking Goals & Policies (PDF)
Attachment F: Excerpt Minutes of the September 25, 2013 Planning and Transportation
Commission Meeting (DOCX)
Attachment G: September 25, 2013 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff
Report (PDF)
REDACTED CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 1 of 21
Special Meeting
October 21, 2013
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Conference Room at 5:34 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss, Price arrived at 5:57 P.M.,
Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd
Absent:
Public Hearing: Parking Exemptions Code Review: Review and
Recommendation to City Council to Adopt: 1. Ordinance to Repeal
Ordinance 5167 and Amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Delete
Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c) Related to Parking
Assessment Districts to Eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area” Parking
Exemption Which Allows for Floor Area up to a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
of 1.0 to 1.0 to be Exempt From Parking Requirements Within the
Downtown Parking Assessment Area and Floor Area up to an FAR of
0.5 to 1.0 to be Exempt Within the California Avenue Area Parking
Assessment District. 2. Interim Ordinance to Amend Chapters 18.18,
Downtown Commercial (CD) District, and 18.52, (Parking and Loading
Requirements) to Make the Following Changes to be Effective for a
ACTION ITEM
11.
MINUTES
Page 2 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
Period of Two Years: a. Delete Sections 18.18.070(a)(1),
18.18.090(b)(1)(C) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(D) to Eliminate the 200
Square Foot Minor Floor Area Bonus and Related Parking Exemption
for Buildings not Eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus. b. Delete
Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(B), 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and
18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i) to Eliminate the Parking Exemption for On-site
Use of Historic and Seismic Bonus. c. Amend Section 18.18.080(g) to
Remove the On-site Parking Exemption for Historic and Seismic
Transfer of Development Rights up to 5,000 Square Feet of Floor Area
to a Receiver Site in the CD or PC Zoning Districts. d. Amend Section
18.18.120(a)(2) and (b)(2) Related to Grandfathered Uses and
Facilities to Clarify that a Grandfathered Use May be Remodeled and
Improved, But May Not be Replaced and Maintain its Grandfathered
Status. e. Amend Section 18.52.070(a)(3) Related to Remove the
Sentence Allowing Square Footage to Qualify for Exemption That Was
Developed or Used Previously for Nonresidential Purposes but was
Vacant at the time of These actions are exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061 and 15301 of
the CEQA Guidelines.
Aaron Aknin, Acting Director of Planning and Community Environment,
reported Staff recommended the Council not proceed with Section 2d of the
proposed Ordinance related to the grandfather status, which uses facilities to
clarify that a grandfathered use may be remodeled and improved, but may
not be replaced and maintain its grandfathered status. After meeting with
the City Attorney, Staff believed additional review was necessary and would
return with a recommendation. In the Downtown area, the Exempt Floor
Area Ordinance allowed properties to build an amount of square footage
equal to the lot size without providing parking. Approximately one year ago,
the Council enacted a moratorium on use of the Ordinance, which would
expire at the end of December 2013. Staff recommended the Ordinance be
permanently deleted from the Municipal Code. The Ordinance applied to a
lesser degree to California Avenue. The Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC) recommended the Ordinance be permanently deleted.
The Minor Floor Area Exemption was a 200-square-foot exemption applied to
any property that was not eligible for a historic or seismic rehabilitation
bonus. Staff recommended deletion of the exemption for the two-year
interim period in order to study potential impacts. Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) sites were eligible for either historic or seismic rehabilitation.
With rehabilitation, property owners were allowed a 2,500-square-foot bonus
onsite for either category to build floor area beyond the amount allowed
under current Code provisions without providing parking. Staff
recommended elimination of the parking exemption associated with the floor
area bonus. Transfer of rights to a receiver site would be allowed for the
MINUTES
Page 3 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
floor area provision and not the parking provision. The Vacant Space
provision allowed property owners to tear down vacant space and rebuild
without providing parking. The value of the Minor Floor Area Exemption
would equal approximately $60,750, the price of the current in-lieu fee. The
value of the bonus TDR was approximately $600,000. Transfer or use of the
maximum amount was valued at approximately $1.2 million. The Vacant
Space was valued at $500,000 or less. When the moratorium was enacted
for the 1.0 to 1.0 Floor Area Exemption, the Council did not subject projects
with planning entitlements to the moratorium. Projects in the pipeline were
subject to the moratorium. Staff proposed a similar policy in that projects
with planning entitlements would not be subject to the interim ordinance.
Public Hearing opened at 8:53 P.M.
Matthew Harris requested the Council create a blue ribbon task force with
respect to planning and design.
Herb Borock noted in Attachment B the recommended sunset provision
counted the effective date as 31 days from the first reading, rather than 31
days from the second reading. He suggested the correct date be included at
the time of the second reading.
Ken Alsman welcomed the proposed changes. If the Council adopted the
proposed Ordinance, then it needed to take three additional steps. One was
to stop all existing construction projects in the pipeline, because the projects
would add another 200-400 cars in the neighborhoods. Second, the Council
should stop providing full credit in the Assessment District for a 1.0 to 250
ratio. Third, the Council had to stop accepting California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) conclusions of no impact.
Elizabeth Wong indicated the parking shortage needed to be resolved by all
stakeholders with costs shared by property owners in Downtown and
surrounding areas. The proposals would not solve the parking shortage, but
would prevent retailers from coming to Palo Alto.
Dr. Paul Karol stated the parking situation was borderline critical at the
current time. After completion of projects in the pipeline, the parking
situation would become a disaster. He requested the Council gather data
before making any decisions.
Katie Morganroth believed the proposed Ordinance was unfair and one-
sided. Neighbors and developers were working toward a plausible solution.
The proposed Ordinance would result in the loss of square footage for her
commercial project, the breaking of commitments with tenants, and the loss
MINUTES
Page 4 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
of four jobs. She asked the Council to exclude pipeline projects from the
proposed Ordinance and to postpone a vote until February 14, 2014.
Ken Hayes believed many projects would not have been developed without
seismic or historic bonuses. Residents, businesses, commercial property
owners and parking advocates should collaborate to find a creative solution.
The proposed Ordinance was one-sided and unfair. He requested the
Council postpone its vote for a defined period while stakeholders developed
a creative solution fair to all.
David Kleiman reported his project was fully parked and compliant with all
City Codes, but would be severely impacted by the proposed Ordinance. The
Council did not have sufficient time to receive adequate input on the
economic effects of the proposed Ordinance. The solution should include
increased availability of parking spaces, access to an offsite lot for lower-
paid employees, permit parking in key neighborhoods and metered parking.
