City of Palo Alto (CA) Downtown Capacity Study (2014)

City of Palo Alto (ID # 4825)
Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report

Report Type: Meeting Date: 5/28/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Downtown Cap Study
Title: Review of Downtown Cap Study Background Report and Street
Intercept Survey
From: Chitra Moitra, Planner
Lead Department: Planning & Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff requests the Planning and Transportation Commission review and provide input on two
reports related to the Downtown Cap Study: the Street Intercept Survey and the Downtown
Cap Evaluation Background Report.
Background
In 1986, the City of Palo Alto conducted a Downtown Study (Study) which examined parking,
traffic and land use conditions in the Downtown area. As a result of the Study, a downtown
development cap policy (Downtown Development Cap) was adopted for a specified area within
the Downtown area. This policy restricted future non-residential development to a maximum of
350,000 square feet beyond what was in existence or approved in the CD area as of May 1986
(Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.18.040). Comprehensive Plan Program L-8 describes the
cap:
Program L-8: Limit new non-residential development in the Downtown area to 350,000
square feet, or 10% above the amount of development existing or approved as of May
1986. Reevaluate this limit when non-residential development approvals reach 235,000
square feet of floor area.
As a result of the 1986 study the Downtown Area was rezoned to Commercial Downtown (CD).
This rezoning created Floor Area Ratios (FARs) and other zoning regulations that were generally
more restrictive than the regulations that were replaced, especially as they related to
commercial properties adjacent to residential neighborhoods.
The CD development cap was to be re-evaluated when net new non-residential development
reached 235,000 square feet. Residential development was purposely excluded from the
development to encourage future residents to live in close proximity to jobs. The 1986 study


requires that City Staff monitor and submit an annual report to the City Council regarding
development activity, vacancy rates and commercial lease rates in order to evaluate the
effectiveness of these regulations. Citywide growth limits and growth limits in other districts
were also established at that time or shortly thereafter.

Continued economic growth and commercial development since 1986 has resulted in the
evaluation milestone being reached. The City Council instructed staff to develop a scope of
work for this evaluation and for the PTC to review and provide input on the scope of work prior
to a Request for Proposals (RFP) being released. PTC reviewed the scope of Downtown Cap
study in January of 2013 and provided staff comments. An informational report, Downtown
Development Cap Study Scope of Work and Request for Proposal was sent to Council on
March 18, 2013. In October 2013 City Council awarded the contract for Downtown
Development Cap Study to Dyett and Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners for Phase I project.

The Downtown Development Cap study will be completed in two phases. Phase I will focus on
data collection and projection analysis and Phase II will be the policy analysis phase.
Attachment A contains details of the work scope proposed by the consultants. The following
are the major steps of Phase I study:

Review of prior Downtown Study and related materials:

Surveys on parking habits and employment density:
Conducting a street intercept survey;
Report: Street Intercept Survey and Results;
Conducting a business study, and
Report: Employee Density Survey and Results.

Evaluating existing conditions & trends including:
Preparing a GIS database for Downtown area;
Evaluating of development trends;
Evaluating existing parking and traffic conditions, and
Report: Existing Trends & Conditions.

Growth Projections & Implications:
Conducting market and development feasibility research;
Conducting traffic analysis;
Assessing bicycle, pedestrian & transit circulation needs;
Conducting parking analysis;
Preparing a three-dimensional computer model and growth depictions,
and
Report: Market and Development Feasibility Analysis
The Citys consultant, Dyett & Bhatia, and its team of sub consultants (Nelson& Nygaard
(traffic), Economic & Planning System Inc (economics/land use), and The Henne Group


(surveyors)) bring substantial expertise in conducting development capacity and feasibility
analyses. In addition to the firms experience with general and specific plans statewide, Dyett &
Bhatia has an extensive portfolio of leading downtown planning efforts, ranging from large
cities such as San Diego, Honolulu, and Phoenix, to smaller districts such as downtown Windsor
in Sonoma County.
Two reports have been completed so far by staff and consultants: the Street Intercept Survey
and Results and the Existing Trends & Conditions Report. The Street Intercept Survey Report
summarizes the findings from field interviews and telephone surveys on travel and parking
habits of downtown residents, employees and visitors. The Existing Trends and Conditions
Report discuss the existing development trends, parking and traffic conditions of the
Downtown area.

Discussion
This staff report summarizes the results from the Street Intercept Survey Report and the
Existing Trends & Conditions Report on land use and development trends, and parking & traffic
conditions. Attachment B and C describes in detail the Street Intercept Survey and the
Background Report.

The Street Intercept Survey

As part of the Downtown Development Cap Evaluation, the consultant team completed a street
intercept survey to evaluate parking, travel, and trip purpose trends in Downtown Palo Alto.
Respondents were asked a series of questions related to what mode of transportation they
used to get Downtown (e.g. walking, bicycling, driving alone, carpooling, etc.); where they
parked if they drove (on the street, in a public lot/garage, in a private lot/garage); and their
thoughts on how easy it was to find parking and how easy it was to travel to and around
Downtown Palo Alto via transit, walking, or cycling. A total of 501 surveys averaging five
minutes in length were completed across two rounds of interviewing; 99 interviews were
completed on December 12, 2013, and another 402 interviews were completed between
January 9 and 17, 2014. Interviews were conducted between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. To
randomize response, interviewers moved from block to block within the area, concentrating
most heavily on University Avenue, and covering all side blocks at least once per shift;
interviewers also alternated between approaching male and female respondents. There was
significant representation from all age groups; respondent ages ranged from 16 to 89, with a
median age of 47.3. Slightly more respondents were male than female (55% versus 45%). The
majority of the interviews (71%) took place along University Avenue; the busiest cross-streets
were Bryant, Ramona, Waverly, and High Streets.

Three categories of respondents, Downtown residents (23%), Downtown workers (35%) and
Downtown visitors (42%) were identified and based on the responses received the following
conclusions were made:


Profile of Downtown Residents, Workers and Visitors
Residents
Nearly half of the surveyed group was retired with high income
35% earned less than $40K per year
Downtown residents tend to visit more in the morning.

Workers
This group is predominantly young and male, below 35 years age
About 34% is employed at technology companies, earning more than $100+K
87% of them lived outside Palo Alto and spend 4+ hours, five days-a week-in Downtown
70% were not provided parking by their employers and 50% of them parked on street while
another 43% parked in public parking lots/garages
Less than 20% of the downtown workers were provided free onsite parking. 45% of those
receiving free parking were employed by tech companies
11% employees had to pay for onsite parking.

Visitors
This group formed the largest sample, evenly split on gender
More than 40% of the visitors were full-time employed with almost one-third earning more than
$100+K per year, while another 31% earned less than $40K per year
They stayed between two to four hours, mostly in the AM
Shopping was the primary activity, followed by dining and social recreation
About 9% came for meetings or convention while another 11% came to downtown to run
errands
10% of visitors came to Downtown for medical/doctors visits
Visitors time in Downtown was fairly evenly distributed, with half staying less than two hours
and half staying more than two hours
62% of Visitors who lived in Palo Alto (but not in the Downtown area) visited at least three days a
week, compared to 38% of those who lived outside Palo Alto.

Responses on Preferred Modes of Transportation
Residents, Workers and Visitors
Residents
77% of residents (living in downtown area) prefer walking
Palo Alto residents (not living in downtown area) working Downtown prefer driving alone
Palo Alto residents (not living in downtown area) visiting Downtown prefer driving alone with a
quarter preferring to travel by bike.

Workers
More than nine-tenths (93%) of all workers commuted to the area via either public transit (48%)
or car (40% alone, 5% through carpool or drop-off)
More than half (52%) of all workers living in Palo Alto but not in the Downtown area travelled to
their destination by car (48% alone, 4% carpool)
Workers who travelled from outside Palo Alto (non-PA Workers) relied less on cars (44%) and
more on public transit (51%)


Visitors
Visitors (not living in downtown area) prefer driving alone
Visitors living in Palo Alto relied less on public transit (20%) and more on walking or biking (37%)
to get to their Downtown destination
Close to one-quarter of Palo Alto visitors (23%) biked to Downtown

Responses on Parking Habits of
Residents, Workers and Visitors
Close to half (more visitors than workers) park on streets
Though public/private lots and garages are conveniently located, they are mostly filled by
workers
Palo Alto residents who work in Downtown rely more on public lots (75%)
Both Palo Alto residents and non-residents who are visiting Downtown are likely to park on the
streets
While the great majority (71%) of respondents agree that parking lots and garages are easy to
find, they are split on whether finding parking near their destination is easy
Residents and workers, who would be parking for longer periods of time, have more difficulty
parking than visitors, who are in the area for shorter periods

The Background Report

This Background Report evaluates the existing traffic, parking, and land use conditions in the
Downtown area. The first section of the report provides a policy context, covering the
Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and previous and current studies and reports. This
is followed by analysis of Downtown development trends since 1986, a discussion of the
Downtowns existing transportation and travel trends, parking conditions, and the state of
traffic. Finally, the report ends with a conclusion and a discussion of the next steps to be taken.
The following are the highlights of the Report:

Development Since 1986

In 1986, there was about 3.3 million square feet of development in the Downtown CD-C zoned
area
Non-residential Downtown net new floor area cap, established by Policy L-8: was 350,000 square
feet
About 252,000 square feet have been added in the two-and-a-half decades since then
Now we have about 3.55 million square feet of development is in the Downtown area
Approximately 3.16 million square feet occupied by non-residential uses
62% of this development since 1986 has occurred in the CD-C (P) zone


Downtown Cap Data

Though high levels of non-residential construction occurred in late 1980s and late 1990s, about
52% of total non-residential development was constructed after 2010
Almost 100,000 square feet of this addition was constructed between 2012 and 2013
Several recent developments include large mixed-use projects
City is currently reviewing over 48,000 square feet of non-residential development in the
Downtown area

Bonus Floor Area and TDRs

TDRs possible, Primary Study Area: 244,378 square feet
Total created TDRs, documented: 139,095 square feet
Total created TDRs, documented, but not used: 23,647 square feet
Total TDRs remaining, to be created using existing regulations: 105,283 square feet (244,378 -
139,095)
Total TDRs to be created AND TDRs documented, but not used: 128,930 square feet (105,283 +
23,647)

Transportation and Commute Trends
Existing Network

Caltrains Palo Alto Transit Center is a major hub for transit in and around Palo Alto, including
buses from Dumbarton Express, VTA and SamTrans
A 50% growth in weekday boarding in the last five years
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan: The City is currently planning a large expansion of bicycle
boulevard projects (thoroughfares designed specifically to encourage bicycling); most of these
routes are in the planning and design phases as the City seeks funding for their implementation

Parking

Parking occupancy data gathered for off-street (lots and garages) facilities shows that all lots
are generally underutilized except at peak times
Occupancy is generally higher on the street vs. the garages; one conclusion is that parkers
prefer the street parking, then parking lots, and then garages, in that order
Downtown parking supply appears adequate to meet demand, but only with substantial
intrusion of employee parking on residential streets

Traffic Evaluation (Automobile, Pedestrian and Cyclist)

The majority of automobile commute trips by non-residents, to and from jobs in Palo Alto,
arrive from the south during the AM Peak Hour and depart towards the south during the PM


Peak Hour
The predominant regional traffic movement is in the north-south direction along El Camino
Real, which carries a much higher automobile volume than Downtown streets, while
Embarcadero carries commute traffic to and from US Highway 101.
The highest pedestrian volumes are at the entrances to the Palo Alto Caltrain Station along
Alma Street at Lytton Avenue and Hamilton Avenue, as well as along University Avenue at
Bryant Street.
Cyclist activity has similar characteristics to that of the pedestrian volumes in that the primary
destination is the Caltrain Station

Upcoming Reports and Surveys
City staff and consultants are working on two other reports as a part of the Phase I study. These
are the Downtown Business Survey and the Market and Development Feasibility Analysis
Report.
Downtown Business Survey: Consultants are also working on the second survey identified in
the scope of work to inform the Downtown development capacity analysis. The Business Survey
will consist of random sampling of Downtown office buildings to assess number of employees
to determine ratio of workers to building area. This will be supplemented with additional,
telephone interviews of businesses located in Downtown to collect as much as possible
information on types of tenants, categories of office buildings, size of buildings and parking
behavior of tenants or owners occupying the space. Information will also be collected on
whether businesses provide parking for employees and/or incentives not to drive, such as
transit reimbursement.
Market and Development Feasibility Analysis: A market assessment and development
potential report is being prepared describing the future development scenarios at five year
intervals up to 2030. The scenarios will be based on the assumption that existing regulations
and incentives exist, but with removal of development cap. It will consider market and financial
conditions, development capacity, development feasibility and other conditions and will lead to
formulation of realistic development scenarios and, in turn, inform study projections related to
parking, traffic, and other impacts. The development scenarios will be depicted using a three-
dimensional computer model to help community members and decision-makers visualize the
potential scale and distribution of future development in Downtown Palo Alto. Once the future
development scenarios have been established, a Parking and Traffic Analysis will be conducted
to show the impacts of this development on the Downtown circulation system and parking
supply. These analyses and tools will then be used to help inform policy decisions related to
Downtown development, growth management, parking requirements, and parking and traffic
impacts.

Timeline
Phase I of the Downtown Cap Study is expected to continue through August 2014, as part of the
Comprehensive Plan Update. During this period staff will work on the above two mentioned
work products, conduct Focus Group meetings and broader public engagement meetings. A
final report with the all the findings will be reviewed by the City Council in August of 2014. This


report will form the basis of the Phase II study which will consist of planning and transportation
policy recommendations.

Policy Implications
The requirement to conduct this evaluation is specified in the Comprehensive Plan as follows:

Program L-8: Limit new non-residential development in the Downtown area to 350,000
square feet, or 10% above the amount of development existing or approved as of May
1986. Reevaluate this limit when non-residential development approvals reach 235,000
square feet of floor area.

In addition, numerous policies could be impacted as a result of this evaluation. This includes
policies related to parking, traffic and land use (zoning) in the Downtown area. The 1986 study
impacted policies in the Comprehensive Plan and text within the zoning ordinance. It is
expected that this evaluation could result in revisions to both documents as well.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Downtown Development Cap RFP 10-21-2013 (PDF)
Attachment B: Palo Alto Street Intercept Survey Report (PDF)
Attachment C: Palo Alto Downtown Development Background Report (PDF)

City Council Staff Report

Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/21/2013


Summary Title: Downtown Development CAP RFP Award
Title: Approval of Contract for the Downtown Development CAP to Dyett &
Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners in the Amount Not to Exceed $200,000
(Continued from October 17, 2013)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment

Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute
contract with Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners (Attachment A) in the amount of
$200,000 for the Downtown Development Cap Study - Phase 1 project.

Background
In 1986, the City of Palo Alto conducted a Downtown Study, which examined parking, traffic and
land use conditions in the Downtown area. As a result of the Study a downtown development
cap policy (Downtown Development Cap) was adopted for a specified area. This policy restricted
future non-residential development to a total of 350,000 square feet beyond what was in
existence or approved in the CD area as of May 1986 (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
18.18.040 and Comprehensive Plan Program L-8). The 1986 study requires that City Staff
monitor and submit an annual report to the City Council regarding development activity,
vacancy rates and commercial lease rates in order to evaluate the effectiveness of these
regulations. The most recent City Council report, released on March 11, 2013, provided
information relating to the 2011-12 time period. This report showed that the downtown area
had fully recovered from the recession and that only 11,790 square feet of new non-residential
development remains available (as of the end of 2012) before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000
square feet would be reached. Approximately 30,000 square feet of non-residential
development has been approved since that time, such that the evaluation milestone has now
been reached.

13


The City Council, on November 13, 2012, instructed staff to develop a scope of work for this
evaluation and for the PTC to review and provide input on the scope of work prior to a Request
for Proposals (RFP) being released. The Councils direction to staff on November 13 related to
Agenda Item 6, Update of Parking Program and Review and Direction on Parking Policy
Strategies. Council did not direct staff to submit the RFP to the City Council after the PTCs
review. The Scope of Work was reviewed by the PTC on January 9, 2013. An informational
report, Downtown Development Cap Study Scope of Work and Request for Proposal was sent
to Council as an informational report on March 18, 2013. At the October 7, 2013 City Council
hearing, the subject contract was scheduled on the consent calendar. The item was removed
from the consent calendar and scheduled as an action item based on Council direction. The
primary concerns and questions related whether the Arts & Innovation Site (27 University
Avenue) is included in the study area. The issue is discussed in the Policy Implications section
below.

As previously described to City Council, the Downtown Development Cap study will be
completed in two phases. Phase 1 will focus on data collection and projection analysis. The
specific tasks identified for the Phase 1 scope of work include the following:

Phase 1: Data Collection and Projections Analysis

A. Review of Prior Downtown Study and Related Documents
The selected consultant for the project will review the 1986 Downtown Study report and
related materials, as well as subsequent monitoring reports, Comprehensive Plan policies,
zoning regulations, and any other relevant documents.

B. Existing Conditions Evaluation
The selected consultant will be responsible for evaluating existing traffic and parking
conditions in the Downtown and immediately surrounding areas. Existing level of service
studies should be conducted for key intersections and roadway segments. In addition, the
selected consultant should evaluate existing visitor (hourly) and permit parking conditions in
the Downtown and surrounding areas.

C. Projected Growth Impact Analysis
Using the existing conditions report and an economic growth demand analysis as the
foundation, the selected consultant should evaluate scenarios for potential development,
and future level of service (LOS) of key intersections and roadway segments based on
projected growth within the Downtown and surrounding areas. In addition, future
commercial and nearby residential parking conditions should also be evaluated based on
growth scenarios. The parking analysis should be completed for Downtown visitor and
permit parking, as well as street parking and intrusion in the surrounding residential


neighborhoods. The projected traffic and parking conditions should be based on the
existing development cap policies and zoning code regulations.

The Phase 1 RFP is contained in Attachment B.

Transportation, planning and economic consultant services are required to complete this study
in a timely manner, as the work effort is substantial and well beyond staffs work program
capabilities. The study should also benefit from a consultant teams knowledge of similar
studies, issues, and solutions in other communities. As noted above, this proposed study has
been broken down into two phases, and the attached RFP focuses on the first phase.

Phase 2: Policy Analysis
Although not the subject of this RFP, an RFP for a second phase of this study will be released
subsequent to the completion of Phase 1. This scope of work for this second phase has not yet
been completed, however it is expected that the effort will require a consultant team, working
with staff, to make planning and transportation policy recommendations using the Phase 1
findings, a more detailed economic analysis and community input. Staff will review those
findings and input with Council, prior to finalizing the 2
nd
phase RFP. Therefore, consultants
submitting proposals in response to the subject, Phase 1 RFP, must be qualified to submit a
proposal for Phase 2 work in the future.

Discussion
The City received five proposals in response to the RFP solicitation for the Downtown
Development Cap Study- Phase 1 project. These five firms were invited to participate in
interviews and one selected for award of the contract consistent with the RFP. This staff report
provides information needed by Council for approval of a contract with Dyett & Bhatia Urban &
Regional Planners.

The solicitation and selection process is outlined below.

Summary of Solicitation Process

Proposal Description/Number Downtown Development Cap Study- Phase 1
Proposed Length of Contract: Six months (with additional six month renewal option)
Total Days to Respond to RFP: 30 days
Pre-proposal Meeting Date: April 30, 2013
Number of Proposals Received: Four


Proposals Received from: Location (City, State)
Selected for oral
interview?
Dyett & Bhatia San Francisco, CA Yes
RBF Consulting Marina, CA Yes
Hexagon San Jose, CA Yes
TKJM Pleasanton, CA Yes

The proposals were judged by the following criteria:

Team experience and resources;
Project manager experience;
Understanding of local community;
Ability to complete Phase 2, and
Cost

The City released an (RFP) for the design of the Downtown Development Cap Study - Phase 1 on
April 22, 2013. A pre-bidders teleconference was held on April 30, 2013 to help provide
background regarding the projects. Four proposals were received in response to the RFP. An
evaluation committee consisting of Planning and Transportation staff and a member of the
Planning & Transportation Commission reviewed the proposals and participated in the
interview process.

The four firms were invited to participate in oral interviews held on July 18, 2013. Of the four
consultant teams, the interview panel selected Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners for
the project, in that they demonstrated their ability to conduct a thorough data collection and
growth projection analysis, as well as an extensive public outreach process that is necessary for
this phase of the project. Staff informed Dyett & Bhatia of the panels selection in early August.
Preparation of the contract documents and confirmation of funding sources for the study was
completed in late September.

The contract with Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners is for a total amount of $200,000.

Timeline


Immediately upon execution of a contract, staff will meet with the consultant to initiate the
scope of work described in the attachments. Phase 1 of the project includes extensive public
input and creation of a Downtown Stakeholders Task Force. In conjunction with staff, Dyett &
Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners will organize and lead meetings of the Downtown
Stakeholders Task Force and community workshop meetings. It is expected that initial meetings
will be focused on presentation of the existing conditions report and projected growth
conditions analysis described above. Check-in meetings and hearings with the Planning and
Transportation Commission, City Council and the community will be programed soon after
project initiation. It is expected that Phase 1 will be completed in six months.

Resource Impact
Funding for the Downtown Development Cap Study - Phase 1 project is included in the Fiscal
Year 2014 Operating Budget. The 2014 Adopted Operating Budget included $250,000 in the
General Fund for this study and a downtown parking study. The timeline for the downtown
parking study was accelerated, and that study was completed and in Fiscal Year 2013. As a
result, the entire $250,000 is available for the Downtown Development Cap Study in Fiscal Year
2014. With a $200,000 cost for Phase 1 of the study, there is $50,000 remaining for the second
phase of this study. No additional funds are needed at this time. Staff expects that costs for
completing the policy analysis in Phase 2 would not exceed $50,000.

Policy Implications
The requirement to conduct this evaluation is specified in the Comprehensive Plan as follows:

Program L-8: Limit new non-residential development in the Downtown area to 350,000 square
feet, or 10% above the amount of development existing or approved as of May 1986.
Reevaluate this limit when non-residential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of
floor area.

In addition, other policies could be impacted as a result of this evaluation. This includes policies
related to parking, traffic and land use (zoning) in the Downtown area. The 1986 study
impacted policies in the Comprehensive Plan and text within the zoning ordinance. It is
expected that this evaluation could result in revisions to both documents as well.

The 1986 Downtown Study included a 12-point Public Parking Program that is outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan. Many of these measures have been implemented since the 1986 study,
while some have not. For example, point #4 states the City should discourage parking
specifically in surrounding residential neighborhoods. Although new parking garages have


increased Downtown parking supply since 1986, little has been done to limit business
employees from parking in the surrounding neighborhoods.

Arts & Innovation District (27 University site)
The Arts and Innovation District, commonly referred to as the 27 University site, is immediately
adjacent to the Downtown Development Cap area specified in the original study. The overall
study actually comprised of two sub-areas: the primary study area and the peripheral study
area. The primary study area is the Downtown Commercial area (CD Zone). The primary area
study is area is what the original 1986 study, the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan
Development Cap policies pertain to. A larger peripheral study area is also called out in the
original study. Most of the peripheral study area is comprised of the surrounding commercial
and residential neighborhoods (SOFA, Downtown North, etc.) The area did include the Urban
Lane area and the transit station, but did not include much of the Arts and Innovation District
site. The study measured the impact of potential development in the CD area on the
surrounding neighborhoods.

Although the entire Arts and Innovation District is not shown within the perimeter of the
original Downtown Development Cap study area, it will be absolutely necessary that the
Phase 1 Projected Growth Impact Analysis examine the potential impacts of an Arts and
Innovation District development, in conjunction with other required analyses within the 1986
Downtown Cap study area. Adjacent developments will be equally weighted as they have
similar potential to impact parking and traffic conditions. Therefore, the Arts and Innovation
District not being included in the original 1986 study area and thus not within the Phase 1
official study area will not alter the actual Phase 1 analysis. The Arts and Innovation District is
included within the Phase 1 analysis. All nearby and regional developments must be taken into
consideration when conducting the traffic and parking projections.

Environmental Review
Environmental review is not required in order for the Council to approve the consultant contract
as data collection by itself will not have an environmental effect. Therefore this phase of the
study is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section
15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. All proposed policy changes, however, will need to be fully
reviewed per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The exact type
of review will not be determined until the policy changes are proposed and associated impacts
are identified.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Contract with Dyett & Bhatia, Urban & Regional Planners (PDF)
Attachment B: Downtown Development Cap RFP (PDF)
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C14149978
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO At'W
DYETT & BHATIA, URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into on this day of September, 2013, ("Agreement") by and
between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("CITY"), and
DYETT & BHATIA, URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS, a Califomia corporation, located
at 755 Samsome Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California, Telephone (415) 956-4300
("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.
A. CITY intends to evaluate existing and projected parking, traffic and land use conditions in the
downtown Palo Alto, ("Project") and desires to engage a consultant to provide analysis in cOlmection
with the Project ("Services").
B, CONSULTANT has repr,esented that it has the necessary professional expertise,
qualifications, and capability, and aU required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services.
C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the
Services as more fully described in Exhibit "A", attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in
this Agreement, the parties agree:
AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in
Exhihit "An in accordance ,,)ith the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The
performance ofall Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through completion of the
services in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached as Exhibit "B" unless terminated
earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is ofthe essence ill the performance of
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this
Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "B", attached to and made apart
of this Agreement. AllY Services for which times for performance arc not specified in this Agreement
shalIbecommenced and completed by CONSULTANTTiiareasonablyproiiipfandiliiieIym-a-n-"ne=r---
Professlonfll Scrvk.es
Rev, No". 1,2011
Attachment A
based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY's
agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shali not preclude recovery of damages
for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULTANT for performance ofthe Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment
for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shali not exceed Two Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($200,000.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C-I",
entitl",d "HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE," which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of
Exhibit "C". CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed
without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is
determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not
included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit "A".
SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly
invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an
identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, houriyrates, and reimbursable
expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C-I "). If applicable,
the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in
CONSULTANT's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANTshali
send all invoices to the City's project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City
will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt.
SECTION 6. OUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be
performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULTANT represents
that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required
by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services
assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, ifperrnitted,
have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications,
insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the
professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar
circumstances.
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and
in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may
affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all
charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services.
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and
2
------------ Professiollal-Serviceeo,C---
Rev. Nov. I, 2011
S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENr BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLANNING - CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyelt& Bhatia\C14149978
CONlRACT DEV CAP.doc
all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives
notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design
documents to construct the Project, CONSULT ANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors,
omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project.
This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement.
SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design ofa public works
project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of
design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (I 0%)
of the CITY's stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY
for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations,
and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY.
SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in perfonning
the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed byor contracted with
CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY.
SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experiel)ce of
CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or
transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT' s obligations
hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not
be deemed to be consent toany subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval
of the city manager will be void.
SECTION 2. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section II above, CITY agrees that
subconsuItants may be used to complete the Services. The su bconsuItants authorized by CITY to
perform work on this Project are:
Nelson\Nygaard
116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA. 94105
(415) 284-1544
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
250 I Ninth Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA. 94710
(510) 845-9190
The Henne Group
116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 812
San Francisco, CA. 94105
(415) 348-1700
4
Professionlli Services
Rev. Nov. 1,2011
S:\ASD\PURCffiSOLTCIT A TIONS\CURRENT BUYEReM FOLDERS\PLANNING CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bhalia\C14149918
CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any
compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning
compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a
subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of
the city manager or his designee.
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Rajeev Bhatia as
the Principal-in-Charge to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and
execution ofthe Services and Sophie Martin as the project manager to represent CONSULTANT
during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project
director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a
substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be
subject to the prior written approval of the CITY's project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY's
request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an
acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion ofthe
Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property.
The City's project manager is Steven Turner, Planning & Community Environment Department,
Planning Advanced Planning Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone
(650)329-2155. The project manager will be CONSULTANT's point of contact with respect to
performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project
manager from time to time.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including
without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents,
other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the
exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees
that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested
in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinq uishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual
property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make
any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of
the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the
work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work.
SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during
the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT's records pertaining to
matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such
records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULT ANT shall protect,
indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents
(each an "lndemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any
5
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1,201 J
S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITA TIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLANNING - CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bhatia\C14149978
nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs
and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements
("Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful
misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this
Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party.
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to
require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active
negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not
operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive
the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 17 . WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or ofthe provisions of any ordinance or law, will not
be deemed to be a waiver. of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of
any subsequent breach or violation ofthe same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision,
ordinance or law.
SECTION 18. INSURANCE.
IS.I. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full
force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D".
CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an
additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies.
IS.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers
with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratil1gs of A-:Vll or higher which are licensed or authorized to
transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT
retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in fu II force and effect
during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional
insured under such policies as required above.
IS.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently
with the execution ofthis Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY's Risk
Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insllfance is primary coverage and will not
be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the
Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice ofthe cancellation or modification. If the
insurer cancels or modifies the insllfance and provides less than thirty (30) days' notice to
CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the
cancellation or modification within two (2) business days ofthe CONSULTANT's receipt of such
notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensurin,g that current certificates evidencing the
insurance are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire term ofthis Agreement.
5
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT A TIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PlANNING - CHRIS\CON'fRACTS\Dyelt & Bhatia\C 14149978
18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be
construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnificatior:t provisions
of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be
obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or"loss caused by or directly arising as
a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss
arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired.
SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance ofthe Services, in whole or
in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written
notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immed iately
discontinue its performance of the Services.
19 .2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of
. the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereofto CITY; but only in the event ofa
substantial failure of performance by CITY.
19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the
City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other
data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to
CONSULTANT or its contractors, ifany, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will
become the property of CITY.
19.4. Upon such suspension ortermination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid
for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on
or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided,
however, ifthis Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT,
CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT's
services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by
the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise ofhislher discretion. The following Sections will
survive any expiration or termination ofthis Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25.
19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will
operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement.
SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by
certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
_________________ l'osLOffice_Box_L0250 _____ _
6
Rev. Nov. 1,2011
S:\ASD\PURCH'SOLICITA TIONS\CURRENT BUYEReM FOLDERS\PLANNING " CHRIs\CONfRACfS\Dyett & Bhatia\CI4149978
Palo A!to, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director
at the address of CONSULTANT recited above
SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has
no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would
conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the perfonnance ofthis Agreement,
it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT
certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer
'or employee of CITY; this provision willbe interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions ., .. '
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California.
21.3. Ifthe Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a "Consultant" as
that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT
shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the
Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shaH not
discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion,
disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status,
weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the
provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section
2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
7
Professional Serviees
Rev. Nov. 1,2011
S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLIClTA TIONS\CURRENT BUYEReM FOLDERS\PLANNING - CHRTS\CONTRACTS\Dyelt & Bhatia\C14149978
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE
REOUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City's Environmentally Preferred
Purchasing policies which are available at the City's Purchasing Department, incorporated by
reference and may be amended from time to time. shall comply with waste
reduction, reuse, rccycling and disposal requirements ofthe City's Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste
best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling
or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste
requirements:
All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal
computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices,
reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a
minimum of30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved
by the City's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional
printing company shall be a minimum of30% or greater post-consumer material and
printed with vegetable based inks.
Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in
""accordance with the City's EnVironmental Purchasing Policy including' but not
limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and
packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office.
Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional
cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from
the facility accepting the pallets to verifY that pallets are not being disposed.
SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION
24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions ofthe Charter ofthe City of
Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a)
at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year,
or (b) at anytime within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion ofthe
fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence
in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action
will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of
California.
25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement may recover its reasonab Ie costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that
action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of
legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third
parties.
8
Rev, Nov. 1,2011
S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLIClTATlONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLANNING - CHRlS\CONTRACTS\Oyett & Bhatia\C14149978
25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions ofthis Agreement will apply
to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the
parties.
25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices,
attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any
duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be
deemed to be a part'of this Agreement .. ,
25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with
CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section l798.81.5(d) about
a California resident ("Personal Information"), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and
appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City
immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security ofthe system or in the security
ofthe Personallnformatioll. CONSULTANT shall not use Personallnformation for direct marketing
purposes without City's express written consent.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
9
Rev. Nov. 1,2011
S;\ASD\PURCH\SOLlCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLANNING - CHRlS\CONTRACfS\Dyell & Bhalia\C14149978
25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have
the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when
executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized
representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
DYETT & BHATIA, URBAN AND
REGIONAL PLANNERS
City Manager
t ~ f f l < B4va
Relv Bha110l1 (Sep 17, 21)13)
RajeevBhatia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Principal/President
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "A":
EXHIBIT "B":
EXHIBIT "C":
EXHIBIT "C- I ":
EXHIBIT "D":
SCOPE OF WORK
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
COMPENSATION
SCHEDULE OF RATES
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
10
Rev. Nov. 1,2011
S:\ASD\PURClfISOUCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PlANNING" CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett& Bhatia\C14149978
TASKl:
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF'SERVICES
Project Start-up, Review of Prior Downtown Study and Related Materials &
Community Engagement Plan
Objeclive: Kick-off the planning project, conduct reconnaissance, and establish specific dales jar key
milestone., and initial outreach activities.
I-A Review Background Material. Prior to the kickoff meeting with staff, CITY shall provide the
CONSULTANT with salient plans, programs and studies pertaining to the Cap Study. The
CONSULTANT team shall review these reports, including: the 1986 Downtown Study report and
related materials, monitoring reports, Comprehensive Plan policies, zoning regulations, recent
development proposals, and other documents.
1-8 Kickoff Meeling with CITY Staff (Team). CONSULTANT shan meet with CITY for kickoff
working session, whjchshall include three principal components:
Review scope of work, identify data sources, clarii}' roles and responsibilities, and establish
communication protoeo!,
Review community outreach program, key groups to outreach, and key project milestones.
Brainstonn and discuss key questions and issues related to the Downtown Cap Study, based on staff
knowledge and experience, and consultant team review of background material (Task A).
Finalized Schedule/Milestones: Provide a finalized schedule with dates for milestones following the
kickoff meeting.
l-C Finalized Community Engagement Plan (CONSUL TANT). Develop a Community Engagement
Plan detailing who shall be engaged and when, along with engagement strategies, recognizing that
Phase I of the Downtown Cap Study is an analysis rather than policy-making phase. Following staff
review, the Engagement Plan shall be finalized.
Meetings Products

Kick-Off Meeting with CITY

Finalized Scope of Work and Schedule

Community Engagement Plan
TASK 2: Existing Conditions & Trends Evaluation
Objective: Evaluate existing parking and traffic conditions, and development trends to provide a baseline of
understanding/or other known issues that will need to be considered in the planning process.
2A Prepare GIS Database. Based on information from the CITY and other sources, prepare a GIS
database. At minimum, this database shall include:
2
Rev. Nov.l, 2011
S:IASD\PURCII\SOLlClTATIONSICURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\PLANNING CHRISICONTRACTS\Dyctt & Bhatia\CI 4149978
CONTRACT DEV CAP.doo
Existing (on the ground) land use in the Planning Area. This shall be based on information from
CITY, County Assessor's office, and focused fieldwork.
Development built since 1986
Approved and proposed development, and publie improvement projects
Transfer of development rights
Buildings with historic designations
Roadway and parking infrastructure
2-B Evaluate Development Trends: Infomlation from secondary sources, and the GIS database,
development trends in Downtown since 1986 shall be characterized. These shall include factors such
as land use changes by square feet (office, retail, residential, ete.) and number of establishments (such
as restaurants and stores). Trends shall be portrayed quantitatively as well as spatially/visually based
on GIS analysis, so they can be correlated with parking analysis.
2-C Parking Evaluation: CITY has gathered an extensive amount of Downtown parking data over the
past few years. On-street occupancy data for the entire peripheral study area (bounded by Middlefield
Road, Embarcadero Road, Alma Street and PaloAlto Avenue) is available from spring 20 II. Some of
the surveys also include parking occupancy in off-street facilities, including a breakdown of visitor and
permit parking. Parking turnover data is currently being collected by CITY for the same study area.
CONSULTANT shall include a small budget for necessary and complementary field surveys but shall
primarily rely on the already collected data from the most recent, complete counts.
All relevant CITY collected data shall be provided in GIS (or comparable) and table format for
preparation of a detailed parking inventory database and related maps of all public on-street spaces and
off-street parking facilities located within the study area. CONSULTANT may utilize any other related
GIS layers and supplement with aerial images and existing land use information. The database and
maps shall include the number of spaces and be categorized based on, among other items, regulations,
facility type, geography and permits.
Parking utilization and patterns shall then be analyzed to assess the capacity for the existing
supply to meet current demand. The analysis shali:
Evaluate system-wide denland as well as subgroups such as public parking lots, garages, permit
spaces, and on-street spaces by block.
Tabulate data by user groups (hourly visitor parking and permit parking) to understand behaviors and
trends among particular population subsets.
Chart the dynanlics of the supply and demand relationship throughout the day and throughout the
study area by the different facility types and by user groups.
Since the existing occupied and vacant commercial square footage is available for Downtown, the peak
parking occupancy can be linked to the square footage in order to develop a current "shared" parking ratio
for the area. Some commercial sites with privately owned parking may need to be excluded from this
exercise if there is no capacity/occupancy data available for those sites.
This task shall also include an identification of Downtown development over the past 10 years and
estimated impacts ofthat development and trends over thattimeframe, including the application of parking
exemptions for transfer of development rights and other code provisions.
3
Rev. Nov. 1,2011
S:\A.SD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT FOLDERS\PLANNING - CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bhatia\C14149978
CON1RACT DEV CAP.doc
In addition, CONSULTANT shall identifY non-conforming buildings (from a use and/or parking
standpoint) that have converted to higher intensity office uses over the past 5 years. A definition shall be
developed ofthe parking "intrusion," "saturation," "deficit," or other term and how that is best applied to
the study area and surrounding neighborhoods.
2-D Traffic Evaluation: CONSULTANT shall evaluate existing traffic and multi-modal circulation
conditions in the Downtown and immediately surrounding areas, with a focus on assessing the overall
level of access to and from Downtown land uses. Existing traffic level of service (LOS) analysis shall
be conducted in close collaboration with CITY planning and transportation staff for key intersections
and roadway segments. This task shall include:
Observations of existing circulation conditions with a particular emphasis on:
Motor vehicle queuing and delay factors relating to parking access (i.e, traffic delay related to
motOl'ists circulating in search of available parking, as well as observed traffic patterns related to
unique parking-related factors such as the locations of specific lots and/or parking intrusion into
adjacent areas).
Multi-modal circulation conditions for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit uses, particularly focusing on
; delay. factors. and/or other circulation constraints potentially affected by motor vchiole parking
locations and motor vehicle delay/queuing factors.
Review of existing traffic, pedestrian and bicycle volume count data and collection of new data at key
locations. CONSULTANT shall augment existing data with new AM & PM Peak Period (7-9 am and
4-6 pm) turning movement, bicycle, and pedestrian volume counts at up to eight intersections.
Traffic operations assessment: Existing AM and PM Peak Hour LOS at up to 15 study intersections.
Multi-modal circulation assessment: Assessment of bicycle, pedestrian & transit travel patterns, delay
factors, and circulation constraints relevant to downtown access and internal circulation.
2-E Prepare Working Papers: The analysis above shall be compiled in either one report, or up to three
working papers:
Land Use and Development Trends
Parking and Traffic Evaluation
2-F Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting: A kickoff/check-in meeting with the PTC
shall bc held. The timing of this meeting shall be determined in consultation with CITY. If held after
completion of the working papers in Task 2-E, the working papers shall be presented to the Planning
and Transportation Commission, issues and implications discussed.
2-G Stakeholder Task Force: The working papers shall be presented to the Stakeholder Task Force for
discussion. Key issues and implications shall be discussed and used to guide the analysis. The specific
timing of the stakeholder presentation shall be decided at a check-in review with the Planning and
Transportation Commission.
2-R Focus Groups: CONSULTANT shall conduct a series of focus groups with specific interests, such as
the Downtown North, University South, and Professorville neighborhoods; the Downtown Business
Improvement District; and the Chamber o[Commerce's Downtown Parking Committee.
4
Rev. Nov. 1,2011
S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLlClT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLANNING - CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bha!ia\C14149978
",' '., ,.
Meetings Products

Planning and TranspOltation

Working Papers or combined report on
Commission Meeting # I Land Use & Development Trends, and

Stakeholder Task Force Meeting #1
Parking & Traffic Evaluation
Focus Groups Meetings

