Palo Alto City Council
April 1, 2024

Regular Meeting
March 11, 2024
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 5:30 P.M.

Present In Person: Burt, Kou, Lauing, Lythcott-Haims, Stone, Tanaka, Veenker Present Remotely:

Absent:

Closed Session

1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his Designees Pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (Ed Shikada, Kiely Nose, Sandra Blanch, Nick Raisch, Tori Anthony, Molly Stump, and Jennifer Fine) Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union, (SEIU) Local 521, Utilities Management and Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA), Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association (PAPOA), Palo Alto Police Management Association (PMA), International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) local 1319, Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA); Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6 (a)

2. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY- EXISTING LITIGATION Subject: Eric Figueroa, et al. v.

City of Palo Alto Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 21-CV-383740 (One Case, as Defendant) Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)

3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: 445 Bryant Street, Assessor’s Parcel Number 120 -15-107 Negotiating Parties: La Comida de California, Unlimited Mojo, Inc. Operating as an Iron24 Franchise, Silicon Valley Bike Exchange, Stealthmode LLC City Negotiators: Ed Shikada, Kiely Nose, Kristen O’Kane, Sunny Tong Subject of Potential Negotiations: Lease Price and Terms of Payment
Council Member Kou disclosed her husband serves uncompensated on the La Comida de California board.

MOTION: Council Member Veenker moved, seconded by Council Member Lythcott-Haims to go into Closed Session.

MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Council went into Closed Session at 5:45 P.M.

Item 4
Attachment A - March 11,
2024 Draft Action
Minutes

Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 166 of 308

DRAFT ACTION MINUTES

City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 03/11/2024
Council returned from Closed Session at 8:50 P.M.

Mayor Stone announced no reportable action was taken.

Consent Calendar
Council Member Veenker recused on Agenda Item Number 6.

Council Member Kou registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 5.

Council Member Tanaka registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 9 and 11.

MOTION: Vice Lauing moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-6, 8-11 (Agenda Number 7 Removed from Agenda).

MOTION PASSED ITEMS 4, 8, 10: 7-0
MOTION PASSED ITEM 5: 6-1, Kou no
MOTION PASSED ITEM 6: 6-0-1, Veenker recused
MOTION PASSED ITEMS 9, 11: 6-1, Tanaka no

4. Approval of Minutes from February 26, 2024 Meeting

5. Authorize Transmittal of the 2023 Comprehensive Plan Annual Progress Report to the Office of Planning and Research and the 2023 Housing Element Annual Progress Report to the Department of Housing and Community Development.

6. Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Annual Report to Council for Fiscal Year 2022- 2023

7. Approval of Amended Palo Alto CLEAN Program Rules and Requirements, Handbook, and Power Purchase Agreement; CEQA Status: Not a Project under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378(a) and (b) Item Removed

8. Approval of Construction Contract C24190072 with O'Grady Paving, Inc. in the Amount of $5,432,037 and Authorization for the City Manager or Their Designee to Negotiate and Execute Change Orders for Related Additional but Unforeseen Work that May Develop During the Project Up to a Not
-to-E
xceed Amount of $543,204 for the Fiscal Year 2024
Asphalt Paving Project, Capital Improvement Program Projects PE -8 6070, PO-8
9003, CB-
1700
1, PE-20001, PE-09003, and SD-06101; CEQA status – exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c) and 15301(d)
Item 4
Attachment A - March 11,
2024 Draft Action
Minutes

Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 167 of 308

DRAFT ACTION MINUTES

City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 03/11/2024

9. Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C24190133 With Anne Rosenthal Fine Art Conservation Services in an Amount Not -to-Exceed $118,624 for preservation of frescoes by artist Victor Arnautoff created in 1932 at the Roth Building (the former Palo Alto Medical Clinic) at 300 Homer Avenue for a period of 18 months; CEQA status - categorically exempt.

10. Adopt a Revised Interim Ordinance to Extend the Interim Parklet Program to July 31, 2024 (from March 31, 2024) and Phase -in Enforcement of the Ongoing Parklet P rogram through November 1, 2024; and Extend Parking Lot Eating/Drinking Uses to December 31, 2024; CEQA Status- Categorically Exempt (Sections 15301 and 15304(e))

11. Adopt an Ordinance Increasing Council Member Salary From $1,000/Month to $1,600/Month, Effective January 1, 2025, as authorized by State law

City Manager Comments
Ed Shikada, City Manager

Action Items

12. Approval of the 2024 City Council Priority Objectives and Finance Committee and Policy & Services Committee Workplans (Item Continued from March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting)
MOTION: Council Member Lythcott -Haims moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to approve the 2024 Proposed City Council Priorities and Objectives: Economic Development & Transition (ED&T) section and additionally:

1. Direct staff to work with and report to the Retail A d Hoc Committee to explore a permanent ordinance allowing parking lot eating/drinking uses for businesses that do not face public streets; and,

2. Direct staff to take action to improve the cleanliness of the University Ave. downtown area.

MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Agenda Item Number 12 to be continued to the March 18, 2024 City Council Meeting.

Item 4
Attachment A - March 11,
2024 Draft Action
Minutes

Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 168 of 308

DRAFT ACTION MINUTES

City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 03/11/2024

13. Policy and Services Recommendation to the City Council for the creation of a Citizens Advisory Committee on a Potential Charter Amendment on Council Member Compensations
Agenda Item Number 13 not heard and to be continued to a City Council meeting date uncertain.

14. Discussion of Interview Process for City Auditor Selection; CEQA - Not a project MOTION: Council Member Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Council Member Veenker to refer the Council Appointed Officers Committee to screen applicants and bring no fewer than two forward for Council selection.

MOTION PASSED: 7-0

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:39 P.M.

Item 4
Attachment A - March 11,
2024 Draft Action
Minutes

Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 169 of 308

DRAFT ACTION MINUTES

City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 03/11/2024
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________ ____________________
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Action minutes a re prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)

2.04.160(a) and (b). Summary minutes (sense) are prepared in accordance with PAMC Section

2.04.160(c). Beginning in January 2018, in accordance with Ordinance No. 5423, the City Council found action minutes and the video/audio recordings of Council proceedings to be the official records of both Council and committee proceedings. These recordings are available on the City’s website.

Item 4
Attachment A - March 11,
2024 Draft Action
Minutes

Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 170 of 308

City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: April 1, 2024
Staff Report: 2403-2709
TITLE
Approval of Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number S24190818 with Integrated Design 360 in the Amount of $82,200 and Extension of the Contract Term through December 30, 2024 for development of a “One Margin” Reach Code. CEQA Status: Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute Amendment No. 1 to Contract S24190818 with Integrated Design 360 (Attachment A) for development of a “One Margin” Reach Code in an amount not to exceed $82,200 and extend the term of the contract through December 30, 2024. This amendment results in a revised total contract not-to-exceed $132,200.

BACKGROUND
On February 26, 2024, in light of the Ninth Circuit decision in California Restaurant Association v.

City of Berkeley, the Council adopted a moratorium on enforcement of certain provisions in Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code requiring that new construction and substantial remodels utilize all-electric design, which had been adopted November 2022 and had been effective since January 2023.

Council also directed staff to pursue a replacement Reach Code using the “One Margin” approach, choosing a single policy approach rather than the consideration of multiple options in order to expedite development. Council directed staff to return on a timeline that would allow for ordinance adoption by the end of June 2024.

ANALYSIS
Following the February 26, 2024 staff executed a $50,000 consulting contract with Integrated Design 360 to immediately begin work on development of a “One Margin” Reach Code. The initial contract scope is insufficient to complete the entire work effort, however. The consulting work required for the project includes the following:

Item 5
Item 5 Staff Report

Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 171 of 308

•Review of State cost-effectiveness studies supporting a new Reach Code and any additional cost-effectiveness analysis required
•Assisting staff evaluate design alternatives for the code •Evaluation of example Palo Alto building types under the code •Adaptation of model codes to Palo Alto
•Staff report and ordinance drafting
•Assisting staff submit the code to the California Energy Commission (CEC) •Meetings and communications in support of these efforts •Drafting of outreach material about both the moratorium and the new code proposals Integrated Design 360 has quoted $132,200 to complete the entire project scope, $82,200 of which covers the proposed contract amendment. The Municipal Code generally requires a competitive solicitation process for professional services contracts valued greater than $50,000.

However, the Municipal Code provides an exemption in cases where the competitive solicitation process would result in additional costs to the City and substantial interference with a required city operation. PAMC 2.30.360(b)(2). Here, failure to adopt a replacement Reach Code on a rapid timeline will hinder the City’s ability to complete its Sustainability and Climate Action Work Plan.

It would also result in more new construction using natural gas lines, which will raise costs long term for both residents and the City's gas utility as more and more of the community electrifies and these leftover gas lines need to be maintained or abandoned despite declining gas system revenues. To avoid these long-term costs Council has directed staff to bring back a replacement code before the Council break, which gives staff seven to eight weeks to draft the code and route it for internal review. An exemption from solicitation is requested to get the necessary consulting resources on board quickly to meet this timeline.

Integrated Design 360 LLC is the firm best positioned to assist with this activity because they consulted for the City of San Jose in development of its Reach Code. San Jose’s code is the first example of what is now being referred to as a “One Margin” code. Integrated Design 360 is also subcontracting with TRC for the analytical work. TRC is the engineering firm that completed the 2022 statewide cost-effectiveness studies that the City of San Jose relied on in developing its code and which Palo Alto intends to rely on in developing theirs. Both Integrated Design 360 and TRC were involved in the development of the City of Palo Alto’s Reach Code in 2022 and are very familiar with the City’s operational and regulatory history. Onboarding a different consulting firm would make it impossible for staff to meet the Council timeline.

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The professional services contract for Integrated Design 360 related to development of a “One Margin” Reach Code proposal will have a total not-to-exceed amount of $132,200 if Council approves this amendment. These costs are being split evenly between general consulting budgets previously approved for the Planning and Development Services and Utilities departments in the FY 2024 budget.

Item 5
Item 5 Staff Report

Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 172 of 308

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
No stakeholder engagement was performed with respect to this contract amendment. With respect to the Reach Code amendment itself, per Council direction at its February 26, 2024 meeting, the “One Margin” Reach Code proposal should reach Council with enough time to allow Council to adopt an ordinance by the end of June 2024. Council further noted that if stakeholder engagement will delay that timeline Council would accept a proposed ordinance without prior stakeholder engagement. Staff will consider possible stakeholder engagement opportunities that do not impact that timeline and may or may not find such opportunities.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council action on this item is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the One Margin Reach Code would be a regulatory action taken for the protection of the environment (CEQA Guidelines section 15308).

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Amendment to Contract S24190818 with Integrated Design 360 APPROVED BY:

Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services Item 5
Item 5 Staff Report

Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 173 of 308

Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. S24190818
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND INTEGRATED DESIGN 360, LLC. dba ID360

This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. S24190818 (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of April X, 2024, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and INTEGRATED DESIGN 360, LLC. dba ID360, a California corporation, located at 809 Laurel Street, #308, San Carlos, California 94070 (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment.

R E C I T A L S

A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of updates to Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as detailed therein.

B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to add scope of work, tasks 3 through 4 and increase compensation by Eighty-Two Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($82,200) from Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) to a new total not to exceed compensation of One Hundred Thirty Eight Thousand Dollars ($132,200).

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree:

SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment:

a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. S24190818 between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated March 7, 2024.

b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract.

SECTION 2. Section 4. “NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:

“The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services shall be based on the compensation structure detailed in Exhibit C, entitled “COMPENSATION,” including any reimbursable expenses specified therein, and the maximum total compensation shall not exceed One Hundred Twenty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety-Nine Dollars ($126,899). The hourly schedule of rates, if applicable, is set out in Exhibit C-1, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES.” Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum compensation set forth in this Section 4 shall be at no cost to the CITY.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8BB13764-1590-4D5A-8909-BADF70245A1D Item 5
Attachment A -
Amendment to Contract
S24190818 with
Integrated Design 360

Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 174 of 308

Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

Optional Additional Services Provision (This provision applies only if checked and a not-to-exceed compensation amount for Additional Services is allocated below under this Section 4.)

In addition to the not-to-exceed compensation specified above, CITY has set aside the not-to-exceed compensation amount of Five Thousand Three Hundred and One Dollars ($5,301) for the performance of Additional Services (as defined below). The total compensation for performance of the Services, Additional Services and any reimbursable expenses specified in Exhibit C, shall not exceed One Hundred Thirty-Two Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($132,200), as detailed in Exhibit C.

“Additional Services” means 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. CITY may elect to, but is not required to, authorize Additional Services up to the maximum amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4. CONSULTANT shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from CITY as detailed in this Section. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized by CITY with a Task Order assigned and authorized by CITY’s Project Manager, as identified in Section 13 (Project Management). Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1, entitled “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER”. Each Task Order shall contain a specific scope of services, schedule of performance and maximum compensation amount, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.

Compensation for Additional Services shall be specified by CITY in the Task Order, based on whichever is lowest: the compensation structure set forth in Exhibit C, the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit C-1, or a negotiated lump sum.

To accept a Task Order, CONSULTANT shall sign the Task Order and return it to CITY’s Project Manager within the time specified by the Project Manager, and upon authorization by CITY (defined as counter-signature by the CITY Project Manager), the fully executed Task Order shall become part of this Agreement. The cumulative total compensation to CONSULTANT for all Task Orders authorized under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section

4. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for Additional Services performed under an authorized Task Order and only up to the maximum amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4. Performance of and payment for any Additional Services are subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.”

SECTION 3. Section 12. “SUBCONTRACTING” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 (Assignment) above, CITY agrees that additional subcontractors may be used to complete the Services with prior approval, documented in writing, including Scope of Services, cost, and schedule of performances. The use DocuSign Envelope ID: 8BB13764-1590-4D5A-8909-BADF70245A1D Item 5
Attachment A -
Amendment to Contract
S24190818 with
Integrated Design 360

Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 175 of 308

Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

of subcontractors cannot increase compensation pursuant to Section 4 of this Agreement. At the time of this amendment, CONTRACTOR has identified the following SUBCONTRACTOR, which is authorized by the CITY:

TRC Engineers, Inc
6 Executive Circle, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614

CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation of subcontractors. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of subcontractors. CONSULTANT shall change or add subcontractors only with the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee.”

SECTION 4. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended and added, as indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are hereby incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference:

a. Exhibit “A” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS.

b. Exhibit “B” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS.

c. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS.

SECTION 5. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 6. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference.

(SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.)

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8BB13764-1590-4D5A-8909-BADF70245A1D Item 5
Attachment A -
Amendment to Contract
S24190818 with
Integrated Design 360

Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 176 of 308

Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.

CITY OF PALO ALTO

City Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney or Designee

INTEGRATED DESIGN 360, LLC

Officer 1

By:

Name: Melanie Jacobson
Title: Principal

Officer 2 (Required for Corp. or LLC)

By:

Name: Cindy Mack
Title: Administrative Leader

Attachments:

Exhibit A – Scope of Services, Amendment No.1 (Added, Replaces Previous) Exhibit B – Schedule of Performance, Amendment No.1 (Added, Replaces Previous) Exhibit C – Compensation, Amendment No.1 (Added, Replaces Previous)

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8BB13764-1590-4D5A-8909-BADF70245A1D Item 5
Attachment A -
Amendment to Contract
S24190818 with
Integrated Design 360

Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 177 of 308

Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

Exhibit A
SCOPE OF SERVICES, AMENDMENT NO.1
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)

Task 1 - Program Initiation & Project Management (Amendment No.1, Revision)

CONSULTANT will organize and attend a project definition conference call with CITY staff to discuss strategy and overall project. CONSULTANT will prepare a meeting agenda, attend the meeting, and deliver meeting minutes and a project schedule.

Project Kick-off

CONSULTANT will organize and attend a project Kick off with CITY staff to discuss the project scope, goals, timeline, and deliverables. CONSULTANT will prepare a meeting agenda, presentation, attend meeting, and deliver meeting minutes.

Progress Meetings

CONSULTANT will attend up-to 12 check-in and working meetings with CITY staff virtually or in person to discuss progress to date on the workplan and address any coordination items and technical requirements.

Task 2 - Develop Draft Policy Criteria (Amendment No.1, Revision)

CONSULTANT will create the outline of the policy language to be used as a baseline. The document will house the details of the possible model code language, the interested community organizations, educational aspects, compliance process, and related municipal code sections. The document will contain the relevant cost effectiveness results.

Policy Development, Cost-Effectiveness & Research Support

CONSULTANT will coordinate project content to align with the results of the cost-effectiveness study. SUBCONTRACTOR (CONSULTANT’s contractor) will complete a cost-effectiveness study.

CONSULTANT or SUBCONTRACTOR will perform policy research to support the changes to the policy criteria in the local municipal code. CONSULTANT or SUBCONTRACTOR will perform State and Federal policy research for amendment to the State code within the municipal code.

CONSULTANT or SUBCONTRACTOR will communicate with State and Federal agency staff, as needed, regarding the evolving policy development direction.

Task 3 - Local Policy Adoption & State Agency Approval (Amendment No.1, Added)

CONSULTANT will deliver the Final Technical Policy Language to the project team and attend one meeting virtually or in-person with City Staff to finalize the regulation requirements in DocuSign Envelope ID: 8BB13764-1590-4D5A-8909-BADF70245A1D Item 5
Attachment A -
Amendment to Contract
S24190818 with
Integrated Design 360

Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 178 of 308

Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

coordination with the cost-effectiveness SUBCONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR assumes and CITY agrees that the final code will be written and approved by the CITY’s Attorney.

CONSULTANT will provide technical writing support to assemble the staff report for model code language and provide a presentation for the public hearing meeting. CONSULTANT will one City Council meeting in person and provide presentation support to CITY staff for code adoption.

CONSULTANT assumes and CITY agrees that staff report is due six weeks prior to the public hearing meeting. CONSULTANT assumes the presentation is due two weeks prior to the public hearing meeting.

CONSULTANT will provide technical writing support to assemble a cover letter to be sent by CITY staff to the California Energy Commission (CEC). CONSULTANT will work with staff to obtain a wet signature to the City Council approved ordinance. The submittal to the CEC shall include the cover letter, staff report, ordinance with wet signatures, and the cost-effectiveness study.

CONSULTANT will remain in regular communication with the CITY’s Chief Building Official regarding obtaining notice of receipt from the CEC. CONSULTANT will work with staff to request assignment of a public comment period and preliminary CEC business meeting date.

CONSULTANT will provide technical support to CITY staff during the 15-day public comment period administered by the California Energy Commission. CONSULTANT will address, in writing, specific questions posed by the CEC and public during the comment period and before the Business Meeting.

CONSULTANT will attend the CEC Business Meeting, via conference call, to witness approval of local code and to be available to CEC staff immediately following the Business Meeting to address questions. Once approved by CEC, CONSULTANT will work with CITY staff to obtain formal letter from CEC for submission to the Building Standards Commission. CONSULTANT was to make CITY aware that it may take up to three (3) months to appear on California Energy Commission Business Meeting agenda. CONSULTANT assumes and CITY agrees that it may take up to ninety (90) days to complete this task to include waiting time to get on agenda.

Task 4 - Program Material Update (Amendment No.1, Added)

CONSULTANT will make updates to the program material and process guides for the 2022 Building Code Cycle. The program material to be updated is listed below.

CONSULTANT will update the Green Building & Energy Reach Code Verification forms.

CONSULTANT will maintain two (2) Green Building Verification forms and two (2) Energy Reach Code Verification forms to reflect the 2022 state code changes and the local municipal code requirements. CONSULTANT will update the technical documents, consult with CITY staff on any requested updates, working with CITY staff to get the documents published, and consult with the Chief Building Official or designee for approval. CONSULTANT assumes and CITY agrees to one (1) round of revisions. CONSULTANT will deliver these electronically to CITY staff in PDF and Microsoft Excel formats.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8BB13764-1590-4D5A-8909-BADF70245A1D Item 5
Attachment A -
Amendment to Contract
S24190818 with
Integrated Design 360

Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 179 of 308

Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

CONSULTANT will update the Residential and Non-Residential GB-1 Sheets for 2022 Code Cycle.

CONSULTNAT will update the six (6) existing GB-1 sheets to incorporate the one margin code changes for the following project types: 1) Residential CalGreen Mandatory; 2) Residential CalGreen Tier 1; 3) Residential CalGreen Tier 2; 4) Non- Residential CalGreen Mandatory; 5) Non- Residential CalGreen Tier 1; 6) Non-Residential CalGreen Tier 2. CONSULTANT will provide technical updates, layout and formatting updates, and customizing each sheet to CITY staff requirements. CONSULTANT will deliver these electronically to CITY staff in PDF and Microsoft Excel formats.

CONSULTANT will update Residential and Non-Residential Standard Conditions for 2022 Code Cycle. CONSULTANT will provide technical updates to the Standard Conditions document for all revisions to the 2022 Green Building Code and the local municipal code. CONSULTANT will provide technical revisions, quality control, work with CITY staff to get the documents published on CITY’s website and review any changes with CITY staff. CONSULTANT will deliver these electronically to CITY staff in PDF and Microsoft Excel formats.

CONSULTANT will update the Frequently Asked Questions document. CONSULTANT will update the technical content for the Frequently Asked Questions on the CITY’s Green Building webpage.

CONSULTANT will confer with CITY staff on any new Frequently Asked Questions requests.

CONSULTANT will answer an addition of eight to ten (8-10) new questions that reflect new Frequently Asked Questions based on the 2022 code changes. CONSULTANT will deliver these electronically to CITY staff in Microsoft Word document and to support CITY staff to publish to the CITY’s webpage.

CONSULTANT will provide updates to other program material for 2022 Building Code Cycle.

CONSULTANT will make updates that include reference to new local or state code municipal code sections in the following documents only: Energy Reach Code Infeasibility Guidelines, GB-3 Non- Residential Commissioning Owners Project Requirements & Basis of Design, GB-4 Commissioning Plan, and EVSE Compliance Calculator.

Task 5 - Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (Amendment No.1, Added)

CONSULTANT to manage and coordinate between CITY and SUBCONTRACTOR for the completion of a cost-effectiveness analysis. SUBCONTRATOR will complete up to ten (10) simulations of building files including a mix of single family, accessory dwelling units, and low-rise multi-family building types. CONSULTANT and SUBCONTRACTOR maintain appropriate characteristics already modeled and may need to make minor adjustments, and that the analysis effort will check for feasibility of reaching the required source energy margins, not re-evaluating the cost- effectiveness, as re-evaluation could be a separate project, with a separate scope of services and additional costs.

CONSULTANT and SUBCONTRACTOR will analyze multifamily and nonresidential results from existing statewide studies to identify Energy Policy and Conservation Act feasible source energy DocuSign Envelope ID: 8BB13764-1590-4D5A-8909-BADF70245A1D Item 5
Attachment A -
Amendment to Contract
S24190818 with
Integrated Design 360

Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 180 of 308

Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

margins for the CITY. CONSULTANT and SUBCONTRACTOR will provide writing and review support for the staff report, support for review/suggested changes to the draft ordinance language and support for CITY Council and CEC (if necessary) approval process.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8BB13764-1590-4D5A-8909-BADF70245A1D Item 5
Attachment A -
Amendment to Contract
S24190818 with
Integrated Design 360

Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 181 of 308

Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO.1
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)

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.

Task Month/Year Completion or As Specified Below

1. Program Initiation & Project Management Ongoing/Daily

2. Develop Draft Policy Criteria May 2024

3. Local Policy Adoption & State Agency
Approval
August 2024

4. Program Material Update July 2024

5. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis June 2024

Optional Schedule of Performance Provision for On-Call or Additional Services Agreements.

(This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call agreements per Section 1 or agreements with Additional Services per Section 4.)

The schedule of performance shall be as provided in the approved Task Order, as detailed in Section 1 (Scope of Services) in the case of on-call Services, or as detailed in Section 4 in the case of Additional Services, provided in all cases that the schedule of performance shall fall within the term as provided in Section 2 (Term) of this Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8BB13764-1590-4D5A-8909-BADF70245A1D Item 5
Attachment A -
Amendment to Contract
S24190818 with
Integrated Design 360

Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 182 of 308

Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

EXHIBIT C
COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO.1
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)

CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for 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 rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.

CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below, provided that the total compensation for the Services, including any specified reimbursable expenses, and the total compensation for Additional Services (if any, per Section 4 of the Agreement) do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement.

CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, any specified reimbursable expenses, and Additional Services (if any, per Section 4), within this/these amount(s). Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth in this Agreement shall be at no cost to the CITY.

