Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2009-07-06 City Council Agenda Packet
1 07/06/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting. Special Meeting Council Chambers July 6, 2009 6:00 PM ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Agency Negotiator: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Kelly Morariu, Russ Carlsen, Lalo Perez, Sandra Blanch, Darrell Murray, Marcie Scott, Joe Saccio) Employee Organization: Local 521 Service Employees International Union Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Agency Negotiator: City Manager and his designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Kelly Morariu, Russ Carlsen, Lalo Perez, Sandra Blanch, Darrell Murray, Joe Saccio, Marcie Scott) Employee Organization: Unrepresented Employee Group Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees Authority: Government Code section 54957.6(a) 2 07/06/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 2. Expressing Appreciation to Roche Palo Alto LLC for Outstanding Public Volunteer Service ATTACHMENT 3. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Planning & Transportation Commission ATTACHMENT 4. Appointments for the Utilities Advisory Commission for Three Terms Ending June 30, 2012 ATTACHMENT 5. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Dexter Dawes Upon the Completion of His Term as a Utilities Advisory Commissioner ATTACHMENT 6. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Dick Rosenbaum Upon the Completion of His Term as a Utilities Advisory Commissioner ATTACHMENT 7. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to John Stucky for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Library Advisory Commission 3 07/06/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. ATTACHMENT 8. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to John B. Costa Upon His Retirement ATTACHMENT 9. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Tammela L. Ellegood-Gage Upon Her Retirement ATTACHMENT 10. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Dennis W. Tealer Upon His Retirement ATTACHMENT CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration or Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 1, 2009 CONSENT CALENDAR Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 11. Approval of At-Will Employment Agreement with Stephen Emslie for the Position of Deputy City Manager 4 07/06/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. CMR 300:09 and ATTACHMENT 12. Approval of a Contract for up to Three Years With Gregory B. Bragg & Associates in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $783,000 for Workers’ Compensation Claims Administration Services CMR 301:09 and ATTACHMENTS 13. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Elaina Chan Upon Her Retirement ATTACHMENT 14. Adoption of a Resolution Approving and Authorizing the Execution of the State of California Department of Community Services and Development 2009 – 2012 Direct Payment Program Agreement No. 09-1367 in Conjunction With the Department of Community Service Home Energy Assistance Program CMR 251:09 and ATTACHMENTS 15. Adoption of Resolution Amending and Restating the Administrative Penalty Schedule and Civil Penalty Schedules for Certain Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and California Vehicle Code Established by Resolution 8858 ATTACHMENTS 16. Approval of Contract with Thomas S. Barron, PE, a Consulting Civil Engineer, in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $99,000 Per Year with an Option to Renew for Two Additional One Year Terms for Industrial Wastewater Discharge Evaluations for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 5 07/06/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. CMR 293:09 and ATTACHMENTS PUBLIC HEARINGS 17. Adoption of Two Ordinances: (1) Repealing Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.17, California Energy Code, 2008 Edition; and (2) Repealing Chapter 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to adopt a new Chapter 16.18, Establishing Local Energy Efficiency Standards for Certain Buildings and Improvements Covered by the 2008 California Energy Code (continued from 6/1/09) (Staff requests item to be continued to a date uncertain) ATTACHMENT 18. Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Apply the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District to a ½ -acre Site Zoned Multiple Family Residential (RM-40) to Allow Eight Residential Condominiums Above Ground Floor Office Space, a Below Grade Parking Garage, and Related Site Improvements at 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue CMR 296:09 and ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 19. Direction to Staff to Prepare an Ordinance Implementing a Residential Permit Parking Program for the College Terrace Neighborhood 6 07/06/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. CMR 298:09 and ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 20. Adoption of Ordinance Amending Section 2.40.040 of Chapter 2.40 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to Municipal Elections for Web Posting of Campaign Contributions ATTACHMENT COUNCIL MATTERS 21. Colleague’s Memo from Mayor Drekmeier, Council Members Espinosa and Klein Regarding Increasing the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) from Five to Seven Members ATTACHMENT AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker. COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO ROCHE PALO ALTO LLC FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC VOLUNTEER SERVICE WHEREAS, Roche Palo Alto LLC employees have volunteered their time each year for the company’s annual Environmental Clean-up Day to improve Foothills Park, Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and Baylands Nature Preserve for more than 10 years; and WHEREAS, Roche Palo Alto did encourage those employees to volunteer, and allowed them to use work time to participate in their annual Environmental Clean-up Day; and WHEREAS, Roche volunteers did projects as diverse as habitat restoration, trail improvement, picnic table removal, barbecue installation, campground preparation, and other undertakings; and WHEREAS, Roche Palo Alto also made monetary donations to Palo Alto Open Space each year based on the number of employees participating, which totaled several thousand dollars each year, for specific improvements to Open Space such as new exhibits and displays; and WHEREAS, Alex Haedrich, Director of Environmental Health & Safety, was the primary organizer of the Environmental Clean-up Day since its inception, along with support from Nancy Cohen, Sr. V.P of Legal Services, Nancy Peterson, former V.P. of Public Affairs, Dave Wilde and Debbie Keys of EHS staff, Kevin Marks, V.P. of Legal Services, Tom Haney, Manager of Security, and the rest of the EHS staff; and WHEREAS, the ranger staff did greatly appreciate how hard Roche volunteers worked and how much they accomplished each year in improving Palo Alto Open Space; and WHEREAS, Roche Palo Alto LLC has by all these actions demonstrated exceptional leadership in environmental stewardship and epitomized what it means to be a good corporate neighbor. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Peter Drekmeier, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, hereby commends the outstanding public volunteer service provided by Roche Palo Alto LLC and its employees, and records its appreciation of the company and its employees for the public volunteer service and contribution to the City. Presented July 2009 ______________________________ Peter Drekmeier Mayor 3 July 6, 2009 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL City of Palo Alto SUBJECT: Selection of Candidates to be interviewed for the Planning and Transportation Commission Dear Council Members: Enclosed are five applications submitted for two terms, ending on July 31, 2013 on the Planning and Transportation Commission. At the Council Meeting on Monday, July 6, 2009, the City Council will select the candidates to be interviewed for the Planning and Transportation Commission, with the interview date to be determined. Each Council Member will receive a selection sheet to use for determining who will be chosen for an interview. The requested action is for each Council Member to fill out the selection sheet. The City Clerk will announce the results. Candidates who receive four or more votes will be scheduled for an interview. The applicants are as follows: Name Address Home Phone 1 Irvin Dawid 753 Alma Street, #126 Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-853-0558 H 650-283-6534 C 2 Daniel Garber 2201 Bryon Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-473-1870 H 3 Janice Holliday 60 Kent Place Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-327-9787 H 4 Eduardo Martinez 110 El Dorado Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306 408-431-1850 H 650-960-0502 W 5 Stephen Sowa 3440 Cowper Court Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-857-165 H 408-924-0811 W Respectfully submitted, Ronna Jojola Gonsalves Deputy City Clerk Enclosures cc: All applicants (without enclosure) Donna Grider, City Clerk Curtis Williams, Staff Liaison July 6, 2009 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL City of Palo Alto SUBJECT: Appointments for the Utilities Advisory Commission for three terms ending June 30, 2012. Dear Council Members: On Monday, July 6, 2009 the City Council should vote to appoint three, three year terms ending on June 30, 2012. The Candidates are as follows: Alex Ameri William Berry Steve Eglash Jonathan Foster Marilyn Keller Bin Lee Walter Loewenstein Arthur Roberts Stanley Sussman Voting will be by paper ballot. Five votes are required to be appointed. The first three candidates that receive at least five votes will be appointed. Respectfully submitted, Ronna Jojola Gonsalves Deputy City Clerk cc: Valerie Fong, Staff Liaison Donna Grider, City Clerk RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO DEXTER DAWES UPON THE COMPLETION OF HIS TERM AS A UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSIONER WHEREAS, Dexter Dawes has served as a commissioner on the Utilities Advisory Commission from November 24, 1998 through June 30, 2009, and during that tenure acted as the Chair for four years and Vice-Chair for one year; and WHEREAS, Dexter Dawes has provided dedicated service to the residents and businesses of this community through review of Utilities policies and practices employing his extensive knowledge of economics and business; and WHEREAS, Dexter Dawes’ interest in all Utilities matters and representation of the Commission to the City Council and the Finance Committee was a validation of the Commission’s active and in-depth consideration of complex utilities issues; and WHEREAS, Dexter Dawes ably assisted the Utilities in weathering the energy crisis of 2001 and its various aftershocks and saw the Utilities through volatile changes in the gas commodities markets; and WHEREAS, Dexter Dawes advised the Utilities Department as it revised its Gas Utility Long-term Plan (GULP), Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP), and developed its Ten Year Efficiency Plan; and WHEREAS, Dexter Dawes’ consideration of concerns raised by the public, and his willingness to listen to different points of view resulted in joint recommendations by staff and the Commission to the City Council that were adopted by the Council; and WHEREAS, Dexter Dawes diligently incorporated Council directions and priorities in his guidance on utilities matters; and WHEREAS, Dexter Dawes was able to apply his considerable experience gained in life and business to his responsibilities advising the Council and illuminating issues involving utility policy; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto desires to recognize the meritorious service of Dexter Dawes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby commends the outstanding public service of Dexter Dawes and records its appreciation as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community for the service and contribution rendered during his terms on the Utilities Advisory Commission. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: JULY 6, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: _______________________ _________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ _________________________ City Attorney City Manager RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO DICK ROSENBAUM UPON THE COMPLETION OF HIS TERM AS A UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSIONER WHEREAS, Dick Rosenbaum has served as a commissioner on the Utilities Advisory Commission from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2009, and during that tenure acted as the Chair for a year and Vice-Chair for two years; and WHEREAS, Dick Rosenbaum has provided valuable knowledge and insight to the residents and businesses of this community through review of Utilities policy and practices using his extensive understanding of utilities and commodities markets, employing a logical approach coupled with an outstanding memory of all past actions and using impeccably timed but subtly applied humor; and WHEREAS, Dick Rosenbaum always focused on the big picture of providing advice in the best interest of the City and its utility customer-owners; and WHEREAS, Dick Rosenbaum ably assisted the Utilities in developing legislative guidelines, and long-term electric and gas acquisition plans, and effectively communicated his positions with staff and his companion commissioners; and WHEREAS, Dick Rosenbaum advised the Council on Utilities issues with a keen eye on the economics of any proposals including proposals regarding the General Fund Transfer, the Recycled Water Project, and the PaloAltoGREEN project ; and WHEREAS, Dick Rosenbaum listened openly to public concerns and staff’s recommendations to arrive at balanced positions to resolve controversial issues including rate increases, cost allocations, and reserves balances; and WHEREAS, Dick Rosenbaum diligently incorporated Council directions and priorities in his guidance on utilities matters; and WHEREAS, Dick Rosenbaum was able to apply his considerable experience gained in life, business and in local policy setting to his responsibilities advising the Council and illuminating issues involving utility policy; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto desires to recognize the meritorious service of Dick Rosenbaum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby commends the outstanding public service of Dick Rosenbaum and records its appreciation as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community for the service and contribution rendered during his terms on the Utilities Advisory Commission. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: JULY 6, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: _______________________ _________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ _________________________ City Attorney City Manager RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO JOHN STUCKY FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMISSION WHEREAS, John Stucky has served the City of Palo Alto as a member of the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) for five years, from March 2004 through April 2009; WHEREAS, John Stucky was elected as Vice Chair in February 2009, and served as the Library Advisory Commission Liaison to the Palo Alto Library Foundation in March 2009; and WHEREAS, John Stucky has addressed community interests for libraries on behalf of his neighborhood and Palo Alto as a whole; and WHEREAS, John Stucky served on various subcommittees on the LAC and was a contributor of information for the Library Advisory Commission’s Library Service Model Analysis and Recommendations Plan for the Palo Alto City Library which was endorsed unanimously by the City Council; and WHEREAS, John Stucky willingly gave of his time and talents in support of the City of Palo Alto Library Advisory Commission; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto wishes to acknowledge and thank John Stucky for his personal commitment and pride in the community, for his personal efforts and vision, and for his dedication as a member of the Library Advisory Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby gratefully records and extends its sincere appreciation and the appreciation of the community to John Stucky for his services in support of the libraries of Palo Alto. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: JULY 6, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: _______________________ _________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ _________________________ City Attorney City Manager RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO JOHN B. COSTA UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, John Borges Costa served the City of Palo Alto and its citizens as a member of the Palo Alto Police Department for more than 30 years, becoming a Reserve Palo Alto Police Officer in December 1978, a full-time regular Officer on December 7, 1979, promoted to the rank of Agent on July 17, 1983, and then promoted to the rank of Sergeant on January 22, 1991; and WHEREAS, Sergeant Costa has served as a Field Training Officer and Supervisor, Traffic Team Supervisor, Canine Team Supervisor, a distinguished Detective on the regional Allied Agencies Narcotics Enforcement Team (A.A.N.E.T.), an instructor at the Police Academy and a longstanding respected mentor and counselor for new and seasoned veterans within the Police Department; and WHEREAS, Sergeant Costa was instrumental in the Police Department’s problem-solving and community policing approach to quality of life issues, under his leadership, he initiated Night-Safe a program which works with and trains local bars and restaurants, started the entertainment area taxicab lane to facilitate easily accessible safe rides home, and coordinated the nighttime efforts to reach out to homeless individuals and camps throughout Palo Alto; and WHEREAS, on August 10, 1980 then rookie Officer Costa employing creative and inventive police work, stopped and identified the College Terrace rapist, who for years had been terrorizing over 100 women at night and in their homes in the Bay Area; and WHEREAS, Sergeant Costa has received countless public and departmental commendations distinguishing his professionalism and commitment to service. He has been recognized for his honesty, high ethical standards, dedication to public service in the field of law enforcement, giving unselfishly of his time and talent. His leadership, supervisory skills and uninhibited genuine care for people is a hallmark of his career and an influential proud legacy for the Palo Alto Police Department in the years ahead; and WHEREAS, Sergeant Costa has pursued his career and duties diligently with distinction, loyalty, integrity, courtesy, and a sense of humor. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby commends the outstanding public service of John B. Costa and records its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community upon his retirement. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: JULY 6, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: _______________________ _________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ _________________________ City Attorney City Manager RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO TAMMELA L. ELLEGOOD-GAGE UPON HER RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Tammela Lynn Ellegood-Gage has served the City of Palo Alto and its citizens as a member of the Palo Alto Police Department from November 11, 1983 until May 29, 2009 and was promoted to the rank of Agent in August 1995; and WHEREAS, during her tenure, Agent Gage was selected and proudly served in numerous specialty positions within the Police Department, including Hostage Negotiator, Serious/Fatal Traffic Accidents Reconstruction (S.T.A.R.) Team, Traffic Officer, Radar Instructor, Public Information Officer, Fraud Detective, Court Liaison Officer, Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (R.E.A.C.T.), Honor Guard Team Member and Department Administrative Staff Assistant; and WHEREAS, from 1985 through 2008, Agent Gage represented Palo Alto at the Annual Police Olympics earning 12 Gold Medals and proudly brought home a total of 34 medals in swimming and track and field events; and WHEREAS, Agent Gage was an innovatory female leader and role model in Law Enforcement, having pioneered the ‘Working Mother’ Patrol Officer at the Palo Alto Police Department, successfully raising her two children, Wesley and Erica; and WHEREAS, Agent Gage received numerous commendations for her compassion, professionalism, and courtesy and has pursued her twenty-five and one-half year law enforcement career with dignity, loyalty, fairness, and dedication. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby commends the outstanding public service of Agent Gage and records its appreciation on behalf of the citizens of the community upon her retirement. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: JULY 6, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: _______________________ _________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ _________________________ City Attorney City Manager RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO DENNIS W. TEALER UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Dennis Wayne Tealer has served the City of Palo Alto and its citizens as a member of the Palo Alto Police Department for over 21 years; and WHEREAS, Dennis Tealer proudly served his Country as a Sergeant in the United States Army and then as a Federal Police Officer stationed at Fort Ord; and WHEREAS, Dennis Tealer was hired as an Officer on January 4, 1988, was promoted to the rank of Agent on April 15, 1996, and retired from the Palo Alto Police Department on May 22, 2009; and WHEREAS, Agent Tealer has worked as a Field Training Officer, Traffic Officer, School Resource Officer, Community Policing Officer, an instructor at the Police Academy, and a mentor in the schools with at-risk kids; and WHEREAS, Agent Tealer’s personnel record contains over 200 commendations expressing gratitude and thankfulness for his thoughtfulness, dedication, and professionalism; and WHEREAS, Agent Tealer has pursued his career and duties diligently with distinction, loyalty, and integrity. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby commends the outstanding public service of Agent Dennis W. Tealer and records its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community, upon his retirement. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: JULY 6, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________ ______________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ _______________________ City Attorney City Manager TO: HONOR1-\BLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DATE: JULY 6, 2009 SUBJECT: Approval of At-Will Employment Position of Deputy City Manager CITY MANAGER ClVIR: 300:09 ..... "'-".Illl""'JlJl .. with Stephen Emslie for the I an1 pleased to request your approval of the elnplo)'lnent agreelnent for Stephen Emslie who is being prolnoted to the position of Deputy City Manager for the City. Mr. Elnslie has over 25 years experience in local govermnent specializing in land use and development related experience. Since May 2008, he has been working as Interim Deputy City Manager reporting to City Managers Frank Benest and James Previous to this, Mr. Elnslie served as the City's Planning Director for six years. has extensive experience with In any of the challenges facing Palo Alto, including Planning and Transportation and Econolnic Development, managing the City's tean1S for the High Speed Rail implelnentation, and Stanford's Hospital expansion. Mr. Elnslie will work closely with Planning COlmnission, liaison with Planning and COlmnunity Enviromnent, and with the City ~Aanager. He will focus on projects that have a cOlmnunity developlnent or planning elnphasis and will oversee the new Assistant to City Manager Sustainability position. Other duties for Mr. Elnslie will include responding to Council and citizen inquiries and will staff appointed task forces or cOlnmissions as required. While perfonning the duties of Deputy City Manager, Mr. Elnslie shall receive an initial base annual salary of $173,908.80. Under this employment agreelnent, any increase in salary is within the sole discretion of the City Manager. Steve will begin his position on July 7th . CMR:300:09 Page 1 of 1 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO AND STEPHEN EMSLIE THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Palo Alto, a California lTIunicipal corporation and chartered city ("City") and Stephen Emslie, its Deputy City Manager ("Emslie"). It is effective on the latest date next to the signatures on the last page. This Agreement is entered into on the basis of the following facts, among others: A. City, acting by and through its duly appointed City Manager, desires to employ Emslie as its Deputy City Manager, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and in the Charter of the City of Palo Alto (the "Charter") . B. Emslie desires to be employed by the City as its Deputy City Manager subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and in the Charter. C. City and Emslie desire to establish specific terms and conditions relating to compensation and benefits, performance evaluations, and related lTIatiers. D. Notwithstanding any provision of the City of Palo Alto Merit System Rules and Regulations, the City desires Enlslie to serve, and Emslie agrees to serve, on an at-will basis, with no expectation of continued employment, and with no right to pre-or post-separation due process or appeal. E. Emslie desires a predictable amount of severance notice and severance pay should his employment be tenninated with or without cause or notice. BASED UPON FOREGOING, CITY AND EMSLIE AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Employment. City will appoint and employ Emslie as Deputy City Manager with the City of Palo Alto and Emslie will accept the appointment and employment as Deputy City Manager for an indefinite term to begin on July 7, 2009. In the event Emslie does not actually report for or commence work as Deputy City Manager on July 7, 2009, the Employment Start Date will be the date, if any, as otherwise mutually agreed by the parties. 2. Duties of Deputy City Manager. Emslie shall perform the duties established for the Deputy City Manager by the Charter, Palo Alto Municipal Code, direction of the City Manager, job description, or as otherwise provided by law, ordinance, or regulation. 2.1. Full Energy and Skill. Emslie shall devote his full energy, skill, ability, and productive time to the performance of his duties. -1- 090629 mb 8261066 2.2. Emslie shall not engage in any emploYlnent, activity, consulting service, or other enterprise, for compensation or otherwise, which is actually or potentially in conflict with, inimical to, or which interferes with the performance of his duties. Emslie acknowledges that he is subject to the various conflict of interest requirements found in the California Government Code and state and local policies and regulations. 2.3. Permission Required For Outside Activities. Emslie shall not engage in any employment, activity, consulting service, or other enterprise, for compensation or otherwise, without the express, written permission of the City Manager. 3. Compensation. While perfonning the duties of Deputy City Manager, Emslie shall be compensated as provided in this Section 3. 3.1. Emslie shall receive an initial base annual salary of one hundred seventy three thousand nine hundred and eight dollars and eighty cents ($173,908.80) cOlnmencing on the effective date of the contract. 3.2. Salary AdjustInents. Not less than once each year, the City Manager shall meet with Emslie for the express purpose of evaluating Emslie's performance. The City Manager will act in good faith in determining whether to increase the salary of Emslie, but the ultimate decision in this regard is within the sole discretion of the City Manager. 3.3. Variable Management Compensation. Emslie shall be entitled to receive Variable Managenlent C0111pensation ("VMC") pursuant to the terms of the City Council approved Management Compensation Plan. 4. Regular Benefits and Allowances. Emslie will maintain his existing benefit accruals and continue to be eligible for, and shall receive, all regular benefits (i.e., health insurance, PERS contribution paid by City, etc.) and vacation, sick leave, and management leave as are generally provided to management employees pursuant to the City Council-approved Management Compensation Plan. 5. Additional Expenses of Employment. City shall pay the following usual and customary employment expenses: 5.1. The cost of any fidelity or other bonds required by law for Emslie. 6. Duration of Employment. Emslie understands and agrees that effective with his appointment to Deputy City Manager on July 7, 2009, he is voluntarily resigning all previous positions held with the City and has no constitutionally protected property or other interest in his employment as Deputy City Manager. He understands that notwithstanding any provision in the Merit Systelu Rules and Regulations, he has no right to pre-or post-disciplinary due process. He understands and agrees that he works at the will and pleasure of the City Manager and that he may be terminated, or asked to resign, at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to Emslie. Eluslie may terminate this agreement upon 30 days written notice to the City Manager. 090629 mb 8261066 6.1. Severance Pay. If Elnslie is asked to resign or is terminated as Deputy City Manager, he shall receive a cash severance payment, or payments (without interest) at intervals specified by Emslie, equaling 6 months salary and benefits. 6.2. Non-Payment of Severance Under Certain Conditions. the tennination of Emslie is the result of conviction of a felony, he shall not be paid any severance pay. 7. Miscellaneous. 7.1. Notices given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be either: a) served personally; or b) sent by facsimile (provided a hard copy is n1ailed within one (1) business day); or c) delivered by first-class United States mail, certified, with postage prepaid and a return receipt requested; or d) sent by Federal Express, or some equivalent private mail delivery service. Notices shall be deenled received at the earlier of actual receipt or three (3) days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Notices shall be directed to the addresses shown below, provided that a party may change such party's address for notice by giving written notice to the other party in accordance with this subsection. CITY: EMSLIE: Attn: City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 95901 Phone: (650) 329-2226 FAX: (650) 328-3631 Stephen Emslie 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: 650-329-2392 FAX: 650-325-5025 7.2. Entire Agreement/Alnendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to those matters contained in it, and supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, representations and understandings of the parties. This Agreement may be amended at any tiIne by muiual agreement of the parties, but any such amendment must be in writing, dated, and signed by the parties and attached hereto. 7.3. Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Venue of any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the proper court in Santa Clara County. 7.4. Severability. In the event any portion of this Agreement is declared void, such portion shall be severed from this Agreement and the relnaining provisions shall 090629 mb 8261066 remain in effect, unless the result of such severance would be to substantially alter this Agreement or the obligations of the parties, in which case this Agreelnent shall be inlmediately terminated. 7.5. Waiver. Any failure of a party to insist upon strict conlpliance with any term, undertaking, or condition of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, undertaking, or condition. To be effective, a waiver must be in writing, signed and dated by the parties. 7.6. Representation by Counsel. Emslie and City acknowledge that they each did, or had the opportunity to, consult with legal counsel of their respective choices with respect to the matters that are the subject of this Agreement prior to executing it. 7.7. Section Headings. The headings on each of the sections and subsections of this Agreelnent are for the convenience of the parties only and do not limit or expand the contents of any such section or subsection. Dated: CITY OF PALO ALTO ------ Dated: ------ Attest: City Clerk Approved as to Fonn: Sr. Deputy City Attorney -4- 090629 m b 8261066 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER HUMAN RESOURCES DATE: JULY 6, 2009 CMR:301:09 SUBJECT: a Contract Tbree Years with Gregory Bragg & Associates in a Total Anlount Not to Exceed $783,000 for Workers' Conlpensation Claims Administration Services RECOMMENDATION Staff recolmnends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Gregory B. Bragg & Associates (Bragg) effective July 1, 2009 to provide workers' cOlnpensation clailns adlninistration services. The total an10unt for the first year of the contract will not exceed $250,000. 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to exercise the option to renew the contract in the amount not to exceed $260,000 for the second year; and in the third year by an alnount not to exceed $273,000, provided Bragg is responsive to the City's needs and the quality of its work is acceptable during the tenn of the contract. BACKGROUND Proj ect Description The work to be perfonned under the contract is for third-party claiIns administration services for the City's workers' cOlnpensation prograln. These services are currently provided by Gregory B. Bragg & Associates (Bragg). These services include: the processing of all workers' cOlnpensation claiIns in accordance with applicable Labor Code regulations; engaging services related to the investigation and defense of claiIns; engaging the services of appropriate Inedical providers; detennining what benefits, if any, should be paid; handling all the necessary fonns in each reported claiIn; and performing all tasks in a tilnely manner as required under California workers' cOlnpensation laws. The tenn of the current contract with Bragg ends on June 30, 2009. As it is the City's obligation to ensure that achninistration of the workers' cOInpensation progratn is nlanaged in the Inost effective Inanner, the City requested proposals froln other claims adIninistrators to see what alternatives other finns had to offer. DISCUSSION Selection Process Staff sent a request for proposals to five finns on March 9, 2009. The proposal period was twenty-three days. A total of seven firms subInitted proposals ranging between $240,000 to $285,000. A selection advisory cOlmnittee consisting of HUInan Resources staff and a claitns auditor reviewed the proposals. The proposals were carefully reviewed in response to the Request for Proposal relative to the following criteria: III Public agency experience, specifically with California Labor Code 4850 public safety officers benefits (Labor Code 4850 provides injured public safety eInployees with salary continuation up to one year in lieu of temporary disability and requires additional handling and knowledge); iii Stability of ownership and Inanagement experience; III Ability to provide innovative programs and services; II Superior reporting technology and online capabilities; and III Custolner service capability. Gregory B. Bragg & Associates has an exhaustive list of California cities they work with and thus are able to offer knowledge and resources to meet the needs of the City's workers' cOInpensation program. Claitn frequency and cost have decreased in the past three-year period and this is attributed to the diligence of Bragg claitn staff and the partnership established with the City's risk Inanagelnent staff. While the new clailn total is not yet available for 2008-2009, the previous two year totals of new clailn frequency decreased froln 143 in 2006-2007 to 133 in 2007-2008. The total clailn cost decreased by 22 percent. In addition, Bragg has provided a computer systenl with superior features and reporting capabilities that other third-party adnlinistrators have not offered. Specifically, Bragg would be able to provide reports that the City Auditor has recommended Risk Managelnent provide to City Inanagers. Finally, Bragg has a cOInmitInent to identifying and defending fraudulent clailns that has exceeded the City's expectations. The tealn successfully referred two claitns that were prosecuted by the District Attorney, sending the strong Inessage that fraud has serious repercussions. Bragg was selected because it delnonstrated its ability to provide a high level of quality, innovative services and results in its clainls adIninistration services not evident by the other proposals submitted. RESOURCE IMPACT Bragg will charge a flat not to exceed $250,000 for the first year of the contract. The fees for the second year will not exceed $260,000 and the third year 'will not exceed $273,000. The total cost for this contract increases by approxilnately one and one-half percent fronl the CUITent tlu'ee-year contract. Funding for this agreenlent is currently provided in the Fiscal Year 2010 and 2011 budgets in'the anlount of $269,000 for each year. Based on the not to exceed actual alnounts of the new contract, the City will experience a $28,000 savings over the next two-year budget period. POLICY IlVIPLICATIONS This reconunendation is consistent with current City policies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is not a project requiring review under the Califonlia Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA). ATTACHMENTS A: Agreelnent No. C10131030 B: Exhibits to Agreelnent PREPARED BY: Sandra T .R. Blanch, Assistant Director, HUlnan Resources DEPARTMENT HEAD: RUSS CARLSEN I Director of Human Resources CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ---~~~~-=--'f--f-:;;...~f--~~-- JAMES C1v1R:30 1 :09 Page 3 of3 crry OIT PALO ALTO CONTRL\.CT . CI0131030 AGREElVIENT BETvVEEN TI-IE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND GREGOH.Y B. BRAGG and ASSOCIATES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES for ADMINISTRATION TIlE CITY OF PALO ALTO -INSURED vVORICERS CO]\1PENSATION PROGRAl\1 This is entered on this of July, 2009, between CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered Inunicipal corporation ("CITY!!), and GREGORYB. and ASSOCIATES, a CalifOlnia Corporation, located at One Siena Gate Plaza, Roseville, CA 95678. (PH) (916)783-0100 CCONSULTANT1!). RECITALS follo'wing are a substantive portion of this A. CITY intends to its CUlTent Insured Workers' COlnpensation Progrmn ("Project") and desires to a consultant to provide serVIces workers' cOlnpensation third party adininistration ("Services"). CONSULTANT has that it the necessary professional qualifications, capability, V'-'L.1.uvw and/or certifications to provide C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to CONSULT ANT to provide the as more fully described in C.'A", attached to n1ade a pati Agreelnent. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, and conditions, Agreen1ent, parties AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perfon11 Services described in Exhibit accordance the tenns conditions 0r"-11-(")1,"\""r! The perforn1ance of all Services be to the satisfaction The tern1 Agreelnent fron1 the date full execution June 30, 2010, tern1inated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreen1ent. CITY to t\vo additional one periods. Time is of the essence in perfonnance of Services under this CONSULTANT shall complete the within the ternl of this Agreenlent and in accordance 'with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "B", attached to and nlade a paIi of this Agreenlent. f-\ny Services for \vhich times for performance are not specified in this Agree111ent shall be cOlllinenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prolnpt and timely manner based upon the CirCU111stances and direction C0111nlUnicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY's agreenlent to extend the ternl or the schedule for periOTI11anCe shall not preclude recovery of danlages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. The conlpensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for perfornlance of the Services described in Exhibit , including both paY111ent for professional services and reinlbursable expenses, shall not exceed: For Year One: two hundred fifiy thousand dollars ($250,000.00); If applicable, for Year Two: two hundred sixty thousand dollars ($260,000.00); and Year Tlu-ee: two hundred seventy thTee thousand dollars ($273,000.00). The applicable rates and schedule of paYInent are set out in Exhibit "C", entitled "COMPENSATION," which is attached to and nlade a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in aCCOrdaI1Ce with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit "C". CONSULTANT shall not receive any conlpensation for Additional Services perfOTIllCd without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is deternlined 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". In order to request paynlent, CONSULTANT shall subnlit nlonthly invoices to the CITY describing the services periornled and the applicable charges, including reinlbursable expenses, based upon the CONSULTANT's amlual compensation (set f01ih in Exhibit "C"). The infonnation in CONSULTANT's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the CITY's project Inanager at 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 perionned by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perionll the Services required by this Agreelnent and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perfoml the Services assigned to theln. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, ifpernliUed, have aIld shall l11aintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, pennits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perfonn the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall Ineet the professional standard and quality that prevail anlong professionals in the SaIne discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout Califonlia under Sa111e or sinlilar c ircull1staIl ce s. 3 Professional Services Rev. January 2009 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHY\Contracts\ClO131030 Greg Bragg-Workman's Comp\Contract Document.doc SECTION 7. COlVIPLIA.NCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in c0111pliance 'with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any rnanner the Proj ect or the perforn1ance of the Services or those engaged to perfon11 Services under this Agreement. CON SULTANT shall procure all pennits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the perfonnance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULT ANT shall conect, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, on1issions, or an1biguities in the work product subn1ittecl to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design dOCUlnents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all enol'S, Olnissions or an1biguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive teI111ination of the Agreelnent. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estilnates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estilnated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (l 0%) of the CITY's stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shalllnake recOlnmendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to Ineet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is lmderstood and agreed that in perfom1ing the Services under this Agreelnent CONSULTANT, and any person eInployed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or n1aterials under this Agreelnent, 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 n1aterial considerations for this Agreen1ent. 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 n1anager. Consent to one assigm11ent will not be deelned to be consent to any subsequent assignInent. Any assignment Inade without the approval of the CITY Inanager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the vvork to be perfoI111ed under this Agreelnent without the prior written authorization of the CITY Inanager or designee. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any sub consultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assun1es no responsibility whatsoever concerning cOInpensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and Olnissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the CITY Inanager or his designee. 4 Professional Services Rev. January 2009 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KA THY\Contracts\Cl 0 131030 Greg Bragg-Workman's Comp\Contract Document.doc CONSULTANT will assign Randall Slnith, President, as the Project Director to have supervisolY responsibility the performance, progress) and execution of the Services and Karen Callahan, Vice President ofClain1s, as the Project IYfanager to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day 'work on the Project. If circumstances cause substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or &'1Y other key personnel for any reason, the appointlnent of a substitute project director and assignn1ent of any key new or replacelnent personnel will be subj ect to the prior written approval of the CITY's proj ect n1anager. COl\SULTANT, at CITY's request, shall pro111ptly relnove personnel vv'ho CITY finds do not perform Services in an acceptable n1anner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or tin1ely completion of the Proj ect or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The CITY's project n1anager is Sandra Blanch, Hun1an Resources Depart111ent, 250 Han1ilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: 650-329-2294. The project n1anager will be CON SUL T ANT's point of contact with respect to perfonnance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to tilne. SECTION 14. OWNERSI-IIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, doculnents, other Inaterials and copyright interests developed under this Agreen1ent shall be and ren1ain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or lilnitation upon their use. COt~SULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise fron1 creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all clailns to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, ifany, shall n1ake any of such n1aterials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the CITY Manager or designee. CONSULTANT n1akes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circulnstances not conten1plated by the scope of work ~;,..;;;"...:;;".;;;;;...;;:;....:;..;.....;;;:..;;;;..;;....;;;..;;:...=...;;;;..;;;;.,.;~_ CONSlTLTANT will pennit CITY to audit, at any reasonable tillle during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT's records pertaining to n1atters covered by this Agreen1ent. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier tennination of this Agreement [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 harn1less CITY, its Councilillembers, officers, employees and agents (each an "Inden1nified P31iy") fron1 and against any all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs 311d expenses whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursen1ents ("Clain1s") that out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful n1isconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, eillployees, agents or contractors under this Agreel11ent, regardless of \vhether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. ~(OptiOl1 B applies to any consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as defined in Civil Code Section 2782.8.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indelnniiy, defend and hold harnlless CITY, its Councillnenlbers, officers, enlployees and agents (each an ;;Indelnnified Party") frOln and against any and all delnands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property dmnage or any other loss, including ali costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disburselnents ("Clainls") resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to perfonnance or nonperfor1Ylance by CONSULTANT, its officers, en1ployees, agents or contractors under this Agreenlent, regardless of \vhether or not it is caused in part by an Indelnnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indenlnify an Indenlnified Pmiy fronl Clainls arising fronl the active negligence, sole negligence or willful nlisconduct of an Indelnnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indelnnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early tennination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either pmiy of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreenlent, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deelned to be a waiver of any other tenn, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the sanle or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or 1mi\'. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and nlaintain, in full force and effect during the ternl of this Agreelnent, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit liD II • CONSUL TANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsenlent nmning CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided tlu'ough carriers with AM Best's I(ey 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 perfonn Services under this Agreement will obtain and lnaintain, in full force and effect during the ternl of this Agreelnent, identical insurance coverage, nmning CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be flIed with CITY conculTently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subj ect to the approval of CITY's Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification, CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreelnent. 6 Professional Services Rev. January 2009 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER -CM FOLDERS\KATHY\Contracts\C 1 0131030 Greg Bragg-Workman'S Comp\Contract Document. doc 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance vlill not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indenmification provisions of this Agreen1ent. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT \ivill be obligated for the full and total an10unt of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services perforn1ed under this Agreelnent, including such dan1age, inj ury, or loss arising after the Agreelnent is tenninated or the tenn has expired. SECTION 19. TERrvIII~ATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEI\1ENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The CITY n1anager n1ay suspend the perforn18.l1ce of the Services, in whole or in part, or tenninate this Agreement, with or vvithout cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT . Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will in1n1ediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may ten11inate this Agreement or suspend its perfOlmance of the Services by giving thiliy (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of perforn1ance by CITY. 19.3 . TJpon such suspension or tem1ination, CO]\JSUL Ti~l.NT shall deliver to the CITY Manager ilnn1ediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, cOlnputations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULT ANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in com1ection with this Agreen1ent. Such n1aterials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or tennination by CITY, CONSULT ANT will be paid for the Services rendered or Inaterials 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 tennination; provided, however, if this Agreelnent is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY \ivill 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 Inade by the CITY Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion 19.5. No payment, partial payn1ent, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreen1ent. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified n1ail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the CITY Clerk CITY of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 7 Professional Services Rev. January 2009 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHY\Contracts\CI0131030 Greg Bragg-Workman's Comp\Contract Document.doc \Vith a copy to Purchasing Manager To CO~SlJLTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above 21.1. In accepting this Agreenlent, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and v"illnot acquire any interest~ direct or indirect, financj al or otherwise, which would conflict in any nlanner or degree with the perf0r111anCe of the Services. 21.2. CONSUL T ANT further covenants that, in the perfonnance of this Agreement, it will not enlploy subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT celiitles that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreenlent 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 Goven1ffient Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Proj ect Manager detennines that CONSULTANT is a "Consultant" as that tenn is detlned by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Comnlission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure doculnents required by the Palo Alto IVIunicipal Code and the Political Refonn Act. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the perfonllance of this Agreement, it shall not discrinlinate in the enlploynlent of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, Inarital status, fanlilial 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 Nondiscrilnination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirelnents of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrilnination in employnlent. ~~~~~..:!::!;!;...:~~~..!.!;;!;;;~~::!:!::!,,;!;....;!,...!;.!;;!:~~~~,,!::::,,:!,:~~~.!..::;;;!. The CITY of Palo Alto is a green business and works to purchase and provide products in an envirmunentally sustainable luanner. CONSULTANT 'will use production nlethods that reduce waste and environnlentally toxic products, as well as have less packaging. CONSULTANT will adhere to the standard that printed nlaterials will be, at a minimunl, printed on 30% post consumer recycled paper with vegetable based ink. The designer will check with the project manager to discuss the maximum recycled content paper available for each project. FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certified paper that is '·process free" is preferred. CONSULTANT will use Inethods that reduce energy use and thus the carbon footprint for the developn1ent, production and delivery of products. CONSULTANT shall adhere to the CITY's Envir011l11entally Preferred Purchasing policies as nlay be amended fr01n time to tilne. 8 Professional Services Rev. January 2009 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHY\Contracts\CI013I030 Greg Bragg-Workman's Comp\Contract Document.doc 24.1. This Agreelnent "will be governed by of State California. 24.2. In event that an action is brought, the patiies agree that trial of such action be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County Santa Clara, State California. The prevailing party in action brought to enforce the provisions this Agreelnent nlay recover reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing paliy shall entitled to recover an alnount equal to fair n1arket value services provided by attorneys employed by it as "veIl as at1y attorneys' fees paid to third parties. 24.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the patiies and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This docun1ent may be all1ended only by a written instrull1ent, which is signed by the parties. 24.5. The covenants, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, adn1inistrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 24.6. a court of cOlnpetent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of Agreelnent or any an1endn1ent thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreen1ent and amendn1ents thereto will remain in full force and 24.7. All exhibits refened to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachn1ents, and schedules to this Agreelnent which, from tin1e to time, may refened to any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreen1ent. 24.8. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will tenninate without any penalty (a) at the end of any year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at at1y time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated a pOliion of the fiscal year and funds this Agreement are no longer available. Section 24.8 shall precedence in event of a con±1ict with any other covenant, tern1, condition, or provision this Agreement. 9 Professional Services Rev. January 2009 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KA THY\Contracts\Cl 0 131 030 Greg Brugg-Workman's Comp\Conlract Document. doc !4i002 24.9. The individuals executing this Agreclrtent represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so OIl behalf of their respective legal entities. 24.10 All W1checked boxes do not apply to this agreelnent. IN WITNESS W}IEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreelnent on the date first a.bove written. CITY OF PALO ALTO o City Manager (Required for contracts over $85,000) o Purchasing Manager (Required for contracts over $25, 000) DContracts Administrator (Required for contracts under $25,0000 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Deputy CITY Attorney Attachments: EXHIBIT "A": SCOPE OF WORK GREGORY B. BRAGG and ASSOCIATES By:r(~ c...k~ Name: ~~.4-{...l.. <--S.rh l~ Title: ' <.f!t eSt 0 c ~ (J EXHIBIT "B": EXI-IIBIT "C": SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE COMPENSA TION EXHIBIT ~'D'"): INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS/CERTIFICATE of INSURANCE 10 Professional Services Rev. January 2009 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KA THY\Contracts\C 1 0 131 030 Greg Bragg-Workman's Comp\Contract Document.doc EXHIBIT A EXHIBITB EXHIBIT C EXHIBITD ATTACHMENT B EXHIBITS TO AGREEEMENT Scope of Services Workers' COlnpensation Progranl Adnlinistration Schedule of Perfonnance COlnpensation Certificate of Insurance EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES WORYiliRS' COMPENSA1rION PROG~i ADl:1INISTRP .. TION o s Scope of Se s is to ere that the CITY agrees on the service leve s outlined herein this in an effort to maint the highest cus orner service standards to the benefit of the CITY. I. INTRODUCTION C TY of Pa 0 (CITY), compensat in the Stat 0 i self insurance (Certificate #7102) this Scope of S ces, Gregory B. shall ster the Workers' Palo Alto, in accordance with the terms set forth in s scope 0 s ces. workers' a on of excess coverage. Under & Associates ( ) of the CI?Y 0 this and as I . CLAIMS MANAGEMENT IREMENTS AND SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULTANT s: A. To , on behal 0 the CITY, all s 0 st Ilness relating to CITY oyees and ed to B. To engage the services 0 person(s) or firm(s) other than 1 , upon en approval from the CITY, for s ces relating to the stigation and de e of claims, and to coordinate services ancillary to cIa C. To in a time and accurate manner, on behalf of the CITY, what benefits, if any, should be or rendered under the applicable workers' compensation laws in each ed claim; D. To pay compensat on, medical expenses, Allocated Loss es, and other benefits as pres d by law out of funds ded by the ITY; E. To rna ain a cIa fil on each ch shal be available to the CITY at all times ion and to , at a t and to be determined the C TY, claim ile ews with the CITY at a location to be determined the CITY; F. To aggressively handle s ion c~ against responsible parties order to preserve the CITY's right to recove y; 11 Professional Services Rev. January 2009 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHY\Contracts\Cl 0131030 Greg Bragg-Workman's Comp\Contract Document.doc G. To consult with unction with the ect matter of s H. To provide 211 e cient operation including customiz to prepare and file necessary of the Wor checks be all legally the CITY on any the CITY which i rms rs' anc supplies for COBpensation the CITY name red forms and the CITY of Palo Alto in e I. The examiner ass the CITY's program other accounts. The experience and a y and will not be shall have a of two years 4850 to any years s other than these zed by the CITY. J. Supervisor(s) manager(s) must have a of ten (10) years of be SIP supervising workers' of contract start t and K. The CITY reta the right to control the selection of all legal, nurse case responsibil y for Assistant rector and t ive services. The such s ces sha 1 be vIi th the and/ or the CITY Safety Officer. The contractor's cl services. shall the vendor L. CITY the right to control the selection of subrogation sive subrogation ces are desired as M. ed tation Representat services the approva Officer. lity of Bragg with N with any that reassign noti allow the shall be notified p ims person assigned to , at any time during this any person ass CITY prior to reass CITY to be involved CITY of Palo Alto selection of to the account; O. n the event that the CITY, at this , is dissatisfied to the account, the CITY will not and/or the CITY to any staffing the account. In the event , intends to to the account, Bragg of any staff member and s on-making process. the right to and assistant 1 time during the term of claims person assi of their diss s If after 60 s from not fication, the CITY still dissat sfied, Bragg shall remove said person ass 12 Professional Services is Rev. January 2009 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLlCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHY\Contracts\C10I31030 Greg Bragg-Workman's Comp\Contract Document. doc ate rece written noti cation rom the CITY of the desire for the removal of person; To logs, check the CITY sters, ris er-generated loss runs, case s and any other s requested by the C TY; re to be Q. To biannually a loss for a that have had no act y for the six months; R To provide monthly, a cl as described the TY two weeks or less after end of the period but not ed to: workers' compensation cl ; workers' compensation year claim summary summary modi duty, status report; and summary S. To utilize a third y vendor, upon the 0 the CITY, to and cost control, all and drug bills and to assist the CITY with trial medical cl itals will CITY with a (PPO) discount at fees less than the Fees Schedule (IFS), and to an zed 1 st medical s result from at a fre 0 be ned by the CITY; T. 0 utilize a third party vendor, upon o the CITY, to Utilization Review s approval stent with ACOEM s and the Cali Labor Code , duration and appropriateness of all services the claim life, and to an it zed list of al medical s s result from , at a to be deter~ined by the CITY; U. To subscribe to f of CITY, enrollment in the Index Bureau em compensation cl in Cali Bureau each and every Indemnity claim V. of To provide toll-free "800" C TY to contact cIa ion; and the CITY, for workers' to to the Index led; numbers for emp s questions or concerns W. To a ete and detailed electronic convers o a 1 claims data. X. To coordinate and file meetings CITY staff and cl s on a y basis and attend ional th other C TY staff as red. 13 Professional Services Rev. January 2009 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLlClTATiONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHY\Contracts\Cl0131030 Greg Bragg-Workman'S Comp\Contract Document.doc III. SPECIAL CLAIMS HANDLING SERVICES agrees to rvice: A. To establish I upon receipt of 5020) from the CITY. de the fo Lost T Fi st cial CIa five (5) ury (Form The def ion of an y Claim shall be an indust al ury or illness c are claimed: im for which 0 the fol benefits 1. Temporary sabi ty 2. Permanent Disability 3. fe Pension 4. Death; B. To r with the Ass stant HR quesLlons, s, 0 issues assist CITY rtment managers and quest ,concerns, or issues invo C. To ate y not the Assistant rector, by and to a copy 0 a Reserve ation , of any reserve s over twenty-thousand dollars ($20,000.00); To review and obtain advance notice by Assistant rector 0 HR or CITY Saf Officer of any Claim Is; E. To close aims within twelve (12) months from the date 0 injury or twelve ( 2) months from last day treatment. The C TY 11 be updated on closures thi (30) days. to this rement sha 1 be reported in writing to the CITY; F. To confer Ass stant Director of HR or Safety Officer as the ions arise: To a Vocat Rehabilitat Plan for injuries to (Year to be det To refer a claim to a law firm or att To approve surveil ances, sub rosa, or other t ions To obtain settlement autho y over fteen-thousand dollars ($15,000.00) ; G. To ly ac edge rece of il and email messages within 24 4 Professional Services Rev. January 2009 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHY\Contracts\Cl0131030 Greg Bragg-Workman's Comp\Contract Document. doc rt. wi To consis errtly leve 0 custome~ s rvice CITY staff and injured c· Jr To ly furnish the or Safet fficer wall recuired ma~erl papers, which consist of but shall ~ot be imited to: lications and Other Legal Documents Work Rest s Letters from Vocational Private nvestigation Summa t Notices a of Claim Not s s s, as needed, Retirement; cases an Indus al v . To to the C TY for approva and c sure within (5) Rat of rece of written notice, all undi Advisory K. To the CITY a check expense report that ba s with the monthly loss report. These reports will be sent no later than ten (10) days fol the end 0 each month to the Assistant Director 0 To establ h controls the cost of defense. procedures 0 manage and IV. S IAL CLAIMS HANDLING SERVICES OF THE CITY The CITY agree to provide the al claims hand:J.. se s: A. indust ly report to al s of uries or illnesses; B. To notices, or any stration; forward to egaJ... corre a 1 applicat perta s, reports, to claims C. empl v\Tor applicable, to make all att s poss to assign Palo Alto s to modi ed duty pursuant to the CITY 0 rs' Compensat Modified Duty Policy; D. To make available to or services for industr 1 pay all Allocated in of claims, inc ustment, liti i funds for the payment 0 benefits or illnesses; ses de : all losses , settlement, or resist expenses; and 15 Professional Services Rev. January 2009 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contracts\Cl 0 131030 Greg Bragg-Workman's Comp\Contract Document. doc F. To pay all s ce fees as prescribed and Exhibit B -Fee Schedule. V. PROGRAM MANAGE01SNT A. fol The Claims rvisor shall be responsible for the 1. Review and assign 2. Review to firm is whethe 3. to det new claims; referral to outside sti ion will each review or not; if referral to defense counsel is of the fol occur: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. icant representat Serious and Wil Misconduct scovery 0 sitions, etc that may to be resolved by the WCAB ions value over $25,000 The sor 11 document every cla file which one or in more of the above criter sts cat whether 0 not the cl s be referred to defense counsel and the reas ng for the referral; 4. Oversee the deve 0 the cl examiner's action an in those cases in which ous alternat be appropriate. Supe sor will contact the CITY of Palo Alto by tel email to cate the need to cons r alternat options their or concurrence; 5. e and attend file review meetings with CITY staff and claims sta on a er y basis and attend 1 meetings other CITY sta f, as necessary; and 6. Establish a personal relat with the pr medical vendors used the CITY of Palo Alto and maint a professional rapport and ongoing cat to discuss issues as necessary. B. S or Cl following: 1. o make initi Examiner shal be responsible for the contact with all 16 ured workers by Professional Services Rev. January 2009 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATI-fY\Contrac1s\CI0131030 Greg Bragg-Workman's Comp\Contract Document. doc tel contac:: (2 ) 2. fol del a. b. c. sab I twenty-four (24) hours y claim from C be :made \Ali th the council. Dates, s must be documented ured workers unless t,he e tt~e date ain benefits and ation claim Follow-up at least every r re~ains off wor details of all file; when any of the is represented: the delay process when claims are aced on the reason for denial a permanent and stationary and rat is denied; , permanent 3 . To contact the CITY on delay cIa o action plan; 4 . "he cIa shall adhere to the fol three-tier s em: cal reatment a. util z icians: most appropriate medical schedul service or authorized b. modified 1 therapy treatment shal authorized at facilities located in Palo Alto unl ss otherwise approved by the Assistant D ctor of HR or Safety Officer; 2. In order to expedite proper s soan s the claims examiner will have to authorize initial s MRI's, CT Scans, s referral status shall Claims examiners duty for al C communication 1 provider and; e verba_ c. oyees fied work status shall be their usual and customary duty status as soon as poss to 5. In all cases, the cl maintain medical control 0 examiner must att to ga and cases per labor code 4600 unless a 17 Professional Services Rev. January 2009 S:v\SD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contracts\C1013 1030 Greg Bragg-Workman's Comp\Contract Document. doc ician's statement is on fi e by the or wr icant. en physi s VI. cos GUAPu.Z\NTEE agrees: e the CITY 0 Palo Alto at least a A. To closure ratio in each calendar year of service treat i this contract. this goaL is not wi ~ credit the C 7Y of Palo Alto $5,000.00 of the annual service fee. ee the CITY 0 Pa 0 to that at least 32 0 the ed during year wi be closed by the end will fee. the service year. If this goal is not attained, the CITY 0 Palo Alto $5,000.00 of the annual s VII. PENALT ES Penalt es (WCAB); the sed by the Workers' rtment of ~7orkers ' uH,~"udation, the Federa Government, or forum in the State of Cal al of claims shall be the respons ed as a result of actions taken by express written direction of the CITY. Board any fornia, 1 y of at the ed as a result of of ibil Y of if no formal request for was by or from the Ass stant rector 0 HR. of 1 Penalties imposed as a result of her party's to y with the strat rules, ions and the Labor Code of the State of California shall be the responsibility of the culDable the C with a erly account 0 all on behalf of the CITY, pena and the fic y Penalties out of the CITY's bene account and shall then e the CImy hin thirty days (30) of the issuance of the and fines report, for those penalties and fines which are the lity of Bragg under the terms and condit of this 8 Professional Services Rev. January 2009 S :\ASD\PU RCH\SOLlCIT A TlONS\CURRENT BUYER -CM FOLD ERS\K,t\ THY\Contracts\C 1 013 1030 Greg Bragg-Workman's Comp\Contract Document. doc EXHIBIT "B" SCI-IEDULE OF PERFO~'\1ANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to cOlnplete the necessary Tasks in a tilnely 111mmer and to the reasonable satisfaction of the CITY. Claims ReQorting All new losses are entered in our claims ~nanagcment software within one working day. We promptly prepare and provide benefits and the appropriate notices within thc time periods mandated by the Departmcnt of Industrial Relations. \Vithin 24 hours of claim receipt, three-point contact is made to the employee, employer and physiciari. As many injured workers are unfamiliar with the Workers' Compensation system, claims examiners use their initial conversation with to provide a detailed description of workers' compensation benefits and answer any questions the injured worker may have regarding this process. Temporary disability benefits are paid upon verificatiortof lost time with the City and if the medical treatment provider supports the lost time as being related to the injury. Bragg also tracks LC 4850 employees and their benefits. In addition, Bragg provides computer system capabilities to include the availability of the City to make temporary disability payments through the normal City payroll system. Bragg will follow ail procedures . and use appropriate forms to report claims to, and request reimbursement from, the Excess Carrier according to the specific policy guidelines. Bragg will provide on-line secured computer access to view claim notepads and correspondence as well as electronic transmission . of the Employer's Report of Injury/Illness (5020). The on-line 5020 reporting module is proprietary to Bragg. Communication In our continuing effort to maintain open and effective communication between unrepresented. employees and the Citj, we contact injured workers on a bi-monthly basis during their period of lost time from work. Injured workers are encouraged to contact the claims staff at any time to discuss questions or concerns regarding their claim. Our toll-free phone number and email address are included on all correspondence. Communication with the injured worker is maintained throughout the life of their claim. Bragg's claim team will continue to provide prompt and responsive communication with the City on an ongoing basis. Telephone calls are returned as soon as possible, but in all cases within 24 hours. We encourage the Bragg claims team to communicate whenever the complexity of the claim changes, but the status report, prepared by the Examiner, is in addition to this ongoing communication. The Claims Examiners continually strive to develop a plan for case closure. Therefore, each status report identifies their plan for resolving the ongoing issues specific to the claim. In order to provide an immediate response on urgent claims, the following protocol is utilized. 19 Professional Services Rev. January 2009 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICLTATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHY\Contracts\ClOI31030 Greg Bragg-Workman's Comp\Contract Documentdoc The Catastrophic Response Tealn (CRT) is notified ilnmediately following a serious injury, death, or a high profile c1ainl. The CRT consisting of the Executive COlTltnittec (EC) \vil1 confirm the clain1 is handled expeditiously and with compassion. This nlay include personal visits with the client and/or injured \vorker or family member, or any other necessary action as deemed appropriate by the client and EC member. During business hours, these calls \-vill be routed to the receptionist who will inlmediately notify the appropriateEC l11ember. After business hours, the answering service' wili utilize the Ee telephone list. 20 Professional Services Rev. January 2009 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHY\Contracts\CIOI31030 Greg Bragg-Workman's Comp\Contract Document.doc EXHIBIT "C' COlvI.L)ENSA1~ ,ON' The CITY agrees to cOlnpensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed to the reasonable satisfaction of the CITY and in accordance with the tenns and conditions of this Agreen1ent, and as set forth below. The con1pensation to be paid to Consultant under this Agreel11ent for all services described in Exhibit "A" and reilnbursable expenses shall not exceed: Year 1 -$250,000.00 Year 2 -$260,000.00 Year 3 -$273,000.00 CONSULTANT agrees to complete all services within this an10unt. No additional services are authorized. Any work perfonned or expenses incuned for which paYlnent would result in a total exceeding the n1axin1lun alnount of compensation shall be at no cost to CITY. Costs for services ancillary to clailns adlninistration (for exan1ple, investigation costs and Inedical costs) are charged to individual clailns. 21 Professional Services Rev, January 2009 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHY\Contracts\Cl0131030 Greg Bragg-Workman's Comp\Contract Document.doc 22 Professional Services Rev. JanualY 2009 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KA THY\Contracts\C 1 0 131 030 Greg Bragg-Workman's Comp\Contract Document.doc ACORD. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE I DA TE (MM/OOfYYYY) 511/2010 6118/2009 PRODUCER LOCKTON COMPANIES, LLC-1 KANS,A,S CITY THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION 444 W. 47TH STREET, SUITE 900 ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE KANSAS CITY MO 64112-1906 HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR (816) 960-9000 AL TER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC# INSURED GREGORY B. BRAGG & ASSOCIATES, INC INSURER A: National Fire Insurance Co of Hartford 20478 1079747 P.OBOX2216 !NSURER 8: FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (CHUBB) GRANITE BAY CA 95745 INSURER c: Valley Forge Insurance Company 20508 INSURER 0: Continental Casualty Company 20443 I INSURER E: '--THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING YORINOI XN COVERAGES INSURER'S) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE QR PRODU.Qf£LAND THE CERnFICA'fE HOLDER, "fHE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOlWlTHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES, AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR ADD'L L TR INSRD TYPE OF INSURANCE POLlCY 14UMBER GENERAL LIABILITY f-X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY A ==:J CLAIMS MADE [RJ OCCUR 2099497037 A A D C C --------------------- - GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: I Ixl PRO-POLICY JECT fX]LOC AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY '1-X ANY AUTO ;-'- ALL OVVNED AUTOS I- SCHEDULED AUTOS -- HIRED AUTOS -- NON-OVVNED AUTOS -X $\000 DED. COMPo e-X $1000 DED. COLL. GARAGE LIABILITY R ANY AUTO EXCESS/UMBRELLA LIABILITY :RJ OCCUR D CLAIMS MADE T UMBRELLA n DEDUCTIBLE ~ FORM rxl RETENTION $ 10 000 WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS'LiABILlTY ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? If yes, describe under SPECIAL PROVISIONS below OTHER No 20929'51944 (AOS) 2097362238 (lvtA) NOT APPLICABLE 2092951975. 2092951961 (AOS) 2097327361 (CA) POLICY EFFECTIVE DATE (MMIDOIYY) 5/1/2009 5/1/2009 5/1/2009 5/1/2009 5/1/2009 5/1/2009 POLlCY EXPIRA'fIOt.J DATE (MM/DDIYY) 5/112010 51112010 5/1/2010 5/112010 5/1/20 10 5/1/2010 LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE ~~~~~~J?E~~~~~nce) MED EXP (Anyone person) PERSONAL & ADV INJURY GENERAL AGGREGATE PRODUCTS -COMP/OP AGG COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accidenl) BODILY INJURY (Per person) BODIL Y INJURY (Per accident) PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accidenl) AUTO ONLY -EA ACCIDENT OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE EAACC AGG $ 1 000 000 $ 1 000 000 $ 5,000 $ tOOO 000 $ 2000,000 , $ 2000,000 .--- $ 1,000,000 $ XXXXXXX .$ XXXXXXX 1 · $ XXXXXXX $ XXXXXXX $ XXXXXXX $ XXXXXXX $ 5 000,000 $ 5 000 000 $ XXXXXXX $ XXXXXXX - $ XXXXXXX:--·· E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ 1,000,000 E.L. DISEASE -EA EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000 E.L. DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT $ 1,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONSNEHICLES/EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT/SPECIAL PROVISIONS i · CITY OF PALO ALTO IS ADDITIONAL INSURED AS REQUIRED BY WRITTEN CONTRACT SUBJECT TO POLlCY TERMS AND CONDITIONS. ,. CERTIFICATE HOLDER 10570387 CITY OF PALO ALTO PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS ADMINISTRATION 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, MEZZANINE LEVEL PALO ALTO CA 94301 ACORD 25 (2001/08) CANCELLA TION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL ~ DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OfL REPRESENTAnVES. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO ELAINA CHAN UPON HER RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Elaina Chan began her career with the City of Palo Alto on May 17, 1976, serving in both the Police Department and the Administrative Services Department throughout her exemplary thirty-three year tenure; and WHEREAS, Elaina Chan has served in the Administrative Services Department for the past 32 years as an Administrative Associate III supporting the divisions of Real Estate, Treasury, Accounting and Administration; and has provided support for one Controller, three Real Property Managers, four Accounting Managers and five Finance/Administrative Services Directors; and WHEREAS, Elaina Chan has assisted in training many support Staff, maintaining the budget; accounts payable and ordering supplies for several divisions, administering hundreds of leases and loans; and consistently worked above and beyond the call of duty without complaint; and WHEREAS, Elaina Chan has provided excellent customer service to thousands of Palo Alto citizens by taking whatever time and effort was required to resolve their inquiries and problems; and by volunteering her services to the City as an interpreter in Cantonese; and WHEREAS, Elaina Chan has been an extremely dedicated and loyal employee who has considered the City her second home, treated fellow employees like family, and has consistently provided outstanding support and service to Staff, fellow employees, and the community; and WHEREAS, Elaina Chan is recognized by her peers and City Staff for being professional, hardworking, dependable, helpful, enthusiastic, and a team player with a positive attitude and exceptional work ethic. NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby gratefully records and extends its sincere appreciation to Elaina Chan for her dedication and excellent service rendered to the City. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: JULY 6, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: _______________________ _________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ _________________________ City Attorney City Manager 14 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES DATE: JULY 6,2009 CMR: 251:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Authorizing the Execution of the State of California Department of Community Services and Development 2009-2012 Direct Payment Program Agreement No. 09-1367 in Conjunction with the Department of Community Service Home Energy Assistance Program RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Direct Payment Agreement No. 09-1367 (Agreement) between with the State Department of Community Services and Development (CSD) and the City of Palo Alto for the purpose of making direct payments from CSD to the Utilities accounts of qualifying low-income residents. BACKGROUND The Federal Department of Health and Human Services annually distributes authorized funds under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to states to assist eligible low-income households with payments for heating and/or cooling energy expenses. California's annual funding allotment has recently been $89 million, which the California Department of Community Services and Development distributes among energy service providers under the terms and conditions of the agreement. Financial assistance from LIHEAP is provided on the basis of household income for up to $365 per qualifying Utilities account. The annual LIHEAP payment, the monthly Utilities Rate Assistance Program, the Utilities ProjectPLEDGE program, and an annual payment by the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul are the sources of financial assistance to qualifying Utilities accounts for the payment of bills. DISCUSSION CSD administers LIHEAP in California under their Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP). The local LIHEAP administrator for Santa Clara County is the Community Action Agency, headquartered in San Carlos. Eligibility for financial assistance is based upon the combined household income of all people in the residence. The Agreement with CSD provides the means for low-income families meeting federal poverty guidelines to receive one payment per funding year for energy assistance by means of a direct credit from CSD to the Utilities account with the City of Palo Alto. CMR: 251:09 Page 1 of2 CSD, through their local administrators, would provide the energy utility customer applicant with program intake services, including verification of eligibility and determination of allowable direct credits. The City of Palo Alto would be provided with the names of applicants determined to be eligible for assistance, and the amount of assistance to be applied to their account. The applicable credits would then be applied to the customer's Utilities account, and the City of Palo Alto Utilities would be reimbursed by CSD for the applied credits. The LIHEAP credits would only be applied to the electric and/or natural gas portion of the customer's Utilities bill. Since October 2003, CSD requires that each executed Agreement be accompanied by a resolution or ordinance authorizing the participation and execution of the provisions of the Agreement. RESOURCE IMPACT The Direct Payment Agreement is a no cost contract, but participation by the City in LIHEAP represents an increased workload for Utilities Customer Service and Credit and Collection for program marketing, customer contact, program administration, and payment reconciliation,. There is also an increased workload for the Administrative Services Department's Enterprise Accounting for accounting services. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan Strategy No.4, to deliver products and services valued by our customers ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project under Section 21080 of the California Environmental Quality Act or Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, and, therefore, no environmental assessment is required. ATTACHMENTS A: Resolution B: City of Palo Alto Direct Payment Agreement PREPARED BY: Assistant Director, Customer Support Services DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: VA~ONG Director of Utilities CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 251:09 Page 2 of2 ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. ---- Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Authorizing the Execution of the State of California Department of Community Services and Development 2009- 2012 Direct Payment Program Agreement No. 09-1367 in Conjunction with the Department of Community Service Home Energy Assistance Program WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto ("City"), a California charter city, has offered energy assistance to families oflow-income since 1981 as a part of the City's Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program; and WHEREAS, the City has a contract (the "Direct Payment Program Agreement") with the State of California to provide direct credit to the accounts of Palo Alto residents who have been identified by the State of California Department of Community Services and Development ("State CSD") as recipients of payments to be made under and in accordance with the State CSD Low-Income Energy Assistance Program, which includes the Home Energy Assistance Program; and WHEREAS, the Direct Payment Agreement No. 09-1367 is for the term July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2012; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby authorizes the City of Palo Alto to enter into and execute with the State of California Department of Community Services and Development the 2009-2012 Direct Payment Program Agreement. II II II II II 1 090605 syn 6050743 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 2. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project under Section 21080 of the California Environmental Quality Act or Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines and, therefore, no environmental assessment is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy City Attorney 090602 syn 6050743 2 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director of Utilities Director of Administrative Services ATTACHMENT City of Palo Alto Utilities Direct Payment Agreement Agreement No. 09-1367 STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGREEMENT This Agreement consists of this signature page, Exhibits A through F, and Attachments I through IV, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. It is entered into between the State of California, Department of Community Services and Deve]opment, and the Utility' Company, City of Pa]o Alto Utilities: Utility Company: The tenn of this Agreement is: The maximum amount of this Agreement is: Agreed to and approved: CONTRACTOR By: Authorized Signature Printed Name and Title of Person Signing Address: Telephone: Facsimile: City of Palo Alto UtiJities July 1,2009 through June 30, 2012 $-0- City of Pa10 Alto Utilities Date Signed ----------------------------- STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Community Services and Development By: Authorized Signature Date Signed Margie Chan, Deputy Director for Administrative Services Division Printed Name and Title of Person Signing Address: Telephone: Facsimile: 700 North Tenth Street, Room D-215 Sacramento, California 95811-0336 (916) 341-4200 (916) 341-4213 IICobra\sharedlContractslDirect Payment\2009 Direct Payment\2009 Facesheets and Scope of Work109·1367 Facesheet.doc SCOPE OF WORK Exhibit A (Standard Agreement) City of Palo Alto Utilities Direct Payment Agreement Agreement No. 09-1367 1. The purpose of this Agreement between the Department of Community Services and Development, hereinafter referred to as CSD or the Department, and the City of Palo Alto Utilities, hereinafter referred to as Contractor, is for the purpose of making direct credit to the accounts oflow-income energy customers of the Contractor that are identified by CSD as payment recipients under CSD's Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which includes the Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) and Energy Crisis Intervention Program -Fast Track (ECIP-FT). 2. LOCATION WHERE SERVICES ARE TO BE PROVIDED Unless specified in writing, in advance, by CSD, the location of all services to be provided by CSD under this Agreement will be at: Department of Community Services and Development Program Services and Support Unit 700 North Tenth Street, Room D215 Sacramento, California 95811-0336 3. ADDRESSES All notices to the parties shall, unless otherwise requested in writing, be sent to Contractor's address as follows: Name and Title: ---------------------------------------------- Companyname: ____________________________________________ __ Address: ---------------------------------------------------- City, State and Zip Code: __________________________ _ or by facsimile to ( ) ________________________ _ and to CSD's address as follows: Sukie Montes, Manager Department of Community Services and Development P.O. Box 1947 Sacramento, CA 95812-1947 or by facsimile to (916) 341-4285 IICobra\sharedlContractslDirect Payment\2009 Direct Payment\2009 Facesheets and Scope of WorkI09-1367 Scope of Work. doc Al Exhibit B (Standard Agreement) BUDGET DETAIL AND PAYMENT PROVISIONS 1. PAYMENT (2009 Direct Payment) Contractor will not receive any direct financial consideration under this Agreement. 2. CSD'S PROJECT COORDINATOR The Manager of the Energy and Environmental Services is designated as the Department's Project Coordinator. The Department may, at any time, designate a substitute Project Coordinator. 3. CONTRACTOR'S PROJECT COORDINATOR ________________ is designated as the Contractor's Project Coordinator. The Contractor may, at any time, designate a substitute Project Coordinator. Notification to CSD of any change in the Project Coordinator will be made in writing and will not require an amendment to this Agreement. 4. BUDGET CONTINGENCY CLAUSE A. It is mutually agreed that if the Budget Act of the current year and/or any subsequent years covered under this Agreement does not appropriate sufficient funds for the program, this Agreement shall be of no further force and effect. In this event, CSD shall have no liability to pay any funds whatsoever to Contractor or to furnish any other considerations under this Agreement and Contractor shall not be obligated to perfonn any provisions of this Agreement. B. If funding for any fiscal year is reduced or deleted by the State of California Budget Act for purposes of this program, CSD shall have the option to either cancel this Agreement with no liability occurring to CSD, or offer an agreement amendment to Contractor to reflect the reduced amount. C. Notwithstanding the language in Sections 4.A. or 4.B. above, if CSD believes that funds will be insufficient to allow the State to make LIHEAP payments to Contractor i.e., for the reasons described in Section 4.A. or 4.B. above, then CSD shall promptly notify Contractor's Project Coordinator. CSD and the Contractor's Project Coordinator shall attempt to amend this Agreement so the LIHEAP payments can continue to the extent possible given the nature of the shortage or unavailability of funding for LIHEAP. The parties agree that it is undesirable to tenninate this Agreement for any short-tenn unavailability of LIHEAP funds and that it would be preferable, if Federal funds are not available for LIHEAP, to suspend LIHEAP until CSD is able to obtain sufficient funding to resume credits to qualified low-income energy customers, as provided for under LIHEAP. Bl Exhibit B (Standard Agreement) 5. PROVISIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED CONTRACTS (2009 Direct Payment) A. It is mutually understood between the parties that this Agreement may have been written for the mutual benefit of both parties before ascertaining the availability of congressional appropriation of funds, to avoid program and fiscal delays that would occur if the Agreement were executed after that determination was made. B. This contract is valid and enforceable only if sufficient funds are made available to CSD by the United States Government for the purpose of this program. In addition, this Agreement is subject to any additional restrictions, limitations, or conditions enacted by the Congress or to any statute enacted by the Congress that may affect the provisions, terms, or funding of this Agreement in any manner. C. The parties mutually agree that if Congress does not appropriate sufficient funds for LIHEAP, this Agreement shall be amended to reflect any reduction in funds. D. CSD has the option to void the Agreement under the 30-day cancellation clause or to amend the Agreement to reflect any reduction for funds. E. CSD will notify Contractor's Proj ect Coordinator if federal funds are insufficient for LIHEAP to continue as expected during the next fiscal year or if restrictions, limitations or conditions have been imposed by Congress on the LIHEAP or funding for it as soon as the Federal grant award letter has been issued with some constraint. CSD further agrees that Contractor's willingness to suspend the LIHEAP, as described herein and in Section 5.C. above, does not constitute an agreement by Contractor that: (i) funding for LIHEAP is unimportant or (ii) a delay in crediting a customer with LIHEAP funds is acceptable, to either Contractor or its customers. \\Cobralshared\Contl'llcts\Direct Payment\2009 Direct Payment\Boilerplate\04 Exhibit B. Budget Detail and Payment Provisions.doc B2 EXHIBITD (Standard Agreement) SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. CANCELLATION (2009 Direct Pavment) Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other party. 2. SUBCONTRACTS No subcontracts shall be permitted under this Agreement; therefore, references to subcontractors or subcontracts as part of standard provisions that have been i:1cluded herein shall have no applicability. 3. CERTIFICATION Contractor's signature affixed hereon shall coristitute a certification that to the best of its ability and knowledge it will, unless exempted, comply with the provisions set forth in the following: Information Integrity and Security (Department of Finance, Budget Letter 04-35). 4. LABOR CODE/WORKERS' COMPENSATION Both parties agree that they are aware of the provisions that require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to unde~ake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions, and CSD affirms to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Agreement. (Labor Code Section 3700) 5. RESOLUTION A county, city, district, or other local public body must provide the State with a 'copy of a resolution, order, motion, or ordinance of the local governing body that by law has authority to enter into an agreement, authorizing execution of the agreement. 6. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND TAX WITHHOLDING A. CSD shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ruJes, and regulations and shall obtain all permits required to conduct its business and perform the work called for in this Agreement, if applicable. B. CSD represents and warrants that it will withhold all taxes, if any, which are required to be withheld under applicable laws with respect to CSD personnel who perform services for the Contractor. CSD shall indemnify and hold the Contractor harmless, on an after-tax basis, for any liability incurred by the Contractor as a result ofCSD's failure to institute any such required withholding. \\Cobralshared\Contracts\Direct Payment\2009 Direct Payment\Boilerplate\06 Exhibit D. Special Terms and Condltlons.doc DI EXHIBITC (Standard Agreement) GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS (2009 Direct Payment) PLEASE NOTE: This page will not be included with the final agreement. The General Terms and Conditions wil1 be included in the agreement by reference to Internet site: www.csd.ca.gov. \\Cobra\shared\Contracts\Direct Payment\2009 Direct Payment\Boilerplate\05 Exhibit C, General Tenns and . Conditions.doc Cl ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS EXHIBITE (Standard Agreement) 1. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR (2009 Direct Payment) CSD, and the agents and employees of CSD, in the perfonnance of this Agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers or employees or agents of Contractor. 2. DELEGATION OF CSD'S DUTIES This Agreement is not assignable by CSD, either in whole or in part, without the consent of Contractor in the fonn of a fonnal written amendment. CSD shall not employ other consultants or contractors to provide key data: entry, document perfection, and/or any other services under this Agreement without the prior written approval of Contractor, nor shall the duties of CSD, under this Agreement, be delegated without prior written approval of Contractor. Unless otherwise expressly agreed upon by Contractor, CSD shall remain responsible for the quality and timeliness of perfonnance notwithstanding any delegation. 3. CONFLICT OF INTERESTIBUSINESS ETHICS . CSD shall exercise reasonable care and diligence to prevent any actions or conditions that could result in a conflict with Contractor's interest. During the tenn of this Agreement, CSD shall not accept any employment or engage in any consulting work that creates a . conflict of interest with Contractor or in any way compromises the services to be perfonned under this Agreement. All financial statements, reports, billings, and other documents rendered shall properly reflect the facts about all activities and transactions handled for the account of Contractor. 4. WARRANTY CSD warrants to Contractor that the work under this Agreement shall be perfonned with the degree of skill and care that is required by current, good, and sound professional procedures and practices and in confonnance with generally accepted professional standards prevailing at the time the work is perfonned, so as to ensure that the services perfonned are correct and appropriate for the purposes contemplated in this Agreement and related specifications. 5. CONFIDENTIALITY A. In the course of perfonning the services under this Agreement, CSD may have access to confidential, commercial, or personal infonnation concerning, but not limited to, technology, rate making, legislative, and personnel matters and practices of the Contractor, its subsidiaries, affiliates, or members of the public. CSD agrees not to disclose any such infonnation without the prior written approval of Contractor. B. Contractor hereby agrees to provide required security to insure the confidential, physical security and safekeeping of all data, infonnation, files, and documents while El EXHIBITE (Standard Agreement) (2009 Direct Payment) In Its possession. Through the observance of the same or more effective procedural requirements as used by CSD, Contractor will protect from unauthorized use and disclosure all sensitive data, documentation, or other information that are designated confidential by CSD and made available to Contractor in order to carry out this Agreement. CSD shall provide to Contractor in writing the identification of all such confidential data and information, as well as CSD procedural requirements for protection of such data and information from unauthorized use and disclosure. C. Any representation herein made by CSD relating to confidentiality or the operations, limitations, and requirements for the furnishing of personnel records, as set forth in EXHIBIT E, ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS, Section 6., CSD's Use of Contractor's Property, below shall be subject to the Information Practices Act of 1977, Section 1798 et seq. of the California Civil Code, and the California Public Records Act, Section 6250 et seq. ofthe California Government Code. 6. CSD'S USE OF CONTRACTOR'S PROPERTY All records, reports, computer programs, written procedures, and similar materials, documents, or data, in whatever form provided by Contractor for CSD' s use in performance of services under this Agreement shall remain the confidential property of Contractor and shall be returned to Contractor immediately upon completion of CSD's use or upon written request of Contractor. 7. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION AND PUBLIC TESTIMONY A. Contractor's duly authorized representatives shall have, for the term of this Agreement and for two (2) years thereafter, access at all reasonable times, upon five (5) days written notice and during regular working hours, to the CSD personnel. accounts, and records, including but not limited to applications processed and computer files for personnel who perform services for Contractor under this Agreement in order to verify or review the quantity, quality, work program and progress of the work, reimbursable costs, amounts claimed by CSD, estimates of cost for fixed rates, including those applicable to proposed changes, annual audit to verify recertification processes, and for any other reasonable purposes. The personnel records, accessible under this paragraph, shall be limited to timekeeping, expense, and other such public records. B. This provision shall apply to all Agreements except those performed solely on a lump-sum basis. However, where lump sum and time and materials work, i.e., unit price, reimbursable cost, fixed rates, are performed together, either as a part of this Agreement or as separate contract(s), then the above audit privilege shall also extend to Contractor for access to all CSD' s records pertaining to all contracts including the lump sum for assurance that the portions of the work performed on a time-and- materials basis are not being charged with time, material, or other units or cost that E2 EXHIBITE (Standard Agreement) (2009 Direct Payment) are intended to be covered by lump sum or fixed rates, etc., provided herein, supplement hereto or in such other agreements. C. CSD accounts shall be kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the particular industry and shall be kept in such a manner and in sufficient detail to clearly disclose the nature and amounts of the different items of service and cost pertaining to this Agreement and the basis for charges or allocations to this Agreement. D. CSD shall preserve all such accounts and records for a period of two (2) years after the expiration of the tenn of this Agreement. Contractor's duly authorized representatives shall have the right to reproduce any such accounts and records~ Contractor shall be responsible for the incremental cost, if any, of retention and retrieval of said records. CSD shall promptly adjust any inaccuracy in the billings. E. Access under this paragraph shall not extend the time for the taking of written ' exception to and the adjustments of accounts as provided for in EXHIBIT B, BUDGET DETAIL AND PAYMENT PROVISIONS, Section 2. Compensation, A. Application Category Costs, item 1). CSD shall bear no portion of the Contractor's audit cost incurred under this paragraph unless agreed to by CS~. 8. NONWAIVER The waiver by either party of any breach of any tenn, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement, or any default in the perfonnance of any obligations under this Agreement, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other breach or default of the same or any other tenn, covenant, condition, or obligation; nor shall any waiver of any incident of breach or default constitute a continuing waiver of the same. All waivers shall be in writing. 9. PRIOR WORK Services perfonned by CSD pursuant to Contractor's authorization, but before the execution of this Agreement, shall be considered as having been perfonned subject to the provisions of this Agreement. 10. INCIDENTAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES Contractor shall not be liable for incidental or consequential damages including but not limited to loss of profits, commitments to subcontractors, rental or lease agreement(s), and personal services contracts, unless expressly authorized in writing by Contractor. 11. INSURANCE CSD is a self-insured entity. If said coverage no longer prevails, CSD will notify Contractor within thirty (30) days of said coverage expiration. E3 12. CAPTIONS EXHIBIT E (Standard Agreement) (2009 Direct Payment) The captions of the various sections, paragraphs, and subparagraphs are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of interpretations. 13. VENUE In the event that suit shall be brought by either party to this Agreement, the parties agree that venue shall be exclusive vested in the State Courts ofthe County of Sacramento, or where otherwise appropriate, exclusively in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in Sacramento, California. 14. OTHER AGREEMENTS This Agreement shall not prevent either party from entering into similar agreements with others. 15. DISPUTE RESOLUTION A. Unless otherwise mutually agreed to, any disputes between CSD and Contractor. regarding the construction or application of this Agreement and claims arising out of this Agreement or its breach shall be submitted to mediation within thirty (30) calendar days of the written request of one party after the service of that req uest on the other party. B. The parties shall make best efforts to settle all disputes arising under this Agreement as a matter of normal business and without recourse to either mediation or litigation. If the parties are unable to resolve a dispute with respect to this Agreement, either party may send a notice to the other requesting a meeting at which senior officers or officials of the parties will attempt to resolve the dispute. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within ten (10) days after the meeting notice is received by the party to whom it is directed, or such longer period as the parties may agree, then either party may initiate mediation as set forth herein. C. Mediation under this section is a condition precedent to filing an action in any court. In the event of litigation that arises out of any dispute related to this Agreement, the parties shall each pay their respective attorney's fees, expert witness costs, and cost of suit, regardless of the outcome the litigation. 16. ADDITIONAL WORK Before proceeding with any work involving possible claims for extra compensation not specified in this Agreement, CSD shall, upon receipt of a detailed description of services requested, submit in writing to the Contractor a detailed estimate for the cost for such work. E4 Exhibit F (Standard Agreement) (2009 Direct Payment) PROGRAMMATIC PROVISIONS 1. A. CSD will process applications and make a detennination of applicant's eligibility for assistance based upon preestablished criteria pursuant to the LIHEAP. CSD will provide the Contractor with a printout or transmittal (Attachm"ent 2) which lists applicants detennined eligible for assistance and the amount of assistance. Payment, in the fonn of a State of California warrant, and Direct Payment Summary (Attachment 3), shall accompany the printout, and shall represent the sum total of benefits contained on said transmittaL B. Contractor will process payments contained on aforementioned printout in accordance with the provisions of the enclosed LIHEAP Direct Payment Instructions (Attachment 1). C. Contractor will provide notification of LIHEAP payment to each customer for whom a credit is made. The wording of said notification m"ust contain the words "LIHEAP credit." D. The Contractor shall attempt to credit the accounts of qualified low-income customers by the subsequent billing cycle fol1owing the receipt of the transmittal and State of California warrant. E. 1) Contractor is responsible for completing and returning to CSD, the Direct Payment Summary that accompanies each transmittal, within ten (10) working days of processing and handling the batch run of eligible low- income utility customers receiving LIHEAP assistance. Contractor shall complete the Direct Payment Summary by indicating: 1) the total number of customer accounts where the Contractor was successful in crediting full amount of eligible LIHEAP benefit; 2) the customer accounts where the Contractor was only able to credit a partial amount of the eligible LIHEAP benefit, also referred to as Partial Payment Return; and 3) the customer accounts where the Contractor was unable to credit any of the eligible LIHEAP assistance amount, also referred to as Full Payment Return. 2) Contractor shal1 return any undeliverable LIHEAP benefits to CSD during the course of this Agreement. 2. DISBURSEMENTS Funds provided under this Agreement shall be disbursed and applicant accounts credited in accordance with the provisions of the LIHEAP Direct Payment Instructions. FI EXHIBITE (Standard Agreement) (2009 Direct Payment) CSD shall provide the Contractor with a detailed breakdown and estimated cost of anticipated work, including extensions and change orders, as follows: A. Description of work to be perfonned, including detailed breakdown of identifiable tasks; B. Estimated cost of each task; C. Expected date of completion of each task; CSD shall not proceed with any such additional work prior to receiving written amendment to this Agreement, signed by both parties. 17. FEDERAL EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LAWS 'During the perfonnance of this Agreement, and to the extent they may be applicable to this Agreement, CSD agrees to comply with the following: A. Federal Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375 relating to equal employment opportunity; B. Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; as amended; C. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended: D. Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1972, as amended; E. Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Chapter 60, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program, Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor, as amended; and F. Public Law 101-336, Americans with Disability Act of 1990. \\Cobra\Shared\Contracts\Direct Payment\2009 Direct Payment\Boilerplate\07 Exhibit E. Additional ProvislOns,doc E5 Direct Payment LIHEAP Direct Payment Instructions and Samples • Attachment 1 -Direct Payment Instructions • Attachment 2 -Sample Printout • Attachment 3 -HEAP Direct Payment Summary • Attachment 4 -Utility Direct Pay File Format \\Cobra\Shared\Conlracls\Direcl Payment'2009 Direct Payment\Boilerplate\09 Attachment Coversheel.doc 3. ASSURANCES Exhibit F (Standard Agreement) (2009 Direct Payment) A. Contractor shall charge the eligible household, in the nonnal billing process, the differ~nce between the actual cost of the home energy and the payment amount made by the Department. The actual costs of the home energy shall be consistent with applicable utility company tariffs as approved by the CPUC, if applicable. B. Contractor assures that no household receiving assistance under this process will be treated adversely because of such assistance under applicable provisions of State Law regarding public regulatory requirements. 4. REPORTS Reports required under this Agreement are detailed in the LnIEAP Direct Payment . Instructions and the attachments thereto. \\Cobra\Shared\Contracts\Direcl Payment\2009 Direct Payment\Boilerplate\08 Exhibit F, Programmatic Provisions.doc F2 ATTACHMENT 1 LIHEAP DIRECT PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS HOW TO MAKE A MATCH OPEN ACCOUNTS: If an applicant's utility account is open at the time a LIHEAP payment is received, the full amount of the payment can be applied even if it creates a credit to the account. It is incumbent upon your company to match payments to the correct account and customer of record to which the LIHEAP applicant has directed the benefit. For this purpose, both the "Customer of Record" and last name of the LIHEAP applicant, "Applicant Last Name" has been provided, as well as an account number and service address. CLOSED ACCOUNTS: If, at the time the LIHEAP benefit is to be applied, and the applicant's reported utility account is closed, you must select and complete one of the three options below: 1.) A match can be made with an applicant's new account within the same utility company. 2.) If the account is CLOSED with an outstanding balance owed, a partial payment can be made and the difference refunded to CSD with a notation on your printout. . 3.) If the account is CLOSED with no outstanding balance, the total amount of LIHEAP benefit should be returned to CSD with a notation on your printout. HOW TO NOTIFY CSD OF PARTIALS AND/OR NON-MATCHES 1.) PRINTOUTS: • Copy the page of the printout upon which the LIHEAP applicant's name appears. • Circle the name of the customer of record to whose account the partial payment was applied (See Attachment 2). • Note beside the LIHEAP payment the amount that is being returned to CSD (the difference between the CSD payment and the returned amount is the amount which was credited to the customer ofrecord). If there is a 100% refund to CSD, note the total LIHEAP payment amount. 1 • Provide an adding machine tape listing the total amount of money to be refunded to CSD. The tape should include both the individual amounts, as well as a total. • Return the LIHEAP DIRECT PAYMENT SUMMARY SHEET, which accompanies each run of selected payment records. with thenumber of partials and/or non-matches (See Attachment 3). • Attach a check made payable to CSD and return your printout (with partials/non-matches information), adding machine tape, and summary page to: The Department of Community Services and Development Energy and Environmental Services P.O. Box 1947 Sacramento, CA 95812-1947 2.) Compact Disk (CD)lFile Transfer Protocol (FTP) • If you expect to return the "partial or non-match" information to CSD by CD or File Transfer Protocol (FTP), refer to Attachment 4 for more specific instructions on how to code the record. WHAT IF ALL RECORDS ARE MATCHES If you find that all records on a specific run are matches to your client database. you need to notify CSD on the LIHEAP Direct Payment Summary. In the case of a 100% match. the figure in the "Run $ Total" column would be the same amount as the amount in the "Total $ Match" column (Attachment 3). \\Cobra\Shared\Contracls\D,rect Payment\2009 Direct Payment\Boilerplate\] 0 Attachment] Dit. Paym. Instructions.doc 2 DATE: 01107/2009 ACCOUNT NUMBER PAY AMT 4257809602625000003301 $236.00 1099766500156000000401 $294.00 GRAND TOTAL: $530.00 ATTACHMENT 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT 2009 HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CUSTOMER OF RECORD MELLISA LUIS (Federally Funded Programs) UTILITY COMPANY NAME Pay Run on 01/0712009 SERVICE ADDRESS APPLICANT LAST NAME 2625 S MAIN ST LOS ANGELES, CA 95678 156 W 82 ST LOS ANGELES, CA 90003 PAGE: 1 DLN 092780500000004 090630500000026 STATE OF CALIFORNIA -HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governs' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT 700 North 101t1 Street, Room 0-215 Sacramento. CA 95811-0336 (916) 341-4200 (916) 341-4203 (FAX) (916) 327-6318 (TOO) ATTACHMENT 3 e '-'. . ~ . . . '" - 2009 HEAP DIRECT PAYMENT SUMMARY PLEASE COMPLETE FOR EACH DIRECT PAYMENT BATCH (A) (B) (C) (D) CSD RUN DATE TOTAL DOLLAR TOTAL DOLLAR TOTAL NUMBER TOTAL DOLLARS (fHIS DATE IS ON THE AMOUNT FROM AMOUNT BEING OF RECORDS THAT MATCHED TOP LEFT HAND CSD RETURNED CSD BEING RETURNED (THIS IS THE AMOUNT CORNER OF THE PRINT- OUTS) (THIS IS THE CHECK (ENTER THE AMOUNT TOCSD THAT YOU STARTED AMOUNT THAT WAS OF THE CHECK THAT (ENTER THE NUMBER WITH, MINUS ANY SENT WITH THIS RUN WILL BE RETURNED TO OF RECORDS THAT RETURN DOLLARS. DATE NOTE: THIS CSD WITH THIS FORM) WILL BE RETURNED TO EQUALS TOTAL AMOUNT SHOULD CSD WITH THIS FORM) DOLLARS MATCHED A- MATCH THE PRINT-B-D) OUT) 01/07/2009 COMPLETED BY: _____________ ,PHONE: ______ _ UTILITY COMPANY: ____________ DATE: ______ _ PLEASE RETURN THIS SUMMARY SHEET WITH PRINT-OUTS AND CHECK (FOR NON-MATCHES) NO LATER THAN 10 DAYS FOLLOWING RECEIPT FROM CSD PLEASE RETURN SUMMARY SHEET TO: Vernita Faison, ENERGY SERVICES HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM P. O. BOX 1947 CSD USE ONLY CHECK I NUMBER $ AMOUNT I RETURNED SACRAMENTO, CA 95812-1947 IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION PLEASE CONTACT VERNITA FAISON (916) 341-4276 DATE DATE SENT RECEIVED TO ITS SUMMARY ATTACHMENT 4 Utility Direct Pay File Format <----<----------------------------- Attachment 4 StdDirectPayFileFormat2009 «<----------------- THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Report Type: Consent FROM CITY ATTORNEY Council Date: July 6, 2009 July 2,2009 RE: Adoption of a Resolution Amending and Restating the Administrative Penalty Schedule and Civil Penalty Schedules for Certain Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code Established by Resolution No. 8858 Dear Members of the Council: In 1999, the City Council amended Chapters 1.12 and 1.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to establish administrative citations, penalties and remedies for municipal code violations. At the same time, the City Council enacted a resolution setting the administrative penalty schedule for those violations. The City Attorney's Office has been coordinating updates to the penalty schedule annually since 2005. Each year, code enforcing departments recommend updates and propose amendments to the administrative penalty schedule based on their enforcement experience and changes to the Municipal Code relevant to their enforcement activities. The amendments establish penalties for enforcement sections that had not been included in previous resolutions, or sections that were added to or deleted from the Municipal Code since the penalty schedule was last revised. The proposed penalty amendments may also increase or decrease penalties for violations of certain Code provisions where departments feel such changes would provide better support for enforcement practices. The proposed changes to amounts of penalties and the additions to the penalty schedule are as follows (with the previous amounts in boldface): Planning and Zoning 5.24.120 Failure to meet diversion requirements. 18.16.060(d) 18.18.060(d) 18.44.040 090702 mb 8261037 Hotel stay in excess of30 days. Hotel stay in excess of 30 days. Green building requirements. $50 per ton of waste not diverted or $1000, whichever is greater ($1000) $200 (NEW) $200 (NEW) $500 (NEW) THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL July 2,2009 Page 2 RE: Adoption of a Resolution Amending and Restating the Administrative Penalty Schedule and Civil Penalty Schedules for Certain Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code Established by Resolution No. 8858 Communitv Services 22.04.030 Compliance with park rules. 22.04.155 Restraint of dogs in City parks. 22.04.170 Violation of park use permit. 22.04.240 Interference with park use permit. 22.04.310 Arastradero, Esther Park closure. 22.04.315 Byxbee Park and Baylands closed. 22.04.320 Parks closed. 22.04.342 Alcohol in Heritage Park. 22.04.343 Alcohol in Pardee Park. Public Works 5.30.020 5.35.020 . 5.35.030 Polystyrene & Non-Recyclable Plastic Bags at retail establishments. Bags at supermarkets. $250 ($100) $250 ($100) $250 ($100) $250 ($100) $250 ($100) $250 ($100) $250 ($100) $100 (NEW) $100 (NEW) $500 ($100, code revised) $500 ($250, code revised) $500 (NEW) The change for section 5.24.120 implements the penalty associated with the amendments to the Construction and Demolition ordinance recently approved by Council. Planning staff recommended this scaled penalty as a way to both relate the penalty for failing to divert construction materials for recycling to the amount of materials not diverted to an appropriate recycling or salvage facility, as well as discourage those who might decide they would be willing to pay a flat $1000 penalty to avoid the hassle of actually diverting. The Council also recently approved amendments to sections 18.16 and 18.18 of the zoning code, which allow floor. area bonuses for hotels that generate transient occupancy tax by limiting stays to thirty days. Staff believes that the proposed penalty of $200 (applicable for each day of violation), will provide an appropriate incentive for compliance. Staff has also proposed a penalty of $500 (also applicable for each day of violation) for violation of the green building requirements set forth in Chapter 18.44 that could be used to assist in enforcement. The Open Space Division of Community Services recommended increasing the penalties for park rules and closure regulations from $100 to $250 in order to counter what staff feels is a tendency to look at the current fee as a nuisance, and not a real deterrent. The increased fme for unleashed dogs in Foothills Park is to make it consistent with similar violations in surrounding open space preserves. The rules regarding alcohol in Heritage and Pardee Parks were added to the code in late 2008 and the proposed penalty of $100 is consistent with pre-existing penalties for the same violation in other City parks. Public Works recommended updating the penalties in chapters 5.30 and 5.35 to reflect the provisions of the expanded polystyrene and plastic bag ordinances recently approved by Council. Based on its enforcement experience for other provisions of the code, the department recommended an administrative penalty of $500 for violations of these ordinances. Finally, pursuant to Section 10.60.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, violations of City parking violations are punishable as civil penalties. California law allows such civil 090702 mb 8261037 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL July 2,2009 Page 3 RE: Adoption of a Resolution Amending and Restating the Administrative Penalty Schedule and Civil Penalty Schedules for Certain Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code Established by Resolution No. 8858 penalties to be payable to a city general fund, but also requires that a certain amount of each penalty be remitted for state purposes. Effective January 1, 2009 Senate Bill 1407 (2008) required that the City remit, in addition to surcharges already required, $4.50 for the State Court Construction Fund, bringing the total of state-mandated fees and surcharges to $9.50 per citation. Unfortunately, Palo Alto and many other cities were not aware of this increase until the County (which processes these fees) notified them in late spring 2009. Therefore, the Police Department recommended increasing all local parking penalties (except disabled parking space violations, to which the fee does not apply) by $5.00 to cover the new $4.50 state fee and offset losses from January 1, 2009 to date. The remaining fifty cents would be allocated to cover increased program and payment processing costs. Many other cities throughout the state have also increased parking penalties to account for the new state fee. The department writes approximately 60,000 citations per year, and estimated that annual revenue losses due to the S.B. 1407 fee will total about $300,000 if the increase is not approved to offset it. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed all of these proposed changes with the enforcing departments. GMB:MT:mb R~~6G1aj GARYM.BAUM City Attorney MELISSA TRONQUET Senior Deputy City Attorney Attachments: Redlined copy of Resolution Amending Administrative Penalty Schedule 090702 mb 8261037 REDLINED COpy Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Restating the Administrative Penalty Schedule and Civil Penalty Schedules for Certain Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code Established by Resolution No. 8858 The Council of the City of Palo Alto does resolve as follows: SECTION 1. Administrative Penalties. The administrative penalty schedule for violations ofthe Palo Alto Municipal Code established by Resolution No. 8858 is hereby amended and restated to read as follows: Standard penalty unless otherwise indicated below $50 4.04.020 License or permit required. 300 4.04.100 Display of license or permit. 300 4.1 0.045 License fees for pushcart vendors. 300 4.10.050 Regulations for solicitors and peddlers. 350 4.10.055 Identification cards for solicitors. 250 4.10.057 Regulations for pushcart vendors. 300 4.10.070 License required -circus etc. 300 4.10.120 Arcade prohibited. 250 4.10.200 Pawn brokers prohibited. 250 4.10.230 Daily report of second hand dealers. 250 4.10.240 Maintaining reports -second hand dealers. 250 4.10.260 Failure to make report -second hand dealers. 250 4.10.270 Second hand goods held for inspection. 250 4.18.040 Unlawful dog or cat kennel. 250 4.30.010 Soliciting without a permit. 250 4.30.100 Conduct of solicitations. 250 4.32.020 Soliciting without a permit. 250 4.32.060 Investigation of records of solicitor. 250 4.32.090 Acts required during solicitation. 250 4.32.100 Restriction of solicitation. 250 4.32.110 Hours of solicitation. 250 4.34.020 Permit required -closing out sale. 250 4.39.030 Audible alarms. 250 4.39.040 Limitation on automatic dialing devices. 250 4.39.060 Registration of alarm. 250 4.39.110 Alarm violations. 100 4.42.020 Certificate of public convenience. 1000 4.42.085 Controlled substance and alcohol testing. 500 4.42.090 Taxi owners permit. 250 4.42.100 Taxi driver's permit expired. 250 4.42.130(b) Taxi driver's permit not displayed. 250 4.42.160 Unauthorized pickup of passengers. 250 4.42.190 Taximeters. 500 4.42.200 Taxi cab operating regulations. 250 4.42.210(a) Interference with inspection. 500 4.42.210(b) Inspection of vehicles. 500 4.42.220 Operating regulations. 500 4.42.230 Maintenance of vehicles. 500 090702 mb 8261036 1 REDLINED COPY 4.51.030 License required -bingo. 4.51.050 Minors restricted -bingo. 4.5 L080 Staffmg and operations -bingo. 4.5 1.110 Physical presence required -bingo. 4.52.020 License required -billiards and bowling. 4.52.040 Minors restricted -billiards and bowling. 4.52.060 Offensive conduct -billiards and bowling. 4.52.070 Interference w/emerg. Access-billiardslbowling. 4.54.030(a) Permit required -massage establishment. 4.54.060(a) Permit required -massage tech. 4.54.110 Massage establishment facilities. 4.54.130 Business name -massage. 4.55.030 License required -adult entertainment. 4.56.030 License required -hot tub and sauna. 4.56.060 Employee permit required -hot tub and sauna. 4.56.100 Hot tub/sauna establishment and operations. 4.56.120 Business name -hot tub and sauna. 4.56.150 Display of permit -hot tub and sauna. 4.56.200 Employment of persons < 18 -hot tub and sauna. 4.57.020 Permit required -frrearms sales. 4.57.095 Firearms dealers -business and security. 4.58.020 Minors restricted -narcotics paraphernalia shop. 4.58.030 Regulations -narcotics paraphernalia shop. 4.59.010 Pet shop requirements. 4.59.020 Pet shop sanitation. 4.59.030 Pet shop food. 4.59.040 Pet shop notification. 4.59.050 Pet shop -sale of dangerous or wild animals. 4.59.070 Dead animals. 4.59.080 Permit required -pet shop and kennel. 4.59.090 Permit required -grooming shop. 4.59.095 Sales of kittens and puppies. 4.59.100 Sales of raccoons. 4.59.105 Sales of rabbits, chicks, ducklings. 5.12.010 Permit required -refreshment stand. 5.20.030 Discarding solid waste. 5.20.040 Accumulation of garbage. 5.20.050 Unauthorized bins, boxes, and containers. 5.20.080 Number of containers required. 5.20.130 Maintenance of bins and boxes. 5.20.160 Spillage or leakage of solid waste. 5.20.180 No accumulation of solid waste. 5.20.190 No burning, burial, or dumping of solid waste. 5.20.200 Hazardous waste. 5.20.220 Scavenging prohibited. 5.20.230 No trespassing in city landfilL 5.24.120 Failure to meet diversion requirements. 250 50 250 250 1000 250 250 250 1000 250 250 250 1000 1000 250 250 250 250 250 1000 500 750 750 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 100 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 500 100 250 lQQQ UBless Otaerwise speeifieE:i $50 per ton of waste not diverted or $1000, whichever is greater 5.30.000020Use ofCFC ProeesseE:i fooe eomaiaers.Polystyrene & Non-Recyclable Plastic +00500 5.3Q.97Q Caoloro'fleoroearboH froeesseE:i faeliagiHg. lQQ 5.35.020 Pilfer bag a'laiiability re€fl:l:ireE:i.Bags at retail establishments. ~500 5.35.030 Bags at supermarkets. 500 6.08.020(b) Interference with animal control officer. 250 6.16.010 No dog license. 100 6.16.080 Number of dogs allowed. 100 6.16.100 Leash Law. 100 090702 mb 8261036 2 REDLINED COpy 6.20.0 I 0 Animals at large. 100 6.20.020 Animals on unenclosed premises. 100 6.20.030 Animals kept in enclosures. 100 6.20.035 Tying animals to bicycle racks or trees. 100 6.20.040 Nuisance on sidewalk. 100 6.20.045 Animal waste removal -fIrst offense. 25 6.20.045 Animal waste removal -second offense. 50 6.20.045 Animal waste removal -third offense. 125 6.20.055 Animals in vehicles. 250 6.20.060 Bees close to property line. 100 6.20.080 Permit required -livestock. 100 6.20.090 Maintaining birds, goats, pigs and rabbits. 100 6.20.11 0 Number of cats kept. 100 6.20.120 Permit required -breeding animals. 