James Lin felt the proposed Ordinance did not solve the parking problem and
was unfair. He asked the Council to exclude pipeline projects from the
proposed Ordinance.
Jaime Wong stated developers followed the City's rules to add value and
provide a vibrant and exciting Downtown. Without development, the City
would lose businesses. Developers could be creative and could compromise.
Andrew Wong indicated the proposed Ordinance was patently unfair. Staff
did not address the benefits provided by the exemptions. He proposed the
Council not apply the proposed Ordinance to pipeline projects. The proposed
Ordinance did not address the parking issue.
Jason Holleb asked the Council not to impact the defined pipeline projects.
The Council should allow time for development of a parking solution.
Neilsen Buchanan spoke regarding saturated parking in neighborhoods. If
the Council passed the proposed Ordinance, it would receive goodwill and
collaboration.
Michael Griffin urged the Council to eliminate the parking exemptions
adopted to encourage development in the Downtown area. The price of a
vibrant Downtown was parking issues in surrounding neighborhoods.
Stephanie Munoz suggested the Council refund fees paid by projects in the
pipeline. The Council should take back the parking obligations.
MINUTES
Page 5 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
Eric Rosenblum felt removing the parking exemptions would be bad for the
neighborhood and harmful to Palo Alto's interests. Parking should be
decoupled from buildings, and parking cash-outs could be used to allow
greater capacity for residents in under-utilized buildings.
Robert Moss suggested the Council pass the proposed Ordinance with a few
modifications. First, projects which received Council approval should be
allowed to proceed. Second, the Council should set a time limit to provide a
corrective action. Third, the Council had to determine long-term methods
for improving parking.
Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, reported Palo Alto was moving towards
requiring self-parking of buildings. An unintended consequence was
increased driving. The development community was willing to work towards
a solution.
Sal Giovanotto did not believe the moratorium was fair. The City was fine
without any changes.
Public Hearing closed at 9:31 P.M.
Council Member Kniss inquired about the general impact on the six projects
in the pipeline.
Mr. Aknin indicated Table 5 on page 11 of the Staff Report showed the
projects with planning entitlements. Those projects would not be subject to
the proposed Ordinance. Table 6 showed other projects in the pipeline
without approval. Those projects would be subject to the proposed
Ordinance. The project affected by the most impacts would be 240 Hamilton
Avenue with nine spaces. The remaining projects would have no impact or a
one-space impact in terms of fees. The majority of projects used
grandfather square footage paid into the Assessment District or existing
TDRs. Those would not be subject to the proposed Ordinance.
Council Member Kniss requested Staff address the 200-square-foot former
exemption.
Mr. Aknin believed the Ordinances adopted in 1986 initially allowed small
expansions to a building, not necessarily a new building. The exemption was
now applied to new projects. Staff's recommendation was to eliminate the
exemption, because the incentive was not needed for new buildings.
Council Member Kniss asked if projects other than 240 Hamilton Avenue
were running one or two spaces.
MINUTES
Page 6 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
Mr. Aknin responded yes.
James Keene, City Manager, suggested Staff clarify impacts to projects.
Mr. Aknin reported that the proposed Ordinance did not prevent projects
from proceeding. Projects would have to pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to the
amount of the exemption. One parking space was equivalent to $60,000.
The 240 Hamilton Avenue project was impacted by more than $500,000.
Mayor Scharff inquired whether pipeline projects would lose 200 square feet
of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and have to redesign projects or if projects simply
have to pay for parking spots.
Mr. Aknin stated yes, as currently drafted.
Mayor Scharff asked if projects would have to be redesigned to deal with
that issue.
Mr. Aknin answered yes. If projects were over the FAR amount, applicants
would have to redesign projects or buy existing TDRs to backfill that
amount.
Council Member Klein inquired whether the two projects in Table 5 were
excluded from the proposed Ordinance.
Mr. Aknin indicated they would be excluded as recommended by Staff.
Council Member Klein asked if the two projects could proceed.
Mr. Aknin replied yes.
Council Member Klein counted seven projects in the pipeline.
Mr. Aknin noted the 261 Hamilton Avenue project was shown twice in the
table; therefore, only six projects were in the pipeline.
Council Member Klein asked if the six projects could proceed if the applicants
paid the parking in-lieu fee.
Mr. Aknin needed to determine whether applicants would have to reduce
overall square footage in terms of FAR when the 200 square feet was applied
to both floor area and the parking situation. From a parking standpoint, the
applicants could pay the in-lieu fee and proceed with the project.
MINUTES
Page 7 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
Council Member Klein inquired whether the project at 240 Hamilton Avenue
would be exempt from 26 spaces under previous law.
Mr. Aknin answered yes.
Council Member Klein requested an explanation of the lower fee for the
project at 240 Hamilton Avenue.
Mr. Aknin reported the applicant could proceed with the project because of
existing TDRs. With respect to actual parking exemptions, the
grandfathered mezzanine level accounted for eight spaces and the bonus
FAR accounted for one space. With those reductions, the lower fee amount
was correct. The mezzanine level would also be removed from FAR;
therefore, the applicant would have to reduce the building by that square
footage as well.
Council Member Klein asked if the applicant for the project at 429 University
Avenue would be charged for the 20 spaces covered by the TDR.
Mr. Aknin indicated that the applicant paid that amount to someone else, so
it would not pay the City anything for those.
Council Member Klein inquired whether the applicant would be charged a
parking in-lieu fee for one space at $60,000.
Mr. Aknin replied yes.
Council Member Klein requested comment on the project at 640 Waverley
Street.
Mr. Aknin explained that the project was covered by the 200-square-foot
bonus. The project was also grandfathered, which Staff did not propose to
remove in the current recommendation. The project also had a mixed-use
parking reduction, which Staff did not propose to remove. The project would
have to comply with the 200-square-foot bonus.
Council Member Klein understood the project at 500 University Avenue had
the same situation.
Mr. Aknin agreed. The applicant recently submitted an application indicating
construction of an additional floor underground; therefore, the project would
be over-parked by approximately 21 spaces.
MINUTES
Page 8 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
Council Member Klein did not understand the furor as the impact appeared
to be at most $60,000 to two or three projects. He asked if the changes had
been explained to everybody.
Mr. Aknin remarked that adding $60,000 in a pro forma was a major concern
for developers. A second issue was likely related to the FAR itself. The
Council could determine that the bonus would remain for FAR but not for
parking. In that case, developers would lose 200 square feet.