BUDGET SCHEDULE

TASK NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 (Program Initiation & Project Management) $14,134 Task 2 (Develop Draft Policy Criteria) $30,565
Task 3 (Local Policy Adoption & State Agency Approval) $20,200 Task 4 (Program Material Update) $20,000
Task 5 (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis) $42,000
Sub-total for Services $126,899
Reimbursable Expenses (if any) $0.00
Total for Services and Reimbursable Expenses $126,899
Additional Services (if any, per Section 4) $5,301
Maximum Total Compensation $132,200

REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
CONSULTANT’S ordinary business expenses, such as administrative, overhead, administrative support time/overtime, information systems, software and hardware, photocopying, telecommunications (telephone, internet), in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses, are included within the scope of payment for Services and are not reimbursable expenses hereunder.

Reimbursable expenses, if any are specified as reimbursable under this section, will be DocuSign Envelope ID: 8BB13764-1590-4D5A-8909-BADF70245A1D Item 5
Attachment A -
Amendment to Contract
S24190818 with
Integrated Design 360

Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 183 of 308

Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

reimbursed at actual cost. The expenses (by type, e.g. travel) for which CONSULTANT will be reimbursed are: NONE up to the not-to-exceed amount of: $0.00.

A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay Area, including transportation and meals, if specified as reimbursable, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses.

B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges, if specified as reimbursable, will be reimbursed at actual cost.

All requests for reimbursement of expenses, if any are specified as reimbursable under this section, shall be accompanied by appropriate backup documentation and information.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8BB13764-1590-4D5A-8909-BADF70245A1D Item 5
Attachment A -
Amendment to Contract
S24190818 with
Integrated Design 360

Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 184 of 308

City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Police
Meeting Date: April 1, 2024
Report #:2402-2689
TITLE
Approval of Amendments with Professional Account Management LLC, dba Duncan Solutions for Contracts C17164727 and C19171363A for a Combined Additional Amount of $60,000 (Total not to exceed of $860,000 and $767,000 respectively) and to Extend the Contract Terms to December 31, 2024 (total term of eight and five years respectively), for Parking Permitting and Citation Management Services; CEQA Status – Not a Project.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the following amendments to the referenced contracts below with Professional Account Management/dba Duncan Solutions, to include extending the end dates of both contracts to December 31, 2024:
1) Amendment #4 to Contract Number C17164727 for an addition of $60,000, updating the not-to-exceed (NTE) from $800,000 to $860,000 and originally scheduled to end April 28, 2024 for a total term of approximately eight years; and 2) Amendment #2 to Contract Number C19171363A with no addition to the existing NTE amount of $767,000 and originally scheduled to end March 31, 2024 for a total term of approximately 5 1/2 years.

BACKGROUND
Parking enforcement throughout the city is divided between the two departments. - PAPD is primarily responsible for timed parking enforcement in commercial zones and enforcing the state vehicle code and city municipal code throughout the city. PAPD provides enforcement with Community Service Officers.
- OOT is primarily responsible for enforcing the municipal code as it relates to the Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program. OOT contracts the parking enforcement service to a service provider (currently Laz) and manages the parking permit program.

Item 6
Item 6 Staff Report

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 185 of 308

Both departments, along with the Administrative Services Customer Service/Revenue Collections team, use a service provider to process and collect fees and fines for the issued permits and citations.

On May 13, 2019, the City Council heard and accepted a report with 35 recommendations to Palo Alto’s parking management. The parking study included recommendations on workplans, outreach, stakeholder process, and prioritization of programs1. This comprehensive report included, among others, establishing the OOT and evaluate the consolidation of the parking compliance functions in the Police Department and the Office of Transportation. While staff are still evaluating a consolidation plan, having OOT manage the parking contract is progress.

The following is the contract history for the respective contracts totaling $1.3 million:

PAPD contract C17164727:

Original Contract: Effective 12/5/2016 through 11/30/2021 (5 years) not-to-exceed (NTE) of $650,0002
- Amendment #1: Effective 10/31/2021 to 4/30/2022 – 6-month extension; no change to NTE (City Manager authorized)
- Amendment #2: Effective 4/30/22 to 4/29/2023 - 12-month extension; NTE increased $70,0003
- Amendment #3: Effective 4/29/2023 to 4/28/2024 – 12-month extension; NTE increased $80,0004
OOT contract C19171363:

Original Contract: Effective 3/31/2019 to 3/31/2024 (5 years) NTE of $627,0005 (City Council meeting 6/24/2019 SR 10241)
1 City Council, May 13, 2019, Agenda Item #8, SR# 10247 Title: Informational Report on the Parking Work Plan That Prioritizes Implementation of the 35 Recommendations From the Municipal Resource Group (MRG) Parking Study
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=2743&compileOutputType= 1 2 City Council, December 5, 2016, Agenda Item #4, SR #7179 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports- cmrs/year-archive/2016/id-7179.pdf
3 City Council, May 23, 2022, Agenda Item #10, SR #14337 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/PdfViewer.aspx?file=https%3A%2F%2Fportal.laserfiche.com%2FPortal%2FEle ctronicFile.aspx%3Fdocid%3D59502%26repo%3Dr-
704298fc%26pdfView%3Dtrue#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A3%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A% 22XYZ%22%7D%2Cnull%2Cnull%2Cnull%5D
4 City Council, April 17, 2023, Agenda Item #7, SR #2303-1156 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=66525&repo=r-704298fc&searchid=c822dcb1-92f2-4e8b- a5e2-754a792e2174
5 City Council, June 24, 2019, Agenda Items #5, SR #10241 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=2713&compileOutputType= 1 Item 6
Item 6 Staff Report

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 186 of 308

- Amendment #1: Effective 6/27/2019 - no term change; NTE increased $140,000 for ALPR added to vehicles6.

ANALYSIS
This recommendation is part of a process to streamline the management of the City parking programs and enforcement. The Office of Transportation (OOT) and the Police Department (PAPD) have separate contracts with Duncan Solutions to administer the parking permit program (OOT) and to facilitate parking citation processing and collection (PAPD). The attached amendments with Duncan Solutions extend the term for both contracts as OOT leads a process to centralize the management of the services. The City is currently in the process of releasing a request for proposal to consolidate parking citation services to a single payment portal.

Currently, the City has two separate portals for paying citations depending on where (University Ave. and California Ave. or the Residential Parking Districts) the citation is issued. By consolidating these services, staff expects to improve the user experience for the public. Not approving the extensions would jeopardize the City’s ability to enforce its parking polices and issue parking citations.

The attached contract extension(s) would align the end dates for the two contracts. By extending the contract end dates, staff would have sufficient time to implement the next contract for a consolidated engagement. This would allow the departments to enhance coordination on services offered to the community, parking enforcement strategies, and to determine whether one service provider can meet the operational needs across programs.

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Apart from the total not-to-exceed amount of the PAPD contract, updated to accommodate the extension, and the contract ending dates, the terms and conditions of the original contracts remain unchanged, including the original costs for services. The FY2024 Adopted Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Plan has sufficient funding for these contracts; no additional budgetary action is required. The budget for the following year will be subject to the Council’s FY 2025 budget appropriations.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
This contract was reviewed and coordinated with internal departments including legal, procurement, and financial functions to ensure alignment with City policies and procedures.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Adoption of this amendment is not a project under CEQA. 6 City Council, February 22, 2021, Agenda Item #9, SR# 11492 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports- cmrs/year-archive/2021/id-11492.pdf
Item 6
Item 6 Staff Report

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 187 of 308

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contract Amendment #4 C17164727
Attachment B: Contract Amendment #2 C19171363A
APPROVED BY:

Andrew Binder, Police Chief
Item 6
Item 6 Staff Report

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 188 of 308

Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO CONTRACT NO. C17164727

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND

PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT, LLC

This Amendment No. 4 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C17164727 (the “Contract”) entered into as of April 29, 2024 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company, located at 633 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1600, Milwaukee, WI 53203 ("CONSULTANT").CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment.

R E C I T A L S

A. The Contract was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of parking citation processing and collection services, as detailed therein.

B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to increase compensation by Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000) from Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($800,000) to a new total not-to-exceed amount of Eight Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($860,000) with no increased in rates; to extend the term an additional eight months until December 31, 2024.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree:

SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment:

a. Contract. The term “Con tract” sha ll mean Contract N o. C17164727 between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated December 5, 2016, as amended by:

Amendment No. 1, dated October 21, 2021
Amendment No. 2, dated April 29, 2022
Amendment No. 3, dates April 17, 2023

b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract.

SECTION 2. Section 2, TERM, of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:

“The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through December 31, 2024, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.”

SECTION 3. Section 4 “COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 897BCD1A-1427-45BC-8663-AC14CD186686 Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
Amendment #4
C17164727

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 189 of 308

Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

“The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”), and reimbursable expenses, for a total not to exceed amount of Eight Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($860,000). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount with no changes to Exhibit C-1, Schedule of Rates.”

SECTION 4. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 5. Incorporation of Recitals . The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference.

(SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 897BCD1A-1427-45BC-8663-AC14CD186686 Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
Amendment #4
C17164727

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 190 of 308

Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.

CITY OF PALO ALTO

_____________________________
City Manager:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________
City Attorney or designee

PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT
MANAGEMENT, LLC.

By:______________________________

Name:___________________________

Title:____________________________

Attachments:

Exhibit “C-1” entitled “Schedule of Rates”

DocuSign Envelope ID: 897BCD1A-1427-45BC-8663-AC14CD186686 President and CEO
Tim Wendler
Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
Amendment #4
C17164727

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 191 of 308

Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

EXHIBIT “C-1”

SCHEDULE OF RATES
2024-2025

Current Services Unit Price

1. Citation Processing - per citation entered into the system Year Seven $1.37

2. Notices Letter or Large Postcard Format
Year Seven $0.68

3. Internet Payments - Client's Processor
Year Seven $1.07

4. Obtain California Registered Owner Information Included in processing cost
Obtain Out-of-State Registration Information $0.98 to $4.50

5. Collections Services
Comprehensive Collection Services 35%

Special Note: DMV liens are currently used as a collections tool and are included as part of a comprehensive collections program we reimburse the City $3.00 for every registration hold placed.

Optional Services

Unit Price

6. Manual Citation Data Entry/Imaging $0.25

7. Phone Payments - Client's Processor
Year Seven $1.07

DocuSign Envelope ID: 897BCD1A-1427-45BC-8663-AC14CD186686 Item 6
Attachment A - Contract
Amendment #4
C17164727

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 192 of 308

Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019

AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO CONTRACT NO. C19171363

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT, LLC.

This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C19171363 (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of March 6, 2024, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT, LLC. a Wisconsin limited liability company, located at 663 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1600, Milwaukee, WI, 53203 (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT or are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment.

R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of parking citation processing and collection services, as detailed therein.

B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to Extend the term for one additional year from March 6, 2024, through December 31, 2024 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree:

SECTION 1. De
finitions . The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment:
a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. C17164727 between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated May 20, 2019.
b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract.

SECTION 2. Section 2, TERM, of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
“The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through March 6, 2025, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BA02728-DC44-443B-98A6-CC882EECA04E Item 6
Attachment B - Contract
Amendment #2
C19171363A

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 193 of 308

Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 2 of 3
SECTION 3. Legal Effect.Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.) DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BA02728-DC44-443B-98A6-CC882EECA04E Item 6
Attachment B - Contract
Amendment #2
C19171363A

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 194 of 308

Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 3 of 3
SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.CITY OF PALO ALTO_____________________________City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ City Attorney or designee PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT AMANAMENT, LLCOfficer 1 By:______________________________Name:___________________________Title:____________________________Attachments: NONE DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BA02728-DC44-443B-98A6-CC882EECA04E Item 6
Attachment B - Contract
Amendment #2
C19171363A

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 195 of 308

City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: City Manager
Meeting Date: April 1, 2024
Report #:2403-2799
TITLE
Policy and Services Recommendation Regarding Use of Board and Commissions Demographic Data

RECOMMENDATION
The Policy and Services Committee recommends City Council approve the following use of Board, Commission and Committee (BCC) demographic data: Demographic data collected on the current BCCs, and corresponding data for Palo Alto as a whole, will be distributed to the City Council as a reference prior to making new BCC appointments.

BACKGROUND
The Policy and Services Committee discussed this item as part of the quarterly race and equity update at the March 12, 2024 meeting. At that meeting the Committee discussed the previous (2021) BCC survey results (Attachment A) with local contextual demographics data for Palo Alto. The Committee also discussed two broader questions:

How should the BCC demographic survey response data be shared with the full City Council for consideration when making new appointments? And
How should the City assess BCC member socioeconomic demographics? This question is relevant for future BCC demographics surveys. The 2024 BCC demographics survey questions are included for context as Attachment B to this report.

Item 7
Item 7 Staff Report

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 196 of 308

The Committee took the following action:

ANALYSIS
The Committee recommends that the City Council receive the BCC demographics survey results prior to the interviews for new BCC members. This information would be provided consistent with expectations set with BCC members when survey responses were solicited: the demographic data will be aggregated to maintain anonymity and will not be reported on a per- commission basis. Providing the data to the full City Council prior to BCC interviews for the annual recruitment process is intended to be informational only for the City Council. This provides an annual opportunity for the City Council to observe changes over time in overall demographic representation on the BCCs.

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no anticipated fiscal impact for this item. Staff conducts and analyzes the survey data and prepares the reports for presentation to the City Council.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Staff coordinates with the Clerk’s Office to ensure the list of BCC members is accurate and up to date. Staff also connects with BCC members to request participation in the BCC demographics survey and shares the aggregated results publicly online.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council action on this item is not a project as defined by CEQA because Council's receipt of BCC demographic data is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5).

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Palo Alto BCC Survey Summary 2021 with Community Context Attachment B: BCC Demographic Survey, 2024
APPROVED BY:

Ed Shikada, City Manager
Item 7
Item 7 Staff Report

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 197 of 308

Attachment A
1 Palo Alto Boards, Committees, and Commissions
Demographic Data Survey 2021
Conducted Summer 2021

A total of 34 participants responded to the survey. The survey was shared with members of all of Palo Alto’s Boards, Committees, and Commissions (BCCs). The results reflect aggregate voluntary information shared from BCC members. Most questions show the table and chart results as percentages.

Survey Results:

Years Percent
0-5 years 3%
6-10 years 9%
11-15 years 9%
16-20 years 6%
21+ years 71%
Not a Palo Alto
resident 3%
Grand Total 100%

Reason Percent
I (or my partner) moved here to
attend Stanford 12%
Just liked the community 3%
Moved here to live near family* 9%
Moved here to live near work 32%
Moved here to raise a family 18%
Not a Palo Alto Resident 3%
Palo Alto is my hometown (I was
born or raised here as a child)* 18%
Schools* 6%
Grand Total 100%

*Palo Alto as hometown also includes spouses, "Schools" was a written -in response, “Moved here to live with family” also includes one "other" who said they moved here to live near friends. 3% 9% 9% 6%
71%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21+ years Not a Palo Alto
resident
Question 1: How many years have you lived
in Palo Alto?
12% 3% 9%
32%
18%
3%
18%
6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Question 2: What is the primary reason
you initially located to Palo Alto?
Item 7
Attachment A - Palo Alto
2021 BCC Survey
Summary with
community context

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 198 of 308

Attachment A
2 Question 3: Housing - Do you own or rent your current residence? (For the purpose of the survey, you own your home even if you have an outstanding debt that you owe on your mortgage loan).

Own/Rent Percent
Own 85%
Rent 12%
Not a Palo Alto
Resident 3%
Grand Total 100%

Gender Percent
Female 50%
Male 50%
Non-binary 0%
Decline to state 0%
Grand Total 100%
Not a Palo
Alto
Resident
3%
Own
85%
Rent
12%
Question 3: Rent, Own, Other
Female
50%
Male
50%
Question 4: What is your Gender?
Item 7
Attachment A - Palo Alto
2021 BCC Survey
Summary with
community context

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 199 of 308

Attachment A
3 Age Group Percent
25-39 15%
40-59 35%
60+ 47%
Decline to state 3%
Grand Total 100%

15%
35%
47%
3%
Question 5: What is your age group?
25-39
40-59
60+
Decline to state
Race / Ethnicity Percent
American Indian or Alaskan Native 0%
Asian 9%
Black or African American 0%
Hispanic or Latino/Latinx and White 6%
Multi-racial 3%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander 0%
White 71%
Decline to state 12%
Other 0%
Total 100%
0% 9% 0% 6% 3% 0%
71%
12% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Question 6: Race and Ethnicity (check all
that apply).

Item 7
Attachment A - Palo Alto
2021 BCC Survey
Summary with
community context

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 200 of 308

Attachment A
4 Question 7: Education - What is your highest level of school completed? If currently enrolled, mark "Student".

* No respondents chose “Student” so it is not
listed in this chart.

Question 8: How do you identify your socioeconomic status? (Note: this was an open-ended question; answers were coded/tallied)

Self-Described
Socioeconomic Status Percent
Upper Middle Class 29%
N/A 29%
Middle Class 26%
Adequate 3%
Lower Middle Class 3%
Secure 3%
Upper Class 3%
Do Not Understand
Question. 3%
Grand Total 100%

Question 9: What is your Employment Status

Status Percent
Employed full-time 35%
Retired 35%
Employed part-time 15%
Seeking opportunities 9%
A homemaker 3%
Self-employed 3%
Grand Total 100%
Education Percent
Bachelor's degree 21%
Master's degree 44%
Doctorate degree (e.g. PhD, EdD, MD,
etc.) 32%
Decline to state 3%
Grand Total 100%
21%
44%
32%
3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Bachelor's
degree
Master's
degree
Doctorate
degree (e.g.

PhD, EdD, MD,
etc.)
Decline to
state
Question 7: Education
Item 7
Attachment A - Palo Alto
2021 BCC Survey
Summary with
community context

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 201 of 308

Attachment A
5 Question 10: Employer Type: Please Describe Your Work

Employer Type Percent
Employee of a for-profit company or of an individual, for wages, salary, or commissions 35% Self-employed 24%
Government employee 12%
Retired 12%
Employee of a not-for-profit, tax-exempt, or charitable organization 6% Decline to state 3%
Self-employed and Employee of a not-for-profit, tax-exempt, or charitable organization 3% Self-employed and Employee of a for-profit company or of an individual, for wages, salary, or commissions 3%
Currently not working 3%
Working without pay in family business or farm 0%
Total 100%

Question 11: Employment Location – Note the general area in which your employer is located.

Location Percent
Palo Alto 26%
San Jose or Silicon Valley outside of Palo
Alto 21%
N/A 18%
San Francisco 18%
Decline to state 3%
Home 3%
Out of State 3%
San Mateo County 3%
Santa Clara & San Mateo County 3%
Southern California 3%
Grand Total 100%

Item 7
Attachment A - Palo Alto
2021 BCC Survey
Summary with
community context

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 202 of 308

Attachment A
6 Question 13: How did you hear about the opportunity to join your current Board/Commission/ Committee? (Check all that apply)

Question 14: Are you a member of a Board/Commission/Committee that conducts quasi-judicial hearings (Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board, or Planning Transportation Commission)?

No 68%
Yes 32%
Grand Total 100%

65%
26%
9%
Question 12: Number of children under the age
of 18 live in your household?
0 1-2
3-4
Item 7
Attachment A - Palo Alto
2021 BCC Survey
Summary with
community context

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 203 of 308

Attachment A
7 Question 15: Do you have any additional comments? [Open-ended responses are provided below]

Council should appoint the best candidates available at the time there are openings. Do not set up a quasi-quota system to mandate diverse candidate membership.

The HRB needs to hire a Historic Planner. HRB has been without a historic planner for several years.

This has had a major impact on the ability of the HRB to function.

It is an honor to serve the City of Palo Alto!
Thank you!
Thank you for gathering this information. It is my hope that our boards and commissions are represented by all people of Palo Alto. A diverse board brings more conversation and better decisions.

The real diversity problem on our b&c’s is a diversity of expertise. Too many under qualified individuals without proper knowledge making recommendations.

Retired, but employer was initially in Palo Alto, then Santa Clara, then Cupertino, then SF It has been an honor to serve
Thanks
Thank You!
Glad you are doing the survey. It seems to be very tough to find folks to serve currently I am in favor of the new policy limited individuals to two terms on boards and commissions.

Item 7
Attachment A - Palo Alto
2021 BCC Survey
Summary with
community context

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 204 of 308

Attachment A
8 For context of the broader community demographics in Palo Alto as of the 2020 Census and the 2010 Census, below are two charts which represent the community demographics. Source: US Census Bureau and Palo Alto Weekly.

Item 7
Attachment A - Palo Alto
2021 BCC Survey
Summary with
community context

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 205 of 308

Palo Alto Boards, Committees and Commissions
Demographic Data Survey 2024

Question 1: How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? 0-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
21+ years
Not a Palo Alto resident

Question 2: What was the primary reason you initially located to Palo Alto? I (or my partner) moved here to attend Stanford
Liked the community
Moved here to live near family
Moved here to live near work
Moved here to raise a family
Palo Alto is my hometown (I was born or raised here as a child) Schools
Not a Palo Alto Resident

Question 3: Housing - Do you own or rent your current residence? (For the purpose of the survey, you own your home even if you have an outstanding debt that you owe on your mortgage loan).

Not a Palo Alto Resident
Own
Rent

Question 4: What is your gender identity?
Woman
Transgender Woman
Man
Transgender Man
Genderqueer/gender-fluid
Non-binary
Two-spirit
Prefer not to answer
Other

Item 7
Attachment B - BCC
Demographic Survey,
2024

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 206 of 308

Question 5: Please identify which of the following describes your sexual orientation.

Asexual
Bisexual
Heterosexual
Lesbian
Gay
Pansexual
Queer
Questioning or unsure
Prefer not to answer
Other

Question 6: What is your age group?
18-24
25-39
40-59
60+
Prefer Not to Answer

Question 7: Race and Ethnicity - Please specify your race and ethnicity (check all that apply).

Hispanic or Latino/Latinx
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
Two or more races
White
Prefer not to answer
Other

Question 8: Education - What is your highest level of school completed? If currently enrolled, mark "Student".

GED
Some college
Associate’s Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Master's degree
Doctorate degree (e.g. PhD, EdD, MD, etc.)
Student
Prefer not to answer
Item 7
Attachment B - BCC
Demographic Survey,
2024

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 207 of 308

Question 9: What is your employment status?
Employed full-time
Retired
Employed part-time
Seeking opportunities
Homemaker
Self-employed

Question 9.5: If you are retired, what was your income during the last 12 months of employment? $150k or less
$150k-$250k
$250k-$350K
$350k or higher

Question 10: What is your household income?
$150k or less
$150k-$250k
$250k-$350K
$350k or higher
Retired

Question 11: Do you own properties other than your primary residence? Yes
No

Question 12: How many children (if any) under the age of 18 live in your household?

0 1-2
3 or more

Question 13: How did you hear about the opportunity to join your current Board/Commission/ Committee? (Check all that apply)
City Clerk
City Council member
Social Media
Nextdoor
Item 7
Attachment B - BCC
Demographic Survey,
2024

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 208 of 308

City’s website
Newspaper or other media
Word of mouth
Newsletter
Other

Question 14: Are you a member of a Board/Commission/Committee that conducts quasi-judicial hearings (Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board, or Planning Transportation Commission)?
Yes
No

Question 15: Do you have any additional comments?

Question 16: Which Board, Commission or Committee do you represent? (this is for statistical counting purposes only: your anonymity will be maintained) Architectural Review Board
Historic Resources Board
Human Relations Commission
Parks and Recreation Commission
Public Art Commission
Planning and Transportation Commission
Stormwater Management Oversight Committee
Utilities Advisory Commission

Item 7
Attachment B - BCC
Demographic Survey,
2024

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 209 of 308

City Council
Staff Report
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 1, 2024
Report #:2403-2769
TITLE
SECOND READING: Adopt a Revised Interim Ordinance to Extend the Interim Parklet Program to July 31, 2024 (from March 31, 2024) and Phase‐in Enforcement of the Ongoing Parklet Program through November 1, 2024; and Extend Parking Lot Eating/Drinking Uses to December 31, 2024; CEQA Status‐ Categorically Exempt (Sections 15301 and 15304(e)) (FIRST READING:

March 11, 2024 PASSED 7-0)

BACKGROUND
This was heard by the City Council on March 11, 2024 for a first reading and was approved 7-0.

No changes were made to the ordinance; it is now before you for a second reading.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Interim Ordinance Extending Interim Parklets through August 1, 2024 and Delaying Enforcement of the Permanent (Ongoing) Parklet Program to November 1, 2024 APPROVED BY:

Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 210 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED*
105_20240229_ts24 1

Ordinance No. _____
Interim Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Temporarily Continuing the Expansion of Outdoor Dining, Retail and Other Activities on Public and Private Property and Relaxing Regulations Regarding Onsite Parking, On-Sale of Alcohol, Design/Architectural Review, Permit Fees, and Alcohol Consumption in Public Places, All to Facilitate Such Outdoor Use; and Delaying Implementation of the Permanent Parklet Ordinance Until November 1, 2024.