100 6.20.130 Cat or dog in heat. 100 6.20.140 Barking dogs. 100 6.20.150 Vaccination required -animals. 100 6.20.160 Sanitary enclosures. 100 6.20.170 Slaughter of animals. 500 6.24.020 Permit required -construction of stable. 250 6.24.050 Maintenance of stable. 250 6.28.040 Possession of dangerous or wild animals. 500 6.32.010 Keeping diseased animals. 500 6.32.020 Confming animals with rabies. 500 6.32.050 Dead animals in public. 500 6.36.010 Sales of certain animals. 250 8.04.020 Permit required -tree work. 500 8.04.080 Interference with tree enforcement. 500 8.08.010 Weeds as public nuisance. 500 8.10.050 Protected trees. 500 8.10.070 Care of protected trees. 500 8.10.080(b) Development conditions. 500 9.04.010 Open container in business district. 100 9.04.020 Open container in City parking lot. 100 9.04.030 Open container near liquor store. 100 9.04.040 Social host. First violation 250 Second violation 500 Third & subsequent violation 1000 9.08.010 Discharge offrreannslfIreworks. 1000 9.09.010(a) Urinating/defecating on street or public place 250 9.09.01 O(b) Igniting or maintaining outdoor frre 250 9.1 0.030 Residential property noise limits. 100 9.10.040 Commercial property noise limits. 100 9.10.050 Public property noise limits. 100 9.10.060(b) Construction noise signs. 250 9.1O.060(c) Construction noise. 250 9.10.060( d) Construction equipment noise. 100 9.1O.060(e) Residential power equipment noise. 100 9.10.060(f) Leafblower noise. 100 9.10.060(g) Street sweeping noise. 100 9.10.060(h) Refuse collection noise. 100 9.1O.060(i) Safety device noise. 100 9.10.060(k) Public parking lot cleaning noise. 100 9.10.060(1) Business district street cleaning noise. 100 9.12.010 Loudspeakers. 150 9.14.020 Smoking prohibited -public places. 100 9.14.025 Smoking prohibited -service locations. 100 090702 mb 8261036 3 9.14.030 9.14.040 9.14.050 9.14.080 9.14.090 9.14.100 9.22.010 9.26.020 9.28.010 9.28.020 9.40.020 9.44.010 9.48.010 9.48.025 9.48.030 9.48.040 9.48.050 9.50.010 9.56.030 9.60.030 9.60.050 9.60.060 9.60.070 9.74.030 9.78.020 9.79.100 12.08.010 12.08.100 12.12.010 12.16.030 12.16.090 12.20.010 12.20.020 12.32.010 15.04.110 15.04.012 16.04.110 16.08.040 16.05.030 16.09.020 16.09.032 16.09.033 16.09.035 16.09.040 16.09.060 16.09.070 16.09.075 16.09.090 16.09.091 16.09.100 16.09.101 16.09.102 16.09.103 16.09.105 16.09.106 16.09.110 16.09.111 090702 mb 8261036 REDLINED COPY Smoking prohibited -city cars. Smoking prohibited -child care facilities. Smoking prohibited -restaurants. Location of tobacco vending machines. Display of tobacco products. Failure to post "No Smoking" signs. Impersonating public officials. False representation as police officer. Hotel guest register required. Use of false name by hotel guest. Landing aircraft at other than airport. Solicitation prohibited -public parking lot. Displaying goods on sidewalk. Sitting or lying on University A venue sidewalks. Operation of sidewalk elevator. Throwing rubbish on streets. Obligation to clean sidewalk. Graffiti prohibited on public property. Abatement of public nuisance. Blocking entrances to City Hall. Placing signs or climbing on City Hall. Bicycles and skateboards at City Hall. Alcoholic beverages prohibited -City Hall. Discrimination in housing. Mosquito breeding places. News rack violations. Permit required -public right of way. Removal of City Engineer monuments. Building on public easement without permit. Overhead wires in underground districts. Property owner responsibility. Utility rules and regulations. Providing false information to City Utilities. Water use regulation. Violations of Uniform Fire Code. Failure to abate a hazard. Violations of California Building Code. Violations of California Plumbing Code. Violations of California Mechanical Code Permit required -industrial waste discharge. New sources. Reports required -industrial waste permit holders. Training required -industrial waste permit holders. Suspension, revocation, etc.--discharge permit. Waste sampling locations. Trucker's discharge permit. Discharge into manhole. Accidental discharge prevention. Storage of hazardous materials. Waste prohibitions. Discharge of copper-based root control chemicals. Grease disposal. Grease removal device required. Unpolluted water. Discharge into storm drains. Sewer discharge standards. Photographic materials processing. 4 100 100 100 1000 500 50 500 250 250 50 1000 100 50 100 500 250 500 500 500 500 500 50 100 250 500 100 500 500 1000 500 500 500 500 100 250 Unless Otherwise specified 1000 500 500 500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 REDLINED COPY 16.09.112 Dental facility requirements. 16.09.113 Vehicle service facility requirements. 16.09.114 Machine shop requirements. 16.09.115 Cooling systems, pools, spas and fountains. 16.09.117 Requirements for construction operations. 16.09.121 Prohibition against dilution. 16.10.020 Construction of private sewer system. 16.10.050 Permit required -private sewage system. 16.16.030 Violations of California Electrical Code. 16.17.020 Violation of California Energy Code. 16.20.020 Design review required -signs. 16.20.090 Prohibited signs. 16.20.100 Prohibited locations -signs. 16.20.110 Fuel price signs required. 16.20.210 Non-compliance with sign ordinance. 16.20.230 Abandoned signs. 16.20.250 Parking of advertising vehicles. 16.24.080 Fence violation. 16.28.060 Permit required -excavation and grading. 16.28.330 Protection of adjacent property. . 16.28.340 Deposits of earth, rock, etc. 16.32.010 Permit required -moving a building. 16.36.050 Curb painting without a permit. 16.36.060 House numbering required. 16.38.020 Certificate of occupancy -community housing. 16.40.040 Dangerous and substandard buildings. 16.40.090 Non-compliance with order of building official. 16.40.180 Interference with repair or demolition work. 16.42.090 Failure to submit seismic report. 16.45.070 Failure to pay fee -Stanford Research Park. 16.46.060 Failure to pay fee -San Antonio -West Bayshore. 16.47.050 Failure to pay housing impact fee. 16.49.080 Maintenance of downtown historic structure. 16.49.090 Demolition of downtown historic structure. 16.52.070 Construction -flood hazards. 16.59.090 Failure to pay fee-Citywide Transportation Impact. 16.60.090 Failure to pay fee-CharlestoniArastradero 17.04.020 Violations of hazardous materials storage. 17.04.030 Specific obligation -hazardous materials. 17.10.010 General obligation -underground storage tanks 17.10.040 Permit required -underground storage. 17.10.140 Financial responsibility -underground storage. 17.10.150 Monitoring underground storage tanks. 17.10.170 Unlawful abandonment -underground storage tanks. 17.12.010 Permit required -hazardous materials storage. 17.12.020 New hazardous materials storage facilities. 17.12.060 Hazardous materials storage facilities. 17.16.010 Hazardous materials management plan. 17.20.010 Hazardous materials inventory statement. 17.24.010 Hazardous materials discharge report. 17.32.010 Permit required -storage of hazardous materials. 18.01.080 Violation of zoning laws. 18.16.060(d)Hotel stay in excess of30 days. 18. I 8.060(d)Hotel stay in excess of30 days. 18.42.060 Home occupations. 18.42.070 Servicing vehicles in residential zone. 18.44.040 Green building requirements. 090702 mb 8261036 5 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 750 500 500 500 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 500 500 500 250 100 100 500 500 500 500 250 250 250 250 500 1000 500 250 250 500 Unless Otherwise specified 500 750 Unless Otherwise specified 500 500 1000 1000 750 750 750 250 250 750 1000 500 200 200 500 500 500 REDLINED COpy 18.84.200 Temporary uses. 22.04.030 Compliance with park rules. 22.04.l50(a) Resident and guests only -Foothills Park. 22.04.l50(b)Entrance to park -Foothills Park. 22.04. 150(c)Person in park after hours -Foothills Park. 22.04.150( d)Speed limit 20MPH -Foothills Park. 22.04.150(e)Vehicles in Foothills Park after hours. 22.04.l50(f)Skateboards and motorcycles -Foothills Park. 22.04. 150(g)Smoking on trails -Foothills Park. 22.04. 150(h)Fires in Foothills Park. 22.04. 150(i) Use of trails -Foothills Park. 22.04.150(1) Unleashed dog -Foothills Park. 22.04.155 Restraint of dogs in City parks. 22.04.160 Permit required -sales in parks. 22.04.170 Violation of park use permit. 22.04.180 Sound in parks. 22.04.190 Unauthorized golf and other games in parks. 22.04.200 Unauthorized models and kites in parks. 22.04.210 Parking in parks. 22.04.215 Launch and takeout from ramp or dock. 22.04.220 Bicycle not permitted on trails. 22.04.230 Dumping in park. 22.04.240 Interference with park use permit. 22.04.250 Park regulations. 22.04.260 Discharge of weapons in park. 22.04.270 Removal of flora or fauna. 22.04.280 Removal of turf or soil. 22.04.290(a)Damaging, defacing, etc., property. 22.04.290(b )Marking, writing or printing on property. 22.04.290(c)Attaching sign, etc., without permit. 22.04.290(d)Entering, etc., structure after posted hours. 22.04.290(e)Bringing portable tables without a permit. 22.04.300 Unlawful fire in city park. 22.04.310 Enid Pearson Arastradero, Esther Park closure. 22.04.315 Byxbee Park and Baylands closed. 22.04.320 Parks closed. 22.04.321(a)Skateboarding in park after hours. 22.04.322 Trespass at Rinconada Park pool. 22.04.330 Alcohol in Cogswell Park. 22.04.331 Alcohol in Lytton Plaza. 22.04.332 Alcohol in Johnson Park. 22.04.333 Alcohol in Boulware Park. 22.04.334 Alcohol in Scott Sf. Minipark. 22.04.335 Alcohol in Greer Park. 22.04.336(a)Alcohol in Rinconada Park. 22.04.337 Alcohol in Mitchell Park. 22.04.338 Alcohol in Robles Park. 22.04.339 Alcohol in Hopkins Park. 22.04.340 Vehicles in park. 22.04.341 Alcohol in E1 Palo Alto Park. 22.04.342 Alcohol in Heritage Park. 22.04.343 Alcohol in Pardee Park. 22.04.350 Consumption of alcoholic beverage in vehicles. 22.04.360 Open container in park -alcoholic beverage. 22.04.370 Reckless driving in park. 090702 mb 8261036 6 250 .J:.GG250 50 50 100 100 100 50 500 500 100 250 .J:.GG250 50 .J:.GG250 150 100 100 100 150 250 1000 .J:.GG250 100 500 500 500 1000 1000 500 250 100 500 .J:.GG250 .J:.GG250 .J:.GG250 50 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 250 100 100 100 100 100 100 REDLINED COPY 22.04.380 Unlawful riding and towing in parks. 100 22.04.390 Duck pond. 100 Second violation within 36 month period (unless otherwise specified) 150% of listed penalty Third & subsequent violations within 36 month period 200% oflisted penalty (unless otherwise specified) Delinquency penalty 10% per month, simple interest, on delinquent amount SECTION 2. Municipal Code Civil Penalties. The civil penalty schedule for violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code established by Resolution No. 8858 is hereby amended and restated . to read as follows.!: Standard penalty unless otherwise indicated below. 10.36.020 No parking in parkways. 1O.36.030(a)Storage on the street (72 hours). 10.36.040(a)(l)Vehicle for sale on street. 1O.36.040(a)(2)Repairing vehicle on street. 10.36.050 Not wlin 18" ofleft curb--One-way street. 10.36.090 Removal of chalk markings. lOAO.020(a)(I)Parking violation red curb. 1 OAO.020(a)(4)Parking violation green curb. 10040.020(a)(5)Parking violation -blue curb. 1 0040.020(b )Parking in violation of sign (except blue curb). I0040.020(b)Unlawful disabled parking -signs (blue curb). 10040.040(b)Commercial vehicle double parking. 10040.050 Unlawful parking in yellow loading zone. 10040.060 Unlawful parking in passenger loading zone. 10040.070 Unlawful alley parking. 1 0040.1 OO(g)Parking in a bus zone. lOo44.010(b)Overtime parking (limited time zone). I0044.010(c)Additional violation of time limited or no parking zones. 10.44.020(a)Oversized vehicle parking in residential or public facilities zones 2am-6am. lOo44.040(b)Not in space marking. I 0.44.050(b )Parking violation--temporary sign. 10.44.060 Dealers--parking for sale or repair. 10.44.070(b)Parking in violation of posted sign. 10.44.080 Vehicle obstruction of roadway or lot. 10.44.090 Unattended vehicle, engine running. 10.45.110 Parking in on-street valet parking space. 10.48.030 Truck route violation. 10.60.070(c)Permit not properly displayed. 1O.60.070(d)Overtime permit parking in City lot. I 0.60.070( e )Parking without permit in permit area. 22.04. 150(e)In Foothills Park after hours. 22.04.210 Parking in parks. Late payment penalty. $~O ~O 1$80 ~O ~O ~O t00105 ~O ~O 305 ~O 305 ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O :W35 ~38 ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O tOO 105 ~O ~205 :W35 :W35 ~O tOO 105 tOOl 05 35 * All penalties include state-mandated assessments pursuant to Gov't. Code 76000 and S.B 1407(2008) totaling $9.50, except 10.40.020(a)(4)-(5) to which such assessments do not apply. 090702 mb 8261036 7 REDLINED COPY SECTION 3. Vehicle Code Civil Penalties. The civil penalty schedule for violations of the California Vehicle Code established by Resolution No. 8858 is hereby amended to read as follows~: II II II II II II II II II II 5200 No front license plate. (If corrected within 31 days) 5204(a) No registration tabs on license plate. (If corrected within 31 days) 21113(a) Parking on public grounds. 22500(a) Parking in an intersection. 22500(b) Parking in a crosswalk. 22500(d) Parking w/in 15 feet--fIre station driveway. 22500(e) Blocking driveway. 22500(t) Parking on sidewalk. 22500(g) Parking or stopping--excavation site, etc. 22500(h) Double parking on roadway. 22500(i) Parking in a bus zone. 22500.1 Parking in a fIre lane (public or private). 22502 Right hand wheels not w/in 18" of rt. curb. 22505(b) Parking on state highway violation. 22507 .8(a-b)Unlawful parking in handicapped space. 22507.8( c )(l-2)Straddling Lines/Cross hatched, disabled. 22514 Parking within 15 feet offITe hydrant. 22515 Unattended vehicle, engine running. 22516 Person locked in vehicle. 22521 Parking within 7 112 feet of railroad tracks. 22522 Parking near sidewalk access ramp. 22523(a) Unlawful abandonment of vehicle on highway. 22523 (b) Abandoned vehicle--public/private property. 22526 Enteringlblocking intersection -antigridlock. 22951 No street, alley parking--patron vehicles. $75 10 (state mandated) 75 10 (state mandated) ·~o ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~o ~255 ~O ~O ~O 300 300 ~O .:J:OOI05 .:J:OOI05 ~O 300 -hm125 -hm125 -hm125 ~O * All penalties include state-mandated assessments pursuant to Gov't. Code 76000 and S.B 1407(2008) totaling $9.50, except 5200. 5204(a), 22507.8(a)-(c) and 22522. to which such assessments do not apply. 090702 mb 8261036 8 REDLINED COPY SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, and, therefore, no environmental assessment is required. INTRODUCED AJ\lD PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Senior Deputy City Attorney Police Chief 090702 mb 8261036 9 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JULY 6, 2009 CMR:293:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Approval of Contract with Thomas S. Barron, PE, a Consulting Civil Engineer, in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $99,000 Per Year With an Option to Renew for Two Additional One Year Terms for Industrial Wastewater Discharge Evaluations for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Thomas S. Barron, P.E. in the amount of $99,000 for the fIrst contract year for assistance in evaluating industrial wastewater discharges at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. 2. Authorize. the City Manager or his designee to exercise the option to renew the contract for the second and third year, in an amount of $99,000 per year. DISCUSSION Scope of Services Description The scope of work to be perfonned under this contract is for engineering consultant services needed to assist Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) staff in evaluating industrial processes, practices, and sampling data to determine compliance status, investigate methods of reducing pollutant loadings, and conduct trend analyses. These tasks are part of a larger effort to reduce pollutants discharged to the RWQCP from industrial processes, and from commercial and residential sources. This source control work is needed to ensure that the treated wastewater, air emissions, reclaimed water, and incinerator ash from the Plant meet all regulatory requirements, and that pollutants are reduced to the maximum extent practicable. The draft scope of services was reviewed and approved during the Budget process. Please see Exhibit A of Attachment A for the complete scope of services. CMR:293:09 Page 1 of3 Solicitation Process A Request for Proposal for the project was posted at City Hall and sent to nine consulting fInnS on April 20, 2009. The solicitation period was 22 days. Two consulting firms, Thomas S. Barron, P.E., and R&M Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering, Inc., submitted proposals. The City did not receive more responses because of the highly specialized nature of the work. The work requires technical knowledge about metal finishing shops, extensive experience in water pollution prevention, and familiarity with water treatment facility processes. ummaryo o lCltatlOn rocess S fS r' . P Proposal DescriptionlNumber Industrial Wastewater Discharge EvaluationlRFP Number 13126() Proposed Length ofpf(~iect 36 months Number of Proposals Mailed 9 Total Days to Respond to Proposal 22 Number of Proposals Received 2 An evaluation committee of three Public Works Environmental Compliance Division staff was utilized to review the proposals. The committee carefully reviewed each firmts qualifications and submittal in response to the criteria identified in the RFP. The criteria used to evaluate the proposing firms included: quality and completeness of proposal; quality, performance, and effectiveness of the solutions; proposer's experience; cost; proposer's financial stability; proposer's ability to perform the work within the time specified; proposer's prior record of performance with the City; proposer's compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Each of the three reviewers selected Thomas S. Barron's proposal as best meeting the review criteria Thomas S. Barron's proposal and his previous work under contract with the City of Palo Alto, demonstrate that he is capable of successfully meeting the project requirements. Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to Thomas S. Barron. RESOURCE IMPACT Funds are available in the Fiscal Year 2010 operating budget of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant to cover the current year contract and contingency amounts. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This contract continues similar work done previously and does not represent new policy direction. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This contract approval is exempt under Section 15307 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines and no environmental review is required. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: CMR:293:09 Contract (includes Scope o/Services) Page 2 on PREPARED BY: 7 ~?--- DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: C1l.VJ'¥'U' ~ENE ATTACHMENT A CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C09131266 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THOMAS S. BARRON, PE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATER DISCHARGE EVALUATIONS This AGREEMENT is entered into • by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California ("CITY"), and THOMAS S. BARRON, PE CIVIL ENGINEER~ a Sole Proprietor with offices located at 3351 Beechwood Drive~ Lafayette, CA 94549 C'CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to conduct industrial wastewater discharge evaluations ("Project'') and desires to engage a consultant to assist the Regional Water Quality Control Plant in meeting stringent standards for discharge to San FranciSco Bay 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, this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perfonn the Services described in Exhibit 4'A'" in accordance with the tenns and conditions contained in this Agreement. The perfonnance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The tenn of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution by CITY, and shall expire one year from the commencement date, and may be extended by CITY for up to an additional two (2) 12-month periods (each an "Additional Tenn") for a maximum ofthirty-six (36) consecutive months, subject to CITY Council's annual approval of each current year's budget and appropriation of funds unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is ofthe essence in the perfonnance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the tenn 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 perfonnance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULT ANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner 1 09064 professional Services Revised 10/lS/07 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C09131266 based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITyts 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 CONSULT ANT. 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 Ninety-nine Thousand Dollars ($99,000.00) per year. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Ninety-nine Thousand Dollars ($99,000.00) per year. The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C", entitled "COMPENSATION," 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 detennined 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 CONSULT ANr s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C'j. If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City' sproject 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 perfonned by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULT ANT 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. CONSULT ANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and locallawst ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the perfonnance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULT ANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. 2 09064 Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C09131266 SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULT ANT 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 tennination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULT ANT 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 CITY's stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROmCT 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 by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor andlor 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 perfonnance of any of CONSUL T ANT's obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section 11 above. CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perfonn work on this Project are: 1. Stephanie Hughes -Chemical Engineer/Assistant Project Manager 2. Kelly Moran-Senior Scientist 3. Nelda Matheny -Technical Assistant and Senior Scientist 4. Ann Blake -Senior Scientist 5. Alicia Culver -Senior Researcher 6. Susan Kegley -Technical Assistant and Senior Scientist 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. CONSULT ANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for aU acts and omissions of a 3 09064 Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C09131266 subconsultant. CONSULT ANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Thomas Barron as the project director to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and as the project coordinator to represent CONSULT ANT 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 perfonn1he 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 City's project manager is 'Brad Eggleston, Public Works Department, Environmental Compliance Division, at 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: 650-329-2104. 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 relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during . the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT's records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULT ANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an "fudemnified 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, employ~es, agents or contractors under this 4 09064 Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C09131266 Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 10 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 ofthe right of indemnification. The provisions ofthis Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early tennination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, tenn, 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 tenn, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation ofthe same or of any other tenn, 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 tenn of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULT ANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:Vn or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perfonn 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 ofthis Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY's Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification, CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire tenn 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 perfonned under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is tenninated or the tenn has expired. 5 09064 Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C09131266 SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The city manager may suspend the perfonnance of the Services, in whole or in part, or tenninate 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 perfonnance of the Services. 19 .2. CONSULT ANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its perfonnance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereofto CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of perfonnance 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, CONSUL TANTwill 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 tennination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or tenninated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULT ANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT's services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such detennination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise ofhislher discretion 19.5. No paymellt, 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 6 09064 Professional services Revised 10/18/07 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C09131266 conflict in any manner or degree with the perfonnance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the perfonnance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULT ANT 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 tenn 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, including completing the form furnished by CITY and set forth in Exhibit "E.n SECTION 23. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 23.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 23.2. 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. 23.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions ofthis 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. 23.4. This docwnent represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This docwnent may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 23.5. 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. . 23.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this 7 09064 Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C09131266 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. 23.7. 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. 23.8. 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 anypena1ty (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 23.8 shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition. or provision ofthis Agreement. 23.9. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so. on behalf of their ~spective legal entities .. 8 09064 Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONl'RACT NO.: C09131266 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 THOMAS B~ON, PE By: ~ ~ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Title:_---:::::O;..,.;titJ:;-..,;::;....;..:rt;.;:e,.r~ ______ _ City Attorney Attachments: EXHmIT "An: EXHmIT "B": EXHmIT "C": EXHmIT "C-l": EXHIBIT "ott: EXHmIT ''En: 09064 SCOPE OF SERVICES SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE OF RATES INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION OF NONDISCRIMINATION 9 Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C09131266 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES Task 1. Industrial Dbcharger Inspection Assistance The Project Team will provide on-call assistance to RWQCP staff during compliance inspections of industrial dischargers. This assistance may include the following key activities: 09064 1.1 Compliance Detenninations -As requested by RWQCP staff, the Project Team will assist in the periodic inspection of industrial facilities to detennine whether their discharges are in compliance with permit requirements. For example, the Team will join RWQCP staff in reviewing waste sources and the use of Best Management Practices at laboratories, vehicle wash facilities, dental offices, machine shops, and other sites. 1.2 Pollutant Source Identification and Control-Upon request, the Project Team will help industrial sites identify which of their production processes, facility maintenance operations, or other activities are generating wastewaters containing pollutants of concern to the RWQCP. The Team will also help sites evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of alternative pollution prevention projects and source control measures to reduce the amounts of identified pollutants being discharged to the sanitary sewer system. These evaluations will use the same methods as studies conducted previously by the Project Team at Alza, CPI, Space Systems Loral, and other sites in the RWQCP service area and elsewhere. 1.3 New & Modified Facility Permit Reviews -Metal finishing facilities may elect to discharge to the sanitary sewer under either a concentration-or mass-based local limit. In order to choose between these options, a new or extensively modified site needs to be advised as to which specific Reasonable Control Measures it would have to install in each of these two options. As appropriate, the Project Team will: • Review the shop's construction drawings and other design documents, visit the site, and meet with the shop's equipment vendors; • Prepare a list of Reasonable Control Measures that are to be installed at each waste copper source; • Evaluate alternatives in cases where the shop believes that it's layout or other process requirements prevent the use of particular measures; • Prepare a waste copper mass balance; and Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C09131266 • Forecast the amount·ofwaste copper mass that will be discharged by the facility_ 1.4 Trunkline Analyses -In addition to site discharge data, the RWQCP obtains samples and analyzes pollutants at various points in its collection system. To continue to meet ever-stricter metals discharge requirements, the RWQCP must have a robust understanding of metals species throughout the collection system. The Project Team has previously evaluated the concentration and mass of individual metals in the collection system trunklines as well as mass results for the RWQCP partner agencies. An Excel workbook has been prepared to allow data manipulation and a comparison of historical concentration and mass variations between individual tnmklines and between metal species. The workbook and resulting pivot tables and charts are anticipated to be a useful tool for identifying metals trends and develop appropriate source control responses. . Anticipated Data Needs: As necessary for each assigned task, the RWQCP will furnish paper and electronic copies of site permits, applications for permit modifications, site discharge data, trunkline data, and similar information. Other data will be obtained from water districts serving the area. DeHverables: The Project Team will prepare inspection checklists, technical memoranda, and reports to document each site visit and the recommendations that are made. Draft copies of these items will be furnished to the RWQCP for review. The final edition of each report will be accompanied by an electronic copy for RWQCP files andlor posting to the RWQCP website. Electronic copies of all databases and calculation worksheets will also be furnished. Task 2. Metal Finishing Diseharge Compliance Monitoring The Project Team will calculate an annual estimate of the amount of waste copper that metal finishers discharge to the RWQCP. This calculation will include each remaining major metal finishing shop in the service area. The task involves the use of time-weighted concentration and flow data to estimate the copper mass being discharged by each metal finishing site. Alternative flow-weighted and non-weighted methods maybe used. Obtaining these data and making the calculations will involve several steps: 09064 2.1 Organize Calculations -The Project Team will begin by extending the time period covered by each of its existing RCM status spreadsheets, thereby preparing the way for entry of new data. 2 Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C09131266 2.2 Review Copper Processes -Next, the Team may briefly contact each site to confirm annual operating days, the status of previously installed RCMs, process changes, and copper discharge reduction projects. 2.3 Obtain Discharge Data -Each site will be asked to confirm its PRCC data (Le., copper concentration and flow meter readings) for the wastewater discharge from its metal finishing operations. As appropriate, the Team will obtain results of flow meter calibrations that may have been done by the sites, and will compare discharge and water supply meter data. 2.4 ComRute Copper Dischargt!s -Next, the Project Team will perfonn weighted and non-weighted calculations to detemrine the 12-month rolling average daily copper discharge concentration and mass for each metal finishing site. 2.5 Present Results -Calculation results win appear as both tables and charts, following the formats presented in RWQCP annual reports. Anticipated Data Needs: The RWQCP and the City of Mountain View will be requested at the end of each 6-month period to furnish electronic copies of available PRCC copper concentration and sewer flow data for each site. In coordination with the responsible source control inspectors, the Project Team may obtain additional data directly from each site. Dellverables: Copper discharge calculation results will be presented in report form, as described above. In addition, .doc, .xls, and .pdf copies will be furnished of the annual report input together with all spreadsheets used in the calculations. Task 3. Po))utant Source Evaluations The Project Team will conduct special pollutant source evaluations as requested by the RWQCP. In these efforts, the Project Team will review one or more industrial facilities, classes of industrial activities, or products, to detennine potential sources of pollutants and possible control measures. In each case, the Project Team will prepare a workplan for approval by the RWQCP prior to commencing. The deliverables for each evaluation will be draft and final technical memoranda, together with copies of supporting data and calculations. The Project Team will, upon request, continue with existing source identification studies that it is conducting for the RWQCP. In the past 3 years these have included the following efforts: 09064 Pesticides Used at City Facilities Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Water Supply Metals Analysis Incinerator Ash Metals Analysis Creek Discharge Sources RWQCP Metals Analysis 3 Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C09131266 Molybdenum Source Evaluation Cooling Water Treatment Chemicals Plastic Grocery Bags Styrofoam Food Containers Plastic Water Pipe Evaluation Compost Technologies Anticipated Data Needs: The Project Team will identify data resources while carrying out project~ related research. Files, professional contacts, and other resources will be provided by both the Team and RWQCP staff. Deliverables: The Project Team will prepare technical memoranda to document its findings for each source evaluation. Drafts of these memoranda will be furnished to RWQCP staff for review before final editions are produced. Research data (e.g., literature, lab test results, internet sources, correspondence, and telephone notes) will be provided to the RWQCP to facilitate future projects. Electronic copies of data, calculations, and reports will also be provided. Task 4. Annual Headworks Load Calculation The Project Team will detennine the annual industrial loading to the RWQCP influent for industrial pollutants specified by RWQCP staff (e.g., copper, nickel, cyanide, zinc, selenium, and mercury). For copper, loadings contributions from corrosion sources (Le., base corrosion, hot water recirculating systems, cooling water systems), industrial processes, and sanitary sewage will be calculated in addition to the total industrial loading. Industrial monitoring data (Le., flow and pollutant concentrations) will be provided by RWQCP staff. The Project Team will extend the previously developed database to compile and filter this information, and will then estimate loadings from various kinds of industries. These individual loadings will be used to calculate a total industrial loading. 09064 4.1 Extend Database. The database will be extended to accept new discharge data that become available each year. 4.2 Compile and Validate Data. Data provided in electronic form by RWQCP staffwill be loaded into the database and categorized by industry type. In addition, the data will be filtered and then checked for units consistency, for extreme values, and for completeness. 4.3 Compute and Verify Mass Loadings -Mass loadings will be computed from concentration and flow data for individual sites. If flow data are not available (as may be the case for smaller commercial facilities), flow will be estimated from water use 4 Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C09131266 records (if practical) or based upon estimates developed by Palo Alto and other communities for similar businesses with respect to type and size. Copper loadings from corrosion and sanitary sewage will also be calculated on an individual basis. Calculations to determine copper contributions from these sources will follow methods developed for Palo Alto during previous studies concerning corrosion rates and headworks loading allocations. Data below detection limits will be evaluated in two ways: by setting non-detected values equal to zero and equal to the detection limit. For data sets that meet certain criteria (Le., adequate percentage of detected values and adequate total number of data points), it is also possible to use statistical methods to provide better estimates. Once the individual loadings are determined, total mass loadings for the entire service area will be calculated for each constituent. In addition, copper loadings will be calculated for base corrosion, excess corrosion from hot water recirculating systems, excess corrosion from cooling water systems, and from sanitary sewage. Anticipated Data Needs: RWQCP staffwill provide an electronic copy of all industrial monitoring data for the specified pollutants, as well as flow and site-specific information necessary to determine the copper loadings. Proposed Deliverables: Deliverables will include electronic copies of spreadsheets and reports containing the calculated mass loadings. Task 5. Re~laimed Water Irrigation The City of Mountain View is proceeding with a project to convey reclaimed effluent from the RWQCP to offices and parks north of Highway 101. This water will be used for irrigation of these developed areas. The impact of using this water on trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plantings is the subject of both field and laboratory investigations: • Thomas Barron will continue to assist the RWQCP by taking photographs of trees and other plants at ten sites within the project area, and at two outside control sites. These photographs document conditions prior to the reclaimed water being used, and will be supplemented by the technical guidance of the City of Mountain View arborist. • Nelda Matheny, Thomas Barron, and Stephanie Hughes will continue a recently implemented program to monitor changes in soil and plant tissue chemistry in redwood trees receiving reclaimed irrigation water. This effort will also track tree health at control sites outside the area. Anticipated Data Needs: The Project Team will propose specific trees and plants for monitoring in detail as the reclaimed water project proceeds. 5 09064 Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C09131266 Proposed Deliverables: The Team will provide sets of digital photographs, field notes, and technical reports of findings and recommendations. Task 6. Dental Facility Inspections Most dental practices in the service area have been inspected at least once. Therefore, the Team will focus upon new offices that open; existing practices that are purchased by a new owner; and re- inspection of practices whose amalgam separator or best management practices (BMPs) need further review. Anticipated Data Needs: The RWQCP will furnish paper and electronic copies of dental facility data necessary to complete the inspections. Proposed Deliverables: The Team will provide file copies of all correspondence, completed inspection checklists, and vacuum system photographs for each site that is visited. Task 7. Project Management The Prime Contractor will use a project management system that will include the following: 09064 • Preparing a workplan during the first month of the project. This plan will show individual tasks together with budgets and actual costs for each. • Assigning specific tasks to each team member via work authorizations. These documents will establish the scope, deliverables, budget and schedule for each task. • Publishing monthly status reports. These reports will document key activities, work progress, RWQCP decisions, and budget status. • Updating the project plan. Scope and budget changes will be accumulated as the work proceeds, and will be reconciled every 6 months. • Attending periodic progress review meetings at which project accomplishments and issues will be discussed with R WQCP staff. • Administering subcontracts placed with members of the Project Team. 6 Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C09131266 EXHIBIT "B" SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perfonn the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days 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. 09064 Milestones 1. Attend project planning meetings with RWQCP staff and prepare a work plan deliverable: 2. Perfonnance of on-going services, as described in Exhibit "A": Completion No. of Days FromNTP 45 365 Professional Services Revised 10/18/07 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C09131266 EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services perfonned in accordance with the tenns and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-l. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit "An (UServices") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $99,000.00 per year. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $99,000.00 per year. Any work perfonned or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meaIs~ will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto's policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup infonnation. Any expense anticipated to be more than $50.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY's project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES 09064 The CONSULT ANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY's project manager's request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-l. 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. Professional Services Revised lO/lS/O? 09064 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C09131266 EXHIBIT "C-l" HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE CONSULTING TEAM HOURLY RATE Thomas Barron Stephanie Hughes Kelly Moran Nelda Matheny Ann Blake Alicia culver Susan Kegley 1 $150 $145 $150 $140 or 165 $140 $110 $60 or 150 Professional services Revised 10/18/07 Exhibit D ACORDT,. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE I DATE (MM/DDIYYYY) 6/5/2009 PRODUCER Phone: 213-787-1100 Fax: 213-787-1164 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION Frenkel & CO., Inc. ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE 725 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2200 HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Los Angeles CA 90017 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC# INSURED INSURER A; American Safetv Ind Co 25433 Thomas S. Barron, PE INSURERB; 3351 Beechwood Drive Lafayette CA 94549 INSURERC; INSURERD; INSURERE; COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR ~~~~ TR TYPEOFIN,mD, ,I''' POLICY NUMBER PJl.H~: EFFECTIVE Pgilf~ EXPIRATION LIMITS A X ~NERAL LIABILITY ENV003677-0B-05 12/9/200B 12/9/2010 EACH OCCURRENCE $1 000 000 -::=iMERCIAL GENERAL LIAEILITY ~~~~~~S YE~~~~~ncel $50 000 -CLAIMS MADE Ii] OCCUR MED EXP (Anyone person) $5 000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $1 000 000 - GENERAL AGGREGATE $1 -000 000 ilN'LAGG~EnE LIMIT APnS PER; PRODUCTS -COMP/OP AGG $1 000 000 X POLICY ~~8T LOC ~TOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ ANY AUTO (Ea accidenl) - ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY ,--(Per person) $ SCHEDULED AUTOS r-- r--HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accidenl) $ NON-OWNED AUTOS r-- r--PROPERTY DAMAGE $ (Per accidenl) RRAGE UABILITY AUTO ONLY-EA ACCIDENT $ ANY AUTO OTHER THAN EAACC $ AUTO ONLY; AGG $ EXCESSiUMBRELLA LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ o OCCUR D CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE $ $ R DEDUCTIBLE $ RETENTION $ $ WORKERS COMPENSATION AND I WCSTATU-I TORY LIMITS 10TH-ER EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETORIPARTNERlEXECUTIVE E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ OFFICERIMEMBER EXCLUDED? E.L. DISEASE -EA EMPLOYEE $ g~~~~~~~~~rs~~NS below E.L. DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT $ A OTHER ENV003677-0B-05 '12/9/200B 12/9/2010 Per Claim 1,000,000 Professional Liability Aggregate 1,000,000 Claims Made DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS IVEHICLES I EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT I SPECIAL PROVISIONS Certificate holder is added as an Additional Insured to the General Liability but only as respects all covered operations of the Named. Insured. RE: C09131266. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED City of Palo Alto BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE (10-DAY NOTICE Attn: Jose Arreola FOR NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM) TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED 250 Hamilton Ave, Mezzanine TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO Palo Alto CA 94301 OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE $~ -.C::-.-- ACORD 25 (2001108) ©ACORD CORPORATION 1988 IMPORTANT If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED. the policy(ies) must be endorsed. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED. subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). DISCLAIMER The Certificate of Insurance on the reverse side of this form does not constitute a contract between the issuing insurer(s). authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder. nor does it affirmatively or negatively amend. extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed thereon. ACORD 25 (2001/08) EXHIBIT E Attachment B Certification of Nondiscrimination As suppliers of goods or services to the City of Palo Alto, the firm and individuals listed below . certify that they do not discriminate In emplC¥TJent of any person because of race, skin cotor, gender. age. religion. disability, national origin. ancestry, sexual orlentation, housing status, marital status. fernY1a1 status. weight or height of auchperson; that they are In compliance with all Federal. State and local directives and executive orders regarding nondiscrimination In employment. 2. If Proposer Is PARTNERSH. or JOINT VeNTURE, at Iea8t (2) Partners or each of the Joint Venturers shaD sign here: Partnership or Joint Venture Name (type or print) Date: '--------Member of the PartnershIp or Jolnt Venture signature Date: ~----Member of the Partnership or Joint Venture sfgnature 3. If Proposer Is a CORPORATION. the duly authorIZed officer shall stgn 88 follows: The undersigned certify that they are: nue Of the corporation named below; that they are designated to sIgn the Proposal Cost Form by resolution (attach a certIfled copy. with corporate seal. If applicable. notarized as to its authenticity or Secretary's certificate of authorization) for and on behalf of the balow named CORPORATION, and that they are authorized to execute same for and on behalf of said CORPORATION. Corporation Name (type or print) By:, _____________ , Date: _____ _ City of Palo Alto -RFP131286 Psgaiof1 CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: JULY 6, 2009 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF TWO ORDINANCES: 1) REPEALING CHAPTER 16.17 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING TITLE 16 TO ADOPT A NEW CHAPTER 16.17, CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, 2008 EDITION; AND 2) REPEALING CHAPTER 16.18 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING TITLE 16 TO ADOPT A NEW CHAPTER 16.18, ESTABLISHING LOCAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS COVERED BY THE 2008 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE On June 29, California Energy Commission staff notified all cities and counties that the effective date of the 2008 California Energy Code and Building Energy Efficiency Standards has been changed from August 1,2009 to January 1, 2010. As a result, staff requests that this item be continued to a date uncertain. . LARRY I. RL , PE Chief Building Official CURTIS LIAMS Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 296:09 DATE: JULY 6, 2009 REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Apply the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District to a Half- Acre Site Zoned Multiple Family Residential (RM-40) to Allow Eight Residential Condominiums Above Ground Floor Office Space, a Below Grade Parking Garage, and Related Site Improvements at 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project is a mixed use development on a 19,862-square foot site having frontage on three streets located near the California Avenue Business District, with approximately 10,257 square feet of ground floor office and eight residential units above. This is the second request the City has processed for application of the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District zoning. The intent of the PTOD Zoning District is to facilitate mixed use and residential projects to encourage pedestrian and bicycle activity in transit oriented areas. Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend approval of the associated environmental document and rezoning with a requirement that the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan include transit passes for occupants/tenants. In addition, the PTC recommends project modifications to move the garage driveway away from Grant Avenue to access either Sheridan Avenue or Birch Street, in response to neighbor concerns for pedestrian safety. Study of such a project redesign has been analyzed and discussed further in the report, such that staff recommends that such a condition not be imposed and the driveway should remain on Grant Avenue. ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 296:09 Page 1 of 8 RECOMMENDATION The PTC recommends: 1. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 2. Adoption of an Ordinance (Attachment A) to change the zoning classification from RM-40 Multifamily zoning district to the California Avenue PTOD Combining District, including provisions to a) require the project to include a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) that requires the provision of transit passes for occupants/tenants (condition number 4f) and b) relocate the parking garage driveway entrance to Birch Street or Sheridan Avenue (condition number 4g). Staff also recommends approval of the rezoning, but recommends the deletion of condition number 4 regarding the driveway location. BACKGROUND The purpose of the PTOD Combining District is to facilitate higher density pedestrian and transit friendly developments to take advantage of the proximity to public transportation and the California Avenue Business District, while also protecting nearby historic resources. The PTOD Combining District specifically allows mixed use development, where residential and non- residential uses are combined, and can be applied to properties zoned R-1, CC(2), CN, GM, PF, RM-30 and RM-40 or with combining districts within the designated California Avenue PTOD boundary, as shown on the City’s approved zoning maps, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 18.08 and 18.80 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Once the PTOD Combining District is implemented, the development regulations of the PTOD Combining District would be applied to a development project in lieu of any underlying zoning designation. If development standards such as height and setbacks are not addressed in the regulations, the ARB has the discretion to determine the appropriate standards within the context of neighboring sites and buildings. Council Purview The rezoning of a site to the PTOD district may be initiated by the owner of an eligible property or may be initiated by a vote of the Commission or City Council. Rezoning applications to the PTOD district are processed in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.80, the standard rezoning process. The Commission review and City Council approval establishes the allowable or required use limits, such as types and mix of uses, and intensity, including density and floor area ratio. Following Council’s approval of a PTOD rezoning, the applicant can submit an application requesting architectural review approval for the new development. The development project would be reviewed by the ARB in accordance with the architectural review criteria and recommended to the Director of Planning and Community Environment pursuant to approval findings set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.76, and subject to the ARB finding the project will be consistent with the PTOD Combining District Context Based Design Criteria (PAMC Chapter 18.34.050). ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 296:09 Page 2 of 8 Project Description The proposed project is the redevelopment of five parcels, totaling approximately 19,862 square feet in size, with a new three-story mixed use building. The parcels are currently developed with three single-family homes and parking. The proposed building would consist of one level of below grade parking, 10,257 square feet of ground floor office space and 8 townhome style residential units above. The property would also include a small pocket park at the corner of Birch Street and Grant Avenue and four surface parking spaces accessible from a proposed driveway curb cut on Birch Street. A parking ramp accessible from Grant Avenue would be provided for vehicular access to the parking garage for 38 automobiles and up to 12 extra tandem spaces. The project would meet the requirement for 42 automobile parking spaces. Access to the office spaces would be provided from a central lobby accessible from the garage and Birch Street. This central lobby and elevator would also provide access to the residential units above. Additional pedestrian access would be provided to the residential units via stairs from both Birch Street and Sheridan Avenue. The two-story townhome style units would include five three-bedroom units and three two- bedroom units. Two of the three-bedroom units would include a room on the first level that could be used either as a den or a fourth bedroom. Common open space for residents would be provided through a courtyard on the second floor (podium level) and the pocket park at the corner of Birch Street and Grant Avenue. Each unit would also feature a balcony for private open space. The proposed office floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.52. The non-residential component of a mixed use project within a PTOD District is allowed a maximum FAR “cap” of 0.25. The project would exceed this cap by 0.27. The applicant’s stated purpose in proposing greater non-residential FAR is to accommodate a large enough commercial ground floor to support the eight residential units above. The applicant requests a Government Code Section 65915 (also known as SB1818) “concession” to exceed the non-residential FAR cap that would otherwise require approval of a variance. This provision allows applicants to request and receive up to three “concessions” as incentives from the appropriate decision making bodies for the construction of affordable housing. Incentives may involve exceptions to open space, height, parking, FAR or similar standards. Staff believes this concession is allowed by State law as the applicant is providing one unit of affordable housing and is appropriate for balanced land use and design. Prior Review The Architectural Review Board (ARB) held a preliminary review of the project’s conceptual development plans on August 7, 2008. A PTC hearing on the review of the rezoning request was held on April 15, 2009. A detailed description of the hearings is included later this report. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The PTC formally reviewed the zoning request on April 15, 2009. Seven members of the public spoke on the project. Primary concerns included traffic impacts and the request for parking reductions. Other concerns regarding the project included impacts on light, trees, mix of uses, ground water contamination and open space. Some members of the public voiced specific ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 296:09 Page 3 of 8 concerns regarding the driveway proposed on Grant Avenue because of the numbers of senior citizens that live nearby who would use Grant Avenue to access the California Avenue shopping area. The PTC voted 4-2-1 (Garber, Tuma, Rosati and Holman voting yes; Keller and Fineberg voting no; Lippert absent) to recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Zoning Ordinance with two modifications: 1) the driveway to the garage be relocated from Grant Ave. to Birch St. or Sheridan Ave., due to concerns about the safety of turning movements, given the proximity of the driveway to Birch/Grant intersection; and 2) that a TDM program, to include transit passes, be submitted to reduce trips and parking for the site. The TDM plan/transit pass modification has already been addressed by the applicant, who has provided a revised TDM plan including transit passes for occupants/residents. Staff notes that elsewhere in this report that staff believes that there is not a safety concern with the driveway, the volumes are minimal, and alternative driveway locations are not practical, and therefore recommends the driveway remain as proposed (on Grant Ave.). The staff report and minutes of the PTC meeting are attached (Attachment H). A preliminary ARB hearing was held on August 7, 2008 for a design review of the conceptual project. The preliminary review is consistent with the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.34.060(d), which states that a single preliminary ARB review may be allowed in advance of PTC consideration of a PTOD rezoning request. The ARB was supportive of the project concept and offered minor comments toward the improvement of the design. However, the ARB did not support use of the Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) process to allow the project to exceed the 0.25:1 maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the non-residential portion of the building. In response to the ARB’s lack of support for use of the DEE process, the applicant is now requesting the non-residential FAR exception as a “concession” under Government Code Section 65915 State Density Bonus law (also known as SB1818) for providing below market rate housing units. DISCUSSION The proposed rezoning ordinance (Attachment A), specifically section 4, identifies all allowable uses and intensities for this proposal as required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code. As mentioned above, there was focused PTC discussion on items such as driveway safety and parking. Staff and the PTC differ on the recommendation for the driveway and this is discussed further below. Driveway The Birch Street driveway provides access only to four surface parking spaces on the north side of the project site. The second driveway, providing access to the underground garage, is located on Grant Avenue, near the corner shared with Birch Street. During the initial review, staff had determined that, with maintenance of sight lines near the corner, the proposed Grant Avenue driveway location would provide for safe vehicle operations and pedestrian movement. However, several members of the public expressed safety concerns over the proximity of the driveway to the corner because of potential conflicts with pedestrians; therefore, the PTC responded with its recommendation for the driveway relocation to Birch Street or Sheridan ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 296:09 Page 4 of 8 Avenue. Following the PTC hearing, staff reviewed the Grant Avenue proposal again, along with the two potential new locations. Staff does not recommend Birch Street for the location of the main driveway leading to below grade parking because additional vehicular conflicts would occur due to the street’s higher traffic volumes, raised median, and because the street also provides a direct link to connectors to and from Oregon Expressway. Although a driveway on Sheridan Avenue would be feasible, it would not provide any safety improvements over the Grant Avenue location. Given the proposed number of parking spaces and anticipated low traffic volumes, the location of the Grant Avenue driveway would not generate a safety hazard. Staff will continue to work with the applicant during the ARB review of the project to ensure that sight lines will be maintained and other safety measures, such as mirrors, will be incorporated into the project. Because relocating the driveway to Sheridan Avenue would not improve safety, staff continues to support the project’s main driveway location on Grant Avenue and recommends that such a relocation condition be deleted from the rezoning conditions. The applicant has also responded to the driveway relocation recommendation. The applicant is requesting that the driveway to the parking garage be allowed to remain on Grant Avenue because this location would maximize the use of the parking garage and number of potential parking spaces. The applicant states that relocating the driveway to Birch Street would create a garage configuration that would be unusable or at best would result in the loss of 12 parking spaces and the deletion of the corner pocket park. The applicant has prepared site plans examining the impacts of moving the driveway, included as Attachment F. The applicant also believes that moving the driveway to Birch Street would create a more dangerous situation because it would force cars onto a much busier street. The applicant has submitted a letter prepared by transportation consultant Fehr & Peers summarizing the traffic conflicts that may be caused by relocating the driveway (Attachment F). Parking Regulations The project includes the provision of 42 total parking spaces, consisting of four surface parking spaces and 38 garage spaces. The applicant requests two parking requirement adjustments, for ‘joint use’ and ‘housing near transit,’ permitted by PAMC Chapter 18.52.050 for a maximum of combined reduction of 30%. Without the adjustments, the required parking would total 60 spaces. If the adjustments are granted, the proposed number of spaces would meet the revised required parking total of 42 spaces. Staff concurs with the adjustments, given the mix of uses, the proximity to transit, and the proposed TDM measures. The project also includes four tandem parking spaces for the residential units. The four tandem spaces meet the 25% maximum tandem spaces allowed by PAMC Chapter 18.52 for multi-family buildings. An additional 12 tandem parking spaces would be available if needed. The parking counts in the plan set have been revised by the applicant in response to a clarification request from the PTC. The proposed parking spaces would meet the requirements of PAMC Chapter 18.52, as indicated in the Table 1 on the following page. ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 296:09 Page 5 of 8 Table 1: Parking Required Reduction Proposed Per PAMC Revised Total Proposed Conforms Residential Two spaces/unit Guest spaces 16 2 20% for Housing Near Transit (30% combined max) 12 12 Yes Office One space/250 square feet 42 20% total for Joint Use and TDM (30% combined max) 30 30 Yes Total 60 30% combined max 42 42* Yes *Plus 12 additional tandem spaces. RESOURCE IMPACT The sales of the residential units and lease of the office spaces from the proposed project will generate additional annual General Fund resources in the form of property, sales, and utility user taxes. Total revenues from these sources are projected to equal approximately $12,000 per year. In addition, one-time documentary transfer tax revenues are estimated in the $30,000 range. One-time impact fees would be $333,800, and in-lieu (below-market rate) fees would be $180,000, bringing total one-time revenues associated with the project to $543,800. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The site is located within the Transit Oriented Residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan, which is applicable to projects within walking distance (2,000 feet) from a Caltrain station. The land use category is intended to generate residential densities that support substantial use of public transportation and especially use of Caltrain. The project, as proposed, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations and supports the City’s policy objectives for pedestrian and transit oriented development. The project site is part of six parcels collectively identified as Housing Opportunity Site (HOS) 8-06 on the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Sites Inventory. Given the mix of office and commercial uses in the area, it was anticipated in the current Housing Element that a minimum density of 15 dwelling units would be redeveloped. Because the subject parcel is approximately 20% smaller without the sixth parcel, the minimum density would be proportionately reduced to 12 dwelling units. The applicant proposes eight dwelling units, four less than the anticipated minimum. Because the City of Palo Alto has permitted 316 more dwelling units than the 1,397 units identified in the Housing Element, the eight dwelling units requested to be permitted as part ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 296:09 Page 6 of 8 of this project would not adversely affect the total amount of housing to be built within this Housing Element cycle. As noted in this report and described in greater detail in the April 15, 2009 PTC report, the applicant requests a State Density Bonus law “concession” to exceed the non-residential FAR cap limitation. Government Code Section 65915 (also known as SB1818) allows applicants to requests such concessions when below market rate housing units are included in a project. The “concession” would not be contrary to the intent of the PTOD zoning. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Mitigated Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental issues as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was circulated for a 20-day public review period from April 6, 2009 to April 26, 2009. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are provided as Attachment H. No comments from the public or other agencies have been received. Staff has recommended mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise, which would lessen potential impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigations include measures to protect trees and to prevent exposure to Trichloroethylene (TCE) during construction and for future occupants. The conditions of approval and mitigation measures would be applied to the Major Architectural Review approval, not the zoning. PREPARED BY: __________________________________ ELENA LEE Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD: __________________________________ CURTIS WILLIAMS Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: __________________________________ JAMES KEENE City Manager ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Ordinance B. Draft Initial Study and Draft MND C. Location Map D. Development Standards Table E. Applicant’s project description* F. Applicant’s study of relocation of the Grant Avenue driveway and TDM measures* G. Transportation Staff Memo regarding the driveway relocation H Applicant’s Green Building Checklists* I. Applicant’s response to Mitigation Measures in the Draft MND* ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 296:09 Page 7 of 8 ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 296:09 Page 8 of 8 J. PAMC Chapter 18.34 PTOD Regulations K. California Avenue PTOD Boundary Map L. April 15, 2009 PTC staff report and minutes (w/o attachments) M. August 7, 2008 ARB staff report (w/o attachments) N. Public Correspondences O. Conceptual Plans (Commission only)* * Submitted by Applicant COURTESY COPIES: NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A Ordinance No. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to Change the Zone Designation for 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue from RM-40 Multi- Fanlily to the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows: (A) The Planning and Transportation Commission ("Commission"), after a duly noticed public hearing on April 15, 2009, has recommended that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("Council") rezone the subject site (305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue) to the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD) zone designation; (B) The Planning and Transportation Con1ll1ission has reviewed the facts presented at the public hearing, including public testimony and reports and recommendations from the direct()r of planning and community environment or other appropriate city staff. (C) The Planning and Transportation Commission finds that the subject site is within the PTOD boundary. (D) The Planning and Transportation Commission finds that rezoning the parcel to the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD) zoning is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site is Multiple Family and within the Cal-Ventura Mixed Use Area. (E) The Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the nlatter on July 6,2009, and has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project and all other relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter. SECTION 2. The Council finds that the public interest, health and welfare require an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto as set forth in Section 3. 1 090623 syn 0120370 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to place the subject site (305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue) in the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD) zoning regulations. SECTION 4. The City Council further determines that the rezoning is subject to the following limitations: a. The development shall be a mixed use project comprising of ground floor office uses with residential use on the upper floors; b. Office uses on the ground floor shall comprise approximately 10,257 square feet; c. A minimum of eight (8) residential units shall be provided, totaling approximately 14,534 square feet in area; d. The maximum building height shall not exceed 40 feet; e. A minimum of 42 parking spaces shall be provided; f. A Transportation Demand l\1anagenlent Program shall be included that requires the provision of transit passes for all occupants/tenants; and g. The parking garage driveway shall be relocated away from Grant Avenue. These limitations shall be recorded as conditions on the property, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and Planning Director. Modifications to these conditions may be approved by the Planning Director only to the extent that increases or decreases do not exceed 10% of the allowable outlined in parts (b) and (c) and remain in compliance with all other zoning requirements. SECTION 5. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the California Environnlental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that no potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the property; therefore, the project would have no significant impact on the environment. II II II II 2 090623 syn 0120370 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31 st) day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney 090623 syn 0120370 3 APPROVED: City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment ATTACHMENT B 'Ci ty of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329;2441 FAX (650) 329-2154 www.cityofpaloalto.orq Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration A notice, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended' (Public Resources C d 21 000 ) h 1 £ 11' . '11 h "fi f£ h . 0 e , , et sec. t at tle 0 owmg project WI not ave a sIgnI Icant e ect on t e enVIronment. File N'uniber I'TAZ ·A:WN,;f$.j· '. IDh.t~ . , .: .. , . .'."., ..... 08PLN-00182 I 132-36-074,-020,-070,-069,-073 I 04-03-09 . Prot~ct Name "1?~~J,,~~t;ry!pe "" :., '. ,":' ..... Birch Plaza Rezoning to PTOD, Architectural Review and Subdivision ·QwQ~r·. .. ';' f:~pttl~~ti,lil( , '. ',., .', .... "':'.' . .". '.: .. ' ,'. '.", ',' .; . ': ;.., Couff House Plaza David Solnick Hrql~¢.t,lj()c~HiQn . :: ':'..>:, :;:>." .':' .... '.' , ""'::'.:: ..• >.:"': .:\ " .. :": .. ,., " ." 2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 305 Grant Avenue, 306 & 320 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto, CA " ProJect Besc ripti 0 n .... Zone change from the existing RM -40 zoning to the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD) Overlay District, to allow for a mixed use development consisting of eight residential condominiums above 10,257 square feet of ground floor office space, below grade parking and related site improvements. J?1I rposeQfN otice . : . ".' Notice is hereby given that a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment for the project listed above. In accordance with A.B. 866, this document will be available for review and comment during a minimum 20-day inspection period. Public Review Period: IUegins: Apr;H6,2Q09 ,I' .End'~:·Aprj]:·~6,"20Q9 Public Comments regarding the correctness, completeness, or adequacy of this negative declaration are invited and must be received on or before the hearing date. Such comments should be based on specific environmental concerns. Written comments should be addressed to the City of Palo Alto. Oral COlnments may be made at the hearing. A file containing additional information on this project may be reviewed at the Planning Office under the file number appearing at the top of this form. For additional information regarding this project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, please contact Elena Lee at (650) 617-3196 The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study may be viewed at th~following locations: (1) Palo Alto Planning Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (2) Palo Alto Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Responsible Agencies sent a copy of this docl,lment County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder Mitigation Measures included BRihe project to Jredqcepoten~~~ny~Jgn.i&¢antiIn:pacts to a]ess~than significant level: .. .. . .. . . . Mitigation Measure D-l To assure the street trees will grow to expected size and life span, engineered soil mix base for new sidewalk will provide additional root growing area as compensation for proximity to podium structure limitations. ENGINEERED SOIL MIX (ESM). Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas to achieve normal shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the parking surface and curbs in parking and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering Specifications, Section 30 and Detail #604, designate the areas with cross-hatch symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The teclmology should be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED certification rating. Mitigation Measure D-2 The existing mature street tree near the proposed ramp shall be carefully evaluated for custom safety measures or replacement according to the City Arborist requirements. Mitigation Measure D-3 To maintain the health· of the tree, the following measures recommended by the Tree Protection Report, prepared by any excavation within the tree dripline shall be done by hand or air digging to a depth of 30 inches. Pruning of roots greater than 1-112 inches in diameter shall be supervised by a qualified arborist. Appropriate barricades shall be installed around the tree during construction. Preventive pruning of canopies to remove dead wood shall occur prior to construction. A program of fertilization for the tree shall be implemented in the spring and summer. These measures will be included as conditions of approval. Street trees would be protected to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, based upon the requirements of the City of Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual and the City's Tree Ordinance. Mitigation Measure D-4 An updated arborist report shall be provided with the Architectural Review application. Mitigation Measure G-l The proposed building footprint shall avoid covering the area of bore B4, as identified in the Phase II report prepared for the Birch Plaza Project. During the construction phase of this area, PID screening, inspection, and/or possibly sampling should be performed where elevated tricholorethylene (TCE) contamination in soil- gas was detected. If excavated soil is found, it should be appropriately screen, profiled and disposed of based on the result of the analyses. This work shall be performed by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto. Mitigation Measure G-2 Prior to the submittal of a building pennit, indoor air intrusion risk modeling shall be prepared and submitted to the City for approval to alleviate regulatory concern about the potential for impacts from the one data point where soil-gas concentrations were above the regulatory environmental screening levels. Mitigation Measure G-3 In accordance with Cal/OSHA regulations, a registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) prior to disturbance during demolition activities. All ACM removal shall be undertaken in accordance with applicable regulations using engineering controls, trained personnel, and work methods that reduce the impact to the environment and protect workers from exposure to asbestos. A reporting or lTIonitoring program must be adopted for measures to mitigate significant impacts at the time the Mitigated Negative Declaration is approved, in accord with the requirements of section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Prepared by: Approved by: WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS INITIAL EV ALUATIONIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED APRIL 3, 2009, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS BIRCH PLAZA, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Applicant's Signature CQurf-Hsllffi Plaza /-/6 /;.j & Ar .!d Harold Hobach C; 2)" Mitigation Measure D-l Summary of Mitigation Measures To assure the street trees will grow to expected size and life span, engineered soil mix base for new sidewalk will provide additional root growing area as compensation for proximity to podium structure limitations. ENGINEERED SOIL MIX (ESM). Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas to achieve normal shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the parking surface and curbs in parking and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering Specifications, Section 30 and Detail #604, designate the areas with cross-hatch symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The technology should be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED certification rating. Mitigation Measure D-2 The existing mature street tree near the proposed ramp shall be carefully evaluated for custom safety measures or replacement according to the City Arborist requirements. Mitigation Measure D-3 To maintain the health of the tree, the following measures recommended by the Tree Protection Report, prepared by any excavation within the tree drip line shall be done by hand or air digging to a depth of 30 inches. Pruning of roots greater than 1-1/2 inches in diameter shall be supervised by a qualified arborist. Appropriate barricades shall be installed around the tree during construction. Preventive pruning of canopies to remove dead wood shall occur prior to construction. A program of fertilization for the tree shall be implemented in the spring and summer. These measures will be included as conditions of approval. Street trees would be protected to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, based upon the requirements of the City of Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual and the City's Tree Ordinance. Mitigation Measure D-4 An updated arborist report shall be provided with the Architectural Review application. Mitigation Measure G-l The proposeg building footprint shall avoid covering the area of bore B4, as identified in the Phase II report prepared for the Birch Plaza Project. During the construction phase of this area, PID screening, inspection, and/or possibly sampling should be performed where elevated tricholorethylene (TCE) contamination in soil-gas was detected. If excavated soil is found, it should be appropriately screen, profiled and disposed of based on the result of the analyses. This work shall be performed by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto. 1 Mitigation Measure G-2 Prior °to the submittal of a building permit, indoor air intrusion risk modeling shall be prepared and submitted to the City for approval to alleviate regulatory concern about the potential for impacts from the one data point where soil-gas concentrations were above the regulatory environmental screening levels. Mitigation Measure G-3 In accordance with Cal/OSHA regulations, a registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) prior to disturbance during demolition activities. All ACM removal shall be undertaken in accordance with applicable regulations using engineering controls, trained personnel, and work methods that reduce the impact to the environment and protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Mitigation Measure G-4 In conformance with state regulations, all flaking and peeling lead-based paint shall be removed from structures proposed for demolition, and shall be handled, packaged, and disposed of as hazardous waste. The project shall comply with Cal- OSHA requirements to protect workers from exposure to lead. Requirements include worker training, proper hygiene 0 practices, air monitoring and other controls. Mitigation Measure K-l All noise producing equipment placed at grade shall be include installation of sound-isolating, sound absorbing barrier or enclosure to reduce noise impacts to achieve the City's Noise Ordinance requirements. Mitigation Measure K-2 All roof mounted equipment shall be place a minimum of 20 feet from the residential property line. Mitigation Measure K-3 A noise report prepared by a qualified professional shall be submitted with the Architectural Review application. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. PROJECT TITLE Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project Palo Alto, California 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Elena Lee City of Palo Alto (650)617-3196 4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS David Solnick David Solnick Architect 212 High Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 5. APPLICATION NUMBER 08PLN-00182 6. PROJECT LOCATION 2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 305 Grant A venue, 306 & 320 Sheridan A venue Palo Alto, CA Parcel Numbers: 132-36-074, -020, -070, -070, -069,-073 The project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east of State Route 82 (EI CalPino Real), as shown on Figure 1, Regional Map. The site is located on the southwest side of Birch Street, between Grant Avenue and Sheridan Avenue, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map. Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration 70 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The project site is designated as Multiple Family Residential in the Palo Alto ] 998 -20] 0 Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation includes a residential density range of 8 to 40 units and 8- 90 persons per acre. The actual permitted number of housing units can vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping centers and environmental problems. Higher densities than what is permitted by zoning may be allowed where measureable community uses will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be con1patible with the overall Comprehensive Plan. The site is located in the Cal-Ventura Mixed Use Area. Policy L-31 states that the Cal-Ventura area should be developed as a well-designed mixed use district with diverse land uses, two-to three-story buildings, and a network of pedestrian oriented streets providing links to California Avenue. The site is within the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit- Oriented District (PTOD) designation, which makes the site eligible for the PTOD Combining District. 