Council Member Klein had difficulty understanding the majority of the
applicants' concerns. He assumed each and every applicant met with Staff.
Mr. Aknin talked to a handful of people who provided comments.
Council Member Klein inquired whether pipeline projects were being treated
consistent with past Council actions.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported in 2012 the Council faced a
considerable pipeline issue when it suspended use of the 1.0 to 1.0
exemption. In that case, the actions were consistent with proposed actions
for this item. Legally, the vested right applied only once a building permit
was pulled and substantial work performed under the building permit. None
of the projects in either Table 5 or Table 6 were at that point. Staff
proposed projects in Table 5 proceed with no change. The remaining
projects had submitted applications but had not received final planning
entitlement.
Council Member Klein recalled that in 2012 the Council applied a different
standard for pipeline projects than in previous years.
Ms. Stump understood that actions taken a year ago were a change from the
traditional approach.
Council Member Klein inquired about the impact to projects contained in
Table 6 if the pre-2012 pipeline policy was applied to them.
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney, indicated that in the seven to
eight years prior to 2012, the Council exempted projects that filed an
application. All projects in Table 6 had formally filed an application, but had
not received planning entitlement approval.
Council Member Klein asked if other projects could be included in Table 6
under the old standard.
MINUTES
Page 9 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
Mr. Aknin was not aware of any other projects.
Vice Mayor Shepherd noted the tentative Council schedule included a
Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program, and inquired about the timing for
that discussion.
Mr. Aknin reported Staff was working on the framework for a Citywide opt-in
Ordinance. Staff hoped to present it to the Council by the end of 2013.
Vice Mayor Shepherd agreed some of the Ordinances needed to be
amended; however, she questioned whether the amendments should be
contemporaneous with other relief. She understood that a TDR could still be
utilized for a project not in the pipeline if the developer had already
purchased a TDR but not designed it into a building.
Mr. Aknin concurred.
Vice Mayor Shepherd understood a developer could not sell a TDR if the
Council enacted the proposed Ordinance with the parking exemption. The
TDR purchaser would have to pay for the parking exemption when he made
the application.
Ms. Stump explained that TDRs created as of the effective date of the
proposed Ordinance could be used under the old rules.
Vice Mayor Shepherd requested an explanation of "created."
Ms. Stump indicated the TDR was certified because work had been
performed to seismically or historically rehabilitate the building even if the
TDR had not been sold.
Vice Mayor Shepherd stated a TDR could be sold if the building was not
seismically retrofitted; however, the developer would need to provide
parking onsite or pay an in-lieu fee.
Ms. Stump agreed. New seismic or historic projects would not be able to
generate parking relief. They would generate the FAR.
Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the proposed RPP Program would
apply only to Professorville or also to Downtown North.
Mr. Aknin reported the goal was to offer first a Citywide opt-in Ordinance.
He believed the first neighborhoods to opt into the Ordinance would be the
residential neighborhoods surrounding the Downtown area.
MINUTES
Page 10 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
Council Member Price asked if neighborhoods around California Avenue
would be allowed to participate in the RPP Program.
Mr. Aknin believed neighborhoods surrounding California Avenue would
follow shortly after the Downtown area once a Citywide opt-in Ordinance was
enacted.
Mr. Keene explained that a Citywide Program would have metrics associated
with parking intrusion. Neighborhoods would have to meet performance
criteria to be eligible for an RPP Program.
Council Member Price requested Staff clarify public comments regarding
additional architectural and design fees.
Mr. Aknin indicated the primary concern was reducing the building size by a
certain amount of square feet. For example, the 240 Hamilton Avenue
project would spend additional architectural fees for new drawings to reduce
the building if the applicant was not allowed to rebuild the 2,000 square feet
mezzanine level into normal floor area and not allowed to build the new 200
square feet.
Ms. Stump noted the Ordinance as drafted deleted both the 200 square feet
and the parking from the Code. The Council could retain the 200 square feet
and indicate the project had to be parked.
Mr. Keene stated the developer would pay the $60,000 parking in-lieu fee
and the 200 square feet would remain in the building.
Mayor Scharff asked if that could apply to the 2,000 mezzanine as well.
Council Member Price felt the concept of cash-out for parking was a valid
approach. She asked if the Council could discuss that approach in the
current item or if Staff would review that as part of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program for the private sector.
Mr. Aknin indicated that approach would be part of a TDM strategy. It was a
proven strategy that worked well. A cash-out approach was separate from
the current discussion.
Council Member Price recalled that a number of community members were
willing to engage with the City regarding these items. She inquired about a
method for Staff to utilize the expertise and enthusiasm offered by
stakeholders.
MINUTES
Page 11 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
Mr. Aknin suggested stakeholders participate in the Downtown Development
CAP process and contact him to schedule meetings.
Council Member Price requested Mr. Aknin provide his phone number and
email address.
Mr. Aknin stated his email address was aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org and
his direct line was 650-329-2679.
Council Member Burt did not believe the proposed Ordinance would
encourage people to utilize modes of travel other than driving. Projects
other than the 500 University Avenue project involved small amounts of
change. He inquired whether Staff assumed applicants would pay in-lieu
parking fees rather than make design changes.
Mr. Aknin answered yes. He did not have exact numbers about how the 200
square foot FAR would affect projects. As the City Manager and the City
Attorney mentioned, the Council could proceed with the FAR bonus separate
from the parking exception.
Council Member Burt requested Staff explain how the Staff recommendation
with respect to the 200 square foot exemption would change parking issues.
Mr. Aknin explained that Staff wished to review parking exemptions to
determine which ones were no longer necessary to incent development. The
200-square-foot exemption in particular was originally directed at minor
building expansions.
Council Member Burt inquired about the net impact for pipeline projects if
the Council did not include the 200-square-feet exemption.
Mr. Keene suggested there would be no real impact as long as the parking
in-lieu fee payment was retained. The applicant kept the square footage but
paid the in-lieu parking fee.
Council Member Burt recalled that Ken Hayes implied that the impacts of
these changes would be much more significant than Staff indicated. He
asked Mr. Hayes to clarify the impacts to projects given Staff's clarifications
and retention of the 200-square-foot exemption for pipeline projects.
Mr. Hayes indicated his clients were concerned that projects in the
application process were in jeopardy to a certain extent. The issues were
MINUTES
Page 12 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
not knowing whether TDRs would continue to be exempt from parking and
whether that would apply to projects in the pipeline.
