EAST PALO ALTO JOINT CITY COUNCIL
AND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL
STUDY SESSION AMENDED AGENDA
Thursday, April 25, 2024, 6:00 PM
EPA Government Center
2415 University Avenue, First Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
NOTICE
This meeting will be held virtually and in- person at the Council Chambers located on 2415 University Ave, First Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303. The virtual portion of this City Council meeting will be conducted in accordance with City of East Palo Alto Resolution adopted pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.
The public may participate in the City Council Meeting via Zoom Meeting or by attending inperson in the Council Chambers at 2415 University Ave, First Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303.
Community members may provide comments by emailing [email protected], submitting a speaker card at the meeting, or using the RAISE HAND feature when the Mayor or City Clerk call for public comment. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting.
Please click this URL to join
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87599503832
Or join by phone:
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 669 900 6833 or
+ 1 346 248 7799 or
+ 1 253 215 8782 or
+ 1 312 626 6799 or
+ 1 929 205 6099 or
+ 1 301 715 8592
Webinar ID: 875 9950 3832
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aMWYF4KT East Palo Alto City Council April 25, 2024, Agenda 1 1
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
1. City Council Roll Call
2. Planning Commission Roll Call
2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
4. STUDY SESSION
Ravenswood Business District/4 Corners Specific Plan - Public Draft Review and Comment
Recommendation: Host a Joint Study Session on the Public Draft of the Ravenswood Business District/4 Corners Specific Plan Update and provide feedback and comments to staff on the Public Draft, including on the updated FAR and Community Benefits Framework.
5. COUNCIL REPORTS
6. ADJOURNMENT
Upcoming meetings:
Meeting Date Time
Regular Meeting May 7, 2024 6:30 PM
Regular Meeting May 21, 2024 6:30 PM
Budget Meeting May 30, 2024 6:00 PM
East Palo Alto City Council April 25, 2024 Agenda
2 2
This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) This Notice of Availability of Public Records: All public records relating to an open session item which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act, that are distributed to the majority of the City Council will be available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office, 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the City Council. Such documents may also be available on the East Palo Alto website www.cityofepa.org subject to staff’s ability to post the documents prior to the meeting. Information may be obtained by calling (650) 853-3100.
The City Council meeting packet may be reviewed by the public in the Library or the City Clerk's Office. Any writings or documents pertaining to an open session item provided to a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, shall be made available for public inspection at the front counter at the City Clerk's Office, 2ND Floor, City Hall, 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, California 94303 during normal business hours. Information distributed to the Council at the Council meeting becomes part of the public record. A copy of written material, pictures, etc. should be provided for this purpose.
East Palo Alto City Council Chambers is ADA compliant. Requests for disability related modifications or accommodations, aids or services may be made by a person with a disability to the City Clerk's office at (650) 853-3127 no less than 72 hours prior to the meeting as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof.
DECLARATION OF POSTING
This Notice is posted in accordance with Government Code §54954.2(a) or §54956. Members of the public can view electronic agendas and staff reports by accessing the City website. Under penalty of perjury, this Agenda was posted to the public at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
POSTED: April 22, 2024
ATTEST:
James Colin
City Clerk
East Palo Alto City Council April 25, 2024 Agenda
3 3
STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
EAST PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 25, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Members of the Planning Commission
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Amy Chen, Community & Economic Development Director Elena Lee, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Public Draft Review and Comment
Recommendation
Conduct a Joint Study Session on the Public Draft of the Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan Update and provide feedback and comments to staff on the Public Draft, including on the updated Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Community Benefits Framework.
Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:
Promote Housing, Economic and Workforce Development
Promote Health & Public Safety
Ensure Our Financial and Organizational Health
Executive Summary
The Public Draft of the Specific Plan1 contains the concepts, standards, and networks previously shown to Council, with a few key modifications. Development Capacity and Reserves. Staff is recommending that the Specific Plan be implemented with the larger of the two scenarios analyzed by the SEIR 1 RBD Draft Plan:
https://www.cityofepa.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning/page/16201/rbdspu_publicdraft.pdf 4 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
(Scenario 2, or 3.35 million square feet of office/R&D space), as this better accommodates the level of development interest, notwithstanding the Council’s and community’s initial input as to the level of desired development intensity, proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
2 and Community Benefits Framework, allowing
for two tiers of bonus FAR to properly tailor the level of development intensity, but ensures commensurate and robust community benefits. Through the application of the proposed framework, this additional development capacity will result in additional benefits for the local community and City more broadly. Structured FAR and Community Benefits Framework. The Specific Plan has been revised toward a structured incentive-based framework to meet public input concerning benefits in a changing and uncertain market. The base allowed FAR provides the foundational level of development, reflecting community and Council input, and two tiers of additional FAR may be earned through achievement of identified benefits targets at Council discretion (represented as a mix of defined and negotiated targets).
o Obtaining additional FAR and height would be at Council discretion and requires provision of community benefits per the targets table, completing financial analyses, and negotiating a Development Agreement (D.A.). Hybrid Allocation Process. The Plan now offers two different entitlement pathways for applicants to obtain discretionary allocations of office/R&D square footage from Council: (1) seek immediate approval, or (2) hold/reserve square footage and wait for a stronger market that supports more benefits and development.
To achieve the City’s vision of an urban neighborhood and employment district in the context of a changing development market and uncertain financial conditions, staff and the project team has made major revisions and clarifications to the land use, urban design, and mobility concepts previously shown to City Council as follows:
Land Use. Additional permitted uses support recreational facilities, community organizations, and new employment types appropriate for local residents. Development Intensity/Density. Minimum residential densities have been added, and base FAR has been reduced. Standard and Exemplary Maximum FAR Tiers are added, with concomitant targets contained in the Community Benefits Framework.
Building Heights. Exemplary zones have been refined and standards for rooftop equipment have been adjusted to account for emerging R&D building typologies. 2 FAR is a measurement of a development’s size and intensity, measured as a ratio of the building floor area to the size of the land that is built on (e.g., 2 stories covering half of the lot would equal a 1.0 FAR).
FAR is used to measure non-residential uses (with some exceptions), while density measures residential uses. To mediate resident concerns over development intensity, staff proposes a framework that lowers the allowed size or FAR of future development as a starting point, but establishes a clear pathway for a voluntary process whereby larger developments may be permitted in return for concomitant benefits. 5 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
Active Frontages. Subsidized community spaces now count towards active use requirements, to further promote these kinds of ground-floor spaces. Parks and Trails Network. A new park has been added at the end of Fordham Street, and options have been identified for future Bay Trail alignment. Roadway Network. The roundabout proposed for Tara and Bay Road has been removed, a cross-section of Bay Road has been narrowed to reduce right-of-way take, and the Loop Road has been included only as an option but not as a default required mitigation.