8~ ZONING The project site is zoned RM-40, Multi-Family residential. The RM-40 zone district is designed to accommodate high density multiple-family residences. Permitted densities in the RM-40 residence district range from 31 to 40 dwelling units per acre. Eating and drinking services and neighborhood serving persona] and retail services may be allowed with a conditional use permit in the RM-40 Zoning District as part of a single residential development containing at least 40 dwelling units. The proposed PTOD combining district allows higher density residential dwellings, including mixed uses, on commercial, industrial and multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station. It specifically fosters densities and facilities that encourage a variety of housing types, commercial, retail, and limited office uses. However, the District has a floor area cap for the non- residential portion of a mixed use. The office component is allowed to have a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25. The proposed project would include approximately 10,257 sq. ft. of office use, for a total floor area ratio of 0.52, which would exceed the cap by 0.27. According to the applicant, the purpose of designing the larger non-residential FAR is to accommodate a large enough commercial ground floor to support eight two-story residences above. Per the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a Variance would be required to accommodate the project. Because the project includes at least 10% Below Market Rate units/in lieu fee combination, the applicant is requesting to receive an exception to the non-residential FAR cap as an incentive per State Density Bonus legislation, SB 1818, which amended section 65915 of the Government Code. SB 1818 allows applicants to request and receive up to three exceptions as incentives from the appropriate decision making bodies for the construction of affordable housing. Incentives can involve exceptions to open space, height, parking, FAR or similar standards. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 305 Grant Avenue, 306 & 320 Sheridan Avenue [08PLN-00182]: Request by David Solnick on behalf of Court House Plaza Company for a zone change from the existing RM -40 zoning to the California A venue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development COlTlbining District (PTOD) Overlay District, to allow for a mixed use development consisting of eight residential condominiums above 10,257 square feet of ground floor office space, below grade parking and related site improvements. The proposed Birch Plaza project ("proposed project") would be located at 2640 and 2650 Birch Street, 305 Grant Avenue and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue within the Multi-Family RM-40 zoning district. The project site is comprised of five parcels that occupy an entire block on the southern side of Birch Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration Street, between Sherman Avenue and Grant Avenue. The site is located approximately 1,000 feet southeasterly of the California Avenue Caltrain station and approximately 650 feet southeasterly of California Avenue. The site is approximately 19,862 square feet in size and is currently developed with three single-family homes. Should a rezoning be approved, the applicant's proposal is to construct a new three-story mixed use office/residential building. The building would consist of a below grade parking garage and a podium structure containing 10,257 sq. ft. of ground floor office space and eight two-story townhomes above the podium. Access to the underground parking garage would be provided via a ramp on the pan handle shaped parcel to the northwest from Grant Avenue. The garage would provide 31 parking spaces, up to 8 pairs of tandem parking spaces, mechanical equipment storage and bicycle parking. Three at grade parking spaces would be provided as well with separate access from Birch Street. Separate pedestrian entries are provided to the two office units from Birch Street. Pedestrian entry to the residential units above would be provided from Sheridan Avenue. An elevator is provided from the garage to the first and second floors in the center of the site. The two-story townhomes that would occupy the second and third floors of the building comprise five three-bedroom units and three two-bedroom units. Two of the three-bedroom units would have a room on the ground floor that can be used as either a study or a fourth bedroom. Open space for residents would be provided through a courtyard above the offices, which will also provide individual entries to the townhomes. The building is proposed to be 40 feet tall with storefront glass and a stone/concrete tile fa9ade at the ground floor level. The residential component would be differentiated by stucco and vertical yellow cedar walls. The residential units would have painted wood trim, dual-glazed aluminum windows and private balconies. The applicant is proposing to reconfigure existing sidewalks to accommodate park strips with new street trees. Approvals Required Approval of the proposed project would consist of the following entitlements: (1) Rezoning the site from RM-40 to the PTOD Combining District, (2) Major Architectural Review pursuant 18.76.020, (3) one concession per State Density Bonus law, and (4) Subdivision Map to subdivide the lot for the purposes of creating commercial and residential condominiums. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The property is located in a fully developed part of the City. Surrounding uses include a County court house on the other side of Birch Street to the north and commercial/office uses to the north and northeast. The remainder of the uses to the east, south and west are primarily multi-family residential buildings. The site is located approximately 1,000 feet southeasterly of the California Avenue Caltrain station. II. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES • County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder • County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health • Santa Clara Valley Water District Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMP ACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the infonnation sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).] 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) hnpacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is ilnplemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated a) Substantially degrade the existing visual x character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1,2,6 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a J public view or view corridor? 1, x MapL4 c) Substantial1y damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within 1, x a state scenic highway? MapL4 d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan x policies regarding visual resources? e) Create a new source of substantial light or x glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1,2,6 f) Substantially shadow public open space x (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to M~rch 21 ? DISCUSSION: The project has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding development on this block of Birch Street. The proposed project is subject to the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board review and compliance with the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, the PTOD Context Based Design Criteria, and Comprehensive Plan policies. The proposed project is infill development in a fully developed area of the City. The building will have a height of 40 feet, which meets the maximum height requirement for both the existing RM-40 and proposed PTOD zoning designations. There are other multi-story buildings within the vicinity of the site. The new building will be designed with attractive facades and add pedestrian interest to the streetscape. The redevelopment of the site may result in negligible increase in light and glare generated from additional lighting of the site. However, the City'S standard conditions of approval will ensure that the impacts will be less than significant. The condition of approval will require that all exterior lights will be shielded and not extend beyond the site. With the required architectural review, the proposed building will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings, therefore no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: None Required Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In detennining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and fannland. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No a) b) c) Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 1 Monitoring Program of the California x Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,8- use, or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9, x Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of 1 x Farmland, to non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: The site is not located in a "Prime Fannland", "Unique Fannland", or "Fannland of Statewide hnportance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Fannland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None Required C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially . Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation x ofthe applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay 1,2,3 Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute x substantially to an existing or projected air 1,2,3 quality violation indicated by the following: i. Direct and/or indirect operational x emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page6 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No c) d) e) f) Significant Significant Significant Impact· Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10); ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) x concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be perfonned when a) project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b) proj ect traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c) project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an x applicable federal or state ambient air quality 1,2,3 standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors )? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels x of toxic air contaminants? 1,2,3 1. Probability of contracting cancer for the x Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) exceeds lOin one million ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-x carcinogenic T ACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEl Create objectionable odors affecting a x substantial number of people? 1 Not implement all applicable construction x emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? DISCUSSION: The subject site is in a developed area of mixed uses including commercial retail, office and residential uses in the Cal-Ventura Area. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the property is not located in an area that contains uses or activities that are major pollutant emitters. The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on air quality. The project may result in temporary dust emissions during demolition, grading and construction activities. The impacts are expected to be greatest during demolition. Therefore, conditions of approval, incorporated as part of an approved demolition and construction management plan secured before building permit issuance. Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 7 Mitigated Negative Declaration The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust related construction impacts: • All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. • All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of freeboard. • All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept and watered daily. • Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance of a demolition pennit. • Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. The standard conditions would result in impacts that are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional 1,8-x plans, policies, or regulations, or by the MapNll California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 7 I b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, 1,8-x policies, regulations, including federally MapNl protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? c) Interfere substantially with the movement of x any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or 1,8- migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use MapNl of native wildlife nursery sites? 17 d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances x protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of 1,2,3 Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.] O)? e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community I x Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 1,2,3 regional, or state habitat conservation plan? I Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potential1y Potential1y Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated DISCUSSION: The project site is located in an established urban area with no riparian or tree habitat for the candidate, sensitive, or special status species in the area. No endangered, threatened, or rare animals, insects and plant species have been identified at this site. The proposed project includes protection measures for the one protected tree located on the project site per the Palo Alto Tree Preservation Ordinance. The existing City tree is planted in the park strip near the proposed ramp to the below grade parking garage. The applicant has submitted an arborist report assessing the impact on the tree. The report concludes that the proposed ramp will not endanger the tree. To maintain the health of the tree, the report recommends several measures, including requiring that any excavation within the tree dripline be done by hand or air, digging to a depth of 30 inches, requiring that pruning of roots greater than 1-1/2 inches in diameter be supervised' by a qualified arborist, installation of appropriate barricades around the tree during construction, preventive pruning of canopies to remove dead wood prior to construction and implementing a program of fertilization in the spring and summer. These measures will be included as conditions of approval. Street trees would be protected to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, based· upon the requirements of the City of Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual. The conditions of approval would result in impacts that are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure D-l To assure the street trees will grow to expected size and life span, engineered soil mix base for new sidewalk will provide additional root growing area as compensation for proximity to podium structure limitations. ENGINEERED SOIL MIX (ESM). Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas to achieve normal shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the parking surface and curbs in parking and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering Specifications, Section 30 and Detail #604, designate the areas with cross-hatch symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The technology should be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED certification rating. Mitigation Measure D-2 The existing mature street tree near the proposed ramp shall be carefully evaluated for custom safety measures or replacement according to the City Arborist requirements. Mitigation Measu re D-3 To maintain the health of the tree, the following measures recommended by the Tree Protection Report, prepared by any excavation within the tree dripline shall be done by hand or air digging to a depth of 30 inches. Pruning of roots greater than 1-112 inches in diameter shall be supervised by a qualified arborist. Appropriate barricades shall be installed around the tree during construction. Preventive pruning of canopies to remove dead wood shall occur prlor to construction. A program of fertilization for the tree shall be implemented in the spring and summer. These measures will be included as conditions of approval. Street trees would be protected to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, based upon the requirements of the City of Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual and the City's Tree Ordinance. Mitigation Measure D-4 An updated arborist report shall be provided with the Architectural Review application. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 9 Mitigated Negative Declaration E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No a) b) c) d) e) f) Significant Significant Significant Impact WouJd the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? x Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource 1,8-x pursuant to 15064.5? MapL8 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique 1,8-x geologic feature? MapL8 Disturb any human remains, including those 1,8- interred outside of formal cemeteries? MapL8 x Adversely affect a historic resource listed or x eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City's 1,2,8- Historic Inventory? MapL7 Eliminate important examples of major periods x of California history or prehistory? DISCUSSION: The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is in a moderate archaeological resource sensitivity zone. Most of the City area east of Interstate 280 is designated in this zone. Although existing and historic development has altered the native landscape, the potential exists that now-buried Native American sites could be uncovered in future planning area construction. The site has not been designated as a historic resource. If archaeological materials are discovered the applicant would be required to perform additional testing and produce an Archaeological Monitoring and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) to be approved prior to the start of construction. The standard condition, detailed below, will reduce this potential to less than significant. If during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner's office shall be notified to provide property direction on how to proceed. If any Native American Resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease imn1ediately after until a Native American descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning Mitigation Measures: None Required. Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 10 Mitigated Negative Declaration F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the See risk of loss, injury, or death involving: below i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, x as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on 1,2 other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 8-MapN-x 10 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 8-MapN5 x iv) Landslides? 8-MapN5 x b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1 x c) Result in substantial siltation? x d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral 8-MapN5 x spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Unifonn Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to 8-MapN5 x life or property? f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems 1 where sewers are not available for the x disposal of waste water? g) Expose people or property to major x geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety technigues? Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration DISCUSSION: The entire state of California is in a seismically active area. According to the Comprehensive Plan the project site is not in an area that is subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake or in an area subject to expansive soils, surface rupture, liquefaction, or earthquake induced landslides. Development of the proposed project would be required to conform to all requirements in the Uniform Building Code, which includes provisions to ensure that the design and construction of all buildings includes provisions to resist damage from earthquakes to the extent feasible and acceptable. All on-site soils on the project site are suitable for use as fill provided that the large pieces of concrete, brick, old pipes and other buried debris is removed. To support the at grade structure on a shallow foundation, th'e upper 2.5 feet of existing fill within the building footprint and all the undocumented deeper and buried debris will be removed and re-worked. The potential onsite exposure to geological hazards wil1 therefore be less than significant. No mitigation is required. The entire site is mostly developed and is fairly flat. Substantial or permanent changes to the site topography are not expected. Standard conditions of approval require submittal of a final grading and drainage plan for the project for approval by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The application of standard grading, drainage, and erosion control measures as a part of the approved grading and drainage plan is expected to avoid any grading-related impacts. The project will not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Mitigation Measures: None Required. G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, x or disposal of hazardous materials? 6,8,9,12 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the x release of hazardous materials into the 6,8,9,12 environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or x waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or 1,6,8,9, proposed school? 12 d) Construct a school on a property that is subject x to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 1,6,8,8-x result, would it create a significant hazard to MapN9, the public or the environment? 12 f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 12 Mitigated Negative Declaration g) h) i) j) adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a x safety hazard for people residing or working in 1 the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety x hazard for peop Ie residing or working the 1 project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response 1,8- plan or emergency evacuation plan? MapN7, x 12 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to x urbanized areas or where residences are 8-MapN7 intermixed with wildlands? Create a significant hazard to the public or the 8,9,12 x environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site? DISCUSSION: Stellar Environmental Solutions prepared a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and a Phase II Site Investigation Report for the project. Both documents have been reviewed and accepted by hazardous materials experts in the Fire Department and Public Works. The Phase I report revealed that based on the age of the building that interior and exterior building materials likely contain asbestos and potentially lead- based paints. The residential site is not documented as having been a user, transporter or generator of hazardous materials. However, there is documentation that the subject property has groundwater contamination by volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The source of the groundwater contamination is a plume from the Hewlett PackardlVarian manufacturing plant located at 395 Page Mill Road, approximately 400 feet southeast of the project site. The groundwater contamination is referred to as the COE HP/Varian plume. The VOC plume has been the subject of investigation and remediation since 1981 by both HP and Varian. Studies of the most recent groundwater monitoring data have determined that the concentrations found are below the threshold that would trigger the requirement for additional soil-vapor sampling. Thus, it was determined that soil-vapor intrusion is unlikely. Because of the plume and the Phase I recommendation, additional soil samples were collected on the subject site and docun1ented in a Phase II report. The Phase II report concluded that groundwater contamination is below the threshold for concern. The consultant concluded that the detected VOC contamination in the site groundwater and soil-gas pose no potential for health-related impacts to vicinity or site occupants. Only one of the several borings, boring B4, was determined to require special protection for excavation. The mitigations identified below will reduce all impacts to less than significant levels for VOC contamination, asbestos and lead- based paint. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure G-l The proposed building footprint shall avoid covering the area of bore B4, as identified in the Phase II report prepared for the Birch Plaza Project. During the construction phase of this area, PID screening, inspection, and/or possibly sampling should be performed where elevated tricholorethylene (TCE) contamination in soil-gas was detected. If excavated soil is found, it should be appropriately screen, profiled and disposed of based on the result Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 13 Mitigated Negative Declaration of the analyses. This work sha11 be performed by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto. Mitigation Measure G-2 Prior to the submittal of a building permit, indoor air intrusion risk modeling shall be prepared and submitted to the City for approval to alleviate regulatory concern about the potential for impacts from the one data point where soil-gas concentrations were above the regulatory environmental screening levels. Mitigation Measure G-3 In accordance with CallOSHA regulations, a registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) prior to disturbance during demolition activities. All ACM removal shall be undertaken in accordance with applicable regulations using engineering controls, trained personnel, and work methods that reduce the impact to the environment and protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Mitigation Measure G-4 In conformance with state regulations, aU flaking and peeling lead-based paint shall be removed from structures proposed for demolition, and shall be handled, packaged, and disposed of as hazardous waste. The project shall comply with Cal-OSHA requirenlents to protect workers from exposure to lead. Requirements include worker training, proper hygiene practices, air monitoring and other controls. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1,8,9,12 x b) Substantial1y deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local 8,9 groundwater table level (e.g., the production 8-MapN2 rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? x c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial x erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1,2,8,9, 12 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration surface runoff in a manner which would result 1,2,8,9, x in flooding on-or off-site? 12 e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted 1,2,12 x runoff? f) Otherwise substantia11y degrade water quality? 1,2,12 x g) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard h) i) j) k) area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1,12 x Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect 8-x flood flows? MapN6, 12 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a 8-MapN6 levee or dam or being located within a lOO-year N8,12 x flood hazard area? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow? 8-MapN6 x N8,12 Result in stream bank instability? 12 x DISCUSSION: The site is in Flood Zone X, which is not a special flood hazard zone. The nearest body of water is the Santa Clara Valley Water District Matadero Canal, which runs southwest to northeast, approximately 1,000 feet from the southeastern border of the property. During demolition, grading and construction, storm water pollution could result. Runoff from the project site flows to the San Francisco Bay without treatment. Nonpoint source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife dependant on the waterways and for people who live near polluted streams or baylands. Therefore, conditions of approval, incorporated as part of an approved demolition and construction management plan (secured before building permit issuance) would include the following: Recommended Conditions of Approval: • Before submittal of plans for a building permit, the applicant shall submit a drainage plan which includes drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. • The Applicant shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMP's) to be incorporated into a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. The SWPPP shall include both temporary BMP's to be implemented during demolition and construction. The standard conditions would result in impacts that are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 15 Mitigated Negative Declaration ! I / ., J ;,' 1;' Th e Cily or Palo Alto Birch Plaza Mixed Use Location Map ATTACHMENT C This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS -. • ATTACHMENT 0 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED PROPOSED STANDARD PTODZONE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS Minim urn Site Specifications Site Area (sq. ft.) None required 19,862 sq. ft. Site Width (ft.) None required 40-85' Site Depth (ft.) None required 185.70-285.82' Minim urn Setbacks Front Yard (ft) N one required Building Setbacks Sheridan Ave.: 10' Birch St.: 7' Grant St.: 100' Rear Yard (ft) None required 10' Side Yard (ft) None required 10' Total Mixed Use FAR 1.25: 1 1.25: 1 Residential Component FAR* 1.0: 1 0.73: 1 Mixed Use Non-Residential FAR** 0.35 (0.25 for Office and 0.52 Research and Development Uses) Usable Open Space*** 100 sq. ft. per unit 138 sq. ft. per unit Minimum dimensions Private open space: 6' Meets requirement Common open space: 12' Meets requirement . Maxim urn Height (ft) 40' 40' Residential Density (net)**** 40 dulac max. 17 dulac * The residential component of the mixed use may not exceed 1.0: 1. ** *** **** The non-residential component of a mixed use project shall not exceed 50% of the total square-footage of the project. Required usable open space: (l) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space; (3) minimmTI private open space dimension 6 feet; and (4) minimum common open space dimension 12 feet. Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial use. Birch Plaza PROJECT DESCRIPTION and DESIGN INTENT ATTACHMENT E Submitted by Applicant The site is an assemblage of small existing parcels that will together create a 19,862 sf comer lot at Birch Street and Sheridan Avenue, with a small extension to Grant Street. We propose to change the current RM-40 zoning to PTOD, per the new California Avenue PTOD Combining District regulations. The proposed mixed-use project comprises eight 2-story townhou'ses on a ground floor office podium, with most of the parking underground. The townhouses are configured around two interconnected courtyards. The larger one is oriented toward and accessed by a partially hidden stair from Birch Street. The smaller one, with a southern orientation, is accessible from the quieter Sheridan Avenue. The I solid' office podium is intended to act as a base for the 'village' of townhouses above, with clear distinctions in massing and finishes between office and residential uses. Nevertheless, the two uses share just enough of the building vocabulary to read as a single project. The podium courtyards provide the residential component with generous outdoor common areas, which are intended to foster a sense of community in the project. With each unit also having its own private open space, the total usable open , space is far in excess of the minimum required. The entries are configured in such a way as to allow residential users their own access via the two stairs, or a common access via the elevator, which serves the parking, office lobby, and podium right at the connection between the two courtyards. Even the mailbox location is intended to encourage a mixing of users. The proposal conforms with all FAR, setback, height, daylight plane, and parking requirements, with two exceptions. The new PTOD zoning includes a provision that the 1.25 FAR allowed for mixed-use can have no more than 0.35 FAR assigned to non- -residential uses. As we developed the concept of ground floor office with a residential podium, however, we found that we did not have enough ground floor square footage to physicallysupport the residential above. The only alternative would have been to reduce the residential fo'otprint by making it three stories rather than two, thereby creating a 4-story project. Given the 3-story context, we considered this to be an undesirable alternative, an opinion shared by the Planning Director during our early meetings on the project. We also recognized that PTOD zoning is new and hence not significantly 'field-tested'. Our first experiment here suggests that some flexibility in the FAR ratios between the different uses would be beneficial, even as FAR limits are held firm. An an ciliary consequence of the larger ground floor is an increase in the site coverage to 55%, where 45% is allowed. In a sense, we have swapped some ground level open space for residential common open space above, where it serves the greatest use. Given the additional benefits in reducing the number of floors, we feel strongly that these two exceptions readily qualify as Design Enhancements. Even with this, each of the two main office areas have their own outdoor patios, as well as generous space for landscaping on all four sides. In keeping with the intent of PTOD zoning, as well as our own design propensities, we have endeavored to create an engaging street experience for the pedestrian. This includes a variety of massing articulations, landscape diversity, high quality finish materials, entry canopies, and overhanging balconies. The sidewalk on Birch Street is currently located right next to the curb. We are proposing to move it away from the curb to conform to the configuration on both Sheridan Avenue and Grant Street. More importantly, it would provide a landscape buffer from the street that would be planted with a continuous row of sycamore trees, adding substantially to the existing trees on Sheridan and Grant. The underground garage contains a mixture of conventional and tandem parking spaces, as well as bicycle parking. Additional spaces may be used for storage and tandem parking beyond that required. The parcel' Sl finger' toward Grant Street serves perfectly as the garage ramp~ Indeed, this is the only configuration of the parking that allows us to meet the requirements of the Parking Ordinance. This configuration has the considerable added benefit of providing a mini-park at the corner of Birch and Grant that will act as a resting area and a backdrop for public art. This area, as well as the art, will be developed further once a landscape architect is engaged on the project. BIRCH PLAZA ZONING CONSTRA][NTS 10 June 2008 Addresses: 305 Grant Ave, 2640 & 2650 Birch St., 306 & Sheridan Ave. Existing Zoning: RM -40 Proposed Zoning: California Ave PTOD Combining Proposed Use: Mixed Use: Office/ Business Services and Residential Parcel Size: 19,862 FAR allowed for mixed use: Office/Business Services FAR: Residential FAR: Residential Density Allowed: Residential Density Proposed: 8 units Building Height: Setbacks (per underlying RM-40 zone): Front (Sheridan Ave): Interior Side: Street Side and Rear: Daylight Plane: Lot Coverage: Addi tional allowed for porches, etc. Open Spa~e: Parking Required: Office: 1 stall per 250 sf Residential: 2 stalls per unit Guest Parking: 1 + 10% of units= Total: 1.25 = 24,827.5 sf 0.52 10,257 sf 0.73 = 14,534 40 uni ts / acre max. 17 units/ acre 40 feet o to ft 10 ft o to 16 ft none 55% = 11,357 sf ~% = 993 sf 100 sf/ unit 42 stalls 16 2 60 stalls Adjustment for Joint Use: 20% of total Adjusbnent for Housing near Transit: 20% Total Adjushnent Allowed: 30% of total = Net Parking Required: Tandem Parking: up to 25% of residential = N'o. of accessible parking stalls: 1 per 25 42 stalls 4 stalls 2 stalls, 1 van-accessible Bike Parking: 1 ' (L T) 8 1 10 units for guest bike parking (ST) 1 1 per 2,500 of office space 5 Total 14 Birch Plaza PTOD Context-Based Design Considerations This document addresses the PTOD Combining District context-based criteria listed in section 18.34.050 of the Zoning Regulations of the City of Palo Alto. (1) Pedestrian & Bicycle Environment The the design promotes pedestrian ways: connecti vity and a bicycle-friendly environment in A. The main pedestrian entrance is on Birch Street, under a welcoming canopy. Two wide stairs lead up to two interconnected residential courtyards, the main one on Birch Street and the other on Sheridan Avenue. Each of the two first-floor oHice units has a direct entry off Birch Street. Bike faci.lities are located in the underground parking levet accessed by a ramp off Grant Avenue. B See lA. C. N/A D. Bike storage is provided on the underground parking level. E. The corner of the site at Birch Street and Grant Avenue is an and mvjting mini-park wi.th and public art. F. N/A G. It is proposed that the BiTch Street which is currently right next to the be moved 4' away from the curb such that a strip with a row of street trees can be added that buffers the sidewalk from the street. conform with the on Sheridan and Grant Avenues There is an 8' to 12' wide planting area between the sidewalk and the building, and vertical elements with climbing plants that connect the residen bal courtyards above to the ground leveL Also see 1 E. H. N (2) Street Building Facades The street facades are to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalks and streets, encouraging activity in the following ways: A. N/A B. See 1 A. The office units have generous windows facing all three streets. The townhouses have their windows and decks oriented outwards, addressing the streets. C. Canopies, decks, and vertical fins provide human scale and break up the building mass. D. See 2B. E. The main building entrance 1S a generous with a large shade structure overhead. The Birch Street stair up to the residential courtyard is integrated with this building entrance. This and the Sheridan A venue stair are both next to the tallest building elements in the project emphasizing their function in linking the sidewalk to the residential courtyards above. F. See 2B. (3) Massing & Articulation The project is designed to minimize massing, providing articulation and design variety in the followjng ways: A. The mass of the 2-story townhouses is articulated with projecting and recessed building forms and varied roof heights, minimizing their mass and creating design variety. B. The roofline is highly varied, creating visual. interest. The stairs to the residential courtyards, and the street corner at Birch Street and Sheridan Avenue, have the highest roofs to emphasize their importance. See 2E. C The Birch Street and Sheridan A venue corner is massed and articulated to reinforce this intersection. The I-story podium base rises up to 2 stories and is articulated with vertical fins and generous sun shading. D. N/A E. No more than 70% , and no more than 100' continuous linear feet, of the Birch Street facade exceeds a height of 25'. F. N/A G N/A H. N/A (4) low-Density Residential Transitions N/A (5) Proj ect Open Space There are private and public open spaces for the residents, visitors and enlployees: A. Each of the office units has a priva te south-facing patio. Each townhouse has a deck off the living/ dining room, the majority of which have southern exposure .. B. The office patios serve as convenient lunch or meeting areas for employees. The attractively landscaped residential courtyards are shared by the townhouses and serve to build a sense of community. Also see IE. C See lA and IE. D. There is a combination of private and common open spaces. E. The residential courtyards and residential decks provide usable open space above the grolmd level. F. The residential courtyards look down on to Birch Street and obliquely on to Sherjdan Avenue. There are residential decks on each street facade. These activate the street facade and increase" eyes on the street". G. N/A H. Parking is not counted as open space. (6) Parking Design Parking is designed such that it unobtrusive and does not detract from the pedestrian enviromnent: A Parking is located mainly in the basement. On-grade parking is screened by landscaping and low walls. B. N/A C. N/A D See 6A. E. Street parking is for visitor or customer parking, and is designed to enhance traffic cabning on the street. (7) Large (m ulti-acre) Sites N/A (8) Sustainability & Green Building Design A. The townhouse building form is narrow and organized around courtyards to optimize natural daylighting and ventilation. Sunshading and windo'w overhangs reduce solar heat gain. B. Landscaping around the podium at ground leveL and on the residential courtyards, .is designed to create cOITl£ortable micro-climates and reduce heat island eHects. C See lA. D. The landscapjng around the podium at ground level is 8' to 12' wide. This helps to Dlaximize onsite stormwater management. E. Sustainable bUilding materials will be specified. F. Energy-efficient lighting, plumbing and equipment will be used. G. Healthy indoor environments will be created. H. Other sustainable building practices will be incorporated into the project as much as possible. 1. N/ A Lee, Elena From: Sent: To: David Solnick [david@solnick.net] Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:01 PM Lee, Elena Cc: Williams, Curtis Subject: Re: Birch ATTACHMENT F Submltted~ppljc,ant,_,~,_--,- We are requesting to retain the underground driveway approach at its currently proposed location on Grant Street. It is the only location that allows us to safely provide the parking required for this project. Access from Birch Street (option #1) renders the underground garage entirely unusable, except where the access is near the comer (see below). Access from Sheridan (option #2) results in a net loss of 12 parking stalls. Access from Birch Street near the comer of Grant (option #3) retains the same nurnber of parking stalls, but puts the entrance near the comer of a much busier street; . creates a driveway that curves sharply as it descends; forces cars from the ground level stalls to back onto Birch St; and eliminates the pocket park. ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ laU'~JlU1OS®PlAep iJ3iIHJ}JV 00 ....J ....J ~ 00 tuCl w Z o::=> 1-0 000:: I-C!) 000:: UJ UJ ooCl =>5 CO....J Z....J 0« 00 00 Ll.. o UJ 00 Uoo uo «....J • • OllV Oled 'laallS 46lH U'Z elUJOjueJ 'OllV oled 'laaJlS 4JJIII 059'Z )t:)IN10S (IiAVa VZVld HJ~18 I-W w 0:: I-C/') ::c ~ co 3nN3J\V NVCII~3HS I Iii 2 t:?:.S i ; i? ] • • • .. 3d01;,;ttU -r----l-------------------, , • . .. 3d01;';UO • -,-- - - --' - - - - - - - - - - - - -+-------'---------1 - - - - ---- - ---- - - - - - -+-------~ • • • • I • I • • • T- ~# NOLLdO 9NI)I~Vd ~ ~ I~ • I ~ Vl :::I: U c:::: -I:C :E 0 c:::: LL Vl Vl LLJ " U ;!to! a~ u « LLJ C) ~ ~ ~-- // // // // // // • LOSS OF 12 UNDERGROUND STALLS ,/J- // ~ ~ BIRCH STREIT • • @11%SLOPE • • GARAGE ACCESS FROM SHERIDAN AVE. rARSTFI.OORABOVE • • @22%SLOPE • • • t'ANRoo""""", w ~ z W ~ z C§ ii: w :::c VI FTC 07/28/08 T ~ ~ s: ·E ~ -0 4: ~ ~ 0 ::::.:::~ U~ Z~ ....J.-o ~ VI!:; Q~ >-r ~~ .. E ~ u ~~ «~ N . ~~ a..~ ..<:: :::c ~ Uii:i 0::::0 ti5~ ~ Z o i= a.. o C) z 52 0:::: ~ PRINT DATE: 4128/09 SHErr 4.2 I I 4---- BIRCH STREET _ - - - - - --\-1 - - - - - - - - --1-'-- -- - - - \1 1/ ------~ ~------- L ________ ~[: .,. -I ~ ~~ ~~ ~ r---I-___ _ \ \ G~::OPE /=!===-~-__ "~~~~~ __ -.TI--------1---~ RAMPluPTU BIRCH STREET CWWlEobORABOVE 1.-.--1ST'LOCIRABOYE 1 !!t!!!..1 37 .!m!!.1 J.!l!!ll .Y!:!!ll T • ACCESS ON BUSIEST STREET • GROUND LEVEL STALLS REQUIRE BACKING ONTO BIRCH ST. • LOSS OF POCKET PARK to VO/ I ,W v; TYP. .!:!.!i!il. !!!i!!! UNIT 3 I JI!j!ll GARAGE ACCESS FROM BIRCH ST. @ CORNER PTe 1-10: u c: ~ ~ :x: c: ~ ~ -<I; ~ M ~ z o ~ o C) z 52 c:r::: tt. ~ '" 'E ~ u PRINT DATE: 4128109 SHEET 4.3 Uoli6acli CR.