The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:

A. On June 23, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5500, an emergency ordinance, in response to COVID -19 and its effects on local businesses. At that time and since then, county and state regulations related to COVID -19 have limited or curtailed many indoor activities, including dining, bars, retail, performances, and other recreational uses.

B. In June 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5526, which amended and restated Ordinance 5500 on a non-emergency basis (among other changes).

C. On November 8, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5533, which amended and restated Ordinance 5526 with a sunset date of June 30, 2022.

D. In May 2022, t he City Council adopted Ordinance 5551, which amend ed and restate d Ordinance 5533 to extend its provisions through December 31, 2022.

E. In October and November 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5572, which amended and restated Ordinance 5551 to extend its parklet provisions through June 30, 2023 and the remainder of its provisions through December 31, 2023.

F. In May 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5584 to extend the parklet provisions of this ordinance until March 31, 2024. The remainder of the ordinance will sunset on December 31, 2023 as previously adopted.

G. In November 2023, t he City Council adopted Ordinance 5603 to extend the on -street dining provisions of this ordinance until December 31, 2024.

H. The City Council now desires to extend the parklet provisions of this ordinance until August 1, 2024; delay enforcement of the permanent (ongoing) parklet ordinance 5594 to November 1, 2024 for parklets in transition ; and extend parking lot uses through December 2024.

Item 8
Attachment A - Interim
Ordinance Extending
Interim Parklets through
August 1, 2024 and
Delaying Enforcement of
the Permanent (Ongoing)
Parklet Program to
November 1, 2024

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 211 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED*
105_20240229_ts24 2

SECTION 2. City Manager Authorization

The City Manager or his or her designee(s) may promulgate guidelines and implementing regulations for the uses and programs described in this Ordinance as long as such regulations do not conflict with this Ordinance.

SECTION 3. Fee Waivers for Encroachment Permits and Parking Space Closures

A. The permit fees set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule are temporarily waived for applications for encroachment permits under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.12.010 and Section 12.12.020, as modified by this Ordinance, to place structures and equipment in the public right-of-way (including closed streets and sidewalks) for purposes of outdoor dining and outdoor retail sales and display of wares.

B. The parking space closure fee in the Municipal Fee Schedule collected by the Department of Planning and Development Services is temporarily waived for the use of a parking space(s) on-street or in a parking lot for purposes of outdoor dining and outdoor re tail sales and display of wares as authorized through an encroachment permit, license, or agreement with the City.

SECTION 4. Modified Review Process for Commercial Sidewalk Encroachment Permits

Notwithstanding contrary provisions of PAMC Section 12.12.020, permits may be granted for commercial sidewalk encroachments for outdoor retail sales and display areas and outdoor eating areas. Permits for these purposes shall not be required to undergo and complete design review by the Planning Department described in subsection (d) of Section 12.12.020. Except as expressly modified herein, the provisions of Section 12.12.020 shall apply to commercial sidewalk encroachments.

SECTION 5. Eating and Drinking Establishments

Eating establishments, and drinking establishments may temporarily relocate some or all of their existing indoor seating capacity to outdoor seating capacity, as follows:

A. Location. Outdoor eating areas may be placed in one or more of the following areas:

1. Public streets temporarily closed by the City of Palo Alto, through issuance of an encroachment permit under PAMC Section 12.12.010;

2. Sidewalks through issuance of an encroachment permit under PAMC Section

12.12.020, as modified by Section 4 of this Ordinance;

Item 8
Attachment A - Interim
Ordinance Extending
Interim Parklets through
August 1, 2024 and
Delaying Enforcement of
the Permanent (Ongoing)
Parklet Program to
November 1, 2024

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 212 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED*
105_20240229_ts24 3

3. In on -street parking spaces approved for use as temporary parklets , in accordance with the Pilot Parklet Demonstration Project as first approved by Council Resolution No. 9909 and continued by subsequent resolutions;

4. Surface p arking lots that currently provide required onsite parking for the eating/drinking establishment, through issuance of an approval by the Director of Planning, or his or her designee , as described in subsections C and D of this Section, below;

5. Other outdoor areas on the eating /drinking establishment site not originally permitted for outdoor seating in the establishment’s approved site plan or planning entitlement ( such as landscaped a reas), through issuance of an approval by the Director of Planning, or his or her designee, in accordance with subsections C and D of this Section, below; and

6. In other areas that the Council identifies by resolution or ordinance.

B. Use of Private Parking Lots – Temporary Reduction of Parking Requirements.

1. Notwithstanding the parking requirements applicable to eating /drinking establishments in Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC or in individual planning entitlements or approvals for eating /drinking establishments, an eating/drinking establishment may place outdoor eating areas in its parking lot, so long as at least half of the parking spaces on the subject site remain available for use by vehicles. If the establishment’s parking lot has ten or fewer parking spaces, up to 100 percent of the parking lot may be used for outdoor eating, subject to review and approval of the Planning Director or his or her designee.

2. Notwithstanding the parking requirements applicable to shopping centers and their tenant businesses in Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC or in individual planning entitlements or approvals for shopping centers or their tenant businesses, a shopping center with an eating /drinking establishment tenant(s) may place outdoor eating areas for such tenant business(es) in the shopping center parking lot, so long as at least half of the parking spaces on the subject site remain available for use by vehicles.

C. Application. A n application in a form approved by the Director of Planning shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Services Department to relocate some or all of an eating /drinking establishment’s permitted indoor restaurant seating to outdoor seating in privately-owned areas on the eating/drinking establishment site not originally permitted for outdoor eating. The Director of Planning is authorized to establish submittal requirements and procedures. Temporary Use Permit s (TUP) under PAMC Section 18.42.050 may be utilized for this purpose. A TUP issued for this purpose may be valid for a specified period longer than 45 days, notwithstanding subsection (d) of Section Item 8
Attachment A - Interim
Ordinance Extending
Interim Parklets through
August 1, 2024 and
Delaying Enforcement of
the Permanent (Ongoing)
Parklet Program to
November 1, 2024

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 213 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED*
105_20240229_ts24 4

18.42.050. The Planning Director may extend a TUP issued prior to the effective date of this Ordinance to be valid beyond 45 days.

D. Seating Layout Review. A Seating Layout Review is required to relocate some or all of an eating/drinking establishment’s permitted indoor seating to outdoor seating in privately- owned areas on the eating /drinking establishment site not originally permitte d for outdoor eating. The Seating Layout Review shall be conducted by a transportation planner, planner, and/or fire inspector who will review and either approve or require modifications to the proposed outdoor seating layout based on the following criteria:

1. Seating layout does not create a safety risk and adequate pedestrian and vehicular separation is maintained, including with movable barriers as appropriate where outdoor seating is to be placed in parking lots or on-street parking spaces.

2. Seating layout accommodates appropriate vehicle and pedestrian circulation and maintains adequate paths of travel and complies with accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

3. Any tents must comply with fire codes and Palo Alto Fire Department issued standards for tents, and safety standards set forth by the National Fire Protection Association for fire-resistant tents and must include an affixed manufacturer’s label stating the tent meets NFPA requirements. A State Fire Marshal seal on the tent or a certificate is needed to prove treatment.

4. Any heaters must comply with fire codes.

5. An adequate and visible barrier is placed that clearly separates the retail area from the parking area and provides sufficient protection for patrons. Adequacy shall be defined in standards and guidelines issued by the Director of Planning.

6. Other requirements established in the standards and guidelines issued by the Director of Planning.

E. Fee. No fee will be charged for submittal and review of the Application and for conducting a Seating Layout Review.

F. Occupancy. Total seating occupancy (including all indoor and outdoor seating) shall not exceed the overall occupancy for which the restaurant is permitted.

G. Alcohol Service. Establishments that are allowed by the City to serve alcohol for onsite consumption by issuance of a conditional use permit (“CUP”) as required by PAMC Section

18.42.090 or as a legal nonconforming use, and that both have an on -sale license from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) and are duly authorized by ABC to serve alcohol in outdoor areas, shall be allowed to serve alcohol for onsite consumption Item 8
Attachment A - Interim
Ordinance Extending
Interim Parklets through
August 1, 2024 and
Delaying Enforcement of
the Permanent (Ongoing)
Parklet Program to
November 1, 2024

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 214 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED*
105_20240229_ts24 5

in such outdoor areas, notwithstanding any prohibition on outdoor alcohol service or consumption in the PAMC or planning entitlement issued under Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC. During the effective period of this Ordinance, establishments that meet the preceding requirements may expand their footprint to outdoor areas without an amendment of the CUP, notwithsta nding PAMC Section 18.42.090(c). Outdoor alcohol service shall be in full compliance with ABC regulations, as amended.

H. No Architectural Review . Notwithstanding PAMC Sections 18.77.077 and 18.76.020, architectural review shall not be required for propose d outdoor eating areas or signage related to such areas during the effective period of this Ordinance.

SECTION 6. Retail Establishments

Retail establishments may temporarily relocate some or all of their existing customer-accessible square footage to outdoor spaces as follows:

A. Location. Outdoor retail sales and display areas and outdoor eating areas may be placed in one or more of the following areas:

1. Public streets temporarily closed by the City of Palo Alto, through issuance of an encroachment permit under PAMC Section 12.12.010;

2. Sidewalks through issuance of an encroachment permit under PAMC Sec tion

12.12.020, as modified by Section 4 of this Ordinance;

3. Surface parking lots that currently provide required onsite parking for the retail establishment, through issuance of an approval by the Director of Planning , or his or her designee, as described in subsections C and D of this Section, below;

4. Other outdoor areas on the retail establishment site not originally permitted for retail sales and display or dining in the retail establishment’s approved site plan or planning entitlement (such as landscaped areas), through issuance of an approval by the Director of Planning or his or her designee in accordance with subsections C and D of this Section, below; and

5. In other areas that the Council identifies by resolution or ordinance.

B. Use of Private Parking Lots – Temporary Reduction of Parking Requirements.

1. Notwithstanding the parking requirements applicable to retail establishments in Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC or in individual planning entitlements or approvals for retail establishments, a retail establishment may conduct outdoor retail sales and display and may place outdoor eating areas in its parking lot, so lo ng as at least half of the parking spaces on the subject site remain available for use by vehicles. If the Item 8
Attachment A - Interim
Ordinance Extending
Interim Parklets through
August 1, 2024 and
Delaying Enforcement of
the Permanent (Ongoing)
Parklet Program to
November 1, 2024

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 215 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED*
105_20240229_ts24 6

establishment’s parking lot has ten or fewer parking spaces, up to 100 percent of the parking lot may be used for outdoor dining/retail , subject to review and approval of the Planning Director or his or her designee.

2. Notwithstanding the parking requirements applicable to shopping centers and their tenant businesses in Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC or in individual planning entitlements or approvals for shopping centers or their tenant businesses, a shopping center with a retail establishment tenant(s) may place outdoor retail sales and display areas and outdoor eating areas for such tenant business(es) in the shopping center parking lot, so long as at least half of the parking spaces on the subject site remain available for use by vehicles.

C. Application. An application in a form approved by the Director of Planning shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Services Department to relocate some or all of a retail establishment’s customer-accessible square footage to outdoor retail sales and display in privately-owned areas on the retail establishment site not originally permitted for outdoor retail sales and display . The Director of Planning is authorized to establish submittal requirements and procedures. Temporary Use Permits (TUP) under PAMC Section 18.42.050 may be utilized for this purpose. A TUP issued for this purpose may be valid for a specified period longer than 45 days, notwithstanding subsection (d) of Section

18.42.050. The Planning Director may extend a TUP issued prior to the effective date of this Ordinance to be valid beyond 45 days.

D. Merchandise or Seating Layout Review. A Layout Review is required to relocate some or all of an retail establishment’s permitted indoor customer-accessible square footage to privately-owned areas on the retail establishment site not originally permitted for retail.

The Layout Review shall be conducted by a transportation planner, planner, and/or fire inspector who will review and either approve or require modifications to the proposed retail layout based on the following criteria:

1. The placement of the merchandise, displays, or other items does not create a safety risk and adequate pedestrian and vehicular separation is maintained, including with movable barriers as appropriate where outdoor seating is to be placed in parking lots or on-street parking spaces.

2. The layout accommodates appropriate vehicle and pedestrian circulation and maintains adequate paths of travel and complies with accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

3. Any tents must comply with fire codes and Palo Alto Fire Department issued standards for tents, and safety standards set forth by the National Fire Protection Association for fire-resistant tents and must include an affixed manufacturer’s label stating the tent meets NFPA requirements. A State Fire Marshal seal on the tent or a certificate is needed to prove treatment.

Item 8
Attachment A - Interim
Ordinance Extending
Interim Parklets through
August 1, 2024 and
Delaying Enforcement of
the Permanent (Ongoing)
Parklet Program to
November 1, 2024

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 216 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED*
105_20240229_ts24 7

4. Any heaters must comply with fire codes.

5. An adequate and visible barrier is placed that clearly separates the retail area from the parking area and provides sufficient protection for patrons. Adequacy shall be defined in standards and guidelines issued by the Director of Planning.

6. Other requirements established in the standards and guidelines issued by the Director of Planning.

E. Fee. No fee will be charged for submittal and review of the Application and for conducting a Layout Review.

F. No Architectural Review . Notwiths tanding PAMC Sections 18.77.077 and 18.76.020, architectural review shall not be required for proposed outdoor retail areas or signage related to such areas during the effective period of this Ordinance.

SECTION 7. Compliance with Other Regulations, Orders and Approvals

The uses of public and private property allowed in this Ordinance shall be conducted in compliance with any applicable state or county mandate (including executive orders and health orders), this Ordinance, Resolution No. 9909 and its successors, and all other local and state regulations, orders, and approvals, as applicable (collectively, “Applicable Law”). Any approval, allowance or permit to conduct such temporary outdoor use(s) shall be subject to revocation by the issuing City official if the use is conducted in violation of Applicable Law, or poses a threat to public health, safety or welfare.

SECTION 8. No Vested Rights

The outdoor uses of public and private property allowed in this Ordinance are temporary and shall be terminated upon the earlier of the date stated in the applicable permit/approval or the expiration of this interim Ordinance , unless earlier revoked by the City Manager or other authorized official (or their designee) or terminated by action of the City Council . The City may discontinue one or more, or all, of the allowed outdoor uses at any time if the City Manager or designee determines that the public health, safety or welfare warrant such action. Nothing in this Ordinance shall establish a vested right.

SECTION 9. Suspension of Prohibition on Alcohol Consumption in Lytton Plaza and Cogswell Plaza

Notwithstanding PAMC Sections 22.04.330 and 22.04.331, the City Manager is authorized to suspend the prohibition on consumption of alcoholic beverages in the parking lots adjacent to Lytton Plaza and Cogswell Plaza.

Item 8
Attachment A - Interim
Ordinance Extending
Interim Parklets through
August 1, 2024 and
Delaying Enforcement of
the Permanent (Ongoing)
Parklet Program to
November 1, 2024

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 217 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED*
105_20240229_ts24 8

SECTION 10. Use of City Parking Lots for Reopening Activities A. The City Manager, or his or her designee (“City Manager”), is authorized to permit outdoor dining, retail and other activities necessary to facilitate the reopening of businesses, in public parking lots owned by the City, subject to the City Manager’s adoption of rules, regulations, guidelines, and standards for such use (“Regulations”), and publication of such Regulations on the City’s website . Use of parking lots, or portions thereof, by a business shall require a license or other agreement, including an agreement to indemnify and hold harmless the City, and provision of insurance.

B. The City Manager is authorized to waive any fee in the Municipal Fee Schedule associated with the temporary use of parking areas for the purposes identified in Section A above.

C. Notwithstanding PAMC Section 9.04.020, the City Manager is authorized to suspend the prohibition on consumption of alcoholic beverages in any City owned parking lot.

SECTION 11. Personal Services, Indoor Recreation and Other Uses

The authorized outdoor uses of public and private spaces authorized in this Ordinance may be applied to personal services, indoor recreation and other uses. Prior to authorizing these additional activities to occur, the City Manager, or his or her designee (“City Manager”), shall adopt rules, regulations, guidelines, and standards for these uses, and publish them on the City’s website.

SECTION 12. Severability

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 13. Environmental Review

The Council finds that the Ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (existing facilities) and 15304(e) (minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment).

//

//

//
Item 8
Attachment A - Interim
Ordinance Extending
Interim Parklets through
August 1, 2024 and
Delaying Enforcement of
the Permanent (Ongoing)
Parklet Program to
November 1, 2024

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 218 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED*
105_20240229_ts24 9

SECTION 14. Effective Date

This Ordinance shall be effective 31 days after adoption. Subject to future Council action, the provisions of this ordinance allowing eating and drinking establishments , retail establishments, and other uses on temporarily closed streets and in public and private parking lots in Sections 5, 6, 10 and 11 of this Ordinance shall remain in effect until December 31, 2024. The remainder of the provisions in sections 5, 6, 10, and 11 , including those provisions allowing parklets shall remain in effect until July 31 , 2024. The City may adopt regulations for the orderly wind- down of the programs implemented by these provisions, including setting deadlines for teardown and removal.

SECTION 15. Uncodified
This Ordinance shall not be codified.

SECTION 16. Supercedes Ordinance 5603
As of the effective date of this Ordinance, this Ordinance shall supercede Ordinance 5603, and any conflict shall be resolved in favor of this Ordinance.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//
Item 8
Attachment A - Interim
Ordinance Extending
Interim Parklets through
August 1, 2024 and
Delaying Enforcement of
the Permanent (Ongoing)
Parklet Program to
November 1, 2024

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 219 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED*
105_20240229_ts24 10

SECTION 17. Delay of Enforcement of the PAMC Chapter 12.11 for Transitioning Permittees The City shall delay enforcement of Ordinance 5594 as codified at PAMC Chapter 12.11 as follows:
(a) Beginning July 1, 2024, the City may begin to collect fees for the use of the right-of-way. (b) From April 1, 2024 until October 31, 2024, the City should not take enforcement action for a violation of Chapter 12.11 against a person who has (1) duly filed a pre-application for an ongoing parklet; (2) has a violation caused by the imposition of Chapter 12.11 and its regulations that did not exist prior to the imposition ; (3) has met City deadlines for transitioning parklets; and (4) is making a good-faith effort to come into compliance with Chapter 12.11 and its regulations. The City may take any other enforcement action , including if a person is (1) occupying a right of way without a valid permit or other City authorization; (2) maintaining a condition as to negatively affect public safety or welfare; or (3) for an alleged violation of any other law or regulation besides PAMC Chapter 12.11. (c) The City may adopt regulations for the orderly implementation of PAMC 12.11 that do not conflict with this Section. This includes setting deadlines for pre -applications and other submissions, as well as transition progress deadlines.

INTRODUCED:

PASSED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTEST:

____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:

____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager

____________________________
Director of Public Works

____________________________
Director of Planning & Development
Services
Item 8
Attachment A - Interim
Ordinance Extending
Interim Parklets through
August 1, 2024 and
Delaying Enforcement of
the Permanent (Ongoing)
Parklet Program to
November 1, 2024

Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 220 of 308

City Council
Staff Report
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 1, 2024
Report #:2403-2770
TITLE
SECOND READING: Adopt an Ordinance Increasing Council Member Salary From $1,000/Month to $1,600/Month, Effective January 1, 2025, as authorized by State law (FIRST READING: March 11, 2024 PASSED 6-1, Tanaka no)

BACKGROUND
This was heard by the City Council on March 11, 2024 for a first reading and was approved 6-1, Tanaka no. No changes were made to the ordinance; it is now before you for a second reading.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.04 (Council Organization and Procedure) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Increase the Salary of Council Members Effective 1-1-2025 APPROVED BY:

Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report

Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 221 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment B
1 Ordinance No. _____

Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.04 (Council Organization and Procedure) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Increase the Salary of Council Members Effective January 2025

The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:

A. Article III, Section 17 of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto provides that compensation may be paid to council members in amounts not to exceed those provided by general law.

B. Council member salaries were last set in 2017 by Ordinance No. 5304 in the amount of $1,000 per month.

C. In 2023, the state legislature adopted SB 329, which allows a city of Palo Alto’s size to provide council members a monthly salary of $1,600.

D. Palo Alto is among the highest cost areas in California.

E. There is a need to ensure a council member’s time commitment is fairly compensated, to allow candidates of diverse socioeconomic backgrounds to fill the role without significant personal burden.

SECTION 2. Chapter 2.04 (Council Organization and Procedure) of Title 2 (Administrative Code) the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

2.04.360. Salary of council members.

(a) The salary of the council members shall be $600.00 per month. Effective January 1, 2017, the salary of the council members shall be $1,000 per month.

Effective January 1, 2025, the salary of the council members shall be $1,600 per month.

(b) A city council me mber may waive any or all of the compensation permitted by this section.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the Item 9
Attachment A - Ordinance
Amending Chapter 2.04
(Council Organization and
Procedure) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code to
Increase the Salary of
Council Members
Effective 1-1-2025

Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 222 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment B
2 fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.

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.

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:

____________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager

Item 9
Attachment A - Ordinance
Amending Chapter 2.04
(Council Organization and
Procedure) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code to
Increase the Salary of
Council Members
Effective 1-1-2025

Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 223 of 308

City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Public Works
Meeting Date: April 1, 2024
Report #:2403-2809
TITLE
SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 8.04 (Street, Trees, Shrubs, and Plants) and Chapter 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Regulations) (FIRST READING: January 16, 2024 PASSED 5-2, Lythcott-Haims, Tanaka no)

BACKGROUND
The ordinance has been amended to reflect part B of the Council’s motion. Specifically, a provision was added to Section 8.10.070 to require requests to prune trees in excess of the limits in Section 8.10.020(i) to be submitted to the urban forester fourteen days before pruning the tree with a statement explaining why pruning beyond the limits is warranted.

During passage of the tree ordinance updates in January, staff confirmed during the Council questions that based on CAO analysis of PAMC Chapter 18.09, the updated Title 8 and applicable state law, the tree ordinance would not apply to stand alone Table 1 ADU’s. Staff did not recommend adding specific language to that effect at that time.

At the second reading of the tree ordinance updates, several council members expressed concern that the updated tree ordinance did not explicitly state that PAMC 18.09 Table 1 ADUs were exempt. To address this concern, the following proposed language has been added as 8.10.050 (b)(4):

The tree is proposed for removal to accommodate an ADU constructed pursuant to Section 18.09.030, or because removal is necessary to allow an ADU constructed pursuant to Section 18.09.040 to achieve the minimum standards set forth in state law.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 8.04 (Street, Trees, Shrubs, and Plants) and Chapter 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Regulations).

APPROVED BY:

Brad Eggleston, Director Public Works/City Engineer

Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 224 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
1 0010_20240212_mv30
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 8.04 (Street, Trees, Shrubs, and Plants) and Chapter 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Regulations).

The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 8.04 (Street Trees, Shrubs, and Plants) of Title 8 (Trees and Vegetation) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (additions underlined and deletions struck through):

Chapter 8.04

PUBLIC TREES, SHRUBS, HEDGES, AND PLANTS
Sections:

8.04.005 Purpose.

8.04.010 Definitions.

8.04.015 Authority of city.

8.04.020 Permit required for certain work.

8.04.030 Application for permit.

8.04.040 Issuance of permit.

8.04.050 Public nuisances.

8.04.070 Enforcement.

8.04.080 Interference with enforcement.

8.04.090 Adoption of regulations.

8.04.005 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to protect and promote trees, shrubs, hedges, and plants located on public property within the city. In establishing these procedures and standards, the city recognizes that trees, shrubs, hedges, and plants are an essential part of the city's infrastructure, with benefits that include promoting the health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of the residents of the city; addressing climate change by sequestering carbon and providing a cooling effect; reducing air, water, and noise pollution; preventing soil erosion and Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 225 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
2 0010_20240212_mv30
stormwater runoff; providing wildlife habitat; and enhancing the aesthetic environment. It is the city's intent to encourage the preservation of trees, shrubs, hedges, and plants.