Stakeholder Meetings Task Force

Meeting Summary Memorandum

Focus Groups Meetings Summary
TASK 3: Growth Projeetions & Implications
Objective: Based on development r e n d ~ zoning capacity, and developmentfeasibility testingJorecast growth
'prospects for Downtown based 'on 'reinOvaf 6/ cap, to enable evaluation of implications of cap removal.
Analyze traffic, parking, and (optional) urbanform implications. Present results to the community, taskforce,
and decision-makers to get direction for Phase 2.
Conduct Development "Capacity" Analysis. Based on the GIS database, CONSULTANT shall calculate
available unused zoning capacity. This shall be based on sites with potential to change in the coming decade
based on certain metrics (building intensity, improvement to land value ratio, historical designation, use, etc.)
Existing development at the opportunity sites shall be compared against potential floor area limits, and
amount of capacity available, TDR "sending" capacity and other parameters shall be outlined. Given that
existing parameters of the CITY'S Zoning Code (for example, all parking ground level 01' above is counted in
the floor area ratio) may result in a variety of outcomes, assumptions shall be made based on recent
development trends.
3-A Conduct Market and Dcvelopment Feasibility Analysis: CONSULTANT shall work to develop a
set of development projections (5, 10, and potentially 20-years) that assume continued use of transfer
of development rights and other existing provisions but removal of the development cap. The
formulation of future development scenarios shall be based on a detailed analysis of development
capacity and feasibility in the Downtown based on market and financial considerations. Specifically,
CONSULTANT shall evaluate the development feasibility of increased in-fill densification, consistent
with existing code, based on the economic fundamentals facing developers, property owners, and
tenants. This shall include both an analysis of market demand and supply trends for the land uses and
tenants seeking to and currently allowed to locate Downtown as well as the development feasibility of
various building prototypes (e.g. higher density residential, office, and vertical mixed use).
The development feasibility analysis shall take into account both the amount and type of vacant and/or
underutilized property and the likely buy-out costs associated with existing uses. Specifically,
CONSULTANT shall utilize development cash-flow pro-forma models to assess the financial
feasibility of new or redevelopment under a variety of circumstances related to product types, parcel
sizes, existing uses, and market trends. This analysis shall feed into the formulation of realistic
development scenarios and, in turn, inform study projections related to parking, traffic, and other
impacts of interest to the CITY.
5
Rev. Nov. 1.2011
S:\t\SD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\PLANNING - CHRJS\CONTRACTS\Dyett& Bhalia\C14149978
3-B Conduct Traffic Analysis: CONSULTANT shall evaluate future LOS of key intersections and
roadway segments based on the projected growth scenarios. The projected traffic conditions shall be
based on the existing development cap policies and zoning code regulations. This task shall include:
Traffic Model. Review of traffic volume forecasts contained in CITY citywide traffic model.
Forecasted 2020 Baseline traffic volume forecast (if available)
Forecasted 2035 Baseline volume forecast
Trip Generation & Trip Assignment Calibration. Review of underlying trip generation rates and trip
distribution/assignment assumptions contained in the citywide traffic model.
Since Downtown land uses typically generate a different rate of vehicle traffic (and parking
demand) than non-Downtown uses, detailed calibration of the model-based trip generation
forecast may be needed to accurately forecast Downtown traffic growth.
In addition, this review shan assess the extent to which current parking policies affect the trip
distribution and assignment pattern for motor vehicles (i.e, path of travel for motorists when
arriving in Downtown).
Future-year Traffic Forecasts. Preparation of updated traffic-volume forecasts at study intersections
based on anticipated land use changes and calibrated trip generation rates for Downtown land uses.
This shan be based on up to three land use scenarios (Future Baseline and two alternate growth'
scenarios).
Traffic Operations. Assessment of anticipated changes to AM and PM Peak Hour traffic LOS at study
intersections based on potential increased growth:
Year 2035 Future Baseline LOS (based on calibrated downtown trip rates) - this scenario
would be based on continuation of current policies under the growth cap
Year 2035 LOS with Alternate Growth Scenarios - CONSULT ANT shall evaluate up to two
(2) alternate growth scenarios.
3-C Bicycle, Pedestrian & Tr ansit Circulation: Assessment of anticipated changes to AM & PM Peak
Hour bicycle, pedestrian & transit circulation patterns based on forecasted growth and future-year
traffic conditions. This shan include a qualitative assessment of potential constraints to bicycle,
pedestrian and transit circulation, and net effect on downtown access, 'due to increased traffic volumes
andlor parking-related factors.
3-D Conduct Parking Analysis: CONSULTANT shall utilize the growth projections developed by the
Team to analyze the potential parking demand from new development and changes of use expected in
Downtown. In similar studies, projections using standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (lTE)
parking rates overstate demand. This may demonstrate that these projections are unrealistic for a
mixed-use downtown environment like Palo Alto. In particular, mixed-use areas such as Downtown
offer the opportunity to share parking spaces between various uses, thereby reducing the total number
of spaces required compared to the same uses in stand-alone developments.
This is a primary benefit with the CITY's proactive approach to build and provide public and shared
parking facilities. CONSULTANT can therefore develop detailed projections of future demand based
on a full analysis of supply, user demand characteristics, CITY regulations, and other market
influences, drawing upon Urban Land Institute (ULI) methodologies.
6
Rev.Nov.l.20!!
S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCIT A TIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PlANNING - CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bhlltill\C14149978
The parking projected shall be completed for the Downtown visitor and permit parking, as well as
street parking in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The projected parking conditions shall be
based on Ibe existing development cap policies and zoning code regulations. This task shall also
include analysis of:
Estimated parking demand required by increased growtb under each scenario and the likely impact of
the demand on available parking in adjacent residential neighborhoods.
The likely impact of parking reductions based on the proximity of new development to Caltrain and
other transit, bicycling and walking facilities, based on surveys of existing employee ridership for
Downtown businesses and Stanford.
3-E Three-dimensional Computer Model and Growth Depiction: CONSULTANT shall prepare a
three-dimensional computer model showing all buildings in the Downtown core area ("cereal box"
style, rather than fully articulated buildings). Information on development sites, growth forecasts and
prevailing height limits of 50 feet shall be used to portray new development, to provide three-
dimensional visual representation of (no cap) growth patterns.
3-F Conduct an Opeu House/Community Worksllop: Conduct a COnllnuruty workshop session, open to
all community members, to present findings of Ibe analysis. This could be conducted as a fonnal
workshop or a drop-in open house. The objectives are:
Educate the public on Downtown development issues;
Describe metbodology for the analysis; present findings from the existing conditions and growth
impacts analysis;
Engage community members in a dialogue about their vision for Downtown and their concerns and
priorities; and
IdentifY key issues for Phase 2.
3-G Stakeholders Task Force Meeting #2: At Ibe second meeting of the Stakeholders Task Force,
CONSULTANT shall present the findings from subtasks A through 0, as well as the input received
from the community at Ibe open housefworkshop. Input received at Ibis meeting shall be summarized
in a mcmorandum and incorporated into the presentations to decision-makers (subtasks II and I). The
specific timing oflbe stakeholder presentation shall be decided at a check-in review with Ibe Planning
and Transportation Commission.
3-H Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting: CONSULTANT shall present the results of
the development capacity analysis, feasibility analysis, and traffic/parking analysis at one meeting of
the Planning and Transportation Commission, and solicit feedback and recommendations for
presentation to Ibe City Council.
3-1 City Council Meeting: CONSULT ANT shan present the findings of the Development Cap Stndy in
one meeting wilb the City Council, focusing on analysis results, community input, and identification
of key issues and broad policy considerations for Phase 2 of the effort.
Meetings
7
Protess.lorud Services
Rev, NQv" 1, lOll
S,IASDIPURCHISOLlCITATIONS\OJRRENT BUYERCM FOLDIlRSIPLANNlN(l CHRlSlCONTRACrSIDyett& Bhatia1Cl4149918
CONTRACT DEV CAP,doc

Stakeholders Task Foree Meeting #2

Downtov.'fl Development Capaeity Analysis

Open House/Community Workshop

Market and Development Feasibility

Planning & Transportation Commission
Analysis
Meeting #2

Traffic and Parking Analyses

City Council Meeting

Stakeholders Task Force Meeting
Summary Memorandum

3D Computer Model
TASK 4: Surveys on Parking Habits and Employment Density
Objective: This work has three prrncipal components:
Sireet intercept interviews conducted within the downtown district (approximately 400 completes,
survey minutes) , , . ..,
A telephone survey of businesses located wilh a sample of buildings within the downtown district
(number of completes for this together with item 3 below ranging from 200 to 350, dependent on
number qf businesses located within the District; see detailed discussion later)
Afollow-up in-person interview conducted with businesses ijCONSULTANTwere nol able to locale
or conduct via telephone length 5 minutes)
This task should start co11CUrrently with Task 2.
Power Point style summary report of findings of the two surveys shall be prepared.
4-A Finalize Study Design: CONSULTANT shall meet with CITY to determine the final specifications
of all phases of the research. All phases of the research shall be conducted simullaneously, but may be
conducted one after the other if necessary.
4-B Street Intercept: Prepare Sampling Plan and 5-Minute Survey Instrument. After the initial planning
meeting with the CITY, CONSULTANT shall prepare a sampling plan for the initial street intercept
interviews. The sampling plan shall contain approximately four 12-hour Monday-Friday shifts (8 AM
- 8 PM), with teams of two interviewers working each shift.
CONSULT ANT staff shall help to design the survey instrument It is estimated that this shall take no
more than 5 minutes for each interview to administer in the field.
4-C Street Intercept: Hire and Train Interviewers: CONSULTANT shall hire and train an interviewing
corps capable of going to selected locations and conducting on-the-street interviews. All interviewers
shall be trained specifically on procedures as to how to approach potential respondents, and how best
to engage them. They shall also be trained about the specific purpose of this project, as well as the
specific questionnaire to be used for this study.
8
Professional
Rev, No\', J, 2011
S;\ASDIPURCH\SOUCITA TIONSICURRENT BUYER-eM FOWERSIPLANNING (''HRISICONTRAcrSID)<it '" Bha]ia\C 14149918
4-D Street Intercept: Conduet Interviews: Once CONSULTANT's interviewers have been hired and
trained, a schedule shall be developed according to the sampling plan, and interviewers shall be senlto
the chosen locations to conduct interviews. After each shift, interviewers shall bring the completed
questionnaires back to CONSULTANT's offices, and the completed questio111laires shall be sorted and
batched for data entry. A total of400 interviews shall be completed althe conclusion of this phase of
the study.
4-D Street Intercept: Data Entry: After the questio111laires have been sorted and batched, they shall be
key-entered using CONSULTANT's data entry system. Each questionnaire shall be completely
entered TWICE by two different persons. In this way, mistakes that may be made by the first person
shall be picked up and corrected by the second person.
4-E Street Intercept: Preparation of Final Dataset: After all questionnaires have been key-entered and
verified, a final dataset and data map shall be prepared and delivered to the CITY in either EXCEL or
SPSS.
4-F Street Intercept: Tabulation of Results, Conduct Statistical Analyses of Results, Prepare
PowerPoint Summary Report of Findings, Present Findings: Once the dataset has been edited and
cleaned, the results shall be tabulated into a banner cross-tabular report, and 'statistical analyses of the
survey responses shall be conducted. A final PowerPointreport shall be prepared, and a presentation
of results shall be made to the CITY.
4-G Business Study: DevelOp Sampling Plan and 5-Minute Survey Instrument: CONSULTANT shall
meeting with CITY, to develop a random sampling plan of office buildings within the business
district. Buildings in which the only commercial tenants are restaurants and retail tenants would not be
sampled. The goal shall be to assess the number of workers in entire buildings in order to determine
ratio of workers to building area with confidence The target number of interviews to complete shall
depend on the CITY providing CONSULTANT with a reasonable estimate of the number of
businesses in the district. CONSULTANT shall obtain this number from the CITY, and it is small
enough, CONSULTANT may be able to complete as few as 200 interviews and have the results be
accurate to within + 5% at the 95% level of confidence. If CONSULT ANT is not able to obtain a
reasonable estimate from the CITY, or ifthe number of estimated businesses within the district is large
enough (4,000 or more) CONSULTANT will need to complete between 350-370 interviews to
achieve the same level of statistical significance.
To assure that CONSULTANT is representing different types oftenants, buildings shall be classified
into three size categories - small, medium, and large (the definition of which to be decided in this
initial meeting), and a stratified sample shall be developed based on the approximate number of each
type of building within the district.
CONSULTANT shall design the survey instrument. It is estimated that this shall take no more than 5
minutes to administer in the field.
4-H Business Study: Purchasing and Loading of Telephone Sample: Based on the buildings that have
been sampled, CONSULTANT shall purchase a telephone listing of all businesses located in these.
CITY Does not expect that this shall be a complete listing, or that all businesses within each building
shall be part of this sample. At minimum 70% of qualifYing businesses shall be contained in the
sample.
9
Rev. Nov. 1,2011
S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT A TIONS\CURRENT BUYERCM FOLDERS\PLANNrNG - CHRlS\CONTRACTS\Dyetl & Bhatia\C14149978
CONTRACT DEY CA P,doc
4-1 Business Study: Hire and Train Interviewers: CONSULTANT shall hire and train an interviewing
corps capable of conducting telephone interviews with business respondents. All interviewers shall be
trained specifically on procedures as to how to best assure that respondents cooperate, and how best to
engage them. They shall also be trained about the specific purpose of this project, as well as the
specific questionnaire to be used for this study.
4-J Business Study: Conduet Telephone Interviews. Once CONSULTANT's interviewers have been
hired and trained, a schedule shall be developed so that interviews can be conducted during business
hours Monday - Friday. Approximately 75% of the interviews CONSULTANT needs to complete
shall be completed by telephonc. rfupon screening CONSULTANT determines that a business is not
located in the indicated building or any other of the sampled building, CONSULTANT shall not
interview that business.
4-K Business Study: Conduct In-Person Interviews of Businesses within Selected Buildings. After
several attempts have been made to all businesses in the telephone sample, CONSULTANT's
interviewers shall go to the selected businesses in the district and compile a list of businesses in the
selected buildings that are not part of the telephone sample. Once this list is compiled, interviewers
shall attempt to interview someone in each of these businesses, as well as businesses in which the
CONSULTANT has not been able to complete an interview via telephone.
4-L Business Study: Data Entry: After the questionnaires have been sorted and batched, they shall be
key-entered using CONSULTANT's data entry system. Each questionnaire shall be completely
entered twice by two different persons, for the purpose of catching data input errors. The dataset shall
then be merged with the results of the telephone business survey.
4-M Business Study: Preparation of Final Dataset. After all questionnaires have been key-entered and
verified, a final dataset and data map shall be prepared and delivered to the CrTY in either EXCEL or
SPSS.
4-N Business Study: Tabulation of Results, Conduct Statistical Analyses of Results, Prepare
PowerPoint Summary Report of Findings, Present Findings. Once the dataset has been edited and
cleaned, the results shall be tabulated into a banner crosstabular report, and statistical analyses of the
survey responses shall be conducted. A final PowerPoint report shall be prepared, and a presentation
of results shall be made to the CITY.
4-0 Assessment of Building Employment Intensity: CONSULTANT shall use information on workers
and correspond this with floor area information for specific buildings in the GIS database based on
information provided by the CITY or the County Assessor's Office to determine average floor area per
employee, as well as potentially variation by building size or nature of business, to the extent this
information is available.
Meetings Prodncts

Staff Meeting on Survey Design

Powerpoint Report on Street Intercept

One Presentation on Findings

Powerpoint Report on Business Study
Printing: CONSULTANT shall provide one hard copy and one electronic copy (including in native
file formats) of all products. Printing of additional copies shall be additional services.
[0
Rev. Nov. 1,2011
S:'lASD\PURCH\sOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYEReM fOLDERS\PLANNING - CHRIS\CONTRACfS\Dyett & Bhatia\C14149978
CONTRACT DEV CAP,doc
Meeting Attendance. Meeting attendance shall be as specified in the work tasks. Additional meeting
attendance shall be additional services.
Consolidated Comments and Direction. CITY staff shall provide a single set of consolidated
comments on review drafts of all documents. A single iteration of each product; correciion of
CONSULTANT's errors shall not constitute additional services.
11
Rev. Nov. 1,2011
S;\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PIANNING - CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bhatia\C14149978
CONTRACf DEY CAP.doe
EXHIBIT "B"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number
of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or
decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so
long as all work is completed within the tenn of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a
detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the
notice to proceed.
Milestones
Task 1:
Start-up, review of prior materials and
Community engagement plan- start: Week 0; end: Week 4;
Review background materials- 4 weeks
Draft Community Engagement Plan- 3 weeks
Task 2:
Completion
No. of DayslWeeks
FromNTP
4 weeks
Existing conditions and trends evaluation- start: Week 2; end: Week 10;
Existing conditions, land use and development,
8 weeks
traffic evaluation working papers- 8 weeks
Task 3:
Growth projections and implications- start: Week 4; end: Week 24;
Traffic and parking analysis: 12 weeks
Market and developmentfeasibility analysis: 14 weeks
Downtown development capacity analysis: 16 weeks
3D computer model: 17 weeks
Task 4:
Surveys on parking habits and employment
density- start: Week 3; end: Week 12;
Draft survey, parking habits: 7 weeks
Draft survey, employment density: 7 weeks
12
20 weeks
9 weeks
Rev. Nov. 1,2011
S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYEReM FOLDERS\PLANNING - CHRlS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bhalia\C14149978'
CONTRACT DEV CAP.doe
EXHIBIT "c"
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget
schedule below. Compensation sHall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached
as exhibit C-I up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit "A" ("Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$200,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable
expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment
would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall
be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted
below. The CITY's Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts
between any ofthe tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic
Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $200,000.00.
BUDGET SCHEDULE
Task I
(Start Up, Review &
Commun ity Engagement Plan)
Task 2
(Existing Condition & Trends
Evaluations)
Task 3
(Growth Projections)
Task 4
(Surveys on Parking Habits &
Employment Density)
Task 5
(Stakeholders Task Meetings)
Task 6
(Focus Groups Meetings)
Task 7
NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
$8,978.00
$41,672.00
$80,895.00
$33,130.00
$8,430.00
$7,740.00
"
______ -----'CPlanning & transRortation Commission, ____________________ _
18
Protessional Services
Rev Nov. 1,2011
S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCITA TlONS\CURRENT BUYEReM FOLDERS\PLANNlNG CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & BhaLia\C 14149978
City Council Meetings)
Task
(Community Workshop Open House
Meetings)
Sub-total Basic Services
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses
Maximum Total Compensation
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
$7,570.00
$9,690.00
$198,105.00
$1,895.00
$200,000.00
The administrative, overhead, secreiarial time or secretarial o\,'ertime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included
within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall
reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for
which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are:
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be
reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto's policy for reimbursement oftravel
and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees.
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile
transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup infonnation.
Any expense anticipated to be more than $1,895.00 shall be approved in advance by the
CITY's project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall prov ide additional services only by advanced, written authorization
from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at IheCITY's project manager's request, shall submit a
detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of
effort, and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable
expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-I. The additional services
scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by
the CITY's Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services.
Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this
Agreement
19
Services
RevNov, 1,2011
S:\I\SD\PURCIDSOUCITA TIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PlANNING - CHRlS\C0l"lTRACfS\Dyett & Bhatia\C14149978
Hourly Task I
Rate
Start Up,
Review of
Prior
!Materials, &
CommuniTy
Engagement
Pian
Dyett & Bhatia
Principal, Rajeev $ 200 2,400
Bhatia
Associate Principal, $ 175 -
Vivian Kahn
Senior Associate, $ 135 2,160
Sophie Martin
GIS Specialist $ 100 -
Planner/Urban $ 100 -
toesigner
Project Associate $ 65 260
Direct Costs - Travel, Printing., 100
Mailing
Sub-Total 4,920
Nelson\Nygaard
Principal V $ 197 788
Principal IV $ 180 720
APP $ 125 1,000
Associate 1I $ 100 -
llotero $ 50 -
I
Direct Cost
I Sub-
Total
l
2,508
l[Economic and Planning Systems
I Principal $ 250 1,000
I Vice $ 200 400
President
EXHIBIT "C-l"
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
'Task2 Task 3 Task 4 SUB-
TOTAL
Existing
Surveys on
Parlcing
Conditions Growth
& Trends Projections
Habits and 0
Evaluation
Employment
Density
4,000 3,600 1,800 11,800
1,400 1,400
-
2,800
5,400 6,480 2,430 16,470
5,000 5,000 -
10,000
1,200 10,000
-
11,200
780 1,235 -
2,275
100 368 20 588
17,880 28,083 4,250 55,133
7,092 9,062 394 17,336
1,800 3,600
-
6,120
6,750 10,750 250 18,750
1,200 2,800 100 4,100
1,200
- -
1,200
5,750 16 5,750
23,792 26,212 760 53,272
- 10,000 -
11,000
- 12,000 -
12,400
"
.
Meetings
Planning &
Stakeholders Focus Transportation
Task Force (2) Groups (4) Commission!
City Council (2)
2,400 2,400 2,400
- - -
.2,700 4,320 2,160
- - -
400
-
-
260 260 390
100 100 100
5,860 7,080 5,050
- - -
720 360 720
250 250 250
- - -
- - -
50 50
1,020 660 970
1,000
-
1,000
400
-
400
S:IASDIPURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERSIPlANNING - CHRlS\CONTRACTSlDyctt & Bh.tia\CI4149978 CONl'RACT DEV CAP.doc
! ':
TOTAL
Community
Workshop/
Open
House (1)
1,600 20,600
-
2,800
2,160 27,810
800 10,800
800 12,400
1,560 4,745
200 1,088
7,120 S 80,243
-
17,336
720 8,640
250 19,750
-
4,100
- 1,200
50 5,900
1,020 $ 56,926
1,000 14,000
400 13,600
Re:vNov. 1,20)]
i
Research $ 115
- -
4,600 4,600
- - - -
4,600
lInalvst
-
iEmployee $ 100.00
- - - - - - - - -
0

I Direet Cost 150 150 150 150 150 600
I Sub-Totall 1,550
-
26';;00 18,150 1,5S0 1,5S0 1,5S0 $ 32,800
pc Henne Group lS,120 28,120 $ lS,lW

'78,978 41,672 80,1195 33,130
..
<84430 "7,146 .rr , 7",JU
..

, :'". :.
I
Direct costs in the project budget include reimbursable expeuses, includ!ng but nO"! limlled 10: air or auto travel, hQtel, parking, car "",tal, meals during out-of-tOWll trovel,
printirig. mailing, and other similar expenses} shall be invoiced at DO mark-up
I
CONSULTk shall have the ability to reallocate budget between various consulting team """"hers and be\Ween tasks. the overall project budget does not change.
19
SIASDIPURCiOLlCITATIONSICURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERSIPlANNlNG - CHRlSICONn<ACTS\DyeJI & B_'C 14149978 CU'ITRACT DEV CAP.doc
I
Rev Nov. 1,2011
EXHIBIT "D"
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN
AND MAINT AlN lNSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BEWW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM
BEST'S KEY RATING OF : V I ~ OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN TIlE STA TE
OF CALIFORNIA.
A WARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED BELOW,
MINIMUM LIMITS
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
EACH
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
OCCURRENCE
AGGREGATE
WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY
EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY
BODlL Y INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
GENERAL liABILITY, INCLUDING
PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
PROPERTY DAM AGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
LIABILITY COMBlNED,
BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
- EACH PERSON $1,00
1
00. $1,000,000
- EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000
$1,000,000
AUTOMOBILllLIABILITY, INCLUDING
ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
BODlL Y INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
DAMAGE COMBINED
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING,
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS,
MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE),
AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE
ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE,
SHALL DBT AIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FUU FOReEAND EFFECT THRDUGHOUT lHEENTIRETERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT,
THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRmED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT
ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING
AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITIEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN
COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR
CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL.
II. CONTACTORMUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL INSUREDS"
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED
BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE
CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
------- ------------------
18
Proressional Services
Rev Nov. 1,2011
S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLlClTATIONS\CURRENT DUYERCM FOLDERS\PLANNING CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett& BhHlia\CI4149978
CONTRACf DEY CAP,doc
D. CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE 1HAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER TIlE POLICY SHALL NOT,
FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY IUGHTS OF TIlE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT TIllS
ENDORSEMENT, AND TIlE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE TIlE TOTAL LIABILITY OF TIlE
COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
I. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER
THAN THE NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUM, TIlE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY
AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THENONPAYMENTOF
PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY
WIUTTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO:
PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
CITY OF PALO ALTO
P.O. BOX 10250
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
19
RevNov.i,2011
S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITA TIONS\CURRENT DUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLA.NNrNG - CHRIS\CONTRACTS\DyeU & Bhlltia\C14149978

Planning & Community Environment Department

Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 149978
for Professional Services

Downtown Development Cap Evaluation

Pre-proposal Meeting 2:30 p.m. April 30, 2013
RFP submittal deadline: 3:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Contract Administrator: Chris Anastole
(Email address) chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org

CITY OF PALO ALTO
PURCHASING/CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
250 HAMILTON AVENUE
PALO ALTO, CA 94301
(650) 329-2271
Attachment B
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. 149978

TITLE: DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT CAP EVALUATION

1. INTRODUCTION

The City of Palo Alto is seeking proposals from qualified firms to provide
professional services for the evaluation of existing and projected parking, traffic
and land use conditions in the Downtown Palo Alto. The selected consultant
must work closely with the Citys planning, transportation and economic
development staff during the process, and must make presentations to the
Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as well as various
community groups as needed. The required services and performance conditions
are described in the Scope of Work (or Services).

2. ATTACHMENTS

The attachments below are included with this Request for Proposals (RFP) for
your review and submittal (see asterisk):

Attachment A Proposers Information Form*
Attachment B Scope of Work/Services
Attachment C Sample Agreement for Professional Services
Attachment D Sample Table, Qualifications of Firm Relative to Citys Needs
Attachment E Cost Proposal Format
Attachment F Insurance Requirement

The items identified with an asterisk (*) shall be filled out, signed by the
appropriate representative of the company and returned with submittal.

3. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

3.1 Pre-proposal Conference

A pre-proposal teleconference will be held on, Tuesday, J une 30, 2013 at
2:30 P.M. The call in number is (605) 475-4800. The Access Code is
707751* All prospective Proposers are strongly encouraged to call.

3.2 Examination of Proposal Documents

The submission of a proposal shall be deemed a representation and
certification by the Proposer that they:

1
3.2.1 Have carefully read and fully understand the information that was
provided by the City to serve as the basis for submission of this
proposal.
3.2.2 Have the capability to successfully undertake and complete the
responsibilities and obligations of the proposal being submitted.
3.2.3 Represent that all information contained in the proposal is true and
correct.
3.2.4 Did not, in any way, collude, conspire to agree, directly or indirectly,
with any person, firm, corporation or other Proposer in regard to the
amount, terms or conditions of this proposal.
3.2.5 Acknowledge that the City has the right to make any inquiry it
deems appropriate to substantiate or supplement information
supplied by Proposer, and Proposer hereby grants the City
permission to make these inquiries, and to provide any and all
related documentation in a timely manner.

No request for modification of the proposal shall be considered after its
submission on grounds that Proposer was not fully informed to any fact or
condition.

3.3 Addenda/Clarifications

Should discrepancies or omissions be found in this RFP or should there
be a need to clarify this RFP, questions or comments regarding this RFP
must be put in writing and received by the City no later than 1:00 p.m.,
Tuesday, May 07, 2013. Correspondence shall be e-mailed to Chris
Anastole, Contract Administrator, at chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org.
Responses from the City will be communicated in writing to all recipients
of this RFP. Inquiries received after the date and time stated will not be
accepted and will be returned to senders without response. All addenda
shall become a part of this RFP and shall be acknowledged on the
Proposers Form.

The City shall not be responsible for nor be bound by any oral instructions,
interpretations or explanations issued by the City or its representatives.

3.4 Submission of Proposals

All proposals shall be submitted to:

City of Palo Alto
Purchasing and Contract Administration
250 Hamilton Avenue, Mail Stop MB
Palo Alto, CA 94301

2
Proposals must be delivered no later than 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 21,
2013. All proposals received after that time will be returned to the
Proposer unopened.

The Proposer shall submit 6 copies of its proposal in a sealed envelope,
addressed as noted above, bearing the Proposers name and address
clearly marked, RFP NO. 149978 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT CAP EVALUATION. The use of double-
sided paper with a minimum 30% post-consumer recycled content is
strongly encouraged. Please do not submit proposals in binders.

3.4 Withdrawal of Proposals

A Proposer may withdraw its proposal at any time before the expiration of
the time for submission of proposals as provided in the RFP by delivering
a written request for withdrawal signed by, or on behalf of, the Proposer.

3.5 Rights of the City of Palo Alto

This RFP does not commit the City to enter into a contract, nor does it
obligate the City to pay for any costs incurred in preparation and
submission of proposals or in anticipation of a contract. The City reserves
the right to:

Make the selection based on its sole discretion;
Reject any and all proposals;
Issue subsequent Requests for Proposals;
Postpone opening for its own convenience;
Remedy technical errors in the Request for Proposals process;
Approve or disapprove the use of particular subconsultants;
Negotiate with any, all or none of the Proposers;
Accept other than the lowest offer;
Waive informalities and irregularities in the Proposals and/or
Enter into an agreement with another Proposer in the event the
originally selected Proposer defaults or fails to execute an agreement
with the City.

An agreement shall not be binding or valid with the City unless and until it is
executed by authorized representatives of the City and of the Proposer.

4. PROPOSED TENTATIVE TIMELINE

The tentative RFP timeline is as follows:

RFP Issued
April 22, 2013
Pre-Proposal Meeting
2:30 P.M. Tuesday, April 30, 2013
3
Deadline for questions, clarifications
1:00 P.M. Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Proposals Due
3:00 P.M. Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Finalist Identified
Week of May 27, 2013
Consultant Interviews
Week of J une 3, 2013
Consultant selection and contract preparation
Week of J une 10, 2013
Contract awarded
Week of J une 24,2013
Work commences
J uly 2013

5. INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED (to be submitted in this order only)

These instructions outline the guidelines governing the format and content of the
proposal and the approach to be used in its development and presentation. The
intent of the RFP is to encourage responses that clearly communicate the
Proposers understanding of the Citys requirements and its approach to
successfully provide the products and/or services on time and within budget.
Only that information which is essential to an understanding and evaluation of the
proposal should be submitted. Items not specifically and explicitly related to the
RFP and proposal, e.g. brochures, marketing material, etc. will not be considered
in the evaluation.

All proposals shall address the following items in the order listed below and shall
be numbered 1 through 8 in the proposal document.

5.1 Chapter 1 Proposal Summary

This Chapter shall discuss the highlights, key features and distinguishing
points of the Proposal. A separate sheet shall include a list of individuals and
contacts for this Proposal and how to communicate with them. Limit this
Chapter to a total of three (3) pages including the separate sheet.

5.2 Chapter 2 Profile on the Proposing Firm(s)

This Chapter shall include a brief description of the Prime Proposers firm
size as well as the proposed local organization structure. Include a
discussion of the Prime Proposer firms financial stability, capacity and
resources. Include all other firms participating in the Proposal, including
similar information about the firms.

Additionally, this section shall include a listing of any lawsuit or litigation and
the result of that action resulting form (a) any public project undertaken by
the Proposer or by its subcontractors where litigation is still pending or has
occurred within the last five years or (b) any type of project where claims or
settlements were paid by the consultant or its insurers within the last five
years.

5.3 Chapter 3 Qualifications of the Firm
4

This Chapter shall include a brief description of the Proposers and sub-
Proposers qualifications and previous experience on similar or related
projects and demonstrate your teams understanding of the Palo Alto
community and Downtown business operations (5 Page Max). Provide in a
table format (see Sample Table, Attachment D) descriptions of pertinent
project experience with other public municipalities and private sector that
includes a summary of the work performed, the total project cost, the
percentage of work the firm was responsible for, the period over which the
work was completed, and the name, title, and phone number of clients to be
contacted for references. Give a brief statement of the firms adherence to
the schedule and budget for the project.

Provide a Statement of Qualifications that highlights the teams experience in
conduct of transportation (traffic) and parking analyses, planning analysis,
and economic evaluations related to these issues. This experience should
include completed work related to evaluating the impacts of existing and
projected development conditions. Special attention should be given to the
firms experience in balancing commercial district needs with quality of life
issues in adjacent residential neighborhoods. In addition, the teams
experience related to zoning code review, and preparation or revisions to
comprehensive plans, as well as its general planning experience should also
be detailed. Finally, any experience in analyzing development thresholds
should be included. Include recent project reference and project cost
information. (3 Page Max)

This chapter shall include information regarding any relationships with firms
and/or individuals who may submit proposals in response to the RFPs being
developed.

5.4 Chapter 4 Work Plan or Proposal

This Chapter shall present a well-conceived service plan. Include a full
description of major tasks and subtasks. This section of the proposal shall
establish that the Proposer understands the Citys objectives and work
requirements and Proposers ability to satisfy those objectives and
requirements. Succinctly describe the proposed approach for addressing the
required services and the firms ability to meet the Citys schedule, outlining
the approach that would be undertaken in providing the requested services.

Detail the approach (task-by-task) and steps your team would take to
complete the scope of work discussed within this request for proposals.

5.5 Chapter 5 Proposed Innovations (Optional)
5

The Proposer may also suggest technical or procedural innovations that have
been used successfully on other engagements and which may provide the
City with better service delivery. In this Chapter discuss any ideas,
innovative approaches, or specific new concepts included in the Proposal
that would provide benefit to the City.

5.6 Chapter 6 Project Staffing

This Chapter shall discuss how the Proposer would propose to staff this
project. Key project team members shall be identified by name, title and
specific responsibilities on the project. Key personnel will be an important
factor considered by the review committee. Changes in key personnel may
be cause for rejection of the proposal.

Include a flow chart that highlights the internal teams reporting structure and
the relation of team members and subconsultants. Highlight the Project
Managers experience and qualifications and Quality Assurance programs to
be used as part of the project. (2 Page Max)
Include the resumes of the Project Principal and Project Manager (2 Page
Max)

5.7 Chapter 7 Proposal Exceptions

This Chapter shall discuss any exceptions or requested changes that
Proposer has to the Citys RFP conditions, requirements and sample
contract. If there are no exceptions noted, it is assumed the Proposer will
accept all conditions and requirements identified in the Attachment C
Sample Agreement for Services. Items not excepted will not be open to
later negotiation.

5.8 Chapter 8 Proposal Costs Sheet and Rates (Optional to provide in separate
sealed envelope)
The fee information is relevant to a determination of whether the fee is fair
and reasonable in light of the services to be provided. Provision of this
information assists the City in determining the firms understanding of the
project, and provides staff with tools to negotiate the cost, provide in a table
(See Table, Attachment E).
Consultant shall provide the following information
Direct labor rates for proposed staff;
Overhead rate and breakdown of overhead elements;
6
Subconsultant billing rates and mark-up percentage for ODCs (other
direct costs); and identify all reimbursable expenses.
Most recent complete financial instrument that would establish
Proposers ability to complete the obligations of the contract resulting
from this solicitation. (optional)
This Chapter shall include the proposed costs to provide the services
desired. Include any other cost and price information, plus a not-to-exceed
amount, that would be contained in a potential agreement with the City. The
hourly rates may be used for pricing the cost of additional services outlined in
the Scope of Work.
PLEASE NOTE: The City of Palo Alto does not pay for services before it
receives them. Therefore, do not propose contract terms that call for upfront
payments or deposits.

6. CONTRACT TYPE AND METHOD OF PAYMENT

It is anticipated that the agreement resulting from this solicitation, if awarded, will be
a not-to-exceed budget per task form of contract. A Sample Agreement of Services
is provided as Attachment C. The method of payment to the successful Proposer
shall be on a per task basis with a maximum not to exceed fee as set by the
Proposer in the proposal or as negotiated between the Proposer and the City as
being the maximum cost to perform all work. This figure shall include direct costs
and overhead, such as, but limited to, transportation, communications, subsistence
and materials and any subcontracted items of work. Progress payments will be
based on a percentage of project completed.

Proposers shall be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of the Agreement,
including Insurance Requirements in Attachment F. If a Proposer desires to take
exception to the Agreement, Proposer shall provide the following information in
Chapter 7 of their submittal package. Please include the following:

Proposer shall clearly identify each proposed change to the Agreement,
including all relevant Attachments.
Proposer shall furnish the reasons for, as well as specific
recommendations, for alternative language.

The above factors will be taken into account in evaluating proposals. Proposals that
take substantial exceptions to the proposed Agreement may be determined by the
City, at its sole discretion, to be unacceptable and no longer considered for award.

Insurance Requirements

7
The selected Proposer(s), at Proposers sole cost and expense and for the full term
of the Agreement or any extension thereof, shall obtain and maintain, at a minimum,
all of the insurance requirements outlined in Attachment F.

All policies, endorsements, certificates and/or binders shall be subject to the
approval of the Risk Manager of the City of Palo Alto as to form and content. These
requirements are subject to amendment or waiver if so approved in writing by the
Risk Manager. The selected Proposer agrees to provide the City with a copy of said
policies, certificates and/or endorsement upon award of contract.

7. REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS

City staff will evaluate the proposals provided based on the following criteria:

7.1 Quality and completeness of proposal;
7.2 Quality, performance and effectiveness of the solution, goods and/or
services to be provided by the Proposer;
7.3 Proposers experience, including the experience of staff to be assigned to the
project, the engagements of similar scope and complexity;
7.4 Cost to the city;
7.5 Proposers financial stability;
7.6 Proposers ability to perform the work within the time specified;
7.7 Proposers prior record of performance with city or others;
7.8 Proposers ability to provide future maintenance, repairs parts and/or
services; and
7.9 Proposers compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies (including
city council policies), guidelines and orders governing prior or existing
contracts performed by the contractor.

The selection committee will make a recommendation to the awarding authority.
The acceptance of the proposal will be evidenced by written Notice of Award
from the Citys Purchasing/Contract Administration Division to the successful
Proposer.

8. ORAL INTERVIEWS

Proposers may be required to participate in an oral interview. The oral interview will
be a panel comprised of members of the selection committee.

Proposers may only ask questions that are intended to clarify the questions that they
are being asked to respond.

Each Proposers time slot for oral interviews will be determined randomly.
Proposers who are selected shall make every effort to attend. If representatives of
the City experience difficulty on the part of any Proposer in scheduling a time for the
oral interview, it may result in disqualification from further consideration.
8

9. PUBLIC NATURE OF MATERIALS

Responses to this RFP become the exclusive property of the City of Palo Alto. At
such time as the Administrative Services Department recommends to form to the
City Manager or to the City Council, as applicable, all proposals received in
response to this RFP becomes a matter of public record and shall be regarded as
public records, with the exception of those elements in each proposal which are
defined by the Proposer as business or trade secrets and plainly marked as
Confidential, Trade Secret, or Proprietary. The City shall not in any way be
liable or responsible for the disclosure of any such proposal or portions thereof, if
they are not plainly marked as Confidential, Trade Secret, or Proprietary or if
disclosure is required under the Public Records Act. Any proposal which contains
language purporting to render all or significant portions of the proposal
Confidential, Trade Secret, or Proprietary shall be regarded as non-responsive.

Although the California Public Records Act recognizes that certain confidential trade
secret information may be protected from disclosure, the City of Palo Alto may not
accept or approve that the information that a Proposer submits is a trade secret. If a
request is made for information marked Confidential, Trade Secret, or
Proprietary, the City shall provide the Proposer who submitted the information with
reasonable notice to allow the Proposer to seek protection from disclosure by a court
of competent jurisdiction.
9

10. COLLUSION

By submitting a proposal, each Proposer represents and warrants that its proposal is
genuine and not a sham or collusive or made in the interest of or on behalf of any
person not named therein; that the Proposer has not directly induced or solicited any
other person to submit a sham proposal or any other person to refrain from
submitting a proposal; and that the Proposer has not in any manner sought collusion
to secure any improper advantage over any other person submitting a proposal.

11. DISQUALIFICATION

Factors such as, but not limited to, any of the following may be considered just
cause to disqualify a proposal without further consideration:
11.1 Evidence of collusion, directly or indirectly, among Proposers in regard to
the amount, terms or conditions of this proposal;
11.2 Any attempt to improperly influence any member of the evaluation team;
11.3 Existence of any lawsuit, unresolved contractual claim or dispute between
Proposer and the City;
11.4 Evidence of incorrect information submitted as part of the proposal;
11.5 Evidence of Proposers inability to successfully complete the
responsibilities and obligation of the proposal; and
11.6 Proposers default under any previous agreement with the City, which
results in termination of the Agreement.

12. NON-CONFORMING PROPOSAL

A proposal shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the provisions of
these RFP instructions and specifications. Any alteration, omission, addition,
variance, or limitation of, from or to a proposal may be sufficient grounds for non-
acceptance of the proposal, at the sole discretion of the City.

13. GRATUITIES

No person shall offer, give or agree to give any City employee any gratuity, discount
or offer of employment in connection with the award of contract by the city. No city
employee shall solicit, demand, accept or agree to accept from any other person a
gratuity, discount or offer of employment in connection with a city contract.

14. FIRMS OR PERSONS NOT ELIGIBLE TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL

10
11
In order to avoid any conflict of interest or perception of a conflict or interest,
Proposer(s) selected to provide professional services under this RFP will be subject
to the following requirements:

14.1 The Proposer(s) who works on the procurement will be precluded from
submitting proposals or bids as a prime contractor or subcontractor in the
ultimate procurement.
14.2 The Proposer(s) may not have interest in any potential Proposer for the
ultimate procurement.

~End of Section ~
Attachment A
Proposers Information Form

PROPOSER (please print):

Name: __________________________________________________________

Address: __________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

Telephone: _______________________ Fax: ______________________________

Contact person, title, email, telephone and fax number: __________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Proposer, if selected, intends to carry on the business as (check one):

Individual J oint Venture

Partnership

Corporation

When incorporated? ______________

In what state? _______________

When authorized to do business in California? _______

Other (explain):____________________________________________________

ADDENDA

To assure that all Proposers have received each addendum, check the appropriate box(es)
below. Failure to acknowledge receipt of an addendum/addenda may be considered an
irregularity in the Proposal:

Addendum number(s) received: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6;

Or, _____ _____No Addendum/Addenda Were Received (check and initial).

PROPOSERS SIGNATURE
No proposal shall be accepted which has not been signed in ink in the appropriate space below:

City of Palo Alto RFP 149978
By signing below, the submission of a proposal shall be deemed a
representation and certification by the Proposer that they have investigated
all aspects of the RFP, that they are aware of the applicable facts pertaining
to the RFP process, its procedures and requirements, and they have read
and understand the RFP. No request for modification of the proposal shall be
considered after its submission on the grounds that the Proposer was not
fully informed as to any fact or condition.

Attachment A Proposer Information continued

1. If Proposer is INDIVIDUAL, sign here

Date:______________ _____________________________________
Proposers Signature

_____________________________________
Proposers typed name and title

2. If Proposer is PARTNERSHIP or JOINT VENTURE; at least two (2) Partners shall
sign here:

________________________________________________
Partnership or J oint Venture Name (type or print)

Date:______________ _____________________________________
Member of the Partnership or J oint Venture signature

Date:______________ _____________________________________
Member of the Partnership or J oint Venture signature

3. If Proposer is a CORPORATION, the duly authorized officer shall sign as follows:

The undersigned certify that he/she is respectively:

_________________________________ and ___________________________
Signature Title

Of the corporation named below; that they are designated to sign the Proposal Cost Form by
resolution (attach a certified copy, with corporate seal, if applicable, notarized as to its
authenticity or Secretarys certificate of authorization) for and on behalf of the below named
CORPORATION, and that they are authorized to execute same for and on behalf of said
CORPORATION.

______________________________________
Corporation Name (type or print)

By:______________________________________ Date: _________________

Title:__________________________________________
Attachment B Scope

Purpose:
The City of Palo Alto is requesting proposals from qualified and experienced
transportation and planning consultant firms to evaluate existing and projected parking,
traffic and land use conditions in the Downtown Palo Alto. The overall evaluation must
also contain a sound economic analysis focused on growth demands related to various
downtown land uses. The analysis should be done within the context of the existing
development cap (Downtown Development Cap) in the Commercial Downtown (CD)
area of Palo Alto, with a particular emphasis on growth in Downtown and associated
impacts on parking and traffic.