Off-Street Parking. Maximum ratios have been adjusted upward slightly for R&D uses to preserve competitiveness for East Palo Alto relative to other cities and reduce neighborhood parking spillover.
Key implementation actions must be carried out to successfully enable development and the concomitant delivery of community benefits, including:
Coordination on the Strategy to Advance Flood Protection, Ecosystems and Recreation along San Francisco Bay (SAFER Bay) project, a public-private collaboration, for levee and flood control improvements and wetlands preservation and restoration;
Formation of a RBD/4 Corners infrastructure financing entity to maintain infrastructure improvements;
Ensuring an adequate sanitary sewer system; Transportation capacity improvements including Bay Road right-of-way acquisitions; Preparation of a RBD/4 Corners transportation demand management (TDM) plan and formation of a transportation management association (TMA); Water and storm drainage improvements to accommodate future development; and
Update of development impact fees (through the ongoing nexus study).
Background
In September 2020, the City Council recommended exploring a focused amendment to the Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”). Although the overall vision of the plan would generally remain the same, the Specific Plan update analyzed the impacts of increasing the amount of office and research and development (R&D) space and housing in the Specific Plan area. The key objectives for the Specific Plan update are:
Evaluate the relative impacts and benefits of allowing more office/R&D square footage and define policies that address 1) traffic and trip reduction; 2) wet utility infrastructure; 3) fiscal impacts; 4) gentrification/indirect displacement and housing affordability, and 5) local jobs.
Develop a clear framework and program to promote community benefits to address some of the foregoing concerns.
6 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
Articulate objective urban design and zoning standards that will create a new, “complete” neighborhood, and
Maintain the vision of “transforming the area into a vibrant, walkable, mixed-use destination with a significant increase in employment, institutional uses, and moderate increase in housing.”
Past Project Meetings
To date, the City Council has held nine public meetings or study sessions to discuss the Specific Plan Update. The key topics covered and/or decisions made at each meeting are described below, along with a footnoted hyperlink to the relevant staff report:
March 2021: Reviewed changes in area demographics; agreed on draft urban design objectives.
3 June 2021: Discussed transportation impacts and trip reduction methods.
Consensus on the concept of a trip cap tied to the trips studied under the 2013 Plan. The largest scenario (5.25 million square feet or “s.f.”) was removed from consideration due to excessive trip impacts to the community. 4 September 2021: Reviewed technical analysis of scenarios including traffic, indirect displacement, housing costs, fiscal revenues, community benefits, and visual impacts. Community expressed concern over cumulative impacts that would result from proposed developments (total of 4.1 million s.f. of office/R&D) 5 November 2021: Directed staff to study two non-residential scenarios for CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act): 2.8 million s.f. and 3.35 million s.f. of office/R&D. Removed 4.1 million s.f. scenario from consideration due to excessive impacts to the community.6
February 2022: Selected two housing scenarios to study under the SEIR (Supplemental Environmental Impact Report): 1,350 and 1,600 units to accompany office/R&D square footage numbers.
7 May 2022: Presented priorities for specific benefits and draft “framework” for obtaining community benefits.
8 July 2022: Council conceptually endorsed the benefits framework, which was based on a discretionary allocation of square footage based on a comprehensive evaluation of the benefits packages proposed by the projects (in relation to their financial value and the priorities espoused by residents). 9 3 http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1330&Inline=True 4 http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1352&Inline=True 5 http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1383&Inline=True 6 http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1400&Inline=True 7 http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1423&Inline=True 8 http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1768&Inline=True 9 http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1791&Inline=True 7 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
April 2023: Presented key urban design and mobility network concepts, and results of traffic and utility analysis to Council.
10 July 2023: Council endorsed the proposed framework for implementing the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, formation of a Transportation Management Association (TMA), and parking policies.11 The purpose of this report and presentation for the Council is to preview the Public Draft of the Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan Update and provide feedback and comments to staff on the Public Draft, including on the updated FAR and Community Benefits Framework.
Analysis
Changing Plan Context
At the time the Specific Plan Update began, capacity to develop commercial office space was viewed as an invaluable asset that local jurisdictions could use to also obtain community benefits for residents (housing, community space, infrastructure, parks). It was understood that East Palo Alto would suffer impacts (gentrification and traffic congestion) as a result of regional growth, but in order to see any benefits, the City would need to attract some development within city limits. Since this time, the economics of commercial office development projects have weakened considerably, potentially undermining the ability of the City to attract developers of office/R&D development projects. Rising interest rates and labor/material prices have increased costs on the front end, while the ongoing and anticipated shifts in employment away from traditional office and tech firms to more hybrid/remote layouts, life science and labs, and advanced manufacturing has reduced the projected rents that a project can realize.
Once the updated Specific Plan is adopted and applications for Allocations of Development Capacity are submitted, the City Council may be asked to weigh the pros and cons of approving a development project immediately or delaying approval until the market improves. Approving a project now may result in slightly less overall benefits than could be achieved by waiting, but waiting incurs a significant opportunity cost of delaying the delivery of benefits, impact fees, and anticipated Measure HH funds (Measure HH will provide no funding until commercial development occurs). Therefore, the Plan includes both a pathway for projects to move forward immediately if their finances support a benefits package that is acceptable to Council (and aligned with the Plan’s priorities and targets), and a second pathway for developers who wish to wait for a stronger market to support financially feasible developments with more community benefits. Regardless, given allocation constraints, each project seeking an allocation of limited Development Capacity must demonstrate to the Council that 1) the project has financial merit (through 10 http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1864&Inline=True 11 http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1890&Inline=True 8 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
a peer-reviewed financial feasibility and residual land value analysis) and 2) the project offers sufficient and appropriate community benefits (through staff’s evaluation of the proposed benefits relative to identified priorities and targets).
Development Capacity (Maximum Office/R&D Scenario)
The current (2013) Specific Plan allows approximately 1.41 million square feet of office/R&D space and 175,000 square feet of industrial space. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the updated Plan is analyzing two maximum development scenarios:
Scenario 1 – up to 2.82 million square feet of office/R&D space, 250,000 square feet of industrial space, and 1,350 housing units.
Scenario 2 – up to 3.35 million square feet of office/R&D space, 300,000 square feet of industrial space, and 1,600 housing units.
In addition, both scenarios analyze 112,400 net new square feet of retail and 154,700 net new square feet of civic space (an increase over the 61,000 square feet studied in the 2013 Plan). Before the SEIR receives its final certification, the City Council will need to select which scenario (or a hybrid) will become the final development capacity approved under CEQA. Council may provide direction at a future study session, but the ultimate selection of a scenario would be made at the time of SEIR certification and adoption of the Specific Plan Update.