8.04.010 Definitions.

For the purposes of this title, the following words shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this section:
(a) "Person" means individuals, firms, associations and corporations, and agents, employees or representatives thereof.
(b) "City" means the city of Palo Alto acting by and through its authorized representatives. (c) "Street" means and includes all land lying between the boundaries of property abutting on all public streets, boulevards, alleys, and walks.
(d) "Parks" means and includes all parks to which names have been given by action of the city council.
(e) "Public places" means and includes all grounds, other than streets or parks, owned by, leased to, or under the control of the city of Palo Alto. (f) "Tree" means and includes any woody perennial plant generally having a single main stem and commonly achieving ten feet in height.
(g) "Shrub" means and includes any woody perennial plant generally having multiple stems and commonly less than ten feet in height.
(h) "Hedge" means and includes any tree, shrub, or plant, when planted in a dense, continuous line or area, as to form a thicket or barrier. (i) "Plant" means and includes all vegetation other than trees and shrubs. (j) "Public trees, shrubs, hedges, and plants" means and includes any tree, shrub, hedge, or plant in any street, park, or public place in the city of Palo Alto. (k) "Urban forester" means public works department staff including the urban forester or their designee.
(l) "Tree permit" means a permit issued by the urban forester for one or more of the following purposes:
(1) To permit removal of a public tree.
(2) To permit public tree care, work, or treatment.
(3) To permit removal of a protected tree under 8.10.050. (4) To establish a tree preservation bond.
(5) For payment of "in-lieu" fees for required mitigation measures.

Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 226 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
3 0010_20240212_mv30

8.04.015 Authority of city.

The city of Palo Alto shall have control of all public trees, shrubs, hedges, and plants now or hereafter in any street, park or public place within the city limits, and shall have the authority to plant, care for, remove, replace, and maintain such trees, shrubs, hedges, and plants.

8.04.020 Permit required for certain work.

Unless authorized by a tree permit or other city approval, no person shall do any of the following:
(a) Plant, prune, trim, shape, remove, top, or in any way damage, destroy, injure or mutilate a public tree, shrub, hedge, or plant. A tree permit is not required for a property owner, resident, or their agent to maintain shrubs, hedges, or plants located within the city right-of- way associated with their property.
(b) Fasten a sign, wire, or injurious material to any public tree, shrub, hedge, or plant. (c) Excavate any ditch or tunnel; or place concrete or other pavement within a distance of ten feet of the center of the trunk of any public tree.

8.04.030 Application for permit.

Any person desiring to do any of the work described in Section 8.04.020 may apply for a tree permit so to do. The applicant shall state the nature of the work and the location where it will be done.

8.04.040 Issuance of permit.

A tree permit shall be issued authorizing work that meets all the following conditions:
(a) Will not create, continue, or aggravate any hazardous condition, or public nuisance. (b) Will not prevent or interfere with the growth, location or planting of any approved public tree.
(c) Is consistent with the planting plan being followed by the city.

8.04.050 Public nuisances*.

Any of the following are, for the purposes hereof, defined to be public nuisances:
(a) Any dead, diseased, infested, or dying tree, shrub, hedge, or plant in any street or on any public or private property so near to any public tree, shrub, hedge, or plant as to constitute a danger to a public tree, shrub, hedge, or plant, or street, or portion thereof or public property. (b) Any tree, shrub, hedge, or plant on any private property or in any street, of a type or species that will destroy, impair, or otherwise interfere with any street improvement, sidewalk, curb, approved public tree, gutter, sewer, other public improvement, including utility mains and services, or a public tree, shrub, hedge, or plant.

Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 227 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
4 0010_20240212_mv30
(c) Any tree limb, shrub, hedge, or plant reaching a height more than three feet above the curb grade adjacent thereto, except a tree trunk having no limbs lower than nine feet above curb grade, within the thirty-five foot triangle of public or private property, measured from the projected curb lines, at the intersections of any street improved for vehicular traffic where either traffic signals, stop signs, or yield signs are not installed, or at any intersections which are determined by the chief transportation official to contain a tree limb, shrub, hedge, or plant that obscures or impairs the view of a passing motorist, cyclist or pedestrian so as to create a safety hazard.
(d) Vines or climbing plants growing into or over any public tree, shrub, hedge, or plant; or any public hydrant, pole or electrolier.
(e) Existence of any tree within the city limits that is infested or infected with objectionable insects, scale, fungus, or growths that are included in the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s detection and eradication programs or that are growth injurious to trees. (f) The existence of any branches or foliage which interfere with visibility on, free use of, access to, or obstruct public vehicular or pedestrian travel on any portion of any street improved for vehicular or pedestrian travel.
(g) Hedges or dense, thorny shrubs and plants on any street or part thereof. (h) Shrubs and plants more than two feet in height in any tree well or planting strip between the sidewalk and curb, measured above top of curb grade. (i) Any tree, shrub, hedge, or plant declared a public nuisance pursuant to state law and ordered removed by a court of competent jurisdiction.
* Abatement procedure - See Chapter 9.56 of this code.

8.04.070 Enforcement.
(a) Violation of any provision of this chapter is a misdemeanor, punishable as provided in this code. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense and may be separately punished. (b) Persons employed in the following designated employee positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in California Penal Code Section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for violations of this chapter, including but not limited to leveling fines under the city's administrative penalty authority: assistant director of public works public services division, urban forester, project manager in the urban forestry section, landscape architect, and code enforcement officer.
(c) Any person who damages a public tree, through any act or omission, whenever such act or omission is prohibited by or not authorized pursuant to this chapter, may be liable civilly in a sum not to exceed ten thousand dollars per tree, or the reproduction cost of each such tree, whichever amount is higher.

Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 228 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
5 0010_20240212_mv30
(d) Injunctive relief. A civil action may be commenced to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such violation.
(e) Costs. In any civil action brought pursuant to this chapter in which the city prevails, the court shall award to the city all costs of investigation and preparation for trial, the costs of trial, reasonable expenses including overhead and administrative costs incurred in prosecuting the action, and reasonable attorney fees.
(f) The remedies and penalties provided in this section are cumulative and not exclusive.

8.04.080 Interference with enforcement.

No person shall interfere with or delay the authorized representatives of the city from the execution and enforcement of this chapter, except as provided by law.

8.04.090 Adoption of regulations.

The city may adopt regulations prescribing standards of landscaping and planting of streets, parks and public places, therein. A copy of such regulations shall be available for public inspection upon request, and all work performed in streets, parks or public places shall be performed in accordance therewith.

SECTION 2
. Chapter 8.10 (Tree and Landscape Preservation Management) of Title 8 (Trees and Vegetation) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (additions
underlined and deletions struck through):

Chapter 8.10
TREE AND LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT*
Sections:

8.10.010 Purpose.

8.10.020 Definitions.

8.10.030 Tree and Landscape Technical Manual.

8.10.040 Disclosure of information regarding existing trees.

8.10.050 Removal of protected trees.

8.10.055 Tree replacement.

8.10.060 No limitation of authority under Titles 16 and 18.

8.10.070 Care of protected trees.

8.10.080 Development conditions.

8.10.090 Designation of heritage trees.

Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 229 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
6 0010_20240212_mv30

8.10.092 Tree removal in wildland- urban interface area.

8.10.095 Tree removal in Hospital District Zone.

8.10.100 Enforcement.

8.10.110 Remedies for violation.

8.10.120 Fees.

8.10.130 Severability.

8.10.140 Applications, notice, and appeals.

8.10.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to protect specified trees located on private property within the city, and establish standards for removal, maintenance, and planting of trees and landscaping.

In establishing these procedures and standards, the city recognizes that trees and landscaping are an essential part of the city's infrastructure. Their benefits include promoting the health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of the residents of the city; addressing climate change by sequestering carbon and providing a cooling effect; reducing air, water, and noise pollution; preventing soil erosion and stormwater runoff; providing wildlife habitat; and enhancing the aesthetic environment. It is the city's intent to encourage both the preservation of trees and the proactive incorporation of trees and their benefits within development.

8.10.020 Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, terms defined in Chapter 8.04 shall have the same meanings in this chapter, and the following terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this section:
(a) "Basal flare" means that portion of a tree where there is a rapid increase in diameter at the confluence of the root crowntrunk and trunkrootcrown. (b) "Buildable area" means that area of a parcel:
(1) Upon which, under applicable zoning regulations, a structure may be built without a variance, design enhancement exception, or home improvement exception; or (2) Necessary for construction of primary access to structures located on or to be constructed on the parcel, where there exists no feasible means of access which would avoid protected trees. On single-family residential parcels, the portion of the parcel deemed to be the buildable area for primary access shall not exceed ten feet in width. (c) "Building footprint" means the two-dimensional configuration of a building's perimeter boundaries as measured on a horizontal plane at ground level.

Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 230 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
7 0010_20240212_mv30
(d) "Designated arborist" means an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture or another nationally recognized tree research, care, and preservation organization, selected by the urban forester for inclusion in a list of approved arborists to be:
hired by:
(1) Hired by anAn applicant at their own expense, or
(2) Chosen by theThe city at an applicant's expense, if a project includes a public hearing. (e) "Development" means any work upon any property in the city which requires a subdivision, planned community zone, variance, use permit, building permit, demolition permit, or other city approval or which involves excavation, landscaping or construction within the tree protection zonedripline area of a protected tree or is subject to requirements of the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).
(f) "Director of planning and development services" means the director of planning and development services or their designee.
(g) "Director of public works" means the director of public works or their designee. (h) "Discretionary development approval" means planned community zone, subdivision, use permit, variance, home improvement exception, design enhancement exception, architectural review board approval, or any proposal or application that requires the discretion of the authorizing person or entity.
(i) "Dripline area" means the area defined by the projection to the ground of the outer edge of the canopy or a circle with a radius ten times the diameter of the trunk as measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade, whichever is greater. (j) "Excessive pruning" of a protected tree means any of the following:
(1) Removal of more than twenty-five percentone-fourth of the functioning leaf, stem, or root area of a tree in any twenty-four-month period.
(2) Removal of more than fifteen percent of the functioning root area of any Quercus (oak) species in any thirty-six-month period.
(3) Any removal of the functioning leaf, stem, or root area of a tree so as to cause a significant decline in health, increased risk of failure, or the unbalancing of a tree. (jk) "Hazardous" means an imminent hazard which constitutes a high or extreme threat to the safety of persons or property as defined by American National Standards Institute A300, Part 9.
(kl) "Protected" tree means any of the following:
(1) Any locally native tree of the species Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf Maple), Calocedrus decurrens (California Incense Cedar), Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak), Quercus douglasii (Blue Oak), Quercus kelloggii (California Black Oak), or Quercus lobata (Valley Oak) which is eleven Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 231 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
8 0010_20240212_mv30
and one-half inches in diameter (thirty-six inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade. (2) Any Coast Redwood tree (species Sequoia sempervirens) that is eighteen inches in diameter (fifty-seven inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade.
(3) Any tree, other larger than a Coast Redwood Tree, fifteen inches in diameter (forty-seven inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade of any species except those invasive species described as weeds in Section

8.08.010 and those species classified as high water users by the Water Use Classificationwater use classification of Landscape Speciesthe landscape species list (WUCOLS) approved by the California Department of Water Resources.
(4) Any tree designated for protection during review and approval (with the exception of a current or previously completed development project. On parcels zoned other than single- family (R-1) or low density (RE, R-2, or RMD) residential, species exempted under subsection (3) of this Section may be designated as a protected tree.Coast Redwood). (4) Any tree designated for protection during review and approval of a development project. (5) Any tree designated for carbon sequestration and storage and/or environmental mitigation purposes as identified in an agreement between the property owner and a responsible government agency or recorded as a deed restriction. (6) Any heritage tree designated by the city council in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
(7) Any replacement mitigation tree or other tree designated to be planted due to the conditions listed in Section 8.10.055.
(lm) "Protected tree removal permit" means a permit issued to allow a person to remove a protected tree.
(m) “Right tree in the right place principles” means the set of principles that determine if a tree is located in an appropriate location for its specific species requirements and characteristics, in accordance with the factors listed in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual.
(n) "Remove" or "removal" means:
(1) Complete removal, such as cutting to the ground or extraction, of a tree; or (2) Taking any action foreseeably leading to the death of a tree or permanent damage to its health; including but not limited to excessive pruning, cutting, topping, girdling, poisoning, overwatering, underwatering, unauthorized relocation or transportation of a tree, or trenching, excavating, altering the grade, or paving within the tree protection zonedripline area of a tree.

Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 232 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
9 0010_20240212_mv30
(o) “Retrenchment” means the process in which trees may reconfigure as they age and deteriorate, often continuing to grow in trunk diameter while branches die and fail. (p) "Tree Protection Zone" means the area defined by a circle with a radius ten times the diameter of the trunk when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade.
(q) "Tree Reportreport" means a report prepared by a designated arborist. (rp) "Tree and Landscape Technical Manual" means the regulations issued by the city manager to implement this chapter.

8.10.030 Tree and Landscape Technical Manual.

The city manager, through the urban forestry section, and public works and planning and development services departments, shall issue regulations necessary for implementation and enforcement of this chapter, which shall be known as the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Title 8 and the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, this Title 8 shall prevail. The Tree and Landscape Technical Manual will be made readily available to the public and shall include, but need not be limited to, standards and specifications regarding the following:
(a) Protection of trees during construction.
(b) Replacement of trees allowed to be removed pursuant to this chapter where such replacements:
(1) Prioritize the use of locally native species, as listed in Section 8.10.020(l)(1), consistent with Urban Forest Master Plan Goal 2: "Re-generated native woodland and riparian landscapes as the key ecological basis of the urban forest with focus on native species and habitat;" (2) Include climate adaptive, drought tolerant, non-native species as needed to satisfy right tree in the right place principles; and
(3) Incorporate a secondary goal of net tree canopy increase on the property within fifteen years.
(c) Maintenance of protected trees (including but not limited to pruning, irrigation, and protection from disease).
(d) The format and content of tree reports required to be submitted to the city pursuant to this chapter.
(e) The criteria for determining whether a tree is hazardous within the meaning of this chapter.
(f) Landscape design, irrigation, and installation standards consistent with the city's water efficient landscape regulations.

Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 233 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
10 0010_20240212_mv30

8.10.040 Disclosure of information regarding existing trees. (a) Any application for development or demolition shall be accompanied by a statement by a designated arborist which discloses whether any protected trees exist on the property which is the subject of the application, and describing each such tree, its species, size, tree protection zonedripline area, and location. This requirement shall be met by including the information on plans submitted in connection with the application.
(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a), applications involving only the development of an Accessory Dwelling Unit that conforms to Section 18.09.030, Table 1, require only a statement disclosing whether any protected trees are located on the property which is the subject of the application. This statement may be completed by the applicant. (b) In addition, the location and species of anyall other tree which is four inches in diameter (e.g., thirteen inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty- four inches) above natural grade shall be shown on the plans if the tree is:
(1) On the property or trees on the property and in the adjacent public right-of-way, and is which are within thirty feet of the building footprint proposed for development, or (2) Locatedand trees located on adjacent property within thirty feet of the proposed building footprint, or
(1)(3) Close enough that its canopy overhangswith canopies overhanging the project site, shall be shown on the plans, identified by species.
(c) The director of public works or urban forester may require submittal of such other information as is necessary to further the purposes of this chapter including but not limited to photographs.
(d) Disclosure of information regarding private protected trees pursuant to this section shall not be required when the development for which the approval or permit is sought does not involve any change in an existing building footprint nor any grading, trenching, paving, or any change in landscaping which could alter water availability to established plants, hedges, shrubs, or trees.
(e) The urban forester or the designated arborist for a project shall add identified protected trees into the city's tree inventory database, and in coordination with the planning and development services departments, into city parcel reports. (f) Knowingly or negligently providing false or misleading information in response to this disclosure requirement shall constitute a violation of this chapter.

8.10.050 Removal of protected trees.

It shall be a violation of this chapter for anyone to remove or cause to be removed a protected tree, except pursuant to a protected tree removal permit issued under Section

8.10.140 consistent with the following:

Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 234 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
11 0010_20240212_mv30
(a) In the absence of proposed development:
(1) A protected tree shall not be removed unless the urban forester grants a protected tree removal permit, or on parcels zoned other than single-family (R-1) or low density residential (RE, R-2, or RMD), the director of planning and development services authorizes the removal through staff level architectural review pursuant to Section 18.76.020(b)(3), having determined, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a designated arborist and other relevant information, that treatments or corrective practices are not feasible, and that the tree should be removed because any of the following apply:
(i) It is dead, is hazardous, or constitutes a public nuisance under Section 8.04.050 of this code.
(ii) It is a detriment to or is crowding an adjacent protected tree. , or is impacting the foundation or eaves of a residence or any covered parking required under Title 18. (iii) It is at risk for retrenchment or other tree decline coping processes or does not conform with right tree in the right place principles.
(iv) It is impacting the foundation or eaves of a residence, or any covered parking required under Title 18 of this code.
(2) In the event a protected tree is removed pursuant to a protected tree removal permit granted under this subsection (a), a temporary moratorium on development of the subject property may be issued by the urban forester for up to twenty-four months or by, the director of planning and development services, in consultation with the urban forester, for up tomay issue a temporary moratorium on development of the subject property not to exceed thirty-six months, from the date the tree removal occurred. Completion of requiredFor any moratorium less than thirty-six months, the urban forester shall determine appropriate mitigation measures included infor the tree removal permit does not remove or shorten any such moratorium. A moratorium may be terminated early with approval of the urban forester or director of planning, and development services, as applicable, and may require additional mitigationensure measures. are incorporated into any future development approvals for the property. Mitigation measures included in the protected tree removal permit and any additional mitigation measures required to shorten a moratoriumas determined by the urban forester shall be imposed as a condition of any subsequent permits for development on the subject property. (b) In the case of any development on a single-family (R-1) or low density (RE, R-2, or RMD) residential zoned parcel, other than in connection with a subdivision, a protected tree shall not be removed unless determined by the urban forester, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a designated arborist and other relevant information, that any of the following apply:
(1) The tree is so close to the proposed development that construction would result in the death of the tree, and there is no financially feasible design alternative that would permit preservation of the tree, where financially feasible means an alternative that preserves the tree unless retaining the tree would increase project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost of the tree or ten percent of the given project valuation, whichever is greater.

Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 235 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
12 0010_20240212_mv30
(2) Retention of one or more trees would result in reduction of the otherwise-permissible buildable area of the lot by more than twenty-five percent, and there is no financially feasible design alternative that would allow for preservation of the tree(s). For the purposes of this subsection (a)(2), a financially feasible design alternative means a design alternative that preserves the tree(s) and would not increase the project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost of the tree(s) or ten percent of the given project valuation, whichever is greater. All tree protection zones impacting buildable area are included in the reduction of buildable area calculation. (1)(3) The tree could be removed due to the conditions listed in Section 8.10.050(a)(1)(i), (ii) or (iii) (2) The tree could be removed due to the conditions listed in Section 8.10.050(a)(1) and treatments or corrective practices are not feasible. (2)(4) The tree is proposed for removal to accommodate an ADU constructed pursuant to Section 18.09.030, or because removal is necessary to allow an ADU constructed pursuant to Section 18.09.040 to achieve the minimum standards set forth in state law. (c) In the case of development involving a proposed subdivision of land into two or more parcels, a protected tree shall not be removed unless determined by the urban forester, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a designated arborist and other relevant information, that either of the following apply:
(1) Removal is unavoidable due to restricted access to the property or deemed necessary to repair a geologic hazard (landslide, repairs, etc.), in which case only the protected tree or trees necessary to allow access to the property or repair the geologic hazard may be removed. (2) The tree could be removed due to the conditions listed in subsection (a)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) and treatments or corrective practices are not feasible. (d) In the case of development requiring planning approval under Title 18, and not included under subsections (b) or (c), a protected tree shall not be removed unless determined by the urban forester, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a designated arborist and other relevant information, that anyeither of the following apply:
(1) Retention of one or more treesthe tree would result in reduction of the otherwise- permissible buildable area of the lot by more than twenty-five percent, and there is no financially feasible design alternative that would permit preservation of the tree(s),, where financially feasible means an alternative that preserves the tree(s) unless retaining the tree(s) would increase project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost of the tree or ten percent of the given project valuation, whichever is greater. All tree protection zones impacting buildable area are included in the reduction of buildable area calculation. (2) The tree should be removed because it is dead, hazardous, or constitutes a public nuisance under Section 8.04.050. In such cases, the tree protection zonedripline area of the removed tree, or an equivalent area on the site, shall be preserved for mitigation purposes from development of any structure.

Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 236 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
13 0010_20240212_mv30
(3) Discretionary development review determines that the final project follows right tree in the right place principles and would result in a net tree canopy increase on the property within fifteen years, and replacement of trees, shrubs, and plants either:
(i) Is consistent with Urban Forest Master Plan Goal 2: "Re-generated native woodland and riparian landscapes as the key ecological basis of the urban forest with focus on native species and habitat," or
(ii) Uses climate adaptive, drought tolerant species.
(e) In any circumstance other than those described in subsections (a), (b), (c), or (d), a protected tree shall not be removed unless determined by the urban forester, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a designated arborist and other relevant information, that the tree is dead, is hazardous, or constitutes a public nuisance under Section 8.04.050.

8.10.055 Tree replacement.
(a) In the event a protected tree is removed pursuant to Section 8.10.050(a)(1)(i), mitigation for the removed tree, replacement tree ratio, in lieu fees, or a combination thereof shall be determined by the urban forester, based on factors including but not limited to the species, size, location, and specific reason for removal of the protected tree, in accordance with the standards and specifications in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual. (b) In the event a protected tree is removed pursuant to Section 8.10.050(a)(1)(ii), (iii) or (iv), (b), (c), (d), or (e), the tree removed shall be replaced in accordance with the standards and specifications in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, including but not limited to prioritization of locally native species, satisfaction of right tree in the right place principles, and incorporation of a secondary goal of net tree canopy increase on the property within fifteen years. The urban forester shall approve the number, species, size, and location of replacement trees.

8.10.060 No limitation of authority under Titles 16 and 18.

Nothing in this chapter limits or modifies the existing authority of the city under Title 18 to require trees, shrubs, hedges, and other plants not covered by this chapter to be identified, retained, protected, and/or planted as conditions of the approval of development. In the event of conflict between provisions of this chapter and conditions of any permit or other approval granted pursuant to Title 16 or Title 18, the more protective requirements shall prevail.

8.10.070 Care of protected trees.
(a) All owners of property containing protected trees shall follow the maintenance standards in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, including avoiding any action foreseeably leading to the death of a tree or permanent damage to its health; including but not limited to excessive pruning, cutting, topping, girdling, poisoning, overwatering, underwatering, unauthorized relocation or transportation of a tree, or trenching, excavating, altering the grade, or paving within the tree protection zonedripline area of a tree.

Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 237 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
14 0010_20240212_mv30
(b) At least seven days prior to pruning a protected tree, other than that required to remove a dead, diseased, or broken branch or branches, the property owner or their designee shall prominently post a notice on the property, in one or more locations readily visible to the public, that includes standards for pruning and a description of the tree including tree species, size, location, the date of work, and a contact phone number. The form for such notice will be available on the city's website as a printable document. Protected trees less than five years old are exempt from this provision.
(c) Any requests to exceed the limits for pruning set forth in Section 8.10.020(i) shall be submitted to the urban forester by the property owner or their designee at least fourteen days prior to pruning a protected tree. Each request shall be accompanied by a statement explaining why exceedance of the limits is warranted. No pruning that exceeds the limits set forth in Section 8.10.020(i) shall take place without the approval of the urban forester. (cd) The standards for protection of trees during construction contained in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual shall be followed during any development on property containing trees.
(de) The urban forester shall add identified protected trees into the city's tree inventory database and, in coordination with the planning and development services departments, into city parcel reports.

8.10.080 Development conditions.
(a) Development approvals for property containing protected public trees shall include appropriate conditions as set forth in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, providing for the protection of such trees during construction and for maintenance of such trees thereafter.

Trees may be designated for protection that are significant visually or historically, provide screening, or are healthy and important to the nearby ecosystem. (b) It shall be a violation of this chapter for any property owner or agent of the owner to fail to comply with any development approval or building permit condition concerning preservation, protection, and maintenance of any tree, including but not limited to protected trees.

8.10.090 Designation of heritage trees.
(a) Upon nomination by any person and with the written consent of the property owner(s), the city council may designate a tree or trees as a heritage tree. (b) A tree may be designated as a heritage tree upon a finding that it is of importance to the community due to any of the following factors:
(1) It is an outstanding specimen of a desirable species. (2) It is one of the largest or oldest trees in Palo Alto. (3) It possesses distinctive form, size, age, location, and/or historical significance.

Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 238 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
15 0010_20240212_mv30
(c) After council approval of a heritage tree designation, the city clerk shall notify the property owner(s) in writing. A listing of trees so designated, including the specific locations thereof, shall be kept by the departments of public works. (d) Once designated, a heritage tree shall be considered protected and subject to the provisions of this chapter unless removed from the list of heritage trees by action of the city council. The city council may remove a tree from the list upon its own motion or upon written request by the property owner. Request for such action must originate in the same manner as nomination for heritage tree designation.