In 1986, the City adopted the Downtown Development Cap, primarily due to traffic and
parking concerns, along with incentives for future development and redevelopment.
These policies were applied to the CD area and restricted future non-residential
development to a total of 350,000 square feet beyond what was in existence or approved
in May 1986. Residential development was purposely excluded from the development to
encourage people in order to encourage future residents to live in close proximity to jobs.
CD development regulations were to be reevaluated when new, non-residential
development reached 235,000 square feet. This evaluation milestone has recently been
reached with the submittal of several development applications. A Parking Assessment
District (PAD) was also established prior to the 1986 study and remains in effect today,
though it has been expanded during the interim.

This RFP is for first phase of the Downtown Development Cap evaluation, primarily
focused on gathering data, and evaluating existing and projected conditions. In the future,
an RFP for the second phase of this study will be released, to seek transportation and
planning (Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, etc.) policy recommendations using the Phase
1 findings as the foundation.

Background:
As the result of a 1986 Downtown Study, the Downtown Area was rezoned to
Commercial Downtown (CD). This rezoning created Floor Area Ratios (FARs) and
other zoning regulations that were generally more restrictive than the previous zoning,
especially as it related to commercial properties adjacent to residential neighborhoods. In
addition to the new zoning regulations, a CD development cap policy (Downtown
Development Cap) was adopted. This policy restricted future non-residential
development to a total of 350,000 square feet above what was in existence or approved in
the CD area as of May 1986. CD development regulations were to be reevaluated when
new development reached 235,000 square feet. Residential development was purposely
excluded from the development to encourage people in order to encourage future
residents to live in close proximity to jobs. There were a number of other specific
policies related to growth in the CD area as well. The measures that resulted from the
1986 Downtown Study are attached to this RFP. Citywide growth limits, and growth
limits in other districts were also established at that time.

The 1986 Downtown Study required that City Staff monitor and submit an annual report
to the City Council regarding development activity, vacancy rates and commercial lease
rates in order to evaluate the effectiveness of these regulations. The most recent City
Council report (Attachment 2), released on March 11, 2013, provided information related
to the 2011-12 time period. This report showed that the downtown area had fully
recovered from the recession and that only 11,790 square feet of new non-residential
development remains available (as of the end of 2012) before the re-evaluation limit of
235,000 square feet would be reached. Some developments have been approved since
that time, such that the evaluation milestone has now been reached.

Parking
Parking intrusion into adjacent residential neighborhoods and parking permit supply are
both major concerns. These concerns are not new, but there has been an increasing
amount of attention focused on parking impacts with the improving economy. Parking
was a key focus of the 1986 study. For example, as a result of the study, a parking policy
was adopted that specified that new development should not increase the parking deficit
beyond the 1986 deficit. Since that time parking garages have been built which have
reduced the deficit, though concerns remain. These impacts may be exacerbated by
zoning code assumptions which may not be consistent with modern planning and
transportation engineering practices, such as the number of employees assumed on a per
square foot basis in tech companies, particularly start-ups. Staff has also recently
initiated a study of potential parking garage feasibility on five sites in the downtown area,
which should inform the Downtown Development
Cap study as well.

A Downtown Parking Assessment District was first formed in 1978, and has been
subsequently restructured several times. The Downtown Parking Assessment District,
which is financially supported by downtown property owners via bond financing, paid for
the construction of several downtown garages. Maintenance and operation costs of
garages are funded through permit fees. Bonds financing restrictions, however, limit the
way in which these garages can be utilized. After the formation of assessment district
and the preparation of the 1986 Downtown Study, the zoning code was amended to allow
several exemptions to parking requirements, including a 1:1 FAR exemption, 200
square foot minor parking exemption and a Transfer of Development Rights program,
which allows square footage bonuses and parking exemptions to be transferred to other
properties in certain cases.

Traffic
Traffic is another concern. Several policies were adopted in the 1986 plan, and numerous
transportation improvements have been implemented in the CD and surrounding areas
since that time. Transportation improvements include enhancements to the automobile,
bicycle and pedestrian networks. In addition, the City has required Transportation
Demand Management policies for a few recent downtown developments and businesses.
The proximity of Downtown and Stanford to the Palo Alto Downtown Caltrain station
and other transit services, along with the transportation initiatives of several firms and
Stanford have contributed to the Downtown Caltrain station having the highest ridership
at any Caltrain station other than at the San Francisco terminus. In addition, the City of
Palo Alto has a top-rated bicycle network, and continues to adopt policies and programs
and to enhance facilities to improve this network. Nonetheless, traffic congestion
remains a major concern in the area, and is one of the primary aspects of the Downtown
Development Cap evaluation and subsequent recommendations.

Planning and Zoning
In addition to parking and traffic policies, there are several planning related policies that
are tied to the Downtown Development Cap. For example, a Ground Floor Combining
District was created within the CD area, which encourages pedestrian uses, and limits
business to retail eating and drinking uses. Office uses, which can typically attract higher
rents, are allowed on upper floors and at the perimeter of the CD area. CD zoning also
encourages seismic and historic upgrades to buildings by allowing property owners who
make these improvements to expand beyond normal FAR limitations and/or to add floor
area without providing parking. The property owners may also transfer (sell) those
development rights to another property in the CD area.

The City is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan, including the
Transportation and Land Use elements. Currently the document refers to and bases
several policies on the 1986 Downtown Study. In addition, there are several ongoing
efforts related to parking management, including the parking garage study and
consideration of several other parking programs such as attendant parking and residential
permit parking, all of which will be under study simultaneous with the Downtown Cap
study. Finally, some potential proposed developments would be located just outside the
CD area (Peripheral Impact Area on the map). Although these developments are not
directly related to the original Downtown Development Cap, traffic and parking related
to these developments may impact the Downtown area and should be addressed or
referenced as well.

Scope of Work:
The City of Palo Alto is requesting proposals from qualified and well-experienced
transportation and planning firms to evaluate existing and projected parking, traffic and
land use conditions in the Downtown Palo Alto. The selected consultant must work
closely with the Citys planning, transportation and economic development staff during
the process, and must make presentations to the Planning and Transportation Commission
and City Council, as well as various community groups as needed. This RFP is for the
first phase of a study that will contain two phases. An RFP for the second phase will
be sent out at a future date. This Phase 1 proposal should include the following
components:

1. Review of Prior Downtown Study and Related Documents
The selected consultant for the project will review the 1986 Downtown Study report and
related materials, as well as subsequent monitoring reports, Comprehensive Plan policies,
zoning regulations, and any other relevant documents Given the City is in the process of
updating the Comprehensive Plan, particular importance should be paid to
Comprehensive Plan policies, and recent Planning & Transportation Commission
discussions on the various Plan elements. A thorough review of the 1986 Downtown
Study and associated environmental documents is also critical, as it provides the context
for many of the adopted Comp Plan policies.

2. Existing Conditions Evaluation
The selected consultant will be responsible for evaluating existing traffic and parking
conditions in the Downtown and immediately surrounding areas. Existing level of
service studies should be conducted for key intersections and roadway segments. The
selected consultant should work closely with the planning and transportation staff during
the existing conditions process to ensure the correct intersections and roadway segments
are be evaluated. In addition, the selected consultant should evaluate existing visitor
(hourly) and permit parking conditions in the Downtown and surrounding areas. At a
minimum, studies should include:
Existing traffic counts and level of service for identified intersections.
Existing on-street and off-street parking spaces, capacity and occupancy, based on
staffs continuing efforts and adjusted as needed to reflect the needs of the Downtown
Development Cap Study.
Identification of downtown development over the past 10 years and estimated impacts
of that development and trends over that timeframe, including the application of
parking exemptions for transfer of development rights and other code provisions.
Identification of non-conforming buildings (from a use and/or parking standpoint)
that have converted to higher intensity office uses over the past 5 years.
A definition of the parking intrusion, saturation, deficit, or other term and
how that is best applied to the study area and surrounding neighborhoods.

3. Projected Growth Impact Analysis
Using the existing conditions report as the foundation, the selected consultant should
evaluate scenarios for potential development, and future level of service (LOS) of key
intersections and roadway segments based on projected growth. In addition, future
commercial and nearby residential parking conditions should also be evaluated based on
growth scenarios. The parking analysis should be completed for the Downtown visitor
and permit parking, as well as street parking in the surrounding residential
neighborhoods. The projected traffic and parking conditions should be based on the
existing development cap policies and zoning code regulations. At a minimum,
studies should include:
A five-year and ten-year scenario of potential ranges of development, assuming the
continued use of transfer of development rights and other existing provisions.
Estimated changes to levels of service at key intersections based on potential
increased growth.
Estimated parking demand required by increased growth under each scenario and
the likely impact of the demand on available parking in residential neighborhoods.
The likely impact of parking reductions based on the proximity of new development to
Caltrain and other transit, bicycling and walking facilities, based on surveys of
existing employee ridership for Downtown businesses and Stanford.

Public Outreach and Participation
It is expected that Phase 1 of the Downtown Development Cap study will be the focus of
a series of public meetings over a 6-month period. It is also expected that the public
participation process will be guided by the formation and periodic meeting of a
Downtown Cap Stakeholders Task Force. Public outreach may include, at a minimum:
Periodic meetings with the Downtown Cap Stakeholder Task Force. This group
would be comprised of downtown neighborhood representatives, downtown property
owners, downtown business owners, and other interested individuals or
organizations. Others may be included as recommended by the City Council. It is
expected that there would be 11-15 committee members and they would meet
approximately 3 times during the first phase of this study.
1-2 Larger community meetings with the broad Downtown community, including
businesses, residents, and others.
Meetings or focus groups with specific interests, such as the Downtown North,
University South, and Professorville neighborhoods, the Downtown Business
Improvement District, and/or the Chamber of Commerces Downtown Parking
Committee.
At least 1-2 meetings with the Planning and Transportation Commission.
At least 1-2 meetings with the City Council.
The proposal should outline a suggested proposal for public involvement, including the
Downtown Cap Stakeholder Task Force process, but staff expects that a minimum of
three (3) Downtown Cap Stakeholder Committee meetings, and 1-2 Planning and
Transportation Commission and/or Council meetings should be included, as well at least
1 general community meeting and early and regular consultation with the interest groups
outlined above. An early scoping meeting with the Planning and Transportation
Commission should be used to refine the desired public outreach approach.

Phase 2: Policy Analysis
Although not the subject of this RFP, an RFP for a second phase of this study will be
released subsequent to the completion of Phase 1. This scope of work for this second
phase has not yet been completed, however it is expected that the effort will require a
consultant team to make planning and transportation policy recommendations using the
Phase 1 findings, an economic analysis and community input. Therefore, consultants
submitting proposals in response to the subject, Phase 1 RFP, must be qualified to submit
a proposal for Phase 2 work in the future.

Pricing on Proposals should be honored for up to 4 months to allow the city an
opportunity to complete the award of a consultant agreement through the City Council.

EXHIBITS TO THE SCOPE:

EXHIBIT A: 1986 Downtown Study Results Summary
EXHIBIT B: Map of Downtown Commercial (CD) District and Peripheral Study Area
EXHIBIT C: List of Approved Non-Residential Projects (1986-2012)
EXHIBIT D: Parking Deficit from 09/01/1986 to 08/21/2013
EXHIBIT E: Commercial Downtown (CD) and SOFA 2 CAP Floor Area by Use
Category
EXHIBIT F: Downtown Monitoring Report for 2011-12
EXHIBIT G: Map of Study Area

ATTACHMENT C SAMPLE AGREEMENT
Attachment C Sample Agreement

CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND


This Agreement is entered into on this day of , ,
(Agreement) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered
municipal corporation (CITY), and , a , located at
("CONSULTANT").

RECITALS

The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.

A. CITY intends to (Project) and desires to engage a consultant to in
connection with the Project (Services).

B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise,
qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the
Services.

C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to
provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit A, attached to and made a part
of this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and
conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree:

AGREEMENT

SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services
described in Exhibit A in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this
Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of
CITY.

CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for work performed under an authorized
Task Order and the City may elect, but is not required, to authorize work up to the
maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 4.

SECTION 2. TERM.
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through
unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.

City of Palo Alto RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT
OR

The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through
completion of the services in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached as
Exhibit B unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.

SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the
performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the
Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth
in Exhibit B, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which
times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and
completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the
circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITYs agreement to
extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages
for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.

SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit A, including
both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed
Dollars ($ ). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total
compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Dollars
($ ).The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit C-1,
entitled HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE, which is attached to and made a part of this
Agreement.

Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the
provisions of Exhibit C. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for
Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY.
Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for
the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of
Services described in Exhibit A.

SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit
monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable
charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours
worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANTs
billing rates (set forth in Exhibit C-1). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the
percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANTs payment
requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices
to the Citys project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will
generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt.

SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall
be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANTs supervision.
CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel
necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have
sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT
represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain
during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and
approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services.

All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet
the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same
discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout
California under the same or similar circumstances.

SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself
informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances,
regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of
the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement.
CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give
all notices required by law in the performance of the Services.

SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to
CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to
CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared
plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project,
CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities
discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation
shall survive termination of the Agreement.

SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public
works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at
each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal
exceeds ten percent (10%) of the CITYs stated construction budget, CONSULTANT
shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJ ECT design with the
budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the
Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY.

SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in
performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person
employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under
this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or
employee of the CITY.

SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of
CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall
not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of
CONSULTANTs obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city
manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent
assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void.

SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING.

Option A: No Subcontractor: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of
the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of
the city manager or designee.

Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY
agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants
authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are:

CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for
any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever
concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts
and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants
only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee.

SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign
as the to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and
execution of the Services and as the project to represent CONSULTANT
during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the
project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the
appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or
replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITYs project
manager. CONSULTANT, at CITYs request, shall promptly remove personnel who
CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or
present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the
safety of persons or property.

The Citys project manager is , Department, Division, Palo
Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: . The project manager will be CONSULTANTs point
of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The
CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time.

SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product,
including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications,
calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this
Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or
limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from
creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and
CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual
property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any,
shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the
prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no
representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to
circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work.

SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable
time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter,
CONSULTANTs records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement.
CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3)
years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.

SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.

[Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code
Section 2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers
and licensed professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law,
CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council
members, officers, employees and agents (each an Indemnified Party) from and against
any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any
person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever
nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (Claims)
that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct
of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this
Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party.

16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be
construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims
arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an
Indemnified Party.

16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANTs services and duties by CITY
shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this
Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.

SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any
covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any
ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant,
condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the
same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law.

SECTION 18. INSURANCE.

18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and
maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance
coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall
obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general
liability or automobile policy or policies.

18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided
through carriers with AM Bests Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are
licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and
all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement
will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement,
identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies
as required above.

18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY
concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the
approval of CITYs Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the
insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage
or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days'
prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies
the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days notice to CONSULTANT,
CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation
or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANTs receipt of such
notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates
evidencing the insurance are provided to CITYs Purchasing Manager during the entire
term of this Agreement.

18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will
not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the
indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of
insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage,
injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under
this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is
terminated or the term has expired.

SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR
SERVICES.

19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services,
in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10)
days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice,
CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services.

19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its
performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to
CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY.

19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall
deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches,
drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by
CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors,
if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of
CITY.

19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT
will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with
the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of
suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or
terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to
compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANTs services which
are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the
City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following
Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4,
20, and 25.

19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by
CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this
Agreement.

SECTION 20. NOTICES.

All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid,
by certified mail, addressed as follows:

To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303

With a copy to the Purchasing Manager

To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director
at the address of CONSULTANT recited above

SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it
presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or
otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the
Services.

21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this
Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an
interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial
interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be
interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
and the Government Code of the State of California.

21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a
Consultant as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices
Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate
financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the
Political Reform Act.

SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code
section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it
shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color,
gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing
status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT
acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties
for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining
to nondiscrimination in employment.

SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO
WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the Citys
Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the Citys
Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to
time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal
requirements of the Citys Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first
minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting
waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste
requirements:
All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a
personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals,
quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-
sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content
paper, unless otherwise approved by the Citys Project Manager. Any
submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a
minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with
vegetable based inks.
Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in
accordance with the Citys Environmental Purchasing Policy including but
not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products
and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office.
Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no
additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide
documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets
are not being disposed.

SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION

24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of
the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate
without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not
appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the
event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this
Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a
conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of
California.

25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of
such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of
Santa Clara, State of California.

25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the
provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover
an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys
employed by it as well as any attorneys fees paid to third parties.

25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement
between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts,
either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument,
which is signed by the parties.

25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement
will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees,
and consultants of the parties.

25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision
of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected
provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and
effect.

25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda,
appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may
be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated
in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement.

25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with
CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section
1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (Personal Information), CONSULTANT shall
maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal
Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a
breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information.
CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without
Citys express written consent.

25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant
that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal
entities.

25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which
shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement
Attachment D
SAMPLE TABLE FORMAT
QUALIFICATIONS OF FIRM RELATIVE TO CITYS NEEDS

Project Name

Client

Description of work
performed

Total Project Cost

Percentage of work
firm as responsible for

Period work was
completed

Client contact
information*

Did your firm meet the project schedule (Circle one) : Yes No

Give a brief statement of the firms adherence to the schedule and budget for the project:







*Include name, title and phone number.

Attachment E
SAMPLE COST PROPOSAL FORMAT RFP

(The City is looking for a submittal in this format content should match cost for scope of services required)

Scope

Labor Categories
(e.g., Consultant, Sr. Consultant, etc.)

Est.
Hours

Hourly
Rate

Extended
Rate
$ $
$ $
Task 1
$ $

TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED, TASK 1

$

$
$ $
$ $ Task 2
$ $


$

$
$ $
$ $ Task 3
$ $


$

$
TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED
(TASKS 1 3)

$

$


Attachment F

Rev. 11/07 City of Palo Alto RFP 149978

CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT
OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY
COMPANIES WITH AM BESTS KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE
BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITYS INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW:
MINIMUM LIMITS
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
EACH
OCCURRENCE
AGGREGATE
YES
YES
WORKERS COMPENSATION
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY
STATUTORY
STATUTORY

YES

GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING
PERSONAL INJ URY, BROAD FORM
PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL
LIABILITY
BODILY INJ URY

PROPERTY DAMAGE

BODILY INJ URY & PROPERTY DAMAGE
COMBINED.
$1,000,000

$1,000,000

$1,000,000

$1,000,000

$1,000,000

$1,000,000

YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING
ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED
BODILY INJ URY
- EACH PERSON
- EACH OCCURRENCE

PROPERTY DAMAGE

BODILY INJ URY AND PROPERTY
DAMAGE, COMBINED
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000

$1,000,000

$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000

$1,000,000

$1,000,000
YES

PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY,
INCLUDING, ERRORS AND
OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN
APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT
PERFORMANCE

ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000

YES
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND
EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY
RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND
ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION, EMPLOYERS
LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS,
OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.

I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:

A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF
COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND

B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTORS
AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.

C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITYS PRIOR APPROVAL.

II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.

III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO ADDITIONAL INSUREDS

A. PRIMARY COVERAGE

WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS
AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY
OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.

B. CROSS LIABILITY

Attachment F

Rev. 11/07 City of Palo Alto RFP 149978

THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY
SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER,
BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL
LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.

C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION

1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE
NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY
(30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.

2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF
PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN
NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.

NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO:

PURCHASING AND
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
CITY OF PALO ALTO
P.O. BOX 10250
PALO ALTO, CA 94303.

DOWNTOWN STUDY RESULTS SUMMARY (July 1986)

The following are the primary measures adopted as a result of the study:

1. A new Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district, including three sub districts (CD-C, CD-S and CD-N), was created and
applied to most of the Downtown area previously zoned Community Commercial (CC) or Service Commercial (CS). The
basic provisions of the CD district include floor area ratios (FARs) that are more restrictive than in the previous CC and CS
zones, limits to project size and to the overall amount of future development, and special development regulations for sites
adjacent to residential zones.

2. Growth limits were applied to the CD district restricting future development to a total of 350,000 square feet beyond what was
existing or approved in May 1986 and providing for a re-evaluation of the CD regulations when new development reaches
235,000 square feet. In addition, 100,000 square feet of the total new floor area was reserved for projects demonstrating
special public benefits and 75,000 square feet for projects which qualify for seismic, historic or minor expansion exemptions.

3. Exemptions to the floor area ratio restrictions of the CD zone were established for certain building expansions involving
historic structures, seismic rehabilitation, provision of required handicapped access, or one-time additions of 200 square feet or
less.

4. New parking regulations were established for the University Avenue Parking Assessment District that requires new non-
residential development to provide parking at a rate of one space per 250 square feet of floor area. Exemptions to this
requirement are provided for certain increases in floor area related to provision of handicapped access, seismic or historic
rehabilitation, one-time minor additions (200 square feet or less) and development of vacant land previously assessed for
parking. The regulations also permit, in certain instances, off-site parking and parking fees in lieu of on-site parking.

5. Performance measures were established that specify that new development in the Downtown should not increase the total
parking deficit beyond that expected from development that was existing or approved through May, 1986 (1600 spaces) and
that call for re-evaluation of the parking exemption regulations when the unmet parking demand, resulting from exemptions,
reaches one half (225 parking spaces) of the minimum 450 parking spaces deemed necessary for construction of a new public
parking structure. Staff was directed to monitor the parking deficit.

6. A new Ground Floor (GF) Combining District was created and applied to the area along University Avenue and portions of the
EXHIBIT A
major side streets between Lytton and Hamilton Avenues, in order to restrict the amount of ground floor area devoted to uses
other than retail, eating and drinking or personal service.

7. Staff was directed to monitor the Downtown area in terms of development activity, vacancy rates, sales tax revenues, and
commercial lease rates to facilitate evaluation of the effectiveness of the new regulations.

8. Staff was directed to undertake a site and feasibility study to evaluate an additional public parking structure elsewhere in the
Downtown, to consider development of a parking facility on public lots S, L and F, and to explore the possibility of leasing or
purchasing privately-owned vacant lots suitable as parking structure sites.

9. Policies and regulations were adopted which encourage Planned Community (PC) zoning for parking structures and limit
underground parking to two levels below grade, unless there is proof that regular pumping of subsurface water will not be
necessary.

10. A Twelve-Point Parking Program was adopted to increase the efficiency of existing parking.

11. Traffic policies were adopted which prohibit new traffic signals on portions of Alma Street and Middlefield Road, and prohibit
a direct connection from Sand Hill Road to Palo Alto/Alma Street. In addition, new signs were approved directing through
traffic off of University Avenue and onto Hamilton and Lytton Avenues.

12. Staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) were directed to consider the possibility of an Urban Design Plan for
Downtown and to develop design guidelines for commercial structures in neighborhood transition areas and for driveways
which cross pedestrian walkways.

13. A temporary Design and Amenities Committee was created and charged with developing an incentive program (including FAR
increases of up to 1.5) to encourage private development to provide a variety of public amenities in the Downtown area.

14. Staff was directed to study possible restrictions on the splitting and merging of parcels as well as the establishment of
minimum lot sizes in the new CD district.

COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN (CD) ZONE DISTRICT MAP

;;9
- ,
o
o
il

i =
!i
0,
,
.,
:
EXHIBIT B

Page 1

CD NON-RESIDENTIAL CHANGE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE 09/01/86 TO 08/31/12
Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential
Square Footage
Seismic, Historic,
or Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in
non-Residential
Floor Area

520 Ramona Street
A

CDCGFP

11/20/84

-

400

+400

220 University Avenue

CDCGFP

2/5/87

-

65

+65

151 Homer Avenue

CDSP

3/17/88

-

-

-9,750

314 Lytton Avenue

CDCP

5/5/88

-

-

-713

247-275 Alma Street

CDNP

8/4/88

-

-

+1,150

700 Emerson Street

CDSP

9/15/88

-

-

+4,000

431 Florence Street

CDCP

9/15/88

-

2,500

+2,500


CDCGFP

12/15/88

-

4,958

+4,958

401 Florence Street

CDCP

3/2/89

-

2,407

+2,407

619 Cowper Street

CDCP

5/6/89

-

-

+2,208


PC-3872

5/15/89

11,000
B

300

+20,300


CDCP

6/1/89

-

-

-371
EXHIBIT C

Page 2
Bonus Non
Residential
Square Footage
Seismic, Historic,
or Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in
non-Residential
Floor Area

529 Bryant Street

PC-3974

5/3/90

2,491
C

2,491

+2,491

305 Lytton Avenue

CDCP

9/28/90

-

200

+200

550 Lytton Avenue
DE

CDCP

10/22/90

-

-

+4,845

531 Cowper Street

PC-4052

5/21/91

9,000

475

+9,475

540 Bryant Street

CDCGFP

3/24/92

-

404

+404

530/534 Bryant Street

CDCGFP

4/15/93

-

432

+432

555 Waverley Street/425
Hamilton Avenue
E

CDCP

9/21/93

-

-

+2,064


CDCGFP

11/18/93

-

2,450

+2,450

Page 3
Bonus Non
Residential
Square Footage
Seismic, Historic,
or Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in
non/Residential
Floor Area

518 Bryant Street

CDCGFP

3/3/94

-

180

+180

245 Lytton Avenue

CDCP

7/21/94

-

-

-21,320

400 Emerson Street
EF

PC-4238

9/19/94
-
200

+4,715

443 Emerson Street

CDCGFP

1/5/95

-

26

+26

420 Emerson Street

CDCP

3/16/95

-

125

+125


CDCGFP

4/6/95
- -
-402


CDCGFP

4/20/95
- -
-2,500


CDCGFP

5/18/95

-

7,486

+7,486

536 Ramona Street

CDCGFP

7/11/95

-

134

+134

725/753 Alma Street

PC-4283

7/17/95

-
-
-1,038

552 Emerson Street

CDCGFP

7/18/95

-

177

+177

G

PC-4296

10/2/95

3,467
C

2,789

+7,289


CDCGFP

9/21/95

-

2,803

+2,803

Page 4
Bonus Non
Residential
Square Footage
Seismic, Historic,
or Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in
non/Residential
Floor Area

901/909 Alma Street
E,F

PC-4389

8/1/96

-

-

+4,425


CD-C(GF)(P)

9/19/96

-

1,853

+1,853

401 High Street

CD-C(P)

10/3/96

-

350

+350

430 Kipling Street
D,H

CD-C(P)

10/22/96

-

200

+1,412

460-476 University
Avenue

CD-C(GF)(P)

3/20/97

-

1,775

+1,775

400 Emerson Street
D

PC-4238

3/21/97

-

-

+2,227

275 Alma Street

CD-N(P)

7/8/97

-

200

+3,207

390 Lytton Avenue

PC-4436

7/14/97

8,420
C

689

+17,815

411 High Street
H

CDCP

12/18/97

-

2,771
+2,771
530 Ramona CDCGFP 05/20/99 - 2852 +2852
705 Alma St CDSP 09/21/99 - 2814 +2814
200 Hamilton Ave CDCP 10/21/99 - 10913 +10913
550 Lytton Ave CDCP 08/11/00 - - +93

Page 5
Bonus Non
Residential
Square Footage
Seismic, Historic,
or Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in
Non Residential
Floor Area
437 Kipling St CDCGFP 02/01/01 - - +945
701 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +434
723 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +400
880 - 884 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +312
539 Alma St CDCGFP 10/23/01 - 2,500 +2,500
270 University Ave CDCGFP 11/01/01 - 2,642 +2,642
901 High St.
E, F
CDSP 12/12/02 - - +12,063
800 High St.
I
PC-4779 02/03/03 - - -15,700
164 Hamilton Ave CDCP 01/13/05 - - -2,799
335 University Ave CDCGFP 08/10/05 - 4,500
J
+5,249
382 University Ave CDCGFP 07/27/06 - 194 +194
102 University Ave CDCGFP 10/10/2006 - - +8

325 Lytton Ave CDCP 5/2006 - - +17,515

Page 6
Bonus Non
Residential
Square Footage
Seismic, Historic,
or Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in
Non Residential
Floor Area
310 University Ave CDCGFP 07/31/2008 - 7,481 +7,481
317-323 University Ave CDCGFP 01/2008 - 2,500 +3,290
564 University Ave CDCP 7/2008 - 2,500 +4,475
278 University CDCGFP 11/2008 - - +137
265 Lytton CDCP 7/2010 - 3,712 +21,151
340 University CDCP 12/2010 - - -1,360
524 Hamilton CDCP 2/2011 - 5,200 +9,345
630 Ramona CDCP 6/2011 - 437 +437
668 Ramona CDCP 7/2011 - 4,940 +4,940
661 Bryant CDCP 2/2011 - 1,906 0
335-355 Alma CDCP 8/11 9,700 - 49,863
Totals 1986-2012 44,078 93,931 223,219

A: Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium (9/84 to 9/86), but was not included in the Downtown EIRs pipeline projects. As a result, the project is counted among
the CD Districts nonresidential development approvals since the enactment of the Downtown Study Policies in 1986

B: Through Assessment District project provided additional 64 public parking spaces as part of public benefit instead of required 44 private spaces

C: Project exceeded square footage otherwise allowed by zoning

Page 7

D: Project converted residential space to non-residential space. Net non-residential space counts toward the 350,000 square foot limit

E: Project included covered parking that counts as floor area but not counted 350,000 square foot limit

F: Project was approved pursuant to PAMC Sections 18.83.120 or 18.83.130 which allow for a reduction in the number required parking spaces for shared parking facilities, joint
use parking facilities, or substitution of 8 bike parking spaces for one vehicle space.

G. In addition, project paid in-lieu fee for loss of 2 on-site parking spaces

H: In addition, projects paid in-lieu fee for loss of 4 on-site spaces

I: Part of the SOFA 2 CAP

J: Transfer of Development Right (TDR) agreement with 230 and 232 Homer Avenue. 5000 total sq ft of TDR but only 4,500 sq. ft used for Non Residential Floor Area.

Page 1
CD PARKING DEFICIT FROM 9/1/86 to 8/31/2012

PROJECT
ADDRESS

ZONING

NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA

ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED

NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES

PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC

NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE

TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT

1986 deficit

1,601

520 Ramona
Street
A

CDCGFP

+400

2

0

0

+2

1,603

220 University
Avenue

CDCGFP

+65

0

0

0

0

1,603

151 Homer
Avenue

CDSP

-9,750

0

11

0

-50

1,553

314 Lytton
Avenue

CDCP

-713

0

0

0

-3

1,550

247-275 Alma
Street

CDNP

+1,150

5

5

0

0

1,550

700 Emerson
Street

CDSP

+4,000

16

16

0

0

1,550

431 Florence St

CDCP

+2,500

10

0

10

+10

1,560

EXHIBIT D

Page 2

PROJECT
ADDRESS

ZONING

NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA

ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED

NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES

PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC

NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE

TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
156 University
Avenue
CDCGFP +4,958 20 0 20 +20 1,580

401 Florence
Street

CDCP

+2,407

10

0

10

+10

1,590

619 Cowper
Street

CDCP

+2,208

9

9

0

0

1,590

250 University
Avenue

PC-3872

+20,300

103

131
B

0

-28

1,562

550 University
Avenue

CDCP
-371
0

0

0

-1

1,561

529 Bryant
Street

PC-3974

+2,491

10

0

10

+10

1,571

520 Webster
Street
C

PC-3499

0

0

163

0

-163

1,408

305 Lytton Ave

CDCP

+200

1

0

1

+1

1,409

550 Lytton
Avenue

CDCP

+4,845

19

19

0

0

1,409

Downtown

Extensive restriping by Transportation Division of on and off/street parking

-96

1,313

Page 3

PROJECT
ADDRESS

ZONING

NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA

ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED

NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES

PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC

NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE

TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
531 Cowper
Street
PC-4052 +9,475 38 0 2 +38 1,351

540 Bryant
Street

CDCGFP

+404

2

0

2

+2

1,353

530/534 Bryant
Street

CDCGFP

+432

2

0

2

+2

1,355

555 Waverley
Street/425
Hamilton
Avenue
D

CDCP

+2,064

8

0

0

+8

1,363

201 University
Avenue

CDCGFP

+2,450

10

0

10

+10

1,373

518 Bryant
Street

CDCGFP

+180

1

0

1

+1

1,374

245 Lytton Ave

CDCP

-21,320

90

149

0

-59

1,315

400 Emerson
Street

PC-4238

+4,715

18

5

1

+14

1,329

443 Emerson
Street

CDCGFP

+26

0

0

0

0

1,329

Page 4

PROJECT
ADDRESS

ZONING

NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA

ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED

NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES

PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC

NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE

TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
420 Emerson
Street
CDCP +125 1 0 1 +1 1,336

340 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
-402

0

0

0

-2

1,334

281 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
-2,500

0

0

0

-10

1,324

456 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+7,486

30

0

30

+30

1,354

536 Ramona
Street
CDCGFP
+134

1

0

1

+1

1,355

725-753 Alma
Street

PC-4283

-1,038

7

7

0

-11

1,344

552 Emerson
Street

CDCGFP

+177

1

0

1

+1

1,345

483 University
Avenue

PC-4296

+7,289

29

-2
E

11

+31

1,376

424 University
Avenue

CDCGFP

+2,803

11

0

11

+11

1,387

901/909 Alma

PC-4389

+4,425

18

18

0

0

1,387

Page 5

PROJECT
ADDRESS

ZONING

NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA

ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED

NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES

PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC

NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE

TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
Street
D

171 University
Avenue

CDCGFP

+1,853

7

0

7

+7

1,394

401 High Street

CDCP

+350

1

0

1

+1

1,395

430 Kipling
Street

CDCP

+1,412

5

-4
E

1

+10

1,405

460/476
University
Avenue

CDCGFP

+1,775

7

0

7

+7

1,412

400 Emerson
Street

PC-4238

+2,227

9

0

0

+9

1,421

275 Alma
Street
F

CDNP

+3,207

0

0

1

+1

1,422

390 Lytton
Avenue

PC-4436

+17,815

74

50

3

+27

1,449

411 High Street

CDCP

+2,771

0

-4
E

11

+15

1,464
530 Ramona CDCGFP 2852 11 0 11 +11 1475

Page 6

PROJECT
ADDRESS

ZONING

NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA

ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED

NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES

PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC

NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE

TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
705 Alma St CDSP 2814 11 0 11 +11 1486
200 Hamilton
Ave
CDCP 10,913 44 3
E
35 +41 1527
550 Lytton Ave CDCP 93 0 0 0 0 1527
528 High St PF 0 0 138
G
0 -138 1389
445 Bryant PF 0 0 575
G
0 -575 814
437 Kipling St CDCGFP 945 4 0
E
2 +4 818
701 Emerson St CDSP 434 2 1 1 +1 819
723 Emerson St CDSP 400 2 2 0 0 819
880 / 884
Emerson St
CDSP 312 2 5 0 -3 816

Page 7

PROJECT
ADDRESS

ZONING

NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA

ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED

NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES

PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC

NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE

TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
539 Alma St CDCGFP 2,500 10 0 10 +10 826
270 University
Ave
CDCGFP 2,642 11 0
E
11 +11 837
SUBTOTAL
86-02
106,930 672 1297 236 -764 837
901 High St. CDSP 12,063 59
D
60 0 -1 836
800 High St.
H
PC-4779 -15,700 0 63 0 -63 773
164 Hamilton
Ave
CDCP -2499 0 0 0 0 773
335 University
Ave
I

CDCGFP 5,249 0 0 0 0 773

Page 8

PROJECT
ADDRESS

ZONING

NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA

ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED

NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES

PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC

NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE

TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
382 University
Ave
CDCGFP 194 0 0 1 +1 774
102 University
Ave
CDCGFP 8 0 0 0 0 774
310 University
Ave
CDCGFP 7,481 30 0 30 +30 804
317-323
University Ave
CDCGFP 3,290 0 0 0 0 804
564 University
Ave
CDCP 4,475 10 0 10 +10 814
325 Lytton Ave CDCP 17,515 110 6 0 -6 808
265 Lytton CDCP 21,151 106 52 0 +54 860
278 University CDCGFP +137 1 0 1 +1 861
340 University CDCP -1,360 861
524 Hamilton CDCP +9,345 31 8 23 +23 884

Page 9

PROJECT
ADDRESS

ZONING

NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA

ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED

NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES

PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC

NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE

TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
630 Ramona CDCP +437 2 0 2 +2 886
668 Ramona CDCP +4,940 20 0 20 +20 906
661 Bryant CDCP 0 0 0 0 0 906

Downtown

Extensive restriping by Transportation Division of on and off/street parking

-32 874
180 Hamilton
Avenue

CDCP 0 0 0 5 +5 879
355 Alma Street CDCP +49,863 166 144 22 +22 901

TOTAL 223,219 1,077 1,816 350 676 901

A: Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium (9/84 to 9/86, but was not included in the Downtown EIRs pipeline projects.) As a result, the project
is counted among the CD Districts nonresidential development approvals since the enactment of the Downtown Study Policies in 1986

B: Through Assessment District project provided additional 64 public parking spaces as part of public benefit

C: Addition of 2 levels of parking to Cowper/Webster garage

D: Project was approved pursuant to PAMC Sections 18.83.120 or 18.83.130 which allow for a reduction in the number required parking spaces for shared
parking facilities, joint use parking facilities, or substitution of 8 bike parking spaces for one vehicle space.

Page 10
E. Project removed existing on-site spaces or met required parking by paying in-lieu fee

F: Site had existing parking sufficient to allow expansion

G: Construction of 2 city parking lots. 528 High completed on Aug. 2003 and 445 Bryant completed on Nov. 2003

H: Part of the SOFA 2 CAP

I: As per PAMC 18.87.055, the TDR area transferred to the site does not increase the number of automobile parking spaces required for the additional floor area.

Commercial Downtown (CD) and SOFA 2 CAP Floor Area by Use Category

Use Category Area
(October
1986)
Area
(October
2012)
Area Change,
percentage
1. Offices 1,100,000 1,400,000 27%
%
2. Retail 500,000 625,000 25.00%
3. Eating & Drinking 150,000 275,000 83.33%
4. Financial Services 200,000 200,000 0.00%
5. Business Services 150,000 175,000 16.67%
6. Basement Storage 175,000 100,000 -42.86%
7. Hotels 100,000 150,000 50.00%
8. Personal Services 75,000 125,000 66.67%
9. Utility Facility 150,000 100,000 -33.33%
10. Public Facilities 50,000 75,000 50.00%
11. Automotive Services 150,000 50,000 -66.67%
12. Recreation/Private Club 25,000 50,000 100.00%
13. Theaters 50,000 25,000 -50.00%
14. Warehousing &
Distribution
50,000 25,000 -50.00%
15. Manufacturing 50,000 0 -100.00%
16. Religious Institutions 50,000 25,000 -50.00%
17. Multi-Family Residential 250,000 400,000 50.00%
18. Single Family
Residential
50,000 25,000 -50.00%
19. Vacant & Under
Construction
150,000 50,000 -66.66%
20. Vacant & For Sale 0 0
21. Vacant & Available 150,000 100,000 -33.33%
Total 3,625,000 3,875,000 5.52%

ADJUSTED TOTAL: (Deduct
residential uses, religious institutions,
vacant & for sale and vacant & under
construction.)
3,125,000 3,350,000

EXHIBIT E
(Rounded to the nearest 25,000 square feet)

* The above table is rounded to the nearest 25,000 square feet and was based on
a table originally prepared in 1986. Over the years, because of the rounding to 25,000
square foot increments, the table has had a greater margin of error. Staff attempted to
update the table from the beginning in 1998; therefore the numbers may not compare
directly to tables prepared prior to the 1998 report.

City Council Informational Report

Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 3/11/2013

March 11, 2013 Page 1 of 9
(ID # 3462)
Title: Downtown Monitoring Report 2011-2012
Subject: Downtown Monitoring Report 2011-2012
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment

Recommendation
This is an informational report and no Council action is required.
Executive Summary
The annual Commercial Downtown (CD) Monitoring Report tracks total non-residential growth
in the commercial downtown area (CD-C and CD-C(GF)(P)zones) and office and retail vacancy
rates in CD-C and CD-C (GF)(P) zones. Through mid-December of 2012, there was a 2.8 percent
vacancy rate within the Ground Floor Overlay District and a 1.6 percent overall vacancy rate in
the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district. In this monitoring cycle, approximately 49,860
square feet of space was approved or added to the total downtown non-residential square
footage. An additional 11,790 square feet of new non-residential development can be
accommodated before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet growth limit is reached.

Background
Annual monitoring of available space in Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning area was
established in 1998 by Comprehensive Plan Programs L-8 and L-9. These programs require
reporting of non-residential development activity and trends within the CD zone district.

Staff regularly has tracked vacancy rates, changes in floor area and parking in the CD district
resulting from approved development to comply with the Comprehensive Plan programs and to
determine the ground floor vacancy rate in the CD zone district. The zoning code included an
exception process to allow office development on the first floor if the ground floor vacancy rate
exceeds 5%.

In 2009, the City Council adopted zoning ordinance amendments to enhance protection of retail
uses in downtown commercial districts to ensure that retail uses are retained and viability
enhanced during the economic downturn and beyond. The ordinance also eliminated an
exception process triggered when the GF vacancy rate is found to be greater than 5% during
the annual monitoring. A map of the districts subject to the amendments was included in the
Council report (CMR 20:09), available on the Citys website.
EXHIBIT F
(ID # 3462)

Staff completed field visits for this 2011-2012 monitoring period in mid-December 2012.
Telephone interviews and email exchanges with local real estate leasing agents were also
compiled at the same time to determine current vacancy rates and prevailing rents. This report
also includes cumulative data on developments in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone from
January 1987 through August 31, 2012 and has specific data on vacancy information and rental
rates through December 2012.

Discussion
The economic conditions of the Palo Alto downtown area are continuing to improve since last
year. Currently there is a 2.8 percent vacancy within the Ground Floor Overlay District and a 1.6
percent overall vacancy in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district. This is a noticeable
drop of 2 percent vacancy in the Ground Floor Overlay District from last year. This number is
close to the 2006-2007 period vacancy rate, before the economic downturn. The retail rental
rates ranged from $3.00 to $6.50 per square foot based on the location, and office rental rates
ranged from $4.00 to $7.00 per square foot during this reporting period. Office rental rates
have increased marginally from last year and retail rental rates have remained steady through
the 2011-2012 monitoring period. The following table shows the approximate total vacant
square foot and percentage of vacancy from 2006.

TABLE 1: Total Vacancy in CD-C & CD-C (GF) (P) Zones in Downtown Palo Alto

Year

Total CD-C
Vacant
(SQFT)

% of CD-C
Vacancy

Total CD-C (GF)
(P) Vacant
(SQFT)
% of CD-C (GF)
(P) Vacancy

2006-2007 88,368 2.63 18,330 2.94
2007-2008 120,004 3.60 26,294 4.21
2008-2009 212,189 6.39 56,109 8.99
2009-2010 85,271 2.56 37,888 6.91
2010-2011 66,226 2.0 26, 290 4.8
2011-2012 52,368 1.6 15,550 2.8
Source: City of Palo Altos Planning Department.