Staff recommends that the Specific Plan be implemented with the larger of the two scenarios analyzed under the SEIR (Scenario 2, or 3.35 million square feet of office/R&D space), to better reflect development interest and to accommodate the proposed FAR Tiers & Community Benefits Framework and to allow for the establishment of two tiers of bonus FAR with concomitant community benefits. This larger capacity also permits a greater amount of development capacity to be held in reserve for minor projects.
The difference in impacts between the two scenarios (2.82 versus 3.35 million square feet) is fairly minimal, which the Draft SEIR analyzes in more detail. As discussed previously, mitigations for traffic are substantially the same, and utility mitigations are scaled proportionally as appropriate. One major constraint (a lack of regional sewer treatment capacity) applies to both scenarios. In general, the larger development scenario would be expected to provide more City revenues, more impact fees, and result in the provision of greater community benefits, particularly if the Council utilizes its discretionary power to allocate more square footage to projects which align best with the identified community benefits targets. It should be noted that the Plan allows for a Base level of development that does not require an additional community benefits program; a lowerintensity project may be more feasible to construct in the current economic climate.
Figure 1 illustrates the proposed development capacity, which would be set at 2.7 million square feet, and could be allocated to projects requesting either Base or Standard Tier 9 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
FAR. Projects requesting Exemplary Tier would be accessing square footage held in the Exemplary Reserve of 400,000 square feet, or 12% of the total capacity. A second reserve of 250,000 square feet, or 7.5% of total capacity, would be maintained for minor projects (less than 150,000 total square feet in size) to allow for smaller, infill office redevelopments in the Plan Area.
Figure 1: Proposed Development Capacity and Reserves
*The reserve for minor projects includes the approved and entitled JobTrain office project planned for 108,000 net new square feet of workforce development and offices.
The Council may, at its discretion, re-allocate square footage from one reserve to the other. After a specified time from the date of Plan adoption, Council may consider increasing the total development capacity in the Plan Area beyond the adopted Maximum.
Structured FAR & Community Benefits Framework
In a key change to the previous framework shown to Council, the Public Draft Plan proposes three tiers of Commercial Development Intensity, as measured by FAR: a Base, Standard, and Exemplary tier. The Base FAR allowed for commercial uses has been reduced, and two tiers of additional FAR may be earned through achievement of identified benefits targets at the City Council’s discretion (represented as a mix of defined and negotiated targets). Note that the Community Benefits Framework does not apply to residential-only developments (but applies to mixed-use projects with major office/R&D components). See Table 1 below for details on the targets. 10 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
Projects proposed at Base FAR do not need to provide additional community benefits beyond City impact fee requirements, and a Development Agreement (D.A.) may not be necessary. A Base FAR project is more likely to be a Light Industrial, maker/flex, or Advanced Manufacturing project. As Figure 2 shows, to exceed the Base FAR and be granted greater FAR and/or height than normally allowed, projects must demonstrate their achievement of a mix of defined and negotiated community benefits targets. o Standard Tier is achieved by earning 4 points
o Exemplary Tier is achieved by earning 8 points
o Achievement of 1 point under the Affordable Housing category is strongly encouraged for consideration of either the Standard or Exemplary Tiers. It is at the Council’s discretion to determine whether the proposed community benefits have earned the points necessary for that Tier. Benefits targets are specified for affordable housing, local jobs and community support, and public parks/plazas. Targets for utilities and/or transportation will be identified by Public Works and confirmed by Council. These targets can be revisited by Council community priorities or the market changes.
Figure 2: FAR and Community Benefits Framework (Bonus Tiers) NOTE: “WO” refers to the Waterfront Office land use zone and “REC” refers to the Ravenswood Employment Center land use zone within the Innovation and Tech Employment District. “4C” refers to the 4 Corners land use zone. See Figure 4: Plan Land Use Zones, below, for more information.
Note: The Maximum FARs permitted under the currently adopted Specific Plan were considered unacceptably high by the local community, and therefore have been reduced in the Public Draft Plan to lessen the potential future impacts on the community. 11 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
As proposed, all four major project applicants could essentially build (or conditionally hold) Standard Tier projects. However, given the options under consideration, all four major project applicants cannot build Exemplary Tier projects – as this would represent more than the 3.35 million square feet of capacity being analyzed.
The rest of the Community Benefits framework remains as previously proposed – 1) applicants must provide a benefits valuation and a financial feasibility analysis (e.g., a pro forma analysis) which will be peer reviewed, 2) applicants must complete a Benefits Scorecard and Local Jobs Narrative to describe and value all the proposed benefits, with the addition of the below targets to support clear and consistent evaluation by City staff.
Per the table below, projects may earn 1 point for meeting a Standard target, 2 points for meeting an Exemplary target, and 3 points by significantly exceeding the Exemplary target (Exceeds Exemplary is not an FAR tier, but rather a way to reward a project with extra credit for going above and beyond).
Table 1: Proposed Exemplary Framework Targets/Expectations Category Base
Requirement
Standard Tier
(4 points
needed)
Exemplary Tier
(8 points
needed)
Exceeds
Exemplary
n/a Worth 1 point Worth 2 points Worth 3 points
1. Utilities* Impact fees < << <<<
2. Affordable Housing
~$13/s.f.
(Commercial
Linkage Fee)
Build affordable
housing above
Commercial
Linkage Fee
requirement <
(Minimum
Requirement)
Build affordable
housing above
Commercial
Linkage Fee
requirement <<
Build affordable
housing above
Commercial
Linkage Fee <<<
(Jobs/Housing
Target)
3. Community (Civic &
Jobs) Space**
0% of total
project site
square footage
2.5% 5% 7.5%
4. Public Parks, Plazas
& Greenways
WO 5%
REC 0%
4C 5%
WO 10%
REC 10%
4C 10%
WO 20%
REC 15%
4C 20%
WO 30%
REC 25%
4C 25%
5. Transportation* Impact fees < << <<<
*The Public Works Director and City Manager (or designee) will negotiate specific projects/activities for Utilities and Transportation contributions and the points that will be awarded. The City Council will provide ultimate approval. **Projects may receive credit for inclusion of manufacturing/industrial/maker space in lieu of community or job space; targets for industrial space are 10% for Standard Tier and 20% for Exemplary Tier.
12 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
Note: The Jobs/Housing Linkage concept previously presented to Council has been integrated into this revised Benefits Framework as a defined target worth 3 points under #2 Affordable Housing (under ‘Exceeds Exemplary’). This could be achieved through construction of affordable units or voluntary donation of land to support affordable housing significantly in excess of the Commercial Linkage Fee requirement.