8.10.092 Tree removal in wildland-urban interface area.

Tree removal and relocation in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) area, as defined in Section

15.04.190, shall be subject to the provisions in Chapter 15.04. To the extent Chapter 15.04 is inconsistent with this chapter, Chapter 15.04 shall control.

8.10.095 Tree removal in Hospital District Zone.

Tree removal and relocation in the Hospital District (HD) shall be subject to the provisions in Section 18.36.070. To the extent Section 18.36.070 is inconsistent with this chapter, Section

18.36.070 shall control.

8.10.100 Enforcement.
(a) Violation of this chapter is a misdemeanor, punishable as provided in this code. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense and may be separately punished. (b) Persons employed in the following designated employee positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in California Penal Code Section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for violations of this chapter, including but not limited to leveling fines under the city's administrative penalty authority: assistant director of public works public services division, urban forester, project manager in the urban forestry section, landscape architect, and code enforcement officer.

8.10.110 Remedies for violation.

In addition to all other remedies set forth in this code or otherwise provided by law, the following remedies shall be available to the city for violation of this chapter:
(a) Stop Work - Temporary Moratorium.
(1) If a violation occurs in the absence of proposed development pursuant to Section

8.10.050(a)(1), or while an application for a building permit or discretionary development approval for the lot upon which the tree is located is pending, the director of planning and development services in consultation with the urban forester shall issue a temporary moratorium on development of the subject property, not to exceed five years from the date the violation occurred. The purpose of the moratorium is to provide the city an opportunity to study and determine appropriate mitigation measures for the tree removal, and to ensure Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 239 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
16 0010_20240212_mv30
measures are incorporated into any future development approvals for the property. Mitigation measures as determined by the urban forester shall be imposed as a condition of any subsequent permits for development on the subject property. (2) If a violation occurs during development pursuant to Section 8.10.050(b), (c), (d), or (e), the city shall issue a stop work order suspending and prohibiting further activity on the property pursuant to the grading, demolition, and/or building permit(s) (including construction, inspection, and issuance of certificates of occupancy) until a mitigation plan has been filed with and approved by the director of planning and development services in consultation with the urban forester, agreed to in writing by the property owner(s), and either implemented or guaranteed by the posting of adequate security. The mitigation plan shall include measures for protection or repair of any remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for replacement of each tree removed on the property or at locations approved by the urban forester. The replacement ratio shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, and shall be at least twice the prescribed ratio required where tree removal is permitted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. (b) Civil penalties.
(1) As part of a civil action brought by the city, a court may assess against any person who commits, allows, or maintains a violation of any provision of this chapter a civil penalty in the following amount:
(i) Ten thousand dollars per tree, or twice the reproduction cost of each tree, whichever amount is higher, for the complete removal of a tree, as defined in Section 8.10.020(n)(1). (ii) Ten thousand dollars per tree, or the reproduction cost of each tree, whichever amount is higher, for any of the actions set forth in Section 8.10.020(n)(2). (iii) Ten thousand dollars per tree, or twice the repair cost of each tree, whichever amount is higher, for damage to a tree protected or regulated by this chapter which can be rehabilitated. (2) Penalties shall be payable to the city.
(3) Reproduction or repair cost for the purposes of this chapter shall be determined utilizing the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.
(c) Administrative penalties. Persons listed in Section 8.10.100(b) may issue citations for violations of this chapter that level fines under the city's administrative penalty authority. (d) Injunctive relief. A civil action may be commenced to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such violation.
(e) Costs. In any civil action brought pursuant to this chapter in which the city prevails, the court shall award to the city all costs of investigation and preparation for trial, the costs of trial, reasonable expenses including overhead and administrative costs incurred in prosecuting the action, and reasonable attorney fees.

Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 240 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
17 0010_20240212_mv30
(f) The remedies and penalties provided in this section are cumulative and not exclusive.

8.10.120 Fees.

Tree reports required to be submitted to the city for review and evaluation pursuant to this chapter shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed therefor in the municipal fee schedule.

8.10.130 Severability.

If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are declared to be severable.

8.10.140 Applications, notice, and appeals.
(a) Applications.
(1) All applications for removal of a protected tree pursuant to Section 8.10.050 shall be filed in accordance with this section and any applicable provisions of Chapter 18.77. Applications for removal of protected trees on non-residential zoned properties will follow review guidelines set forth in Section 8.10.050(d) and Section 18.76.020 and will follow the process set forth in Section 18.77.070.
(2) The application form shall be prescribed by the urban forester and shall contain a list of information that must be submitted in order for the application to be deemed complete. (3) Each application must be signed by all owners of the real property containing the protected tree, or an agent of the owner of record of the real property on which the protected tree occurs, when duly authorized by the owner in writing. (4) No application shall be deemed received until all fees for the application as set forth in the municipal fees schedule have been paid, and all documents specified as part of the application in this chapter or on the application form have been filed. (5) Protected tree removal permits shall automatically expire after twelve months, unless otherwise provided in the permit, from the date of issuance of the permit if within such twelve- month period, the proposed tree has not been removed.
(b) Notice.
(1) All applications for removal of a protected tree pursuant to Section 8.10.050 shall give notice in accordance with this section, the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, and any applicable provisions of Chapter 18.77.
(2) After submittal of an application to remove a protected tree, notice shall be given consistent with subsection (b)(4) and shall include the date of the proposed removal and the basis for the application.

Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 241 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
18 0010_20240212_mv30
(3) Upon determination of a protected tree removal application, notice shall be given consistent with subsection (b)(4) and shall include a description of the decision and how to appeal it.
(4) Notices required pursuant to this section shall include the address of the property, a description of the protected tree, including species, size, and location, and urban forestry contact information, and shall be given as follows:
(i) In writing to all owners and residents of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the property containing the protected tree, and to all principal urban forestry partner organizations.
(ii) By posting on the property, in one or more locations visible to the public. (iii) By posting on the city's website.
(c) Appeals.
(1) Any person applying to remove a protected tree in the absence of proposed development pursuant to Section 8.10.050(a), and any owner or resident of property within 600 feet of the exterior boundary of the property containing the protected tree, may request a public hearing by the director of public works to review the urban forester's decision, and may appeal the director of public works' determination to the city council. Any such request or appeal shall be filed with the public works department in a manner prescribed by the urban forester. (2) Any person applying to remove a protected tree pursuant to Section 8.10.050(b), (c), (d), or (e), and any owner or resident of property within 600 feet of the exterior boundary of the property containing the protected tree may request a hearing by appeal the director of planning and development services to review the decision. The request for a hearing shall be filed with the planning division in in a manner prescribed by the director of planning and development services. An appeal of the director of planning and development services determination shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.78. (3) All appeals must be filed within fourteen days of posting of notice on the property pursuant to subsection (b)(4)(ii).

SECTION 3
. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, cl auses or phrases be declared invalid.

SECTION 4
. The Council finds that this ordinance 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 certa inty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. Alternatively, the ordinance is also exempt Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
19 Packet Pg. 242 of 308

*NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A
19 0010_20240212_mv30
under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 because it involves regulatory action for the protection of the environment.

SECTION 5
. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. However, this ordinance shall not apply to any projects that have submitted a complete application as of the ordinance’s effective date. In addition, until such time as a list of designated arborists is established by the Urban Forester, the term “designated arborist” shall mean any arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture or another nationally recognized tree research, care, and preservation organization.

INTRODUCED:

PASSED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

ATTEST:

____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:

____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager

____________________________
Director of Public Works

Item 10
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 8.04 Street Trees
Shrubs and Plants and
Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation

Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
20 Packet Pg. 243 of 308

City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: April 1, 2024
Report #:2403-2745
TITLE
Discussion of Caltrans’ Repaving Project of El Camino Real, Including Replacing Existing Parking with Bicycle Lanes, and Potential Approval of a Resolution to Support this Project; CEQA status – categorically exempt.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council receive a presentation by Caltrans at their request to support their repaving project of El Camino Real, including repurposing parking spaces for bicycle lanes and to consider adopting a resolution in support of the project. Council could also follow other paths forward related to this project as described in the Executive Summary and in detail on pages 12 and 13 of this report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides background and context for the attached Caltrans proposal (Attachment A) to eliminate parking lanes and replace them with bicycle lanes on El Camino Real throughout Palo Alto. As proposed, the replacement of parking with bike lanes would occur during the upcoming repaving project to be done in Palo Alto. Caltrans staff seek community feedback on the proposed bicycle lanes, and Caltrans has asked Council to consider supporting the parking removal necessary to install the bicycle lanes.

Alternative paths forward for the Council to consider in this discussion include:

A.Defer action related to bike lanes until Caltrans provides a Safe System Approach Design that is DIB-94 compliant.

B.Adopt a phased approach that implements the Caltrans proposed bicycle lanes now and acknowledges additional analysis is needed to both incorporate a Safe System Approach Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 244 of 308

to the design yet establishes bike facilities that take into account future housing development on El Camino Real.

C.Defer action pending a Caltrans feasibility analysis on travel lane reductions to support parking protected bike lanes.

D.Align decision of bicycle facilities on ECR with the update of the BPTP to complete in late 2025.

While Caltrans staff have consistently expressed a desire to collaborate with the City on improving safety on El Camino Real, to date, Caltrans has not stated if it will implement the proposed bicycle lanes without a Council vote of support.

If Council supports removal of parking spaces from El Camino for Bicycle Lanes, staff will return to Council as needed to update existing City parking regulations affected by the change, including amending the Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) district program.

BACKGROUND
El Camino Real is a state highway maintained by Caltrans. To meet the requirements of its Capital Preventive Maintenance (CAPM) program, Caltrans is repaving El Camino Real (State Route 82) in Mountain View, Los Altos, and Palo Alto to improve ride quality, comply with current ADA standards, and improve safety, access, and mobility of pedestrians and bicyclists. The project will repair pavement and upgrade existing non-standard ADA curb ramps and add complete street elements.1
According to Caltrans correspondence with the City2, the 2020 Bicyclist Safety Improvement Monitoring Program Report found a cluster of collisions (13 of 33, or 40%) where cyclists were riding on the sidewalk against traffic or riding against traffic. Caltrans proposes bike lanes in place of existing on-street parking to reduce or eliminate the risk of riding on the sidewalk and against traffic. Caltrans requests feedback on the proposal and has asked that the City Council consider supporting Caltrans’ removal of parking on El Camino Real to accommodate proposed bike lanes.

Prior planning by the City for El Camino Real includes a 2017 grant-funded project that targeted collision hot spots in Palo Alto and Redwood City. In November 2018, two resulting concept plans for bicycle facilities were presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and generated an inconclusive discussion.3 At the time, the City had a separate pedestrian- focused One Bay Area Grant (Cycle 2) to prepare design plans and construct improvements on El Camino Real between Stanford and Lambert Avenues, but the City returned the grant in 1 Caltrans project website: SR-82-Pavement Rehabilitation and ADA Improvements 2 See City website: City Issues Letter to Caltrans SR82 El Camino Real Bikeway Project 3 PTC Staff Report, November 14, 2018
Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 245 of 308

December of 2020 after the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) was unable to re-scope it to include bicycle facilities.

Caltrans staff notified City staff in early-2019 about the upcoming repaving project that was then scheduled to begin in 2020. Caltrans staff noted that the City could add complete street elements such as bicycle lanes to the Caltrans plans if the City funded the community engagement, design, environmental clearance, and construction of those elements before the scheduled construction date, which was within 9-12 months of notification. As the City had not already initiated a project, and due to the size and complexity of the project, 9-12-month notice was insufficient time to conduct a community conversation, and to design, gain necessary approvals, fund, and environmentally clear a bike facility proposal. City staff worked with Caltrans to include pedestrian and bicycle improvements consistent with the existing Caltrans project scope.

In early 2023, Caltrans shared initial ideas for proposed bike lanes with City staff, and by mid- 2023, the first draft of the plans had been reviewed by the City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) and a limited number of stakeholders granted access by Caltrans, such as the Valley Transportation Authority. The second iteration of the draft bike lane plan is the subject of this report and is posted to the City’s website.4 Caltrans formally notified the City of their proposed State Route 82 El Camino Real Bikeway Project in a letter dated November 3, 2023, and since then staff has sought additional details to fully understand the reasoning and implications for the community.

On November 17, 2023, the City sent an official communication to Caltrans in response to the proposed addition of new bikeways along SR 82. The City asked several questions about the proposed project and requested additional information in an effort to ensure that the Palo Alto community and businesses potentially impacted by Caltrans’ plan are given an opportunity to fully understand the details, timeline, and opportunities for input. Caltrans responded on January 11, 2024, with answers to the City’s questions.5 This correspondence with Caltrans can be found at the City’s website referenced above. Since learning of this project, the City has consistently asked for specific data supporting Caltrans design decisions and a project schedule with sufficient information to understand when and where the community can anticipate impacts from construction. While Caltrans has now included summary-level collision data in its presentations and the attached proposal, the schedule that has been received came long after the initial request and does not provide adequate information. While one three-week construction schedule was provided, it was submitted to the City after the start of the three- weeks, disallowing the City to use it as a means of advance notification to the community. 4 Draft Caltrans Bicycle Lane Plan, dated January 22, 2024 5 Caltrans Response Letter, dated January 11, 2024
Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 246 of 308

ANALYSIS
Caltrans provided the attached report, “Proposed Bikeway Implementation in Palo Alto on State Route 82 (El Camino Real),” in Attachment A to substantiate their bicycle lane proposal. The report discusses the safety data that motivated the proposal along with the policies and prior planning that support the inclusion of the bike lane. Design considerations are also noted, such as limited right-of-way, the need for parking removal, conflict zones at intersections and driveways, and transit stops. The report also includes a listing of the outreach meetings held in Palo Alto that were attended by Caltrans staff.

Staff continue to seek clarity from Caltrans regarding several aspects of the bike lanes proposal which are detailed in this section, including the safety of the proposed bicycle facility design and the effects of parking reductions on businesses and RV dwellers. In addition, staff note below the planning context of the El Camino Real corridor, specifically the Housing Element and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.

Safety Considerations
As noted in correspondence with the City, the bike lane proposal is a response to Caltrans policies to reduce risk to vulnerable road users on State Route 82. Caltrans has adopted both a Safe System Approach and a Vision Zero goal in roadway safety planning across California to eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries.6 This approach identifies traffic safety as the highest priority for the design and operation of the transportation system and views traffic fatalities and severe injuries as unacceptable and preventable through joint action. The Safe System Approach is the foundation for the National Safety Strategy released by the US Department of Transportation in 2022.7
To bring the Safe System Approach into statewide roadway design, Caltrans issued Design Information Bulletin – 94 (DIB-94), effective on January 16, 2024, which provides Caltrans staff guidelines on how to select and incorporate transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities to match their urban context.8 This bulletin alters Caltrans design guidance to “minimize the transfer of kinetic energy through the adoption of design elements that minimize crash speeds and impact angles.”9 City staff have noted that the bicycle lanes included in the Caltrans draft plans for El Camino Real do not consistently align with the design guidance provided in DIB-94. City staff 6 https://dot.ca.gov/news-releases/news-release-2022-009 7 https://www.transportation.gov/nrss/usdot-national-roadway-safety-strategy 8 Design Information Bulletin – 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance 9 Design Information Bulletin – 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance, p. 17 Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 247 of 308

have requested clarification of whether DIB-94 applies to the repaving project given that the recent bike lane draft plans were dated after January 16, 2024.

In their written response to PTC Commissioner George Lu, Caltrans stated that DIB-94 was applied to the bicycle lane proposal.10 Despite this claim, the City engaged Fehr & Peers, a consultant with Safe Systems expertise, to conduct a comprehensive review of the plan in alignment with Caltrans’ Design Information Bulletin-94 (DIB-94) and the Safe System Approach (Attachment B), which notes several areas in which the plans do not reduce risk to bike lane users, particularly for cyclists who shift from sidewalk riding to on-street riding where they may come into conflict with buses merging into the bike lane to access bus stops. The City sent Caltrans a letter11 along with the consultant memorandum (Attachment B) on March 14, 2024.

The memorandum identifies that the proposed design fails to mitigate high-speed risks for vulnerable users along the corridor by maintaining the current number of wide vehicle lanes, removing on-street parking, and not addressing high-speed turns at intersections. This oversight results in unmitigated high-speed vehicle conflict points for pedestrians. The design also features conventional and intermittent bicycle lanes without protected intersection treatments, creating high-stress conditions for cyclists and potentially introducing new conflicts with buses, discouraging a shift to more sustainable transportation modes. Caltrans has noted that a lack of funding or right-of-way limits the extent to which additional safety considerations can be included in their current proposal. The City’s letter requested that Caltrans:
a) Assess the applicability of DIB-94 to the current bike lane proposal and explore modifications to align with its principles.
b) Provide detailed feedback on the memo's review and consider integrating the suggested improvements into the repaving project.
c) Inform us about the feasibility and timeline for proposing a plan that fully complies with DIB-94 and addresses the identified issues.

The City is currently developing its own Safe Streets for All Safety Action Plan to incorporate the Safe System Approach into the City’s policies and practices.12 As part of this work, El Camino Real has been identified as part of the City’s High Injury Network. Representing 4% of the City’s streets, this roadway network concentrates 63% of injury collisions involving any modes of travel between 2018 and 2022. A recent PTC staff report (February 28) shared the Safety Action Plan collision data analysis and High Injury Network.13 A way to improve safety for all road users is to include bicycle lanes, especially separated and protected bicycle lanes, to streets.14
10 Caltrans Response to Commissioner Lu, March 11, 2024 11 Letter to Caltrans, dated March 14, 2024
12 PTC Staff Report, October 11, 2023
13 PTC Staff Report, February 28, 2024
14 Cycling Lanes Reduce Fatalities for All Road Users, Study Shows, ScienceDaily.com, Accessed February 27, 2024 Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 248 of 308

Parking Impacts & Considerations
A diverse variety of community members use parking availability along El Camino Real segments, at day, evening, and overnight hours. Several segments are included in Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) programs to ensure daytime parking is available for business customers, employees of businesses, visitors, and residents. RPP programs ensure turnover and short-term parking availability for business interests and residents during restricted hours (weekday working hours). Longer parking sessions are available overnight and weekends.

Parking segments in these programs are from Park Blvd. to Page Mill Rd. Other segments, from Page Mill Rd. to San Antonio Rd., provide business-interested and residential parking less restrictively. It is unclear whether alternative parking is available, either off-site or only in adjacent residential areas for current usage. Caltrans recently provided estimates of total parking spaces currently available along El Camino Real in the City of Palo Alto. These provided Office of Transportation staff an opportunity to conduct parking occupancy counts of these segments on Saturday, February 24, 2024, 1pm - 2pm, and Wednesday, February 28, 2024, 4am – 5am, to provide a sample of current usage at evening and overnight hours. See Table 1 for this sampling of occupancy usage rates along these segments of El Camino Real.

Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 249 of 308

Table 1: El Camino Real Parking Occupancy Counts, February 24, 2024 (1-2pm) & February 28, 2024 (4-5am)
SF Creek to San Antonio Rd. (southbound & eastbound) 2/24/2024Saturday 2/28/2024WednesdaySF Creek to San Antonio Rd. Total 1p - 2p %RVs 4a-5a % RVsPAMF Drive to Galvez St. / Embarcadero Rd. 26 18 69%8 12 46% 4Galvez St. / Embarcadero Rd. to Churchill Ave. 71 60 85%10 39 55% 13Churchill Ave. to Serra St. / Park Blvd. 29 21 72%3 6 21% 2Serra St./ Park Blvd. to Stanford 32 3 9%1 8 25% 2Stanford to Oxford 4 2 50%0 1 25% 0Oxford to College 4 2 50%0 2 50% 0College to CaliforniaTemporary No Parking - Construction SignageCalifornia to Page Mill 18 18 100%0 12 67% 0Page Mill to PortageNo ParkingPortage to HansenNo ParkingHansen to Matadero 13 11 85%4 11 85% 6Matadero to Kendall 8 7 88%2 7 88% 5Kendall to Barron 3 2 67%0 0 0% 0Barron to Curtiner 4 2 50%0 0 0% 0Curtiner to Military 6 2 33%0 0 0% 0Military to Ventura 4 4 100%0 0 0% 0Ventura to Los Robles 14 10 71%0 11 79% 0Los Robles to Vista 12 8 67%2 10 83% 1Vista to Maybell 21 5 24%0 10 48% 0Maybell to Arastadero 10 4 40%0 0 0% 0Arastadero to Dinah's Court 18 14 78%0 1 6% 0Dinah’s Ct. to Los Altos Ave. 10 2 20%0 0 0% 0Los Altos Ave. to San Antonio Rd. 24 1 4%0 1 4% 0 San Antonio Rd. to Stanford Ave. (northbound and westbound)San Antonio back to Stanford San Antonio Road to Del MedioCOMV 6 0 4 0Del Medio to Cesano 16 9 56%0 2 13% 0Cesano to MonroeNo parkingMonroe to Dinah's Ct. 9 0 0%0 0 0% 0Dinah’s Court to Deodar 15 2 13%0 3 20% 0Deodar to CharlestonNo parkingCharleston to El Camino Way 10 1 10%0 1 10% 0El Camino Way to El Camino Way 37 25 68%0 1 3% 0El Camino Way to Ventura Way 11 1 9%0 1 9% 0Ventura Way to Curtner 7 3 43%0 0 0% 0Curtner to Wilton 7 2 29%0 0 0% 0Wilton to Madero 6 1 17%0 3 50% 0Matadero to MargaritaNo parkingMargarita to Fernando 7 2 29%0 1 14% 0Frenando to PortageNo parking - ConstructionPortage to AcaciaNo parking - ConstructionAcacia to Page MillNo parking - ConstructionPage Mill to SheridanNo parking - ConstructionSheridan to Grant 9 0 0%0 0 0% 0Grant to Sherman 11 3 27%0 0 0% 0Sherman to California Ave.No parking - Construction 0California Ave. to Cambridge 10 4 40%0 0 0% 0Cambridge to College 9 3 33%0 0 0% 0College to Oxford 12 3 25%0No parking - Construction0Oxford to Stanford 9 8 89%0 2 22% 0Stanford to ParkNo parking - ConstructionPark to SF CreekNo parking Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 250 of 308

The Caltrans El Camino Real Project will result in, at minimum, temporary and potentially long- term displacement of vehicles that park along this State Highway. It is staff’s understanding that, later this year, Caltrans will remove all parking along the entire El Camino corridor in Palo Alto for the duration of the multi-year construction project. This will have impacts on people that visit the area, as well as those who live on or near El Camino Real, including vehicle dwellers. Staff believe that scheduling the work and parking impacts in phases along El Camino Real would be a less disruptive approach in Palo Alto. City staff is in contact with community partners to identify ways to help vehicle dwellers who will be impacted by this project. Though Caltrans is responsible for showing that outreach has been done, resources offered, and notifications are given to the vehicle dwellers as part of the vehicle removal process, Caltrans has requested that the City and County conduct the outreach as they state that they do not have the ability at Caltrans to conduct this outreach. The City and County remain in discussions with Caltrans about this. While the City and County are actively seeking to identify ways to help vehicle dwellers, Caltrans is ultimately responsible.

The City is working with Caltrans to improve communication. Staff requested the detailed project schedule from Caltrans which would provide the whole community as much advance notice as feasible for segments where work will begin that triggers “no parking” signage along the corridor beyond the brief six week schedule they have shared. Staff is hopeful to receive a longer-term detailed project schedule from Caltrans.

Analysis of Parking Accessibility for Businesses on El Camino Real This section addresses parking accessibility for select businesses located on El Camino Real. The analysis identifies businesses that lack both on-site and convenient off-site parking options. This condition poses potential difficulties for these establishments, particularly in attracting and retaining customers due to the challenge of parking accessibility.

Businesses Without On-Site or Adjacent Off-Site Parking A subset of businesses along El Camino Real faces significant parking accessibility challenges.

These businesses do not have on-site parking facilities, nor do they have access to readily Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 251 of 308

available off-site parking without the necessity of crossing El Camino Real, which may not be feasible for all patrons. The affected properties are as follows:
•Properties Lacking On-Site Parking and Immediate Off-Site Parking Solutions:
•Parcel 137-11-082: Located at 3878 El Camino Real, housing Barron Park Market and a Post Office branch.
•Parcel 137-11-081: Situated at 3876 El Camino Real, the site of a local Florist shop.
•Properties Without On-Site Parking and Restricted Off-Site Parking due to Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Zones:
•Parcel 124-30-016: Home to Cardinal Bike Shop, located at 1955 El Camino Real. •Parcel 124-31-023: Occupied by Radhika Beauty Salon and Roy’s Cleaners, found at 2033/2029 El Camino Real.
•Parcel 124-31-022: Stanford Coin Wash is located at 2045 El Camino Real.