Council Member Burt asked Mr. Hayes to focus his response on the impact to
pipeline projects if the Council retained the 200-square-foot exemption along
with a parking in-lieu fee.
Mr. Hayes stated the impact on all the projects in which he was involved,
with the exception of the 240 Hamilton Avenue project, would be payment of
in-lieu fee, the $60,000.
Council Member Burt inquired whether Mr. Hayes was interpreting the
impact the same as Staff.
Mr. Hayes responded yes.
Council Member Burt commented that engagement of Downtown property
owners was a positive development. The impact of the proposed Ordinance
was nominal compared to the impact of RPP Programs and a TDM Program.
There was a need to fund and construct an additional garage Downtown;
however, he did not want to see the parking garage increase the number of
trips to Downtown. There would be some degree of crisis with
implementation of an RPP Program if Downtown property owners did not
identify a solution.
Council Member Holman agreed that engagement of commercial property
owners was positive. Payment of in-lieu fees did not solve the parking
problem. In theory cash-outs were a good idea; however, they were not
effective without monitoring and enforcement. Parking saturation in
neighborhoods affected property values. Once TDRs were created, they
were entitled entities. She asked if TDRs were a real asset.
Ms. Silver explained that TDRs were created at the time that the building
was certified as historically renovated or seismically retrofitted. At that
point, the City recorded a document that required historic rehabilitation and
seismic retrofitting to remain in place and created the TDR. Under Staff's
proposal, any TDR that was formally created following the effective date of
the proposed Ordinance could be transferred or used onsite for bonus square
footage; however, it would not have the additional parking incentive.
Council Member Holman understood that if a project used a TDR, the City
could not charge the project in-lieu fees because the TDR was an asset that
had been paid for.
MINUTES
Page 13 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
Ms. Silver indicated that was not the analysis. The Council had some
discretion on the issue. Staff recommended that certification was an
appropriate dividing line. If the Council wished to change that benchmark,
Staff would evaluate it. It was not entirely clear where the benchmark
should be as a legal matter. It was more of a policy matter.
Council Member Holman asked if Staff considered the impact of eliminating
the parking exemption for bonus square footage and TDRs related to
Planned Community (PC) projects. She inquired whether the Council's
granting of additional square footage as part of a PC destroyed the value of
TDRs and bonus square footage.
Ms. Stump understood Council Member Holman's question to relate to the
TDR program and bonus square footage. That consideration was not within
the work performed for the item. The item responded to Council direction to
proceed with parking issues in the near term.
Council Member Holman simply wanted to voice her concern and consider
possible unintended consequences.
Council Member Berman inquired about the timeline for someone paying in-
lieu fees.
Mr. Aknin stated the applicant paid in-lieu fees at the time it obtained a
building permit.
Council Member Schmid noted that Tables 3 and 4 provided the TDR
bonuses used. The 532 amount of parking exemptions seemed to be the
number of TDRs used in Downtown.
Mr. Aknin agreed.
Council Member Schmid asked if 147 TDRs were originated but had not yet
been used.
Mr. Aknin answered yes.
Council Member Schmid inquired whether 274 TDRs would be originated
under the new terms without the parking exemptions.
Mr. Aknin explained that eligible properties were on either a seismic list or a
historic property list, but the improvements had not been made. Those
properties would not be able to claim the parking exemption, only the FAR
exemption.
MINUTES
Page 14 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
Council Member Schmid asked if the middle group, the 147, could still claim
the parking exemption.
Mr. Aknin replied yes.
Council Member Schmid referenced the parking exemptions in Attachment C
of the March 5, 2012 report, and asked about a cause for the gap between
323 exemptions and 532 TDRs.
Mr. Aknin noted the March 5, 2012 report was part of the annual report to
the Council. Staff performed the most in-depth analysis of TDRs that had
ever been performed in preparing the Staff Report.
Council Member Schmid inquired whether the annual reports might have
some questionable data.
Mr. Aknin indicated that the annual reports considered parking that came
online since the TDR. The table within the Staff Report only showed the
number of TDRs used. It did not show any offset from parking built
Downtown.
Council Member Schmid was interested in the dynamics of the current
situation. People from Downtown North and Professorville indicated there
was a dynamic in the neighborhoods that was quite different than in the
past. He asked if the gap between exemptions reported in the annual
reports and in the Staff Report was a possible explanation of the changing
dynamic.
Mr. Aknin suggested the change in dynamic was affected more by the
change in occupancies within buildings than by the new floor area.
Downtown Palo Alto contained approximately 3.5 million square feet of non-
commercial area in 1986. The growth rate was less than 10 percent over
the last 30 years. Obviously the parking problem grew by more than 10
percent. A change in use had a greater proportional effect than TDRs on the
overall parking situation.
Council Member Schmid commented that the Council could proceed with the
proposed Ordinance; however, the future would bring bigger issues. Good
data would be critical to making good decisions.
Mayor Scharff asked how Section 3 related to losing 2,000 square feet of
FAR as it only mentioned parking. Section 2e disallowed the parking
MINUTES
Page 15 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
exemption; whereas, Section 2a mentioned the floor area bonus and related
parking.
Ms. Stump suggested the problem was in the drafting of the proposed
Ordinance. After additional review, Staff now recommended the Council
separate those two pieces. It was a matter of drafting an Ordinance quickly
and working through the language of the Code.
Mayor Scharff assumed Staff could amend an Ordinance in any manner with
appropriate Council direction.
Ms. Stump indicated the vacant property piece was slightly more complex,
because Staff could not provide the implications in the Downtown
Commercial (CD) Zone for that exemption.
Mayor Scharff asked why the Council could not simply require the applicant
to park the project.
Ms. Stump stated in theory the Council could require that. Staff could do
that as a policy matter if the Council wished to make that policy direction.
Mayor Scharff inquired whether deleting "and selected" from Section 2a
would allow retention of the 200-square-foot exemption.
Ms. Stump recommended the Council describe changes in conceptual terms
in a Motion and allow Staff to work through the Code. There were places
where the Code looped around on itself. Staff requested the opportunity to
ensure an Ordinance was drafted correctly.
MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to
adopt:
1.An Ordinance to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to
permanently delete Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c) related
to Parking Assessment Districts to eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area”
parking exemption which allows floor area up to a floor area ratio
(FAR) of 1.0 to 1.0 to be exempt from parking requirements within the
Downtown Parking Assessment Area, and floor area up to an FAR of
0.5 to 1.0 to be exempt within the California Avenue area parking
assessment district (Attachment A); and
2.An Interim Ordinance (Attachment B) to amend PAMC Chapters 18.18,
Downtown Commercial (CD) District, and 18.52 (Parking and Loading
Requirements), to make the following changes, to be effective for a
period of two years:
MINUTES
Page 16 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
a.Delete Sections 18.18.070(a)(1), 18.18.090(b)(1)(C) and
18.52.070(a)(1)(D) to eliminate the parking exemption related to the
200 square foot Minor Floor Area Bonus for buildings not eligible for
Historic or Seismic Bonus (keep sq footage but eliminate parking
exemption).
b.Delete Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(B), 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and
18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i) to eliminate the parking exemption for on-site
use of Historic and Seismic Bonus.
c.Amend Section 18.18.080(g) to remove the on-site parking exemption
for floor area bonuses derived through historic and seismic upgrades
via the transfer of development rights (TDR) program (where up to
5,000 square feet (SF) of floor area for each type of upgrade is
allowed for receiver sites in the CD or downtown PC zoning districts).
d.Amend Section 18.52.070(a)(3) to disallow the parking exemption for
floor area developed or used previously for non-residential purposes
and vacant at the time of the engineer’s report during the parking
district assessment. (keep sq footage but eliminate parking
exemption).
Mayor Scharff felt it was important to eliminate out-of-date ordinances. The
Council wanted to move toward projects fully parking themselves, a robust
TDM program, an RPP Program and a parking garage. Holistically, those
were the components of a resolution for the parking issue. With respect to
grandfathering projects, last year the Council did not grandfather in the two
projects. It would be unfair for the Council to treat pipeline projects in 2013
differently than it treated pipeline projects in 2012. It became a money
issue in terms of paying in-lieu parking fees as opposed to redesigning the
project.
Council Member Burt recalled in July 2012 the Council gave a general notice
of intention to change regulations. In March 2013 the Council provided
additional direction. He was interested in why colleagues would not second
the Motion.
Council Member Kniss inquired whether the project at 240 Hamilton Avenue
was on appeal.
Mr. Aknin responded yes.
Council Member Kniss noted the Council would discuss several items related
to parking. The amendments along with an RPP Program and a TDM
Program should be considered together. The five pipeline projects would
pay a total of $300,000 for in-lieu parking fees.
MINUTES
Page 17 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
Mr. Aknin indicated a couple of pipeline projects had zero impact.
Council Member Kniss felt the only pipeline project affected by a major
impact was 540 Hamilton Avenue at approximately $540,000. She was
undecided regarding the Motion and wished to hear colleagues' comments.
Vice Mayor Shepherd requested the Mayor split Motion Items One and Two
for purposes of voting.
Mayor Scharff agreed to split the Motion for purposes of voting.
MOTION SEPARATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING: Mayor Scharff
bifurcated the Motion to allow separate votes for Item Numbers One and
Two.
BIFURCATED MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council
Member Burt to adopt:
1.An Ordinance to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to
permanently delete Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c) related
to Parking Assessment Districts to eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area”
parking exemption which allows floor area up to a floor area ratio
(FAR) of 1.0 to 1.0 to be exempt from parking requirements within the
Downtown Parking Assessment Area, and floor area up to an FAR of
0.5 to 1.0 to be exempt within the California Avenue area parking
assessment district (Attachment A); and
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
BIFURCATED MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council
Member Burt to adopt:
2.An Interim Ordinance (Attachment B) to amend PAMC Chapters 18.18,
Downtown Commercial (CD) District, and 18.52 (Parking and Loading
Requirements), to make the following changes, to be effective for a
period of two years:
a.Delete Sections 18.18.070(a)(1), 18.18.090(b)(1)(C) and
18.52.070(a)(1)(D) to eliminate the parking exemption related to
the 200 square foot Minor Floor Area Bonus for buildings not
eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus (keep sq footage but
eliminate parking exemption)
b.Delete Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(B), 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and
18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i) to eliminate the parking exemption for on-
site use of Historic and Seismic Bonus.
MINUTES
Page 18 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
c.Amend Section 18.18.080(g) to remove the on-site parking
exemption for floor area bonuses derived through historic and
seismic upgrades via the transfer of development rights (TDR)
program (where up to 5,000 square feet (SF) of floor area for each
type of upgrade is allowed for receiver sites in the CD or downtown
PC zoning districts).
d.Amend Section 18.52.070(a)(3) to disallow the parking exemption
for floor area developed or used previously for non-residential
purposes and vacant at the time of the engineer’s report during the
parking district assessment. (keep sq footage but eliminate parking
exemption)
Vice Mayor Shepherd expressed concern about the possible unintended
consequences of incentivizing people to seismically retrofit their historic
buildings. She wanted to understand whether the amount of in-lieu fees was
appropriate. Generally she disagreed with moratoriums. She also was
having difficulty with not allowing the 540 Hamilton Avenue project to
proceed.
Mr. Keene remarked that use of a parking exemption as an incentive was
outdated. He recommended the Council direct Staff to return separately
with other incentives related to historic and seismic improvements. There
might be other credits the City could offer.
Vice Mayor Shepherd questioned whether the revisions should be delayed
and presented with a TDM Program. She could support a Motion with better
incentives and inclusion of a TDM Program.
Council Member Holman did not agree with delaying revisions, but did agree
that other programs needed to be brought forward. She inquired about the
reason for a two-year effective period.
Mr. Aknin explained that the Downtown Development CAP Study Phase 1
and Phase 2 would require one to two years.
Council Member Holman recalled reading in PTC Minutes that Phase 1 would
require six months and asked if 1 1/2 years were needed for Phase 2.
Mr. Aknin indicated between one and two years was needed.
Mr. Keene stated the application, interpretation and policy changes
generated by Phase 2 would take time.
MINUTES
Page 19 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
Council Member Holman requested a timeline for presentation of the RPP
and TDM Programs.
Mr. Aknin reported Staff planned to provide an Ordinance regarding an RPP
Program to the Council in December 2013. Some time in spring to early
summer 2014 a program could be implemented. He did not have an
estimate for a TDM Program. The initial portion could be effective sometime
in 2014. It would take time to provide a thorough TDM Program.
Council Member Holman inquired about better utilization of parking garages.
Mr. Aknin stated Staff was issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for attendant
parking at Lot R. Staff would consider different methods throughout 2014.