Non-Residential Development Activity
The 1986 Downtown Study (and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance) incorporated a
growth limit of 350,000 square feet of additional floor area above the total floor area existing in
1986, and provided for a re-evaluation of the CD regulations when net new development
reaches 235,000 square feet. Since 1986, a total of 223,210 square feet of non-residential floor
(ID # 3462)
area has been added in the Downtown CD-C zoned area. In the past two monitoring cycles from
2009-2011, approximately 34,650 square feet of net new commercial floor area was added with
a few major contributing projects such as 524 Hamilton Avenue and 265 Lytton Avenue. In this
current cycle, 2011-2012, approximately 49,860 square feet of net new commercial floor area
has been added through one major project, 335-355 Alma Street.

Based on this recent monitoring, an additional 11,790 square feet of new non-residential
development remains for development before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet
growth limit is reached. Staff notes that the 135 Hamilton Avenue project was recently
approved (though parking issues havent been resolved), which would increase the total by
approximately 20,000 square feet, to about 245,000 square feet, in excess of the re-evaluation
threshold. Staff has developed a scope of work for the new Development Cap Study and will
initiate work in the next couple of months.

TABLE 2: Total Non-Residential SQFT Added in Downtown Palo Alto since 2006.

Year

Total Non-Residential SQFT
Added in CD-C
Total Non-Residential SQFT Left to
Reach the Re-evaluation Limit*
2006-2007 195 129,055
2007-2008 7,480 121,575
2008-2009 25,280 96, 295
2009-2010 21,150 75, 145
2010-2011 13,500 61,645
2011-2012 49,860* 11,790
Source: City of Palo Altos Planning Department
*Projects filed as of August 2012.

Below is a list of significant projects in the downtown CD-C zone area that added more than
5,000 square feet since 2006.

325 Lytton Ave--17,515 square feet
310 University Ave--7,481 square feet
265 Lytton Ave21,151 square feet
524 Hamilton Avenue9,345 square feet
355 Alma Street49,860 square feet

Demonstrating Special Public Benefits
The Downtown Study reserved 100,000 square feet of the 350,000 square foot growth limit to
be used for projects demonstrating special public benefits. Since 1986, eleven projects in the
(ID # 3462)
Downtown area have been developed under the Planned Community zoning that requires a
finding of public benefit. Six of the projects exceeded the non-residential floor area that would
otherwise be allowed under zoning by a total of 66,915 square feet. The total changes in
square footage of these projects are shown in the fourth column of Attachment C. The
remaining five projects were mixed-use projects that did not exceed allowable non-residential
floor areas. All of the projects either provided parking or paid a fee in-lieu of providing parking.
Only one project; 355 Alma Street, in this current cycle added square feet demonstrating public
benefit and provided in-lieu fees for parking.

Projects Qualifying for Seismic, Historic or Minor Expansion Exemptions
The Downtown Study designated 75,000 square feet of the 350,000 square foot cap for projects
that qualify for seismic, historic or minor expansion exemptions in order to encourage these
upgrades. Since 1986, 93,931 square feet have been added in this category. Two projects, 524
Hamilton Avenue and 668 Ramona, used close to 5000 square feet of Transfer Development
Rights (TDR) square footage. This years only approved project, 335-355 Alma Street, did not
add any square feet in this category. These projects are shown in the fifth column of
Attachment C.

Parking Inventory
The 1986 Downtown Study set performance measures that established that new commercial
development in the Downtown should not increase the total parking deficit beyond that was
existing or approved through May 1986, or 1,601 spaces. This base deficit number was
determined by counting the number of commercially bound vehicles (employees, customers,
etc.) parked in residential neighborhoods. Increases or reductions to the deficit are determined
by comparing the total number of commercial parking spaces constructed in the downtown
area with the amount of new commercial square footage constructed. In general, for every 250
square feet of commercial development, an additional parking space should be constructed.
There are certain projects that qualify for exemptions to parking requirements, which add to
the deficit. Conversely, parking improvements that are independent of development reduce
the deficit.

As noted above, certain projects are exempt from providing parking or a portion thereof, which
increases the deficit. The City tracks these exemptions, and at the end of the 2003 monitoring
period, the City determined a re-evaluation of the parking exemption regulations would be
undertaken when the unmet parking demand resulting from exemptions reaches a cumulative
450 spaces. Currently, the unmet parking demand resulting from exemptions is 350 parking
spaces.

In 2003, the City opened two new parking structures located at 528 High Street and 445 Bryant
Street. This added a total of 713 net new parking spaces. Other improvements that have
occurred since 1986 include a 2-floor addition to the Cowper/Webster Garage and significant
restriping of on-street parking spaces by the Citys Transportation Division. Per the
methodology prescribed in the 1986 downtown study, the total cumulative parking deficit has
been reduced from 1,601 in 1986 to 901 in 2012. Attachment D is a chart that details the CD
(ID # 3462)
(Commercial Downtown) parking deficit. Although defined as a deficit reduction, there is a
general understanding that commercial parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods has
increased since that time. Staff believes that the parking intrusion is not accurately depicted in
Attachment D, as it likely doesnt include factors such as a) increased employee density
downtown, b) conversions of existing retail or underused office space to more intensive office
uses, c) conversions of prior residential hotel uses to true hotel uses, and d) parking in
neighborhoods from areas other than the downtown business, such as for Caltrain commuters,
Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and/or Stanford. A better estimate of parking intrusion will be
developed as part of the Downtown Development Cap Study.

Recently, staff has been directed by City Council to undertake a site and feasibility study to
evaluate the possibility of construction of additional public parking structures in and around the
Downtown area, and to consider expansion of existing parking capacity through the use of
attendant parking at existing structures. In addition, City Council directed staff to conduct a re-
evaluation of the 1986 Downtown Development Cap Study. This study examined parking,
traffic and land use conditions of the Downtown area and restricting future non-residential
development to a total of 350,000 square feet in the Downtown CD-C zone area. The proposed
re-evaluation study will also include analysis of existing and projected traffic, parking capacity,
and the impacts from application of parking exemptions under transfer of development rights
and other code provisions.

Vacancy Rate for Ground Floor (GF) Combining District
The Ground Floor Combining District (GF) was created to encourage active pedestrian uses in
the Downtown area such as retail, eating and drinking and personal services. There is
approximately 548,675 square feet of total Ground Floor area in the CD-C (GF) (P) zoning
district after the adoption of the amended ordinance in December 2009.

Staff surveyed downtown CD-C (GF) (P) zoned areas to assess vacancy in the second week of
December 2012. Staff also consulted local real-estate agents and other databases and compiled
a list of only five properties in the CD-C (GF) (P) area, which met the requirements for vacancy.
The total vacancy amounted to 15,550 square feet.

TABLE 3: Vacant Property Listings for Only Ground Floor (GF) Spaces in
CD-C (GF) (P) Combining District.
(As of December 14, 2012)

Address
Vacant Square Feet

575 High 4,437
174 University 2,300
(ID # 3462)
355 University 3,694
429-447 University 3,300
436-440 University 1,818


This results in a GF vacancy rate of approximately 2.8 percent this year; 2 percent less than
previous years vacancy rate.

FIGURE1. Vacancy Rates in CD-C and CD-C (GF)(P) Zones Since 2006


Vacancy Rate for Entire CD District
The entire CD area contains approximately 3,850,000 gross square feet of floor area, including
approximately 330,000 square feet within the SOFA CAP Phase 2 area. About 525,000 square
(ID # 3462)
feet is used for religious or residential purposes or is vacant and not available for occupancy.
Thus, the net square footage of available commercial space is approximately 3,325,000 square
feet.

Staff conducted a field survey in mid-December 2012 and communicated with local real estate
agents during same time to assess overall vacancies in the downtown area. In this monitoring
cycle there was a total vacancy of 52,368 square feet. This vacancy equals a rate of 1.6 percent
compared to 2.0 percent in last years monitoring report. The overall CD-C vacancy rate has
reduced considerably since the 2008-2009 period, close to a drop of 5 percent.

Table 4 was compiled based on staff conducted fieldwork, researches of different real estate
websites and responses received from local downtown real estate agents.

TABLE 4: Vacant Property Listings for Rest of Commercial Downtown (CD).
(As of December 14, 2012))
Includes Upper Floor Office Space in CD-C (GF) (P) Combining District and all floors of CD-C (P) District

Address

Zoning District

Vacant Square Feet

526 Bryant CD-C (GF)(P) 5,753
542 Emerson CD-C(GF) (P) 1,850
385 Forest CD-C (GF)(P) 2,038
201-225 Hamilton CD-C (GF)(P) 8,660
205 Hamilton CD-C (GF)(P) 9,857
437 Lytton CD-C (P) 1,204
550 Lytton CD-C (P) 2,662
355 University CD-C (GF)(P) 4,795
CD Commercial Downtown, (C) Commercial,
GF Ground Floor Combining District, P - Pedestrian Overlay
(ID # 3462)

Trends in Use Composition
The primary observation of change in the use composition of Downtown was, in this cycle
about 48,360 square feet of new non-residential use was added through the 355 Alma Street
project. Since the enactment of new CD zoning regulations in 1986, the total floor area devoted
to higher-intensity commercial uses such as office, retail, eating/ drinking and housing has
increased, while the total floor area in lower-intensity commercial uses like manufacturing,
warehousing and business services has decreased (see Attachment E).

Retail Rents
Retail rental rates have marginally increased since last years monitoring report. According to
the data gathered during December 2012 staff survey of commercial real estate agents offering
properties for lease in Downtown, rents for retail space are generally ranging from $3.00 to
$6.00 per square foot triple net (i.e. rent plus tenant assumption of insurance, janitorial
services and taxes). The lower end of this range is generally for spaces in older buildings and
away from University Avenue. Retail rental rates on core downtown University Avenue goes up
to $5.00 to $6.50. For some vacant properties outside the downtown core, rental rates are
lower and listed as negotiable.

Office Rents
Based on the information gathered from commercial real estate agents listing properties for
lease in Downtown, rents for Class A Downtown office space (i.e. newer and/or larger buildings
on University Avenue and Lytton Avenues) and Class B office space (i.e. older and/or smaller
buildings further from University Avenue) are ranging from $3.75 to $7.00 per square foot triple
net, more or less similar to last years monitoring cycle.

Timeline
This is an annual report.

Resource Impact
This report has no impact on resources, though the implications of reduced vacancy rates have
positive impacts on the Citys property and sales tax receipts.

Policy Implications
This report on the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning area is mandated by Comprehensive
Plan Programs L-8 and L-9 and by the Downtown Study approved by the City Council on July 14,
1986.

Environmental Review
This is an informational report only and is exempted from CEQA review.

(ID # 3462)
Courtesy Copies:
Planning and Transportation Commission
Architectural Review Board
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Palo Alto Board of Realtors
Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association
Downtown North Neighborhood Association
Professorville Neighborhood
University Park Neighborhood Association

Attachments:
: Attachment A: Downtown Study Summary (PDF)
: Attachment B: Map of Downtown CD(C) District (PDF)
: Attachment C: Non-Residential Square Footage (PDF)
: Attachment D: Parking Changes (PDF)
: Attachment E: Changes by Land Use Category (PDF)
text
t e x tt e x t
DowntownParking
Assessment District
Professorville
Historic District
Ramona
Street
Historic
District
PF
PC-1992
OR
CS
CC
R
-2
R-2
R-2
R
-2
R
-
2
R
-2
R
M
-
1
5 R
-2
R-2
R
-2
R-2
R-1(10000)
R-1(10000)
PF
R
-
2
PC-2967 PC-
3266
PF
PF
PF
RM-15
PF
CN
R-1
PC-
3902
P
C
-3707
PC
-4283
PF
RT-35
PC-
4389
CS
CS
PC-4465
CS
CD-C
(P)
R-1(10000)
RM-30
AMF
(MUO)
DHS
R-2
CD-S(P)
AMF
P
C
-4612
R-1
PF
CC
PF
4426
CC
RM-30
PF
PF
C
D
-N
(1
)(P
)
R
M
-30
PC-4063
PC
-3872
PF
PF
PC-2130
PF
C
D
-C
(P
)
PC-4374
PF
PF
PF
CD-C
(P)
CD-C
(P)
CD-N (P)
PF
P
C
-3111
P
C
-30
07
P
C
-3974
PF
P
F
PC-4262
PC-4243
PC-4238
PC-4195
RM-15
R
M
D
(N
P)
RM-
40
P
C
-3429
C
D
-N
(P
)
CD-C(GF)(P)
RM-40
CD-C (P)
CD-C (P)
PF
AMF
DHS
DHS
PF
PC-4611
CC(L)
PC
-4053
RMD
(NP)
R
M
D
(N
P
)
RM
-30
P
F
PC
-2049
PC-3102
R-2
RM-15
R-1
RM-30
PC
-4339
RM-30
R
M
-30
PF
PC-4052
PF
PC-
2545
R-2
RM-40
PC-2145
RM-30
P
C
-2
9
6
8
PC-3995
R-2
PF
R-1
R-1
P
C
-3753
PC-
4782
CS
RT-50
C
D
-S
(P
)
RT-50
RT-35
RT-35
R-2
RT-
50
RT-50
PC-4779
RM-30
CD-C
(P)
PC-2649
PC-4296
RM-15
PC-4173
P
C
-4436
PC-
3437
RM-15
RM-30
PC-4048
PC-
2836
PC-2152
PF
R-1
R-2
RM-15
RM-30
R-1(10000)
PC-3571
PF
R
-2
RM-30
R-2
R-2
R
M
-15
R
R-1
Communi
Garden
Palo Alto
Medical
Foundation
City
Hall
Downtown
Library
Senior
Center
F
ire S
ta. N
o.1
Addison
Elementary
School
Children's
Library
Palo Alto
High School
Main
Library
Cultural
Center
Hoover
Hospital
Junior
Museum
and
Zoo
Walter
Hays
Elementary
School
Fire Station
No. 3
Elizabeth Gamble
Garden Center
Lucie Stern
Center
El
Palo
Alto
Park
El Camino
Park
Lytton
Plaza
C
o
g
sw
e
ll
P
la
z
a
Scott
Park
Kellogg
Park
Rinconada
Park
J ohnson
Park
Hopkins
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Bowling
Green
Williams
Park
Q
u
a
r
r
y

R
o
a
d
Welch Road
A
rb
o
retu
m
R
o
ad
Somerset Place
Martin Avenue
Tevis Place
K
ir
b
y
P
la
c
e
C
e
n
t e
r
D
r
i v
e
Pitman Avenue
Arcadia Place
Pitman Avenue
Kings Lane
L
i n
c
o
l n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
Dana Avenue
n
te
r D
r
iv
e
U
n
W
e
s
t
C
r
e
s
c
e
n
t
D
r
i
v
e
H
am
ilton A
venue
Ashby Drive
Is
la
n
d
D
r
iv
e
Dana Avenue
n
t
D
r
i
v
e
S
o
u
th
w
o
o
d
D
riv
e
E
d
g
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
N
e
w
e
ll R
o
a
d
Louisa C
ourt
D
e
S
o
to
D
a
W
a
v
e
r
le
y
S
tr
e
e
t
P
o
e
S
tre
e
t
P
alo
A
lto
A
v
en
u
e
K
ip
lin
g
S
treet
R
u
th
v
e
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
w
th
o
rn
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
ane 33
C
o
w
p
e
r
S
tr
e
e
t
T
asso
S
treet
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
E
v
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
eb
ster S
treet
H
a
w
th
o
rn
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
E
v
e
re
tt C
o
u
rt
B
y
ro
n
S
treet
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld
R
o
a
d
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld
R
o
a
d
F
u
lto
n
S
treet
S
en
eca S
treet
Fife Avenue
G
u
in
d
a S
treet
H
a
m
ilto
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
F
o
r
e
s
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
F
u
lto
n
S
treet
Pal o
A l to Aven
u
e
L
y
tto
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Pa l o Al to Av
e
n
u
e
S
en
eca S
treet
H
ale S
treet
F
o
r
e
s
t C
o
u
r
t
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
il to
n
C
o
u
r
t
Hamilton Avenue
H
ale S
treet
C
h
a
u
c
e
r
S
tr
e
e
t
P
a
l o
A
l
t
o
A
S
treet
M
M
a
P
a
lm
S
University Avenue
Em
barcadero R
oad
W
eb
ster S
treet
K
e
llo
g
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
in
c
o
ln
A
v
e
n
u
e
M
e
lv
ille
A
v
e
n
u
e
F
u
lto
n
S
treet
B
y
ro
n
S
treet
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld
R
o
a
d
M
e
l v
i ll e
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
er S
treet
W
eb
ster S
treet
C
o
le
rid
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Greenwood Avenue
Harker Avenue
Parkinson Avenue
Hopkins Avenue
H
a
r
r
ie
t S
tr
e
e
t
H
a
r
r
ie
t S
tr
e
e
t
Community Lane
W
i ls
o
n
S
tr
e
e
t
L
i n
c
o
l n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Regent Place
Kent Place
L
o
w
e
ll A
v
e
n
u
e
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld
R
o
a
d
Em
barcadero R
oad
T
e
n
n
y
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
B
y
ro
n
S
treet
F
u
lto
n
S
treet
G
u
in
d
a S
treet
Harker Avenue
C
e
d
a
r
S
tr
e
e
t
Hopkins Avenue
P
i n
e
S
tr
e
e
t N
e
w
e
ll R
o
a
d
Parkinson Avenue
S
e
a
le
A
v
e
n
u
e
M
ark
T
w
ain
S
t
N
ew
ell R
o
ad
N
o
P
W
a
lte
r
H
a
y
s
D
r
iv
e
Walnut Drive
Greenwood Avenue
H
u
tc
h
in
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Channing Avenue
S
h
a
r
o
n
C
o
u
r
t
N
e
w
e
l l R
o
a
d
E
r
s
t w
ild
C
o
u
r
t
Newell Place
H
ig
h
S
treet H
o
m
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
h
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
lm
a
S
tr
e
e
t
Lane A West
Lane 8 W
est
A
d
d
iso
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
E
m
erso
n
S
treet
R
am
o
n
a S
treet
H
ig
h
S
treet
Lane B W
est
E
m
erso
n
S
treet
L
in
c
o
ln
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
le
y
S
tr
e
e
t
G
ilm
an
S
treet
B
ry
an
t S
treet
F
o
r
e
s
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
D
o
w
n
in
g
L
an
e
H
o
m
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
le
y
S
tr
e
e
t
K
in
g
s
le
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
Lane B East
R
am
o
n
a S
treet
A
d
d
iso
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Lane D West
S
co
tt S
treet
B
ry
an
t S
treet Lane D East
L
in
c
o
ln
A
v
e
n
u
e
K
in
g
s
le
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
Lane 59 East
A
d
d
iso
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
K
ip
lin
g
S
treet
C
h
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r
S
tr
e
e
t
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
T
asso
S
treet
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
eb
ster S
treet
Lane 39
W
eb
ster S
treet
Lane 56 (Private)
B
y
ro
n
S
treet
F
o
r
e
s
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
h
itm
a
n
C
o
u
rt
L
in
c
o
ln
A
v
e
n
u
e
K
e
llo
g
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
M
e
lv
ille
A
v
e
n
u
e
K
in
g
s
le
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
av
erley
S
treet
B
ry
an
t S
treet
C
o
w
p
e
r
S
tr
e
e
t
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld
R
o
a
d
A
d
d
iso
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
in
c
o
ln
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r
S
tr
e
e
t
C
h
u
rc
h
ill A
v
e
n
u
e
T
asso
S
treet
K
in
g
s
le
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
B
y
ro
n
S
treet
G
u
in
d
a S
treet
F
u
lto
n
S
treet
H
o
m
e
r A
v
e
n
u
e
G
u
in
d
a S
treet
B
o
y
c
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
d
d
is
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Channing Avenue
C
o
le
rid
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
o
w
e
ll A
v
e
n
u
e
W
av
erley
S
treet
B
ry
W
av
e
r
l
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
er S
treet
g
to
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
e
a
le
A
v
e
n
u
e
T
asso
S
treet
T
e
n
n
y
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
er S
treet
S
a
n
ta
R
ita
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
eb
ster S
treet
Em
barcadero R
oad
K
e
llo
g
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
M
e
lv
ille
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
lm
a
S
tr
e
e
t
M
arip
o
sa
A
C
o
le
rid
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
v
e
n
u
e
C
h
u
rc
h
ill A
v
e
n
u
e
E
m
erso
n
S
treet
Q
u
a
r
r
y
R
o
a
d
M
itch
ell L
an
e
P
a
l
m

D
r
i
v
e

(
S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d
)
A
lm
a
S
tr
e
e
t
E
l C
a
m
in
o
R
e
a
l
H
a
w
th
o
rn
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
H
ig
h
S
treet
E
v
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
H
ig
h
S
treet
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
A
lm
a
S
tr
e
e
t
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
Wells Avenue
E
m
erso
n
S
treet
R
am
o
n
a S
treet
E
m
erso
n
S
treet
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
B
ry
an
t S
treet
R
am
o
n
a S
treet
Lane 15 East
B
ry
a
n
t C
o
u
rt
F
o
r
e
s
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
Lane 5 East
U
rban L
ane
B
ry
an
t S
treet
P
aulsen L
ane
Lane 12 W
est
Encina Avenue
Lane 7 W
est
Lane 7 East
Lane 6 East
C
entennial W
alk
Lane 11 W
est
Lane 21
F
lo
ren
ce S
treet
Lane 20 East
Lane 20 W
est
K
ip
lin
g
S
treet
Lane 30
WOODLAND AVE
C
O
N
C
O
R
D
L
E
X
IN
G
T
O
N
T
PL
CLELAND
CT
W
OODLAND
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
DR
C
A
M
B
R
ID
G
E
A
V
E
H
A
R
V
A
R
D
A
V
E
LN
ALM
A ST
CORNELL
A
V
E
ALTO LN
A
V
E
EL CAM
INO REAL
C
R
E
E
K
RD
PARK
SH
E
R
W
O
O
D
W
A
V
E
R
L
E
Y
ST
B
U
R
G
E
SS
R
D
E.
CLAREMONT
CREEK
PL
E
A
S
T
DR
PL
M
AN
OR LIN
FIELD
WILLOW
W
Y
W
O
OD
SH
ER
W
AVERLEY
PL
CLAREMONT
W
Y
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
D
R
WY
E. CREEK DR
W
AVERLEY
D
R
ST
P
L
W
IL
L
O
W
PARKING
LAUREL ST
W
ILLO
W
RD
CT
W
AVERLEY
KENT
P
L
ST
B
A
Y
W
O
O
D
L
IN
FIE
L
D
D
R
HOMEW
OOD PL
RN
AVE
A
V
E
CLOVER LN
C
O
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources.
Legend
Primary Study Area (CD Zones)
City J urisdictional Limits
Parking Assessment Districts
Zone Designation Boundaries
abc Zone Designation Labels
Peripheral Study Area
0' 780'
P
a
l
o

A
l
t
o

D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
a
n
d
S
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
C
I
T
Y

O
F
PALO

A
L
T
O
I
N
C
O R P O R A
T
E
D
C
A
L
I FOR
N
I
A
P a l o A l t o
T h e C i t y o f
A
P
R
I
L 1 6 1
8
9
4
The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. 1989 to 2013 City of Palo Alto
RRivera, 2013-03-11 17:32:47
CDPeripheral Study Area--Aaron (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb)
ID #4174
EXHIBIT G
Intercept Survey Executive Summary
As part of the Downtown Development Cap Evaluation, the consultant team completed
a street intercept survey to evaluate parking, travel, and trip purpose trends in
Downtown Palo Alto. Respondents were asked a series of questions related to what
mode of transportation they used to get Downtown (e.g. walking, bicycling, driving
alone, carpooling, etc.); where they parked if they drove (on the street, in a public
lot/garage, in a private lot/garage); and their thoughts on how easy it was to find
parking and how easy it was to travel to and around Downtown Palo Alto via transit,
walking, or cycling.
A total of 501 surveys averaging five minutes in length were completed across two
rounds of interviewing; 99 interviews were completed on December 12, 2013, and
another 402 interviews were completed between January 9 and 17, 2014. Interviews
were conducted between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. To randomize response, interviewers
moved from block to block within the area, concentrating most heavily on University
Avenue, and covering all side blocks at least once per shift; interviewers also alternated
between approaching male and female respondents.
There was significant representation from all age groups; respondent ages ranged from
16 to 89, with a median age of 47.3. Slightly more respondents were male than female
(55% versus 45%).
The majority of the interviews (71%) took place somewhere along University Avenue;
the busiest cross-streets were Bryant (14%), Ramona (10%), Waverly (9%), and High
(6%).
The survey found that Palo Altos Downtown daytime population consists of three
distinct groups with different travel habits and parking needs. Respondents fell into
three distinct groups:
Those who live Downtown (Residents, 23%)
Those who work Downtown (Workers, 35%)
Non-residents who are not employed in the Downtown area (Visitors, 42%)
The majority of Residents (77%) walk Downtown, while four out of ten Workers (40%)
and Visitors (38%) drive alone. This suggests a high level of use of alternative modes of
transportation amongst those who commute to or visit Downtown Palo Alto. In fact, the
majority (80%) of all groups agree that it is easy to travel Downtown on foot, bike, or
public transit, including nearly 60% of those who use cars to access the area.
More than two-thirds (70%) of Workers are not provided on-site parking; half (50%) of
this group parks on the street, while another 43% use public lots or garages. Six out of
ten (60%) visitors who drove parked on the street, while one-third (33%) used public
lots or garages. While the great majority (71%) of respondents agrees that parking lots
and garages are easy to find, they are split on whether finding parking near their
destination is easy. Residents and Workers, who would be parking for longer periods of
time, have more difficulty parking than Visitors, who are in the area for shorter periods.
This suggests that lots and garages may be full, inconveniently located, or that the time
restrictions on public parking spots make them impractical for a full days use.
Downtown Palo Alto
Parking and Travel
Trend Survey

February 20, 2014
2
Objectives
The City of Palo Alto wishes to evaluate development conditions and
possibilities in its Downtown area
Specifically, the City wishes to gauge parking needs and attitudes
of Residents, Workers, and Visitors, and assess employment
density in office buildings
The following presents the results of research conducted by The
Henne Group (THG) to determine the attitudes of those walking
within the Downtown area on these issues
Research into the employment density issue will be conducted
through a series of telephone and in-person interviews with
Downtown businesses later this Spring
3
Methods
THG provided input on questionnaire design and briefed and trained
interviewers to conduct street intercept interviews with randomly-
selected respondents in the Downtown Palo Alto area
A total of 501 surveys averaging five minutes in length were
completed across two rounds of interviewing; 99 interviews were
completed on December 12, and another 402 interviews were
completed between J anuary 9 and 17
Interviewers were sent to the area on weekdays in teams of two to
three; shifts ran from 7:00 AM to 1:30 PM and 1:00 PM to 7:00 PM
To randomize response, interviewers moved from block to block
within the area, concentrating most heavily on University Avenue,
and covering all side blocks at least once per shift; interviewers also
alternated between approaching male and female respondents
*The margin of error for a sample size of 501 is 4.4% at the 95% level of confidence
4
Demographics
Age and Gender
55%
45%
Gender
Male
Female
8%
21%
17%
21%
13%
21%
24 and younger
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and older
Age
Our respondent pool was
fairly balanced on gender;
interviewers were instructed
to alternate between
approaching males and
females

We had significant
representation from all age
groups; respondent ages
ranged from 16 to 89, with a
median age of 47.3

Females (average age, 49.6)
were a little older than males
(average age, 45.5)

5
Demographics
Employment and Income
14%
14%
13%
12%
11%
21%
16%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Less than $20K
$20K to $39K
$40K to $59K
$60K to $79K
$80K to $99K
$100K to $150K
$150K and up
Household Income*
52%
9%
7%
3%
1%
5%
20%
2%
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Employment Status
Two-thirds (68%) of respondents were employed, most (52%) full time
One-fifth (20%) was retired
Respondents tended to be higher-income, with more than one-third (37%)
of those responding earning an average annual household income of
$100,000 or more

*n=425 excludes 76 respondents who refused to provide an answer
6
Interview Times and Locations
*n=495 excludes 6 interviews with no start times recorded
+
n=453 excludes 53 interviews with no location information recorded
One-third (35%) of the interviews
were conducted between 9:00 and
11:59 AM; another quarter (24%)
were conducted between 2:00 and
4:59 PM

Only 8% of the interviews took
place after 5:00 PM; this was partly
because only half of our shifts
extended into this time period

The majority of the interviews (71%)
took place somewhere along
University Avenue; the busiest
cross-streets were Bryant (14%),
Ramona (10%), Waverly (9%), and
High (6%)

14%
35%
19%
24%
8%
Interview Start Times*
7:00AM-8:59AM
9:00AM-11:59AM
12:00PM-1:59PM
2:00PM-4:59PM
5:00PM and later
14%
10%
9%
6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Bryant Ramona Waverley High
Interview Locations
(University Ave. Cross Streets)
+
Interviews were
conducted at another
33 locations, each
composing 5% or less
of the sample
7
Population Segments
23%
35%
42%
Residents Workers Visitors
Respondents fell into three distinct
groups:

1. Those who live Downtown
(Residents, 23%)*
2. Those who work Downtown
(Workers, 35%)
3. Non-residents who are not
employed in the Downtown area
(Visitors, 42%)

*This includes 15 respondents (3%) who both live and work Downtown
8
Population Profile
Residents
50% 50%
Resident Gender
Male
Female
1%
12%
10%
18%
13%
46%
24 and younger
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and older
Resident Age
We spoke to 117 Residents,
who, at 23%, represented the
smallest portion of the
respondent pool
This group was made up of all
respondents who lived in the
Downtown area, including those
who lived and worked there (15)
This was the most gender-
balanced of the three groups; we
interviewed almost exactly as
many males (58) as females (59)
This was the oldest of the three
groups (average age, 58.4
years)
9
20%
15%
12%
15%
4%
21%
13%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Less than $20K
$20K to $39K
$40K to $59K
$60K to $79K
$80K to $99K
$100K to $150K
$150K and up
Residents Household
Income*
24%
9%
9%
8%
1%
0%
45%
1%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Residents Employment
Status
Nearly half of all Residents (45%) were retired; almost everyone else was
employed in some capacity, most of them (24%) full-time

Residents income was similar to that of the sample at large; about one-
third (34%) earned $100K or more, while another 35% earned $40K or
less

Population Profile
Residents
*n=94 excludes 23 Residents who refused to provide an answer
10
Residents were interviewed in fairly
equal numbers throughout the day,
though there was a slight drop-off
from 2:00 PM onward

Half (47%) were interviewed before
noon, compared to 41% from noon
until 5:00 PM

The majority of the Resident
interviews (70%) took place
somewhere along University
Avenue; the busiest cross-streets
were Bryant (11%), Waverley
(11%), Alma (9%), Ramona (7%),
and Kipling (6%)

Population Profile
Residents
18%
29%
20%
21%
12%
Residents Interview Start Times*
7:00AM-8:59AM
9:00AM-11:59AM
12:00PM-1:59PM
2:00PM-4:59PM
5:00PM and later
*n=116 excludes 1 Resident interview with no start time recorded
+
n=110 excludes 7 Resident interviews with no location recorded
11%
7%
11%
9%
6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Bryant Ramona Waverley Alma Kipling
Resident Interview Locations
+
Interviews were
20 locations, each
composing 5% of the
sample or less
11
When asked the primary purpose
of their visit, most Residents
(44%) replied simply that they
lived there

Others were out shopping (18%)
or dining (14%)

Thirteen percent both lived and
worked in the area

Population Profile
Residents
44%
18%
14%
13%
5%
3%
3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Residents Primary Reason for
Being Downtown
12
176 Workers were interviewed,
who accounted for 35% of the
total interviews conducted

This group was made up of all
respondents who worked in the
Downtown area, excluding those
who lived and worked there*

This group showed the largest
gender split; we spoke with
almost twice as many men (109)
as women (67)

This was the youngest of the
three groups (average age, 39.1
years)

Population Profile
Workers
62%
38%
Worker Gender
Male
Female
9%
35%
23%
22%
6%
5%
24 and younger
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and older
Worker Age
*Another 15 respondents who work and live Downtown were counted as Residents
13
Population Profile
Workers
34%
16%
14%
11%
8%
3%
3%
2% 2%
6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Workers Industries
Most Workers (34%) were employed by software or technology firms;
restaurants and retailers (16%), healthcare facilities (14%), and finance,
insurance, and real estate companies (11%) were also well-represented

Nearly half (46%) of the Workers earned incomes of $100K or more, while one-
fifth (21%) earned less than $40K

8%
13%
17%
10%
8%
23%
21%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Less than $20K
$20K to $39K
$40K to $59K
$60K to $79K
$80K to $99K
$100K to $150K
$150K and up
Workers Household Income*
*n=165 excludes 11 Workers who refused to provide an answer
14
Population Profile
Workers
*n=175 excludes 1 Worker interview with no start time recorded
+
n=158 excluded 18 Worker interviews with no location recorded
About half of Workers were
interviewed in the five-hour morning
period (46%), and an equal number
were interviewed in the five-hour
afternoon period (46%)

The majority of Workers (69%)
were intercepted on University
Avenue

The cross streets where the most
Worker interviews took place were
Bryant (15%), Ramona (13%),
Waverley (8%), Alma (7%), and
High (5%)
16%
30%
21%
25%
9%
Workers Interview Start Times*
7:00AM-8:59AM
9:00AM-11:59AM
12:00PM-1:59PM
2:00PM-4:59PM
5:00PM and later
15%
13%
8%
7%
5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Bryant Ramona Waverley Alma High
Workers Interview Locations
+
Worker interviews
were conducted at
another 26 locations,
each composing less
than 5% of the sample
15
Population Profile
Workers
Nearly nine of ten (87%) Workers lived
outside Palo Alto; the rest (13%) lived
in Palo Alto (excluding 3% who both
live and work in the Downtown area)*

Nearly all Workers were in the area for
four hours or more (91%) and at least
five days a week (88%)

13%
87%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Lives in Palo Alto
(outside Downtown)
Lives outside
Palo Alto
Workers Place of Residence
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4 hours or less
More than 4 hours
Workers Duration of Visit
(per day)
88%
12%
Workers Frequency of Visit
(per week)
Five days or
more
Less than five
days
*15 respondents (3% of total) who work and live Downtown are counted as Residents
16
70%
19%
11%
On-site Parking*
No on-site
parking
Free on-site
parking
Paid on-site
parking
Population Profile
Workers
*n=167 excludes 9 Workers who did not provide an answer
The majority (70%) of Workers were
not provided on-site parking; half (50%)
of the drivers in this group parked on
the street, while nearly all of the other
half (43%) parked in a public lot or
garage
Nearly one in five (19%) of Workers
were provided free on-site parking;
almost half of these Workers (45%)
were employed by a software or
technology company
Of the 11% of Workers who were
provided on-site parking they had to
pay for, more than a third (37%) were in
the healthcare industry
17
208 Visitors were interviewed,
who, at 42%, represented the
largest portion of the sample

This group was made up of
respondents who neither lived or
worked in the Downtown area

This group was almost evenly
split on gender

This group was the most
balanced on age, with the
average age (48.1 years) falling
almost precisely between that of
Residents (58.4 years of age)
and Workers (39.1 years of age)

Population Profile
Visitors
52%
48%
Visitor Gender
Male
Female
12%
13%
14%
22%
19%
20%
24 and younger
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and older
Visitor Age
18
16%
15%
9%
12%
16%
19%
12%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Less than $20K
$20K to $39K
$40K to $59K
$60K to $79K
$80K to $99K
$100K to $150K
$150K and up
Visitors Household Income*
40%
9%
8%
4%
2%
11%
21%
3%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Visitors Employment
Status
The majority of Visitors were employed, most of them (40%) full-time

All but one of the students we interviewed (23 of 24) came from this group

Like the Residents, almost one-third of the Visitors (31%) earned $100K
or more while another 31% earned less than $40K

Population Profile
Visitors
*n=166 excludes 42 Workers who refused to provide an answer
19
Population Profile
Visitors
*n=204 excludes 4 Visitor interviews with no start time recorded
+
n=185 excludes 19 Visitor interviews with no location recorded
11%
41%
16%
25%
5%
Visitors Interview Start Times*
7:00AM-8:59AM
9:00AM-11:59AM
12:00PM-1:59PM
2:00PM-4:59PM
5:00PM and later
More Visitors were interviewed
between 9:00 and 11:59 AM (41%)
than any other group; in fact, during
that time, we interviewed as many
Visitors (86) as the other two
groups combined
There were also fewer Visitors
interviewed between 7:00 and
8:59 AM (11%) and 5:00 PM and
later (5%) than any other group
Three-fourths (72%) of all Visitors
were intercepted on University
Avenue; the busiest cross streets
were Bryant (15%), Ramona (10%),
Waverley (9%), Cowper (8%), and
High (8%)

15%
10%
9%
8% 8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Bryant Ramona Waverley Cowper High
Visitors Interview Locations
+
Visitor interviews were
23 locations, each
composing 5% of the
sample or less
20
Most Visitors came to shop
(32%), dine (16%), or engage in
some sort of social or
recreational activity (17%)
Respondents who cited other
business reasons (9%) were
typically referring to meetings or
a convention
Other non-business reasons
(11%) included running errands
and transferring from one
transportation mode to another
while on a long commute
Population Profile
Visitors
31%
16%
17%
10%
9%
11%
7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Visitors Primary Reason for
being Downtown
21
23%
29%
24%
24%
Visitors Lengths of Stay*
Less than an
hour
1 to 2 hours
2 to 4 hours
More than 4
hours
Visitors time Downtown was fairly
evenly distributed, with half staying
less than two hours and half staying
more than two hours

For the most part, there was little
correlation between purpose and
duration of visit. Exceptions
included:
75% of those visiting for a
medical appointment expected
a one- to four-hour stay, as did
68% of diners
68% of those visiting for other
non-business reasons
expected a stay of less than
two hours
Population Profile
Visitors
*n=197 excludes 9 Visitors who did not provide an answer
22
28%
17%
23%
32%
Visitors Frequency of Visit
5-7 days a week
3-4 days a week
1-2 days a week
Less than once a
week
As might be expected, Visitors did
not frequent the area as much as
Workers; only one in four (28%)
came five to seven days a week
More than half (55%) came to the
area less than three days a week,
including (32%) visiting less than
once a week
There was a definite correlation
between residence and frequency
of visit; 62% of Visitors who lived
in Palo Alto (but not in the
Downtown area) visited at least
three days a week, compared to
38% of those who lived outside
Palo Alto

Population Profile
Visitors
62%
39%
38%
61%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Lives in Palo Alto (outside
downtown area)
Does not live in Palo Alto
Frequency of Visit by
Point of Origin
3 days/wk or more Less than 3 days/wk
23
Primary Modes of Transportation
More than three-fourths (77%) of all Residents walked to their destination

More than nine-tenths (93%) of all Workers commuted to the area via
either public transit (48%) or car (40% alone, 5% through carpool or
drop-off)

Almost half (49%) of all Visitors drove in, most of them (38%) alone;
another quarter (27%) used public transportation
38%
40%
9%
27%
48%
9%
13%
3%
77%
12%
5%
5%
11%
5%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Visitors
Workers
Residents
Response by Population Segment*
Drove alone
Public transit
Walked
Bicycle
Carpool/drop-off
*n=500 excludes 1 visitor who did not provide an answer
24
Looking more closely at Workers and Visitors, we see some difference in
response based on where the respondent travelled from; half (52%) of all
Workers living in Palo Alto but not the Downtown area (PA Workers), for
example, travelled to their destination by car (48% alone, 4% carpool),
while another 30% used public transit
Workers who travelled from outside Palo Alto (Non-PA Workers) relied
less on cars (44%) and more on public transit (51%)
About one-quarter of Palo Alto visitors (23%) biked to Downtown

40%
32%
39%
48%
29%
20%
51%
30%
12%
14%
2%
9%
8%
23%
4%
9%
11%
11%
5%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Response by Point of Origin
Drove alone
Public transit
Walked
Bicycle
Carpool/drop-off
*Excludes one respondent who did not provide an answer
+
Sample sizes for PA Workers and PA Visitors are extremely small, so the results may not be statistically significant
Non-PA Workers
(n=153)
PA Visitors
+

(n=56)
Non-PA Visitors*
(n=151)
PA Workers
+
(n=23)
25
Visitors driving habits differed from Workers; 43% of Visitors living in
Palo Alto but outside Downtown (PA Visitors) drove to the area,
compared to 51% of those living outside Palo Alto (non-PA Visitors)
Visitors living in Palo Alto relied less on public transit (20%) and more on
walking or biking (37%) to get to their Downtown destination
The opposite was true of those travelling from outside Palo Alto, who
took public transit (29%) in greater numbers than those who walked or
biked (20%)

40%
32%
39%
48%
29%
20%
51%
30%
12%
14%
2%
9%
8%
23%
4%
9%
11%
11%
5%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Drove alone
Public transit
Walked
Bicycle
Carpool/drop-off
Non-PA Workers
(n=153)
PA Visitors
+

(n=56)
Non-PA Visitors*
(n=151)
PA Workers
+

(n=23)
*Excludes one respondent who did not provide an answer
+
26
Parking Statements
Q9C: It is easy for me to get here on foot,
bike, or public transit

4%
6%
11%
23%
57%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Total Response*
Eight out of ten (80%) respondents said it was easy to walk, bike, or take
public transit to Downtown Palo Alto

Almost six in ten (57%) strongly agreed with the statement

*n=500 excludes 1 worker who did not provide an answer
27
Not surprisingly, Residents were most likely to say it was easy to get to the
Downtown area by walking, biking, or public transit, with 90% agreeing and
only 4% disagreeing
Workers and Visitors (82% and 72%) were largely in agreement, though not
quite as strongly as Residents
48%
58%
71%
24%
24%
19%
16%
7%
7%
9%
4%
3%
3%
7%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Visitors
Workers
Residents
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neutral
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Parking Statements

28
Respondents who actually walked, biked, or took public transit said it was
easy to get Downtown using those methods almost all of the former (93%
of walkers/bikers, 92% of public transit) agreed with the statement,
compared to 59% of those who drove their car into Downtown
76%
60%
38%
17%
32%
21%
4%
4%
21%
2%
5%
10%
1%
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Foot/Bike
Public
Transit
Car
Response by Transportation Method*
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neutral
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Parking Statements