The exact dollar per square foot targets for affordable housing benefits are pending the results of ongoing nexus study for utility, transportation, and park costs, as the ability of a project to financially support additional affordable housing and pay nexus impact fees would be intrinsically related.
Projects are encouraged to provide spaces for existing locally-owned businesses that are being relocated/displaced from within the Plan Area or for locally owned businesses that formerly operated within the City limits. The City will continue to seek regular community input in ongoing distribution of revenues and new spaces generated by development in the Plan Area, most likely through a venue such as: a) public forums, b) community surveys, or an c) advisory committee.
Development Allocation Approach – Hybrid Process
To accommodate the differing finances amongst major project applicants, and to allow for projects to potentially be built in both the current and future market cycles, the Plan now offers two different pathways for applicants seeking to obtain discretionary allocations of office/R&D square footage from Council: 1) a Master Development Plan, which if granted moves immediately to a Development Agreement (D.A.) negotiation or 2) a Conditional Development Allocation, which is a “hold” or reservation of square footage for a delayed D.A. negotiation. The Master Development Plan requires a full Community Benefits proposal and analysis to be submitted, while the Conditional Allocation does not. If approved by Council, both types of Allocations are valid for up to three years (two years with a possible one-year extension).
Table 2: Hybrid Allocation Process
Master Development
Plan
Conditional Development
Allocation (“Hold”)
Window to Request
Allocation
Immediate; initial Allocation
Window open for 120 Days
from Official Allocation
Start Date
Indefinite (until
Development Capacity
expires)
Tier Base, Standard Tier, or
Exemplary Tier
Base or Standard Tier
proposal only
13 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
Submittal Requirements Community Benefits
program & scorecard, site
& land use plan,
preliminary building design
plans, environmental
clearance (similar to a
complete pre-application)
Conceptual plans only,
building massing,
preliminary environmental
review
Community Benefits
Program
Detailed program,
scorecard, narrative, and
financial analysis required.
Outline or proposal only.
Time to Complete
D.A. considered
concurrently or within 2
years, with possible 1-year
extension. Administrative
or P.C. approval if
compliant with Master
Plan.
Master Development Plan
(or full development
application) with
Community Benefits
program to be submitted
within 2 years with
possible 1-year extension.
D.A. deferred until
Development Plan.
The Development Agreements granted in the Plan Area via this allocation process will have a standard initial duration of 5 years, with a 5-year extension granted if notable development progress has occurred (otherwise Council may decide not to grant the extension). Figure 3 explains how the allocation process works, with both pathways illustrated:
Figure 3: Hybrid Allocation Process
Plan Preparation Reimbursement Fee
The City will seek reimbursement of funds expended for the preparation of the updated Specific Plan:
14 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
1. A fee will be calculated (total project costs paid by City divided by the Maximum Development Capacity square footage, minus the Minor Project Reserve) • Example: $1,277,472 / 3,100,000 square feet = $0.42 per square foot of office/R&D development
2. To secure an allocation of square footage, a major project applicant must pay the Plan Reimbursement fee to the City within ten business days of the allocation being granted by Council.
• If the amount due is less than the amount paid/owed through existing Developer Reimbursement Agreements, the applicants will receive a refund or credit towards other fees owed to the City.
Overview of Public Draft Specific Plan: Concept, Networks, and Standards The majority of the updated Specific Plan remains as it was presented to City Council on April 24, 2023 - various objective standards regulate key aspects of future development including land use, development intensity/density, maximum building heights and massing, view corridors, active frontages, parks and open space network, roadway network, and pedestrian and bicycle networks. These diagrams are included in Attachment 1. Figure 4 illustrates the Plan’s six different land use zones:
4 Corners (maroon): an active, urban, "Downtown” for the whole City. Bay Road Central Core (orange): a community-serving nonprofit, medical, and local business core anchored around a lively central segment with residential and retail uses.
Innovation & Tech Employment District that includes:
o Waterfront Office (blue): high-tech and higher-intensity job district with active ground floors and ample public spaces.
o Ravenswood Employment Center (purple): middle-intensity job district, with a mix of employment-supporting land uses.
Light Industrial Transition (gray): a lower-tech and lower-intensity job district that offers middle-income employment and a mix of production/warehousing spaces. Urban Residential Edges (brown): multifamily housing intended for Plan Area residents and workers that serves as a transition between the employment uses and existing neighborhoods.
Reminder: The University Village neighborhood has been removed from the Plan Area boundary.
Reminder: City Council endorsed the locations for the residential overlay zones in February 2022. The previous Specific Plan allowed housing only in 4 Corners Gateway, Bay Road Central, and Urban Residential zones. 15 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
Figure 4: Plan Land Use Zones
16 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
Compared to what was previously shown to City Council in April 2023, staff and the project team have made refinements to plan concepts, standards, and diagrams in light of changing market conditions and financial feasibility, while staying true to the community’s priorities for benefits, design principles, and desired outcomes. The following summarizes the key changes between now and April 2023:
Land Use
Clubs, nonprofits & charitable institutions are permitted in employment zones. Community/recreational facilities allowed in Parks & Recreation zone. “Advanced Manufacturing” added as Permitted or Conditionally Permitted under Manufacturing-General in all employment zones.
Hazardous materials policy added, specifying requirements for projects that propose use of chemicals or similar materials.
Change in land use zone for Ecumenical Hunger Program to accommodate current and future uses.
Development Intensity – Non-Residential FAR
To support the Community Benefits Framework, the Plan substantially reduces the maximum allowed commercial FAR in 4 Corners, Waterfront Office, Ravenswood Employment Center, and Bay Road Central.
Table 3: Maximum Intensity Standards (FAR Tiers)
4 Corners
Gateway
Bay Road
Central
Ravenswood
Employment
Center
Industrial
Transition
Zone
Waterfront
Office
Urban
Residential
Current
Maximum 1.5 2.0 1.0 0.75 3.0 --
Base
Maximum
FAR 1.0
0.50 (office/retail)
1.0 (hotel/medical)
0.35 0.75 0.5 --
Standard
Maximum
FAR 1.5
0.75 (office/retail)
1.5 (hotel/medical)
0.50 -- 0.95 --
Exemplary
Maximum
FAR 2.0
1.0 (office/retail)
2.0 (hotel/medical)
0.75 -- 1.5 --
Maximum FAR applies only to non-residential projects and non-residential portions of mixed-use projects.
Development Density – Residential Units per Acre
To align with the General Plan land use designation densities and to implement a proposed action from the City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element, the Plan institutes 17 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
minimum densities (for residential-only or mixed-use residential projects) and increases the maximum densities, as shown in Table 4:
Table 4: Residential Density Standards
4 Corners
Gateway
Bay
Road
Central
Ravenswood
Employment
Center
Industrial
Transition
Waterfront
Office
Urban
Residential
Minimum
Density 22 (n/a) 22 (n/a) -- -- -- 22 (n/a)
Maximum
Density 86 (60) 65 (50) -- -- -- 43 (40)
Maximum Building Heights
Exemplary height zones have been refined slightly.