Council Member Holman was sensitive to bonus square footage for seismic
and historic improvements and TDRs. The City Manager mentioned
consideration of other ways to incentivize improvements and TDRs. She
asked about the difficulty of pipeline projects to park required spaces rather
than paying in-lieu fees.
Mr. Aknin noted the 500 University Avenue project was now fully parked.
The 240 Hamilton Avenue project was utilizing lifts to provide parking for
residents. To provide that incremental space or two might require digging
further into the ground, which would add a disproportionate amount of cost.
Within Downtown, it would be best to have parking spread out.
Council Member Holman requested Staff consider cooperative use of private
garages.
Council Member Schmid favored proceeding with the proposed Ordinance.
The Council should give the public a clear signal that these issues were
important.
Council Member Berman was inclined to support the Motion. These
measures were the beginning of a solution. He wished to ensure that
Council decisions did not cause applicants to redesign projects. This process
was similar to past processes in similar situations. Removing the
grandfather issue mitigated the negative consequence for applicants. The
increased number of single-occupancy drivers was the cause of parking
problems. He did not wish to incentivize single-occupancy car trips.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Vice Mayor
Shepherd to exempt the pipeline projects at 240 Hamilton Avenue, 261
MINUTES
Page 20 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
Hamilton Avenue, 429 University Avenue, 640 Waverley Street, 500
University Avenue, 301 High Street as listed in Table Six of the Staff Report.
Council Member Klein wished to refute the Mayor's arguments with respect
to pipeline projects. He was concerned because the City's integrity was at
stake. The City had a policy that projects in the application process had
some rights, and the Council should not change that policy to remove those
rights. The Council had an overriding obligation to be fair to people.
Vice Mayor Shepherd did not support giving away free parking. The Council
needed to adjust to the knowledge-based economy by building garages in
Downtown and building up Downtown infrastructure.
Council Member Kniss commented that consistency and predictability made a
City successful. The City apparently did not know how to handle success
and needed a long-term solution to a cyclical problem.
Council Member Holman felt it was reasonable to support the Motion. The
Council had a practice, rather than a policy, not to include pipeline projects.
The practice as changed in 2012 was appropriate to follow in this situation.
Fairness was important. With the Council's discussion of parking issues over
the past year, applicants had to know changes were coming.
Mayor Scharff concurred with Council Member Holman's comments. If the
Council moved forward with the new approach, then people would have the
sense of consistency. It was important for the Council to address parking
solutions. Each project should pay its fair share for parking.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION FAILED 4-5 Klein, Shepherd, Kniss, Price yes
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER
AND THE SECONDER to add to 2b and 2c “to have Staff return with
replacement incentives for historic and seismic bonus” to read as follows:
b.Delete Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(B), 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and
18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i) to eliminate the parking exemption for on-site
use of Historic and Seismic Bonus and to have Staff return with
replacement incentives for historic and seismic bonus.
c.Amend Section 18.18.080(g) to remove the on-site parking exemption
for floor area bonuses derived through historic and seismic upgrades
via the transfer of development rights (TDR) program (where up to
5,000 square feet (SF) of floor area for each type of upgrade is
allowed for receiver sites in the CD or downtown PC zoning districts)
MINUTES
Page 21 of 21
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/21/13
and to have Staff return with replacement incentives for historic and
seismic bonus.
Council Member Burt inquired whether Vice Mayor Shepherd was adding
language to the Motion.
Vice Mayor Shepherd responded yes.
Council Member Holman suggested that language should also apply to 2c
Ms. Stump agreed that 2b and 2c were a pair.
Council Member Klein felt the Council should not wait for other aspects to be
presented. The proposed Ordinance would not change the main problem,
but was the beginning step.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-1 Kniss no
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4211)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/4/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Second Reading - Parking Exemptions Code Ordinances
Title: SECOND READING: 1. Adoption of an Interim Ordinance to Amend
Chapters 18.18, Downtown Commercial (CD) District, and 18.52, (Parking and
Loading Requirements) to Make the Following Changes to be Effective for a
Period of Two Years: a. Delete Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(C) and
18.52.070(a)(1)(D) to Eliminate the Parking Exemption related to the 200
Square Foot Minor Floor Area Bonus for Buildings not Eligible for Historic or
Seismic Bonus. b. Delete Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(B), 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and
18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i) to Eliminate the Parking Exemption for On-site Use of
Historic and Seismic Bonus. c. Amend Section 18.18.080(g) to remove the On-
site Parking Exemption for Historic and Seismic Transfer of Development
Rights up to 5,000 Square Feet of Floor Area to a Receiver Site in the CD or PC
Zoning Districts. d. Amend Section 18.52.070(a)(3) to Remove the Sentence
Allowing Square Footage to Qualify for Exemption That Was Developed or
Used Previously for Nonresidential Purposes but was Vacant at the time of
the Engineer's Report. 2. Adoption of an Ordinance to Repeal Ordinance 5167
and Amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Delete Sections 18.52.060(a)(2)
and 18.52.060(c) Related to Parking Assessment Districts to Eliminate the
“Exempt Floor Area” Parking Exemption Which Allows for Floor Area up to a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0 to 1.0 to be Exempt From Parking Requirements
Within the Downtown Parking Assessment Area and Floor Area up to an FAR
of 0.5 to 1.0 to be Exempt Within the California Avenue Area Parking
Assessment District. These actions are exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061 and 15301 of the
CEQA Guidelines (First Reading: October 21, 2013 PASSED: 8-1 Kniss no)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Staff recommends that Council adopt on second reading the following:
1.Adopt an Interim Ordinance (Attachment A) to amend PAMC Chapters 18.18, Downtown
Commercial (CD) District, and 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), to make the
following changes, to be effective for a period of two years:
a.Delete Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(C) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(D) to eliminate the
parking exemptions related to the 200 square foot Minor Floor Area Bonus for
buildings not eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus.
b.Delete Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(B), 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i)
to eliminate the parking exemption for on-site use of Historic and Seismic Bonus
floor area.
c.Amend Section 18.18.080(g) to remove the on-site parking exemption for floor
area bonuses derived through historic and seismic upgrades via the transfer of
development rights (TDR) program (where up to 5,000 square feet (SF) of floor
area for each type of upgrade has been allowed without having to be “parked”
for receiver sites in the CD or downtown PC zoning districts).
d.Amend Section 18.52.070(a)(3) to disallow the parking exemption for floor area
developed or used previously for non-residential purposes and vacant at the time
of the engineer’s report during the parking district assessment.