§a(ty Company Limited (J'artnersliip 29 Lowery Drive, Atherton, CA 94027 Tel: 650/322-8242 Fax: 650/853-0325 Curtis Willianls Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mr. Williams: Re: Birch Plaza Project 2650 Birch Street May 21, 2009 I am writing this letter to confirm certain issues David Solnick, the architect for Birch Plaza Project, discussed with you on April 21, 2009, in connection with the zone change application from RM-40 to PTOD heard by the Planning Commission on April 15, 2009. After hearing from condominium owners in the Birch Court Condominium Project, the Planning Conlmission in a 4 to 2 vote approved the Birch Plaza Project with the condition that the entrance to the underground garage be moved off of Grant Avenue. As pointed out during the meeting on April 21, 2009, moving the entrance off Grant Avenue is not feasible because it would in effect destroy the viability of the project. Moving -the entrance to Sheridan Avenue would remove 12 parking spaces . from the project. It would place more traffic on Sheridan Avenue which already has much more traffic than Grant Avenue. Sheridan Avenue in this block already services a seven unit apartment building at 303,305,307,309,311,315 Sheridan Avenue, a 83 unit apartment project at 345 Sheridan Avenue, a 57 unit apartment project at 360 Sheridan Avenue, and the Jerusalem Baptist Church at 380 Sheridan Avenue Placing an entrance for the underground garage on Birch Street is also not feasible because of the limited space in a direction perpendicular to Birch Street to nlake a tum into parking spaces. Providing the access from Birch Street near the comer at Grant Avenue would save the underground parking but would create a driveway that curves sharply as it descends. In addition, this would cause cars parked at ground level stalls to back out into two lanes of Birch Street traffic which would be very dangerous. It also eliminates the small park along Birch Street extending to Grant Avenue. Also, providing entrances on Sheridan Avenue or on Birch Street would substantially eliminate any use of the 305 Grant Avenue property in the Birch Plaza Project. In summary, the Grant Avenue entrance is the only viable entrance for the Birch Plaza underground garage. Any increase in traffic caused by the Birch Plaza Project is best borne by Grant Avenue which carries less vehicular and pedestrian traffic than Sheridan Avenue or Birch Street. A Statistics Request Report, attached hereto as Exhibit A, on Sheridan Avenue from the City of Palo Alto Police Department reports accidents fronl January 2000 to April 24, 2009 at the intersections of Birch and Grant and Sheridan and Birch. The report shows seven reported accidents on Sheridan Avenue for Sheridan and Birch and five on Grant for Grant and Birch. The report shows nineteen reported accidents for the Sheridan and Birch intersection and twelve on Grant and Birch for the Grant and Birch intersection .. The statistics support the placenlent of the entrance to the underground garage on Grant Avenue because it is safer than placing it on the more heavily traveled Sheridan Avenue. The traffic consultant for the project as set forth in Fehr & Peers letter of May 6, 2009, attached hereto as Exhibit B, also recommend that the access to the underground garage for project remain on Grant Avenue. The Grant Avenue entrance also nlakes it possible to provide a landscaped area along Birch Street which, along with the graceful Birch Plaza building fac;ade provides a noteworthy entrance into Palo Alto from the Oregon/Page Mill Expressway. For these reasons we will ask the City Council to approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission except for the condition that the entrance to the underground garage be moved off Grant Avenue. Yours truly, Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership Hohbach Enterprises, Inc., General Partner ~~~ Harold C. Hohbach, President Iill002/006 FROM: David Solnick architect PHONE NO. : 650 3271142 Ma~. 01 2009 11:01AM P2 Statl.stics Requ.est P'~lQ Alt:Q~ P·'o,;l.i<l;~e;! D;elt?:art~,e~t, Date:...........-~~~-4- Name: JdA~ 9/-/~ 'Co gO/../43& cd Address;. .2;5 a? () ¥1/ 6#!« )C err:" V-Gf: City: A rA~re"':r-Q pJ ?? e <$'~ ;z..,7 ; ~ . Phone #: ~' C? 02 z-2 z.c,v-z.. E~~: If&9x: Itt"s;;b/Es-S-c S '2. ~ Co.tact 'hr- ~o .. e V-CN': ,Mad __ \~mall ........................................................ ,. .......... " ......................................................... " .............................. . Loeadon/Repordug Distriet: !RY~dr:e:-:re;l? Ace::,;' P~"'-'J'S' A r 7Yl/O .::c:/V"7~S"~c /o,¥s "' t;...,eA N''--~ !SIRe # "/~.-:r-~~-rs- TilDe Period: FrOID: ::2 060 -------------------To: /J~t? / l.. Type of Statistics _Crime _Calls for servIce _Include Maps Take. by'~~-.,:.. ......... ~....;.& Date, ____ ~~~~-- Fee: A researeh fee ofS60 per hour will be eharged ~ the reqllest requires research. ~~H'A-~.It!!E J;> ,'3 Y (?"a C ,.I .,,(J -;r-A V" A y:[! IS ,..s:- £ ~¢/ '3 2. "J -2.~:.;? t: '" " A Accidents rej)oned at til., intelSection of BIrch and Grant 1 i January 2000 to ~124. 20ft I ! + ! I i i I I . Qccuroate 'Ioiured Occurred ON AT/OR # Feet Direction Cross beet 103-01·2002 81RCHST ' OR 10 S GRANTAV log.2Q..2002 BIRCH ST AT GRANTAV ~01-15-2004 B1RCHST! AT GRAK"ST 01-28-2004 BfRCHST, " AT GRANTAV 04-23--2004 1 BIRCH ST, AT GRAtf."AV 10-29--2004 1 2600BLK BIRCH ST OR 51 S GRAN""AV 01-22-2006 BtRCHST AT GRAN"'"AV 08~31·2000 200BU<. GRANT A'IQ OR 68 E BlRCHST 05--12-2002 300BLK GRANT AV OR 251 W BfRCHST 06$2005 270 GRANT AV ' AT BIRCHST 11 .. 20-2006 GRANTAV \ AT BIRCHST 0+02-2007 GRANTAV AT BlRCHST Page 1 ! Violation Violation DescriDtion 22360VC Basic speed law 21804 VC FaU to y1eJ(! right of way VC Failure to stop at a stop si,gn 21658 VC Unsafe lane change 21802 VC intersection-fail to &tQpJ~ield 22107VC Unsafe tum 21658(A)VC Unsafe lane chan~ 22106VC Unsafe start on bighwavlroadwav 22106VC Unsafe stall on highway/roadway Reported at front desk 21802{A)VC Intersection-faU to stopMetd 21802(A)VC intersectionwfail to stop!yi~d . _ ;a .0 :3 o IlJ S, 0..: W ...... 2, o -,::- III j o ::r ;t (') 't+ lJ 25 Z m z P 8i 6) VJ l\J -.J ,.... ,.... A I\..) ~ llJ If ~ ~ l\) t5J IS) \D ~ ~ ts:J l\J D 3: -0 W p. t- l:J , 2' It A 1;1;. !it v. t§ c:: c:: v. ..... c C 0' AccidentS' ~Grted at tile intersection of Sheridan and Birch i Januarv 20GB to April 24,2001 j , I . , i I , Occur Date tJJniJlred OccunadOn ArlO. # Jfit 02 .. 10.2000 SHERIDAN OR 20 03-02-2002 1 SHERIOANAV AT 08--18-2003 SHERIDANAV AT 11..Q6 .. 2003 SOOBLK SHERlDAN AV OR 40 09--06-:2005 300BlK SHERIOAN AV OR 227 01-13-2006 SOOSLKSHERtOAN AV OR 20 02..Q9-2007 SHERIDANAV AT 02-0&-2000 BIRCHST AT Q4..24-2QOO BIRCHST AT Og.f4-2000 BIRCHST AT 10-07·2000 27QOBL:K BIRCH ST OR 135 12-11-2001 1 2700BU< BIRCH ST OR 16 07·30-2004 2700SLK BIRCH ST OR 35 11·25-2.005 2700BLK BIRCH ST OR 50 12·18 .. 2005 2700 BIRCH ST OR 50 11.(13...2008 0 BIRCH-ST OR 40 -.-.-. 11~14-2006 1 BIRCH'ST AT 02~14-2008 BIRCHST OR 27 05-01-2008 2700BU< BIRCH S7 OR 195 Direction Cross street V'lOlation W BIRCH 22107VC BIRCH 22350VC BIRCHST 22107VC W BrRCHST W BlRCHST 22107VC W BlRCHST 22.10avC BIRCH 22350VC SHERIDANAV 22350VC SHERIDANAV 22107VC SHERiDANAV 21802(A)VC S SHERIDANAV 22350VC s SHERIDANAV 2195O{A)VC S SHERIDANAV 22350VC S SHERIOANAV 22350VC S SHERiCANAV 22350VC S SHERIOANAV 22350VC SHERIOANAV 2181M{A.}VC S SHERIOANAV 221D7VC S SHERIDAN ---,_.-21f:J~VC __ Page 1 VIOlation De$criDlion Lnsafehm Easic~la'W Unsafe tum UnImown Unsafe tum i Unsafe start on bighway/raadway Easic SJ)ead law Basio speed law Unsafe tum Irrtersection-Fatl to stoPiYieid Basic soeed law I )ield righf of way to pedestrian Basic sPeed law BasiC SI)ee<llaw Basic sPeed laW Basic SPeed law Faal to Yield right of Way Unsafebm .Right bait ¢ road wilY __ _ ." ;:u .~ &1 <:: ..... p. tn o J () l' OJ .., () ~ c+ ro () c+ II ::J: o z m Z p ~ ~ I-"" I-"" it 3: OJ If IS) I-'" !\J IS) IS) \.0 I-"" )0.>. IS) I\.) D 3': ~ is Q Q JI;:lo ........ Q Q CI'I } '\:Jt May 6. 2009 Court House Plaza Company Via Fax (650) 853-0325 David Solnick -Architect ~ FI:HR & PEERS 1'IIANSPORTATtON (ONSIJLTANTS Subject: Garage Access to the Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project Palo Alto, CA Dear Mr. Hohbach I Mr, Solnick: RSOB .. 2640 Based an our review of the proposed garage access from Birch Street (dl rectly east of Grant Avenue) and a field visit to the project site during both morning and evening peak hour conditions in May 2009, we recommend that the garage site access remain on Grant Avenue (directly south of Birch Street) for the following reasons: 1) Birch Street is a four~lane roadway providing access to ·and from Oregon Expressway. With traffic volumes significantly higher than the two .. Jane Grant Avenue, constructing the garage entrance from this heavily traveled roadway will result in potential traffic issues with traffic flow on this arterial roadway. 2) With a planted center median, the driveway could only provide right-turn in I right-turn out movements, resulting in increased u-turns at Birch Street I Grant Avenue and Birch Street J Sheridan Avenue. 3) Accident data for the three year time period behNeen April 24, 2006 and April 24, 2009 Show that accidents have occurred primarily on Birch Street, and include unsafe speed, failure to yield right of way and unsafe turn. Therefore, constructing the project driveway on Biroh Street may resuft in an increased potential for certain types of accidents and vehicles enter and exit a heavily traveled roadway into the parking. garage. Sincerely, Fred Choat P.E. r~egistered Traffic Engineer in the State of California No. TR1830 ---1S0 W. Santa Clara Street. Suit~ 675 San Jose, California '9511~O-(408)-·278~1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com fl)OOl/OOl FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM Date: April 24, 2009 To: Court House Plaza Company David Solnick -Architect From: Fred Choa, Fehr & Peers Associates Subject: Elements for 2650 Birch Street -Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project Travel Demand Management Plan RSOB-2616 This memorandum responds to your request for a Travel Demand Management (TOM) Plan for the proposed 2650 Birch Street -Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project in Palo Alto, California. The Proposed Project is comprised of 24,827 square feet, with 10,257 square feet of office space (2 tenants) and 14,534 square feet of residential area (8 two-story townhouses). Trlis TDM Plan includes the following elements: • Recommended measures for the 2650 Birch Street -Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project • Effectiveness of TOM measures RecoITlmended Measures for the Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project Our recommendations for TDM measures at 2650 Birch Street -Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project are based on the following assumptions: • Employees will arrive and depart during traditional commute hours • Employees will likely use transit if convenient and available • There is a Class II Bike Lane on Park Boulevard and a Class III Bike Route of California Avenue • There is an extensive bicycle system throughout the mid-peninsula, connecting Stanford, Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Mountain View, • The CalTrain California Station is located less than 1/3 of a mile from the project site (1,700 feet) • There is extensive public transit on EI Camino Real and Oregon Expressway 1 Page Mill Road provided by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) • There are restaurants, retail, banks and other destinations within walking distance (1,300 feet) on California Avenue between EI Camino Real and Park Boulevard. Based on these Fehr & Peers recommends the following measures for use in a TDM plan for any single tenant having more than 25 employees. Provide On-Site Amenities: In terms of physical improvements that can be implemented in addition to the required bicycle parking are on-site amenities designed to enhance accessibility and convenience of either walking or bicycling. This would include on-site shower facilities located within the men's and women's restroom facilities. 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com April 24, 2009 Page 2 of 4 tp FEHJ\ & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Identify a TDM Coordinator: Most TOM programs include the designation of a TOM coordinator. This coordinator can have a variety of roles including providing information on available transit options, arranging carpools, dispensing transit passes or Commuter Checks, and overseeing the operation of the Guaranteed Ride Home Program. Use of Tandem Parking: When the parking requirements for the office tenants are such that unused tandem parking spaces need to be utilized, the TOM Coordinator shall contact employees of office tenants that would be ideal candidates of tandem parking based on their arrival "and departure times. The TDM Coordinator will assign to designated employees the spaces in available tandem parking spaces. Institute Promotional Programs: Implement educational and promotional programs involving all employees with these efforts supervised by the TOM coordinator. Promotional programs refer to employer-sponsored initiatives, which educate employees about the availability of alternative modes and the benefits of these modes. Promotional programs might include: • TOM Coordinator • Commuter Information Bulletin Board • Guide to Transit Service systems and schedules • Guide to City of Palo Alto and Regional Bicycle Systems • Guide to CalTrain system and schedule CarpoollVanpool Programs: The TOM Coordinator would assist employees interested in carpooling / vanpooling. A carpool is two to six people sharing a ride in an automobile. The most common carpool approach is rotating automobile use among carpoolers with no exchange of money. Another method is a carpool g"roup using one car and sharing commuter expenses. Either way, the driver of the carpool has the vehicle available for personal or company use during the workday. Carpooling reduces the cost of commuting and provides a stress-free ride to and from work for non-drivers. The main impediment to carpooling program is convincing employees to carpool and arranging carpools. Incentives to carpool can be provided through allocating preferential parking or by discounting the cost of parking for carpoolers. Arranging carpools, which entail matching riders with similar home locations, can either be done by an employer formally or through regional agencies such as Rides for Bay Area Commuters. This non-prom agency maintains lists of persons interested in a carpool. Vanpools operate like a mini-transit service, with an organized route, schedule and passenger fare charges. Vanpools typically are comprised of 7 to 15 people. Fares depend 6n the commute distance, the total number of riders, the type of van, company-provided equipment, and incentives and subsidies. Vanpools can be set up by individual employees or by the employer. Rides for Bay Area Commuters will also provide assistance in establishing and operating a vanpool. Provide Transit Subsidies: One of the most common TOM programs is a transit program, by which large employers facilitate the use of transit by their employees. This facilitation can include subsidizing transit passes, providing transit passes on-site, and providing connecting service to the nearest transit stop or station. Two available transit pass programs include Commuter Checks (tax-free vouchers employees can use to purchase transit passes) and Eco Pass. Based on recent changes to Federal Laws, employers can now provide up to $100 a month per employee for use in purchasing transit passes. The Santa Clara Valley 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com April 24, 2009 Page 3 of 4 fp FE J-I R & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Transportation Authority (VTA) operates the Eco Pass program. The one limitation on the Eco Pass program is that CalTrain (which operates a station on California Avenue less than 1/3 of a mile from your facility) does not participate in this program. These subsidies could be provided in the form of Commuter Checks or through participation in the Eco Pass program. Commuter checks would likely be more useful to your employees since this program appears to be more flexible than Eco Pass. You could also provide transit passes to your residents for use by themselves or their visitors. Please note than any transit passes for use by residents would require purchase by the operator of the facility. Alternative/Flexible Work Schedule: Based on research conducted by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, implementation of the recommended TDM Program would result in a reduction of vehicle trips during the traditional morning and evening commute periods. In addition, by providing on-site vending machines and shower facilities, the opportunity to: a) Bicycle or walk to work; b) Take transit / shuttle to work; c) Remain on-site during lunchtime; and d) Leave the project site by automobile before or after the critical a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Alternative work sclledule programs include the following measures: • Flextime-Workers report within varying windows rather than set times • Staggered Work'Hours-Employees arrive in shifts rather than all arriving at once • Compressed Work Week-Employees have the option of working four-day weeks or longer house. For example, the City of Palo Alto allows its employees to work 9 days over a two-week period, with an alternating day off during the week. • Telecommuting-Employees may choose to work at home one or more days a week Effectiveness ofTDM Measures The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publislled a review of information regarding the effectiveness of TDM measures in the Trip Generation Handbook: An ITE Recommended Practice. This review concluded the following: • Support measures, such as transportation coordinators, flexible work hours, and other promotional activities had no measurable impact on the number of vehicles used by commuters. But it has been shown to reduce a.m. and p.m. peak hour vehicle trip generation by providing opportunities to arrive earlier than a.m. peak and depart later than p.m. peak hours (5 to 15 percent reduction) • Transportation services, such as vanpools and carpools had a noticeable impact on number of vehicles used by commuters (8 percent reduction) • Economic incentives including transit subsidies and transportation allowances for large businesses also had a significant impact on the number of vehicles used by commuters (16 percent reduction) This study also concluded that combining transportation services and economic incentives generated the most significant reduction in the number of commuter vehicles (24 percent). Based on this information, it 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com Apri I 24, 2009 Page 4 of 4 11> F Ef-1R & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS would be beneficial to include a variety of measures including on-site amenities, transportation services, and economic incentives. The proposed TDM Plan would reduce the reliance on the single occupant vehicle, enhance the Proposed Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project, and potentially improve traffic operations in the area. 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com ATTACHMENT G TRANSPORTATION DIVISION Memorandum Date: May 8,2009 To: Elena Lee From: Rafael Rius, P .E. Subject: 2650 Birch. -Transportation Comments on the Driveway Location The following is based on our recent discussions related to the driveway access on Grant Avenue. With our department's previous comments to improve sight distances,' we feel that if the comments related to the walls and fences adj acent to the garage ramp were set back appropriately, and parking immediately adjacent to the driveway were restricted, that a driveway at on Grant Avenue can operate safely. A driveway on Birch Street would not be recommended for several reasons including higher traffic volumes on Birch, the raised median (requiring U-turns at adjacent unsignalized intersections, and the direct link to the connectors to and from Oregon Expressway. A driveway on Sheridan Avenue could potentially work and would operate similarly to the currently proposed driveway on Grant Avenue with similar positives and negatives. This is not necessarily recommended over the proposed Grant Avenue location. These conunents should be considered in addition to the previous comments from July 2008, which mayor may not have already been addressed. Please feel free to contact me to discuss further if you have any questions. ex LEED for New Construction v 2.2 Registered Project Checklist Project Name: Birch Plaza ATTACHMENT H Submitted by Applicant DIZA t-T Project Address: 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 306 & 320 Sheridan Avenue Yes ? 36 Yes ? No ____ Sustainable Sites 14 Points ---T"--""""'" Prereq 1 Credit 1 ~--~--~~--~~ Credit 2 ~--~~~~~~~ Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Site Selection Development Density & Community Connectivity f",---'--+"---'-'-""'1-'-'----'-'-,-I Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment f---+--,::.-.i--'-~--"-'--I Credit 4.1 Alternative Transponatlon, Public Transportation f---+---d---'-I Credit 4.2 Alternative Transponation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms f----,.,-+,.,---~~~ ___ --"-'--I Credit 4.3 Alternative Transponation, Low-Emitting & Fuel Efficient Vehicles ~~~~~-+--~~ Credit 4.4 Alternative Transponation, Parking Capacity r-~~----~----~ Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect or Restore Habitat f-:.,,:-c-,-,-+-:-~--:J ___ ~-'-I Credit 5.2 Site Developmen~ Maximize Open Space r-~~~--~~--~ Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control f",--'"--"-+-'--,-,-----"1 Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control ~--~~--~~--~ Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof f----+-'--,---:J-'-c-'-l Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof L-__ ~ ____ ~~ __ ~ Credit 8 light Pollution Reduction Yes ? No Required 1 1 1 ___ . Water Efficiency 5 Points '1 " ..• > ,"c" . ','" Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 1 " " 1 .... c' ,. '. Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping. No Potable Use or No Irrigation r 1···· Credit 2 !nnovative Wastewater Technologies 1 . Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction . " 1 Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction C' ,.','ro1d by Adobe" liveCycle-last Modified: May 2008 1 of 4 Yes CD LEED for New Construction v 2.2 Registered Project Checklist ? No ____ Energy & Atmosphere 17 Points Prereq 1 Prereq 1 Prereq 1 Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems Minimum Energy Performance Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required Required Required "Note for EA.1: All LEED for New Construction projects registered after June26, 2007 are required to achieve at least two (2) points. I)Z. 18 I Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 1 to 10 '--__ -'-__ ...J1~3 __ ___'1 Credit 2 1 Powered bV r I 1 1 1 Adobe" LiveCycle" Credit 3 Credit 4 Credit 5 Credit 6 Credit 1.1 10.5% New Buildings 13.5% Existing Building Renovations Credit 1.2 14% New BUildings 17% Existing Building Renovations Credit 1.3 17.5% New Buildings 110.5% EXisting Building Renovations Credit 1.4 21% New Buildings 114% Existing Building Renovations Credit 1.5 24.5% New Buildings 117.5% Existing Building Renovations Credit 1.6 28% New Buildings 121% Existing Building Renovations Credit 1.7 31.5% New Buildings 124.5% Existing Building Renovations Credit 1.8 35% New Buildings 128% Existing Buildi~g Renovations Credit 1.9 38.5% New Buildings 131.5% Existing Building Renovations Credit1.10 42% New Buildings 135% Existing Building Renovations On·Site Renewable Energy Credit 2.1 2.5% Renewable Energy Credit 2.2 7.5% Renewable Energy Credit 2.3 12.5% Renewable Energy Enhanced CommiSSioning Enhanced Refrigerant Management Measurement &: Verification Green Power 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 to 3 2 3 1 Last Modified: May 2008 2 or 4 Yes ('1 LEED for New Construction v 2.2 Registered Project Checklist ? No c···· , ',:..-" .. __ Materials & Resources 13 Points Prereq 1 Credit 1.1 Credit 1.2 Credit 1.3 Credit 2.1 Credit 2.2 Credit 3.1 >. Credit 3.2 Credit 4.1 Credit 4.2 Credit 5.1 Credit 5.2 Credit 6 1 Credit 7 Yes ? No Storage & Collection of Recyclables Building Reuse. Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof Building Reuse, Maintain 95% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% from Disposal ConstRiction Waste Management) Divert 75% from Disposal Materials Reuse, 5% Materials Reuse, 10% Recycled Content, 10% (post-consumer + 1/2 pre-consumer) Recycled Content, 20% (post-consumer + 1/2 pre-consumer) Regional Materials, 10% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regional Materials, 20% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Rapidly Renewable Materials Certified Wood Required 1 1 1 1 .. __ Indoor Environmental Quality 15 Points Prereq 1 ___ ,-,..,.,, __ Prereq 2 Minimum IAQ Performance Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control )--__ -+~_-+',.c....-,__j Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring F---+-....,.,....,-+'-'---c",.---i Credit 2 Increased Ventilation )--__ -+ ___ +'~,.c....,__j Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction 1--'----1----+---,--,--i Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy !----+-,.c....-'-+-"7:"_-I Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives & Sealants r---~~~~~~,__j Credit 4.2 Low.Emitting Materials, Paints & Coatings F---'-"--c+--.,--+-'---~ Credit 4.3 Low.Emitting Materials, Carpet Systems Required Required r-~~--~~--~,__j Credit 4.4 Low·Emitting Materials, Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products 1--'----1----+--_'--:1 Credit 5 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control r-~~--~~~~-I Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems, Lighting 1----1----+-::....~.,-j Credit 6.2 ContrOllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort F--___ +--Tt--~ Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort, Design r---~----~~---I Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort, Verification 1--'-'---1--___,-+--'---,--i Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces '---, __ ---'-___ -'--__ -'-Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views, Views for 90% of Spaces POWH"d by Adobe" LiveCycle- '1\ 1 1 1 1 last Modified: May 2008 3 or 4 Yes LEED for New Construction v 2.2 Registered Project Checklist ? No ____ Innovation & Design Process 5 Points , 1 f'~we-r~cl by r I 1 1 1 1 Adobe-LiveCycle- Credit 1.1 Innovation In Design: Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design: Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design: Credit 1.4 Innovation In Design: Credit 2 LEE~ Accredited Professional last Modified: May 2008 4 of 4 , (§j.,., A •.•.. ~ .. ' '.' Multifamily GreenPoint Ch~~eklist ""DrzA t--l ~."" ~ The GreenPoint Rated checklist tracks green features incorporated into the home. The recommended minimum requirements for a green home are: Earn a total of 50 points or more; obtain the following minimum pOints per category: Community (6), Energy (30), Indoor Air Quality/Health (5), Resources (6), and Water (3); and meet the prerequisites B.1.a (50% construction waste diversion), A.8 (exceed Title 24 requirements by 15%), C.10.a (3-year subcontractor guarantee and 20-year manufacturer warranty for shingle roofing), and F.1 (incorporate Green Points checklist in blueprints). Build It Green is a non-profit organization providing the GreenPoint Rated program as a public service. Build It Green encourages local governments to leverage program resources to support voluntary, market-based programs and strategies. The green building practices listed below are described in greater detail in the Multifamily Green Building Guidelines, available at www.builditgreen.org/greenpoint-rated/guidelines Enter Total Conditioned Floor Area of the Project: 24,791 Enter Total Non-Residential Floor Area of Project: 10,257 Percent of Project Dedicated to Residential Use 59% .'. '.C .: . •... :: '.~.:.,:< ,c, .. , -" I '-, I ;.0, .......~ .... 1. Inflll Sites ~ a. Project is Located Within an Urban Growth Boundary & Avoids Environmentally Sensitive Sites ~ !!ls~!~51~m~~~u~~ I Current Point Total 1 97.67 1 "; z:. ..c I/) 'c ~ CI) ~ >. ca ~ E CI) ~ }' OJ :I: j E ~ ~ 0 I/) 0 c CI) "c. 0 W 0::: .-. i1..r:J:l. ;·.·i2S~~ii~~i~~i~~~JE~;~~~~~::~~:w~~~~~nUM;~~A;~-~ ... -·u~~ ~ ••• r-----:---;-----i----'---;----I ~ Site has Pedestrian Access Within _ Mile to Neighborhood Services (1 Pt for 5 Or More, ~ts for 10 Or More): ~ 1) Bank ~ 2) Place of Worship ~ 3) Full Scale Grocery/Supermarket ~ 4) Day Care 5) Cleaners b 6) Fire Station ~ 7) Hair Care 8) Hardware 16 9) Laundry ~ 10) Library 11) Medical/Dental ~ 12) Senior Care Facility ~ 13) Public Park 14) Pharmacy ~ 15) Post Office ~ 16) Restaurant 17) School f-18) After School Programs ~ 19) Commercial Office D 20) Community Center ~ 21) Theater/Entertainment cgj22) Convenience Store Where Meat & Produce are Sold. . .. " ----'" 'g'-Proximi~'io-'PubiiC Tran'sit-"--'---' -.,--'----, , ,---,',, __ ,-0," ,-, ,--,---,-",--. -" '-----'---~---'----'----I Development is Located Within: 1/4 Mile of Two or More Planned or Current Bus Line Stops ~ 1/4 Mile of One Planned or Current Bus Line Stop , __ . . . __ ,_, ___ .1!? ~}I~_9f aC:;.9r.n.!T1~~!J@!f!!l:ig~!~?,i!,I~?~,sit?y~t,~,!! __ ",,,_ " ____ ,_ ._"' ___ " ___ ,"' __ .___________"__ ____,, ___ , ____ ''--_--'-__ -"'-_____ ~_--I h. Reduced Parking Capacity: I)<J Less than 1.5 Parking Spaces Per Unit o Less than 1.0 Parking Spaces Per Unit 2. Mixed-Use Developments I)<J a. At least 2% of Development Floorspace Supports Mixed Use (Non-Residential Tenants) D b. Half of Above Non-Residential Floorspace is Dedicated to Neighborhood Services n 3. Building Placement & Orientation a. Protect Soil & Existing Plants & Trees 4. Design for Walking & Bicycling V p a. Sidewalks Are Physically Separated from Roadways & Are 5 Feet Wide b. Traffic Calming StrategiesAre Installed by the Developer c. Provide Dedicated, Covered & Secure Bicycle Storage for 15% of Residents d. Provide Secure Bicycle Storage for 5% of Non-Residential Tenant Employees & Visitors 5. Social Gathering Places a. Outdoor Gathering Places for Residents (Average of 50 sf Per Unit Or More) b. Outdoor Gathering Places Provide Natural Elements (For compact sites onlv) 6. DeSign for Safety fnd Natural Surveillance MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2 ;r;t, . ---",-"-"""-·--,~---",,,,t-,.--,- .~ i Page 1 olf ~ n ~ o o o ~ ,:', a. All Main Entrances to the Building and Srte are Prominent and Visible from the Street b. Residence Entries Have Views to Callers (Windows or Double Peep Holes) & Can Be Seen By Neighbors 9. Cool Site a. At least 30% of the Site Includes Cool Site Techniques 10. Adaptable Buildings a. Include Universal Design Principles in Units 50% of Units 80% of Units b. Live/Work Units Include A Dedicated Commercial Entrance 11. Affordability a. A Percentage of Units are Dedicated to Households Making 80% or Less of AMI 10%of All Units 20% 30% 50%or More b, Development Includes Multiple Bedroom Units (At least 1 Unit with 3BR or More at or Less Than 80% AMI) ~. SITEWORK I 0 ,- I-- I-- ~ r __ ... • ~ ~ 1. Construction & Demolition Waste Management Divert a Portion of all Construction & Demolition Waste: a, Required : Divert 50% b. Divert 65% c. Divert 80% or more 2. Construction Material Efficiencies a. Lumber is Delivered Pre-Cut from Supplier (80% or More of Total Board Feet) b. Components of the Project Are Pre-Assembled Off-Site & Delivered to the Project 25% of Total Square Footage 50% of Total Square Footage 75% of Total Square Footage or More 3. Construction Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Management Plan a. An IAQ Management Plan is Written & Followed for the Project 1. Recycled Aggregate a. Minimum 25% Recycled Aggregate (Crushed Concrete) for Fill, Backfill & gther Uses 2. Recycled Flyash in Concrete a. Flyash or Slag is Used to Displace a Portion of Portland Cement in Concrete 20% 30% or More r 7 MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2 ~ ~'. ,,' ",,: >, '; ::', " '::, I I I ~ B en c Q) :J >-co ~ E Q) :J E e» :::t: 0 .!! Q) ~ en 0 c II) ~ U W 0::: 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 i 1 J I 1 1 : 1 i 1 i i 1 ! 14 1 : : -~. ,.-",.-."' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ! Possible Points -- j i Y ! ; i ! .2. .l i I 2 ; I 1 ! ! I 2 ! j 2 ! 2 2 i .~i1r=1:c. : i J 1 ; : I 1 : : : : 1 ! Page 2 off ® ~~~~~n·@ ';~~~~~ ~~N"EERPROJEC:rYNAMg"~' ... '. . .. '~'.: f l;::-,Cs<I'.,:,;:U' ... . .' .. :.: :-., '.' ...... 3 EJ EJ 3. FSC·Certified Wood for Framing Lumber a. FSC-Certified Wood for a Percentage of All Dimensional Studs: 40% 70% b. FSC-Certified Panel Products for a Percentage of All Sheathing (OSB & Plywood): 40% 70% 4. Engineered Lumber or Steel Studs. Joists, Headers & Beams V A a. 90% or More of All Floor & Ceiling Joists ~ b. 90% or More of All Studs 6 c. 90% or More of All Headers & Beams r-- r-- I R B 5. Optimal Value Engineering Framing a. Studs at 24" Centers on Top Floor Exterior Walls &lor All Interior Walls b. Door & Window Headers Sized for Load c. Use Only Jack & Cripple Studs Required for Load 6. Steel Framing a. Mitigate Thermal Bridging by Installing Exterior Insulation (At Least 1-lnch of Rigid Foam) 7. Structural Insulated Panels (SiPs) Or Other Solid Wall Systems a. SIPs Or Other Solid Wall Systems are Used for 80% of All: Floors Walls Roofs 8. Raised Heel Roof Trusses a. 75% of All Roof Trusses Have Raised Heels 9. Insulation a. All Ceiling, Wall & Floor Insulation is 01350 Certified OR Contains No Added Formaldehyde b. All Ceiling, Wall & Floor Insulation Has a Recycled Content of 50% or More 10. Durable Roofing Options a. Required: No Shingle Roofing OR All Shingle Roofing Has 3-Yr Subcontractor Guarantee & 20-Yr Manufacturer Warranty b. All Sloped Roofing Materials Carry a 40-Year Manufacturer Warranty 11. Moisture Shedding & Mold Avoidance a. Building(s) Include a Definitive Drainage Plane Under Siding b. ENERGY STAR Bathroom Fans are Supplied in All Bathrooms, Are Exhausted to the Outdoors & Are Equipped with Controls c. A Minimum of 80% of Kitchen Range Hoods Are Vented to the Exterior 12. Green Roofs a. A Portion of the Low-SlOpe Roof Area is Covered By A Vegetated or "Green" Roof 25% 50% or More D. SYSTEMS ~ 1. Passive Solar Heating a. Orientation: At Least 40% of the Units Face Directly South b. Shading On All South-Facing Windows Allow Sunlight to Penetrate in Winter, Not in Summer c. Thermal Mass: At Least 50% of the Floor Area Directly Behind South-Facing Windows is Massive D 2. Radiant Hydronic Space Heatil1g a. Install Radiant Hydronic Space Heating for lAO purposes (No Forced Air) in All Residences B 3. Solar Water Heating a. Pre-Plumb for Solar Hot Water b. Install Solar Hot Water System for Preheating DHW D 4. Air Conditioning with Advanced Refrigerants a. Install Air Conditioning with I~on-HCFC Refrigerants 5. Advanced Ventilation Practices ,--Perform the Following Practices in Residences: ~ a. Infiltration Testing by a C-HERS Rater for Envelope Sealing & Reduced Infiltration b. Operable Windows or Skylights Are Placed To Induce Cross Ventilation (At Least One Room In 80% of Units) c. Ceiling Fans in Every Bedroom & Living Room OR Whole House Fan is Used 6. Garage Ventilation ~ a. Garage Ventilation Fans Are Controlled by Carbon Monoxide Sensors (Passive Ven~lation Does Not Count) MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2 "iJ, ! 2 1 1 I __ ..... __ ....... I:.-._._ ........ _~i ...... _ ....... _ •. .,... 1 _ .. +!' ...... , ......... 1 1 2 1 ! : 2 ! 1 1 : 1 : 2 ; : 2 i j 2 ! i 2 i 2 i 2 i 2 : 1 I 1 ; ! 1 Y ! 1 : ..... _-, .. i i 4 ; 1 , ; 2 2 i 2 Possible Points ... , 2 , I ! 1 i ! J : 2 : i 2 ! I \ , 1 ! i ; 4 r ! ! 1 ! : ; \ 2 i , "-. : 1 ! 1 : . 1 i i i 1 i i Page 3 off t6 ...... , .. ' ;.',.,;,,,,:;',< .' , ENTER PRb~~GT: . c><J .' '.' '., ~'.'.'~' .. '.' ". . '.' .... ". R ' ~ Ale Installed Wherev9( Unear Fluorescent Lamps Are Used b: / Produds, ! Where", Compact I ,Ale Used 10% 20% 300/0 or more j ~~ay is Pro"dod in a V1ewable Pu~k: A"", ,'< "';( , .' ....... ~ .... , II .. , .... , .... ::--'+"''''-+1 ""2~-+"""- 1 .1-·· .. +· __ . __ ;': .. _ .. +i ---+ ... --1 1 :' I ._ .. 1,-_.1.-'--_'--'_,--,1'--1_-1 2 : 2 :--_.'_._ _.~_ ,,_ Z : 2 , . ._! ..... _ ~ -.. ~.+ :., ;'-- ~ ~~'~~'~'ln~II~~ ____________________________ -L __ ~_~;_~' __ --I a, .~a! ENERGY STAR Refrigerato<s. Al Localions I._~ _ .. ;~;~~.l:~~~ .... _ ......... _._ .... _. ,, __ . ____ _ - b, .~ Et£RGY STAR Dishwashe<s. Al locations AI ~he<s ~ ENERGY STAR-quaInod Residenlil11llode Dishwashe<s Use No ""'" ~an 6,5 Gallons Per C)c~ c. Inslal ENERGY STAR Clothes Wasbets kl A1ll0ca00ns d. ,In: EftIciency ; ; .. ___ .. _._ ... _ 1,--__ -,-1 -,--1 _'_--,-;_...., := __ .;. : _-:1",_ =t .. C--'--'''------.+:---L: a.Use Ret)ded Water !of Lafldscape Irrigation Of to Aush TolietsAAinals ~2 b.Use Ca~ Rainwater for Landscape Irrigation or 10 Flosh 5%01 Toilets &/0( Urinals ! 4 >< c. Water is: ! 10< Each Residential Un, & I ' : 4 • . 1. Construction Indoor Air Quality Man.gement o a. Pertorm a 2-Week Whole Building Flush-Out PrIor to Occupancy ~ Entryw.ys R a. Proykje Permanent Walk-Olf Mats aoo Shoe SloI'age at All Home Entrances b. Permanent Walk-Off Systems Are Provided at All Main Building Entrances & In Common Areas 3. RacycDng & W.sta Colldon [XJ a. Residences:, Provide Bulll·ln Recycling Center In Each Unit r , MF GIWnPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2 \ . . I : 1 , : I· -.. ---.~---.. + 1 ! I 1 , I , 2 Page 4 01 6 4. Use Low/No-VOC Paints & Coatings a. Low-VOC Interior Paints «50 gpl VOCS (Flat) and <150 gpl VOCs (Non-Flat)) -.. ~ -_ .. --T' ... _______ ... __ .i ... ___ .. ____ ... _ .. _.1.,._ ....... _ ... _ .. __ ---_~_ ... __ ._ ... _ ... _. __ .. _ •..• __ L .. __ .. ___ .. L_Q.~~_~ .. J ______ .... .1-. .. -- i 0.41 : I ~ In All Residences D In All Non-Residential Areas: .-.-.-..... -, .... _---_._-.---.-~-.---.----~ .. -.-.-.... -.-.-~-.-.--.. -. "'---'~-"-"-"-~-'-"-'-'----' ,---.'_ .•. _---_., ... _ ......... _--, ....•..•. -.. ' -_.-., .•..... _."""-... --. -.-'-" ---"",-,"'.', -.. -..... _ ...... _ ...•.. --_ .. - b. Zero-VOC: InteriorPaints «5 gpl VOCs (Flat)) B In All Residences 1 0.59 ! i ___ ... ________ I_~~II~~~_~~~i~~_n~~I.~r~~: __ . ___ ... _. ____ .. _______ .... _ ..... "'_ ._. . .... _. __ ._ .... _ ._ .... ___ ... _____ . _____ . ___ ... ____ '--_~ __ ---'-. ~_·O_ .. ~_4_i_-.. '_!·-_···_· .. -_· -_--'-~_-._--_ .. -_-.~ ..... c. Wood Coatings Meet the Green Seal Standards for Low-VOCs .-~-.-.-..... :~.~.::~;.~~;~~~I_~~~~~:-------.. -.... -.-. ___ .. _ ...... _ ... d. Wood Stains Meet the Green Seal Standards for Low-VOCs In All Residences In All Non-Residential Areas: 1.18 i "o~8iT._-._-_· ---' __ -I 5. Use Recycled Content Exterior Paint a. Use Recycled Content Paint on 50% of All Exteriors 1 6. Low-VOC Construction Adhesives a. Use Low-VOC Construction Adhesives «70 gpl VOCs) for All Adhesives 1 7. Environmentally Preferable Materials for Interior Finish Use Environmentally Preferable Materials for Interior Finish: A) FSC-Certified Wood, B) Reclaimed Lumber, C) Rapidly Renewable D) Recycled-Content or E) Finger-Jointed a. Residences: At Least 50% of Each Material: ~ i. cabinets ii. Interior Trim iii. Shelving iv. Doors _ .. __ ... ........ _. v:.~u.~~~!.!~P~ .. _._.__.. . .. __ .. __ ...... _ .. __ _._ ... _____ . - ---- b. Non-Residential Areas: At Least 50% of Each Material: i. cabinets ii. Interior Trim iii. Shelving iv. Doors v. Countertops 8. Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish Materials Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish Materials (Section 01350) for At Least 50% of Each Material Below: a. Residences: ~ i. Cabinets ii. Interior Trim .---------.-:;:-~;:;~----------.----_._ ........ _ .. _------.. __ .... -...... __ . __ .... _ .. -_ .. -._ ...... _-......... _ .. ---_ ... -... --. -_ ......... _._. ~ b. Non-Residential Areas: i. cabinets ii. Interior Trim iii. Shelving iv. Subfloor 9. Environmentally Preferable Flooring , : 0.59 ; ... -........... --.... -..' ..... -....... ; ...... --.. ---1. ........ --.-- ____ .. _:_ .. __ .. _ . j 0.59 1 __ -; .. . ___ ._. __ ... ~ .. ---... -.I::Q~.~~·:.[~~-~.-~{_.-.--.-.. - ! 0.59 ! : i 041 i i ... ~ .. -....... ----.. +-.. --.' .. -.-..... ~---....... --:--... _---.-' ; , 041 ' , :.:·.~.~:.--:.~·1::~--· .. ~~ ..• =r.Q~~4i:t'-:·.~ .. =·~ . .t:~.-:.-.~.~~ , 1 0.41 ! Use Environmentally Preferable Flooring: A) FSC-Certified or Reclaimed Wood, B) Rapidly Renewable Flooring Materials, C) Recycled-Content Ceramic Tiles, D) Exposed Concrete as Rnished Floor or E) Recycled-Content Carpet. Note: Flooring Adhesives Must Have <50 gpl VOCs. a. Residences: ~ i. Minimum 15% of Floor Area ii. Minimum 30% of Floor Area iii. Minimum 50% of Floor Area iv. Minimum 75% of Floor Area ............ ' .... _ .................. _ ..... _ ........... _-.... -. ...... .. b. Non-Residential Areas: i. Minimum 15% of Floor Area ii. Minimum 30% of Floor Area iii. Minimum 50% Of Floor Area iv. Minimum 75O/~f Floor Area 10. Low-Emitting FlOOring . .. _ .. ____ ._+ __ .. ____ . __ .i .. __ .. _ ... _J.Q.:_~~_L .... ...... _ ...... ____ ... _ ... ; ! 0.59 j · .. ·· .... -r·-·-·--· --I ·~~-~·.:·~·~r·~~~·~~·r~- ........... -..... --................................... --.... --'-----'-----'-----'---''---'--'------i 0.41 : a. Residences: Flooring Meets Section 01350 or CRI Green Label Plus Requirements (50% Minimum) I ........ _. L.Q.59 ! MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2 ~ Page 5 off IS tEHNITER.PRb~~CTNAME ·C.·L...--,-~ ..-,-... --.-c--.-. ··--,-.~·--,--.{\'L.;i .... . , b. Non-Residential ATeaS: Fkxxing Meets Sectioo 01350 or CRI Green Label Plus Requirements (500/0 Milimum) n • 11. Durable Cabfnllta [nstall Durable Cabinets in All: a Residences b. Non-Residential Areas 12. Furniture & Outdoor Play Structures a. Play Structures & Surfaces Have an Overall Average Recycled Content Greater Than 20% b. Environmentally Preferable ExleOOr Site FurnishIngs c. At least 250/0 of All newly Supplied Interior FurnIture has Environmentally Preferable Attributes 13. Vandalism Deterrence a. Project \ocIudes Vandalism Resistant Rnlshes and Strategies 1.lncofporate GreenPoint Checklist in Blueprints a. Required: Incorporate GreenPolnt Checklist In Blue rints 2. Operations & Maintenance Manuals , I ~ J , 0.41 '--,--, 1 ' --',-"'-"-"-'T "~-----I---i---i '-~--- ______ •. -: .• ___ • ____ }._. I.. _. ,.~ 1 1 , , y a. Provide O&M Manual 10 Building Maintenance Staff :'--}1-...!.._. ___ --f" _ _L ~~~~b~.~p~rn~~~e~07&M~M~a~nu=a~II~O~~~~~~~ _________________________ ~ ___ ~'__ 1 3. TransttOptiona a. Residents Are Offered. Free or Discounted Transit Passes 2 4. Educational Slgnage a. Educational Signage Highfighllng & Explaining the Project's Green Features Is Included 1 5. Vandalism Managemwrt. Plan a. Project Includes a VandaUsm Managemeot Plan for Dealing with Disturbances Post-Occupancy 1 6. Innovation: Ust innovative measures that meet the green building objectives of the Multifamily Guidelines. Enter up to a 4 Points in each category. Poinls will be evaluated by local jurisdiction or GreenPoinl rater. o lnnovaOOn III Community: Enter up k> 4 ·Points at left. Enter doscriptjon Mero b · . • o klnowtioo in Energy: Enlei up!O 4 PoInts at lett. Enter descripton heI8 o k'I00\'aIXn il WItIr: Enter up to 4 POOts allett Enter description hera Summa Points Achieved from Specific Categories Current POint Total Project Has Met All Recommended Minimum Requirements r MF GreenPOlnt Checklist . 