Exhibit 1: El Camino Real Properties with On-Site Parking

Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 252 of 308

Exhibit 2: Exhibit 2: El Camino Real Properties with Limited or No On-Site Parking

At the end of January this year, there were 41 vehicles parked along El Camino Real in Palo Alto that appeared to have people dwelling in them. Caltrans has indicated that their approach is to notify the County “Continuum of Care” two weeks prior to noticing vehicles. There is no action anticipated by Caltrans after they notify the Continuum of Care until 72 hours before vehicles have to move. At that time, Caltrans workers place notices on vehicles indicating that they must move within 72 hours. At the 72-hour mark, California Highway Patrol steps in to enforce. In light of impacts to people living in vehicles along El Camino Real, as mentioned earlier, the City is working towards enhanced collaboration and communication between City, County, and strategic partners to:

1. Identify a way to give people more than 72-hours’ notice of displacement.

Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 253 of 308

2. Identify places for people to relocate to when displaced.

3. Identify resources for people with inoperable vehicles.

Additionally, the City has asked Caltrans to survey its property in Palo Alto to see if there are any sites available for relocation.

Planning Context: Housing Element & Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update The City’s new Housing Element15 concentrates housing along El Camino Real, a state highway that is well-served by transit but lacks a bicycle facility. The presence of a bicycle facility on El Camino Real (or lack thereof) will influence the transportation choices of future residents of this corridor. Notably, the City’s development review pipeline currently includes over 1,000 housing units proposed for El Camino Real.

The City’s new Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) update will be complete in the fall of 2025.16 This document will take the Housing Element into account to recommend an updated bicycle network for Palo Alto. Prior bicycle network plans have included bicycle facilities parallel to El Camino Real, and El Camino Real Bicycle Facilities were to be included along with VTA’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on El Camino Real. The BRT project would have dedicated two El Camino Real lanes to rapid buses in each direction, however the project was discontinued by VTA in early 2018 due to insufficient support by cities along the corridor. The current bike lane proposal accommodates bus stops within the bike lanes. Cyclists approaching a bus at a stop are expected to either wait behind the bus or merge into the vehicle lane to pass the bus on the left.

Potential Pathways Forward
The four pathways below describe possible Council direction relative to the Caltrans request to remove parking for the proposed bicycle lanes.

A. Defer action related to bike lanes until Caltrans provides a Safe System Approach Design that is DIB-94 compliant.

1. If Caltrans determines that DIB-94 applies to the repaving project, Council could vote to support re-purposing the parking lanes for bicycle facilities that more consistently align with the Safe System Approach/DIB-94.

2. If DIB-94 does not apply to the repaving project, Council could vote to retain the parking until Caltrans or the City develops a more DIB-94-aligned project.

This approach results in no bicycle facilities on El Camino Real until DIB-94 compliant facilities can be designed and funded by either jurisdiction. Caltrans estimates that it would be at least four to five years before funding and design could potentially be obtained for a new project proposal for a bicycle facility on El Camino Real.
15 Housing Element Update project website
16 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project website Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 254 of 308

B.Adopt a phased approach that implements the Caltrans proposed bicycle lanes now and acknowledges additional analysis is needed to both incorporate a Safe System Approach to the design and establish bike facilities that take into account future housing development on El Camino Real.

Council could vote to implement the bikeway proposal and request Caltrans to complete a feasibility analysis to support parking-protected bike lanes in the future and design bike facilities aligned with DIB-94. Council could also request a new design that includes improvements for pedestrians and transit, i.e. bus boarding islands and median refuge islands. Council could ask Caltrans to work with the City and VTA to design facilities aligned with DIB-94.

C.Defer action pending a Caltrans feasibility analysis on travel lane reductions to support parking protected bike lanes.

1. Council could vote to support to retain the parking on El Camino Real. Caltrans would then repave the state highway without a bike facility.

2.Council could request Caltrans to complete a feasibility analysis for travel lane reductions to support parking-protected bike lanes and request design of facilities aligned with DIB-94. This approach results in no bicycle facilities on El Camino Real until travel lane reduction feasibility has been studied, at which time Council could re- evaluate. This option could also be contained in Option D below.

D. Align decision of bicycle facilities on ECR with the update of the BPTP to complete in late 2025.

1. Council could vote to support to remove or retain the parking on El Camino Real.

Caltrans would then repave the state highway with or without a bike facility.

2.Depending on priority in BPTP Update, City staff could work to obtain grant funds to design and build a bike- and transit-friendly facility or enhance the facility that Caltrans has already installed on El Camino Real.

This approach assumes that the City would lead planning a bicycle facility based on the priority assigned to this project in the BPTP update. If the El Camino Real corridor is not listed as a high priority project in the BPTP Update, planning by City staff for a bicycle facility on the State Route would follow the development of higher-priority projects, pending City staff capacity and grant funding resources to lead a complex design and construction project.

Note that none of these alternatives are informed by unilateral actions that Caltrans may take if the Council does not vote to support the removal of parking. While Caltrans staff have consistently expressed a desire to collaborate with the City on improving safety on El Camino Real, to date, Caltrans has not stated if it will implement the proposed bicycle lanes without a Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 255 of 308

Council vote to support the removal of parking. Caltrans has established that a bicycle facility is needed on El Camino Real based on a safety analysis. Given the safety and Complete Street policies that now govern State transportation planning, it is unclear if Caltrans will re-pave El Camino Real without adding a bicycle facility, regardless of City support.

In any case, if parking spaces are removed from El Camino, staff will return to Council as needed to update existing City parking regulations affected by the change, including amending the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP district parking program to remove the portion on El Camino Real.

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
As a Caltrans project, it is not anticipated that Caltrans will ask the City for any funding for the proposed bike lanes. The City is absorbing the cost of hosting the community engagement meetings that are in excess of the usual standing committee calendars.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Caltrans requested City staff assistance in setting up community engagement meetings to gain public feedback on the proposed bike lane plans. The meeting schedule was publicized on the City’s website and shared through City communication channels including City digital newsletters and via social media. A web form to gain community input continues to be available.17
A Community Meeting was held on February 29, 2024, at Palo Alto High School, where Caltrans shared the proposed bike lane plans and gained input from over 60 attendees. The meeting recording is available on the City’s YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto.

A Joint PABAC and City/School Transportation Safety Committee meeting was held on March 7, 2024 at the Mitchell Park Community Center. The meeting recording is available on the City’s YouTube channel linked above.

A joint meeting of the Human Relations Commission and the PTC was held on March 13, 2024, at City Hall. The meeting recording is available on the City’s YouTube channel.

The commissioners' comments on the Caltrans proposal for installing bicycle facilities on El Camino Real expressed a blend of support for the initiative's goals and concerns over its execution and impacts. The commissioner comments focused on the following items:
•Support for Enhancing Safety: Commissioners showed strong support for improving safety for cyclists on El Camino Real, especially in light of past collisions, including fatalities. They viewed the addition of bike lanes as a positive step towards this goal. 17 Website Feedback Form; https://us.openforms.com/Form/1328d991-d30a-4ca1-b9f7-9e364540e959 Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 256 of 308

•Concerns Over Design and Safety: While supportive of safety improvements, commissioners had concerns about the detailed design of the bike lanes, particularly at intersections and areas where bike lanes transition to shared lanes with sharrow markings. They emphasized the need for designs that ensure the safety and usability of the bike lanes for all cyclists.
•Impact of Parking Removal: There were significant concerns about the potential removal of parking spaces and its impact on local businesses and residents, including those living in vehicles. Commissioners inquired about outreach to affected groups and the search for alternative parking solutions.
•Left-Turning Bicyclists: The safe accommodation of left-turning bicyclists, especially across multiple lanes of traffic, was a point of concern. Commissioners were interested in design solutions such as two-stage left turns to improve safety. •Compliance with Design Guidelines: Questions arose about the project's compliance with the latest Caltrans Complete Streets Design Information Bulletin (DIB. 94), especially concerning intersection treatments and the continuity of bike lanes. •Community Engagement and Feedback: The need for thorough and inclusive community engagement was stressed. Commissioners expressed concern over whether sufficient efforts had been made to involve all stakeholders in the planning process. •Consideration of Broader Impacts and Alternatives: Some commissioners called for a more comprehensive examination of alternatives and measures to improve safety and mobility along El Camino Real. They advocated for a broader conversation on balancing the needs of all road users.
•Concerns Over Project Pace: Commissioners were concerned about the rapid pace at which the project was moving forward, fearing it might limit comprehensive community input and thorough consideration of the project's implications. •Project Implementation and Process Concerns: Beyond specific design and impact concerns, there was apprehension about the overall process, including the speed of implementation, adequacy of community outreach, and how well the project's design would address the identified safety issues and comply with recent guidelines.

Commissioners emphasized the importance of safety while calling for a more deliberate approach that includes extensive stakeholder involvement and careful consideration of the project's broader implications.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As the lead agency, Caltrans is responsible for the environmental review of the El Camino Real Repaving Project. Caltrans has determined that this project meets the criteria for a Categorical Exemption (CE) under CEQA regulation 15301 (existing facilities) and a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under NEPA at 23 CFR 771.117(c). The City does not anticipate being a “responsible Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 257 of 308

agency” under CEQA for this project because it does not anticipate having discretionary approval authority for a portion of this project.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Proposed Bikeway Implementation in Palo Alto on State Route 82 (El Camino Real)
Attachment B: Review of El Camino Real Proposed Repaving Design by Fehr and Peers Attachment C: Resolution of Support to of Caltrans’ Repaving Project, Including Removal of Parking from El Camino Real to Install Bicycle Lanes
APPROVED BY:

Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official
Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 258 of 308

REQUEST FOR ADOPTING A RESOLUTION TO REMOVE ON-STREET PARKING For the new bikeway implementation in the City of Palo Alto on State Route 82 (El Camino Real)
Date: 3/19/2024
From: Caltrans District 4- Bay area
Item 11
Attachment A - Proposed
Bikeway Implementation
in Palo Alto on State
Route 82 (El Camino Real)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 259 of 308

Table of Contents

1. REQUEST TO THE CITY 2

2. SAFETY DISCUSSION 2

3. CONNECTIVITY 5

4. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 10

5. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, OUTREACH & COMMENTS 10

6. PROJECT SCHEDULE 11

7. ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A (Typical Plan View and Typical X-section) 12 ATTACHMENT B (Typical Bikeway Rendering) 13
Item 11
Attachment A - Proposed
Bikeway Implementation
in Palo Alto on State
Route 82 (El Camino Real)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 260 of 308

1. REQUEST TO THE CITY
Caltrans has requested the City Council to adopt a resolution to remove on-street parking along State Route (SR) 82 to implement a new bikeway in conjunction with the ongoing Caltrans paving project.

Caltrans bicyclist safety improvement monitoring program has identified the segments of SR 82 within the City of Palo Alto with higher safety risks. As a mitigation measure, the new bikeway on SR 82 was proposed.

The proposed bikeway is a critical step to improve safety for travelers while improving connectivity and mobility in the SR 82 corridor.

SR 82 is considered an important spine of activity and a transportation corridor for residents, workers, and visitors that connects major shopping and employment destinations with freeways, neighborhood streets, and transit services.

The Cities of Mountain View and Los Altos partnered with Caltrans to implement Complete Street improvements under the Caltrans paving project which is in construction currently. These improvements include Class II and IV separated bikeways (with the removal of street parking), bicycle crossings, and improved crosswalk pavement markings.

To enhance bicycle safety and provide bike network connectivity between communities along SR 82, Caltrans proposes a new bikeway implementation in conjunction with the aforementioned Caltrans paving project.

2. SAFETY DISCUSSION
Background
As outlined in the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan, the State is working toward a goal of zero fatalities and zero serious injuries. To help achieve these goals, Caltrans has implemented various safety monitoring programs, which take a data-driven approach to assess the safety performance on our highways.

One of Caltrans’ safety monitoring programs is the Bicyclist Safety Improvement Monitoring Program. The purpose of this monitoring program is to identify locations along state highways with high concentration of bicyclist-related crashes. Based on the subsequent safety review of these identified locations, appropriate safety mitigation measures are developed for implementation.
2020 Bicyclist Safety Improvement Monitoring Program
Using collision data from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020 (5-year period), the 2020 Bicyclist Safety Improvement Monitoring Program screened out highway segments with high concentration of bicyclist-related crashes. Within the City of Palo Alto and the City of Mountain View, the 2020 Bicyclist Safety Improvement Monitoring Program Item 11
Attachment A - Proposed
Bikeway Implementation
in Palo Alto on State
Route 82 (El Camino Real)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 261 of 308

identified these five highway segments along El Camino Real (State Route 82) for safety review:

1. Bonita Ave to Mariposa Ave (Mountain View)

2. West Charleston Rd to Maybell Ave (Palo Alto)

3. Wilton Ave to Matadero Ave (Palo Alto)

4. California Ave to Park Blvd (Palo Alto)

5. Entrance to El Camino Park to Quarry Rd (Palo Alto)
Collision Data Review
Table 1 shows the number of bicyclist-related collisions along the four highway segments identified in the monitoring program.

Table 1 – Highway Segments Identified in the 2020 Bicyclist Safety Improvement Monitoring Program
Number of Bicyclist-related Crashes
(1/1/2016 – 12/31/2020)
Highway Segments Along El Camino Real
Fatality Injury

1. Bonita Ave to Mariposa Ave (MV) 0 12

2. West Charleston Rd to Maybell
Ave
0 4

3. Wilton Ave to Matadero Ave 0 4

4. California Ave to Park Blvd 1 8

5. Entrance to El Camino Park to
Quarry Rd
0 4
1 32Total 33
Commented [KP1]: While I understand that all of these
collisions occurred on ECR, can you please include when the bicyclist was in a collision while crossing ECR? The map and summary appear to suggest that all bicyclists were riding on ECR.

Item 11
Attachment A - Proposed
Bikeway Implementation
in Palo Alto on State
Route 82 (El Camino Real)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
19 Packet Pg. 262 of 308

Table 2 and Table 3 below show the breakdown of the 33 collisions by type and by primary collision factors:

Table 2: Collision Type
Collision Type Number of Crashes
Broadside 26 (78.8%)
Other 4 (12.1%)
Sideswipe 2 (6.1%)
Head on 1 (3%)
Table 3: Primary Collision Factor
Primary Collision Factor Number of Crashes
Other violations 17 (51.5%)
Failure to yield 10 (30.3%)
Improper turn 3 (9.1%)
Not stated 2 (6.1%)
Speeding 1 (3%)
Table 4 below provides a breakdown of the collisions based on location:

Table 4: Location of Collisions
Location Number of Crashes
Mid-block on El Camino Real7 (21%)
At intersection with bicyclists
entering from El Camino Real
10 (30%)
At intersection with bicyclists
entering from side streets
12 (37%)
On local side streets near the
vicinity of El Camino Real
4 (12%)
Based on our review of collision history, a few crash patterns have been identified.

These patterns, underlying issues associated with the identified patterns, and potential mitigation measures are shown in Table 5 below:

Table 5: Crash Pattern / Potential Underlying Issues / Potential Mitigations Crash Pattern Potential Underlying IssuesPotential Mitigations Drivers Failure to
Yield
10 out of 33 crashes
•Distraction
•Visibility issue
•Unclear right-of-way
assignment
•Upgrade / improve signs,
markings
•Ensure clear line of sight
•Driver education
Item 11
Attachment A - Proposed
Bikeway Implementation
in Palo Alto on State
Route 82 (El Camino Real)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
20 Packet Pg. 263 of 308

•Provide bike boxes at select
intersections
Bicyclists Riding
Against Traffic
13 out of 33 crashes
•Lack of designated area
for bicycling
•High-stress bike riding
environment
•Provide standard bike
facility designating portion
of roadway for bikes
•Installing appropriate signs
and markings to indicate
direction of bike travel
Red Light Violation
4 out of 33 crashes
•Speeding
•Not able to see signal
equipment
•Signal timing
•Traffic enforcement
•Education
•Ensure signal visibility
•Verify appropriate signal
timing
Safety Enhancement Recommendation
Based on our review of the collisions identified in the 2020 Bicyclist Safety Improvement Monitoring Program, it is recommended that a bike lane be implemented along El Camino Real within the City of Mountain View and the City of Palo Alto as part of the current pavement rehabilitation project. The recommended bike lane provides these enhancements to road users:
•Provides bike network connectivity between various communities along El Camino Real
•Reduces the incidence of bicyclist riding against the flow of traffic or on sidewalk •Lessens potential for conflict between bikes and vehicles •Improves traffic safety on El Camino Real

3. CONNECTIVITY
Caltrans Bikeway Policy
The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. Director’s Policies (DP) 36 and 37 provide additional detail on how construction of a separated Class IV bikeway along State Route (SR) 82 aligns with this mission. Additionally, Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 89-02 establishes design guidance for Class IV separated bikeways as a specific type of infrastructure to help meet this mission. Caltrans recently adopted Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 94, which provides contextual guidance for walking, biking, and transit facilities. This guidance can provide greater flexibility in designing complete streets. The project team continues evaluating DIB 94 to determine whether or not the project meets the criteria to utilize these standards and what potential benefits, or drawbacks might be.

Commented [SS2]: Please state whether DIB-94 is
applicable to this bike lane proposal. If it is not applicable, please provide the reasons why this is so. If it is applicable, please explain how and when this bike lane proposal can be made consistent with DIB-94. Please note areas that are not consistent with DIB-94.

Item 11
Attachment A - Proposed
Bikeway Implementation
in Palo Alto on State
Route 82 (El Camino Real)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
21 Packet Pg. 264 of 308

Toward an Active California
Toward an Active California, the State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2017) is considered the policy document governing Caltrans Active Transportation Plans, including the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan, mentioned below. This Plan established active transportation objectives for Caltrans, including Safety: reduce the number, rate, and severity of bicycle and pedestrian involved collisions, and Mobility: increase walking and bicycling in California. The proposal to provide Class IV bikeways along segments of SR 82 is designed to advance both of these goals.

Director’s Policy 36
DP-36, Road Safety, was signed by then-Director Toks Omishakin on February 15, 2022, and established a Department-wide vision to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries on California’s roadways by 2050. This project aligns with that vision, by providing Class IV separated bikeways along SR 82 in Palo Alto, which serves as a major arterial and important access route for adjacent communities, while it is also the site of many local and regional destinations.

As described in DIB 89-02, “Class IV bikeways, also referred to as separated bikeways, protected bike lanes, or cycle tracks…may minimize interactions with other modes of travel by introducing a vertical element separation. The objective [of separated bikeways] is to foster bicycling as a means of transportation, in a manner that improves safety for all users, including motorists, transit users, and pedestrians, including persons with disabilities.”
The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide reports that, due to the physical separation from motor vehicle traffic, 96 percent of users feel safer as a result of the separation. The preparation of that Guide included a study of 17 separated bikeway corridors across the United States and found that the increase in bicycle users on these corridors outpaced the increase in bicycle crashes, thus they were associated with a decrease in the per capita crash rate.

The FHWA’s 2019 Bikeway Selection Guide also generally recommended the use of separated bikeways or shared-use paths as the preferred bikeways on roadways where the vehicles per day exceeds 6,000, and where operating speeds are at or above 35 miles per hour (mph). The Caltrans 2020 Bikeway Facility Selection Guidance Memo, supplement the FHWA Guide, also lists Class IV separated bikeways as an appropriate facility where posted speeds are 30mph or higher, and particularly where there is an average daily traffic of 6,000 vehicles or greater.

Director’s Policy 37
DP-37, Complete Streets, establishes an “organizational priority to encourage and maximize walking, biking, transit, and passenger rail.” Providing low-stress, dedicated bicycle facilities on urban and suburban conventional routes like SR 82 is in line with that organizational priority, as lower-stress facilities with connections to community destinations are vital in attracting new bicycle riders.

Item 11
Attachment A - Proposed
Bikeway Implementation
in Palo Alto on State
Route 82 (El Camino Real)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
22 Packet Pg. 265 of 308

Bikeway Planning
The need for bikeway improvements on El Camino Real has been documented in numerous county, regional and city planning efforts. The project to install Class IV bikeways would align with the goals and policies of prior planning documents. A summary of these planning studies is documented below.

Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018)
The Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan identified the need for Class IV separated bikeways on El Camino Real in Palo Alto and prioritized it as a top tier project. The update of this plan is expected to be released in 2024, which is expected to make the same recommendation.

VTA’s Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan (2021)
This study proposes specific alignments for a countywide network of 17 bicycle superhighways for Santa Clara County, intended to be high quality, uninterrupted, long- distance bikeways separated from motor vehicles that traverse across the county. All of El Camino Real in Santa Clara County is identified as part of the County’s planned bicycle superhighway network.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Countywide Bicycle Plan (2018) The Countywide Bicycle Plan establishes a vision for Santa Clara County to be served by a bicycle network that enables people of all ages to utilize as a typical and accepted way to travel. The plan categorizes El Camino Real as a route with the highest Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), due to the high-speed limits, limited or non-existent bicycle lanes, and large distances to cross at intersections. It also includes El Camino Real on its list of unconstructed Cross County Bike Corridors (CCBCs), and recommends such facilities be designed as Class IV protected bikeways (or cycle tracks) on roadways with a posted speed limit of more than 35 mph.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Central Bikeway Study (2022) This study builds off the vision established in VTA's Countywide Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan and identifies corridor-specific improvements. The study recommends sidewalk-level Class IV bikeways on El Camino in the City of Santa Clara as well as through local streets in San Jose as part of the Central Bikeway network.

Peninsula Bikeway Feasibility Study (2021)
This study was developed in cooperation between four cities (Palo Alto, Mountain View, Redwood City and Menlo Park) and Stanford University. The Study finds implementation of a separated bicycle facility on El Camino as the preferred alignment out of the three studied since it provides the most workable, cohesive, and least circuitous connection to jobs and activity centers for people biking.

Item 11
Attachment A - Proposed
Bikeway Implementation
in Palo Alto on State
Route 82 (El Camino Real)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
23 Packet Pg. 266 of 308

City of Sunnyvale El Camino Real Specific Plan (2022)
This plan establishes a framework for future development in the area, and emphasizes multimodal streets and mixed-use development, to create an economically and socially vibrant environment for all users. The general recommendation for proposed improvements along El Camino Real includes replacing on-street parking with Class IV bicycle facilities, which is consistent with the City of Sunnyvale’s Active Transportation Plan.

City of Mountain View El Camino Real Streetscape Plan (2019) This study establishes design guidelines for multimodal transportation and streetscape improvements throughout the El Camino Real Corridor within the City of Mountain View.

The study recommends bicycle improvements along El Camino to include replacing the existing on-street parking with a Class IV protected bikeway to physically separate bicyclists from vehicular traffic, incorporating protected intersections at key locations, provision of bike detection, and increased visibility at intersections using green-colored pavement markings.

City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2012) Recommends Class II on El Camino Real between Maybell Avenue and Page Mill Road in Palo Alto. This plan preceded State guidance on Class IV separated bikeways.

Grand Boulevard Palo Alto Safety Study (2019)
Developed in partnership with the Grand Boulevard Initiative and the City of Palo Alto, the Grand Boulevard Palo Alto Safety Study looked at streetscape improvements with Class IV bikeways on El Camino Real from Stanford Avenue to Lambert Avenue. This segment was selected based on bicycle and pedestrian collision rates along the corridor. This study was presented to the City of Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission in 2018 and has not been adopted by the City.

Item 11
Attachment A - Proposed
Bikeway Implementation
in Palo Alto on State
Route 82 (El Camino Real)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
24 Packet Pg. 267 of 308

Bikeways In Development
In addition to the planning efforts
underway, multiple bikeways are
anticipated to be installed on El
Camino as part of Caltrans SHOPP
projects throughout the counties of
San Mateo and Santa Clara with
anticipated construction start
years between 2024 and 2028.

Figure 1 details the proposed
bikeways as well as their
anticipated construction start
dates. These projects are a critical
step to creating a regional
bikeway that will connect key
destinations, with the ultimate goal
of creating comfortable,
convenient and connected bike
facilities throughout the Peninsula.

Improved Mobility for Bicyclists
A goal of both the Toward an Active California and the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018) is to increase the number of bicycle trips. Research has demonstrated that for a bicycling network to attract the widest possible segment of the population, its most fundamental attribute should be low stress connectivity, that is, providing routes between people’s origins and destinations with low stress facilities, and that do not involve an undue level of detour1. El Camino Real provides the most direct connection from San Jose to San Francisco. Implementation of a separated bicycle facility would provide the best and least circuitous connection to jobs and activity centers for people biking to provide regional connectivity. Providing comfortable bikeways on El Camino Real would enable people biking to make easy connections to destinations and activity areas, improve links to the existing bikeway network, and improve safety including for those who already bike on El Camino Real.