29
More than half of all respondents
(59%) were in the area for a single
purpose; the other 41% were
travelling to multiple destinations
within the area

There was little variance between the
three respondent groups in this;
proportionally, only a few more
Visitors (60%) had single stops than
Residents or Workers (57% each)

The vast majority of those with
multiple destinations (81%) were
travelling between them on foot
81%
8%
5%
6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Walk Bicycle Drive All others
Secondary Mode of Transportation
Secondary Destinations
59%
41%
Single-Purpose vs. Multiple-
Destination Visits*
Single
Multiple
*n=294 excludes 5 respondents who did not provide an answer
30
Almost half of all drivers (48%)
parked on the street

Six of ten Visitors (60%) who
drove to the area parked on the
street, while one-third (33%)
used public lots or garages

Workers who drove were less
likely to park on the street

Workers also filled the majority
of spaces in private lots; 80%
of those who said they parked
in a private lot were Workers
Parking
Visitors and Workers who Drove Downtown
48%
34%
18%
Visitors and Workers Parking
Locations*
Street
Public lot/garage
Private lot/garage
*n=168 as only a small number (10) of Residents drove to their destination in
Downtown Palo Alto, they have been excluded from this analysis
34%
60%
35%
33%
31%
7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Workers
Visitors
Parking Location by Segment
Street
Public lot/garage
Private lot/garage
31
Parking
Visitors and Workers who Drove Downtown
66%
43%
37%
17%
27%
52%
28%
75%
7%
5%
35%
8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Response by Point of Origin*
Street
Public lot/garage
Private lot/garage
Non-PA Workers
(n=65)
PA Visitors
(n=21)
Non-PA Visitors*
(n=70)
PA Workers
(n=12)
Workers living in Palo Alto relied more on public lots (75%) and less on
street parking (17%) than Workers living outside Palo Alto, who used all
available parking resources in fairly equal measure
About as many Visitors living in Palo Alto parked on the street (43%) as
those who parked in public lots (52%); Visitors travelling from outside
Palo Alto, meanwhile, relied much more on street parking (66%)

*Due to the small sample sizes, these differences are not statistically significant
32
Seven of ten (71%) respondents said it was easy to find public lots and
garages, while only 11% said it was difficult
3%
8%
18%
37%
34%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Total Response*
Parking
Q9D: Parking lots or garages are easy to find
*n=498 excludes 1 Resident and 2 Visitors who did not provide an answer
33
Majorities of each population segment (74% of Residents and Workers, 67%
of Visitors) agreed that public parking lots or garages were easy to find
35%
34%
31%
32%
40%
43%
21%
15%
19%
9%
9%
5%
3%
3%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Visitors
Workers
Residents
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neutral
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Parking Statements

34
Parking Statements

35%
36%
33%
35%
31%
32%
39%
48%
23%
16%
16%
9%
7%
14%
8%
9%
4%
2%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neutral
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Non-PA Workers
(n=153)
PA Visitors
+

(n=56)
Non-PA Visitors*
(n=150)
PA Workers
+

(n=23)
There was little difference in response based on where respondents were
travelling from
*Excludes 2 Visitors who did not provide an answer
+
35
Parking Statements

Saying it was easy to find a lot or garage did not vary by mode of
transportation -- 72% of drivers, 70% of those using public transit, 72% of
those walking or biking agreed with the statement

Four out of ten drivers (40%) strongly agreed with the statement, the most
from any of the three groups
31%
29%
40%
41%
41%
32%
23%
19%
14%
4%
10%
10%
1%
2%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Foot/Bike
Public
Transit
Car
Response by Transportation Method*
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neutral
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
36
Response to this statement was mixed; 39% of all respondents disagreed,
37% agreed, and 24% felt neutral
20%
19%
24%
26%
12%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Total Response
Parking Statements
Q9A: It is easy to park near my destination
37
13%
13%
9%
31%
20%
23%
25%
19%
29%
15%
22%
21%
16%
26%
19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Visitors
Workers
Residents
Response by Population Segment
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neutral
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Parking Statements
Workers and Residents had the most difficulty parking near their destination;
nearly half (48%) of the former and 40% of the latter disagreed with the
statement
The majority of Visitors had an easier time, with 40% agreeing; this may be
due to the fact that Visitors tended to be in the area for shorter periods of time
than the other two groups

38
12%
16%
12%
13%
33%
27%
19%
30%
28%
18%
20%
13%
13%
21%
21%
26%
15%
18%
27%
17%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neutral
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Parking Statements
Non-PA Workers
(n=153)
PA Visitors
+

(n=56)
Non-PA Visitors
(n=152)
PA Workers
+

(n=23)
travelling from
+
39
11%
8%
15%
24%
13%
37%
29%
30%
14%
18%
22%
17%
18%
26%
17%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Foot/Bike
Public
Transit
Car
Response by Transportation Mode
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neutral
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Parking Statements

Half of those travelling by car (52%) said it was easy to park near their
destination, compared to just 35% of walkers and bikers and 21% of those
taking public transit
This might suggest that these respondents walked or took public transit
because it was difficult for them to park near their destination
40
21%
17%
43%
13%
6%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Total Response
Four out of ten respondents (43%) felt neutral about this, perhaps because
they didnt know how easy or hard it was to find a parking spot in other areas

Of those who did have an opinion, twice as many disagreed with the
statement (38%) as those who agreed (19%) with it
Parking Statements
Q9B: It is easier to find a parking spot here
than in other, similar areas

41
Parking Statements

Workers (48%) were most likely to say finding a parking spot in Downtown
Palo Alto was more difficult than finding a parking spot in other similar areas
7%
3%
9%
14%
10%
15%
46%
39%
42%
19%
16%
15%
14%
32%
19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Visitors
Workers
Residents
Response by Population Segment
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neutral
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
42
7%
9%
3%
4%
14%
16%
10%
9%
50%
34%
38%
48%
18%
21%
17%
9%
12%
20%
32%
30%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neutral
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Non-PA Workers
(n=153)
PA Visitors
+

(n=56)
Non-PA Visitors
(n=152)
PA Workers
+

(n=23)
Parking Statements

+
travelling from
43
Those taking public transportation (50%) were most likely to say that finding
a parking space was more difficult as compared to those driving (38%) or
walking (28%)
8%
3%
6%
17%
6%
16%
48%
40%
40%
11%
19%
21%
17%
31%
17%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Foot/Bike
Public
Transit
Car
Response by Transportation Method
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neutral
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Parking Statements

44
Conclusions
Palo Altos Downtown daytime population consists of three distinct
groups with different travel habits and parking needs
The majority of Residents (77%) walk Downtown, while four out of
ten Workers (40%) and Visitors (38%) drive alone
The majority (80%) of all groups agree that it is easy to travel
Downtown on foot, bike, or public transit, including nearly 60% of
those who use cars to access the area
Visitors and Residents have a strong daytime presence in the
Downtown area; two-thirds (66%) of all interviews were conducted
with these groups
45
Conclusions
More than two-thirds (70%) of Workers are not provided on-site
parking; half (50%) of this group parks on the street, while another
43% use public lots or garages
Six out of ten (60%) visitors who drove parked on the street, while
one-third (33%) used public lots or garages
Residents and Workers, who would be parking for longer periods of
time, have more difficulty parking than Visitors, who are in the area
for shorter periods
This suggests that lots and garages may be full, conveniently
located, or that the time restrictions on public spots make them
impractical for a full days use
While the great majority (71%) of respondents agree that parking
lots and garages are easy to find, they are split on whether finding
parking near their destination is easy
46
Appendices
47
Appendix A
Downtown Area Map
48
Appendix B
Frequencies and Crosstabs
Frequencies
(n=501)
Crosstabs
By Gender
Crosstabs
By Interview Round
Crosstabs
By Age
Crosstabs
By Group
Crosstabs
By Transportation Mode

Downtown Palo Alto Parking and Travel Trend Survey
Hello, my name is ____________________ from The Henne
Group, a local market and public opinion research company.
We are conducting a survey on behalf of the City of Palo Alto,
which will help us better understand how people are
navigating the downtown area. The survey should only take
about three minutes to complete.

DATE OF INTERVIEW: ______________________
INTERVIEW START TIME: __________________

1. First off, where do you live?
1 Palo Alto in Downtown
2 Palo Alto outside of Downtown
3 Outside Palo Alto

2. What is the primary purpose of your visit to Downtown
Palo Alto today? (CHECK ONE ONLY)
1 Work here
2 Other business reason
o (Specify) ____________________________
3 Live here [SKIP TO Q6]
4 Shopping
5 Dining
6 Social/Recreation
7 Medical
8 Other non-business reason
o (Specify) ____________________________

3. How long do you anticipate your stay in Downtown Palo
Alto will be today?
1 Less than one hour
2 1 to just under 2 hours
3 2 to 4 hours
4 More than 4 hours

[ASK Q4 AND Q5 ONLY TO THOSE WHO SAID
WORK HERE TO Q2]
4. What kind of business is your employer in?
1 Legal/accounting
2 Finance/insurance/real estate
3 Software/technology
4 Restaurant or retail
5 Government
6 Healthcare
7 Other
o (Specify) ____________________________

5. Does your employer provide on-site parking?
1 No
2 Yes its free
3 Yes, but I have to pay for it
6. What was your primary mode of transportation for your
trip today? (CHECK ONE ONLY)
1 Caltrain
2 VTA
3 SamTrans
4 Palo Alto shuttle
5 Marguerite shuttle
6 Private employee/resident shuttle
7 Bicycle
8 Walked
9 Drove alone
10 Carpool or rideshare/Drove with someone
11 Dropped off
12 Taxi
13 Motorcycle/Scooter
14 Other
o (Specify) ____________________________

[ASK Q7 ONLY TO THOSE WHO SAID DROVE
ALONE OR CARPOOL TO Q6]
7. Where did you park?
1 Street
2 Public lot/garage
3 Private lot/garage (e.g. associated with office
building)
4 Other
o (Specify) ____________________________

8. Will you, or did you, go elsewhere in Downtown Palo Alto
today besides your primary destination?
1 Yes [ASK Q8A]
2 No [SKIP TO Q9]

8A. How will (or did) you get there? (ACCEPT MULTIPLE
RESPONSES)
1 Bicycle
2 Walk
3 Drive alone
4 Carpool or rideshare/Drive with someone
5 Motorcycle/Scooter
6 Other
o (Specify) ____________________________

P age | 1
Downtown Palo Alto Parking and Employment Density Survey

9. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree,
feel neutral, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with
the following statements about Downtown Palo Alto:
A. It is easy for me to park near my destination in
Downtown Palo Alto
1 Strongly agree
2 Somewhat agree
3 Neutral
4 Somewhat disagree
5 Strongly disagree

B. It is easier to find a parking space in Downtown Palo
Alto than in other similar downtown areas (Mountain
View, Menlo Park, San Mateo, Burlingame, etc.)
1 Strongly agree
2 Somewhat agree
3 Neutral
4 Somewhat disagree
5 Strongly disagree

C. It is easy and convenient for me to get to Downtown
Palo Alto on foot, bike, or public transit
1 Strongly agree
2 Somewhat agree
3 Neutral
4 Somewhat disagree
5 Strongly disagree

D. Public parking lots and garages are easy to find in
Downtown Palo Alto
1 Strongly agree
2 Somewhat agree
3 Neutral
4 Somewhat disagree
5 Strongly disagree

10. How often do you come to Downtown Palo Alto?
1 5-7 days a week
2 3-4 days a week
3 1-2 days a week
4 Less than once a week

Now I'd like to ask you some questions just for classification
purposes. As I mentioned before, all your answers will be
kept strictly confidential.

11. What is your age? _________

12. Which of these categories best describes your TOTAL
COMBINED family income before taxes for the past 12
months?
1 Less than $20,000
2 $20,000 to $29,999
3 $30,000 to $39,999
4 $40,000 to $49,999
5 $50,000 to $59,999
6 $60,000 to $69,999
7 $70,000 to $79,999
8 $80,000 to $89,999
9 $90,000 to $99,999
10 $100,000 to $109,999
11 $110,000 to $119,999
12 $120,000 to $129,999
13 $130,000 to $139,999
14 $140,000 to $149,999
15 $150,000 to $199,999
16 $200,000 or more
17 Refused

13. Are you currently?
1 Employed full-time
2 Employed part-time
3 Self-employed
4 Not employed; looking for work
5 A homemaker
6 A student
7 Retired
8 Disabled
9 Refused

14. (INTERVIEWER: RECORD RESPONDENTS
GENDER BY OBSERVATION)
1 Male
2 Female

Those are all the questions I have. Thank you for taking the
time to participate in this survey.

TIME INTERVIEW ENDS: _________
INTERVIEWERS INITIALS: _________
SUPERVISORS INITIALS: _________
EDITORS INITIALS: _________

P age | 2
Downtown Development Cap Evaluation
Background Report: Development Trends,
Parking, and Trafc
May 20, 2014
City of Palo Alto
Prepared by
ATTACHMENT C
i
Table of Contents
1 Overview .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Project Background and Objectives ......................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Downtown Palo Alto Setting ..................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Role and Contents of This Report ........................................................................................... 1-2
2 Policy Context ........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Development Cap ........................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Comprehensive Plan .................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Zoning Ordinance (Downtown Area) ..................................................................................... 2-4
2.4 Bicycle/Pedestrian Transportation Plan ................................................................................. 2-11
2.5 Current Studies and Recent Council Actions ...................................................................... 2-11
3 Downtown Development & Trends ........................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Distribution .......................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Development Since 1986 ............................................................................................................ 3-2
4 Special Development Types and Trends in the Downtown ................................. 4-1
4.1 As-of-Right and Bonus/TDR Densities & Intensities ............................................................ 4-1
4.2 Historic Property Renovation and Seismic Upgrade Bonuses ........................................... 4-7
4.3 Projects Offering Significant Public Benefits ......................................................................... 4-10
4.4 Transfer of Development Rights ............................................................................................. 4-12
4.5 Total Development Under Bonuses ...................................................................................... 4-15
City of Palo Alto Downtown Development Cap Evaluation
ii
5 Existing Transportation and Commute Trends .................................................... 5-1
5.1 Existing Network .......................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Current Journey-to-Work Characteristics ............................................................................ 5-2
6 Parking Conditions ................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Parking Inventory, Regulations, and Permits .......................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Current Parking Occupancy ...................................................................................................... 6-3
7 Traffic Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Volumes .......................................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Traffic Operations ........................................................................................................................ 7-7
7.3 Queuing and Delay ....................................................................................................................... 7-8
7.4 Multi-Modal Circulation Conditions ........................................................................................ 7-9
8 Conclusions and Next Steps .................................................................................... 8-1
8.1 Conclusions and Implications ..................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Next Steps ...................................................................................................................................... 8-3

Table of Contents
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Citywide Context ...................................................................................................................... 1-3
Figure 1-2: Primary and Peripheral Downtown Study Area ................................................................. 1-4
Figure 1-3: Primary Study Area Detail ....................................................................................................... 1-5
Figure 2-1: Downtown Zoning Districts ................................................................................................... 2-8
Figure 3-1: Primary Study Area Non-Residential Development Since 1986 in Square Feet ......... 3-2
Figure 3-2: Primary Study Area Non-Residential Development Net Square Footage
1986-2013 by Zone ........................................................................................................................................ 3-3
Figure 3-3: Development by Decade ......................................................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3-4: Net Change in Primary Study Area Non-residential Development, 1986 - 2013 ...... 3-5
Figure 4-1: Combined Total FAR in the Primary Study Area, As Allowed ....................................... 4-4
Figure 4-2: Total Combined FAR in the Primary Study Area, As Allowed With Bonuses ........... 4-5
Figure 4-3: Combined Total FAR in the Primary Study Area, As Built .............................................. 4-6
Figure 4-4: Non-Residential Development - Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage,
1986-2013 ........................................................................................................................................................ 4-8
Figure 4-5: Properties with Floor Area Bonuses .................................................................................. 4-11
Figure 4-6: Non-residential Development (square feet) in Downtown: With and Without
Bonuses, 1986-2013 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-15
Figure 5-1: Transit Network ........................................................................................................................ 5-4
iv
Figure 5-2: Bicycle Network ........................................................................................................................ 5-8
Figure 5-3: Downtown Census Tracts .................................................................................................... 5-10
Figure 6-1: Neighborhoods and Parking Zones ....................................................................................... 6-2
Figure 6-8: Parking 8am ............................................................................................................................. 6-9
Figure 6-9: Parking 12 pm ....................................................................................................................... 6-10
Figure 6-10: Parking 7pm ........................................................................................................................ 6-11
Figure 6-11: Parking Weekend 12 pm .................................................................................................. 6-12
Figure 7-1: Morning Peak Auto Counts .................................................................................................... 7-2
Figure 7-2: Evening Peak Auto Counts ...................................................................................................... 7-3
Figure 7-3: AM Peak Bike/Ped Counts ...................................................................................................... 7-5
Figure 7-4: PM Peak Bike/Ped Counts ....................................................................................................... 7-6

viii
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Downtown Base Parking Requirements ............................................................................... 2-9
Table 3-1: Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Uses by Acres in Downtown Palo Alto (2013) .. 3-2
Table 3-2: Non-Residential Development Projects in Primary Study Area, 1986 2013 ............ 3-6
Table 3-3: Downtown Palo Alto Pipeline Projects (2014+), As of April 2014 ............................ 3-8
Table 4-1: Development Standards for Downtown Zoning Districts ............................................... 4-2
Table 4-2: Downtown Palo Alto Non-Residential Development Projects Receiving
Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage, 1986-2013 ......................................................... 4-8
Table 4-3: Downtown Palo Alto Non-residential Projects Receiving Public Benefit Bonus,
1986-2013 ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-10
Table 4-4: TDR Bonuses for Originator Sites by Entitlement, October 2013 .............................. 4-12
Table 4-5: Documented TDR Bonuses Used in the Downtown Area by Origin,
October 2013 ............................................................................................................................................... 4-14
Table 4-6: TDR Bonuses Remaining for Use in Downtown Palo Alto, October 2013 ............... 4-15
Table 5-1: Caltrain Ridership ....................................................................................................................... 5-5
Table 5-2: Downtown Palo Alto Bus Connections ................................................................................ 5-5
Table 5-3: Commute Mode Split ................................................................................................................ 5-9
Table 6-1: Public Parking Space Distribution ........................................................................................... 6-1
Table 7-1: Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Definitions .................................................................. 7-7
Table of Contents
ix
Table 7-2: Existing Conditions: Intersection Level of Service .............................................................. 7-8
Table 7-3: Multi-Modal Volumes and Mode Split, PM Peak ................................................................ 7-10

1-1
1 Overview
1.1 Project Background and
Objectives
The purpose of this Downtown Cap Evaluation is to understand
and analyze existing and projected parking, traffic, and land use
conditions in Downtown Palo Alto, in order to inform future
policy direction.
Due to growing traffic and parking concerns in the 1980s, the
City conducted a Downtown Study in 1984. As a result of that
study, the City implemented a series of new regulations for the
Downtown district in 1986. The City rezoned the Downtown
district with a new designation, Commercial Downtown (CD). In
the CD district, the City implemented more restrictive
development regulations, limits to project size, and special
development regulations for sites adjacent to residential zones.
Additionally, the Downtown Parking Assessment District
parking regulations were adjusted.
As part of these new regulations, the City also implemented a
Development Cap in 1986 to limit future non-residential
development in the CD district to a total of 350,000 square feet
beyond what existed or was approved in May 1986. The
Development Cap regulations stipulated that this growth limit be
re-evaluated once the City approved 235,000 square feet of new
development in the Downtown. This milestone has been recently
reached, prompting this study.
This report serves as the first step in the process of re-evaluating
the Development Cap and implications of current regulations. It
aims to evaluate the existing and projected traffic, parking, and
land use conditions of the Downtown. This report will inform
development of future policy options, which will be established
in collaboration with the community and decision-makers in a
subsequent second phase.
The City anticipates a two-phase process for evaluation and
planning:
Phase 1 (this process) consists of research and analysis
of the development, parking, and traffic conditions in
Downtown Palo Alto.
Phase 2, which would be initiated following completion
of Phase 1, will consist of planning and transportation
policy recommendations using the Phase 1 findings,
additional economic analysis, and additional community
input.
In addition to this existing conditions report, major Phase 1 tasks
include:
A street intercept survey of the travel and parking
behavior of Downtown residents, workers, and visitors
(completed);
A survey of Downtown businesses to determine current
employment density;
1-2
Market and development feasibility analysis of future
Downtown development; and
A projected growth impact analysis, with five- and ten-
year scenarios of potential ranges of development, as well
as projected traffic and parking conditions.
The findings from each of these work efforts will be reviewed
with stakeholders, decision-makers, and the general public.
1.2 Downtown Palo Alto Setting
Since the City of Palo Alto was founded in 1894, the Downtown
has been the symbolic center of the City. As the Citys central
business district, the Downtown is a thriving commercial and
retail hub, serving not only the City, but also the wider Silicon
Valley. Despite substantial development pressure, the Downtown
has retained its pedestrian-scale ambiance and many of its
historic buildings. The Downtown is shown in the context of the
city as a whole in Figure 1-1.
The Primary Downtown Study Area (Primary Study Area) is the
area under study for this report, and is congruent with the area
included in the 1986 Downtown Development Cap. The Primary
Study Area is shown in Figure 1-2. The figure also shows the
broader Peripheral Downtown Study Area (Peripheral Study
Area); the latter includes surrounding neighborhoods, and is
bounded by Middlefield Road to the northeast, Embarcadero
Road to the southeast, Alma Street to the southwest, and Palo
Alto Avenue to the northwest. A detailed map of the Primary
Study Area is shown in Figure 1-3. In general, University Avenue
is the literal and figurative center of the Primary Study Area,
which is bounded by Alma Street to the southwest and Webster
Street to the northeast.
1.3 Role and Contents of This Report
This report evaluates the existing traffic, parking, and land use
conditions in the Downtown. First, it provides a policy context,
covering the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and
previous and current studies and reports. Then, the report
analyzes Downtown development trends since 1986, followed by
a discussion of the Downtowns existing transportation and
travel trends, parking conditions, and the state of traffic. Finally,
the report ends with a conclusion and a discussion of the next
steps to be taken.

280
280
280
280
85
85
82
237
82
85
109
114
101
Sunnyvale
Mountain View
Los Altos
City of
Palo Alto
Los Altos Hills
SANTA
CLARA
COUNTY
SAN
MATEO
COUNTY
Stanford
Menlo Park
Atherton
East Palo Alto
Downtown
Palo Alto
Primary
Study
Area
E
l

C
a
m
i
n
o

R
e
a
l
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l

E
x
p
y
P
a
g
e

M
i
l
l

R
d
W

E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
S
a
n

A
n
t
o
n
i
o

R
d
W
i
l
l
o
w

R
d
E
a
s
y

S
t
E
E
l C
a
m
in
o
R
e
a
l
C
e
n
t
r
a
l E
x
p
y
E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
S

E
l

M
o
n
t
e
A
v
e
O
r
e
g
o
n

E
x
p
y
E
m
b
arcad
e
ro
R
d
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
A
lm
a

S
t
S
a
n
t
a

C
r
u
z

A
v
e
M
id
d
le
fie
ld

R
d
W
M
id
d
le
fie
ld
R
d
Ju
n
ip
e
r
o

S
e
r
r
a

B
lv
d
A
l
p
i
n
e
R
d
Sand H
il
l
R
d
Moody Rd
P
a
g
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
S
k
y
lin
e
B
lv
d
G
r
a
n
t
R
d
Copyright: 2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ
SAN MATEO
COUNTY
ALAMEDA
COUNTY
SAN
FRANCISCO
COUNTY
CONTRA
COSTA
COUNTY
SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
Pacific Ocean
City of
Half Moon
Bay
Half Moon
Bay
San Francisco
Bay
Oakland
Hayward
San
Francisco
Palo
Alto
Sunnyvale
Newark
Pacifica
Moraga
Danville
Cupertino
San
Mateo
San
Leandro
Daly
City
Menlo
Park
Santa
Clara
Los
Altos
Belmont
San
Bruno
South
San Francisco
San
Jose
Foster City
Millbrae
Brisbane
Alameda
Redwood
City
San
Ramon
Walnut
Creek
Piedmont
Berkeley
Union
City
Fremont
580
280
1
92
238
80
880
101
84
85
35
84
13
580
880
24
280
82
101
1
0 8,000 16,000 4,000
Feet
Fig 1-1
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2014; Dyett & Bhatia, 2014.
Citywide Context
Interstate
Major Highway
Railroads
Streams/Creeks
Water
Primary Study Area
Downtown Peripheral Area
Palo Alto City Limits
M
id
d
le
fie
ld

R
o
a
d
W
e
b
s
t
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
r
y
a
n
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
in
c
o
l
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
il
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
lm
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
H
ig
h

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
m
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
R
a
m
o
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
G
u
in
d
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
H
o
m
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
Em
barcadero
R
o
ad
E
v
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
M
e
l
v
i
l
l
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
i
n
g
s
le
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
e
n
t
e
r

D
r
i
v
e
W
illo
w

R
o
a
d
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
a
le

S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
l
m

D
r
i
v
e
Pitman Avenue
H
a
r
r
i
e
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
o
w
e
ll
A
v
e
n
u
e
Harker Avenue
K
ip
lin
g
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
o
y
c
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
le
r
id
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Parkinson Avenue
C
h
u
r
c
h
ill
A
v
e
n
u
e
Q
u
a
r
r
y

R
o
a
d
Greenwood Avenue
Hopkins Avenue
R
u
t
h
v
e
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
ly
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
e
n
e
c
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
r
b
o
re
tu
m
R
o
a
d
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
e
llo
g
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
l
a
r
e
m
o
n
t
W
a
y
E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
T
e
n
n
y
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
h
a
n
n
in
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
Fife Avenue
P
o
e

S
t
r
e
e
t
Dana Avenue
B
r
y
a
n
t

C
o
u
r
t
W
ells A
venue
Forest Avenue
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

C
o
u
r
t
C
h
a
u
c
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
y
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
T
a
s
s
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
Martin Avenue
C
lo
ve
r L
an
e
B
y
r
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
G
ilm
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Encina A
venue
University Avenue
F
lo
r
e
n
c
e

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
s
h
b
y

D
r
i
v
e
S
c
o
t
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Kent Place
Tevis Place
Regent Place
Somerset Place
B
y
r
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
u
lt
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
K
i
n
g
s
le
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
K
ip
lin
g
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
T
a
s
s
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
K
e
llo
g
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
F
u
lt
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
y
r
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
e
li
v
i
ll
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Em
barcadero
R
o
ad
M
id
d
le
fie
ld

R
o
a
d
W
a
v
e
r
ly
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
d
d
is
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
r
e
s
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
il
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
ly
S
t
r
e
e
t
W
a
v
e
r
ly
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
a
s
t
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
i
v
e
Palo
A
lto
Ave
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
Channing Avenue
Woodlan d
A
v
e
n
u
e
P
a
lo
R
o
a
d
82
82
R
a
m
o
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Palo Alto
Caltrain
Station
CITY
OF
MENLO PARK
CITY
OF
PALO ALTO
Palo Alto
Medical
Foundation
Palo Alto
City Hall
Stanford
Shopping
Center
Rinconada
Park
El Camino
Park
Eleanor Pardee Park
Johnson
Park
Heritage
Park
El Palo
Alto Park
Lawn
Bowling
Green
park
Hopkins
Creekside
Park
Cogswell
Plaza
Lytton
Plaza
Fig 1-2
0 1,000 2,000 500
Feet
Downtown Context
Palo Alto Caltrain Station
Caltrain Commuter Rail
Creeks
Parks & Open Space
Parcels
Parking Assessment District
Primary Study Area (1986)
Palo Alto City Boundary
G
r
a
n
t
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
is
q
u
it
o
C
r
e
e
k
High Street
Bryant Street
Cowper Street
Ramona Street
Webster Street
Emerson Street
Waverley Street
Alma Street
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
i
n
c
o
l
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
m
e
r

A
v
e
n
u
e
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
h
a
n
n
i
n
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
Kipling Street
Tasso Street
Gilman Street Florence Street
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
Kipling Street
Bryant Street
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
Ramona Street
High Street
Webster Street
Waverley Street
Alma Street
Emerson Street
Cowper Street
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
Palo Alto
Caltrain
Station
Palo Alto
City Hall
El Camino Park
Johnson
Park
Heritage
Park
Cogswell
Plaza
Lytton
Plaza
Fig 1-3
0 520 1,040 260
Feet
Primary Study Area
Parks & Open Space
Parcels
Primary Study Area
1-6
This page left intentionally blank.
2-1
2 Policy Context
2.1 Development Cap
1986 DOWNTOWN STUDY AND DEVELOPMENT
CAP
After a period of rapid growth in the early 1980s in Downtown
Palo Alto, the City initiated a Downtown Study to examine
traffic, land use, and parking in 1984, as traffic conditions were
notably worsening in the area. The City adopted a number of
ordinances and parallel Comprehensive Plan amendments in
1986 to implement the Downtown Study recommendations and
control Downtown growth and mitigate its impacts in the area.
These measures included a new Commercial Downtown zoning
district (CD) with more restrictive FARs, limits to project sizes
and to the overall amount of future development, and special
development regulations for sites adjacent to residential areas. A
new Ground Floor (GF) Combining District was created in the
Municipal Code to restrict the amount of ground floor area for
uses other than retail, personal services, or eating and drinking in
the CD district.
A Development Cap was also created in 1986 to restrict future
non-residential development in the CD district to a total of
350,000 square feet, beyond what existed or was approved as of
May 1986. This Development Cap was to be reevaluated when
new development reached 235,000 square feet. Residential
development was excluded from the development cap to
encourage growth of residential uses in close proximity to
employment uses in the Downtown. The Development Cap
reserved 100,000 square feet of the 350,000 square foot growth
limit to be used for projects demonstrating special public
benefits; in addition, it designated 75,000 square feet of the
350,000 square foot cap for projects that qualified for seismic,
historic, or minor expansion exemptions, in order to encourage
these upgrades.
New parking regulations established at the time included most of
the requirements still in place today: the requirement for non-
residential uses to provide one parking space for every 250
square feet of floor area; the allowance for off-site parking and
fees in lieu of on-site parking in certain circumstances; and
exemptions for historic structure upgrades, seismic
rehabilitations, provision of required handicapped access, or
one-time additions of 200 square feet or less. New traffic policies
were adopted at various intersections in the Downtown area to
improve congestion. Performance measures were adopted to
ensure that new development in the Downtown did not increase
the total parking deficit beyond that expected from development
that was existing or approved through May 1986; the parking
exemption regulations were to be re-evaluated when the unmet
parking demand reached one half of the minimum (450) parking
spaces deemed necessary for construction of a new public
parking structure.
To evaluate the effectiveness of these policies and regulations, the
Downtown Study required that City staff monitor and submit
2-2
annual reports to the City Council regarding development
activity, vacancy rates, parking deficit level, sales tax revenues,
and commercial lease rates in the Downtown area.
1989 CITYWIDE LAND USE AND
TRANSPORTATION STUDY
The 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study looked at
three growth scenarios and analyzed the impacts of
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance changes, including
the establishment of growth controls across the city. The study
responded to community concerns about current and future
congestion, and it aimed to set appropriate limits on citywide
commercial and industrial development to minimize traffic
impacts.
The study called for simple and substantial downzoning of the
citys commercial and industrial areas. It created a growth limit
of just over 3.25 million square feet of new non-residential
development across nine specific planning areas in the city,
including the Downtown, which was also regulated by the
Development Cap from 1986. It also called for capacity increases
at numerous intersections across the city, while prioritizing a
more limited number of critical intersections. It advocated for
development of a Transportation Demand Management
Ordinance to reduce the number of trips and promote alternative
modes of transport. The study also recommended
Comprehensive Plan and zoning changes for particular parcels,
to change them from commercial to residential uses. Finally, the
study also called for minor modifications to the development
review process to facilitate Planning Commission and City
Council review of more controversial projects, such as mixed-use
developments and projects in environmentally sensitive areas.
2.2 Comprehensive Plan
1998-2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Land Use and Community Design Element
The Comprehensive Plan is a policy document for the long-
range development of the City of Palo Alto. It provides the
direction for the future growth of the City and articulates a
vision of what Palo Alto aspires to be. The Citys Comprehensive
Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1998. Prior to 1988,
the Comprehensive Plan had separate Urban Design and Land
Use elements, which were combined into one elementthe Land
Use and Community Design Element in 1988, recognizing the
integral relationship between the two topics. This element
maintains a citywide structure of residential neighborhoods,
regional centers, and employment districts; the Downtown area
is recognized as a regional center in the city. As the central
business district of the City, Downtown is home to a thriving
regional hub of commercial enterprises, retail activity, and
employment, and as such, has been the focus of development
pressure. Designated uses in the Downtown area include transit-
oriented residential, regional/community commercial, and
service commercial.
The Land Use and Community Design Element includes a
number of policies and programs that apply to Downtown and
support its role as an important regional hub and employment
center for Palo Alto and the surrounding area. To control the
amount of commercial growth and traffic in the city, Policy L-8
in the Land Use and Community Design Element places a limit
on the amount of new non-residential development allowed in
nine planning areas around the city. The Citywide 1989 Land
Chapter 2: Policy Context
2-3
Use and Transportation Study (described below) determined the
amount of growth to be allowed; the square footage limit was
implemented largely through commercial downzoning in the late
1980s. To support Policy L-8, Program L-8 limited new non-
residential development in the Downtown area to 350,000 square
feet, or 10 percent above the amount of development existing or
approved as of May 1986. The program also called for the
reevaluation of this limit when non-residential development
approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area. Also
supporting Policy L-8, Program L-9 called for the continued
monitoring of Downtown development, including the
effectiveness of the ground floor retail requirement.
Policy L-23 in the Land Use and Community Design Element
specifically calls for maintaining and enhancing the Downtown
as the citys central business district, as well as promoting quality
design that recognizes the regional historical importance of the
area and reinforces its pedestrian character. To support this
policy, Program L-19 supports the implementation of the
Downtown Urban Design Guide and Program L-20 supports
reuse of existing buildings. In Policy L-24, the Comprehensive
Plan seeks to ensure that Downtown is inviting to pedestrians
and is bicycle-friendly. It is supported by Program L-21, which
strives to improve the area by adding landscaping, bicycle
parking, and public art.
Lastly, the Land Use and Community Design Element supports
historic resources in the City, especially those in Downtown.
Program L-55 calls for reassessing the Historic Preservation
Ordinance to ensure its effectiveness in the maintenance and
preservation of historic resources, particularly in the Downtown
area. Policy L-56 promotes the preservation of historic buildings
to reinforce the scale and character of Downtown. It is supported
by Program L-59, which allows parking exceptions for historic
buildings to encourage rehabilitation; in addition, Program L-60
continues the Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance to
transfer development rights from designated buildings of historic
significance in the Commercial Downtown zone to non-historic
receiver sites in the same zone.
Transportation Element
The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
includes several policies and programs pertaining to traffic and
parking in Downtown Palo Alto. The Plan singles out
Downtown Palo Alto as the primary area of the city with major
parking issues. The Transportation Element identifies the
primary challenge for the future as managing the existing
parking supply, while reducing parking demand by providing
alternatives to driving. The elements 13-Point Parking Program
is a detailed, comprehensive program with parking supply and
demand management strategies, which has been approved by the
City Council and implemented in the Downtown area.
The Transportation Element also includes a number of policies
and programs that support Goal T-8: Attractive, Convenient
Public and Private Parking Facilities. Policy T-45 supports the
provision of sufficient parking in the Downtown area to address
long-range needs. Supported by Programs T-49, T-50, and T-51,
the Plan states that most new development is to provide its own
parking, because the existing demand for parking exceeds supply.
However, it also allows in-lieu fees to be paid instead of
providing parking spaces under certain circumstances, which
support construction of public parking lots or garages in the
future. Policy T-46 calls for minimizing the need for all-day
employee parking facilities in Downtown and supporting short-
2-4
term customer parking, while Policy T-47 protects residential
areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts.
Programs T-52 and T-53 support these policies, by ensuring that
parking structures in Downtown are used to their maximum
potential and that parking facilities dont intrude into adjacent
residential neighborhoods.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS
The City is currently updating the Comprehensive Plan for the
horizon year 2030, and it has released drafts of the various
elements in the Plan. The Downtown Cap Study will provide
necessary information and analysis to inform the process of
updating the Comprehensive Plan.
2.3 Zoning Ordinance (Downtown
Area)
DISTRICTS
The Citys Zoning Ordinance is Title 18 of the Municipal Code,
and the zoning districts are shown in Figure 2-1.
There are three main zoning designations that apply in the
Downtown area to the Primary Study Area:
CD - Downtown Commercial District: The CD district is
intended to be a comprehensive zoning district for the
downtown business area, accommodating a wide range of
commercial uses serving citywide and regional business and
service needs, as well as providing for residential uses and
neighborhood services. Chapter 18.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code details the regulations for the CD district, which was
specifically created to promote the following objectives in Palo
Altos Downtown:
Control the rate and size of commercial development;
Preserve and promote ground-floor retail uses;
Enhance pedestrian activity;
Create harmonious transitions from the commercial
areas to adjacent residential areas; and
Where applied in conjunction with Chapter 16.49 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code, preserve historic buildings.
Within the CD district, there are subdistricts, including CD-C
(Community), CD-S (Service), and CD-N (Neighborhood), as
2-5
well as site development areas. Residential uses are permitted as
part of mixed-use projects; exclusively residential uses are
generally prohibited throughout the CD district and subdistricts,
unless a site is designated as a Housing Opportunity Site in the
Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
PF Public Facilities District: The PF district is intended to
accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and
community service or recreational facilities. Chapter 18.28 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code details the regulations that apply in
the PF district.
PC Planned Community: The PC district is intended for
unified, comprehensively planned developments that provide
substantial public benefits and conform with and enhance the
policies and programs of the Citys Comprehensive Plan. It
accommodates developments with a variety of uses, including
residential, commercial, professional, research, industrial,
administrative, or other activities. Each planned community
must apply for the PC district designation, which must be
approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
In addition, there are two combining districts that are designated
in the Downtown area, which are detailed in Chapter 18.30 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code:
P - Pedestrian Shopping Combining District: The pedestrian
shopping combining district is intended to modify the
regulations of the commercial districts. It applies in locations in
the CD district in Downtown where it is deemed essential to
foster the continuity of retail stores and display windows and to
avoid a monotonous pedestrian environment in order to
establish and maintain an economically healthy and pedestrian-
oriented retail district.
GF - Ground Floor Combining District: The ground floor
combining district is intended to modify the uses allowed in the
CD district and subdistricts to allow only retail, eating and
drinking and other service-oriented commercial development
uses on the ground floor. Where the ground floor combining
district is combined with the CD district, the regulations
established in the GF district apply in lieu of the uses normally
allowed in the CD district, and all other regulations shall be those
of the applicable underlying CD district.
Select parcels in the Primary Study Area are designated Multiple
Family Residential (RM), including RM-30 and RM-40, which
are medium and high density multiple family residence districts.
These zones contain only residential uses, so they are not
discussed extensively in this study of the Downtown
Development Cap.
The South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA CAP) is
an area plan that applies to the parcels in the southeastern
portion of the Primary Study Area. The SOFA CAP provides the
zoning regulations for the area, which includes one primary
district:
RT Residential Transition District: The RT district is the
primary district for SOFA 2, and it is divided into RT-35 and RT-
50 districts, which each have different development standards.
The RT-35 and RT-50 districts are intended to promote the
continuation of a mixed use, walkable area with a wealth of older
buildings.
2-6
2009 AND 2013 REZONING GROUND FLOOR
COMBINING DISTRICT
As part of the original 1986 language of the Ground Floor (GF)
combining district, a Use Exception provision was triggered
when the vacancy rate for ground floor properties within the
zone was 5 percent or greater. Between 1986 and 2009, if an
applicant could then show that the location was vacant and
available for at least six months, the Director could issue a Use
Exception.
In 2009, the Downtown vacancy rate was above 5 percent for an
extended period, prompting the City Council to change the
Zoning Code. It was modified to remove the Use Exception
provision in the GF zone language. This change had the effect of
preventing any further conversion of retail and service uses to
office uses in the Downtown, regardless of the vacancy rate in the
area. In addition to removing the Use Exception clause, the
changes in 2009 also included rezoning portions of the
Downtown area, which added and removed the GF combining
district on the Zoning Map. Three properties in the Downtown
were rezoned to be included in the GF combining district, while
13 properties were removed from the GF combining district. The
CD district outside of the GF zone was also amended to allow
greater flexibility for landlords to experiment with retail in
former office space and to alternate between office and retail
uses; the changes also modified the development standards to
ensure ground floor space is designed, but not required, to
accommodate retail use.
In 2013, the vacancy rate in the Downtown had fallen again to
nearly 2 percent, compared with 9 percent in 2009. City Council
amended the Zoning Map again to rezone properties on the 600
block of Emerson Street, to add the GF combining district back
to the properties (after they had been removed from the GF
combining district in 2009). The change ensures that retail
remains on the 600 block of Emerson Street, even as demand for
office space in the Downtown continues to rise. The rezoning
grandfathers in current uses, but following a vacancy of 12
months, the properties will revert to ground floor retail
permanently.
PARKING
In 2003, the City updated its Zoning Ordinance to implement
the goals established by the updated 1998 Comprehensive Plan.
The Zoning Ordinance Update Parking Memo established
parking standards for new land use classifications in the
Comprehensive Plan, including Village Residential, Mixed-Use,
and Transit-Oriented Development. It also evaluated the parking
standards for all types of development, including the number of
spaces required, the size of spaces, and the design of parking lots.
In addition, it also consolidated and simplified zoning provisions
related to parking (which were previously in various sections of
the Zoning Ordinance). Lastly, the Zoning Ordinance Update
parking memo addressed the goals, policies, and programs of the
Comprehensive Plan that were both directly applicable and
indirectly applicable to the parking standards and regulations.
Basic Requirements
As described in Chapter 18.52 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
off-street parking, loading, and bicycle facilities are required for
any new building constructed, for any new use established, for
any addition or enlargement of an existing building or use, and
for any change in the occupancy of any building or the manner
2-7
in which any use is conducted that would result in additional
parking spaces being required.
The CD district is part of the Downtown Parking Assessment
Area, which was first formed in 1978. The Downtown Parking
Assessment Area has an across-the-board requirement of one
parking space per 250 gross square feet of floor area for all uses
except residential. Table 2-1 lists the vehicle and bicycle parking
requirements for each district in the Downtown.