Standards for rooftop equipment have been adjusted to account for emerging R&D building typologies.
Active Frontages
To acknowledge the changing nature of brick-and-mortar retail, more flexibility has been provided by allowing subsidized community spaces to count towards the active frontage requirements.
The required total active floor area has been reduced in the Flex zone and changed to a guideline for the Non-Retail zone.
Public Parks and Open Space Network
A new park has been added at the end of Fordham Street, and options have been identified for future Bay Trail alignment.
Common (semi-private) and Private Open Space square footage requirements combined; residential developments have flexibility to choose how to provide.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks
No substantive changes made.
Note that a 20’ wide multiuse bicycle and pedestrian path will be constructed along the Bay as part of the SAFER Bay project, potentially on top or adjacent to the improvement itself, regardless of whether a vehicular Loop Road is built.
Roadway Network
The roundabout proposed for Tara and Bay Road has been changed to a signalized 4-way intersection.
The envisioned cross-section on Bay Road between Pulgas Avenue and Tara Road has been narrowed to reduce the required right-of-way take. 18 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
Note that a vehicular Loop Road is now considered as optional and not a default mitigation for future traffic impacts resulting from development in the Plan Area. o The potential biological and wetlands impacts of the conceptual Loop Road have been analyzed in the SEIR to provide a conservative/maximal assessment of possible impacts.
Off-Street Parking Ratios
Compared to what was presented to Council in July 2023, the proposed maximum ratios have been adjusted upward slightly for R&D uses (from 2.0 to 2.5 per 1,000 sq ft) to preserve competitiveness for East Palo Alto development relative to other cities and to reduce neighborhood parking spillover. Furthermore, to encourage sharing amongst complimentary uses, R&D projects that propose shared parking arrangements may be allowed to exceed the maximum (up to 3.0 per 1,000 sq ft).
Note that compared to the previous Plan, which contained parking minimums, this Plan contains maximum parking ratios to support achievement of the TDM Ordinance.
Key Implementation Actions
The City needs to undertake multiple infrastructure-related implementation actions either concurrent with the Specific Plan or immediately after its adoption. These include:
1. Completing the nexus study to properly assess the fair share of development impact costs attributable to new developments; the release of the public draft nexus study is estimated to be released for late April for a required 30-day public review period and the financial feasibility analysis is expected to be available in May.
2. Adopt a Storm Drain Master Plan update and related analysis;
3. The formation of a financing district such as a Community Facilities District/MelloRoos (CFD) or Community Revitalization and Investment Authority (CRIA) to pay for, construct, and potentially maintain needed public infrastructure improvements. At minimum, the City will require or otherwise ensure that a Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District or similar property owner’s maintenance assessment district is formed in the Plan Area.
4. Facilitating or otherwise enabling key right-of-way acquisitions to support needed transportation capacity improvements, particularly on Bay Road.
5. Preparation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Implementation Guidelines, and formation by the applicants of a RBD/4 Corners transportation management association (TMA) followed by an annual TDM Plan for the district.
6. New developments will need to connect to the sanitary sewer system and pay a fair share for any necessary system improvements and expansion. Coordinating with the Joint Powers Authority and the property owners on the design, alignment, and construction of the SAFER Bay project. The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) has made substantial progress on proposed design and construction feasibility.
19 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
SAFER Bay Flood Control Project Update
The SFCJPA has identified a proposed SAFER Bay alignment for the segment north of Bay Road, located 42 feet off of the backs of residential properties in University Village with a new park in the north at the end of Fordham Street. This alignment is the design team's preference based on feasibility, balance of benefits to residents and regulatory approval. Proposed alignments are illustrated in the figure below. SFCJPA has determined that the future flood control project will not be located along the City’s northern limits (parallel with Tulane Avenue) and will instead turn northeastward and therefore is not anticipated to conflict with a potential Loop Road.
Figure 5: SAFER Bay Alignment
20 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
Next Steps and Timeline
The Public Draft Specific Plan was released on April 16, 2024. City Council has been asked to provide feedback and initial comments on the Draft Plan. Next steps include:
Public comments on the Specific Plan will be accepted through the close of comments on the DSEIR, targeted for early July.
If requested by Council, staff will return on July 25, 2024 for a study session on any items or topics that require follow-up discussion.
Staff will return on September 26, 2024 for a study session on any items or topics that require follow-up discussion, or potentially to render a decision on the maximum development scenario if the decision is not made in July. City Council will be asked to adopt the Specific Plan with changes as agreed to by Council, tentatively at the study session scheduled for December 3, 2024.
The public draft of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) related to this project is scheduled to be released in early July. Subsequently:
Public comments will be accepted during a 45-day review period through approximately mid August, depending on the exact date of Draft SEIR release. A Planning Commission meeting would occur during the Draft SEIR public review period, likely at a special session of the Planning Commission in August. An opportunity will be provided to City Council to ask questions and submit comments on the record concerning the Draft SEIR. Tentatively, this is scheduled for July. This would not be a decision-making meeting; rather, it is an informational meeting and an additional opportunity to accept public comment on the Draft SEIR. The Final SEIR would be released in October, pending the completion of the response to public comments.
Tentatively, a public hearing would be scheduled at Planning Commission for November 18, 2024 to seek a recommendation regarding certification of the SEIR and adoption of the Specific Plan.
Following Planning Commission, City Council hearings on the adoption of the Plan and certification of the SEIR will begin, tentatively on December 3, 2024.
Community Engagement
The following are the planned community engagement activities during May, June, and July:
Continued stakeholder engagement with key community groups Online surveys on major Plan topics to gauge community opinion In-person workshop to gather community input on the Draft Specific Plan Key Discussion Questions for Council
1. Do you have feedback about staff’s recommendation to move forward with the larger development scenario (3.35 million square feet) with the concomitant community benefits framework?
21 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
2. Do you have concerns or questions about the revised Maximum FAR and Community Benefits Framework?
3. Do you have concerns or questions about the proposed hybrid allocation process?
4. Are there any other Specific Plan topics you would like to discuss or changes you would like to see in the Public Draft?