As detailed in multiple regional planning studies, including VTA’s Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan (2021), the ultimate vision for El Camino Real is a high-quality, low- stress bikeway that includes dedicated bicycle infrastructure at the intersection. While Caltrans recognizes the proposed project does not fully meet this ultimate vision, it is a 1 Mekuria M.C., Furth P.G., Nixon H. Low-stress bicycling and network connectivity. Mineta Transportation Institute Report. 2012:11–19.Retrieved from 1005-low-stress-bicycling-network- connectivity.pdf (sjsu.edu)
Figure 1: Caltrans SHOPP project on SR-82 to include bikeways Commented [SS3]: It would be good to include this
statement somewhere near the beginning of the report as it frames the discussion.

Item 11
Attachment A - Proposed
Bikeway Implementation
in Palo Alto on State
Route 82 (El Camino Real)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
25 Packet Pg. 268 of 308

critical interim step to implementing the vision for the corridor while improving safety for current travelers. Bikeway promotes orderly traffic movement and enhances drivers’ awareness of the presence of bicyclists. As a result, potential conflict between bikes and vehicles are expected to decrease leading to improvement in traffic safety along El Camino Real.

4.DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
During the bikeway design, the following existing elements were considered. •Right of Way limitation - width of the roadbed
•Street parking removal along El Camino Real
•Intersections and driveways as conflict zones
•Transit Stops (VTA)
The existing Caltrans Right of Way width varies with 3 lanes in each direction on SR 82, and the bikeway was designed with a minimum of 5 feet width.

Approximately 603 available street parking spaces were estimated along SR 82 within the City limit, and these need to be removed to have space for the new bikeway. In addition, removal of parking will improve sight distance at driveways and the new green paint will inform drivers of the bikeways.

At intersections and driveways, green skip lines are used for the vehicles to make turns.

Vertical separation is dropped at the bus stops to permit buses to enter and exit the stop between the vertical separation at a shallow angle.

The following alternative Design options were considered but not selected A. Maintaining on-street parking: given the existing roadbed width, it is not feasible.

B. Lane width reduction: the lane width is reduced to 11 feet wide under Design guidelines. Further reduction in lane width per DIB 94 needs evaluation.

C. Roadway diet: It is beyond this project’s scope and is a possible future project that would require Caltrans review and approval as well as identification of funding. This option requires long-term planning and collaboration with adjacent cities, other transportation agencies, and stakeholders to study the impact on the corridor.

5. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, OUTREACH & COMMENTS
On February 29, 2024, at 6 pm, Caltrans hosted an in-person Public Meeting at Palo Alto High School. Caltrans proposed to implement a new bikeway within the City of Palo Alto under EA 04-4J89U which is an ongoing pavement rehabilitation and ADA upgrade construction project encompassing the City of Palo Alto limits. The proposed bikeway is to improve bike safety and connectivity in the corridor. The purpose of the meeting was to provide an overview and answer any questions about the proposal. The public had Commented [SS4]: Say more here about how Caltrans
believes safety will be improved with this proposal. Can you describe which kinds of collisions you expect to see reduced with this plan? Heavy vehicle and high-speed conflicts will be introduced for current sidewalk cyclists who will shift to the proposed facility. Is this proposal better for those sidewalk cyclists from a Safe System Approach/kinetic
energy perspective? Also, state clearly which kinds of risk are NOT addressed by the proposal.

Commented [SS5]: Include discussion of parking impacts.

When can Caltrans can do a parking study to determine if enough supply of off-street parking spaces and on-street parking on side streets exists to meet the current parking demand?
Commented [SS6]: Include a discussion here about the
cost and time to develop roadway diet proposal if Council does not approve the parking removal for the current
proposal. Indicate when a proposal consistent with DIB-94 could be put forward by Caltrans. Council will need this information in order to make a decision about the current proposal.

Commented [MM7]: Caltrans has given some indication
that this option may not be feasible given how ECR is used and the needs of non-Palo Alto stakeholders. Please reword to make this more obvious.

Commented [MM8]: The way this is written it sounds like we could go do a road diet on our own. Since it's a Caltrans facility, it would require Caltrans approval/cooperation.

Commented [SS9]: Include measures taken to notify and
accommodate RV dwellers.

Commented [MM10R10]: And businesses.

Item 11
Attachment A - Proposed
Bikeway Implementation
in Palo Alto on State
Route 82 (El Camino Real)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
26 Packet Pg. 269 of 308

an opportunity to submit comments and questions at the end of the meeting and the responses were forwarded to the City.

On March 7, 6:30 pm, Caltrans participated in a hybrid public meeting at Mitchell Park Community Center in Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto hosted a Joint Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC)/City/School Transportation Safety Committee (CSTSC) Special Meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to provide an overview and answer any questions about the Caltrans bikeway proposal.

On March 13, 6 pm, Caltrans participated in a hybrid public meeting at the Palo Alto City Hall. The City of Palo Alto hosted a Joint Planning and Transportation Commission/Human Relations Commission Meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to provide an overview and answer any questions about the Caltrans bikeway proposal.

On April 1, 6 pm (Tentative), Caltrans will participate in a hybrid public meeting at the Palo Alto City Hall. It is a City Council Meeting to hear/review the Caltrans bikeway proposal.

Throughout the public outreach process, Caltrans has received numerous comments and feedback regarding the proposed bikeway. Caltrans is in the process of refining its design to incorporate community feedback.

For business outreach, the Caltrans construction team visited the businesses along SR 82 to inform the current construction activities.

For the RV dwellers along SR 82, the Caltrans encampment liaison team is working with the City and County for compassionate solutions. The team will reach out to the County Continuum of Care to ask for outreach to the location to offer services and any available housing options after the encampment removal request is received. Two (2) weeks or more will be provided for outreach.

6. PROJECT SCHEDULE
In April 2023, Caltrans started a conversation with the City of Palo Alto for partnership and collaboration to add a new bikeway on SR 82.

The new bikeway implementation will be funded and constructed in conjunction with the Caltrans SR 82 paving project which is currently in construction. The paving is tentatively scheduled earliest in late summer/fall of this year, 2024 after the City of Palo Alto’s sewer rehabilitation project is completed. This is an opportunity to add the bikeway facility pavement markings on new pavement.

Item 11
Attachment A - Proposed
Bikeway Implementation
in Palo Alto on State
Route 82 (El Camino Real)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
27 Packet Pg. 270 of 308

Attachment A
Typical Plan View
Typical X-sections
Item 11
Attachment A - Proposed
Bikeway Implementation
in Palo Alto on State
Route 82 (El Camino Real)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
28 Packet Pg. 271 of 308

Attachment B
Typical Bikeway Rendering
Before
After
Item 11
Attachment A - Proposed
Bikeway Implementation
in Palo Alto on State
Route 82 (El Camino Real)

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
29 Packet Pg. 272 of 308

60 S. Market Street | Suite 700 | San José, CA 95113 | (408) 278-1700 | Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum

Date: March 11, 2024
To: City of Palo Alto - Philip Kamhi, Chief Transport ation Official and Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Planning Manager
From: Fehr & Peers - Steve Davis, PE and Meghan Mitman, AICP, RSP 2I

Subject: Review of El Camino Real Proposed Repavin g Design in Palo Alto, California SJ21-2081.10
We have performed a review of the proposed repaving/restriping plan from Caltrans for the El Camino Real (State Route 82) Corridor in the City of Palo Alto. Our review considered the consistency of the proposed design with Caltrans’ complete streets and safety policies 1 and national complete streets design best practices 2, as well as the City’s ongoing Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) update and safety action plan efforts. It also considered the role of the El Camino Real Corridor in the City’s land use plans, in particular planned high-density housing along the corridor, and the compatibility of the proposed design with the land use context and mode shift goals to meet the City’s sustainability, affordable housing, and climate goals.

The best practice references for our review are rooted in the Safe System Approach, which recognizes the role of kinetic energy (speed and vehicle mass) and exposure as the root causes of severe injuries and fatalities, and requires a redundant, holistic, and proactive approach to address systemic risk. The core principles of the approach are to first reduce speed, and then to separate users in space and time consistent with the contextually appropriate speed. Caltrans has committed to Vision Zero and adopted the Safe Syste m Approach as the roadmap to achieving that goal. 3

1 In particular, Caltrans newly-released Design Information Bulleting 94 (DIB 94), “Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/dib-94- 010224-a11y.pdf
2 In particular, the newly-released NCHRP 1036: Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation Guide:
https://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/182870.aspx and FHWA Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy:
https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2024-01/Safe_System_Roadway_Design_Hierarchy.pdf 3 See Director’s Policy on Road Safety DP-36: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety- programs/documents/policy/dp_36-a11y.pdf
Item 11
Attachment B - Review of
El Camino Real Proposed
Repaving Design by Fehr
and Peers

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
30 Packet Pg. 273 of 308

City of Palo Alto
March 11, 2024

With this lens, overall we conclude the following:
• The proposed design does not address the high-speed conditions for through and turning movements, which contribute to the greatest kinetic energy risk (and therefore severe injury and fatality risk) for vulnerable road users in the corridor. In particular, the proposed design retains the number of vehicle travel lanes, retains wide travel lanes, removes the “friction” associated with on-street parking, and does not address turning movement speed at the intersections/conflict points. High speed and/or uncontrolled vehicle conflict points for pedestrians walking along and across El Camino Real are not addressed. A representative sample of design features are depicted in Figure 1 . • With frequent stretches of conventional bicycle lanes (Class II), some areas where bicycle lanes drop altogether (Class III), and no protected treatments for bicyclists at intersections as shown in Figure 1 , high stress conditions persist for bicyclists traveling the corridor and these weakest links lead to an overall high stress condition that is likely to limit mode shift potential.
• As shown in Figure 1, new conflict points with bicyclists and buses may be introduced for bicyclists that currently ride on the sidewalk but shift to on-street riding in the new condition.

Figure 1: Proposed El Camino Real modifications showing Class II and Class III bicycle facilities, including conflict markings through bus stops, in the vicinity of Page Mill Road / Oregon Expressway Source: Caltrans Draft 1/22/2024 Pavement Delineation Plans

Item 11
Attachment B - Review of
El Camino Real Proposed
Repaving Design by Fehr
and Peers

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
31 Packet Pg. 274 of 308

City of Palo Alto
March 11, 2024

As such, it is anticipated that the typical candidate bicycling populations would be affected in the following positive (+) or negative (-) ways:

TYPE OF

BICYCLIST

EXISTING

CONDITIONS

PROPOSED CALTRANS

CONFIGURATION

POTENTIAL LOWER STRESS
DESIGN

STRONG AND

FEARLESS
Currently riding on the
street
+ Will continue riding on
the street and benefit from
new separated (Class IV)
facilities in some stretches
+ Will continue riding on the
street and benefit from new
separated facilities as well as
easy access to turns off and
on ECR

ENTHUSED
AND

CONFIDENT
(OR BICYCLE

DEPENDENT)
Currently riding on the
sidewalk, at times
contra-flow
+/- Will either continue to
ride on the sidewalk or
shift to the street and now
face new conflicts with
buses and more
challenging turns onto and
off of ECR
+ Will likely shift to on-street
riding, removing the
challenges associated with
contra-flow sidewalk riding

INTERESTED
BUT

CONCERNED
Not currently riding on
ECR
- Likely to continue to
avoid ECR or choose to
drive instead because of
weakest links
+ May be open to riding on
ECR, including a wider range
of ages and abilities (i.e., 8-80
year olds)

Item 11
Attachment B - Review of
El Camino Real Proposed
Repaving Design by Fehr
and Peers

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
32 Packet Pg. 275 of 308

City of Palo Alto
March 11, 2024

Recommendations to consider regarding these concern s include:
• In the short term, as adjustments to the proposed design:
o Eliminate the bus/bicycle conflict and long stretches of conventional bicycle lanes with conflict markings by considering/piloting stop-in-lane bus stops and shared bike lane/boarding islands (such as present in the pilot on El Camino Real in South San Francisco shown in Figure 2 )
Figure 2: Pilot separated bikeway with bus boarding island accommodating bicyclists implemented in South San Francisco in coordination with Samtrans and Caltrans
Source: Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition 4
o Where sufficient width is not available for both right-turn lanes and separated bicycle lanes, consider alternative treatments based on intersection characteristics, such as restriping a through lane to a shared through-right lane to maintain separated bicycle lanes, separating signal phasing for right turning vehicles and through bicyclists, and/or implementing a protected intersection.

4 https://bikesiliconvalley.org/news/2023/8/pilot-project-pitches-protected-bike-lanes-on-el-camino-real- to-south-san-francisco-residents
Item 11
Attachment B - Review of
El Camino Real Proposed
Repaving Design by Fehr
and Peers

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
33 Packet Pg. 276 of 308

City of Palo Alto
March 11, 2024

o Provide “paint and plastic” protected intersections, dedicated intersections, and two-stage turn opportunities, consistent with NACTO’s “Don’t Give Up at the Intersection”5 guidance for addressing weakest links for low stress design. o Narrow lane widths in accordance with DIB 94 to increase buffer space and/or bicycle lane width.
o Provide “paint and plastic” geometric reconfiguration at intersections to slow turning speeds and shorten pedestrian crossing distances. o Review all signals to provide leading pedestrian intervals, protected left turn (or split) phasing where feasible, and adequate pedestrian clearance intervals. o Provide “No Right Turn On Red” signage as required for addition of bicycle boxes, particularly where the proposed plans provide space for bicycles to stop at the front of shared through-right or dedicated right-turn lanes. o Consider extension of separation treatments on Class IV facilities at intersections with minor side streets in lieu of 50 to 200 feet of dashed bike lane line, allowing an increase in the amount of physical separation provided on the corridor consistent with Safe System Approach goals.
• In the medium term:
o Consider removing one travel lane in each direction and restoring on-street parking to slow traffic, allow protected corners at intersections, shorten crossing distances, provide a more substantial buffer for bicyclists, and be more compatible with the mode shift goals, context, and safety needs of the corridor. o Convert all quick-build enhancements to permanent treatments, including reviewing all signalized intersection geometry and controls, especially those with skewed/high speed angles and/or missing crosswalk l egs. o Determine additional midblock crossings that may be needed to serve desire lines for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling to key destinations in the corridor, including bus stops.
o Review access management opportunities to reduce co nflict points.

5 https://nacto.org/publication/dont-give-up-at-the-intersection/ Item 11
Attachment B - Review of
El Camino Real Proposed
Repaving Design by Fehr
and Peers

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
34 Packet Pg. 277 of 308

NOT YET APPROVED

106_20240320_ts24 1

Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in Support of Caltrans’ Repaving Project on El Camino Real

R E C I T A L S

A. El Camino Real is a state highway maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and
B. Caltrans plans to resurface El Camino Real in Palo Alto in 2024; and C. Caltrans is prepared to install bicycle lanes along El Camino Real within the City of Palo Alto, in addition to pavement rehabilitation, striping improvements, and curb ramps, sidewalks, and driveway improvements to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards; and
D. Installation of bicycle lanes would require the removal of all on-street parking spaces along El Camino Real within the City of Palo Alto; and
E. Creating and maintaining a sustainable transportation system that provides safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along and across streets through a comprehensive, integrated transportation network that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation, and other modes to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the use of single-occupancy motor vehicles is, and has been a major focus for the City of Palo Alto; and
F. The adopted Transportation Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030 includes the following goals, policies, and programs in support of bicycle facilities along El Camino Real:
• Goal T-1 Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses, that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce GHG emissions and the use of single-occupancy motor vehicles. • Policy T-1.3 Reduce GHG and pollutant emissions associated with transportation by reducing VMT and per-mile emissions through increasing transit options, supporting biking and walking, and the use of zero-emission vehicle technologies to meet City and State goals for GHG reductions by 2030.
• Policy T-1.16 Promote personal transportation vehicles an alternative to cars (e.g. bicycles, skateboards, roller blades) to get to work, school, shopping, recreational facilities and transit stops.
• Policy T-1.19 Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. • Program T1.19.2 Prioritize investments for enhanced pedestrian access and bicycle use within Palo Alto and to/from surrounding communities, including by incorporating improvements from related City plans, for example the 2012 Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan and the Parks, Trails & Open Space Master Plan, as amended, into the Capital Improvements Program.
• Policy T-3.5 When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for use of the roadway by all users.

Item 11
Attachment C - Resolution
in Support of Caltrans‘
repaving project of El
Camino Real

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
35 Packet Pg. 278 of 308

NOT YET APPROVED

106_20240320_ts24 2

• Program T3.5.1 Continue to use best practices in roadway design that are consistent with complete streets principles and the Urban Forest Master Plan, focusing on bicycle and pedestrian safety and multimodal uses. Consider opportunities to incorporate best practices from the National Association of City Transportation Officials guidelines for urban streets and bikeways, tailored to the Palo Alto context. • Policy T-3.11 Consider the objectives of the Grand Boulevard Initiative and the South El Camino Boulevard Design Guidelines when designing roadway and pedestrian improvements along El Camino Real.
• Policy T-3.12 Coordinate roadway improvements with other transportation and utility infrastructure improvements such as sewer and water.
• Policy T-3.13 Work with Caltrans, Santa Clara County and VTA to improve east and west connections in Palo Alto and maintain a circulation network that binds the city together in all directions.
• GOAL T-6 Provide a safe environment for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists on Palo Alto streets.
• Policy T-6.1 Continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle and automobile safety over motor vehicle level of service at intersections and motor vehicle parking.
• Policy T-6.2 Pursue the goal of zero severe injuries and roadway fatalities on Palo Alto city streets.
• GOAL T-8 Influence the shape and implementation of regional transportation policies and technologies to reduce traffic congestion and GHG emissions. • Policy T-8.2 Coordinate with local and regional agencies and Caltrans to maintain and improve transportation infrastructure in Palo Alto, including the Multi-Modal Transit Center.
• Policy T-8.8 Support regional bicycle and pedestrian plans including development of the Bay Trail, Bay-to-Ridge Trail and the Santa Clara County Countywide Bicycle System. • Program T8.8.1 Identify and improve bicycle connections to/from neighboring communities in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties to support local trips that cross city boundaries. Also advocate for reducing barriers to bicycling and walking at freeway interchanges, expressway intersections and railroad grade crossings.

G. The 2018 Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan identifies the implementation of Class IV protected bikeways on El Camino Real in Palo Alto as a Tier 1 project; and H. Caltrans is the lead agency for purposes of CEQA and has found this project Class 1 (existing facilities) categorically exempt under CEQA regulation 15301.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby expresses its support for the installation of bicycle lanes on El Camino Real, as currently proposed by Caltrans.

Item 11
Attachment C - Resolution
in Support of Caltrans‘
repaving project of El
Camino Real

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
36 Packet Pg. 279 of 308

NOT YET APPROVED

106_20240320_ts24 3

SECTION 2. Environmental Review. As the lead agency for this project, Caltrans has found this project to be categorically exempt under CEQA regulation 15301 (existing facilities). Should the City be determined to be a responsible agency under CEQA, the City has considered the lead agency’s determination.

INTRODUCED AND PASSED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

ATTEST:

__________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:

__________________________ _____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager

_____________________________
Chief Transportation Official

Item 11
Attachment C - Resolution
in Support of Caltrans‘
repaving project of El
Camino Real

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
37 Packet Pg. 280 of 308

City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS
Lead Department: Fire
Meeting Date: April 1, 2024
Report #:2401-2494
TITLE
Palo Alto Fire Department Annual Performance Report for Calendar Year 2023

RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational report and no action is required.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Beginning this year, the Fire Department will be submitting an Annual Performance Report based on the prior Calendar Year.

The Annual Report for Calendar Year 2023 includes important performance measures from the 2022 annual performance report format and provides additional medical call information, with more detail on
special programs, specific incidents, and personnel.

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
This informational report has no fiscal impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This report is for informational purposes only with no action required by the Council and is therefore not a project subject to CEQA review.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Palo Alto Fire Department Annual Report Calendar Year 2023 APPROVED BY:

Geo Blackshire, Fire Chief
Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 281 of 308

2023

Palo Alto Fire Department
Annual Report
Item 12
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Fire Department Annual
Report Calendar Year
2023

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 282 of 308

1 | Page

CHIEF’S MESSAGE

After several years of unprecedented challenges, 2023 allowed the Palo Alto Fire Department to make tremendous progress in achieving many of our strategic plan goals and focus on recruitment, hiring, training, and operations. Our dedicated workforce continues to demonstrate a commitment to our mission and values.

The 2023 Annual Report focuses on our performance, special projects, and staff recognition for their service. Some of the highlights in the 2023 report are the following:

• There were 9,368 calls for service in 2023, a 9% increase from 2022 and a similar increase from 2021 to 2022.
• Three firefighters attended paramedic school as part of a two- year pilot program. All three students became certified paramedics in 2023. They attended paramedic school while continuing to work part- time, and two of them accomplished this goal while they were on probation.
• In 2022, we faced some of the worst staffing shortages in our department's history. In 2023, our team emphasized recruitment and hiring to help us get back to pre-pandemic levels. Eight new Palo Alto Firefighters were hired in 2023, but we still have a lot of work to do. We will enhance our recruitment and marketing efforts to continue our pursuit of a diverse pool of firefighter candidates.
• ROSC is the resumption of sustained perfusing cardiac activity associated with significant respiratory effort after cardiac arrest. The Palo Alto Fire Department's ROSC rate is 45%, much higher than the California State average of 25%.
• Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) completed a fire service review highlighting some of our achievements and identifying many operational challenges. • One of the men's restrooms at Fire Station 6 was converted into a women's locker room to help achieve gender equity goals.

I am excited about our progress in 2024 and the opportunities before us. There are still several challenges to overcome, but we will continue to work towards completing the goals in our strategic plan (2019-2024) with an enhanced focus on recruitment, community risk reduction, and firefighter safety, operations, and wellness. I would like to thank the PAFD team, their families, our partners, and Palo Alto leadership for their dedication and support.

We always strive to meet our performance standards in emergency response and prevention. We also aim to prioritize safety, diversity, equity, and firefighter wellness to foster a healthy department and serve this community with compassion and pride.

Take Care,

Item 12
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Fire Department Annual
Report Calendar Year
2023

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 283 of 308

2 | Page

MISSION
We are a professional team of individuals dedicated to safeguarding and enriching the lives of anyone, anytime, anywhere with compassion and pride.

VALUES
The men and women of the Palo Alto Fire Department commit to the following values in serving our communities and each other:

Integrity
We serve our community and support each other with respect and honesty. We approach our commitment with Dignity and Courage. We are accountable through our every-day actions and communication.

Innovation
We creatively integrate tradition with technology acknowledging the wealth of resources available in our community and department to improve health, safety and welfare.

Professionalism
We are dedicated to providing quality service in the delivery of a cost effective and superior service. Our attitude, appearance, knowledge, skills and abilities are reflective of our commitment to excellence.

Diversity
The members of our department exemplify diversity on multiple levels. Our skills, backgrounds and experiences allow us to effectively respond to the vast range of emergencies and outreach opportunities.

Compassion
We exist to serve our communities and support each other with empathy, sincerity and respect.

Education
We strive to continually improve ourselves and our skills to increase our own safety and better protect the communities we serve. We strive to stay abreast of the latest developments in emergency response.

We provide educational opportunities through community outreach to help increase knowledge of preparedness and personal, family and home safety.

Item 12
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Fire Department Annual
Report Calendar Year
2023

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 284 of 308

3 | Page

SERVICE AREA
The Palo Alto Fire Department serves an area of approximately 38.7 square miles including 12.8 square miles of Stanford University Campus. Stanford University contracts with the PAFD to provide fire and EMS response to campus and the surrounding area.

There are seven fire stations placed throughout the City and Stanford. All are staffed 24/7, with the exception of Fire Station 8 in the Palo Alto Nature Preserve which is staffed seasonally by PAFD and Santa Clara County Fire personnel.

Item 12
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Fire Department Annual
Report Calendar Year
2023

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 285 of 308

4 | Page

FIRE STATIONS

Fire Station 1 (Downtown)
301 Alma Ave, Palo Alto, CA
Built in 1965

Fire Station 2 (Mayfield)
2675 Hanover St, Palo Alto, CA
Built in 1965

Fire Station 3 (Rinconada Park)
799 Embarcadero Rd, Palo Alto, CA
Built in 2021

Fire Station 4 (Mitchell Park)
3600 Middlefield Rd, Palo Alto, CA
Built in 1953

Fire Station 5 (Barron Park)
600 Arastradero, Palo Alto, CA
Built in 1967

Fire Station 6 (Stanford University)
711 Serra Ave, Stanford, CA
Built in 1972

Fire Station 8 (Foothills Nature Preserve)
11799 Page Mill Rd, Los Altos Hills, CA
Built in 1986
Only Staffed during Summer

Item 12
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Fire Department Annual
Report Calendar Year
2023

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 286 of 308

5 | Page

CALLS FOR SERVICE
In Calendar Year 2023, the Palo Alto Fire Department responded to a total of 9,368 calls for service and 18,026 unit movements, or how many units responded to the 9,368 calls. Most calls for service require more than one unit to respond.