High Street
Bryant Street
Cowper Street
Ramona Street
Webster Street
Emerson Street
Waverley Street
Alma Street
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
i
n
c
o
l
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
m
e
r

A
v
e
n
u
e
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
h
a
n
n
i
n
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
Kipling Street
Tasso Street
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
Kipling Street
Bryant Street
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
Ramona Street
High Street
Webster Street
Waverley Street
Alma Street
Emerson Street
Cowper Street
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
Palo Alto
Caltrain
Station
Palo Alto
City Hall
El Camino Park
Johnson
Park
Heritage
Park
Cogswell
Plaza
Lytton
Plaza
Fig 2-1
0 520 1,040 260
Feet
Zoning Districts
Public Parking Facility
Primary Study Area
Residential District
R-1
DHS
R-2
RM-15
RM-30
RM-40
RMD (NP)
AMF
RT-35
RT-50
Commercial District
CD-C (GF)(P)
CD-C (P)
CD-N (P)
CD-S (GF)(P)
CD-S (P)
Planned Community District
PC
Public Facilities District
PF
2-9
Table 2-1: Downtown Base Parking Requirements
Use
Vehicle Parking Requirement
(Number of spaces)
Bicycle Parking
Requirement
Spaces Class
Downtown
University Avenue
Parking
Assessment
District Applies to
all uses except
residential
1 space per 250 square feet
(4 spaces per 1,000 square feet)
1 space
per
2,500
square
feet
40%
long
term
60%
short
term
Two-family
Residential
(R-2 and RMD
Districts)
1.5 spaces per unit, of which at
least one space per unit must be
covered.
Tandem parking allowed, with
one tandem space per unit,
associated directly with another
parking space for the unit
1 space
per unit
100%
long
term
Multiple Family
Residential
1.25 space per studio unit
1.5 space per 1-bedroom unit
2 spaces per 2-bedroom or
larger unit
At least one space per unit must
be covered.
Tandem parking allowed for any
unit requiring two spaces (one
tandem space per unit,
associated directly with another
parking space for the same unit,
up to a maximum of 25% of total
required spaces for any project
with more than 4 units)
1 space
per unit
100%
long
term

Allowed Adjustments
Parking reductions are allowed under particular circumstances,
including in the Downtown, to reflect features of a development
project that would result in reduced parking demand. The
Planning Director may allow parking reductions for projects that
include on-site employee amenities; joint use/shared parking
facilities; housing for seniors; affordable housing units and single
room occupancy units; housing near transit facilities; and
inclusion of transportation and parking alternatives (such as a
Transportation Demand Management program).
Reductions for various circumstances may be combined,
provided that the total reduction does not reduce the amount of
parking by more than 30 percent of the total amount required for
all projects, except for affordable housing and single-room
occupancy unit projects, which may not be reduced by more
than 40 percent of the total parking requirement, or senior
housing projects, which may not be reduced by more than 50
percent of the total parking requirement. In addition, no
reductions may be granted that would result in fewer than 10
parking spaces on a site.
In Lieu Fees/Exemptions
While the Downtown Parking Assessment District requires one
on-site parking space for every 250 gross square feet of floor area
for all non-residential uses, a number of public parking spaces
within the CD district are available for use as in-lieu parking
spaces to meet the parking requirement for certain projects. This
in-lieu fee program facilitates development to occur on sites that
would otherwise be precluded from development due to parking
constraints. Off-site parking on such sites may be provided by
payment of an in-lieu monetary contribution to the City to
2-10
defray the cost of providing such parking. The contributions for
each required parking space are equal to the incremental cost of
providing a net new parking space in the assessment district, plus
the cost for the administration of the program, as described in
Chapter 16.57 of the Municipal Code. In order to participate in
the in-lieu parking program, a development site must satisfy one
or more of the following criteria:
Construction of on-site parking would necessitate
destruction or substantial demolition of a designated
historic structure;
The site area is less than 10,000 square feet, but of such
an unusual configuration that it would not be physically
feasible to provide the required on-site parking;
The site is greater than 10,000 square feet, but of such an
unusual configuration that it would not be physically
feasible to provide the required on-site parking;
The site is located in an area where city policy precludes
curb cuts or otherwise prevents use of the site for on-site
parking; or
The site has other physical constraints, such as a high
groundwater table, which preclude provision of on-site
parking without extraordinary expense.
Until recently, the Municipal Code had a number of exclusions
from the parking requirement in the CD district. In October
2013, the City Council voted to amend the Citys Zoning
Ordinance related to some of these parking exemptions; this was
in response to concern that the rapid pace of Downtown
development in the several years prior, the number of
exemptions granted, and the absence of new public parking
construction since 2003 were exacerbating the areas parking
problems.
The actions included permanently eliminating the exempt floor
area parking exemption (Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and
18.52.060(c) in the Municipal Code), which allowed floor area up
to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 to 1.0 to be exempt from
parking requirements within the Downtown Parking Assessment
Area. It applied to all or a portion of the floor area of a building
that was located at or nearest grade and did not exceed an FAR of
1.0 to 1.0. Enacted in the mid 1980s, this parking exemption
appears to have been intended to stimulate downtown
development and provide equity to parking assessment district
members, but is no longer necessary given the vitality of
Downtown and the need for additional parking.
The City Council also eliminated the parking exemptions for
Historic or Seismic Bonuses for a period of two years, as well as
on-site parking exemptions for floor area bonuses derived
through historic and seismic upgrades via the transfer of
development rights program (Sections 18.18.070(a)(1),
18.18.080(g), 18.18.090(b)(1), 18.18.090(b)(1)(B),
18.52.070(a)(1)(B), 18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i), and 18.52.070(a)(1)(D)
in the Municipal Code). Regarding grandfathered in buildings
that were previously exempted, the Council also disallowed the
parking exemption for floor area developed or used previously
for non-residential purposes and vacant at the time of the
engineers report during the parking district assessment, as was
previously allowed in Section 18.52.070(a)(3) in the Municipal
Code.
Certain parking exemptions are still in place. For instance, the
parking requirement excludes square footage for handicapped
2-11
access that does not increase the usable floor area. Vacant parcels
that are redeveloped are exempt from on-site parking
requirements for the Downtown Parking Assessment District in
certain circumstances. They must provide 0.3 parking spaces for
every 1,000 square feet of site area, provided that the parcels were
at some time assessed for parking under a Bond Plan E financing
pursuant to Chapter 13.16 of the Municipal Code, or were
subject to other ad valorem assessments for parking. Parking can
be provided off-site if it is within a reasonable distance of the site
using it, the assessment district boundary, and approved in
writing by the Planning Director.
2.4 Bicycle/Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
In 2003, the City of Palo Alto developed a Bicycle Transportation
Plan to identify existing bikeways, analyze bicycle and pedestrian
accident data, and recommend new bikeways, bicycle education
and safety programs, and bicycle support facilities, including
bike parking. It included an expansive bicycle network with
bicycle boulevards, bike lanes on arterial streets, pedestrian
bicycle grade separations, and improvements at key intersections.
Lastly, it recommended programs to promote bicycle education
and outreach and best practices for the design and maintenance
of bicycle facilities.
The 2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan was updated in 2012. It
incorporates new, innovative bicycle design standards to further
promote and connect the Citys extensive bicycle network, such
as green bike lanes, cycletracks, and intersection through-
markings. It expanded analysis to include pedestrian issues,
aiming to improve links between shared use trails and on-street
facilities to key destinations. It includes a revised bicycle network
and a priority project list, as well as a new policy framework.
2.5 Current Studies and Recent
Council Actions
PARKING
2012 Windshield Survey
Previous City parking studies had focused on parking occupancy,
but in 2012, a survey was conducted throughout the greater
Downtown area to gather data on who was parking in and
around Downtown and why. The Downtown Parking Study
Group, a group of self-appointed representatives from local
residents, the Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional
Association Parking Committee, and City staff, conducted the
survey.
To gather data, the Downtown Parking Study Group placed
survey cards on the windshields of vehicles parked on the streets
throughout the Downtown Area. The survey findings were
analyzed according to three distinct zones of the Downtown area:
Downtown North (North of Lytton Avenue), Downtown Core,
and South of Forest Avenue. In the Downtown North group,
more downtown employees parked on the street than residents;
however, in the South of Forest Avenue group, more residents
were parked on the street than downtown employees. In the
Downtown Core group, employees and visitors used street
parking almost equally.
2-12
Downtown Parking Garage Study
The City is currently studying five publicly-owned surface
parking lots in the Downtown District to determine their
suitability for conversion to parking structures. By analyzing the
benefits and shortcomings of each site for parking garage
construction and identifying the cost-benefit ratio for
construction of a garage at each site, the City can begin to
determine which locations may be appropriate for construction
of new parking garages, which would accommodate additional
parking spaces on sites already used for that purpose. In addition,
the study is evaluating the potential of using an attendant or valet
at several of the existing City-owned and operated parking
garages as a method to increase parking supply (as this service
can make more efficient use of space through smaller spaces and
fewer drive aisles), as either a temporary or long-term parking
solution.
Residential Parking Permit Program
The City of Palo Alto is currently in the process of creating a
citywide Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program. Until
recently, the City Council had only adopted RPP programs in the
College Terrace and Crescent Park neighborhoods, even though
it had considered an RPP program in various neighborhoods
across the City for well over a decade. Resident support for a RPP
program in the Downtown district has grown substantially in
recent years as development, congestion, and parking uses in the
area have grown significantly. In general, the RPP program aims
to preserve the quality of life in a neighborhood by ensuring
adequate parking for local residents whose neighborhood streets
see substantial spillover parking from busy commercial areas.
It is seen as a tool to manage parking supplies and encourage
commuters to use alternative travel modes, such as transit,
carpooling, or bicycling. The RPP program also acknowledges,
however, the important role that street parking plays in serving
existing businesses and employees, who use it to supplement the
spaces available in parking surface lots and garages.
In January 2014, the City Council directed staff to create a RPP
Citywide framework, which would establish procedures and
criteria for neighborhoods throughout the City who wish to
establish neighborhood parking restrictions due to intrusions
from non-residential uses. The Council simultaneously directed
staff to begin work on implementing the first RPP district, which
will establish a permit program for the residential neighborhoods
surrounding the Downtown. There is much support for the RPP
program in Downtown Palo Alto among local residents, who are
growing increasingly frustrated with parking spillover from the
congested Downtown area; however, many local businesses and
employers are concerned that the RPP program would negatively
affect their economic vitality and employees. The City Council
will continue to deliberate and debate the program in 2014.
TRAFFIC
Citywide Transportation Survey
In 2013, the City of Palo Alto conducted its first ever Citywide
Transportation Survey to gather comprehensive travel mode data
in the city. Through the survey, the City aimed to better
understand how people who work in Palo Alto travel to work
and how residents travel to their work destinations, both inside
and outside of Palo Alto. The City encouraged both residents
and persons traveling into Palo Alto to either take the short
survey online or fill out a hard copy at public facilities or at their
place of employment. It included questions on travel mode,
bicycle and electric vehicle ownership, and parking usage. The
2-13
survey responses were categorized by whether the respondent
was a resident of Palo Alto or an employee who worked in the
city.
For the survey respondents who lived in Palo Alto, the vast
majority owned vehicles, with well over half reporting having at
least two vehicles in their household. However, the survey
respondents also reflected Palo Altos strong bicycling culture:
over 90 percent of the respondents had a least one bicycle and
over half had four or more bicycles in their households. Less than
half (44 percent) of respondents commuted to a location outside
of Palo Alto, while 39 percent worked within Palo Alto or at
Stanford University. One in four of those respondents who
commuted outside of Palo Alto traveled to the neighboring cities
of Mountain View and Menlo Park. Downtown Palo Alto is the
third most popular shopping district among respondents, after
Town and Country Village and Midtown, and most people travel
to these districts by car.
For the employees who work in Palo Alto and responded to the
survey, nearly 18 percent came from the City of San Jose.
Following San Jose, respondents came from nearby cities of
Mountain View and Menlo Park, with 14 percent combined,
while an equal number of people commute in to Palo Alto from
other cities within the Peninsula, such as San Carlos, San Mateo,
and Burlingame. Most employers in Palo Alto seemed to offer
incentives to their employees to take alternative transportation to
work, with the most popular being passes or discounts for transit.
To encourage and assist them in taking an alternative form of
transportation to work, survey respondents reported that
showers and changing facilities at their place of employment
would help, as would expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities
and cheaper transit fares.
The results from the survey will become the baseline data for
future transportation programs and projects. It will be used by
City staff to assess program initiatives, review programs and
policies, and study current mobility issues.
Transportation Demand Management Plan
The City is currently initiating several Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) measures in an effort to reduce traffic
impacts within the city. Portions of the existing Municipal Code
discuss TDM measures, but these policies and programs are not
comprehensive or mandatory. Palo Altos neighboring
institution, Stanford University, has reduced vehicle trips by 40
percent using a comprehensive TDM program, and the City
ultimately aims to achieve similar results in the Downtown area
with the help of a new TMA (Transportation Management
Association). The TMA will be launched in the summer of 2014
and will identify, market and manage transportation programs
initially for the Downtown, although it may ultimately man
Other TDM-related initiatives include the expansion of the Palo
Alto shuttle program and expanded efforts to promote
alternative modes of transportation.
The TMA has the goal of achieving a 30 percent reduction in
single-occupant vehicle (SOV) trips by its third operational year.
The TMA would focus on promoting other transportation
options, including walking, biking, transit; alternative
transportation modes such as ridesharing, vanpools, and shuttles
and mass transportation, including Caltrain and BART.

2-14
This page left intentionally blank
Chapter 3: Downtown Development & Trends

3-1
3 Downtown Development
& Trends
This chapter focuses on development in Downtown, relying on
staff reports, memos, and GIS data from the City of Palo Alto.
First, it discusses existing Comprehensive Plan land uses in the
Downtown, measured in acres at the parcel level. Next, it
contrasts the floor area, measured in square feet, of the
Downtown land uses between 1986 and 2013. The chapter ends
with a specific discussion of non-residential floor area in the
Downtown, focusing on non-residential development projects
constructed since 1986 and future pipeline projects.
3.1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Distribution
The Citys Zoning Ordinance implements the Comprehensive
Plan goals, policies, and programs for land use in the Downtown.
The land uses allowed in the CD district and subdistricts are
listed explicitly in the Zoning Ordinance (see Section 18.18.050).
Land uses that are not listed in the ordinance are not allowed,
excluding those uses that were grandfathered in (see Section
18.18.011). Generally, educational, religious, and assembly uses;
office uses; residential uses (multiple family as part of a mixed
use development and residential care homes); retail uses; and
most service uses are permitted in the CD district.
Manufacturing and processing uses, public and quasi-public
facility uses, recreation uses, transportation uses, temporary uses,
and some service uses are conditionally permitted in the CD
district. As stated earlier in Chapter 2 of this report, exclusive
residential use is only allowed on sites designated as Housing
Opportunity Sites in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive
Plan; otherwise, residential uses are only permitted as part of a
mixed use development in the CD district.
Within the CD district, public facilities are also allowed on sites
zoned PF. As stated in Section 18.28.040 of the Zoning
Ordinance, uses that are permitted include park uses, park
operations, and facilities that are owned, leased, operated, or
used by the City of Palo Alto, the County of Santa Clara, the
State of California, the federal government, the Palo Alto Unified
School District, or any other governmental agency. In the PF
district, on sites that are owned by the City, County, State, federal
government, school district, or other governmental agency, the
code conditionally permits educational, religious, and assembly
uses; office uses; community and utility facilities; recreational
uses; some service uses; and temporary, accessory, and support
uses.
Uses that are allowed in the RT district include educational,
religious, and assembly uses; office uses; residential uses; retail
uses; and most service uses. Some service uses are conditionally
permitted, as are transportation, public and quasi-public, and
recreational uses.
3-2
Table 3-1 shows the existing Comprehensive Plan land uses
measured at the parcel level in acres in the Peripheral Study Area
and the Primary Study Area, which are shown in Figure 1-1.
Table 3-1: Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Uses by
Acres in Downtown Palo Alto (2013)
Comprehensive Plan
Land Use
Designation
Acres in
Peripheral
Study Area
Percent of
Total
Acreage in
Peripheral
Study
Area
1

Acres in
Primary
Study Area
Percent of
Total
Acreage in
Primary
Study
Area
1

Single Family
Residential
127.42 38.2% - -
Multi-family
Residential
86.88 26.1% 0.97 1.2%
Public Park 2.50 0.8% 0.44 0.5%
School 4.59 1.4% - -
Community
Commercial
57.51 17.3% 57.48 71.3%
Service Commercial 0.49 0.2% 0.49 0.6%
Neighborhood
Commercial
3.25 1.0% 3.23 4.0%
Major
Institution/Special
Facility
2.55 0.8% 2.55 3.2%
SOFA I & II CAP 48.04 14.4% 15.49 19.2%
TOTAL
2
333.23 100.0% 80.65 100.0%
Notes:
1. Percentages rounded to nearest tenth of a percent.
2. Total acreage excludes rights-of-way.
3.2 Development Since 1986
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SINCE 1986
In 1986, there were about 3.3 million square feet of development
in the Primary Study Area, with the vast majority of the space
devoted to non-residential uses. About 250,000 square feet have
been added in the two-and-a-half decades since, for a total of
3.55 million square feet of development in the Downtown, with
about 3.16 million square feet occupied by non-residential uses.
This is shown in Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1: Primary Study Area Non-Residential
Development Since 1986 in Square Feet

As shown in Figure 3-2, the majority of the development (62
percent) that has occurred in the Primary Study Area since 1986
has been in the CD-C (P) zone.
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
Total Non-Residential
Floor Area in 1986
Non-Residential Floor
Area Added Since 1986
3-3
Figure 3-2: Primary Study Area Non-Residential
Development Net Square Footage 1986-2013 by Zone

CHANGE IN LAND USES SINCE 1986
While the overall floor area in the Primary Study Area has
increased by less than 10 percent between 1986 and 2013, the
land use distribution of that floor area has changed considerably.
The changes in land uses across the two-and-a-half decades
correspond to broader changes in the Citys and the regional
economies since the 1980s. Generally speaking, office and
professional service uses have increased their share of floor area
in the Primary Study Area, while light industrial uses (such as
warehousing, distribution, and automotive services) have
decreased considerably since 1986. Retail has remained one of
the dominant uses.
However, the exact shift in share of square footage of the various
land uses categories from 1986 to 2013 is not known precisely,
for various reasons:
The recorded existing land use data table as published in
the yearly Downtown Monitoring Report is rounded to
the nearest 25,000 square feet and was based on a table
originally prepared in 1986. Over the years, because of
rounding of incremental square feet, the table has
generated a greater margin of error. Therefore, the
number of square feet by use in the Citys records may
not correspond exactly to what exists on the ground.
The City uses a blended rate of one parking space for
every 250 square feet per addition of nonresidential use,
so the City has not collected data on the detailed land use
breakdown of these non-residential uses.
The City does not require business licenses. The lack of a
business license or business registry requirement has
resulted in incomplete business data throughout the
Downtown and the City.
Building permit use and occupancy data does not record
the square footage use for projects filing for change of
use and tenancy improvements.
Figure 3-3 shows development by decade in Downtown Palo
Alto. Developments added since the cap was put in place are
marked with a blue star.

-20,000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
RT-50 PC CD-S (P) CD-N (P) CD-C (P) CD-C (GF)
(P)
High Street
Bryant Street
Cowper Street
Ramona Street
Webster Street
Emerson Street
Waverley Street
Alma Street
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
i
n
c
o
l
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
m
e
r

A
v
e
n
u
e
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
h
a
n
n
i
n
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
Kipling Street
Tasso Street
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
Kipling Street
Bryant Street
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
Ramona Street
High Street
Webster Street
Waverley Street
Alma Street
Emerson Street
Cowper Street
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
Palo Alto
Fire
Station
United
States
Post
Office
El Camino Park
Johnson
Park
Heritage
Park
Cogswell
Plaza
Lytton
Plaza
Fig 3-3
0 520 1,040 260
Feet
Before 1920
1921-1940
1941-1960
1961-1980
1981-2000
After 2000
Built after Downtown Development
Cap was Established
Parks & Open Space
Primary Study Area
3-5
TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT SINCE 1986
Since 1986, nearly 252,000 net square feet of non-residential
development has been constructed in the Primary Study Area, as
shown in Figure 3-4. In some years, such as 1994 and 2003, there
were larger demolition projects that resulted in decline in non-
residential floor area. However, in most years, development
projects resulted in a positive net change in non-residential floor
area. In the first two decades following 1986, growth varied from
year to year, with the highest levels of non-residential
construction occurring in the late 1980s and late 1990s. However,
more recently, the Primary Study Area has grown substantially.
In fact, over half of the total non-residential development in the
Primary Study Area (52 percent) has been constructed since 2010,
with almost 100,000 square feet constructed between 2012 and
2013 alone. Several of the recent developments include large
mixed-use projects at 335/355 Alma Street and 135 Hamilton
Street. Figure 3-4 shows the net change development each year
since 1986, and Table 3-2 lists of all of the non-residential
development projects in Downtown Palo Alto since 1986.
Figure 3-4: Net Change in Primary Study Area Non-
residential Development, 1986 - 2013

(20,000)
(10,000)
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
1
9
8
4

1
9
8
6

1
9
8
8

1
9
9
0

1
9
9
2

1
9
9
4

1
9
9
6

1
9
9
8

2
0
0
0

2
0
0
2

2
0
0
4

2
0
0
6

2
0
0
8

2
0
1
0

2
0
1
2

S
q
u
a
r
e

F
e
e
t

3-6
Table 3-2: Non-Residential Development
Projects in Primary Study Area,
1986 2013
Project Address Year Net change in
non-Residential
Floor Area
(square feet)
520 Ramona Street
1
1984 400
220 University Avenue 1987 65
151 Homer Avenue 1988 -9,750
314 Lytton Avenue 1988 -713
247-275 Alma Street 1988 1,150
700 Emerson Street 1988 4,000
431 Florence Street 1988 2,500
156 University Avenue 1988 4,958
401 Florence Street 1989 2,407
619 Cowper Street 1989 2,208
550 University Avenue 1989 -371
529 Bryant Street 1990 2,491
305 Lytton Avenue 1990 200
550 Lytton Avenue
2,3
1990 4,845
540 Bryant Street 1992 404
530/534 Bryant Street 1993 432
555 Waverley
Street/425 Hamilton
Avenue
3

1993 2,064
1986 2013
non-Residential
Floor Area
(square feet)
245 Lytton Avenue 1994 -21,320
400 Emerson Street
3,4
1994 4,715
443 Emerson Street 1995 26
340 University Avenue 1995 -402
281 University Avenue 1995 -2,500
536 Ramona Street 1995 134
725/753 Alma Street 1995 -1,038
5

1995 7,289
901/909 Alma Street
3.4

1996 4,425
401 High Street 1996 350
430 Kipling Street
2,6
1996 1,412
460-476 University
Avenue
1996 1,775
400 Emerson Street
2
1997 2,227
3-7
1986 2013
non-Residential
Floor Area
(square feet)
275 Alma Street 1997 3,207
390 Lytton Avenue 1997 17,815
411 High Street
6
1997 2,771
705 Alma Street 1999 2814
200 Hamilton Avenue 1999 10913
550 Lytton Avenue 2000 93
437 Kipling Street 2001 945
880 - 884 Emerson
Street
2001 312
539 Alma Street 2001 2,500
800 High Street
7
2003 -15,700
164 Hamilton Avenue 2005 -2,799
657 Alma Street (101
Forest Avenue)
7

2005 3,029
820 Ramona Street 2006 2,936
1986 2013
non-Residential
Floor Area
(square feet)
317-323 University
Avenue
2008 3,290
801-849 Alma Street
7
2009 -9,740
340 University Avenue 2010 -1,360
524 Hamilton Avenue 2011 9,345
668 Ramona Street 2011 4,940
335-355 Alma Street 2012 49,863
301 High Street 2013 200
Totals 1986-2013 251,690
1. Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium
(9/84 to 9/86), but was not included in the Downtown
EIRs pipeline projects. As a result, the project is
counted among the CD Districts nonresidential
development approvals since the enactment of the
3-8
1986 2013
non-Residential
Floor Area
(square feet)
Downtown Study Policies in 1986.
2. Project converted residential space to non-residential
space. Net non-residential space counts toward the
350,000 square foot limit.
3. Project included covered parking that counts as floor
area but not counted 350,000 square foot limit.
4. Project was approved pursuant to PAMC Sections
18.83.120 or 18.83.130, which allow for a reduction in
the number required parking spaces for shared parking
facilities, joint use parking facilities, or substitution of 8
bike parking spaces for one vehicle space.
5. In addition, project paid in-lieu fee for loss of 2 on-site
parking spaces.
6, In addition, projects paid in-lieu fee for loss of 4 on-site
spaces.
7. Part of the SOFA 2 CAP.
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2014.
Moving forward, the City is currently considering approving
over 36,000 square feet of non-residential development in
Downtown. The pipeline includes the following non-residential
projects, shown in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: Downtown Palo Alto Pipeline Projects
(2014+), As of April 2014
Project Location Non-Residential
Square Feet
Approved
Non-Residential
Square Feet
Removed
Net Added
Non-Residential
Square Feet
636 Waverly St. 4,800 1,406 3,394
500 University
Ave.
26,806 15,899 10,907
240 Hamilton
Ave.
11,537 7,000 4,527
261 Hamilton
Ave.
6,135 6,135 0
429 University
Ave.
17,280 0 17,280

640 Waverly St.
Details to be determined.
451 University
Ave.
Source: City of Palo Alto, April 2014.

4-1
4 Special Development
Types and Trends in the
Downtown
As a result of the Downtown Study in 1986, new floor area
bonuses were created to encourage seismic and historic
renovations, as well as the provision of public benefits, in the
Downtown. As part of the Citys new growth limit on non-
residential development in the CD district, 100,000 square feet of
the total new floor area were reserved for projects demonstrating
special public benefits and 75,000 square feet were reserved were
reserved for projects that qualify for seismic, historic, or minor
expansion exemptions. This chapter discusses the types and
trends of development under these special programs since 1986.
4.1 As-of-Right and Bonus/TDR
Densities & Intensities
Table 4-1 shows the development regulations for density and
intensity for the zoning districts in the Primary Study Area. It
includes non-residential, hotel, and mixed uses in the CD and
RT districts, as well as uses in the PF district. It distinguishes
between the maximum FAR allowed in the zone as-of-right and
the maximum FAR allowed with the special programs and
bonuses where applicable. The PC district, which applies to some
parcels in the Primary Study Area, is not included in the chart
because each planned community with the PC district
designation has unique development plans, programs, and
designs that are approved by the Planning Commission and City
Council.

4-2
Table 4-1: Development Standards for Downtown
Zoning Districts
Non-Residential
Uses
CD-C CD-S
1
CD-N
1
RT-35 RT-50
Maximum FAR 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Maximum Size 25,000 square feet of gross
floor area or 15,000 square
feet above the existing floor
area, whichever is greater,
provided other floor area
limits are not exceeded.
None None
Maximum FAR
with TDR or
Bonus
3.0 2.0 2.0 1.3 1.5
Maximum Site
Coverage
None None 50% None None
Mixed Use CD-C CD-S
1
CD-N
1
RT-35
2
RT-50
2

Residential
Density (du/acre)
40 30 30 None None
Maximum Res.
Average Unit Size
(SF)
None None None 1,250 1,250
Maximum
Residential FAR
1.0 0.6 0.5 1.15 1.3
Maximum Non-
Residential FAR
1.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Maximum Total
FAR
2.0 1.0 0.9 1.15 1.3
Maximum FAR
with TDR or
Bonus
3.0 2.0 2.0 1.3 1.5
Maximum Site
Coverage
None 50% 50% None None
Table 4-1: Development Standards for Downtown
Zoning Districts
Hotel CD-C CD-S
1
CD-
N
1

RT-
35
RT-50
Maximum FAR 2.0 1.15 1.3
Public Facilities PF RT-35
3
RT-50
3

Maximum FAR 1.0 None None
Maximum Site
Coverage
30% None None
Notes:
1. In the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts, no new gross square footage of a
medical, professional, general business, or administrative office use shall be
allowed once the gross square footage of such office uses on a site has
reached 5,000 square feet. In addition, no conversion of gross square footage
from any other use to a medical, professional, general business, or
administrative office use shall be allowed once the gross square footage of
such office uses on a site has reached 5,000 square feet.
2. For Planned Community (PC) Districts within the RT Districts, the maximum
FAR is 1.5 for RT-35 and 2.0 for RT-50 Districts. See SOFA CAP 2 Section
5.090 for more details. Outside of SOFA CAP 2, the Zoning Ordinance does
not include FAR and development regulations for the PC district.
3. In the RT Districts, public facilities uses require a Conditional Use Permit.

Chapter 4: Special Development Types and Trends in the Downtown

4-3
Figure 4-1 shows combined total base FAR that is allowed in the
Primary Study Area, and for much of the Downtown area, the
maximum FAR is 1.0 without any bonuses. Figure 4-2 shows the
combined total maximum FAR that is allowed under the bonus
and TDR programs; for most sites in the Primary Study Area,
these programs increase the maximum FAR to 3.0.
Figure 4-3 shows the combined total FAR as built in 2014, and it
notes the sites that have received density bonuses through the
TDR and/or bonus programs after 1986. The parcels with higher
density are generally located on or around University Avenue,
the main corridor in the Downtown, and the parcels with lower
density are generally located on the edge of the Downtown core.
As expected, many of the sites with higher FAR values benefited
from the bonus and TDR programs; however, the map also
shows that many of the sites with medium FAR values also
benefited from the bonus and TDR programs.
Under the existing regulations, there is capacity for additional
square footage to be constructed as-of-right in the Primary Study
Area, beyond what has actually been built.

High Street
Bryant Street
Cowper Street
Ramona Street
Webster Street
Emerson Street
Waverley Street
Alma Street
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
i
n
c
o
l
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
m
e
r

A
v
e
n
u
e
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
h
a
n
n
i
n
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
Kipling Street
Tasso Street
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
Kipling Street
Bryant Street
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
Ramona Street
High Street
Webster Street
Waverley Street
Alma Street
Emerson Street
Cowper Street
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
Palo Alto
Caltrain
Station
Palo Alto
City Hall
Palo Alto
Fire
Station
United
States
Post
Office
El Camino Park
Johnson
Park
Heritage
Park
Cogswell
Plaza
Lytton
Plaza
Fig 4-1
0 520 1,040 260
Feet
Allowed Combined Total
Base FAR
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
0.4 Combined Total FAR
Not Available or Not Applicable*
Parks & Open Space
Primary Study Area
*Note: Not Applicable applies to all the properties
within the PC Zone; Single and Multi Family
Residential Developments; Parks & Open Space.
High Street
Bryant Street
Cowper Street
Ramona Street
Webster Street
Emerson Street
Waverley Street
Alma Street
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
i
n
c
o
l
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
m
e
r

A
v
e
n
u
e
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
h
a
n
n
i
n
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
Kipling Street
Tasso Street
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
Kipling Street
Bryant Street
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
Ramona Street
High Street
Webster Street
Waverley Street
Alma Street
Emerson Street
Cowper Street
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
Palo Alto
Caltrain
Station
Palo Alto
City Hall
Palo Alto
Fire
Station
United
States
Post
Office
El Camino Park
Johnson
Park
Heritage
Park
Cogswell
Plaza
Lytton
Plaza
Fig 4-2
0 520 1,040 260
Feet
Allowed Combined Total
Maximum FAR with TDR
or Bonus
1.0 Maximum FAR
1.3 Maximum FAR
1.5 Maximum FAR
2.0 Maximum FAR
3.0 MAximum FAR
Not Available or Not Applicable*
Parks & Open Space
Primary Study Area
*Note: Not Applicable applies to all the properties
within the PC Zone; Single and Multi Family
Residential Developments; Parks & Open Space.
High Street
Bryant Street
Cowper Street
Ramona Street
Webster Street
Emerson Street
Waverley Street
Alma Street
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
i
n
c
o
l
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
m
e
r

A
v
e
n
u
e
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
h
a
n
n
i
n
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
Kipling Street
Tasso Street
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
Kipling Street
Bryant Street
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
Ramona Street
High Street
Webster Street
Waverley Street
Alma Street
Emerson Street
Cowper Street
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
Palo Alto
Caltrain
Station
Palo Alto
City Hall
Palo Alto
Fire
Station
United
States
Post
Office
El Camino Park
Johnson
Park
Heritage
Park
Cogswell
Plaza
Lytton
Plaza
Fig 4-3
0 520 1,040 260
Feet
Existing FAR As Built
Less than or Equal to 0.25
> 0.25 - 0.50
> 0.50 - 0.75
> 0.75 - 1.00
> 1.00 - 2.00
> 2.00 - 3.00
Greater than 3.0
Properties with Floor Area Bonuses
Parks & Open Space
Primary Study Area

4-7
4.2 Historic Property Renovation
and Seismic Upgrade Bonuses
There are several types of floor area bonuses allowed under the
Zoning Ordinance, as described in Section 18.18.070:
Seismic Rehabilitation Bonus. A building that is in
Seismic Category I, II, or III, and is undergoing seismic
rehabilitation is allowed to increase its floor area by
2,500 square feet or 25 percent of the existing building,
whichever is greater, without having the increase count
towards the FAR. However, the increase in floor area is
not permitted for buildings that exceed the FAR of 3.0 in
the CD-C subdistrict or the FAR of 2.0 in the CD-N or
CD-S subdistricts.
Historic Rehabilitation Bonus. A building that is in
Historic Category 1 or 2 and is undergoing historic
CD-S subdistricts.
For buildings in Historic Category 1 or 2 that are
undergoing historic rehabilitation and currently exceed
the FAR of 3.0 in the CD-C subdistrict or the FAR of 2.0
in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts, a floor area bonus of
50 percent of the maximum allowable floor area for the
site of the building (based on the FAR of 3.0 in the CD-C
subdistrict and the FAR of 2.0 in the CD-N or CD-S
subdistricts) is allowed; however, the floor area bonus is
not allowed on the site of the Historic Category 1 or 2
building, but instead may be transferred to another
property or properties under the Transfer of
Development Rights program.
Combined Historic and Seismic Rehabilitation Bonus.
A building that in Historic Category 1 or 2 and is
undergoing historic rehabilitation, and is also in Seismic
Category I, II, or III and is undergoing seismic
CD-S subdistricts.
Minor Bonus for Buildings Not Eligible for Historic or
Seismic Bonus. A building that is neither in Historic
Category 1 or 2 nor in Seismic Category I, II, or III is
allowed to increase its floor area by 200 square feet
without having the increase count towards the FAR.
However, the increase in floor area is not permitted for
buildings that exceed the FAR of 3.0 in the CD-C
subdistrict or the FAR of 2.0 in the CD-N or CD-S
subdistricts.
4-8
Ultimately, over 112,000 square feet of non-residential
development have been provided through the seismic, historic,
or minor bonus square footage programs. Figure 4-4 shows the
amount of square footage added each year after 1986 with the
seismic, historic, or minor bonus square footage programs. Table
4-2 lists of all of the post-1986 projects that benefitted from the
seismic, historic, or minor bonus square footage programs.
Figure 4-5 maps these properties.
Figure 4-4: Non-Residential Development - Seismic,
Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage, 1986-2013

Table 4-2: Downtown Palo Alto Non-Residential
Development Projects Receiving Seismic,
Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage,
1986-2013
Project Location Year Seismic, Historic,
or Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Total Net
Change in Non-
Residential
Square Footage
520 Ramona Street 1984 400 400
431 Florence Street 1988 2,500 2,500
156 University
Avenue
1988 4,958 4,958
401 Florence Street 1989 2,407 2,407
250 University
Avenue
1989 300 20,300
529 Bryant Street 1990 2,491 2,491
305 Lytton Avenue 1990 200 200
531 Cowper Street 1991 475 9,475
540 Bryant Street 1992 404 404
530/534 Bryant
Street
1993 432 432
201 University
Avenue
1993 2,450 2,450
518 Bryant Street 1994 180 180
400 Emerson Street 1994 200 4,715
443 Emerson Street 1995 26 26
456 University
Avenue
1995 7,486 7,486
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1
9
8
4

1
9
8
6

1
9
8
8

1
9
9
0

1
9
9
2

1
9
9
4

1
9
9
6

1
9
9
8

2
0
0
0

2
0
0
2

2
0
0
4

2
0
0
6

2
0
0
8

2
0
1
0

2
0
1
2

S
q
u
a
r
e

F
e
e
t


4-9
1986-2013
or Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Total Net
Change in Non-
Residential
Square Footage
483 University
Avenue
1995 7,289 7,289
424 University
Avenue
1995 2,803 2,803
171 University
Avenue
1996 1,853 1,853
401 High Street 1996 350 350
430 Kipling Street 1996 200 1,412
460-476 University
Avenue
1997 1,775 1,775
274 Alma Street 1997 200 3,207
390 Lytton Avenue 1997 689 17,815
411 High Street 1997 2,771 2,771
530 Ramona Street 1999 2,852 2,852
705 Alma Street 1999 2,814 2,814
200 Hamilton
Avenue
1999 10,913 10,913
539 Alma Street 2001 2,500 2,500
270 University
Avenue
2001 2,642 2,642
382 University
Avenue
2006 194 194
1986-2013
or Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Total Net
Change in Non-
Residential
Square Footage
310 University
Avenue
2008 7,481 7,481
317-328 University
Avenue
2008 2,500 3,290
564 University
Avenue
2008 2,500 4,475
265 Lytton Avenue 2010 3,712 21,151
524 Hamilton
Avenue
2011 5,200 9,345
668 Ramona Street 2011 4,940 4,940
661 Bryant Street 2011 1,906 0
135 Hamilton
Avenue
2013 9,970 19,960
537 Hamilton
Avenue
2013 5,775 9,979
611 Cowper Street 2013 6,938 19,419

4-10
4.3 Projects Offering Significant
Public Benefits
The City created a Planned Community (PC) zoning designation
in 1951. It was revised in 1978 to require developers to provide
public benefits for PC developments, and the zoning regulations
for PC designated sites are contained in Section 18.38 of the
Zoning Code. If a developer wants to build a project at a greater
height, density, or FAR, or with a different mix of uses than is
allowed under the current zoning for a site, they may choose to
pursue a PC zoning change through a formal application to the
City. The developer proposes public benefits that the project will
include in the zoning change application, and the final package
of public benefits is negotiated with the developer, City staff, and
ultimately City Council. The Planning Commission,
Architectural Review Board, and City Council must approve the
zoning change application. While developers are encouraged to
meet with the public to solicit resident input regarding the public
benefits, there is no formal process for soliciting community
feedback for PC zoning change applications. Ultimately, the type
or amount of bonus is not pre-determined; it is decided as part of
zoning change process by the involved parties. Traffic studies,
public art, public plazas, community rooms, tree plantings,
grocery stores, and affordable housing are all types of public
benefits that have been provided in Palo Alto through the PC
zoning designation.
Over 100 projects have been built with PC zoning since 1951
across the City. Of the non-residential square footage that has
been constructed in the Downtown since 1986, at least 44,000
square feet have been constructed through the public benefit
bonus program. Table 4-3 shows the six projects that have
benefitted from the program since 1986.
Table 4-3: Downtown Palo Alto Non-residential
Projects Receiving Public Benefit Bonus,
1986-2013
Project Location Year Public Benefit Bonus Non-
Residential Square Footage
529 Bryant Street 1990 2,491
335-350 Alma Street 2012 9,700

Figure 4-5 shows the properties that received FAR bonuses under
the Seismic, Historic, and Minor Bonus program and the Public
Benefits program. Many of the parcels that received FAR
bonuses are located on or within a block of University Avenue,
and most of the parcels received benefits under the Seismic,
Historic, and Minor Bonus program.

High Street
Bryant Street
Cowper Street
Ramona Street
Webster Street
Emerson Street
Waverley Street
Alma Street
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
i
n
c
o
l
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
m
e
r

A
v
e
n
u
e
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
h
a
n
n
i
n
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
Kipling Street
Tasso Street
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
Kipling Street
Bryant Street
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
Ramona Street
High Street
Webster Street
Waverley Street
Alma Street
Emerson Street
Cowper Street
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
Palo Alto
Caltrain
Station
Palo Alto
City Hall
Palo Alto
Fire
Station
United
States
Post
Office
El Camino Park
Johnson
Park
Heritage
Park
Cogswell
Plaza
Lytton
Plaza
Fig 4-5
0 520 1,040 260
Feet
Properties with Floor Area
Bonuses
Properties with Floor Area Bonuses
Seismic, Historic, and Minor Bonuses
Public Benefits
Properties with both Seismic,
Historic, and Minor Bonuses
and Public Benefits
Not Applicable*
Parks & Open Space
Primary Study Area
*Note: Not Applicable applies to all the residential
properties within the PC Zone; Single and Multi
Family Residential Developments; Parks & Open
Space.
4-12
4.4 Transfer of Development Rights
To provide incentives for historic and seismic rehabilitation of
private property in the Downtown, the City of Palo Alto created
a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program in 1986. The
regulations for the program are in Section 18.18.080 of the
Municipal Code. The program provides a floor area bonus for
the qualified rehabilitation of certain eligible historic buildings
(sender sites), which may then be transferred to eligible sites in
the Downtown commercial district (receiver sites). Historically,
a significant part of the value of the TDR was the parking
exemption, which exempted the first 5,000 square feet of TDR
transferred from the applicable parking requirements (generally,
1 space per 250 square feet of floor area in the Downtown
provided on-site, or in-lieu fees paid to the City). This exemption
was eliminated from the TDR program in late 2013.
The use of TDR is one of the only ways in which most buildings
in the Downtown can expand beyond the base allowable floor
area, which is described in Section 3.4 of this report. The TDRs
are sold by the owners of the sender site to another party; the
transfer must be evidenced by a recorded document that
identifies the transferor, the transferee, and the sender site. The
purchase of TDRs includes no guarantee of a receiver site. The
TDRs do not have to be assigned to or used on a receiver site at
the time of the transfer, so they may be held for later use or resale.
The TDR program functions in the Downtown market by
ensuring that there is potentially more demand for development
rights than supply; in other words, there are more receiver sites
in the Downtown than sender sites. In 2007, the City Council
voted to allow eligible City-owned historic properties in any zone
district to be sender sites under the TDR ordinance, to transfer
historic or seismic rehabilitation floor area bonuses from these
sites to eligible receiver sites in Downtown.
ELIGIBLE TDRS
According to City records, the Downtown has approximately 78
buildings that are eligible for a seismic or historic bonus under
the TDR program. These buildings fall into three general
categories: properties that have applied for and received TDRs
under the Citys ordinance; properties that have been seismically
or historically upgraded, but have not applied for or received
TDRs; and properties that may be eligible for TDRs, but have
chosen not to upgrade. Table 4-4 shows the potential TDR
bonuses and parking exemptions of the 78 eligible historic and
seismic buildings; it includes the three categories of properties
and the total floor area, number of exempt parking spaces (if
any), and the number of properties that are entitled to the
properties under each category.
Table 4-4: TDR Bonuses for Originator Sites by
Entitlement, October 2013
Floor Area
(Square
Feet)
Exempt
Parking
Spaces
1

Number of
Properties
Properties with Documented Bonuses and TDRs
Downtown 123,783 471 32
SOFA
2
7,813 31 3
City-Owned
3
7,500 30 3
Subtotal 139,095 532 38
Properties Upgraded; No Claim of TDRs
Downtown 29,307 0 11
SOFA 7,500 0 3

4-13
Table 4-4: TDR Bonuses for Originator Sites by
Entitlement, October 2013
Floor Area
(Square
Feet)
Exempt
Parking
Spaces
1

Number of
Properties
City-Owned 0 0 0
Subtotal 36,807 0 14
Properties Eligible but Not Upgraded
SOFA 2,500 0 1
City-Owned 0 0 0
Subtotal 68,476 0 26
Grand Total 244,378 532 78
Notes:
1. Historically, the TDR program included a parking exemption, which
exempted the first 5,000 square feet of TDR transferred from the
applicable parking requirements (generally, 1 space per 250 square feet of
floor area in the Downtown provided on-site, or in-lieu fees paid to the
City). The TDR parking exemption was eliminated in late 2013 and will not
apply to those properties that have updated but did not claim TDRs or
those properties that are eligible but have not upgraded.
2. TDRs generated in the SOFA may be used on site or transferred into the
Downtown area. Assumption is that SOFA current remaining TDRs will be
transferred into the Downtown area.
3. City Owned properties include three properties outside of the Downtown
area that could only be used in the Downtown area. Properties included:
Childrens' Library, College Terrace Library, and Sea Scout Building.
Source: City Council Staff Report, Parking Exemptions Code Ordinances,
10/21/13, Table 3 (with Exempt Parking Spaces updated to reflect changes
in\ the Zoning Ordinance in late 2013).