2.Adopt an Ordinance to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to permanently
delete Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c) related to Parking Assessment Districts
to eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemption which allows floor area up to a
floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 to 1.0 to be exempt from parking requirements within the
Downtown Parking Assessment Area, and floor area up to an FAR of 0.5 to 1.0 to be
exempt within the California Avenue area parking assessment district (Attachment B).
Background
On October 21, 2013, the City Council approved, with amendments to the original staff
recommendation, an interim ordinance to be effective for a period of two years to eliminate
parking exemptions related to the following:
1.200 square foot Minor Floor Area Bonus.
2.On-site use of Historic and Seismic Bonuses.
3.Floor Area Bonuses derived through historic or seismic upgrades via the transfer of
development rights (TDR) program.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
4.Floor area developed or used previously for non-residential purposes and vacant at the
time of the engineer’s report during the parking district assessment.
Per staff’s recommendation at the Council hearing, the Council did not modify the existing
building replacement provision of code section 18.18.120(a)(2) and (b)(2) pertaining to
grandfathered uses and facilities as originally proposed. In addition, the Council modified the
ordinance to keep the 200 square foot Minor Floor Area Bonus for buildings not on the City’s
list of historic resources or seismic categories, but to eliminate the parking exemption
associated with this bonus. In addition, Council clarified that this bonus must be parked and
that if it cannot be parked on site, it can pay in lieu parking fees. A revised Interim Ordinance
which reflects Council’s action is included as Attachment A.
The Council also approved an Ordinance to Repeal Ordinance 5167 and amend Palo Alto
Municipal Code related to Parking Assessment Districts to eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area”
parking exemption which allows for floor area up to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 to 1.0 to be
exempt from parking requirements within the Downtown Parking Assessment Area and floor
area up to an FAR of 0.5 to 1.0 to be exempt from parking requirements within the California
Avenue area parking assessment district (Attachment B). There had been a moratorium on the
use of this ordinance since October 2012.
Discussion
At the October 21, 2013 Council hearing on the proposed ordinances, there were a number of
public speakers, including residents of the neighborhoods surrounding the downtown area, and
developers and commercial property owners with projects pending review that could be
impacted by the Council’s action on the interim ordinance. The residents expressed concern
with the intrusion of parking into the neighborhoods, indicating data has been collected to
document the increased impacts of parking in the area. Developers with projects in the
pipeline (submitted for planning review but not yet approved) expressed concern that the rules
would change in the middle of the process and asked that Council consider exempting the
pipeline projects from the interim ordinance.
After some discussion, the Council determined that the projects that had received final
planning approvals and/or building permits (refer to Table 5 in Attachment C, Council Report
Parking Exemptions dated October 21, 2013) would be exempt from the interim ordinance. The
Council also determined that the pipeline projects listed in Table 6 of the October 21st CMR
Report, reduced to five projects given the at-places memo (Attachment D) regarding project
changes for one of listed projects, would be subject to the provisions of the Interim Ordinance.
These projects would either need to be revised to reduce floor area, provide the required
parking spaces on site or pay the in-lieu fees (if in the assessment district). Staff has already
spoken to several of these applicants, who now intend to provide additional parking onsite
City of Palo Alto Page 4
and/or pay in-lieu fees.
Timeline
The Interim Ordinance to eliminate certain parking exemptions for a period of two years would
become effective 31 days after Council’s adoption. The interim ordinance would be in effect for
two years from its effective date unless amended or made permanent by Council. The
Ordinance establishing the moratorium on the use of Parking Exemptions within the Downtown
and California Avenue Parking Assessment areas will expire on December 28, 2013. In order for
the current provisions to stay in effect, the permanent ordinance will need to be adopted by
the City Council 31 days prior to the expiration (by November 27, 2013).
Environmental Review
The proposed Ordinances would eliminate certain exemptions to the parking regulations within
the Downtown and California Avenue areas of the City of Palo Alto, which will result in projects
that will comply with the remaining parking regulations established in the Palo Alto Municipal
Code. Each development project submitted under the revised regulations will be subject to its
own environmental review. Consequently, these ordinances are exempt from the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14
of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility the adoption and implementation of these Ordinances may have a significant effect
on the environment. Further, the actions are compliant with Section 15301 in that these
proposed ordinances will have a minor impact on existing facilities.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Interim Ordinance Parking Regulations (PDF)
Attachment B: Ordinance to Eliminate 1 to 1 Parking Exemption (PDF)
Attachment C: CMR Parking Exemptions dated October 21, 2013 (PDF)
Attachment D: Parking Exemptions At Places (PDF)
Attachment E: October 21, 2013 City Council Action Minutes (DOC)
1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Verbatim Minutes 2
August 12, 2015 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6
Parking Exemption Ordinance - The Planning and Transportation Commission will Consider a7
Recommendation to the City Council for Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Chapters 18.19, Downtown8
Commercial (CD) District and 18.52, Parking and Loading Requirements, to Eliminate Certain Parking9
Exemptions within the Downtown Area. This ordinance will make permanent the following parking10
exemptions previously eliminated by interim ordinance: (1) parking exemptions related to Transferrable11
Development Rights (TDRs); (2) 200 square foot exemption available for downtown projects and (3)12
exemption for properties that were “vacant” at the time the assessment district was formed. This13
ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant section 15061(b)(3)14
and section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines. For more information contact Jonathan Lait at15
jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org16 17
Acting Chair Fine: Alright, let’s reconvene this meeting. We have one last item, Number 4, which is the18
Parking Exemption Ordinance. Sorry. And in short this is to make permanent removal of a number of19
parking exemptions. Would staff like to give a brief presentation? We have nobody to listen20
(interrupted)21 22
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Thank you; Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. This23
will be a very brief presentation. The recommendation here is to adopt the ordinance attached as Exhibit24
A to the packet, make a recommendation to Council to make that ordinance permanent. By way of25
background this ordinance deals with a series of parking regulations that the City Council put into place in26
2013 to try to shore up some parking exemption loopholes in the zoning code. This related this particular27
ordinance related to four often used parking exemptions in the Downtown area. The interim ordinance28