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact to the City from this staff report. In 2020, the City hired Raimi and Associates (R+A) to facilitate the update to the Specific Plan. The R+A contract is split into two parts: 1) Data Refresh, Analysis, Community Engagement, and 2) Environmental Review. The City Council appropriated $998,472 funds to cover part 1 of the R+A contract ($490,164 initially + $99,000 contingency, and then an added $508,308 amended on January 18, 2022). Three developers (Sandhill, Harvest, and Emerson) have contributed initial installments towards the reimbursement of the environmental review portion (Part 2: totaling $737,665) of the R+A contract. A second and final amendment for the amount of $180,000 was approved by City Council on July 18, 2023 to fund the remaining work on the Specific Plan Update. The total cost of this project has been amended twice and is not to exceed $2,015,137. Any development project that moves forward in the RBD will be required to reimburse the City on a proportional square foot basis for all costs that the city incurred to prepare the update to the RBD Specific Plan (the Plan Preparation Fee, which will be assessed upon Council’s granting of an Allocation to a project). Developers who submitted previous installments to the City will be credited for their initial contributions as applicable. When the developers submit their Plan Preparation payments to reimburse the City, the fee will also include a 10% administrative fee to cover city overhead.
Public Notice
The public was provided notice of this agenda item by posting the City Council agenda on the City’s official bulletin board outside City Hall and making the agenda and report available at the City’s website and at the San Mateo County Library located at 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto. Additionally, the public was provided electronic advance notice of the study session through a notification sent from the City’s email contact database which contains hundreds of resident and stakeholder emails.
Environmental
The proposed action does not constitute a “project” with the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(4) and (5) in that it is a governmental fiscal, organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment. No action or decision on the Project will occur at this study session. As discussed above, a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is under preparation for the proposed Specific Plan update. 22 STUDY SESSION ITEM 4.1
When the DSEIR public comment period begins later this year (approximately in July 2024), a Notice of Availability (NOA) will be distributed as required by CEQA law, and the document will be posted on the project website. After the 45-day public comment period ends, the City will consider and respond to substantive comments received on the draft SEIR and compile a response to comments document. Once the responses and revisions are complete, a final SEIR will be released, consisting of the response to comments document and the draft SEIR. The final SEIR will be considered by the City Council for certification in compliance with CEQA.
Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the proposed action does not involve an entitlement.
Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.
Attachments
1. Plan Framework Maps
2. Answers to Council Questions from 2023 Study Session Glossary
RBD. Ravenswood Business District, the primary area within the Plan update (in addition to Four Corners).
SPU. Specific Plan Update, or “this project.”
SEIR. Supplemental Environmental Impact Review, the legally required environmental study and analysis of the potential impacts of new development.
DSEIR/FSEIR. Draft and Final SEIR documents.
CEQA. California Environmental Quality Act, the State law requiring EIRs.
FAR. Floor Area Ratio, or a measure of how large/intense a development is.
SFCJPA. San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, the entity that is leading the SAFER Bay flood control effort.
BCDC. Bay Conservation and Development Commission, a body that reviews and approves developments located adjacent to the Bay.
EPASD. East Palo Alto Sanitary District, the entity which currently provides sanitary sewer services in the city and oversees the sewer infrastructure.
R&D. Research and Development, a broad land use category that encompasses a variety of scientific/technical, medical/pharmaceutical, and laboratory/life science uses.
S.F. Square feet, a common measurement of a development’s total interior building size.
R+A. Raimi + Associates, primary consultant overseeing the Specific Plan Update. 23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 RBD Specific Plan Update – Update to City Council (April 25th, 2023) Response to Questions from Council
Correc�on to slide 21 - A transit-only curved connec�on between Pulgas Avenue and Purdue/Demeter Street. There is no proposed or planned vehicular connection between Demeter Street and Purdue Avenue.
Commissioner Nicholas
1. Street naming. Per page 30 of staff report, East-West Connector is named on the map, but in the Hexagon report it is listed as Emmerson Street. Can the residents name the streets? The Mayor also expressed interest in naming the streets through a public process. Elena Lee, Planning Director, explained at the meeting that a new street name is identified through the subdivision map process and then is considered by the Planning Commission for approval (the process is the same for private and public streets).
Response: New publicly accessible streets in the Specific Plan will be labeled generically with street names such as “Street A”, “Street B”, etc. These new streets will then later go through a public process for naming per the development code.
CM Lopez
1. Details of community benefits policy. Can the Plan include a table of list of community benefits as it relates to the exemplary bonus mechanism?
As presented to (and confirmed by) Council in July 2022, the community benefits framework in the updated Specific Plan will list out the priority benefits identified by the community as being most desired from future developments in the Plan area. Staff and the consultant team are continuing to discuss the details of the refined framework, the exemplary bonus, and the degree to which it is specific as opposed to more flexible. Further discussion will occur before Plan adoption.
VM Romero
1. Economic feasibility and proposed heights. Take a look at the economics; very few places are building 8 stories, do they really need 8 stories in East Palo Alto? Staff is considering whether to explore this question through a feasibility analysis included in the nexus study update. The locations of the proposed exemplary bonus zones may be adjusted, and where appropriate, base maximum heights may be further reduced.
2. Addi�onal informa�on on the Loop Road.
a. Is it correct to say: “If you build the Loop Road, you will improve traffic on University and you will congest the new roads that are in the RBD?”
32 Generally, yes. Building the Loop Road would reduce traffic delay slightly at University and Bay Road but increases delays slightly at several existing intersections along Pulgas and at two new intersections.
With Loop Road: The average delay at University and Bay Road intersection would be lower with the Loop Road than without the Loop Road. Conversely, our analysis shows that the following intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service but would experience consistently higher delay with the Loop Road than without the Loop Road:
• University Avenue and O’Brien Dr
• Pulgas Avenue and O’Connor St
• Clark Avenue and Schembri/Garden, PM peak hour only
• Pulgas Avenue and Garden St
• Pulgas Avenue and Beech St
• Demeter St and E-W Connector St (New)
• Pulgas Avenue and Montage St (New)
The increase in delay at these intersections is the direct result of an increase in traffic volume at the subject intersection due to a change in traffic patterns caused by the Loop Road. However, the additional delay would be moderate and would not result in substantial congestion or the need for any improvements at these intersections.
The only intersection that would require improvements with the Loop Road (that would not be required without the Loop Road) is University Avenue and Loop Road – this intersection would need to be signalized and University Avenue would need to be widened with an additional southbound left turn lane.
Without Loop Road: The following intersections would need improvements with no Loop Road:
• University and Bay Road: Restoring the intersection to an acceptable level of service without the Loop Road requires the addition of an exclusive northbound right-turn lane on University.