As shown in Table 4-4, the total indicates that if all of the
possible TDR bonuses were used, 244,378 additional square feet
could be added to the Downtown. The next section describes
how much of this potential square footage has been used.
TDR BONUSES USED IN THE DOWNTOWN
While not all eligible properties have taken advantage of the TDR
program, a substantial number of properties have taken part in
the program. The TDR program has been successful in providing
an incentive for the private market to redevelop and upgrade
historic and seismically unsafe buildings.
Table 4-5 shows the documented TDR bonuses used in the
Downtown by origin, which refers to the sender sites location
(Downtown, SOFA, or City-owned properties). It summarizes
the total TDR bonuses that have been created as of October 2013,
and it also shows how the TDR bonuses have been used in the
Downtown by including the following subcategories: TDR
bonuses transferred to a receiver site; TDR bonuses used on site;
and TDR bonuses that have been created but not yet used. As
shown in the table, a total of 139,095 square feet of floor area
have been created through the TDR program. Of that total, about
41 percent (57,426 square feet) of the TDR bonuses have been
transferred to a receiver site, while about 42 percent (58,022
square feet) of the TDR bonuses have been used on-site. The
remaining TDR bonuses that have been created about 17
percent (23,647 square feet) have not been used as of late 2013.
A total of 532 exempt parking spaces were created through the
TDR program, which involved a total of 38 properties.

4-14
Table 4-5: Documented TDR Bonuses Used in the
Downtown Area by Origin, October 2013
Floor Area
(Square Feet)
Exempt Parking
Spaces
1

Number of
Properties
Total Documented TDR Bonuses
Downtown 123,783 471 32
SOFA 7,813 31 3
City-Owned 7,500 30 3
Total 139,095 532 38
TDR Bonuses Transferred to a Receiver Site
Downtown 52,926 202 13
SOFA 2,000 8 1
Subtotal 57,426 210
2
15
TDR Bonuses Used On-Site
Downtown 47,586 219 20
SOFA 2,000 8 1
City-Owned 0 0 0
Subtotal 58,022 229
2
21
TDR Bonuses Created but Not Used
SOFA 3,313 13 2
Subtotal 23,647 93 12
Notes:
1. Historically, the TDR program included a parking exemption, which
exempted the first 5,000 square feet of TDR transferred from the applicable
parking requirements (generally, 1 space per 250 square feet of floor area in
the Downtown provided on-site, or in-lieu fees paid to the City). This table
reflects those exempt parking places created through the TDR bonus
Table 4-5: Documented TDR Bonuses Used in the
Downtown Area by Origin, October 2013
Floor Area
(Square Feet)
Exempt Parking
Spaces
1

Number of
Properties
program, because they were created before the parking exemption was
eliminated in late 2013. With the elimination of the parking exemption,
future TDR bonuses will not include exempt parking space.
2. Some FAR transferred was not eligible for the parking exemption.
Source: City Council Staff Report, Parking Exemptions Code Ordinances,
10/21/13, Table 4 (with Exempt Parking Spaces updated to reflect changes in
the Zoning Ordinance in late 2013).

REMAINING TDR BONUSES
The data presented in Table 4-4 shows that a total of 244,378
square feet of floor area were eligible to be created through the
TDR program. The data presented in Table 4-5 shows that a total
of 139,095 square feet of floor area have been created through the
TDR program, of which 115,448 square feet have actually been
used. The remaining 23,647 square feet have been created but
not used. A total of 105,283 square feet remain eligible to be
created in the TDR program and may be created in the future.
Adding 23,647 square feet (created but not used) to 105,283
square feet (eligible to be created) gives a grand total of 128,930
square feet that can be used for Downtown projects in the
future. Table 4-6 summarizes this conclusion.


4-15
Table 4-6: TDR Bonuses Remaining for Use in
Downtown Palo Alto, October 2013
Square Feet
Total TDR Bonuses Possible Under Program 244,378
TDR Bonuses Used 115,448
Used On-Site 58,022
Used On Another (Receiver) Site 57,426
TDR Bonuses Remaining for Use 128,930
Created but Not Used 23,647
Eligible to be Created 105,283

A total of 38 properties have used the program, out of the total
eligible 78 properties. As discussed earlier, the parking
exemption was historically included in the TDR program, but it
was eliminated in late 2013. Before the elimination, a total of 532
parking spaces were exempted under the program; however,
moving forward, no more parking spaces will be exempted as
part of the TDR program.

4-16
4.5 Total Development Under
Bonuses
The Citys development regulations provide substantial bonuses
for non-residential projects in the Downtown. Well over half of
the non-residential square footage in the Downtown 63 percent
that has been constructed since 1986 has benefited from these
programs. Figure 4-6 shows the amount of square footage each
year that used seismic, historic, or minor floor area bonuses;
public benefits bonuses; and no bonuses.
Figure 4-6: Non-residential Development (square feet) in
Downtown: With and Without Bonuses, 1986-2013
(30,000)
(20,000)
(10,000)
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
1
9
8
4

1
9
8
6

1
9
8
8

1
9
9
0

1
9
9
2

1
9
9
4

1
9
9
6

1
9
9
8

2
0
0
0

2
0
0
2

2
0
0
4

2
0
0
6

2
0
0
8

2
0
1
0

2
0
1
2

Constructed
without
bonuses or
benets
Seismic,
Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square
Footage
Public Benet
Bonus Non
Residential
Square
Footage

5-1
5 Existing Transportation
and Commute Trends
5.1 Existing Network
Downtown Palo Alto is a local and regional activity center
consisting of office, retail, commercial, and multi-unit residential
uses in northern Santa Clara County. Bordered by
neighborhoods of single-family homes to the north, east, and
west, and by Stanford University to the south, the citys primary
mixed-use district runs mostly along and between University,
Hamilton, and Lytton Avenues, from Alma Street to Middlefield
Road.
TRANSIT NETWORK
The Downtown has strong transit connections to Stanford and
cities along the Peninsula. As Figure 5-1 shows, transit service
centers at the southern end of downtown around the Palo Alto
Transit Center.
The Transit Center is Caltrains second busiest station (see Table
5-1). It has seen a 50 percent growth in weekday boardings in the
last five years, outpacing system-wide ridership growth.
1
The
station also served the most northbound bike boardings and
southbound bike alightings on the line.
2
Weekend ridership is
strong as well, with more southbound passengers getting off
Caltrain in Palo Alto than at any other station.
3

Bus connections concentrate in and around the Transit Center as
well. Because of its location on the border between Santa Clara
and San Mateo counties and near the western end of a major
transbay crossing via the Dumbarton Bridge, Downtown Palo
Alto is served by the Valley Transportation Agency, SamTrans,
and the Dumbarton Express. The Stanford Marguerite, which is
open to the general public for free, also provides service to the
Stanford campus and Stanford Research Park. The Citys own
shuttles make connections to neighborhoods southeast of
downtown. Routes generally run along Lytton and Hamilton
Avenues, using University Avenue to cross under Alma Street
and enter the Transit Center. Table 5-2 lists the bus lines that
serve the Downtown.
BIKE NETWORK
Downtown Palo Alto is currently served by one major north-
south and one major east-west bike facility (see Figure 5-2). A
Class II bike lane on Lytton Avenue provides a north-south route
between Alma Street and Middlefield Avenue, with nearby

1
Peninsula Joint Powers Board. February 2013 Caltrain Annual Passenger
Counts: Key Findings. Page 21.
2
Ibid page 30.
3
Ibid, page 31-32.
5-2
connections on both ends. A bike boulevard is provided on
Bryant Street, a local street shared with automobiles that only
provides through access to bicyclists from Meadow Drive to Palo
Alto Avenue.
The Citys Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, adopted
in July 2012, recommends new Class I bike paths along Homer
and Channing Avenues, numerous additional bike boulevards
throughout the city, and a set of Class III shared roadways along
University, Hamilton, High, Emerson, and Ramona streets in
and around the Downtown.
The City is actively implementing the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan and has committed $1.2 million each year
through 2018 to fund the implementation of specific projects.
The City is pursuing additional regional grant funding to
facilitate implementation of projects as designs are completed.
5.2 Current Journey-to-Work
Characteristics
Table 5-3 shows U.S. Census Bureau estimates of commute mode
split for workers and residents in the study area and citywide,
based on data gathered from 2006-10. Study-area residents
commute by single-occupancy vehicles (SOV) at a much lower
rate than the city as a whole, at 53 percent versus 67 percent
citywide (see Figure 5-3 for the boundaries of the study-area
census tracts).
4
While study-area residents commute by transit at

4
United States Census Bureau. American Community Survey 2006-2010 Five-
Year Estimates. Table B08006.
slightly higher rates than their counterparts citywide, most of the
difference in SOV travel is due to the substantially higher
walking and biking rates for downtown residents (23 percent
versus 12 percent). There are differences in commute patterns
between the two Census tracts in the study area. People living in
the tract southeast of the Downtown, between Forest Street and
Embarcadero, drive alone to work at a higher rate (60 percent)
and use non-motorized modes at a lower rate (20 percent) than
residents right around University Avenue (48 percent and 25
percent, respectively).
The commute behaviors of study-area workers are significantly
different from those of residents. Approximately 72 percent of
study-area workers commute by SOV and 7 percent bike or walk
to work.
5
The neighborhoods between Forest and Embarcadero
have about one-quarter the workers of the Downtown, and the
areas workers drive-alone and public transit rates are about the
same as those right around University Avenue.

5
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2006-2010 Five-Year
Estimates. Special Tabulation: Census Transportation Planning Package.
Table A202105.

5-3
Different Survey Results: Census Bureau vs. the Studys
Intercept Survey
The commuter behaviors reported in the American Community
Survey are different from those found in the intercept survey
completed for this study. This could be in part because the most
current Census Bureau data showing the travel behaviors of the
study areas employees was gathered between 2006 and 2010,
while the intercept survey was completed in 2014. In addition,
the sizes and demographic breakdowns of each sample could
explain some of the differences. Figure 5-3 maps the boundaries
of the census tracts versus the Primary Study Area. Also, the
American Community Survey only reports on the commute
behavior of workers who live in the Study Area and may or may
not work there; the street intercept survey captured workers who
were physically in the Study Area but may not actually live there.
n
22
522
35
280
ECR
397
281
297
SE
X/Y
P
N/O
MC
Tech
RP
C
E
DB
S
35
C
280
397
281
297
E2
35
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld

R
o
a
d
W
e
b
s
t
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
r
y
a
n
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
in
c
o
ln
A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
ilt
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
lm
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
ig
h

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
m
e
r
s
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
R
a
m
o
n
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
G
u
in
d
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
o
m
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
E
m
b
a
rca
d
e
ro
R
o
a
d
E
v
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
M
e
l
v
i
l
l
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
in
g
s
le
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
e
n
t
e
r

D
r
i
v
e
W
illo
w

R
o
a
d
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
a
le

S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
l
m

D
r
i
v
e
Pitman Avenue
H
a
r
r
i
e
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
o
w
e
ll A
v
e
n
u
e
Harker Avenue
K
ip
lin
g

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
o
y
c
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
le
r
id
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Parkinson Avenue
C
h
u
r
c
h
ill A
v
e
n
u
e
Q
u
a
r
r
y

R
o
a
d
Greenwood Avenue
Hopkins Avenue
R
u
t
h
v
e
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
ly
S
tr
e
e
t
S
e
n
e
c
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
rb
o
re
tu
m
R
o
a
d
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
e
llo
g
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
l
a
r
e
m
o
n
t

W
a
y
E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
T
e
n
n
y
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
h
a
n
n
in
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
Fife Avenue
P
o
e

S
t
r
e
e
t
Dana Avenue
B
r
y
a
n
t

C
o
u
r
t
W
e
lls A
ve
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

C
o
u
r
t
C
h
a
u
c
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
y
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
T
a
s
s
o

S
t
r
e
e
t
Martin Avenue
C
lo
v
e
r L
a
n
e
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
G
ilm
a
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
ncina A
venue
F
lo
r
e
n
c
e

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
s
h
b
y

D
r
i
v
e
S
c
o
t
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
Kent Place
Tevis Place
Regent Place
Somerset Place
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
F
u
lt
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
K
in
g
s
le
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
K
ip
lin
g

S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
l
o

A
l
t
o

A
v
e
n
u
e
T
a
s
s
o

S
t
r
e
e
t
K
e
llo
g
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
F
u
lt
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
M
e
liv
ille
A
v
e
n
u
e
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld

R
o
a
d
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
d
d
is
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
r
e
s
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
ilt
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
a
s
t

C
r
e
e
k

D
r
i
v
e
P
alo Alto Ave
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
Channing Avenue
Woodla
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
P
a
l
o

R
o
a
d
}}
82
}}
82
R
a
m
o
n
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
CITY
OF
MENLO PARK
CITY
OF
PALO ALTO
Palo Alto
Medical
Foundation
Palo Alto
City Hall
Stanford
Shopping
Center
Palo Alto
Caltrain
Station
Rinconada
Park
El Camino
Park
Johnson
Park
Heritage
Park
El Palo
Alto Park
Lawn
Bowling
Green
park
Hopkins
Creekside
Park
Cogswell
Plaza
Lytton
Plaza
Fig 5-1
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2014;
Dyett & Bhatia, 2014; VTA 2014;
SamTrans 2014; Dumbarton Express 2014;
Stanford University 2014.
0 1,000 2,000 500
Feet
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Transit Service
Trunk
Scheduled
Late Night
Commuter
Academic
n
Creeks
Study Area Parcels
Parks & Open Space
Downtown Palo Alto Study Area
G
r
a
n
t

S
a
n

F
r
a
n
c
i
s
q
u
i
t
o

C
r
e
e
k
Service Type
Agency
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX VTA
SamTrans
Palo Alto/E. Palo Alto Shuttles
Stanford Marguerite
Dumbarton Express
Chapter 5: Existing Transportation and Commute Trends

5-5
Table 5-1: Caltrain Ridership
Station
Northbound Southbound
Boardings
(Bike Ridership)
Alightings
(Bike Ridership)
Boardings
(Bike Ridership)
Alightings
(Bike Ridership)
San Francisco 0 10,734 (1,083) 10,786 (1,166) 0
Palo Alto 3,551 (426) 2,011 (221) 1,918 (219) 3,745 (455)
San Jose Diridon 3,378 (299) 31 (2) 110 (6) 3,527 (299)
Mountain View 3,492 (398) 350 (56) 384 (66) 3,411 (383)
Source: Caltrain Annual Passenger Counts, February 2013.

Table 5-2: Downtown Palo Alto Bus Connections
Agency Line
Headways Span
Connections
to Downtown
Ridership
Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Weekday Monthly
Valley
Transportation
Authority
6

22
10 to 15
minutes,
longer early
morning/late
night
10 to 15
minutes,
longer early
morning/late
night
24 hours 24 hours
Palo Alto
Transit
Center
925 N/A
522
10 to 15
minutes,
longer early
morning/late
night
10 to 15
minutes,
longer early
morning/late
night
5 a.m. to
11 p.m.
9 a.m. to 7:30
p.m.
Palo Alto
Transit
Center
500

N/A
35 ~30 minutes 1 hour
6:30 a.m. to
10 p.m.
8:30 a.m. to
8 p.m.
Hamilton,
Channing,
Homer,
University and
North: 150
South: 40
N/A

6
Ridership source: VTA. November 2013.
5-6
Agency Line
Headways Span
Connections
to Downtown
Ridership
the Palo Alto
Transit
Center
SamTrans
7

ECR
15 minutes,
30 minutes
early morning
and evening
18-20
minutes, 30
minutes early
morning and
evening
4 a.m. to
2 a.m.
5 a.m. to 2
a.m.
Palo Alto
Transit
Center
N/A 17,150
280/281
30 minutes
(combined)
~20-30
minutes
(combined)
6 a.m. to
10:30 p.m.
8 a.m. to
7 p.m.
University,
Lytton, and
the Palo Alto
Transit
Center
N/A 16,400
297
4 nightly runs
in each
direction

1 hour
10:45 p.m. to
5:30 a.m. (last
southbound
run ends at
2:30 a.m.)
7 a.m. to
8:30 p.m.
University,
Lytton, and
the Palo Alto
Transit
Center
N/A 1,960
397 1 hour 1 hour
12:45 a.m. to
6:30 a.m.
12:45 a.m. to
6:30 a.m.
University,
Lytton, and
the Palo Alto
Transit
Center
N/A 1,470
Dumbarton
Express
8

DB
20-30 minutes

N/A
5:30 a.m. to
8 p.m.
N/A
University,
Lytton, and
the Palo Alto
Transit
150 N/A

7
Ridership source: SamTrans. October 2013.
8
Ridership source: AC Transit. Average, July and August 2011.

5-7
Agency Line
Headways Span
Connections
to Downtown
Ridership
Center
Stanford
Marguerite
N/O 40 minutes 40 minutes
8:30 p.m. to 2
a.m.
(academic
year only)
8:30 p.m. to 2
a.m.
(academic
year only)
Stops at
Lytton and
Alma,
Emerson and
University,
and Palo Alto
Transit
Center
N/A N/A
S, SE, MC, P,
X, Y, RP, and
TECH
Varies,
academic year
only except
SE
SE Only, 45
minutes
Varies
9:45 a.m. to
3:45 p.m.
Palo Alto
Transit
Center
N/A N/A
Palo Alto
Shuttle
9

Crosstown 1 hour N/A
7:30 a.m. to
5:30 p.m.
N/A
Lytton,
Webster, and
the Palo Alto
Transit
Center
340 N/A
Embarcadero
10 to 20
minutes

N/A
7 a.m. to 10
a.m. and
3 p.m. to 7
p.m.
N/A
Stops at Alma
and Lytton
and Palo Alto
Transit
Center
225 N/A
East Palo Alto
Community
Shuttle
1 and 2
20-30 minutes
during peak
hours, 1 hour
during off-
peak
1 hour
5:15 a.m. to
8:15 p.m. and
11 p.m. to 2
a.m.
6:30 a.m. to
10 a.m. and
3:45 p.m. to
11:15 p.m.
Lytton and
the Palo Alto
Transit
Center
N/A N/A

9
Ridership Source: City of Palo Alto.
n
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld

R
o
a
d
W
e
b
s
t
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
r
y
a
n
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
in
c
o
ln
A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
ilt
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
lm
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
ig
h

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
m
e
r
s
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
R
a
m
o
n
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
G
u
in
d
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
o
m
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
E
m
b
a
rca
d
e
ro
R
o
a
d
E
v
e
r
e
t
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
M
e
l
v
i
l
l
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
in
g
s
le
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
e
n
t
e
r

D
r
i
v
e
W
illo
w

R
o
a
d
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
a
le

S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
l
m

D
r
i
v
e
Pitman Avenue
H
a
r
r
i
e
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
o
w
e
ll A
v
e
n
u
e
Harker Avenue
K
ip
lin
g

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
o
y
c
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
le
r
id
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Parkinson Avenue
C
h
u
r
c
h
ill A
v
e
n
u
e
Q
u
a
r
r
y

R
o
a
d
Greenwood Avenue
Hopkins Avenue
R
u
t
h
v
e
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
ly
S
tr
e
e
t
S
e
n
e
c
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
rb
o
re
tu
m
R
o
a
d
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
e
llo
g
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
l
a
r
e
m
o
n
t

W
a
y
E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
T
e
n
n
y
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
h
a
n
n
in
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
Fife Avenue
P
o
e

S
t
r
e
e
t
Dana Avenue
B
r
y
a
n
t

C
o
u
r
t
W
e
lls A
ve
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

C
o
u
r
t
C
h
a
u
c
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
y
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
T
a
s
s
o

S
t
r
e
e
t
Martin Avenue
C
lo
v
e
r L
a
n
e
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
G
ilm
a
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
ncina A
venue
F
lo
r
e
n
c
e

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
s
h
b
y

D
r
i
v
e
S
c
o
t
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
Kent Place
Tevis Place
Regent Place
Somerset Place
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
F
u
lt
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
K
in
g
s
le
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
K
ip
lin
g

S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
l
o

A
l
t
o

A
v
e
n
u
e
T
a
s
s
o

S
t
r
e
e
t
K
e
llo
g
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
F
u
lt
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
M
e
liv
ille
A
v
e
n
u
e
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld

R
o
a
d
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
d
d
is
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
r
e
s
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
ilt
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
a
s
t

C
r
e
e
k

D
r
i
v
e
P
alo Alto Ave
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
Channing Avenue
Woodla
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
P
a
l
o

R
o
a
d
}}
82
}}
82
R
a
m
o
n
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
CITY
OF
MENLO PARK
CITY
OF
PALO ALTO
Palo Alto
Medical
Foundation
Palo Alto
City Hall
Stanford
Shopping
Center
Palo Alto
Caltrain
Station
Rinconada
Park
El Camino
Park
Johnson
Park
Heritage
Park
El Palo
Alto Park
Lawn
Bowling
Green
park
Hopkins
Creekside
Park
Cogswell
Plaza
Lytton
Plaza
Fig 5-2
Dyett & Bhatia, 2014.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bike Network
Class 1 (Bike Path)
Bike Boulevard
Class 2 (Bike Lane)
Class 3 (Shared Bike Route)
n
Creeks
Study Area Parcels
Parks & Open Space
Complete Study Area

5-9
Table 5-3: Commute Mode Split
Mode Citywide
Residents
Study
Area
Residents
Citywide
Workers
Study
Area
Workers
Study-
Area
Workers
(Survey)
1

Drive
Alone
67% 53% 75% 72% 40%
Carpool 6% 7% 10% 8% 5%
Transit 5% 6% 5% 8% 48%
Walk 5% 13% 2% 4% 3%
Bike 7% 10% 3% 3% 5%
Other 10% 11% 5% 5% N/A
1. The possible reasons for the differences between the mode split reported
by the Census and that reported in the survey are described on page 5-2.
In addition, the survey completed as part of this study was a street
intercept survey, which captured workers physically in the Study Area who
may not actually live in the Study Area as well. The commute behavior of
workers coming from outside Palo Alto would not be captured by the
Census.
Source: First four columns American Community Survey 2006-2010; study-
area worker survey completed as part of the Downtown Development Cap
Evaluation.

M
id
d
le
fie
ld

R
o
a
d
W
e
b
s
t
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
r
y
a
n
t

S
tr
e
e
t
L
i
n
c
o
l
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
A
lm
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
ig
h

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
m
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
R
a
m
o
n
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
G
u
in
d
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
o
m
e
r

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
m
b
a
rca
d
e
ro
R
o
a
d
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
M
e
l
v
i
l
l
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
i
n
g
s
l
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
e
n
t
e
r

D
r
i
v
e
W
illo
w

R
o
a
d
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
a
le

S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
l
m

D
r
i
v
e
Pitman Avenue
H
a
r
r
i
e
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
o
w
e
l
l

A
v
e
n
u
e
Harker Avenue
K
ip
lin
g

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
o
y
c
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
le
r
i
d
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Parkinson Avenue
C
h
u
r
c
h
i
l
l

A
v
e
n
u
e
Q
u
a
r
r
y

R
o
a
d
Greenwood Avenue
Hopkins Avenue
R
u
t
h
v
e
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
ly
S
tr
e
e
t
S
e
n
e
c
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
rb
o
re
tu
m
R
o
a
d
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
e
l
l
o
g
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
l
a
r
e
m
o
n
t

W
a
y
E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
T
e
n
n
y
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
h
a
n
n
i
n
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
Fife Avenue
P
o
e

S
t
r
e
e
t
Dana Avenue
B
r
y
a
n
t

C
o
u
r
t
W
e
lls A
ve
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

C
o
u
r
t
C
h
a
u
c
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
T
a
s
s
o

S
t
r
e
e
t
Martin Avenue
C
lo
v
e
r L
a
n
e
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
G
ilm
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
n
cin
a A
ve
nue
University Avenue
F
lo
r
e
n
c
e

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
s
h
b
y

D
r
i
v
e
S
c
o
t
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
Kent Place
Tevis Place
Regent Place
Somerset Place
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
F
u
lt
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
K
i
n
g
s
l
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
ip
lin
g

S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
l
o

A
l
t
o

A
v
e
n
u
e
T
a
s
s
o

S
t
r
e
e
t
K
e
l
l
o
g
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
F
u
lt
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
M
e
l
i
v
i
ll
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
m
b
a
rca
d
e
ro
R
o
a
d
M
id
d
le
fie
ld

R
o
a
d
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
d
d
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
U
n
iv
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
a
s
t
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
i
v
e
P
alo
A
lto
Ave
U
n
iv
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
Channing Avenue
Woodland
A
v
e
n
u
e
P
a
l
o
R
o
a
d
}}
82
}}
82
R
a
m
o
n
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
Palo Alto
Caltrain
Station
CITY
OF
MENLO PARK
CITY
OF
PALO ALTO
Palo Alto
Medical
Foundation
Palo Alto
City Hall
Stanford
Shoppi ng
Center
Rinconada
Park
El Camino
Park
Eleanor Pardee Park
Johnson
Park
Heritage
Park
El Palo
Alto Park
Lawn
Bowling
Green
park
Hopkins
Creekside
Park
Cogswell
Plaza
Lytton
Plaza
Fig 5-3
Dyett & Bhatia, 2014;
U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.
0 1,000 2,000 500
Feet
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Downtown Census Tract Boundaries
Study-Area Tracts
n
Creeks
Parks & Open Space
G
r
a
n
t
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
q
u
i
t
o
C
r
e
e
k
Tract
5113.02
Tract
5113.01

6-1
6 Parking Conditions
The greater Downtown area contains more than 8,500 parking
spaces, more than half of them in the core of the Downtown
(Primary Study Area). This chapter details the distribution of
these parking spaces, regulations that govern their use, and
occupancy patterns seen in six separate observations in the
spring and fall of 2013.
6.1 Parking Inventory, Regulations,
and Permits
Table 6-1 shows the distribution of public parking spaces by type
throughout the Primary Study Area.
Table 6-1: Public Parking Space Distribution
10

Area
On-Street
11

Off-Street Total
Primary Study Area 1,790 3,104 4,894
University North 1,289 0 1,289

10
This inventory does not include private off-street spaces.
11
A block face was considered part of the Primary Study Area if any portion of
it or the block face immediately across the street fell within the boundary
defined for the 1986 development-cap zone.
Table 6-1: Public Parking Space Distribution
10

Area
On-Street
11

Off-Street Total
University South 1,910 63 1,973
Professorville 673 0 673
Total 5,652 3,167 8,819
Note: This inventory includes 63 spaces in the 800 High Street garage that are
not included in the occupancy data presented later in the chapter. The 36
spaces in lot X (located at the Sheridan Hotel, across Alma Street from the
study area) is not included in the inventory or occupancy numbers.
Source: City of Palo Alto, Spring 2013 Inventory.
ON-STREET
The study area contains 5,652 total on-street parking spaces,
including 1,790 within the Primary Study Area.
12
Between 8 a.m.
and 5 p.m. on non-holiday weekdays, drivers may park for free
for a maximum of two hours per day in each of four color-coded
zones within the Primary Study Area, as shown in Figure 6-1. To
continue parking on the street in downtown after reaching the
two-hour limit, a driver would need to move to a different color
zone and would not be able to re-park in the same color zone
that day. Curbside parking throughout the study area is free.

12
City of Palo Alto, parking inventory (Spring 2013), adjusted one block to
account for the end of construction.
M
id
d
le
fie
ld

R
o
a
d
W
e
b
s
t
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
r
y
a
n
t

S
tr
e
e
t
L
i
n
c
o
l
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
A
lm
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
ig
h

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
m
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
R
a
m
o
n
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
G
u
in
d
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
o
m
e
r

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
m
b
a
rca
d
e
ro
R
o
a
d
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
M
e
l
v
i
l
l
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
i
n
g
s
l
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
e
n
t
e
r

D
r
i
v
e
W
illo
w

R
o
a
d
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
a
le

S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
l
m

D
r
i
v
e
Pitman Avenue
H
a
r
r
i
e
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
o
w
e
l
l

A
v
e
n
u
e
Harker Avenue
K
ip
lin
g

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
o
y
c
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
le
r
i
d
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Parkinson Avenue
C
h
u
r
c
h
i
l
l

A
v
e
n
u
e
Q
u
a
r
r
y

R
o
a
d
Greenwood Avenue
Hopkins Avenue
R
u
t
h
v
e
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
ly
S
tr
e
e
t
S
e
n
e
c
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
rb
o
re
tu
m
R
o
a
d
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
e
l
l
o
g
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
l
a
r
e
m
o
n
t

W
a
y
E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
T
e
n
n
y
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
h
a
n
n
i
n
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
Fife Avenue
P
o
e

S
t
r
e
e
t
Dana Avenue
B
r
y
a
n
t

C
o
u
r
t
W
e
lls A
ve
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

C
o
u
r
t
C
h
a
u
c
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
T
a
s
s
o

S
t
r
e
e
t
Martin Avenue
C
lo
v
e
r L
a
n
e
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
G
ilm
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
n
cin
a A
ve
nue
University Avenue
F
lo
r
e
n
c
e

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
s
h
b
y

D
r
i
v
e
S
c
o
t
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
Kent Place
Tevis Place
Regent Place
Somerset Place
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
F
u
lt
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
K
i
n
g
s
l
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
ip
lin
g

S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
l
o

A
l
t
o

A
v
e
n
u
e
T
a
s
s
o

S
t
r
e
e
t
K
e
l
l
o
g
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
F
u
lt
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
M
e
l
i
v
i
ll
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
m
b
a
rca
d
e
ro
R
o
a
d
M
id
d
le
fie
ld

R
o
a
d
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
U
n
iv
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
a
s
t
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
i
v
e
P
alo
A
lto
Ave
U
n
iv
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
Channing Avenue
Woodland
A
v
e
n
u
e
P
a
l
o
R
o
a
d
}}
82
}}
82
R
a
m
o
n
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
Palo Alto
Caltrain
Station
CITY
OF
MENLO PARK
CITY
OF
PALO ALTO
Palo Alto
Medical
Foundation
Palo Alto
City Hall
Stanford
Shoppi ng
Center
Rinconada
Park
El Camino
Park
Eleanor Pardee Park
Johnson
Park
Heritage
Park
El Palo
Alto Park
Lawn
Bowling
Green
park
Hopkins
Creekside
Park
Cogswell
Plaza
Lytton
Plaza
Fig 6-1
Dyett & Bhatia, 2014.
0 1,000 2,000 500
Feet
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Study Area Neighborhoods
Downtown Parking Zones
Blue
Coral
Lime
Purple
n
Creeks
Parks & Open Space
G
r
a
n
t
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
q
u
i
t
o
C
r
e
e
k
Uni versity
North
Uni versity
South
Professorvill e
Primary
Study Area
Chapter 6: Parking Conditions

6-3
OFF-STREET
There are 19 public garages and lots in the study area, with all
but one located within the Primary Study Area (see Figure 6-2).
These off-street facilities contain 3,167 parking spaces. The 36-
space Lot X is located outside the study area but is used by
downtown employees. More than half of off-street spaces are
reserved for permit holders in nine of the facilities, and the rest
are free with a three-hour time limit between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
on non-holiday weekdays.

Permits are for employees of Downtown businesses and are
generally issued for a specific location, though the City offers
some permits that are transferrable between Garages WC, S/L,
and CC. Permits cost $466 per year, $146.50 per quarter, or
$17.50 per day.
13
The City also offers lower-cost permits for two
lots further outside the core area, X ($75 per year, $26 per
quarter) and 800 High Street ($250 per year, $75 per quarter).
Permits must be purchased in-person at City Hall. Garage Q and
lots E and G are exclusively for permit-holders. Lots K, C, and T
and garages S/L, R, WC, and CC all include a combination of
permit-only and hourly spaces, and the remaining garages and
lots are exclusively for hourly parking.
6.2 Current Parking Occupancy
Parking occupancy data was collected by the City of Palo Alto for
four time periods in the spring and fall of 2013.
14
The spring data
collection effort included weekday observations at 8 a.m., 12 p.m.,
7 p.m., and 12 a.m. The fall effort included weekday observations
at 8 a.m., 7 p.m., and 12 a.m. and one Saturday observation at 12
p.m. Data collection did not include private off-street spaces.
The 8 a.m. observations were averaged for reporting in this
section. The spring 7 p.m. and 12 a.m. observations included
only garages, and as such, data showing combined on- and off-
street occupancy for those two observation time points is
exclusively from the fall effort.

13
City of Palo Alto. Parking. Retrieved from
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/transit/parking.asp on 2/26/14.
14
Off-street occupancy data did not include the garage at 800 High Street or Lot
X. As such, occupancy percentages were calculated using the inventory at the
other 18 lots and garages.
6-4
Figure 6-3 shows the Peripheral Study Area parking occupancy
for each of the observation time points. The peak occupancy for
the whole study area was the weekday 12 p.m. observation, with
70 percent of spaces occupied. This is significantly below an 85
percent occupancy target that would leave open an average of
one space per block, or per 8 to 10 parking spaces in a parking
facility.15 It is important to note that occupancy is far higher in
some parts of the study area than others.

15
Target occupancy rates of 85 percent and 90 percent are effective industry-
standards for analyzing the demand for on- and off-street spaces,
respectively. In other words, maintaining 15 percent and 10 percent vacancy
rates for corresponding on- and off-street stalls help to ensure an effective
parking supply. It is at these standard occupancy levels that roughly one
space per block is available, making searching or cruising for parking
unnecessary, and off-street lots maintain adequate maneuverability.

48%
70%
63%
27%
54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Weekday,
8 a.m.
Weekday,
12 p.m.
Weekday,
7 p.m.
Weekday,
12 a.m.
Saturday,
12 p.m.
Figure 6-3: Peripheral Study Area Public Parking Occupancy
(All Facilities)
Vacant
Occupied
85% Utilization

6-5
OCCUPANCY BY AREA
Parking occupancy was significantly higher within the Primary
Study Area than other neighborhoods for all but the overnight
time periods. As Figure 6-4 shows, the districts on- and off-
street facilities reached 77 percent occupancy during the area-
wide peak of 12 p.m., when downtown facilities must
accommodate both daytime employees and lunch patrons.
Occupancy reached 78 percent at 7 p.m., after most workers have
left the area but during the period of peak demand for dining and
entertainment activities. Midnight occupancy was 15 percent,
reflecting both those parking overnight and those visiting late-
night bars and restaurants.
Occupancy was generally higher at the curbside than in the off-
street facilities. On-street occupancy was at 80 percent for the 7
p.m. observation, while occupancy in the districts garages and
lots was 76 percent. The difference in demand was larger for the
12 p.m. weekday observation, with 84 percent curbside
occupancy and 74 percent garage occupancy.
Figures 6-5, 6-6, and 6-7 show parking occupancy for the other
three neighborhoods in the study area. In the neighborhood
northwest of University Avenue and the colored zone
(University North), occupancy peaks at 70 percent during the
area-wide peak. Weekday 12 p.m. occupancy was 57 percent for
University South and 47 percent for Professorville. Consistent
with their residential character, all three neighborhoods show
higher overnight occupancy, between 33 percent and 46 percent.

6-6

44%
77% 78%
15%
63%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Weekday,
8 a.m.
Weekday,
12 p.m.
Weekday,
7 p.m.
Weekday,
12 a.m.
Saturday,
12 p.m.
Figure 6-4: Primary Study Area Public Parking Occupancy
(On + Off)
Vacant
Occupied
54%
70%
47% 46%
40%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Weekday,
8 a.m.
Weekday,
12 p.m.
Weekday,
7 p.m.
Weekday,
12 a.m.
Saturday,
12 p.m.
Figure 6-5: University North Public Parking Occupancy (On + Off)
Vacant
Occupied

6-7

42%
47%
33% 33%
29%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Weekday,
8 a.m.
Weekday,
12 p.m.
Weekday,
7 p.m.
Weekday,
12 a.m.
Saturday,
12 p.m.
Figure 6-7: Professorville Public Parking Occupancy (On + Off)
Vacant
Occupied
57% 57%
45% 45%
51%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Weekday,
8 a.m.
Weekday,
12 p.m.
Weekday,
7 p.m.
Weekday,
12 a.m.
Saturday,
12 p.m.
Figure 6-6: University South Public Parking Occupancy (On + Off)
Vacant
Occupied
6-8
Figures 6-8 through 6-11 (end of chapter) show that there are
concentrations of near-full occupancy that likely make residents
and visitors perceive significant parking deficits at times of high
occupancy.
As Figure 6-8 shows, most blocks with high levels of occupancy
at 8 a.m. were located in the residential parts of the study area.
University North blocks with higher density housing showed
particularly high rates of occupancy, and Lot K, on the edge of
the Primary Study Area, was the only one with more than 75
percent occupancy during the time period.
Figure 6-9 shows that during the midday peak, a majority of
curbside parking in the Primary Study Area and in an area
within four blocks of Alma Street to the southeast were over the
85 percent occupancy threshold. During the weekday evening
peak (Figure 6-10), the area of high occupancy is more limited
but still covered much of the Primary Study Area. During each
period, however, seven off-street facilities in the central district
were below 75 percent occupied, and a portion of block faces
even in the areas of high on-street occupancy were below the
same threshold, leaving a significant number of open spaces.
The Saturday 12 p.m. observation period shows a similar
occupancy pattern to the weekday 7 p.m. observation, plus a
cluster of block faces with higher rates of occupancy across from
the Palo Alto Junior Museum in the University South
neighborhood (Figure 6-11).
OCCUPANCY BY FACILITY TYPE
The areas 12 parking lots were generally occupied at higher
levels than the six garages for which occupancy data was
available. As Figure 5-12 shows, lot occupancy peaked at 93
percent for the 7 p.m. observation, while garage occupancy for
the same time period was 62 percent. Garages are effectively a
drivers third preference, behind spaces in lots and at the
curbside. As Figure 6-13 shows, occupancy of hourly off-street
spaces was higher during the midday and evening periods, while
both largely unoccupied during the morning and overnight
periods.
The City currently sells 62 percent more permits than there are
permit-only spaces in off-street facilities, and occupancy still
reaches only 65 percent during the peak occupancy period.
However, City officials believe occupancy may increase once
Palo Altos new resident permit-parking program goes into effect,
as employee-permit holders who currently tend to park on the
street will need to move into off-street spaces. At the same time,
the shifting travel behaviors of younger employees, new office
development closer to the Caltrain station, and the Citys
transportation demand management efforts could all combine to
continue the sustained shift away from single-occupancy-vehicle
travel already seen in travel behavior data (see Chapter 5).