will expire on November 4, 2015, and so this ordinance is, must be adopted before November 4, 2015, to29
have a seamless transition.30 31
So I wanted to summarize the four parking exemptions that this ordinance will permanently eliminate.32
First of all there is a 200 square foot (sf) parking exemption that is given to properties in the Downtown33
area that do not receive a seismic or a historic bonus. That 200 sf bonus can only be used onsite and34
previously it was also parking exempt. This ordinance will eliminate that exemption.35 36
Second, this ordinance eliminates the parking exemption associated with the bonus given for seismic37
retrofitting of buildings and historic preservation of buildings. You can get up to a 5,000, I believe it’s38
5,000 sf bonus for those types of rehabilitation and previously those bonuses were parking exempt. This39
ordinance will eliminate the exemptions for those types of developments. And again this ordinance will,40
the parking exemptions will be eliminated for use of the bonus onsite and also for offsite transfer of the41
bonus known as a TDR.42 43
And then finally the ordinance eliminates the parking exemptions for property where the floor area was44
used previously for nonresidential use and the property was vacant at the time the original parking45
assessment district was formed in the Downtown area. That was sort of a historic exemption. It has not46
been used very often, but it’s been identified as sort of a loophole and so this will eliminate that47
exemption.48 49
And then finally there are a couple of sort of clarifying and clerical changes made in this permanent50
ordinance. That one other note on this is that in connection with the interim ordinance Council also51
directed staff to look at whether by eliminating the parking exemption for historic and seismic renovations52
whether that would disincentivize those types of rehabilitations. And staff did look at that and the53
thought is that as long as the bonus is still there, the square footage bonus itself serves as an incentive54
and the parking exemption is not needed as an additional incentive. That concludes our report.55
ATTACHMENT C
2
1
Acting Chair Fine: Thank you so much. I’d like to open it up for any questions on the Commission. 2
Commissioner Downing. 3
4
Commissioner Downing: Quick question. So once these exemptions are removed those parking 5
requirements can then be met with in lieu fees? 6
7
Ms. Silver: Yes they can. Yes, in Downtown. In the Downtown area, yes. 8
9
Commissioner Downing: But not? 10
11
Ms. Silver: Actually the exemptions only apply to the Downtown. So they will be available, yes. 12
13
Commissioner Downing: Ok, that’s what I thought. 14
15
Ms. Silver: In lieu. 16
17
Acting Chair Fine: Commissioner Michael. 18
19
Acting Vice-Chair Michael: So the as I recall these exemptions are subject to a temporary moratorium at 20
the moment? What’s the experience the City’s having under the temporary status of the moratorium? 21
22
Ms. Silver: So let’s see, can you speak to any of the historical during the two year period we have had a 23
few projects that have come forward I know with requests for bonuses and some of the parking actually 24
has been accommodated. All of the parking has either been accommodated onsite or a parking in lieu 25
fee has been paid. So it doesn’t appear to be impacting projects. 26
27
Acting Vice-Chair Michael: So maybe to put it another way you’re not seeing a significant amount of 28
problems with the, with this approach? 29
30
Ms. Silver: Correct. 31
32
Acting Vice-Chair Michael: Ok. 33
34
Acting Chair Fine: Any other questions from the Commission? Would anyone like to make a Motion? 35
Commissioner Michael. 36
37
MOTION 38
39
Acting Vice-Chair Michael: I would like to make a Motion that we, that the Commission recommend to 40
Council adopting an ordinance permanently amending Chapters 18.18 and 18.52 to eliminate certain 41
Downtown parking exemptions as noted in the staff report. 42
43
Acting Chair Fine: Thank you. Is there a second? 44
45
SECOND 46
47
Commissioner Downing: Second. 48
49
VOTE 50
51
Acting Chair Fine: Seconded by Commissioner Downing. Are we ready to vote on this? All those in 52
favor? All those against? None. The Motion passes four to nothing and that concludes Item 4. 53
54
MOTION PASSED (4-0-3, Commissioners Tanaka, Rosenblum, and Gardias absent) 55
56
3
Commission Action: Motion to adopt staff recommendations, making permanent the removal of 1
parking exemptions downtown. Motion by Commissioner Alcheck, seconded by Commissioner Downing. 2
Motion passed unanimously (4-3) 3
\ 4
City of Palo Alto
COLLEAGUES MEMO
October 05, 2015 Page 1 of 1
(ID # 6180)
DATE: October 5, 2015
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Council Member Scharff, Council Member Holman, Council Member
Kniss, Council Member Berman
SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES' MEMO RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A
RESOLUTION COMBATING HUMAN TRAFFICKING, INCLUDING STAFF TRAINING,
ASSISTANCE IN IDENTIFYING VULNERABLE POPULATIONS AND LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCACY
RECOMMENDATION
Request Colleagues adopt the attached Resolution indicating our support for combatting
human trafficking, additional staff training, and identifying vulnerable populations, as well as
promoting legislative advocacy.
BACKGROUND
In anticipation of several events that will attract hundreds of thousands of visitors to the
Peninsula, including Super Bowl 50 in particular, we believe that our support of efforts to
control human trafficking will add support and visibility to this problem. Human trafficking is
often overlooked and is an underlying long-term problem in our suburban communities.
Joining in with other local jurisdictions to highlight and combat this problem is critical and
especially as the holidays and Super Bowl 50 are approaching.
This Resolution will also inform the public of local governments’ intent to address the problem,
not only now, but in the future as well.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Staff anticipates that there may be minor one-time costs associated with staff training and
legislative advocacy as directed by the proposed Resolution. Costs to identify vulnerable
populations are unknown at this time. These costs could be defrayed by county, state, and/or
other grants. Staff will review potential opportunities for such grant funding.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO OF LOCAL SUPPORT
COMBATTING HUMAN TRAFFICKING:
STAFF TRAINING, ASSISTANCE IN IDENTIFYING
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS AND
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY
WHEREAS, the crime of human trafficking destroys lives around the world and is
present in every country and every U.S. state; and
WHEREAS, the State of California and its constituent communities are considered to be
receptor sites for trafficking due to economic conditions and proximity to international
borders; and
WHEREAS, forced labor, commercial sexual exploitation and involuntary domestic servitude
have been found to exist within local communities; and
WHEREAS, local communities exercise police power, maintain collaborative relations
with other governmental agencies and adopt positions of legislative advocacy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo
Alto, by adopting this resolution, does hereby state that:
1. The City will participate in available training of staff; and
2. The City will assist local agencies in identifying populations that are vulnerable to
the crime of human trafficking; and
3. The City adopts a legislative advocacy position in support of anti-trafficking
measures.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution will be transmitted to the
appropriate county, state and federal elected representatives.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________ ______________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________ ______________________
City Attorney City Manager
City
Seal and
Ribbons