• University and Purdue (signalize)
• Pulgas and Weeks (for 3.35msf only, signalize)
• Clarke and Bay (for 3.35msf only, modify SB approach/lane configuration) • Pulgas and Runnymede (for 3.35msf only, modify NB approach/lane configuration) b. Could the Loop Road or a connec�on along the same loca�on support alterna�ve transporta�on modes (such as LEVs)
No reason to think that it could not, with a 15-20’ wide multiuse paved path planned for the top of the levee.
c. Can PW staff look at the dimensions for levee and Loop Road? Internally, can city staff determine whether it is worth to spend $30m on the Loop Road? 33 Due to the lack of currently available analysis, it is not possible for staff and the consultants to provide an answer to the Council question regarding the need for the Loop Road. At this time, staff is keeping the Loop Road in the plan as an option, however we are proceeding with the assumption that it will not be built. The corresponding set of mobility improvements that are needed under a No Loop condition will be the default/required infrastructure improvements contained in the Specific Plan.
Staff proposes to include a policy or implementation trigger in the Specific Plan that will ask Council to take future action and make a final decision on the Loop Road once the requisite analysis is available. This action could be triggered by the JPA releasing construction design at a sufficient level of detail OR if the City conducts its own engineering study. Staff will continue working with the JPA to see if the levee can be integrated with a potential Loop Road.
We note that certain impacts of the Loop Road are being studied in CEQA including noise, air quality, and GHG emissions (but not the construction or engineering feasibility). The upcoming nexus study will help determine specific cost sharing expectations and the updated developer impact fee contributions, and whether the Loop Road should be included in the these fee calculations.
The latest update from JPA is as follows: north of Bay Road, the proposed SAFER Bay alignment must be moved eastward due to constraints related to the SFPUC pipeline- it is too shallow to cross in the proposed Loop Road area and it is being shifted to where the Hetch Hetchy tunnel is 100 feet deep. This alignment would not preclude a Loop Road since the levee would protect the area at the bend/along the railroad track. However, the bend and the tight dimension along the railroad track would likely still present an obstacle for any potential loop road. The City will still need to evaluate the Loop Road’s viability.
3. Storm Drainage modeling. Was on-site mi�ga�on accounted for in the modeling? Yes, it was assumed in the modeling that projects would be required (per Plan policy) to install on-site retention and mitigation such that there is no increase in the total stormwater run-off volume compared to pre-project conditions. However, the
4. West Access Road design. For the sec�on that goes through Harvest is it open to cars? Is this open to cars at a slow pace?
Yes, the West Access Road (new connection between Bay Road and Weeks Street) this is designed to accommodate public vehicle traffic at slow speeds. It also includes a 10’-wide multi-use path on one side of the street for use by pedestrians and bicyclists. It is also planned for the West Access Road to be connected to the rail spur trail across Pulgas Street.
5. Climate Resilient Districts, or CRDs. Can only be used for environmental mi�ga�on, not for public infrastructure? Does a CRD work for u�li�es (as well as a levee)? CRDs are similar to EIFDs or CFDs in their tax increment financing (TIF) capacity, however CRDs are a more focused tool for “climate resilience” infrastructure. They cannot be used as widely as CFDs which can cover virtually any type of roadway or utility improvements. CRDs can only be formed to provide for infrastructure projects that address:
34 · River, bay, or sea level rise, rising groundwater, wetlands or marsh restoration, living shorelines, erosion control, or levees;
· Extreme heat or the urban heat island effect (e.g., increasing shade, cool building and surface materials, cool pavements, access to cooling opportunities); · Risk of flooding (e.g., structure elevation or relocation, wetlands restoration, flood easements or bypasses, levees).
6. OneShoreline policy document integra�on. How does it integrate with the Specific Plan? Project consultants will reach out to OneShoreline to discuss the draft Specific Plan policies. In general, this (voluntary) guidance is aligned with the planning efforts undertaken by the City, the JPA, and the project consultant team to date. In particular, the expectation is that the key policies of the OneShoreline would be respected, including: FEMA-certified shoreline infrastructure (the levee top is expected to be at +16.5' NAVD88 after allowing for settlement, or BFE+5.5’), building raising (the three private landowners would set their finish floor elevations at least BFE+2.5' and up to BFE+4.5'), a 100' buffer zone with no buildings, an enhanced storm drainage system (designed for future conditions), and maximum feasible public access (via multiuse paved trails).
CM Abrica:
1. EPASD Status. We need some financial analyses of the sewer situa�on, to the degree that we can get more informa�on about EPASD.
The RBD Utilities Impact Study is the City’s best available information regarding the costs and specific improvements needed to serve the future development with adequate sanitary sewer service. The UIS contains a list of needed capital improvement projects and estimated costs.
The City’s sanitary sewer system in the Plan area has a number of existing deficiencies that need to be addressed, before accounting for additional demand generated by future development scenarios. To address these pre-existing deficiencies, three CIPs are recommended:
• Bay Road CIP, includes upsizing 2,310 feet of 14-inch to 16-inch and 15-inch to 18-inch • Eastern Main Trunk CIP, includes upsizing 4,300 feet of 18-inch and 24-inch pipes to 24- inch and 28-inch
• Dual Trunk to RWQCP CIP includes upsizing 5,935 feet of 18-inch to 21-inch of the parallel line to the existing trunk
Several additional CIPs are recommended to serve the two future development scenarios:
• One additional CIP, In-Tract Piping (the pipes located within development projects), is required to serve the development scenarios.
• For Scenario 1, an additional 3,650 feet of piping is required to be upgraded. • For Scenario 2, seventeen of the previously outlined pipe segments need to be larger and an additional 4,050 feet of piping is required to be upgraded.
Table 5-6 identifies the costs for the needed sewer CIPs. 35 Staff will provide an update to Council on May 16 regarding the LAFCO process (and a decision will be made on June 20). If the decision is made to adopt EPASD as a subsidiary district, then the sanitary district will come under the City’s control by October.
2. Economic feasibility. Looking for addi�onal informa�on about the market and feasibility.
Staff is discussing whether the planned nexus study would include a generic feasibility component for life science building prototypes, using updated market conditions/assumptions.
This could be contrasted with residual land value analysis conducted at the beginning of the Plan update (during a more robust market for commercial real estate). It is not the intent of the City to entitle projects with significantly reduced benefits due to the timing of the market cycle.
3. Map of property ownership. Can we have a map of property in the Plan Area and who owns them?
See Appendix for the owners of all public, commercial, industrial, and multifamily property in the Plan Area.