Year Calls for Service Unit Movements
2021 7,625 14,873
2022 8,578 16,958
2023 9,272 18,026

Rescue and Emergency Medical Incidents make up 62% of all calls for service. These calls include heart attacks, strokes, injuries and other emergency medical situations, including motor vehicle accidents, and any auto extrication or technical rescues.

Good Intent Calls (15%): Good Intent calls capture incidents where there may have been an emergency, but it turned out to be non-emergent or nothing at all. For example, someone could smell smoke and call 9-1-1, but after firefighters arrive and investigate, they may find that the odor was from burnt popcorn down the
hall.

False Alarms and False Calls (13%): These are primarily alarms that are automatically triggered during
construction or other non-emergency causes such as
steam from a shower, dust, insects, or smoke from
cooking. This category also covers situations where
someone negligently triggered a fire alarm or made an
intentionally false report.

Rescue and
EMS
Incidents
62%Good Intent
Calls
15%
False Alarm
and False Calls
13%
Service Calls
8%
Fire
1%
HazMat and
Others
1%
2023 Calls for Service
Item 12
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Fire Department Annual
Report Calendar Year
2023

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 287 of 308

6 | Page

Service Calls (8%): These calls are for situations where the department is providing a service, but it’s not an
emergency. This can include clean up calls for smoke
removal, water evacuations or other hazards; assisting
with falls in the home; people trapped in an elevator or elevator overrides.

Fires (1.4%): This covers any fire where smoke and flames are present, such as small dumpster fires, residential fires, commercial fires or wildfires. There were 133 fires in 2023, and although it makes up a small percentage of the overall
incidents, they are the most time consuming and resource intensive. Large fires typically require all the resources in the City, including automatic aid from neighboring fire
departments.

Hazardous Materials and Others (1%): Most of these are
utilities related, such as a natural gas leak, wiring problem, powerlines down, but it also includes gasoline, diesel, or oil spills, chemical releases or other biological hazards.

Item 12
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Fire Department Annual
Report Calendar Year
2023

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 288 of 308

7 | Page

RESPONSE TIMES
The time it takes from the 9-1-1 call to the time a fire crew arrives on scene is the primary measurement of performance for Emergency Response Service. The standard is to arrive within 8 minutes 90% of the time, and for EMS calls, to have a paramedic ambulance arrive within 12 minutes.

Three unique time segments are included when evaluating an agency's response performance. The first is the time it takes for the dispatcher to answer the 911 call and notify the agency (call processing); the second is the time it takes for the agency to receive the call and go en-route to the call (turnout time); and third is the time it takes for the unit to drive to the incident (travel time). All three segments combined make up the total response time. For this evaluation, the unit type was not discriminated against, and the first arriving unit was used to determine the total response time.

EMS 2022 2023
Percent of a first responder arriving on scene
to EMS calls within 8 minutes or less 90% of
the time
81% 81%
Percent of an ambulance arriving on scene to
EMS calls within 12 minutes or less 90% of
the time
89% 88%
Fire
Percent of first a responder arriving on scene
to Fire calls within 8 minutes or less 90% of
the time
73% 70%

Item 12
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Fire Department Annual
Report Calendar Year
2023

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 289 of 308

8 | Page

MAP OF CALL LOCATIONS

Item 12
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Fire Department Annual
Report Calendar Year
2023

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 290 of 308

9 | Page

MUTUAL AID
The Palo Alto Fire Department provides resources to neighboring jurisdictions in the case of an emergency or fire station coverage when their own resources are depleted. The assistance is reciprocated from partnering fire departments which is outlined in the Santa Clara County Mutual Aid Plan or automatic-aid agreements.

Mutual Aid Provided
Agency 2022 2023
Santa Clara County Fire 106 97
Mountain View Fire 48 26
Menlo Park 3 9
All Others 5 1
All Fire Mutual and Auto Aid Provided 162 133

Mutual Aid Received
Agency 2022 2023
Mountain View Fire 71 45
Menlo Park Fire 29 43
Santa Clara County Fire 21 14
Sunnyvale Fire 0 2
Santa Clara City Fire 0 1
Woodside Fire 2 1
All Fire Mutual and Auto Aid Provided 123 106

Santa Clara County Ambulance 185 220

Item 12
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Fire Department Annual
Report Calendar Year
2023

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 291 of 308

10 | Page

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND PROGRAMS

AMBULANCE TRANSPORTS AND PATIENTS
Palo Alto is the only Fire Department in the County that operates an ambulance transport service. In 2023 there were a total of 3,949 transports to the hospital from calls originating in Palo Alto or Stanford. When all of the PAFD ambulance units are busy, Santa Clara County will offer mutual aid and send one of their ambulances. In 2023, Santa Clara County transported on 81 incidents from Palo Alto or Stanford.

Palo Alto Patients Transported
Agency 2022 2023
Palo Alto Fire 3,744 3,868
Santa Clara County 86 81

The majority of patients provided emergency medical services are above the age of 60, making up 56% of all patients.

CARDIAC ARRESTS
There were a total of 68 full cardiac arrest incidents in 2023. PAFD fire crews are trained multiple times yearly on High Performance Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation Techniques (HPCPR). This County standard requires a team of 5 people, with specific roles for all personnel on scene. Each Firefighter performs HPCPR for no more than two minutes before another team member takes over for the compression quality to remain consistent.

High Performance CPR was performed on 68 cardiac arrest patients. 30 of the patients achieved a return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). ROSC is the resumption of sustained perfusing cardiac activity associated with significant respiratory effort after cardiac arrest. The Palo Alto Fire Department’s ROSC rate is 45%, much higher than the California State average of 25%.

Return of Spontaneous Circulation (ROSC)
10 and Under
3%
11 to 18
4%
19 to 30
12%
30 to 40
8%
41 to 50
8%
51 to 60
9%61 to 70
12%
71 to 80
15%
81 and Older
29%
CY23: EMS Patients by Age
Item 12
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Fire Department Annual
Report Calendar Year
2023

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 292 of 308

11 | Page

HPCPR Performed 68
Number of Patients with ROSC 30
PAFD ROSC Rate 45%
CA State Average 25%

PALO ALTO FIREMED PROGRAM
The Department launched a new savings program for ambulance transport services, called Palo Alto FireMed. Even with medical insurance, an emergency ambulance ride can cost between $250-700. The Palo Alto FireMed Program for residents and businesses makes sure participants are not stuck with a bill during an emergency. Palo Alto FireMed is convenient and cost-effective, covering unlimited ambulance rides per household for a low cost of $8 per
month, which is only $96 a year. The Department had 214 new enrolled residents in 2023, many of whom have
saved on copays. Residents interested in enrolling should check out the Palo Alto FireMed Program Website by scanning the QR Code or going to cityofpaloalto.org/firemed.

PARAMEDIC TRAINING PROGRAM
In 2022 the Department supported three firefighters to complete certification and training to become Paramedics. All three firefighters successfully graduated the certification program in 2023 and are serving as paramedics for the Department.

Item 12
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Fire Department Annual
Report Calendar Year
2023

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 293 of 308

12 | Page

FIRE PREVENTION
The Fire Prevention team ensures that all life and safety codes are being accurately implemented with new construction, remodeling projects, and commercial development. The team also conducts annual building and hazardous materials safety inspections.

California state requires annual inspections on certain public buildings with high capacities, such as schools, hospitals, research facilities, places of worship, entertainment centers, etc. These are tracked and reported to the State annually. In 2023, due to staffing shortages, only 26% of required buildings were inspected. In 2024, Fire Prevention is adding two additional Fire Inspectors that will be solely dedicated to completing State mandated inspections.

The total number of facilities in Palo Alto that store hazardous materials grows annually. The fire code requires that these facilities adhere to strict safety measures and requires an annual inspection. Hazmat facilities are tracked and inspected annually. In 2023 due to staffing shortages, only 12% of facilities were inspected.

Hazardous Materials Inspections
2022 2023
Number of HazMat Facilities 950 1093
HazMat Inspections Completed 194 132
Percentage Complete 20% 12%

The Fire Prevention Division conducts inspections in the Wildland/Urban Interface and construction projects. Prevention personnel issues permits and approves development plans throughout the year.

The development and construction volume continues increase in numbers. Inspectors are also responsible for investigating the cause of fires, and in 2023, there were 56 Fire Investigations.

Other Inspections and Investigations
2022 2023
Wildland/Urban Interface 141 110
Construction Inspections 7,376 6,643
Fire Permits 402 744
Plan Review 2,610 3,346
Fire Investigations* - 56
*Data for 2022 is not reliable, new data collection systems are being set up to ensure data and reporting quality.

TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS
New software systems were purchased in 2023 and are in the works to go live in 2024. The State mandated inspection program will have its own digital fire inspection record keeping and billing system that provides detail tracking and preserves important inspection findings and corrections.

State Mandated Building Inspections
2022 2023
Number of Buildings 532 532
Inspections Completed 344 137
Percentage Complete 65% 26%
Item 12
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Fire Department Annual
Report Calendar Year
2023

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 294 of 308

13 | Page

FIRE STATION 4
Fire Station 4, at 3600 Middlefield Road, was built in 1953 and no longer meets the current needs of the Fire
Department. City Council included the replacement of
Fire Station No. 4 in the Infrastructure Plan approved in June 2014.

This project will provide a new facility built to current essential services standards with a high likelihood of being fully operational during and after a major disaster such as a significant earthquake.

On November 8, 2023 the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board approved the final design plan and the architect is currently making progress with obtaining a building permit.

The new fire station building will include the
following:
• Captain’s Office and public restrooms
• Emergency Operations Center
(EOC)/Training room
• Two drive-through apparatus bays and a
stand-by apparatus bay
• Firefighter living quarters

The new Fire Station 4 will be designed for LEED
Silver certification and meet City adopted building
code standards by having an all-electric design for new construction.

TRAINING
Training is a critical component of ensuring firefighters are ready and equipped with the best firefighting and rescue techniques to minimize the impact of any emergency; every firefighter averaged 285 hours of training in 2023.

Twenty-Six training courses were provided this year with topics such as Fire Engine and Truck Driving, Fire Investigation, Rope Rescue Awareness and Operations, Confined Space and Trench Rescue, and training to rescue lost or trapped firefighters. Eleven Special Operations drills were hosted, as well as County-wide wildfire drills.

Item 12
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Fire Department Annual
Report Calendar Year
2023

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 295 of 308

14 | Page

THE PEOPLE OF THE PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT

The 111 people that make up the Department serve the community with a great deal of pride and an attitude of excellence. The Department has 83 operations staff that are the firefighters, apparatus operators and fire captains that work in the stations and provide the direct services to the community.

In the Fire Prevention Bureau, there are 9 fire inspectors and managers to ensure buildings and facilities are up to code and adhere to all new laws that prevent instances of fires and reduce the impact of fires if they occur. The remaining 19 employees make up Fire Administration and include executive managers and support staff.

Item 12
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Fire Department Annual
Report Calendar Year
2023

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 296 of 308

15 | Page

NEW RECRUITS
It can take more than a year from the time a job
announcement is posted before an entry level
firefighter begins work on a fire engine or
ambulance. Candidates complete a rigorous
selection process including a physical fitness exam,
mental health screening, and background check.

Once a candidate is hired, they complete an
intensive 21-week fire academy.

In February, the Department held one of the largest
Joint Fire Academies with a total of 13 new
firefighters hired. Eight remain with the PAFD
today.

Since the 2019 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report, “Why Aren’t There More Female Firefighters in Santa Clara County” the Department has made additional efforts to recruit and retain female firefighters. In 2019, women made up only five percent (5%) of firefighters working at PAFD. As of this report, the Department has 9 Female Sworn Employees, making up a total of 10% of all sworn employees. Three of the 11 new hires in 2023 were women, however only one successfully completed the probationary period.

Mitchel Barnett
Hometown: Santa Cruz, CA
Hobbies: Rock climbing, water
sports, camping, outdoor
recreation.

Keith Hatfield
Hometown: Redwood City, CA
Hobbies: Metal fabrication,
mountain biking, boating, spending
time with friends and family

Kevin Moon
Hometown: San Jose, CA
Hobbies: Golf, football, time with
family and friends

Samuel Muzzi
Hometown: Sunnyvale, CA
Hobbies: restoring old cars, time
with family

Lauren Racioppi
Hometown: San Carlos, CA
Hobbies: Hiking, snowboarding,
wake boarding, outdoor sports
Jake Smirnov
Hometown: Santa Clara, CA
Hobbies: hiking, golf, marathon
running, time with family and
friends
Item 12
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Fire Department Annual
Report Calendar Year
2023

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 297 of 308

16 | Page

NEW RECRUITS CONTINUED
Nicholas Souza
Hometown: Danville, CA
Hobbies: fishing, hiking, health
and wellness fitness, golfing,
cooking
Scott Woodfin Jr.

Hometown: Fremont, CA
Hobbies: Sports, hiking, time with
family and dog Daisy

OTHER NEW STAFF
The Department welcomed additional new staff amongst Fire Administration.

Madison Crowe
Administrative Associate II
James Duran
EMS Director

Robin Ellner
Administrative Associate III

Denise King Raub
Hourly Training Specialist

Nia Serbin
Administrative Assistant

PROMOTIONS
William Dale
Training Battalion Chief

Mike Espeland
HazMat Inspector
Tamara Jasso
Fire Marshal

Item 12
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Fire Department Annual
Report Calendar Year
2023

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 298 of 308

17 | Page

PROMOTIONS CONTINUED
Stephen Lindsey
Deputy Fire Chief
Jon Matsumoto
HazMat Inspector
Marc Muzzi
Battalion Chief

RETIREMENTS
Brian Baggot
Training Battalion Chief
23 Years of Service
Barry Marchisio
Fire Captain
40 Years of Service

Mike Northup
Apparatus Operator
23 Years of Service

Kimberly Roderick
EMS Chief
17 Years of Service

Eric Shill
Fire Inspector
21 Years of Service
Kevin Wilcox
Apparatus Operator
28 Years of Service

Mark VonAppen
Fire Captain
25 Years of Service

Item 12
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Fire Department Annual
Report Calendar Year
2023

Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
19 Packet Pg. 299 of 308

4 3
7 7

City Council
Supplemental Report
From: Jonathan Lait, Planning & Development Services
Meeting Date: April 1, 2024
Item Number: 5
Report #:2403-2826
TITLE
Approval of Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number S24190818 with Integrated Design 360 in the Amount of $82,200 for a total not to exceed $132,200 and Extension of the Contract Term through December 30, 2024 for development of a “One Margin” Reach Code.

CEQA Status: Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 Title Updated

BACKGROUND
To be consistent with the recommendation, the Staff Report title has been amended to:
“Approval of Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number S24190818 with Integrated Design 360 in the Amount of $82,200 for a total not to exceed $132,200 and Extension of the Contract Term through December 30, 2024 for development of a “One Margin” Reach Code.

CEQA Status: Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308” APPROVED BY:

Lauren Lai, CFO/Administrative Services Director
Item 5
Item 5 Supplemental
Report

Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 300 of 308

City Council
Supplemental Report
From: Ed Shikada, City Manager
Meeting Date: April 1, 2024
Item Number: 7
Report #:2403-2828
TITLE
Supplemental Report - Policy and Services Recommendation Regarding Use of Board and Commissions Demographic Data

RECOMMENDATION
Accept this supplemental report which contains the 2024 Boards and Commissions Demographics Data.

ANALYSIS
The attached report includes the initial analysis of the responses to the 2024 Survey of Boards and Commissions Demographics Data. This information is shared as informational material for the City Council. Staff will upload the final report online as well.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Palo Alto Boards, Committees, and Commissions Demographic Data Survey 2024 APPROVED BY:

Ed Shikada, City Manager
Item 7
Item 7 Supplemental
Report

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 301 of 308

Attachment A
1 Palo Alto Boards, Committees, and Commissions
Demographic Data Survey 2024
Conducted Spring 2024

Response Rate: A total of 37 participants responded to the survey. This is an increase from the 2021 survey where 34 respondents participated in the survey. The total number of possible respondents in 2024 was 52 (it was a total of 50 possible respondents in 2021). This equates to a 71% response rate in 2024, up from the 68% response rate in 2021.

Brief Methodology: The survey was created as a form through the City’s Open Cities web platform. The survey link was shared via email with all members of every Palo Alto Board, Committee, and Commission (BCCs). Staff sent a few reminders throughout the data collection period of February 23-March 20. The results reflect aggregate voluntary information received from BCC members.

Summary of Data Format: Most questions show the table and chart results as percentages. 2021 Data and Palo Alto context are also shared as relevant.

Survey Results:

Question 1: How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? # of Years Percent
2024 2021
0-5 years 14% 3%
6-10 years 5% 9%
11-15 years 8% 9%
16-20 years 5% 6%
21+ years 59% 71%
Not a Palo Alto
resident 8% 3%
Grand Total 100% 100%

14%
5% 8% 5%
59%
8%
3%
9% 9% 6%
71%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21+ years Not a Palo Alto resident
Q1: How many years have you lived in Palo Alto?
2024 2021
Item 7
Item 7 Supplemental
Report: Attachment A -
Palo Alto BCC
Demographic Data Survey
2024

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 302 of 308

Attachment A
2 Question 2: What was the primary reason you initially located to Palo Alto?

Reason Percent
I (or my partner) moved here to
attend Stanford 11%
Liked the community 16%
Moved here to live near family 8%
Moved here to live near work 16%
Moved here to raise a family 14%
Palo Alto is my hometown (I was
born or raised here as a child) 24%
Schools 5%
Not a Palo Alto Resident 5%
Grand Total 100%

Question 3: Housing - Do you own or rent your current residence? (For the purpose of the survey, you own your home even if you have an outstanding debt that you owe on your mortgage loan).

Own/Rent Percent
2024 2021
Own 81% 85%
Rent 19% 12%
Not a Palo Alto Resident 16% 3%
Grand Total 100% 100%

Palo Alto context: the percentage of
homeowners in Palo Alto is 56% and renters in
Palo Alto is 44% according to the 2020 US
Census Data.

11%
16%
8%
16% 14%
24%
5% 5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Question 2: What was the primary reason
you initially located to Palo Alto?
81%
19% 16%
85%
12%
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Own Rent Not a Palo Alto ResidentQ3: Housing - Do you own or rent your current residence?
2024 2021
Item 7
Item 7 Supplemental
Report: Attachment A -
Palo Alto BCC
Demographic Data Survey
2024

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 303 of 308

Attachment A
3 Question 4: What is your gender identity?

(Note: The 2021 BCC survey had less
categories. That survey showed 50%
Female and 50% Male).

Palo Alto Context: the US Census only shows “Female persons” and lists it as 51.7% of the Palo Alto population.

Question 5: Please identify which of the following describes your sexual orientation.

This is a new question in the
2024 BCC survey regarding
sexual orientation.

Gender Percent
Woman 68%
Transgender Woman 0%
Man 32%
Transgender Man 0%
Genderqueer/gender-fluid 0%
Non-binary 0%
Two-spirit 0%
Prefer not to answer 0%
Other 0%
Grand Total 100%
68%
0%
32%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Q4: What is your gender identity?
0% 3%
78%
0% 0% 3% 0% 0%
16%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Q5: Sexual Orientation
Item 7
Item 7 Supplemental
Report: Attachment A -
Palo Alto BCC
Demographic Data Survey
2024

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 304 of 308

Attachment A
4 Question 6: What is your age group?

Note: in the 2021 BCC Survey, this age question did not include the age 18-24 category. The US Census Bureau does not separate age groups in the same way as the BCC Survey. But shows 27.2% of age 18 and under; 53.5% of ages 19-64; and 19.3% of age 65 and older.

Question 7: Please specify your race and ethnicity (check all that apply) 2024 2021 Palo Alto*
American Indian or Alaskan Native 0% 0% 0.3%
Asian 22% 9% 34.8%
Black or African American 5% 0% 2.1%
Hispanic or Latino/Latinx and White 0% 6% 7.3%
Two or More Races 5% 3% 8.9%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0% 0% 0.2%
White 62% 71% 48.7%
Prefer not to answer 5% 12% 0.0%
Other 0% 0% 0.0%
* Source: US Census Bureau
3%
11%
35%
51%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
18-24 25-39 40-59 60+ Prefer Not to
AnswerQ6: Age Group Age Group Percent
18-24 3%
25-39 11%
40-59 35%
60+ 51%
Decline to state 0%
Grand Total 100%
0%
22%
5% 0% 5% 0%
62%
5% 0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Q7: Race and Ethnicity (check all that apply)
2024
2021
Census Palo Alto
Item 7
Item 7 Supplemental
Report: Attachment A -
Palo Alto BCC
Demographic Data Survey
2024

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 305 of 308

Attachment A
5 Question 8: Education - What is your highest level of school completed? If currently enrolled, mark "Student."

Note: There were less categories in the 2021 BCC survey. That survey showed that 21% had a Bachelor’s degree; 44% had a Master’s degree; 32% had a Doctorate degree; 0% student; and 3% declined to state.

Question 9: What is your Employment Status

Status Percent
2024 2021
Employed full-time 51% 35%
Retired 32% 35%
Employed part-time 3% 15%
Seeking opportunities 3% 9%
A homemaker 5% 3%
Self-employed 5% 3%
Grand Total 100% 100%

Education Percent
GED 0%
Some college 0%
Associate’s Degree 0%
Bachelor's Degree 27%
Master's degree 54%
Doctorate degree (e.g.,
PhD, EdD, MD, etc.)
19%
Student 0%
Prefer not to answer 0%
Grand Total 100%
GED Some
college
Associate’
s Degree
Bachelor'
s Degree
Master's
degree
Doctorate
degree
(e.g. PhD,
EdD, MD,
etc.)
Student Prefer not
to answer
2024 0% 0% 0% 27% 54% 19% 0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Q8: Education - Highest level of school completed
51%
32%
3% 3% 5% 5%
35% 35%
15%
9%
3% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Employed full-
time
Retired Employed
part-time
Seeking
opportunities
Homemaker Self-employed
Q9: What is your employment status?
2024 2021
Item 7
Item 7 Supplemental
Report: Attachment A -
Palo Alto BCC
Demographic Data Survey
2024

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 306 of 308

Attachment A
6 Question 10: What is your household income?
Income Percent
$150k or less 22%
$150k-$250k 16%
$250k-$350K 24%
$350k or higher 24%
Retired 14%
Grand Total 100%

Note: The 2021 BCC survey did
not record household income.

Questions 10 and question 11
seek to assess socio-economic
status of BCC members.

Question 12: How many children (if any) under the age of 18 live in your household?

67%
31%
3%
65%
26%
9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0 1-2 3 or more
Question 12: Children under the age of 18 in your
household
2024 2021
22%
16%
24% 24%
14%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
$150k or less $150k-$250k $250k-$350K $350k or higher Retired Q10: Household Income
Question 11 further assessed the retired BCC members and responses show that 100% of the retired respondents do not own properties other than their primary residence and 0% of retired respondents do own properties other than your primary residence. This is additional contextual socioeconomic information.

Item 7
Item 7 Supplemental
Report: Attachment A -
Palo Alto BCC
Demographic Data Survey
2024

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 307 of 308

Attachment A
7 Question 13: How did you hear about the opportunity to join your current Board/Commission/ Committee? (Check all that apply)

Question 14: Are you a member of a Board/Commission/Committee that conducts quasi-judicial hearings (Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board, or Planning Transportation Commission)?

No 51%
Yes 49%
Grand Total 100%

Question 15: Do you have any additional comments? [Open-ended responses are provided below]

It'd be interesting to collect neighborhood information (to make sure neighborhoods are well- represented) and whether people live in multi-family housing.

Jewish
I would love to see more board business conducted after core business hours.

I think the city may be missing out on candidates for boards that meet during the day who do not have flexibility during business hours.

Will the Commissions learn the results of this survey?

2%
33%
13%
19%
8%
15%
4%
4%
2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Nextdoor
Word of mouth
City's website
Other
City Clerk
City Council member
Social Media
Newsletter
Newspaper or other media
Q13. How did you hear about the opportunity to
join your BCC?
Item 7
Item 7 Supplemental
Report: Attachment A -
Palo Alto BCC
Demographic Data Survey
2024

Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 308 of 308