Employee Mode Split and Parking
The American Community Survey estimates that 72 percent of
Primary Study Area employees drive alone to work and 8
percent carpool. Such mode shares would generate
approximately 8,800 commuter cars in the study area during
workdays. However, the Citys study-area parking inventory
totals only 8,756 and the peak-hour (weekday, 12 p.m.)
occupancy of on- and off-street public spaces was only 6,089.
Based on this data, the average mode split is likely closer to that
found in the intercept survey conducted for this study, in which
40 percent of employee respondents reported driving alone to
work and 5 percent reported carpooling. These numbers would
yield approximately 4,900 employee cars in downtown, a more
realistic total.
M
id
d
le
fie
ld

R
o
a
d
W
e
b
s
t
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
r
y
a
n
t

S
tr
e
e
t
L
i
n
c
o
l
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
A
lm
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
ig
h

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
m
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
R
a
m
o
n
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
G
u
in
d
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
o
m
e
r

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
m
b
a
rca
d
e
ro
R
o
a
d
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
M
e
l
v
i
l
l
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
i
n
g
s
l
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
e
n
t
e
r

D
r
i
v
e
W
illo
w

R
o
a
d
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
a
le

S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
l
m

D
r
i
v
e
Pitman Avenue
H
a
r
r
i
e
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
o
w
e
l
l

A
v
e
n
u
e
Harker Avenue
K
ip
lin
g

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
o
y
c
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
le
r
i
d
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Parkinson Avenue
C
h
u
r
c
h
i
l
l

A
v
e
n
u
e
Q
u
a
r
r
y

R
o
a
d
Greenwood Avenue
Hopkins Avenue
R
u
t
h
v
e
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
ly
S
tr
e
e
t
S
e
n
e
c
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
rb
o
re
tu
m
R
o
a
d
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
e
l
l
o
g
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
l
a
r
e
m
o
n
t

W
a
y
E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
T
e
n
n
y
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
h
a
n
n
i
n
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
Fife Avenue
P
o
e

S
t
r
e
e
t
Dana Avenue
B
r
y
a
n
t

C
o
u
r
t
W
e
lls A
ve
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

C
o
u
r
t
C
h
a
u
c
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
T
a
s
s
o

S
t
r
e
e
t
Martin Avenue
C
lo
v
e
r L
a
n
e
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
G
ilm
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
n
cin
a A
ve
nue
University Avenue
F
lo
r
e
n
c
e

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
s
h
b
y

D
r
i
v
e
S
c
o
t
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
Kent Place
Tevis Place
Regent Place
Somerset Place
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
F
u
lt
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
K
i
n
g
s
l
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
ip
lin
g

S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
l
o

A
l
t
o

A
v
e
n
u
e
T
a
s
s
o

S
t
r
e
e
t
K
e
l
l
o
g
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
F
u
lt
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
M
e
l
i
v
i
ll
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
m
b
a
rca
d
e
ro
R
o
a
d
M
id
d
le
fie
ld

R
o
a
d
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
U
n
iv
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
a
s
t
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
i
v
e
P
alo
A
lto
Ave
U
n
iv
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
Channing Avenue
Woodland
A
v
e
n
u
e
P
a
l
o
R
o
a
d
}}
82
}}
82
R
a
m
o
n
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
Palo Alto
Caltrain
Station
CITY
OF
MENLO PARK
CITY
OF
PALO ALTO
Palo Alto
Medical
Foundation
Palo Alto
City Hall
Stanford
Shoppi ng
Center
Rinconada
Park
El Camino
Park
Eleanor Pardee Park
Johnson
Park
Heritage
Park
El Palo
Alto Park
Lawn
Bowling
Green
park
Hopkins
Creekside
Park
Cogswell
Plaza
Lytton
Plaza
Fig 6-8
Nelson\Nygaard 2014.
0 1,000 2,000 500
Feet
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Parking Utilization:
Fall 2013 Weekday, 8 a.m.
On-Street Util ization
0-49%
50-84%
85% or more
Off-Street Util ization
0-49%
50-84%
85% or more
n
Creeks
Parks & Open Space
Parcels
G
r
a
n
t
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
q
u
i
t
o
C
r
e
e
k
Uni versity
North
SOFA
Professorvil le
See Figure 2-1 for zoning
district definitions.
M
id
d
le
fie
ld

R
o
a
d
W
e
b
s
t
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
r
y
a
n
t

S
tr
e
e
t
L
i
n
c
o
l
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
A
lm
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
ig
h

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
m
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
R
a
m
o
n
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
G
u
in
d
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
o
m
e
r

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
m
b
a
rca
d
e
ro
R
o
a
d
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
M
e
l
v
i
l
l
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
i
n
g
s
l
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
e
n
t
e
r

D
r
i
v
e
W
illo
w

R
o
a
d
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
a
le

S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
l
m

D
r
i
v
e
Pitman Avenue
H
a
r
r
i
e
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
o
w
e
l
l

A
v
e
n
u
e
Harker Avenue
K
ip
lin
g

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
o
y
c
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
le
r
i
d
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Parkinson Avenue
C
h
u
r
c
h
i
l
l

A
v
e
n
u
e
Q
u
a
r
r
y

R
o
a
d
Greenwood Avenue
Hopkins Avenue
R
u
t
h
v
e
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
ly
S
tr
e
e
t
S
e
n
e
c
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
rb
o
re
tu
m
R
o
a
d
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
e
l
l
o
g
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
l
a
r
e
m
o
n
t

W
a
y
E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
T
e
n
n
y
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
h
a
n
n
i
n
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
Fife Avenue
P
o
e

S
t
r
e
e
t
Dana Avenue
B
r
y
a
n
t

C
o
u
r
t
W
e
lls A
ve
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

C
o
u
r
t
C
h
a
u
c
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
T
a
s
s
o

S
t
r
e
e
t
Martin Avenue
C
lo
v
e
r L
a
n
e
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
G
ilm
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
n
cin
a A
ve
nue
University Avenue
F
lo
r
e
n
c
e

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
s
h
b
y

D
r
i
v
e
S
c
o
t
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
Kent Place
Tevis Place
Regent Place
Somerset Place
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
F
u
lt
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
K
i
n
g
s
l
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
ip
lin
g

S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
l
o

A
l
t
o

A
v
e
n
u
e
T
a
s
s
o

S
t
r
e
e
t
K
e
l
l
o
g
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
F
u
lt
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
M
e
l
i
v
i
ll
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
m
b
a
rca
d
e
ro
R
o
a
d
M
id
d
le
fie
ld

R
o
a
d
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
U
n
iv
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
a
s
t
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
i
v
e
P
alo
A
lto
Ave
U
n
iv
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
Channing Avenue
Woodland
A
v
e
n
u
e
P
a
l
o
R
o
a
d
}}
82
}}
82
R
a
m
o
n
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
Palo Alto
Caltrain
Station
CITY
OF
MENLO PARK
CITY
OF
PALO ALTO
Palo Alto
Medical
Foundation
Palo Alto
City Hall
Stanford
Shoppi ng
Center
Rinconada
Park
El Camino
Park
Eleanor Pardee Park
Johnson
Park
Heritage
Park
El Palo
Alto Park
Lawn
Bowling
Green
park
Hopkins
Creekside
Park
Cogswell
Plaza
Lytton
Plaza
Fig 6-9
0 1,000 2,000 500
Feet
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Spring Weekday 2013, 12 p.m.
0-49%
50-84%
85% or more
0-49%
50-84%
85% or more
n
Creeks
Study Area Parcels
Parks & Open Space
G
r
a
n
t
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
q
u
i
t
o
C
r
e
e
k
Uni versity
North
SOFA
Professorvil le
M
id
d
le
fie
ld

R
o
a
d
W
e
b
s
t
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
r
y
a
n
t

S
tr
e
e
t
L
i
n
c
o
l
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
A
lm
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
ig
h

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
m
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
R
a
m
o
n
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
G
u
in
d
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
o
m
e
r

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
m
b
a
rca
d
e
ro
R
o
a
d
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
M
e
l
v
i
l
l
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
i
n
g
s
l
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
e
n
t
e
r

D
r
i
v
e
W
illo
w

R
o
a
d
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
a
le

S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
l
m

D
r
i
v
e
Pitman Avenue
H
a
r
r
i
e
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
o
w
e
l
l

A
v
e
n
u
e
Harker Avenue
K
ip
lin
g

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
o
y
c
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
le
r
i
d
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Parkinson Avenue
C
h
u
r
c
h
i
l
l

A
v
e
n
u
e
Q
u
a
r
r
y

R
o
a
d
Greenwood Avenue
Hopkins Avenue
R
u
t
h
v
e
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
ly
S
tr
e
e
t
S
e
n
e
c
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
rb
o
re
tu
m
R
o
a
d
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
e
l
l
o
g
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
l
a
r
e
m
o
n
t

W
a
y
E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
T
e
n
n
y
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
h
a
n
n
i
n
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
Fife Avenue
P
o
e

S
t
r
e
e
t
Dana Avenue
B
r
y
a
n
t

C
o
u
r
t
W
e
lls A
ve
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

C
o
u
r
t
C
h
a
u
c
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
T
a
s
s
o

S
t
r
e
e
t
Martin Avenue
C
lo
v
e
r L
a
n
e
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
G
ilm
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
n
cin
a A
ve
nue
University Avenue
F
lo
r
e
n
c
e

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
s
h
b
y

D
r
i
v
e
S
c
o
t
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
Kent Place
Tevis Place
Regent Place
Somerset Place
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
F
u
lt
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
K
i
n
g
s
l
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
ip
lin
g

S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
l
o

A
l
t
o

A
v
e
n
u
e
T
a
s
s
o

S
t
r
e
e
t
K
e
l
l
o
g
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
F
u
lt
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
M
e
l
i
v
i
ll
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
m
b
a
rca
d
e
ro
R
o
a
d
M
id
d
le
fie
ld

R
o
a
d
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
U
n
iv
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
a
s
t
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
i
v
e
P
alo
A
lto
Ave
U
n
iv
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
Channing Avenue
Woodland
A
v
e
n
u
e
P
a
l
o
R
o
a
d
}}
82
}}
82
R
a
m
o
n
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
Palo Alto
Caltrain
Station
CITY
OF
MENLO PARK
CITY
OF
PALO ALTO
Palo Alto
Medical
Foundation
Palo Alto
City Hall
Stanford
Shoppi ng
Center
Rinconada
Park
El Camino
Park
Eleanor Pardee Park
Johnson
Park
Heritage
Park
El Palo
Alto Park
Lawn
Bowling
Green
park
Hopkins
Creekside
Park
Cogswell
Plaza
Lytton
Plaza
Fig 6-10
0 1,000 2,000 500
Feet
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Fall 2013 Weekday, 7 p.m.
0-49%
50-84%
85% or more
0-49%
50-84%
85% or more
n
Creeks
Study Area Parcels
Parks & Open Space
G
r
a
n
t
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
q
u
i
t
o
C
r
e
e
k
Uni versity
North
SOFA
Professorvil le
M
id
d
le
fie
ld

R
o
a
d
W
e
b
s
t
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
r
y
a
n
t

S
tr
e
e
t
L
i
n
c
o
l
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
A
lm
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
ig
h

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
m
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
R
a
m
o
n
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
G
u
in
d
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
o
m
e
r

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
m
b
a
rca
d
e
ro
R
o
a
d
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
M
e
l
v
i
l
l
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
i
n
g
s
l
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
e
n
t
e
r

D
r
i
v
e
W
illo
w

R
o
a
d
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
H
a
le

S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
l
m

D
r
i
v
e
Pitman Avenue
H
a
r
r
i
e
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
o
w
e
l
l

A
v
e
n
u
e
Harker Avenue
K
ip
lin
g

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
o
y
c
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
le
r
i
d
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Parkinson Avenue
C
h
u
r
c
h
i
l
l

A
v
e
n
u
e
Q
u
a
r
r
y

R
o
a
d
Greenwood Avenue
Hopkins Avenue
R
u
t
h
v
e
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
ly
S
tr
e
e
t
S
e
n
e
c
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
rb
o
re
tu
m
R
o
a
d
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
e
l
l
o
g
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
l
a
r
e
m
o
n
t

W
a
y
E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
T
e
n
n
y
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
h
a
n
n
i
n
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
Fife Avenue
P
o
e

S
t
r
e
e
t
Dana Avenue
B
r
y
a
n
t

C
o
u
r
t
W
e
lls A
ve
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

C
o
u
r
t
C
h
a
u
c
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
T
a
s
s
o

S
t
r
e
e
t
Martin Avenue
C
lo
v
e
r L
a
n
e
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
G
ilm
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
n
cin
a A
ve
nue
University Avenue
F
lo
r
e
n
c
e

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
s
h
b
y

D
r
i
v
e
S
c
o
t
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
Kent Place
Tevis Place
Regent Place
Somerset Place
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
F
u
lt
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
K
i
n
g
s
l
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
K
ip
lin
g

S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
l
o

A
l
t
o

A
v
e
n
u
e
T
a
s
s
o

S
t
r
e
e
t
K
e
l
l
o
g
g

A
v
e
n
u
e
F
u
lt
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
y
r
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t
M
e
l
i
v
i
ll
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
E
m
b
a
rca
d
e
ro
R
o
a
d
M
id
d
le
fie
ld

R
o
a
d
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
A
d
d
i
s
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
U
n
iv
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
w
p
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
r
e
s
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e

A
v
e
n
u
e
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
W
a
v
e
r
ly

S
t
r
e
e
t
E
a
s
t
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
i
v
e
P
alo
A
lto
Ave
U
n
iv
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
Channing Avenue
Woodland
A
v
e
n
u
e
P
a
l
o
R
o
a
d
}}
82
}}
82
R
a
m
o
n
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
Palo Alto
Caltrain
Station
CITY
OF
MENLO PARK
CITY
OF
PALO ALTO
Palo Alto
Medical
Foundation
Palo Alto
City Hall
Stanford
Shoppi ng
Center
Rinconada
Park
El Camino
Park
Eleanor Pardee Park
Johnson
Park
Heritage
Park
El Palo
Alto Park
Lawn
Bowling
Green
park
Hopkins
Creekside
Park
Cogswell
Plaza
Lytton
Plaza
Fig 6-11
0 1,000 2,000 500
Feet
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Fall Weekend 2013, 12 p.m.
0-49%
50-84%
85% or more
0-49%
50-84%
85% or more
n
Creeks
Study Area Parcels
Parks & Open Space
G
r
a
n
t
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
q
u
i
t
o
C
r
e
e
k
Uni versity
North
SOFA
Professorvil le

6-13

33% 34%
88%
70%
93%
62%
14% 13%
93%
41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Lot Garage Lot Garage Lot Garage Lot Garage Lot Garage
Weekday,
8 a.m.
Weekday,
12 p.m.
Weekday,
7 p.m.
Weekday,
12 a.m.
Saturday,
12 p.m.
Figure 6-12: Public Lot and Garage Space Occupancy
Vacant
Occupied
25%
33%
86%
65%
85%
44%
13%
18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Hourly Permit Hourly Permit Hourly Permit Hourly Permit
Weekday,
8 a.m.
Weekday,
12 p.m.
Weekday,
7 p.m.
Weekday,
12 a.m.
Figure 6-13: Off-Street Hourly vs. Permit Space Occupancy
(Spring 2013)
Vacant
Occupied
6-14
CONCLUSIONS
While parking occupancy data in the study area indicates that
Downtowns overall public parking supply is adequate to meet
demand, the supply is only adequate if the use of residential
neighborhood streets by employees who work in the Downtown
is acceptable to the community. Also, the lower occupancy of
City-owned garages indicates that there is a hierarchy of
demand: motorists will always prefer free on-street parking near
their destination over a parking lot, garage, or lower-demand
curb a few blocks away.
Management policies can help address this issue by incentivizing
drivers to use all available facilities. Strategies like the residential
parking permit, increased signage and, as feasible, curbside
metering can help maximize the use of existing supply,
complementing the Citys new transportation demand
management efforts and, as needed, the development of new
parking facilities. This analysis did not look at private parking,
but shared parking agreements with private lots and garages
could be another promising strategy. Such agreements, which
allow public use of such facilities during off-peak hours, could
open up new capacity without the financial and opportunity
costs of building new public off-street facilities.

7-1
7 Traffic Evaluation
7.1 Volumes
The focus of the traffic evaluation for this study is the key
intersections within the Downtown area of the City of Palo Alto.
The following signalized intersections were identified as study
intersections due to their location on the key streets within the
City of Palo Alto street network that provide access to the
Downtown land uses and parking.
1. El Camino Real & Palo Alto Avenue/Sand Hill Road
2. Alma Street & Lytton Avenue
3. Alma Street & Hamilton Avenue
4. University Avenue & Bryant Street
5. Middlefield Road & Lytton Avenue
6. Middlefield Road & University Avenue
7. Middlefield Road & Hamilton Avenue
8. Middlefield Road & Embarcadero Road
9. El Camino Real & Page Mill Road
10. El Camino Real & University Avenue North Bound
11. El Camino Real & University Avenue South Bound
It is noted that some of the above intersections are part of the
Santa Clara Congestion Management Program (CMP) with peak
period turning movement counts conducted every year. This
program enables historical comparison of the study area
intersections.
For this evaluation, AM and PM peak period turning movement
counts were undertaken on January 29
th
, 2014 and included
automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian movements. AM peak period
counts were conducted from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, while PM
peak period counts were conducted from 4:00 to 6:00 PM. From
those counts, the AM and PM Peak Hour volume was
determined for automobile, pedestrian, and cyclist volumes
respectively, based on the 60-minute period with the highest
volume for each mode.
AUTOMOBILE
Figures 7-1 and 7-2 show the motor vehicle turning movements
at each of the 11 intersection count locations during the AM and
PM peak hours. The majority of automobile commute trips by
non-residents, to and from jobs in Palo Alto, arrive from the
south during the AM Peak Hour and depart towards the south
during the PM Peak Hour. Given this pattern, the predominant
regional traffic movement is in the north-south direction along
El Camino Real, which carries a much higher automobile volume
than Downtown streets, while Embarcadero carries commute
traffic to and from US Highway 101.

n
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
8
1
3
2
5
7
4
6
9
11
10
B
r
y
a
n
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
S
a
n
d

H
ill
R
o
a
d
E
m
b
a
rca
d
e
ro
R
o
a
d
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
O
r
e
g
o
n

E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
P
a
g
e

M
i
l
l

R
o
a
d
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld

R
o
a
d
E
l

C
a
m
i
n
o

R
e
a
l
A
lm
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
101
0 2,600 5,200 1,300
Feet
Nelson\Nygaard and Wiltek 2014.
Fig 7-1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Morning Peak Traffic Counts
n
Creeks
Parks & Open Space
!
11
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
A
v
e
E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
2
4
7
7
6
1
4
3
3
3
1
2
8
0
6
7
!
10
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
A
v
e
E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
9
1
8
7
0
8
7
2
9
2
3
4
1
5
8
8
!
9
P
a
g
e

M
ill
R
d
E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
2
7
0
9
1
7
1
4
4
3
8
5
6
3
0
1
3
7
3
5
9
1
,
2
2
9
3
8
4
1
7
8
1
,
0
6
7
3
8
0
!
8
E
m
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o

R
d
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld

R
d
4
2
7
5
9
5
9
7
0
5
7
1
5
8
1
0
4
2
1
2
4
4
3
6
2
2
1
1
1
6
!
7
H
a
m
ilt
o
n
A
v
e
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld

R
d
3
5
2
0
6
1
9
5
3
7
4
1
4
1
5
4
5
7
9
7
2
8
3
3
3
3
9
!
6
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
A
v
e
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld

R
d
7
7
5
2
0
9
1
3
1
2
2
2
1
3
1
1
0
4
7
8
9
1
6
4
3
2
0
3
3
!
5
6
1
2
7
8
1
2
7
5
1
5
3
9
6
1
3
3
7
8
3
3
2
7
3
1
1
9
L
y
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld

R
d
!
4
1
6
4
3
7
2
0
3
5
3
0
4
2
6
3
2
7
1
6
2
5
6
8
1
3
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
A
v
e
B
r
y
a
n
t

S
t
!
3
5
4
3
2
6
4
1
7
9
9
7
0
2
0
1
1
7
1
3
7
8
2
1
H
a
m
ilt
o
n
A
v
e
A
lm
a

S
t
!
2
1
5
5
3
0
1
1
8
2
6
4
3
8
8
1
9
L
y
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
A
lm
a

S
t
!
1
S
a
n
d

H
ill
R
d
P
a
lo
A
lt
o
A
v
e
E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
1
7
1
2
0
6
5
2
7
2
8
5
3
6
1
6
7
3
8
8
1
,
4
5
0
2
4
0
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
8
1
3
2
5
7
4
6
9
11
10
n
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
8
1
3
2
5
7
4
6
9
11
10
B
r
y
a
n
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
S
a
n
d

H
ill
R
o
a
d
E
m
b
a
rca
d
e
ro
R
o
a
d
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
O
r
e
g
o
n

E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
P
a
g
e

M
i
l
l

R
o
a
d
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld

R
o
a
d
E
l

C
a
m
i
n
o

R
e
a
l
A
lm
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
101
0 2,600 5,200 1,300
Feet
Fig 7-2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Evening Peak Traffic Counts
n
Creeks
Parks & Open Space
!
11
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
A
v
e
E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
1
8
5
5
3
2
6
7
1
1
0
3
2
8
8
4
1
!
10
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
A
v
e
E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
6
7
7
1
5
1
5
8
8
5
5
3
0
1
5
3
4
!
9
P
a
g
e

M
ill
R
d
E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
3
5
4
6
2
6
1
7
8
4
5
9
1
,
1
3
1
2
5
1
4
8
9
1
,
3
9
1
2
1
6
2
1
2
8
4
5
2
2
6
!
8
E
m
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o

R
d
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld

R
d
6
3
7
0
9
8
5
6
6
1
,
0
3
4
6
9
1
0
1
2
5
5
5
7
6
0
3
1
5
6
4
!
7
H
a
m
ilt
o
n
A
v
e
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld

R
d
1
6
1
1
5
1
7
8
9
2
7
8
4
5
1
2
4
4
2
8
4
5
3
3
9
9
5
5
!
6
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
A
v
e
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld

R
d
6
9
3
3
0
7
4
6
5
3
0
9
2
6
1
2
6
4
4
1
4
9
8
9
3
9
3
2
8
!
5
1
1
6
3
6
3
0
5
1
6
5
8
8
2
0
5
4
5
1
5
4
1
8
4
0
9
8
0
L
y
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld

R
d
!
4
1
1
3
1
7
1
5
2
2
3
5
3
3
9
1
4
4
9
2
1
3
7
5
8
3
3
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
A
v
e
B
r
y
a
n
t

S
t
!
3
5
2
4
3
1
4
1
6
4
8
4
3
2
0
2
7
6
1
0
1
4
9
3
0
H
a
m
ilt
o
n
A
v
e
A
lm
a

S
t
!
2
1
5
7
3
2
8
1
4
3
2
6
4
0
2
1
1
L
y
t
t
o
n
A
v
e
A
lm
a

S
t
!
1
S
a
n
d

H
ill
R
d
P
a
lo
A
lt
o
A
v
e
E
l
C
a
m
in
o

R
e
a
l
4
2
4
1
8
7
7
2
1
7
9
1
,
2
5
4
1
4
3
3
2
5
9
3
3
1
5
5
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
8
1
3
2
5
7
4
6
9
11
10
7-4
Within the Downtown area, Alma Street serves as the primary
north-south route to access the Caltrain station as well as El
Camino Real. Middlefield Road serves as the residential arterial
connecting the residential neighborhoods with Embarcadero and
the Oregon Expressway to the south.
The east-west movement is primarily served by University
Avenue, with the heaviest volumes westbound in the AM peak
and eastbound during the PM peak. As expected there is a heavy
westbound movement on University Avenue from downtown
Palo Alto to the Stanford University Campus and adjacent
employment sites during the AM peak and eastbound during the
PM peak.
PEDESTRIAN
With the proximity of the Palo Alto Caltrain Station as well as
the Downtown destinations, there is significant pedestrian
activity within the study area. The pedestrian crossing volumes
during the AM and PM Peak Hours are shown on Figures 6-4
and 6-5, respectively.
The highest pedestrian volumes among the 11 intersection count
locations during the AM and PM Peak Hours are at the
entrances to the Palo Alto Caltrain Station along Alma Street at
Lytton Avenue and Hamilton Avenue, as well as along University
Avenue at Bryant Street. These locations are signalized with
crosswalks while the Alma Street study intersections also feature
pedestrian push buttons. As already stated, the Palo Alto Caltrain
Station is the second busiest within the system and has 5,469
daily boardings. The pedestrian volumes near the station reflect
this activity.
It is noted that the intersection of Embarcadero and Middlefield
Road has high pedestrian traffic during the AM peak hour due to
the Walter Hays Elementary School located in the northeast
quadrant of the intersection. Pedestrian activity in the PM peak
hour is very light by comparison, as the PM peak hour occurs
after school hours.
CYCLIST
Cyclist activity has similar characteristics to that of the
pedestrian volumes in that the primary destination is the
Caltrain Station. The peak hour bicycle volumes are also shown
on Figures 7-3 and 7-4. The intersection counts indicate that the
east-west route from the Caltrain Station along University
Avenue to the Stanford Campus is in demand during the AM
peak period and in the reverse direction during the PM peak
period. Caltrain ridership data confirms that the bike ridership is
second highest in the system behind only San Francisco with 644
average weekday bike boardings.
East of the Caltrain Station, cyclist volumes are significantly
lower during the peak hours and may reflect that cyclists are
more likely to use the less traveled residential roadways than the
arterials counted for this evaluation.

n
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
8
1
3
2
5
7
4
6
9
11
10
B
r
y
a
n
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
S
a
n
d

H
ill
R
o
a
d
E
m
b
a
rca
d
e
ro
R
o
a
d
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
O
r
e
g
o
n

E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
P
a
g
e

M
i
l
l

R
o
a
d
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld

R
o
a
d
E
l

C
a
m
i
n
o

R
e
a
l
A
lm
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
101
0 2,600 5,200 1,300
Feet
Fig 7-3
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Morning Peak Bicycle and
Pedestrian Counts
n
Creeks
Parks & Open Space
!
11
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
E
l
C
a
m
in
o
S
.

R
a
m
p
s
1
1
2
7
1
6
2
7
7
0
4
3
1
!
10
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
E
l
C
a
m
in
o
N
.

R
a
m
p
s
2
5
0
0
1
6
8
1
4
9
3
8
1
!
9
P
a
g
e

M
ill
E
l
C
a
m
in
o
6
3
5
2
1
9
2
1
8
0
!
8
E
m
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld
1
4
2
4
3
3
3
3
8
5
2
8
2
4
1
1
6
!
7
H
a
m
ilt
o
n
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld
1
2
4
1
2
2
1
6
3
4
!
6
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld
0
0
2
6
6
2
1
8
0
!
5
L
y
t
t
o
n
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld
4
0
4
2
0
2
6
2
5
3
!
4
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
B
r
y
a
n
t
1
7
1
9
2
1 4
2
1
2
9
1
3
8
6
3
!
3
H
a
m
ilt
o
n
A
lm
a
2
1
0
8
2
5
1
5
7
3
1
!
2
1
7
1
6
1
5
0
1
6
7
0
L
y
t
t
o
n
A
lm
a
!
1
5
3
3
3
5
4
1
3
1
0
0
2
4
S
a
n
d

H
ill
E
l
C
a
m
in
o
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
8
1
3
2
5
7
4
6
9
11
10
n
B
r
y
a
n
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

A
v
e
n
u
e
S
a
n
d

H
ill
R
o
a
d
E
m
b
a
rca
d
e
ro
R
o
a
d
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
O
r
e
g
o
n

E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
P
a
g
e

M
i
l
l

R
o
a
d
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld

R
o
a
d
E
l

C
a
m
i
n
o

R
e
a
l
A
lm
a

S
t
r
e
e
t
L
y
t
t
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
8
1
3
2
5
7
4
6
9
11
10
101
!
11
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
E
l
C
a
m
in
o
S
.

R
a
m
p
s
5
2
1
0
1
6
0
1
2
8
7
6
3
0
!
10
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
E
l
C
a
m
in
o
N
.

R
a
m
p
s
4
2
0
0
1
6
3
0
6
3
6
4
2
!
9
P
a
g
e

M
ill
E
l
C
a
m
in
o
2
2
3
1
2
9
1
3
2
5
6
!
8
E
m
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld
3
6
3
0
8
5
2
7
!
7
H
a
m
ilt
o
n
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld
6
0
0
1
0
6
1
8
1
0
4
!
6
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld
4
2
1
8
2
2
5
1
4
5
2
!
5
L
y
t
t
o
n
M
id
d
le
f
ie
ld
6
2
1
0
3
8
5
5
1
!
4
U
n
iv
e
r
s
it
y
B
r
y
a
n
t
2
7
1
7
2
2
4
1
2
6
5
4
1
9
1
5
3
!
3
H
a
m
ilt
o
n
A
lm
a
4
1
0
2
1
1
4
7
5
5
5
1
!
2
0
2
4
2
4
6
0
2
4
9
0
L
y
t
t
o
n
A
lm
a
!
1
8
7
2
1
3
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
S
a
n
d

H
ill
E
l
C
a
m
in
o
0 2,600 5,200 1,300
Feet
Fig 7-4
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Evening Peak Bicycle and
Pedestrian Counts
n
Creeks
Parks & Open Space
Chapter 7: Traffic Evaluation
7-7
7.2 Traffic Operations
Traffic operations at each of the 11 study area intersections were
evaluated using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology
to determine the level of service (LOS) at each study intersection
during the AM and PM Peak Hours. LOS is a qualitative
evaluation based on the average delay to motorists at each
intersection. LOS ranges from LOS A, representing free-flow
conditions with very low level delay, to LOS F representing poor
progression with significant delays. Table 7-1 provides a
definition of each LOS rating.

Table 7-1: Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Definitions
LOS Flow Type Operational Characteristics
Intersection Control Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
Signal Control 2-Way-Stop or All-
Way Stop Control
A Stable Flow
Free-flow conditions with negligible to minimal delays. Excellent progression with most vehicles arriving
during the green phase and not having to stop at all. Nearly all drivers find freedom of operation.
< 10 0 10
B Stable Flow
Good progression with slight delays. Short cycle-lengths typical. Relatively more vehicles stop than under
LOS A. Vehicle platoons are formed. Drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles.
> 10 20 > 10 15
C Stable Flow
Relatively higher delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle
failures may begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass
through without stopping. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted.
> 20 35 > 15 25
D
Approaching
Unstable
Flow
Somewhat congested conditions. Longer but tolerable delays may result from unfavorable progression,
long cycle lengths, and/or high volume-to-capacity ratios. Drivers may feel restricted during short periods
due to temporary back-ups.
> 35 55 > 25 35
E
Unstable
Flow
Congested conditions. Delays result from poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-
capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently. There are typically long queues of vehicles
waiting upstream of the intersection. Driver maneuverability is very restricted.
> 55 80 > 35 50
F Forced Flow
Generally considered to be unacceptable for most drivers. Zero or very poor progression, with over-
saturation or high volume-to-capacity ratios. Several individual cycle failures occur. Queue spillovers
from other locations restrict or prevent movement.
> 80 > 50
!"#$%&' Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010.

7-8
The City of Palo Alto standard for signalized intersections is LOS
D or better. City policy also mandates that automobile, bicycle
and pedestrian safety should be given a priority over LOS in
some cases (based on Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy T-
39).
Table 7-2 summarizes the results of the intersection LOS analysis
at each of the 11 study intersections. The results show that all the
study area intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of
service during peak hours based upon the City of Palo Alto LOS
standards, with the exception of El Camino Real at Page Mill
Road, which operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour. This
intersection, however, is part of the CMP roadway network and
does meet the CMP LOS standard.
Table 7-2: Existing Conditions: Intersection Level of Service
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Avg. Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS
El Camino Real/Sand Hill Rd.
Alma St./Lytton Ave.
Alma St./Hamilton Ave.
University Ave./Bryant St.
Middlefield Rd./Lytton Ave.
Middlefield Rd./University Ave.
Middlefield Rd./Hamilton Ave.
Middlefield Rd./Embarcadero Rd.
El Camino Real/Page Mill Rd.
El Camino Real/University Ave. NB
El Camino Real/University Ave. SB
25.5
18.6
11.9
15.5
6.8
35.0
8.9
42.8
55.1
9.7
9.3
C
B
B
B
A
C
A
D
E
A
A
33.0
6.5
20.2
15.1
11.1
38.0
15.9
50.1
54.7
13.1
10.3
C
A
C
B
B
D
B
D
D
B
B
Source: Nelson\Nygaard, 2014.
7.3 Queuing and Delay
Automobile delay is greatest on the key regional routes that
provide access to Palo Alto such as El Camino Real,
Embarcadero, Sand Hill Road, and Page Mill Road while
average delay is lower at intersections within the Downtown area.
Several factors account for the reduced level of delay at
Downtown intersections. Traffic volumes are lower on
Downtown streets, while rates of walking are higher. In addition,
the narrower width of Downtown streets allow for shorter traffic
signal cycles, thus reducing the wait time for a green light or walk
signal. For example, most signals on University Avenue within
downtown operate on a 75-second cycle with 50 seconds
allocated to University Avenue traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists,
and 25 seconds allocated to cross-traffic. As a result, the wait for
a green light on University Avenue within the downtown core is
generally less than 25 seconds for the average driver. While
frequent queuing of vehicles does occur on University Avenue,
particularly given the high volume of pedestrian traffic and
closely spaced signals that accommodate pedestrian walk phases,
the duration of the wait-time at each intersection is relatively
short.
Queuing was observed on University Avenue at several gateway
points to the Downtown, particularly the portion of University
Avenue near Middlefield Road, as well as some delays near the
Caltrain station. These delays are primarily a function of the
transition from larger blocks that emphasize traffic flow outside
of downtown to smaller, pedestrian-oriented blocks within
downtown. Delays near Middlefield also appear to be caused in
part by an imbalance between the longer cycle length where
Chapter 7: Traffic Evaluation

7-9
University intersects Middlefield, and shorter signal cycles at
downstream intersections to the west of Middlefield.
On the Downtown streets parallel to University Avenue such as
Lytton and Hamilton avenues recent site visits noted some
queuing associated with several small construction projects on
those streets.
Parking activity did not appear to be a key contributor to
observed queuing in the core of Downtown, although it is likely
that a portion of motorists, on parallel streets in particular, are in
fact traveling to and from available parking spaces. In addition,
some queuing was observed near the Caltrain station related to
passenger pick-ups and drop-offs.
7.4 Multi-Modal Circulation
Conditions
Downtown Palo Alto provides a comfortable environment for
travel on foot or via bicycle, particularly given the small blocks,
generally ample sidewalk widths, relatively short pedestrian
crossing distances, and close proximity of complementary land
uses.
Table 7-3 compares the rates of walking and biking through four
intersections representing different parts of the study area:
Downtown Core: University Avenue and Bryant Street
Caltrain Station: Lytton Avenue and Alma Street
Northern Edge: University Avenue and Middlefield
Road
Southern Edge: University Avenue and El Camino Real
Overall, the rate of walking and bicycling is particularly high
within the core of the Downtown. The volume of pedestrian
crossings at University Avenue and Bryant Street during the PM
Peak Hour is nearly as high as the traffic volume. Bike volumes
through the gateway at the southern edge of the study area, at
University Avenue and El Camino Real, are higher than at any of
the other representative intersections, as the intersection serves
as the key bike route between the Caltrain station and Stanford
University. The intersection at Alma Street and Lytton Avenue,
an important pedestrian connection with the Caltrain station,
shows particularly high pedestrian volumes that might have been
higher in the absence of construction that was underway near the
intersection at the time of the count. Finally, the intersection at
University Avenue and Middlefield Road, a gateway to a lower-
density residential area and U.S. 101, shows little non-auto traffic.

7-10
Table 7-3: Multi-Modal Volumes and Mode Split, PM Peak
Intersection
Motor Vehicle Volumes Pedestrian Volumes Bicycle Volumes
Total
Intersection
Volume
Sum of Approach % of Total
Sum of
Approach % of Total
Sum of
Approach % of Total
University Ave. &
Bryant St. 1,898 53% 1,599 44% 109 3% 3,606
Alma St. & Lytton
Ave. 2352 84% 401 14% 49 2% 2,802
University Ave. &
Middlefield Rd. 3,911 97% 73 2% 59 1% 4,043
University Ave. & El
Camino (Southern
Ramps) 3,497 85% 302 7% 339 8% 4,138
Source: Nelson/Nygaard and Wiltec, 2014.

8-1
8 Conclusions and Next
Steps
8.1 Conclusions and Implications
DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
Amount and Character of Non-Residential
Development Since 1986
According to the most recent data available in 2014, the total
amount of floor area in the Primary Study Area is about 3.5
million square feet, with about 3.35 million square feet occupied
by non-residential uses. Of that, about 250,000 square feet of
non-residential development projects have been added since
1986, when the Citys Development Cap was created. Thus,
relative to the total amount of development in the Primary Study
Area, non-residential development from the last two-and-a-half
decades is a small portion just over 7 percent of the total floor
area.
While the amount of floor area constructed since 1986 has only
increased slightly relative to the total floor area in the Primary
Downtown Study Area, the land uses have changed significantly
since the 1980s. In 1986, light industrial and commercial uses
were interspersed with office and retail uses throughout the
Downtown area. Nearly 16 percent of the Downtown floor area
was occupied by lighter industrial and commercial uses,
including basement storage, utility facilities, automotive services,
warehousing and distribution, and manufacturing.
By 2013, however, many of these lighter industrial and
commercial uses had decreased significantly or disappeared
altogether from the Downtown area, occupying only about 7
percent of the Primary Study Area floor area. In contrast,
professional and personal service uses increased substantially
between 1986 and 2013, with personal services increasing nearly
67 percent and office uses increasing 27 percent. In all, office,
retail, business, and personal services occupied about half of the
total floor area in the Primary Study Area in 1986, but nearly 60
percent of the total floor area in 2013. These changes in the land
uses in the Downtown over the two-and-a-half decades
correspond to broader changes in the Citys and the regional
economies since the 1980s.
The amount of development in Downtown Palo Alto gradually
increased after 1986, but it has accelerated in recent years. In fact,
over half of the Downtowns total non-residential development
since 1986 has been constructed in the last three years, with over
100,000 square feet constructed in the Primary Study Area in
2012 and 2013 alone. Even with the recent increase in supply of
floor area, demand is on the rise, and the vacancy rate in the
Downtown fell from about 9 percent in 2009 to nearly 2 percent
in 2013.
The significant public benefits, historic renovations, seismic
upgrades, and minor expansion bonus programs have been used
in many development projects in the Downtown. In fact, well
over half of the non-residential square footage in the Primary
8-2
Study Area 63 percent that has been constructed since 1986
has benefitted from these programs. While these programs have
been successful in preserving and enhancing historic building
stock, improving building safety, and providing public benefits,
they may have also contributed to the Citys parking and traffic
issues, as much of the development under these programs has
been exempt from the Citys parking requirements, while adding
floor area to the Downtown.
Ultimately, while total building floor area has increased in
Downtown Palo Alto since 1986, the new construction accounts
for less than 10 percent of the total building square footage in the
area overall. The more notable changes have been the change in
uses in existing buildings, with much more of the Downtown
floor area devoted to professional, personal, and commercial
services today than in the past. Furthermore, many Internet and
software start-up firms have higher levels of employment
intensity (employees per square foot) compared to traditional
office uses. It is these changes in use and building occupancy in
the Downtown overall that have likely contributed to increased
traffic and parking demand. Palo Alto is one of the very few cities
that does not require business licenses; thus the distribution of
various kinds of office uses, for example, in the Downtown is not
readily known. One of the next tasks in this evaluation of the
Downtown Development Cap is to survey existing businesses to
determine how many employees occupy the space and better
understand the means by which they travel to work, which in
turn impacts parking demand and traffic.
PARKING AND TRAFFIC
On-street parking in the Primary Study Area is challenging for
long periods during the day as well as in evenings. During the
period of highest demand, weekdays at noon, many block faces
south of Bryant Street and in other multi-block clusters
throughout the northwestern portion of the study area are near
100 percent occupancy. However, occupancy data suggests that
the taken as a whole, the areas overall parking supply is
sufficient to meet current parking demand and to accommodate
some future growth. The areas off-street facilities are below full
capacity at peak periods, with garages overall and permit spaces
in particular showing significant vacancy. In addition, in areas
with large numbers of fully occupied block faces, there also tend
to be some block faces nearby with at least a few open spaces
available. In short, the City could improve parking with
strategies that address not just new supply, but better
management of existing facilities. The overall parking supply is
sufficient to meet demand, if the community accepts that many
Downtown employees park for free on neighborhood streets.
Traffic counts suggest that congestion is an issue, but could be
mitigated. All intersections in and immediately around the study
area currently operate at or above the Citys level of service D
standard. Only the El Camino Real and Page Mill Road
intersection, which serves significant traffic to and from other
area job centers and regional destinations, operates below this
standard during the morning peak.
A variety of data sources suggest that significantly more people
are coming to the Downtown via non-auto modes than in the
past. Boardings at the Palo Alto Caltrain station are up 51
percent since 2009, and a survey conducted for this study
suggests that area employees are driving alone to the area at
much lower rates than they did just a few years ago. In addition,
counts of car, bike, and pedestrian activity at University Avenue
and Bryant Street, an intersection that is representative of
Chapter 8: Conclusions and Next Steps

8-3
intersections throughout the core of Downtown, shows that non-
auto travelers already account for a significant portion of
downtown travel behavior. These trends may keep congestion at
acceptable levels and enable current parking supplies to continue
satisfying overall demand, even with additional development.
In the short term, dealing with uneven parking demand and
shortages will require a multi-pronged approach. The City is
already moving forward on implementation of transportation
demand management measures that will encourage even more
people to walk, bike, and use transit to get to Downtown. The
City Council has recently directed City staff to create a
Residential Parking Permit program; the potential for increased
parking demand in the Downtown core from employees who
currently park in adjacent residential areas may well justify
investments in new parking facilities, an option that the City is
currently exploring.
The City should also be exploring more active parking
management as a cost-effective way to address parking
challenges. Increasing the use of signage to direct people to
underutilized garages would help make better use of past
investments. The City is currently developing an RFP for
technology solutions to parking challenges, including parking
guidance systems that will help motorists find available spaces in
parking lots and garages. These dynamic signs, which could
show the number of open spaces in large facilities like the Civic
Center and Waverly-Cowper garages, could be particularly useful.
Shared parking arrangements with private parking facilities
should be explored for evening and weekend peak periods.
Finally, while pricing of on-street spaces is often unpopular, the
City should continue to revisit it as a potential strategy as the
Downtown continues to grow.
8.2 Next Steps
EMPLOYER SURVEY
The first survey conducted for this study gathered information
on the Downtown parking and travel trends of a wide variety of
users: residents, employees, and visitors to Downtown Palo Alto.
A second survey will aim to update information on typical
employee density and employees means of travel to work. The
survey will be conducted primarily by phone, with follow-up
conducted in person.
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND
GROWTH PROJECTIONS
Based on the GIS database, available development capacity will
be calculated, based on sites with potential to change in the
coming decade based on certain metrics (building intensity,
improvement to land value ratio, historical designation, use, etc.)
Existing development at the opportunity sites will be compared
against potential floor area limits, and amount of capacity
available, TDR sending capacity, and other parameters. From
this, a set of development projections (5, 10, and potentially 20
years) will be developed that assume continued use of TDRs and
other existing provisions, but removal of the development cap.
The formulation of future development scenarios will be based
on a detailed analysis of development capacity and feasibility in
the Downtown based on market and financial considerations.
The formulation of realistic development scenarios will inform
study projections related to parking, traffic, and other impacts of
interest to the City.
8-4
TRAFFIC MODELING AND FUTURE PARKING
NEEDS
Traffic operations will be modeled and parking demand
calculated based on the various development scenarios for the
Downtown. Impacts of parking and traffic will be assessed not
just in the Downtown Primary Study Area, but also on adjacent
neighborhoods. Results of these analyses will be presented to the
public, stakeholders, and decision-makers for their review and
comment, and used to inform Phase II of the Downtown
Development Cap Study, in which future policy direction will be
determined.

DYETT & BHATI A
Urban and Regi onal Pl anners
755 Sansome Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, California 94111
415 956 4300 415 956 7315

City of Palo Alto (CA) Downtown Capacity Study (2014)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

City of Palo Alto (CA) Downtown Capacity Study (2014)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

City of Palo Alto (ID # 4825)

Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report

You might also like