CM Gaul�er & Barragan
1. Proper�es Impacted on Bay Road. Which proper�es are we talking about widening on Bay Road? Where are the pump sta�ons going and how much property is impacted? Response: Figure 1 below indicates properties that are expected to be impacted by proposed transportation or utilities improvements in the Plan Area. It is the expectation of the City that the major project applicants will negotiate with other landowners who own the properties needed to widen Bay Road, in order to acquire portions (or all) of these parcels. 36 Figure 1 – Proper�es Expected to be Impacted by ROW Acquisi�on 37 ID OWNER NAME 1 1001 1003 WEEKS LLC 2 2370 COOLEY LLC 3 ACTION ASSOCIATES INC 4 BAKER MICHAEL ALDEN 5 BARNES JACK H TR 6 BAY BUSINESS PARK LLC (RFHC) 7 BAY ROAD HOUSING LP 8 BAYSHORE DEMETER RESORT LLC 9 BERTHIAUME MICHAEL C & J S TRS 10 CAMPOS JAIME A
11 CHAMBERLAIN NOEL L
12 CITY & CO OF S F WATER DEPT
13 CITY OF PALO ALTO
14 CLARUM 1620 BAY ROAD LLC
15 CLARUM CORPORATION
16 CLARUM FOUR CORNERS LLC
17 CLEMONS LEE V TR
18 COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES
19 CORNELIO HECTOR J TR
20 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
21 CURTACCIO MELVIN R
22 D & C LEE SECOND L P
23 DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY MINISTRY
24 DEMETER MICHAEL J
25 DEMETER PROPERTIES LLC
26 DETRO RICHARD G TR
27 EAST PALO ALTO CITY
28 EAST PALO ALTO CITY (Mid Pen)
29 EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DIST
30 ECUMENICAL HUNGER PROGRAM
31 FREE AT LAST
31 Emerson / Sycamore Collective
32 GARCIA JOHN TR
33 GHEITH YOUSEF N & YAMINEH
34 Harvest Properties
34 Harvest Properties
35 HEATON DAVID A TR
36 IWASAKI PHYLLIS TR
37 John & Marcia Goldman Foundation
38 KHANO JANETTE
39 L & D INVESTMENT PROPERTY LLC
40 MCDONALDS USA LLC
41 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN
42 MO NGOC UAN TR
43 OGREN CHARLES E TR
44 PG&E Cooley Landing Substation
Appendix
38 45 PRADO JOSE TR
46 PRICE DALLAS & BERTHA TRS
47 PULGAS AVENUE INVESTORS
48 R E BORRMANN STEEL CO INC
49 RABAH ABEDELSALAM M & ROBIN J
50 RAVENSWOOD ELEM SCHOOL DIST
51 RAVENSWOOD INVESTMENT LLC
52 RAVENSWOOD PARK RECREATION &
53 REDEVEL AGENCY EAST PALO ALTO
54 ROGGE RONALD G
55 RUSSELL RICHARD L & B L TRS
56 SAN MATEO COUNTY
57 Sand Hill Property Corp
58 SEVY CHRISTOPHER
59 SHUMAN PROPERTIES LLC
60 SINGH HERMANT
61 SOBRATO
62 SOUTH COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH CTR INC
63 ST MARK A M E ZION CHURCH
64 Three Cities Research Inc
65 TONGAN WESLEYAN CHURCH OF AMERICA
66 UPRR
67 VYSOTA ENTERPRISES INC
68 WANG PHILIP & LOUISE LP
69 WEEKS PROP CO LLC
70 WILSON THOMASYNE L
71 WONG HENRY TR
39 URSULA
B
AYLO
R
FO
R
D
H
A
M
S
TATE HIG
H
WAY 109
WEEKS
C
O
OLEY
R
O
B
NI
EM
MET
T
C
A
R
OLE
BAY
JA
MIE
FA
R
R
NI G
T
O
N
PA
UL R
O
BES
O
N
WEEKS
MICHIGAN
57 20
22 19
40 2
59 27
49 10
60 0
15 14
67 16
38 7
$
0 0.06 0.12 Mile
Source: 2015 General Plan, 2010 U.S. Census, San Mateo County GIS Enterprise Database and Santa Clara County, 2012.
Parcel Ownership in Specific Plan Area
Specific Plan Boundary (Updated) May 8, 2023
City Boundary
City of East Palo Alto
40 CLA
R
KE
BAY
WEEKS
DEMETER
G
O
N
Z
A
G
A
LI L NI O
SI
5 6
18 25
23 36
58 3
29 27
33 62
17 28
68 0
66 46
65 63
7 26
$
0 0.06 0.12 Mile
Source: 2015 General Plan, 2010 U.S. Census, San Mateo County GIS Enterprise Database and Santa Clara County, 2012.
Parcel Ownership in Specific Plan Area
Specific Plan Boundary (Updated) May 8, 2023
City Boundary
City of East Palo Alto
41 MICHIGAN
PULG
A
S
BAY
DEMETER
5 8
56 11
37 32
55 9
0 47
6 18
21 25
61 43
68 39
58 3
65 26
31 42
$
0 0.06 0.12 Mile
Source: 2015 General Plan, 2010 U.S. Census, San Mateo County GIS Enterprise Database and Santa Clara County, 2012.
Parcel Ownership in Specific Plan Area
Specific Plan Boundary (Updated) May 8, 2023
City Boundary
City of East Palo Alto
42 BAY
PULG
A
S
TA
RA
R
O
G
GE
64 4 56
37 9
21 54
43 41
24 39
13 65
51 44
31 34
20 32
$
0 0.09 0.18 Mile
Source: 2015 General Plan, 2010 U.S. Census, San Mateo County GIS Enterprise Database and Santa Clara County, 2012.
Parcel Ownership in Specific Plan Area
Specific Plan Boundary (Updated) May 8, 2023
City Boundary
City of East Palo Alto
43 MAPLE
M
A
N
DELA
VER
O
NIC
A
PULGAS
MAPLE MAPLE
M
A
PLE
BAY
M
APLE
RUTH
RUNNYMEDE
WEEKS
37 47
6 21
13 31
71 28
48 45
66 0
30 1
65 34
35 70
51 44
69 20
$
0 0.075 0.15 Mile
Source: 2015 General Plan, 2010 U.S. Census, San Mateo County GIS Enterprise Database and Santa Clara County, 2012.
Parcel Ownership in Specific Plan Area
Specific Plan Boundary (Updated) May 8, 2023
City Boundary
City of East Palo Alto
44 PURDUE
STEVENS
DREW
PURDUE
TEMPLE
RUTGERS
GONZAGA
NOTRE DAME
ILLINOIS
TULANE
FORDHAM
GEORGETOWN
PULG
A
S
HUNTER
TA
RA
R
O
G
GE
DEMETER
12 50
0 26
64 8
25 56
11 52
55 9
31 $
0 0.1 0.2 Mile
Source: 2015 General Plan, 2010 U.S. Census, San Mateo County GIS Enterprise Database and Santa Clara County, 2012.
Parcel Ownership in Specific Plan Area
Specific Plan Boundary (Updated) May 8, 2023
City Boundary
City of East Palo Alto
45