2005 E~ltIon v,2 ., ~ 97.67 Page 6 01 S ATTACHMENT I Subm,iited by Applicant 2198 SIXTII STREET, SUITE 201·BERKELEY, CA 94710 TEL: (510)644-3123 . FAx: (510)644-3859 GEOSCIENCE & ENGINEERING CONSULTING May 21,2009 Ms Elena Lee Senior Planner City of Palo Alto JUN ~lJ 2fiGD 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Addressing the proposed Birch Plaza Gland G2 mitigation measures for the proposed Birch Street Project, 2650 and 2640 Birch St., 305 Grant Ave., and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto, California Dear Ms. Lee: Stellar Environmental Solutions, Inc. (SES) is providing this sumn1ary of how the referenced G 1 and G2 mitigation measures ate being addressed on behalf of the Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership. The G I-Mitigation Measure is addressed by: r , • The above ground area of the proposed building does not overlay the bore B-4 that showed the highest concentration ofTCE in soil gas (from 15 feet bgs) • Bore B-4 does overlay the area of the garage but the garage is not a normal point of exposure as people are transient in a garage. • Risk evaluations assume potential exposure for commercial space at 8 hours a day, five days a week and residential exposure at 24 hours a day, seven days a week. • The soil will be screened for potential VOC while excavation although since no local source area is responsible for the VOC, any encountered soil with VOC's it is expected to be minor, if detected. Ms. Elena Lee May 21, 2009 Page 2 The G2 Mitigation Measure is addressed by: • There being no vapor instruction risks of any regulatory significance based on the data collected and the Treadwell & Rollo risk assessment using the highest TCE concentration (6,400 J..lg/M3) found at B-4 with conservative site conditions. • The California Departn1ent of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) screening model used clays as the default soil based on the property eight bore logs • The DTSC risk model using the worst case scenario assumptions showed 10-7 risk, as discussed in the attached Treadwell and Rolla technical letter. • The 10-7 risk (equivalent to one excess cancer in 10,000,000) is considered to be insignificant risk, one in 1,000,000 being the most restrictive normally used by EPA, DTSC, and/or the RWQCB. We trust this addresses your concerns. Please call me at 510-644-3123 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Richard S. Makdisi, P.G., R.E.A. Principal geochemist cc-Harold Hohbach--Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership. r , Stellar Environmental Solutions, Inc. '~ ·Treadwell&RoIlo 6 May 2009 Project 4758.01 IVlr. Harold Hohbach Hohbach Enterprises, Inc. 29 Lowery Drive Atherton, California 94027 Subject: Results of Vapor Intrusion Model Screening 2650 and 2640 Birch Street, 306 Grant Avenue, and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue Palo Alto, California Dear Mr. Hohbach: On behalf of Hohbach Enterprises, Inc., Treadwell & Rollo, Inc. presents these vapor intrusion modeling results related to trichloroethene (TCE) impacts in soil gas at the properties located at 2650 and 2640 Birch Street, 305 Grant Avenue, and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto, California (Site). This vapor intrusion modeling was performed at your request on 14 April 2009. Draft results from this modeling effort were previously provided to your environmental consultant, Stellar Environmental Solutions. The purpose of the vapor intrusion mO,deling was to assess the risks to human health via the indoor air inhalation pathway associated with the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), principally TCE, in soil gas at the Site. A simple screening version of the Johnson/Ettinger vapor intrusion model! (J/E model) developed by the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC) was used in this assessmentl . Vapor intrusion modeling was performed utilizing data collected in September 2008 during a site investigation performed by Stellar Environmental Solutions during which TCE was detected in soil gas at a concentration of 6,400 micrograms per cubic meter (j..Ig/m3) at boring location B4 at a depth of 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). This result is the highest TCE soil gas concentration detected at the Site. A Site map and boring logs provided by Stellar Environmental Solutions are provided in Attachment A. Soil boring logs for B1, B3 and B6 indicate that the upper 15 feet of the Site is mostly underlain by fine- grained soil (silt and clay). Exceptions include a laterally discontinuous silty gravel layer from ground surface to 1 foot bgs in borings B1 and B3, and from 4 feet bgs to 11 feet bgs in boring B6. Also, gravelly clay was encountered at about 11 feet bgs to 17 feet bgs in boring B1. A log for boring B4 was not prepared. Soil boring logs are included in Attachment A. Based on the boring logs, silty clay was selected as the predominant soil type for use in the vapor intrusion model. Since no physical analyses have been performed on the soil present at the Site, the default parameters for silty clay contained in the DTSC version of the J/E model were used (bulk density, porosity, and soil water content). In addition to the use of a silty clay soil in the model, the following input parameters were used in place of the DTSC default parameters: • The Chemical CAS number 79016 (for TCE) was used. • A soil gas TCE concentration of 6,400 j..Ig/m3 was used. r 1 Johnson, P.c., and R.A. Ettinger, 1991. Heuristic Model for Predicting the Intrusion of Contaminant Vapors into Buildings. Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 25, no. 8, pgs. 1445-1452. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2004. Interim Final, Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air. 15 December. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 555 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 1300 SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94111 T 4159559040 F 415 955 9041 www.treadwellrollo.com Mr. Harold Hohbach Hohbach Enterprises, Inc. 6 May 2009 Page 2 Treadwell&RoIlo • A depth below grade to the bottom of the enclosed space floor (Le. slab thickness) of 15 cm was used as recommended by the DTSC2 for a "slab-on-grade" structure with no basement. • A soil gas sampling depth below grade of 457 cm (approximately 15 feet) was used. The use of these input parameters in the DTSC screening version of the JjE model produced an incremental risk from vapor intrusion to indoor air of 3.8 x 10-7 for carcinogens and a hazard quotient from vapor intrusion to indoor air of 7.8 x 10-4 for noncarcinogens. The calculated incremental risk is below the common residential threshold value of 1 x 10-6 for cancer risk and below the threshold value of 1.0 for the hazard quotient for acute risk. Attachment B provides the input sheet, calculation sheets, and results sheets from the DTSC screening tool. We appreciate the opportunity to prepare and present these vapor intrusion modeling results. If you would like to discuss these results with us, please do not hesitate to contact either of the undersigned at 415-955-9040. Michael D. Chendorain Senior Project Scientist 47580103.MDC Attachments cc: Richard Makdisi, Stellar Environmental Solutions· r , . ~~ inis, PhD, PE Senior Associate r , Treadwell&RoIIo Attachment A Site Information Provided By Stellar Environmental Solutions o LEGEND I 50 I <ri > « C a:l .... G 0 C") C") 0 C\I C") • Existing key HP monitoring well location - ---Subject property boundary • B 1 SES Sept. 2008 soil vapor sampling locations All concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter (tig/m3) TCE = Trichloroethene TCA = 1,1, 1-trichloroethane DCE = 1, 1-dichloroethene ND = None detected above laboratory reporting limit Parking for Superior Courthouse • F34A F35B 260 Sheridan Avenue ~ F32A F32B I.1!i:II 410 ~ NO I ~6,400 I BIRCH STREET I.I!L.) 42 IlI!I)I NO I..L!!.;J NO r I w ::J Z w > « ... z « a: C!J I1!!JI NO I I1!!JI 2001 / '\ I~ 60..1\ I -B8130~ ~rant~v~o ~ ~ ~~ ~4-- --otl I I .". B7 B6 Bircl1 Birch 306-320 B3 I L -----=r ----St. ~ Sheridan Ave. I ~ NO ./ I '----Parking I IIlL!LJ NO I B5 I ~:lI320 I IB1 B2 I I.I!:;;) NO I J L.. ____________ _ 360 Sheridan Ave. / I1!i.:I NO I IRI NO I Apt. Complex ASH STREET Il.L!:l:I NO I ~Nol 398 Sheridan Ave. _--+-1 __ -,-Jerusalem - T / Baptist Church • F29A1U I w ::J Z w > « z « c a: w J: tJ) APPROX. SCALE IN FEET 1" = 50 FT. 303-315 . Sheridan Ave. Apt. Complex I 345 Sheridan Ave. The Mayfields Apt. Complex I 1 SEPTEMBER 2008 SOIL VAPOR ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR TCE, TCA AND DCE * ~u~lL[L~~ ~ ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC """""" GEOSCIENCE « ENGINEERING CONSULTI.~O 2650 & 2640 Birch St., 305 Grant Ave., & f-B...;;,Y_: _M_J_C ___ ......... S_E_P_T_E_M_B_E_R_2_0_0B---i 306 & 320 Sheridan Ave., Palo Alto, CA Figure 4 , , ,B711 :. I c ____ ~ , ~------~ I I Existing 3-story apartment building ,--- , , ,. , 66 • ~--- B5 • , , , , , 1 ______ - r---, , , , , , , "--------,I .' '!.. 01' I~' , ~=-_ _ !I: I B1·· B2 ___ __________ 1 ______ - LEGEND 81 • Subject property boundary SES Sept. 2008 boring location Existing site buildings -tr ST~rlrl#),~ ~ENYIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC GEOSCIENCE Ii ENOIHEF.W;O CO~SUI.TIIIO Existing 3-story apartment building o 20 I I APPROXIMATE SCALE" 1" = 20 FEET BIRCH PLAZA PROPOSED BUILDING PLAN WITH SOIL BORE LOCATIONS 2650 & 2640 Birch St., 305 Grant Ave., & 306 & 320 Sheridan Ave., Palo Alto, CA '- Figure 5 by:MJC OCTOBER 2008 f t:r §TE tLfL~lFt ~E NVlRONMENTAL SOLUTJONS, INC :Jt;-a; GEOSCIENCE &: ENGINEER.ING CONSULTING PROJECT Birch Plaza LOCATION Palo Alto, CA TOTAL DEPTH _--=2",3...::fe""e::...t b"'9"'s ____ _ SU RFACE ELEV. _-",3",-0-,-,ft-"(a""m",,sCLI) ____ _ DRILLING COMPANY _--=E""C"'A ___ _ Soil Boring log BORING NUMBER -=B:..:...l _ Page _1 _ of OWNER Court House Plaza Co. PROJECT NUMBER "'20"'0.::..8-.:::35"--______ _ BOREHOLE DIA. _2::..:.::..:25::...:i:..::nc""h _______ _ WATER FIRST ENCOUNTERED .!..:19::...:f~ee':.!..t!Olbgt:.s __ _ DRILLING METHOD GeoProbe 5410 Direct Push DRILLER Brent GEOLOGIST H. Pietro paoli DATE DRILLED 9/1512008 ~ i::r S u ~ [L lL #\ l??,. ",,4 ... , E NVIRONMENTAL SOLlJTIONS, INC ~ GEOSCIENCE &: ENGINEER.ING CONSULTING PROJECT Birch Plaza LOCATION Palo Alto, CA Soil Boring log BORING NUMBER -=Bc::...3 _ Page _1 _ of OWNER Court House Plaza Co. PRO,IECT NUMBER 2=::0~08:!::-3",,5~ _____ _ TOTAL DEPTH _--=2:;::8...::fe::..::e::...t b""'g"'s ____ _ BOREHOLE DIA. _2::::.::::25::..:i""ncech'---_____ _ SURFACE ELEV. _--",30"-,-,-ft-",(ae.:.m""sl",,,) ____ _ DRILLING COMPANY _--=E""C'-'-A ___ _ WATER FIRST ENCOU~ITERED 26.5 feet bgs DRILLING METHOD GeoProbe 5410 Direct Push DRILLER Brent GEOLOGIST H. Pietropaoli DATE DRILLED 9/15/2008 DEPTH (feet) r--O r-- r-- r-- HO- r-- r-- r-- r-- H5- r-- r-- GRAPHIC LOG 63-15 SG-3 ~-% ~ -20- - - -- - --. • • • • • • • r25--, • • • • • • • . P.I.D. READING o DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION GM, loose, silty gravel CL, dark grey brown silty clay, dry, hard, 10% coarse sand, red brick fragments (fill) ML, mottled olive grey orange 0.2 clayey silt, stiff, dry Higher clay fraction @ 7-8' 0.1 Moist to wet @ 13', loose 0.4 CL, mottled olive yellow orange silty clay, moist, plastic Y SP, mottled olive red brown silty fine sand, moist, loose -7 • • • • • • • • 'Sl Saturated @ 26' -~)~--r_~-r~--~~------~--------------------~ REMARKS Notes: PID ~ Photoionization Detector "Readings" are in parts per million per volume air (ppmv) Continuous core sampling-100% core recovery unless specified otherwise Grab groundwater sample collected. Temporary screen set at 19-24' bgs . ( SG-3 ) Soil-gas sample collected for laboratory analysis. __ ~LLLLLL ____ _ -- .f!:., EI~~ ~"1'2~~iS ~o.!!,~!~ __ Bottom of boring = 28 ft. bgs IL----=6~3-:..!1:o!.5_-.J1 -30- - - Soil sample collected for laboratory analysis. ~_~ ________ L-__ ~ __________ ~ _______ ~ '5l.... First encountered groundwater Y Equilibrated groundwater level * ~u ~lL[L ~~ /A,,,!,E NVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC .;:. ~ .... GEOSCIENCE &: ENGINEE~rNG CONSULTING PROJECT Birch Plaza LOCATION Palo Alto, CA Soil Boring Log BORING NUMBER --=-B-=--5_ Page _1 _ of OWNER Court House Plaza Co. PROJ ECT NUMBER 2::..:0.=,;OS=---3::..:5 ______ _ TOTAL DEPTH _--=2""S'-'f"'ee:..:t-,ob"'gs=---____ _ BOREHOLE DIA. _2::.;.::;25:...;i,:.:;nc""h'--_____ _ SIJ RFACE ELEV. ---'---"'30::...:ft"'("'-am"'s""I)'--___ _ WATER FIRST ENCOUNTERED 27.5 feet bgs DRILLING METHOD GeoProbe 5410 Direct Push DR I LLI NG COM PANY _-=E=CA'-'-----___ _ DRILLER Brent GEOLOGIST H. Pietropaoli DATE DRI LLED 9/15/200S DEPTH (feet) o 5 10 15 GRAPHIC LOG B5-15 P.I.D. READING 0 0.2 ---- 0 ---- 0 ---- SG-5 DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSifiCATION Organic rich topsoil CL, dark brown to black silty clay, stiff, hard, dry ML, olive brown gravelly silt, dry, hard ML, mottled reddish brown grey clayey gravelly silt, damp, slight plastic. ,,25% angular fragments Becomes moist at 12' CL, yellowish brown clay, plastic, moist, soft ML, yellowish brown clayey silt, soft, moist, sl. plastiC REMARKS Notes: PID = Photoionization Detector "Readings" are in parts per million per volume air (ppmv) Contin uous core . sampling-100% core 20-f-J,.l-'-+J....L,1-I-J,.-L--Y-J....L,,J....1--!+---+---------------1 recovery unless 25 30 CL, olive silty clay, moist, plastic. soft, dry white sandy patches ,,114" -+-rfrrrrr'rrfTTrr-fr-r+---{'Sl CL, light gray gravelly clay, moist, stiff ---- I ML, mottled yellow olive clay, soft, I plastic, moist 1 ______ ----------- Bottom of boring = 2S ft. bgs specified otherwise Grab groundwater sample collected. Temporary screen set at 19-24' bgs. ( SG-5 ) Soil-gas sample collected for laboratory analysis. B5-15 Soil sample collected for laboratory analysis. 'Sl.... First encountered groundwater .y. Equilibrated groundwater level * S T~L [L#~~ ~ENV1RONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC '" wi"': .. GEOSCIENCE &. ENGINEERING CONS[JLTING PROJECT Birch Plaza LOCATION Palo Alto, CA Soil Boring log BORING NUMBER .=B:::.,6_ Page _1 _ of OWN ER Court House Plaza Co. PROJ ECT N U M BE R 2""0:::;08""-3""5'-----_____ _ TOTAL DEPTH _....::2::::4-"fe",e",t b""g"'s ____ _ BOREHOLE OIA. _2::.: . .:::25~i~nc~h'___ ______ _ SURFACE ELEV. ~-:::;30~ft;..J(~am.:::s~I) ____ _ WATE R FI RST EN C 0 U NTE R ED ",20"",f""ee'-'.t ""bg""s __ _ . DRILLING COMPANY _--=E~CA~ ___ _ DRILLING METHOD GeoProbe 5410 Direct Push DRILLER Brent GEOLOGIST H. Pletropaoli DATE DRILLED 9/16/2008 DEPTH (feet) o 5 10 15 20 25 r ! : GRAPHIC LOG ] .. .. P.I.D. READING o o 0.2 0.4 o DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION 4 inches concrete CL. Dark brown silty clay, abundant organics, roots, dry, stiff GM. medium brown silty gravel. fill (?), loose. fragments :51-1/2", damp GM, medium brown'silty gravel . . fragments :51". damp. sli. plastic matrix ML. mottled olive yellow reddish brown silty clay, damp. slightly plastic CL, mottled olive green. reddish brown silty clay. soft. damp 10 moist. plastic Bottom of boring = 24 ft. bgs REMARKS Notes: PID = Pholoionization Detector "Readings" are in parts per million per volume air (ppmv) Continuous core sampling-100% core recovery unless specified otherwise Grab groundwater sample collected. Temporary screen set at 19-24' bgs. ( SG-1 ) Soil-gas sample collected for laboratory analysis. B6-15.5 30 Soil sample collected for ~ laboratory analysis. iLL_~ _____ ~ __ ~ ________ ~ ______ ~ '5l. Firsl encountered groundwaler r , Treadwell&RoIIo Attachment B lIE Model DTSC Version Worksheets SG-SCREEN Reset to Defaults ... , I M~RE I I M~RE I I M~RE I DTSC/HERD Last Update: 11/1/03 ENTER Chemical CAS No. (numbers only, no dashes) I 79016 ENTER Depth below grade to bottom of enclosed space floor, LF (15 or 200 em) Soil Gas Concentration Data ENTER ENTER Soil Soil gas OR gas conc., conc., Cg Cg (j..lg/m' (ppmv) 6.40E+03 I I ENTER ENTER ENTER Soil gas Vadose zone sampling Average SCS depth soil soil type below grade, temperature, (used to estimate Ls Ts soil vapor (em) (0G) ~ermeability) DATA ENTRY SHEET OR DTSC Vapor Intrusion Guidance Interim Final 12104 (last modified 1121/05) Chemical Trichloroethylene ENTER User-defined vadose zone soil vapor permeability, kv (em2) ~.15 I 457 T 24 SIC I I ENTER Van dose zone SCS soil type ENTER ENTER Vadose zone soil dry bulk density, ENTER Averaging Averaging ENTER Vadose zone soil total ENTER ENTER Vadose zone soil water-filled porosity, ewv (cm3/em3) ENTER time for time for Exposure Exposure carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency, ATc ATNc ED EF (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) (day~rJ ENTER Average vapor flow rate into bldg. (Leave blank to calculate) QsoiJ (LIm) DTSC Indoor Air Guidance Unclassified Soil Screening Model I 2650 & 2640 Birch Street 5/6/2009 2:53 PM -. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES SHEET Henry's Henry's Enthalpy of law constant law constant vaporization at Normal Unit Diffusivity Diffusivity at reference reference the normal boiling Critical risk Reference Molecular in air, in water, temperature, temperature, boiling point, point, temperature, factor, cone., weight, Da Dw H TR LlHY•b Ta Tc URF RfC MW ~, END \ ",;J&- 1 of 1 -~ \ ~;fi.- DTSC 1 HERD Last Update: 11/1/03 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATIONS SHEET Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Floor- Source-soil effective soil soil soil wall building air-filled total fluid intrinsic relative air effective vapor seam Soil separation, porosity, saturation, permeability, permeability, permeability, perimeter, gas LT 9aY Ste k; krg kv .><crack conc. (cm) (cm3/cm3) (cm 3/cm3) (cm2) (cm2) (cm2) (cm) (f.lg/m3) Bldg. ventilation rate, Qbuilding (cm3/s) 442 0.265 0.284 1.52E-09 0.844 J 1.28E-09 4,000 6.40E+03 3.39E+04 Area of Vadose Crack-Crack Enthalpy of Henry's law Henry's law Vapor zone enclosed space below grade, to-total depth vaporization at constant at constant at viscosity at effective Diffusion area below ave. soil ave. soil ave. soil ave. soil diffusion path ratio, grade, temperature, temperature, temperature, temperature, coefficient, length, As (cm2) 11 Zcrack liHv.Ts HTs H'TS f.lTS Deify Ld (unitless) (cm) (cal/mol) (atm-m 3/mol) (unitless) (g/cm-s) (cm2/s) (cm) 1.00E+06 5.00E-03 15 8,382 9.80E-03~ 4.02E-01 1.80E-~ 4.10E-03 442 Exponent of Infinite Average Crack equivalent source Convection Source vapor effective foundation indoor path vapor Crack flow rate diffusion Area of Peclet attenuation length, conc., radius, into bldg., coefficient, crack, number, coefficient, Lp Csource rcrack QSOil Dcrack Acrack exp(Pef) (l (cm) (f.l9/m3) (cm) (cm3/s) (cm2/s) (cm2) (unitless) _umitless) Infinite source bldg. conc., CbUilding (f.l9/m3) 15 6.40E+03 1.25 2.26E+00 4.10E-03 5.00E+03 3.01 E+OO 7.31 E-05 4.68E-01 Unit risk factor, URF (jlg/m3r1 Reference conc., RfC (mg/m3) 2.0E-06 6.0E-01 END DTSC Indoor Air Guidance Unclassified Soil Screening Model 2650 & 2640 Birch Street 5/6/2009 2:52 PM ..... , 2650 & 2640 Birch Street RESUL TS SHEET INCREMENTAL RISK CALCULATIONS: Incremental risk from vapor intrusion to indoor air, Hazard quotient from vapor intrusion to indoor air, carcinogen noncarcinogen (unitless) (unitless) 3.8E-07 7.5E-04 MESSAGE SUMMARY BELOW: 1 of 1 I ., SCSSoiType K,(cnYhl C 0.6. Ct. 0.3< L 0.50 l$ ~38 $ 2&78 5C 0.47 SCL ~ .. SI 1.82 SIC ~40 SICt. ~ .. SIl n76 SL .... CAS No. Che~ 56235carbon!~.nctilOrio't' $77"9CntJ,(f~ ~4pM'Q.Ho:H;L;r;oa~l G0297Ellylether &0571Ciddfln 67a41Acetone 8765301Iorot .. 'fm m21Ho'~chlOrce-t".I)r.fo 71432801l.ClI'\e 71550I.I.I·TrlchIotoelhane ~~=¥hb1 748J9Melhylbt~ 748T3Ila:t'ytcNo:";:!c{~lt"oC'.h'lI~1!1 74903H)'d~lIncyanj(Je 7495.J ... ettrytenebromide 75003 (::lIlQrooUlllne{ilti't:r1d"llQlWXJ) :!: ==OC!) (c1IIoI00tho.-.l:) 7501O~c:ct.,ld~ 7I5092r.le:tlyteNJcJlbnd"! 7515OCllrtondisu66e 75218Elt"Ir'...-.ooafdc 75252BlOI'fI)lo-m 7S274.1!10/"I-.»cM::!'Orr~o 7529G2-C1'I~ 753431.1..c;.-..h:cr.Ie'J'ldl~ 7&3S41.I..QlchIoroeU'ly"nll 75456ChlOto:flftuommethll1le 7S694TrlchlOtoftJorornethane 75716 OichJotodlllucwmeUlllne 7613't.l.2·TrldlIoro-I.2.2-U"!1tuoro.\lla 76448H~~d".bf ~~~=~lopetllacJklne 786751,2~ =~~r~::~a~bUUlnonel 79018U.cnbr:M:I.hY'ene 79209 MIII'IyIlIQ1111\e 79345I.f.2.2·rO\JIICh:.)rC'tOl8~ 794692 .. 'II~"OpMe Me28 Melhyknelhll~e 83J2gA09nap/Vl6ne M137FIUO/ene 87683.I .... ac::h>J:'/l·I.J.~JI8r:e S8~o-f{l\roIoiOJe1I.e 91203N.atllln~ 915T52..ue~lh ... ne m24Dij)llenyl 95478o-Xyttne SI05Otl.2..Qi:hlorcbenz:ene 955782-ChlOtcphenot 956361.2.4-Trltnelhyliben:efMl 961641.2.:s...Tric1'lL'I~1o/l 96333"'elhyJlcry"Ia 97632EltJyltl'leCtllayflti 9&OG61et1-8UTy1be1u:QtttI 98828Cumll\e ==:e l00414EI.hy1bt.nz:ene l0042S$tyr.ne l00447e-~o 10052781fl.z:alddryde 103651n-PrQl)'flbenrene 10 .. 515n-8u1y1bemene 10&42Jp.Xylane 1064571."·~eM 10~1.;H'IQ;tM'C4!""''''(a'Jrf.tn6of..-t; 1069001.J.8utDdl~ 107028AcrolOin 1070621.:!.C:;cNo~ 107131 ~ .. .tyi(tI:IIi!tl 10eo54Vqtleu,-,e 108101 Mw.,tisobutylllMone( .. -me\hy1.~ 108JS3m-Xyiene 10M781.3.6-Tri"netlWylbenl9n8 ~=~:~~ 108907~rmme 1~I-CNorobutane I10009Fwan 110543H .... 8~ "'''448~2..;~)ttt:e-t 115297 EnclOsulfan 1187 .. , H&x&;:hl()lob!:nre..... 12082.11.2.4-TrichloIOOenune ~=~==~:::31) 12SQ87MllCNcryla"litrile 12'B9Q82-CNoro-l,3-butadiene(chb/qlf 1271&1 TwatIIlM:-othyleno :==~nJn ,_...autylbellz:ene ''''786 EtlWylecailti l~cls--l.2.()kb1onJeltlyf!ne 1566051rM1·1.2.Ofct1io1"oell'ryien. 2O-59926enz:OI.bl'uor.In'N!"I1I! 2I&o19CJKr".er-e J09OO2~11rin 31904G:J'CIha-HC~t'\Jo.."'.>f!~} 541731'.3·0idliorobenJene ::~:~~==~~ 1634C44UT8E 7439976"'erOJry(el~1) (' 1 50i Properties lOOkup Table BU&OetIsty G.1(t/em) N(unitless) M(unitIBSs) n{eml/an') O.(cm'fcm') MeanGl'8lnOiamtter(cm) (~cm') 0.01496 '.253 0.2019 0.459 0.098 0.0092 .... 3 0.01581 1.416 0."'" ~"2 om. 0.016 .. .. 0.01112 un 0.3207 .., .. 0.061 0.020 '.59 0.03475 1.746 0."273 0.390 0.049 ~ ... •. 62 0.03524 3.177 0.8M2 o.J" M., 0.0 .... .. 00 0.03l42 '.208 O.lm 0= 0.117 0.025 1.63 0.02109 1.330 0.2481 0.384 0.063 0.029 '.63 0 ...... '.679 ~-0 .... O.osa O.OOCS '.35 0.01622 1.3'21 0.243) no •• 0.111 MOlO '.38 ~0083' 1.521 0.3425 0.462 0 .... 0 ..... '.37 0.00506 1.663 0.3987 0.439 0 .... 0.011 1.49 0.02687 1.01411 0.3099 0."" 0.039 0.030 '.62 Ch~tn8~locl!.UPTeblt = ~~( law~~~nl """"""" :l O::Ar DiffusMty ..... , ~::"'I IIllWtefwnc:o reference lnwsl«. soIU~. ten'\plrallJre. 18t1"1gel'1lurw. ... D. D. If H T. (em'to) an't, ""'~ C_, unijes:s .1nHn't"""1 rC) 1.74e+02 7.8OE-02 a.80E.()6 7.93E+02 1.24E4OO l.03E-02 25 1.20E·05 I.t6E-Ol <l37E-o& S.6D~2 ..... -03 ".65-E-OS .. t07Et003 1.42E-02 7.304E-08 7"",,'" S.73E-04 1.4OE-05 2. 5.13E*OO 7.82£.02 &61E-08 5.68E+o.t 1.35E.OO 3.29£-02 .. 2.t4EtO<t I.25E.02 ".74E-06 1.~-O1 6.18E-04 1.51E-05 2' 3~E.!: 1.24E-OI 1.14E-05 I.ooe·oe 1.S9E..03 3.87E-05 .. UME-OI 1.00E* 7.~E~ I.~E-Ol 3.6&E-03 .. 1.78E-*03 2.50~3 6.80E-OO 5.ooE101 1.S9E~1 3.a8E.(I3 .., 5.89EIOI UOE.02 9.80E-08 1.79E+03 2.27E.(I1 5.54E-03 .. 1.IOE+02 7.80E.02 8.8JE-06 1.33E+03 7.03E.(I1 1.72e.02 .. 9.77E+04 1.56E-02 4.46E.(16 I.00E.(I1 &46E.o.t I.54E-05 .., 4.47E'06 1.44E.02 5.87E.(I6 1.20E.(I1 ........ ~09E ... .. 1.05E+Ol 7.28E-02 1.21E-05 1.52Et04 ........ 6..22E-03 25 2.12ElOO 1.26E.(I1 a ...... ..".003 3.6IE.(I1 UOE-03 .., 3.&OE+OO UJe-OI 2.10E-05 1.00E+O& 5.44E..().3 I.33E.(I4 .. t.26E+OI 4.JOE-02 8ME.(I8 1.19Et04 3.52E-02 8.59E-04 .. 4.40EIOO 2.71E.(I1 1.15E.(I$ 5.68E+OJ 3.6IE.(I1 a&OE.(I3 25 1.86E+Ol I.06E-01 1.Z3E.(I$ &eoEIOJ 1.10Eloo 2.69E.(I2 25 4.20ElOO ...J'.28E.(I1 Ui&E.05 ~::~:: 1.42£-03 ;.~~: 2S 1.06E+00 1.24E.(II 1.41E.05 3.23E..().3 .. I.I7E+Ol 1.01E.(I1 1.17E-05 I.30EI04 .... -02 2.lae-03 .. 4.S1E+ot 1.04£.(11 I.ooE.05 1.19EIOJ Cl4E"00 3.02E.(I2 .., 1.33E'00 1.04£-01 1.45E-05 3.04E~ 2.27E-02 5.54E-04 25 8.7IE'01 1.C9E-02 1.03£-05 3.10EtQ3 2.41E-02 5.S8E-04 .. 5.5OEIOI 2.98E-02 I.DtlE.1J.5 6.7"EIOJ 6.54E.02 1.60E.(I3 .. 9.14E+OO &88E.(I2 1.01E.(I5 3.T3EIOJ 5.93E.(I1 1.45E-02 .. 3.18EIOI 7."2E.(I2 1.05E-05 5.05EIOJ 2.3OE.(I1 5.6IE.(I3 2S 5.89E+Ol 9.00E-02 1,00E-05 2.2:$£103 1.07ElOO 2.SOE-02 .., 4.T9EIOI 1.01E-Ol I.2SE-05 2.ooE+OO 1.10ElOO 2.70E.(I2 :IS ".97Et02 8.1OE.(I2 9.70E.06 1.10Et03 3.97E·00 9J58E-02 .. 4.57E+02 6.65E-02 9.9lE-06 2.80E"02 1.40EIOI 3."2E.(I1 :IS 1.I1E+O" 7.&oE.(I2 &"20E.(16 1.1OEt02 U7EIO' ".80E.(I1 :IS 1."'E+08 1.12£.(12 5.69E-06 l.aoE.(I1 8.05EIOI l.46ElOO 2S 2.00E+05 1.8IE-02 7.21E.(16 !.80ElOO l.l0E"00 2.69E.02 25 2.59E+()() &60E.(I2 9.JOE-08 8.5OEI04 .(JI3E.(I" 1.18E-O$ 2S ".37E+OI 7.82E.(I2 8.73E.(16 2.eoEIOJ 1.15E.(I1 2.79E-03 25 2.3OE ... 8.0aE-Ol 9.«)E-06 2.23Et05 2.29E-03 5.:!I8E-05 25 5.0IEIOI 7.80E-02 6.80E.(16 ... ael03 3.T.lE.(I2 9. 11 E-04 .., 1.66EI02 7.90E-02 9.10E.(I6 I.47EI03 4.21E.(I1 1.0JE.02 2S ~2OE'" 1.0"E-Ol ~:=: 2.00E·03 4.ME.(I3 I. 18E.o.t 25 9.33E101 7.IOE-02 2..96E'03 1."'E.(I2 3 ..... E-04 2S 1.17E+01 9.23i!.(I2 1.0 I E.os I.1OE'04 5.03E.(I3 1.Z3E-04 .. 6.98E+OO 7.1OE-02 &SOE-06 UiOE·04 I.38E.02 3.36E-04 :IS 7.08EtOO .... 21E-02 7.69E.(16 3.57E'00 6.3<E-03 1.55E-04 :IS 1.38E+O" 3.63E.02 7.88E.(16 1.9R-00 2.SOE-03 6.3<E ... 2S 5.37EIO" 5.6IE.(I2 6.16E.(I8 ~:~: 3.33E-OI & 13E..().3 .., 3.24Et02 5.87E.(I2 8.67E.oo 5.IIE.(I" 1.25E!-O$ 2S 2.00E--OJ .... E-02 7..50E.(16 3.\OEIOI 1.98E.(I2 ".&2E-O" 2S 2.8IEt()J 5.22E-02 7.75oE.(I6 2. .. seIOI 2.'lE-02 5. 17E.(I" 2S ".34Et03 ".0"E-02 3.15E.(I6 7.ee100 1.2JE.(I2 2.99E.(I" 2S 3.83Etm &70E-02 1.00E.(I5 1.78E+02 2.12E.(II 5.f8E-03 25 6.17E102 &90E-02 UOE.(16 1.56£+02 7.77E.(I2 1.90£-03 .. 3.88EI02 5.01E.(I2 ~ ...... 2.20E+O" 1.60E-02 3.00E.(I" .. I.35EtOO 8.06E.02 7.92E-06 5.70EIOI ,..,. ... G.14E-03 .. 2.20EIOI 7.10E.(I2 7.90E.(16 1.75E+OJ 1.61f-02 ".OSE-04 .. 4.53E+OO 9.78E.(I2 I.02E-05 6.00Et04 7.88E..(I3 1.87E.(I4 .., 2.~+O1 6.53E.(I2 8.37E.(I6 3.57EIOJ 3.4oCE.(I2 &4OE .... .. 7.71E.002 6..G5E.(I2 8.02E-06 ~IOI ".87E.(I1 1.19E-02 2S ".89'E+02 6.5OE.(I2 7.IOE-06 8.13E"01 ".7"E+Ol 1.16fiOO 2. 5.T7E+OI 6.OOE.(I2 8.T.lE.(16 &IJEIOJ ".3aE.(I" 1.07E-05 .. 6.46E+01 7.GOE.(I2 &60E.(I8 2.0ge103 9.82:E.(I" ~39E'" 2. 3.63E102 7.~.02 7.80E.(16 1.6SlEtOl 3.22E.(I1 7.86E-03 .. 7.76E.02 7.10E.02 8.00E.(16 3.10E+02 1.12E.(I1 2.74E.(I3 .. 6.1"E.Ol 7.5OE.02 7.80E-08 i~: 1.1OE-02 ... I"E-04 25 ".59E.Ol 7.21E-02 9.07E.(16 9.T3E-04 2.37E-05 2S 5.61£+02 5.0lE.(I2 7.53E-06 &OOE+Ol 4.31E-Ol 1.07E.(I2 .. 1.11EtOJ 5.1OE-02 8.12E-08 2.00E+oo 5.38E-Ol 1.31E.02 .. 3.a9E-02 Ui9E-02 8.4"E-06 U5Etm 3.13&01 7.64E-03 2S 8.I7EI02 6.9OE.(I2 7.90E..Q6 7.90EI01 '.82E-02 2.39E.(I3 .., 2.5OEIOI 2. 17E-02 1.19E-05 ".16EI03 3.04E-02 7."'E~" 2. 1..91E+01 2."9E-Ol 1.0SE-05 7.3I5E_02 3.01E100 7.34E.(I2 2. 2.76E100 1.05E.(I1 1.22E-05 2.IJEtOS 4.99E.(I3 1.22E-04 .. 1.7"E 1(1 I 1.04E.(I1 9.90E-OO 6.S2EIOJ .... OOE-02: 9.nE-04 .. 5.90ElOO 1.22E.(I1 1.34E.05 7.4OE+04 ".21E-03 1.03E.(I4 .. 5.25E'00 MOE-02 9.20E.(16 2.00E+O" ~09E-02 5.10E·0" .. 9..DfiEtOO 7.50E..Q2 7.80E-OO 1.9lE+()04 5.64E-03 1.34E.(I" .., ".07EI02 7.00E.02 7.80E-06 U1E+02 100£-01 7.3lE-03 25 1.35EI03 M2E-02 8.67E-06 2.oOE", 2. .. IE..Ql 5.87E..Q3 2' 7.WIO' 7.35E-02 8.52E-06 I.4OE+Ol .. .22EIOO 1.0JE.(I1 .. 1.52Et02 3.70E.02 &GOE-08 .26E<02 2.72E-01 &82E.OJ .. 2.19Et02 7.30E-02 8.70E-06 ... mt02 1.51E-OI 3.69E.(I3 .. l.nelOI &26E..Q2 1.00E-05 1.10Et03 6.93E-01 J.M1E.(I2 .. U16E"01 '.O"E-Ol 1.22E..QS 1.00E+()04 2.21E-01 5.J9E-03 .. ".l4E+Ol 2.00E-Ol 7.71E-G6 1.2"E+OI 6.82E+Ol I.ME+OO 25 I.55EIOI am-02 7.53.E~6 l.nE+04 7.34E..()4 1.80E-05 .. 2.14£103 1.15E.Q2 ,USE-08 5.IOE-Ol 4.5SE-04 I.12E-05 .. 5.5OEI04 5."2E-02 5.9IE-08 5.00E-03 5.40E-02 1.32E.(I3 25 1.7eelOJ 3.00E.02 &2.31!-06 4.S8E+Ot 5.81E..Q2 1."2E-03 :IS ".62ElOO Q.5«-02 1.07E-05 U9E..,. 7.99£.o.t 1.95E.(I5 .. 6.3IE+O, 1.9I5E.(I2 1.0SE.1J.5 2.GOEIOJ 3.20E..Q2 7.8IE.(I" 25 3.58E"+Ol 1.12E.(I1 1.32E..Q5 2.54Et04 1..0 1 E-02 2.46£..0" .. 6.73£101 8.!58E-02: l.o3E-05 2. 12:EIQ3 4.91E-01 1.201:..02 25 1.55E102 7.20E..Q2 &20E.os ~OO .... 7.53E-01 1.S4E-02 25 t.O~I05 2.72E-02 7.2"E-06 1.~E+OO 4.5OE-O" I.l0E-05 .. 5.15£103 ~38E-02 &OOE·oe 3.IOE+OO 5.1$E..Q" I.26E-05 2S 9.6EEI02 5.1OE-02 8.12E-06 3.94E+oo 5.65E..QI 1.39E..Q2 .. 6.44EI00 7.32E..Q2 9.70E-08 &03E+()04 5.64E-03 I..33E.(I" .. 3.55EIOI 7.JOE-02 I. 13E.(I$ 3.50E+03 UTE.(Ii ".07E..Q3 .. 5.25EIOI 7.01£-02 1.19E-05 "-'lOEOO3 3.54£.(11 9.36E-03 2S 1.23EIOS ~26E-02 5.56E-06 I.~E-03 4.54E..Q3 1.1IE.(I" 2S 3.98E+05 ~"'-02 6..21E-06 3.30E-03 3.87E-03 9.44E-05 .. 2.0&5E+OS 1.32E-02 4.86E.(I6 I.70E.(I2 6.95E..().3 I.1OE~ .. .. 1.23EI03 1."2E..Q2 7.34E-06 2.ooE4oo ".34E.(I4 1.06E-05 .., 1.9SE+03 6.92E-02 7.e6E-06 1.34E+02 1.27E-Ol 3..o9E..Q3 .. ".57E+Ol 6..26E-02: 1.00E.(I5 2.IIOE-OJ 7.24E-Ol 1.77E-02 .., 1.16£102 7.10£-02 7.90E-OO 1.IOEIOJ 9.90E-02 2."'E-03 25 7.26E+()() 1.02E..Ql 1.05E~5 5.IOEI04 2.56E.(I2 6.23E.(I" .. 5.20E+Ol 3.07E-02: &3OE-06 2.00EIOt 4.4OE.(I1 1.07E.(I2 .. e .. (c:m1/cm'} SCS Soil N8mo O.215Ct1y O.I68CISyLoam O.I48l.oam M76LoamySand 0.05<$000 0.197 Sandy Clay ~::~~ndyCIay~m O.2t6S1lyCISy 0.198 SllyCISy Loam ~~:::~ CatEPA TOJlk:ttyCrittrr.rn bQld EnU\.t.lpyd 11n1:lted 1121105OTSCMERD) --va:::'1I1 "' .... CtiIIca. ... ReI ... "", Molecular ..... lempenlure. bol"IftgDO! .... laC\or. """". ...,,", T, 'T, .... , URF (::.~ MW ('1<) ("1<) ",'mol ',glm'" Jgt .... "'~90 ...... 7,127 ".2&05 .. .oE-02 1.54E+02 624.24 .... 73 .~ooo 3.4£-04 7.oE-Oot ".IOe·02 "'.55 &30.36 .~ooo l.lE-Q4 I.IE-03 2.91e"02 J07.SO 466.74 6.338 o.oe·oo 7.oE-Oi 7."'12-401 613.32 5042.25 17,000 ".&E-03 1.8E-04 3.61Et02 329.20 S08.IO a ... o.oe·oo 3.5E-Ol 5.B1EtOI 3JA.32 ...... ~9" 5..3E-06 3.0E-Ot 1.19Et02 .... 00 695.00 9,$10 1.1E.(I5 3.5£-03 2.37E<02 3>3.>< 562.18 7.3<2 2.9E.(I5 :; t~l::·:l2 7.81E101 347.24 ....... 7.13e o.OEIOO f.OE+oO 1.33E+02 6$1.02 _ .. .aooo O.OEIOO I.8E.02 3.4eE102 roe.44 .... 38 15.000 9.7E.(I5 o.OE+OO 3.18E+02 276.71 ..... 00 5,714 o.OElOO .. ..., 9.49EIOI 249.00 41425 5.115 1.0E-06 9.OE-02 S.05EIOI m.00 .... 70 6.678 o.OE+oo j·i2"·~ 2.70E+Ol 310.00 5aJ.00 7 .... o.OEloo 3.~-O2 I.74E+02 28S.JO ...... • .879 &3E·07 :.~i' •• (.; 6..45E+Ol 259.25 <3~00 ~~ 7.8E.(I5 I.OE-Ol 425EIOI ,.. ... ...... O.OEtOO 6.0E-02 4.IIEIOI 293.10 466.00 6.1S1 2.7E-06 9..OE-03 4.41E401 313.00 510.00 ..700 l.oE.(I6 4.0E.(II 8.49E10I 319.00 "~OO 15.391 O.OElOO ".QI;:"~: 7.6IEIOI =60 46900 5.104 3.8E·05 3.0E.(I2 4.4IEIOI 422.,. .... 00 9.47V I.IE-06 7.0E-02 2.53E·02 363.15 .... 8S 7 .... 3.7E-05 7.0E.(I2 I.6"E·02 _70 .... 00 6.288 o.OE+oo 1.0E.(I1 7.85E+Ol 330." SZl.OO ..... 1.6E-06 5.0E.(I1 9.90E'01 ,...." 5ni.05 6.247 O.OEloo 7.0E-02 9.69EIOI Zl~40 "'.30 '.'" O.OElOO 5.0EIOI &65EIOI 296.70 "71.00 5 .... O.oElOO 7.0E.(I1 1.37EI02 2<3.20 384 ... 9,"21 ~:~~:: 2.0E-Ol 1.21E.002 320.70 487.30 6."63 3.0E+01 1.87EI02 .. 3.69 848.31 13.000 1.8E·03 1.8E-03 3.T.lEI02 512.15 7<d00 10.931 o.OE+OO 2.0E-04 2.T.lEI02 341.04 547.78 '0.936 O..oE+OO I.IE"OO 7."'EIOI ,.. .. 2 572.00 7.'" 1.0E.(I5 ".OE-03 1.13EI02 ,.~SO "'.76 7.481 o.OE·oo 5i~;~~ 7.2IE+OI 3M.l$ 602.00 8.322 1.6&05 I.33E+02 360.36 5<4.20 7.'" 2.OE.(I6 6.0E-OI I.31E+02 329.80 .... 70 7.260 o.OEIOO 3.5E+00 7.41EIOI "'9.60 661.15 ..... is.1I~5 2.1E-Ol 1.68€-02 393.20 .... 00 ..,., 2.7E-03 2.0E-02 a.g'E+Ol 3"'-"700 8.975 o.OE·OO 7.0E-Ol 1.00EI02 550 .... 6OJ. •• 12, ISS o.OEIOO 2.IE-Ol I.54E-02 510.44 .7000 '~666 O.oE+OO 1."E-01 I.ME+02 <86.'5 738., 10.206 2.2E.(I5 7.0E-04 2.SIEI02 .... 00 72000 '~239 o.OElOO 3.5E.(I2 1.37EI02 "91.1" 748.40 10.313 3. .. e.o5 )':12··;,1 1.28E+02 51".26 nil.00 ~~: o.OEloo 7.0E-02 1."2E+02 529.10 789.00 o.oE+OO 1.8E-01 1..54E+02 "17.50 6Jo.3O 8.661 O.OEloo I.,·~..ol 1.06E"02 "3.01 105.00 9.100 O.OE+oo 2.0E.(Ii I."7EI02 447.53 675.00 9.5n O.OEtOO 1.8E.(I2 I.29E_02 "~30 649.17 9.389 o.OElOO 8.0E-03 1.20EI02 430.00 .. ~oo 9.171 5.7E-O" "_9E·OJ 1."7EI02 353.70 "'.00 7.749 o.OElOO 1.1E.(I1 &61EIOI 390.00 571.00 10.9.57 O.OEloo 3.2E-Ol I.I"EI02 .... 2.10 1120.00 ..... D.OElOO l."E-Ol 1.34E"02 ."" .. 631.10 10.335 O.OElOO ".OE.(II I.20E102 ''''00 709.-lI.m O.OElOO 3.5E-OI I.20EI02 ..,.os 719.00 10.5&6 o.OElOO 2.0E-03 1.23EI02 .... ,.. 617.20 8.5131 O.OE+OO ~.?l:1~' 1.06EI02 "18.31 63600 8.137 O,OE+OO 9.0E-Ol 1.04EI02 4S~00 685.00 &m 4.9E.(I5 O.OE'OO 1.27EI02 "52.00 .... 00 11,658 O.oE+OO 3.5£.(11 1.06E+02 432.20 630.00 9.123 O.OE+OO 1.4£-01 1.20E+02 ""'6 .... so 9.290 O.OEIOO 1.4E-01 I.J..4E.02 411.52 616.20 ~m O.OElOO IC:21J1 1.06EI02 447.21 .... " 9.271 I.IE.(I5 6.OE.(I1 1. .. 7EI02 ..... "".00 8.310 7.IE.(I5 8.cJE·O" 1.68E'02 ""' .. '2MO 5.370 1.7E.(I" "].'-(0'1 5."'E·01 315." .... 00 8.731 O.oEIOO 5.8IEIOI ,.. ... 561.00 7.543 2.1E.(I5 . ..... 9.90E-OI "".30 519.00 7.'" 2.9~" '<·l~·::.!-5.31E-01 ,..~ 519.13 7.'" O.OE"OO 2.0E.(II 8.81E+01 _so S11.00 8,243 ~~: 8.0E-02 1.GOel(l2 .. 12.27 617.05 aoZl :.~.~.~ I I.Q6EI02 "37.89 837.25 9.321 o.OElOO 6.0£-03 J.20E+02 373.90 57220 7 ... 7 .. O.OElOO 3.0E"00 9.82EIOI 30176 591.79 7.930 O.oElOO 3.0E..Ql 9.21EIOI .... 87 632.'0 8."'0 O.OElOO 1.0E+OO 1.13EI02 3$1.60 542.00 7.263 O.OElOO 1.4E+00 9.2se+OI ,... ... "90.20 ~'" O.oE"OO ~".OJ 6..51EIOI 341.70 506.00 ..... O..oE+OO "].0;:-·:)1 8.62EIOI 0&51.15 659.79 10.803 7.\E·04 O.oElOO U3Et02 674.43 .. ~ .. 1 ... 000 O.OEIOO 2.1E-02 4.07Et02 .. ~ .. 825.00 14.4"7 5.tE..Q4 2.8E-03 2.85E-02 486.15 n5.00 10."71 O.cJE·OO 2.0£.(11 talE+02 375.20 ,...00 9 5.4E..Q" O.OE+()() 7.olEIOI 416.1" .... 20 5 .... 2.7E-O$ 7.0E-02 2.08E+02 363.30 ..... 00 7.'" O.OE+oo 7.cJE-O" 6.71E+01 =<0 520.00 .~7S O.oE+OO 7..oE-03 8.85E+Ol "'.40 620.20 &288 is.9f-06 3.~..Q2 1.866+02 667.i5 936 ,<371) O.oE_OO I.IE..QI 2.0lEI02 E60 .24 ..... O.OEIOO 1.4E.(I2 I.68E+02 .... 5 679 ..,30 O.OElOO 1.4£.(11 1.34E"02 ,...,. 023.3 7""," O.OElOO 3.2ElOO 8.81EIOI =60 ... 7192 O.OE+OO 3 ....... 9.89E+01 320.85 516.5 6717 o.OE"OO 7.0E-02 9.G9E+01 715.9 .... 27 '7000 I.IE·O" O.OElOO 2.52Et02 714.15 979 ... 55 f.tE..Q5 o.OfiOO 2.28E+02 503.01 &19.37 '5000 ....9~3 I.IE..Q4 3.65EI02 ...... 830.36 '5000 7.7E-04 O.OE+OO 2.91Et02 ... ... 9230.16 O.OElOO I.IE..QI 1.47EI02 381_15 587.34 7900 l.fiE.(I5 20E-02 I.IIEI02 "03.5 62. 9768.2S2525 7."E-OI5 I.IE-Ol I.68EI02 326.3 497.1 5677.~ UiE·07 'l:E-:~ 882E+OI 025 .. I7SO ''''27 O.OEIOO 9.0E..Q5 2.01E"0"2. URF RIC _ted extraool.IN X X 7 X X X X X X ? X X X X X X ? X X X X X X X X X 7 X X X X X X ? X X X 7 7 X X X X X 7 X X X X X X X 7 ? X X X '" Orig' IEPAVatu " Unit '''' RRleft1IOII flidOr. a>ne.. URF RIC ,~".:;., (::") aw.poIated extrI,POIated X (Xl UiE-050.0E*OO I.OE-04 7.0E-04 3.7E--04 1.1E-OJ X X O.OE+oO 7.0E-OI X ".6E-03 1.8E-04 X O.OE+oO 3.~-O1 X 2.3E-OS' o.oEt{)(I 4.0E-06 3.SE-03 X 7.8E-O& O.OE+oO D.OEtOO 2.2E+OO O.OE+OO 1.8E.02 X 9.7E-050.0EIOO X O.OE+oO 5.OE-03 1.0E-06 9.0E-02 O.OE+OO 3.0E.(I3 O.OE+OO 3.5E.(I2 X 8.3E·071.0E+01 X 6..8E.0II ,.oE.(I1 O.OE+OO 6.OE.02 2.2E-06 9.0E-03 4.7E.(I73.0EtOO O.OE+OO 7.0E.(I1 1.0E-040.0EtOO I.IE.(I67.0E-Q2 X 1.8E..Q5 7.0E-02 X X O.OEIOO 1.0E.(I1 O.OE+OO 5.0E.(I1 O.OE+OO 2.0E-Ol O.OE+OO 5.OE+OI O.OE+OO 7.0E-01 0.0£+00 2.0E-Ol O.OEIOO 3..oEI01 1.3E-03 1.8E.(I3 X O.OE+oo 2.0E-O" O.OE+OO I.IE'OO X 1.9E.(I54.0E-03 X O.OE+OO 1.0E+oo 1.8E-05 1.4E.(I2 X !.IE·O" 4_0E-02 X O.OE+OO 3.5E+oo X 5.8EooM 2.1E-01 X 2.7E.(I32..OE-02 O.oEt()O 7..oE-Oi O.OE+OO 2.IE-OI X O.OE-OO l."E-Ol X 2.1£.(I57.0E-04 X O.OE+oo 3.~.(I2 X O.oE+OO 3.0E-03 O.OElOO 7.0E.02 X O.OE+OO 1.5E.(I1 X O.OE+OO I.OE.(I1 O.OE+oO 2.0E-OI O.OE+OO 1.8E.(I2 X O.OE+OO &OE-03 5.7E-O" <.9E-03 X O.OE+OO 1.1E.(Ii X O.OE+OO 1lE·Ol X O.OE+oo 1.4E·Ol X O.OE+OO .... OE.(II O.OE+oo 3.SE.(I1 X O.OE+OO 2.0E-03 O.OE+OO 1.0E+OO O.OE+()() 1.0E+oo 4.9£:45 O.OE+OO X O.OElOO 3.5E.(II X O.OEtOa l."E.(I1 X O.OElOO I."E.(I1 X O.OE+oo I.OE.(II O.OE'OO 8.0E-Ol 6.OE-0" 9.0E-03 3.0E·05 O.OE-OO O.OE+()() ~OE'" 2.GE-05 O.OElOO a8E", 2.OE-03 O.OE+OO 2.OE..QI O.oElOO a.oE..Q2 O.oE"OO 1.0E..Ql O.oE+OO 6.0E..Q3 O.OEIOO 3.oE"00 O.OE+OO ...oE·OI O.OE+()() ME.Q2 O.OEIOO 1."E-OO X O.OElOO 3.5E.OJ X O.OE+OO 2.0E.(lI 13E-04 ....... 0.0£+00 2,IE~2 X ".6E..()4 2.8E~3 X O.OE-OO 2.0E.(Ii 5."E-O" O.OEIOO X ~ ..... 7.0E-02 X X o.OE+OO 7.0E-04 O.oE"OO 7.OE.(I3 3.0E-06 O.GE+()() O.OEIOO 1.1E.(I1 X O.OEIOO ""E.(I2 X o.OElOO l."E.(I1 X O.OElOO ;':: X O.OEIOO X O.OE"OO 7.0E-02: X 2.1E-O" O.OEIOO X 2.1E..QG D.OEt-{X) X 4.9E-03 1.1E-04 X I.8E-03 0.0E400 O.OE+OO 1.1E-Ol X 4.0E-05 ~0E.Q2 7.4E..QG 1.1E~1 X O.OElOO 3.0E+OO o.OEtOa :l.OE..Q4 CelEPA I USEPA Po\encyR.atio ~ .. 3." 0 ... NC f.OO NC 0.23 ~,. ~n NC NC .~o NC 1.00 NC NC '.00 .... NC '.Zl ~13 NC 0 ... '.00 2~' NC ClI~Aonty C C NC NC He NC 1.2] NC NC 0." NC 1.00 0.02 I.e '.00 1.00 NC NC NC 1.00 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC He 1.00 NC NC ~ NC NC He NC 1.00 NC NC NC NC .~~~:onIY M7 NC 0.8. '2. He He NC NC NC NC NC He He He .. ,. I.e 1.11 He 1.00 1.13 NC He 1.97 He NC NC NC NC NC 0." U. 1.00 0.<3 He "'0 1.00 al~Aonly 18.34.010 ATTACHMENT J Chapter 18.34 PEDESTRIAN AND TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (PTOD) COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS Sections: 18.34.010 18.34.020 18.34.030 18.34.040 18.34.050 18.34.060 18.34.070 18.34.010 Purposes Applicability Land Uses Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Developm.ent (PTOD) Combining District Regulations Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District Context-Based Design Criteria Review Process Non-confoID1ing Uses and Non-complying Facllities Purposes (a) California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Cornbining District . The California. A venue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District is intended to allow higher density residential dwellings on comlnercial, industrial and multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of the CalifOlnia Avenue Caltrain station, while protecting low density residential parcels and parcels with historical resources tbat may also be located in or adjacent to this area. The cOlnbining district is Jntended to foster densities and facilities that: (1) SlJpPOrt use of public transportation; (2) Encourage a variety of housing types, commercialretail and limited office uses; (3) Encourage project design that achieves an overall context-based developn1ent for the prOD overlay area; (4) Require streetscape design elen1ents that are attractive pedestrians and bicyclists; (5) Increase cormectivity to surrounding existing and plarmed pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and (6) Implement the city S Housing E1elnent and Comprehensive Plan. (b) [Reserved] (Ord. 4914 §2 (part), 2006) 18.34.020 Applicability (a) The California A venue Pedestrian and Transit Giented Development Combining District (PTOD) may be combined with any R-1, CC(2), CN, GM, PF, RM30, or RM40 district or combination of such districts within the designated California Avenue PTOD boundary (Exhibit A, reflected on the city S Zoning Map)., consistent with the provisions of Chapters 18.08 and 18.80. Where so combined, the regulations established by this Ch. 18.34 -Page 1 (Supp No 1 J -10/112007) 18.34.030 Land Uses chapter shall apply in lieu of the provisions estahlished by the underlying CC(2), CN, GM, RM30, andlor RM40 zoning district(s). Compliance wi.th the provisions of Chapter IS.30(A), Retail Shopping (R), and Chapter IS.30(B), Pedestnan Shopping (P), combining districts shall also be required where such combining districts are applicable. (b) [Reserved] (c) A pedestrian and transit oriented develojIDent combining district may be applied to a parcel through rezoning of the site, within the specified boundalies of the district, as shown on the city S approved zoning maps, pursuant to the provisions and process outlined in Section IS.34.060 of this chapter and Chapter IS.S0 of the Zoning Ordinance. (Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006) 18.34.030 Land Uses (a) The foll'owing land uses shall be pe=itted in the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District, subject to limitations outlined in Sections IS34.040 and IS.34.050. TABLE 1 -LAND USES Mixed-use development, where residential and non-residential uses are oomblned P See Seclion 18.34.030(b) below for uses lIvelWork Units CUP Hotel Subject to limitations of Seelion 18 P Subjecllo limllations of SectKln 18.34. (b) Mixed use development, where residential and non-residential uses are combined, may include two or more of the following uses: (1) Multi-family residential; (2) Non-residential uses, limited to: (A) Retail and personal services; (B) Eating and drinking services; (C) Other non-residential uses allowed except on the ground floor where an (R) overlay exists: (i) OffIces; (ii) General business services; (iIi) Business and trade schools; (Supp_ No 13 -10/112007) Ch. IS.34 -Page 2 18.34.040 PlOD Combining Dislricl Regulalions (iv) Private education facilities; (v) Day care center; (vi) Community center; (vii) Commercial recreation; (viii)Convalescent facility; and (ix) Research and development, limIted to sites where the underlying zoning district is GM and involving the use and storage of hazardous materials in quantities less than the exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (Section 105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code). (c) Prohibited uses in the California Avenue PTOD (1) Single-family and two-family uses; (2) Manufactw'ing, processing, warehousing and distribution; and (3) Research and development where hazardous materials are used or stored in excess of quantities less than the exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (Section 105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code) (d) All land uses must be reviewed and approved by the planni.g and transportation commission and city council at the time ofrezoning to PTOD. (Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006) 18.34.040 Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District Regulations (a) Properties in the PTOD combining district are sul:ject to the following regulations TABLE 2 -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Il-" S!fi ndilrdS \ :, , PTQtj --,ealJ!g.t{lla.'Avlf~ .0; '*pTbo ~ Li>O,Wrj!,<iwltlR.eS"elYe.~I)~. Max. Dwelling Units: 40 DUlAC 2 Max. FAR: 100% Residenllal FAR 1.0:1 2 Mixed Use FAR '. 1.25:1.2, 3 Tolal: 0.35 ' Mixed Use Non-Residenilal FAR Cap Ofnoe and research and development uses 025 FAR Holels 2.0 Height: 40 feel 2 Open Space: Minimum area required 5 or fewer unils: 200 sJ per unil 6 or more unils: 100 s.f. per unil Minimum dimensions Privale open space 6 feel Common open space: 12 feel ITable Conllnues on Next Pagel Ch. 18.34 -Page 3 (Supp No I} -I 0/1/2007) 18.34.040 PlOD Combining District Regulations . StilOdan'iS 1." iC" h ~". ,PTob...Y'P;illfqri1i~. 4~~,", ~T~ -QowntooJlo lFlesjctlgJ Parking: Rales estabRshed by use. per Chs. 18.52 and 18.54 Parking Adjustments: See Section 18.34.040 (d) Setbacks and daylight plane requirements for properties adjacent to R-1 and R-2 zones: On portion of site Ihat abuts: Setbacks 1. Interior side yard: 6 feet 2. Rear yard: 20 feet On portion of site Ihat abuts: 1. Interior side yard: a. Initial height at interior side lot Ime: 10 feet Daylight Plane b. Angle (degrees) 45 2. Rear yard: a. Initial height at rear setback line: 16 feet b. Angle (degrees) 45 Setbacks and day tight and day tight plane requirements for properties adjacent to Caltrain Right-of-Way: Setbacks On portion of site that abuts Caltrain right- of-way: 5 feet (landscaped) On portion of site that abuts Cal train right- of-way: Daylight Plane a. Inilial height at property line w/Caltrain righl-of-way' 16 feel b. Angle (Degrees) 45 (1) Non-residentia! development thai is not consistent with the mixed-use limitations set forth aoove, with the exception of hotels. musl be developed per the underlying zoning district regulations. (2) See Section 18.34.040(e) for Below Market Rate (BMR) bonus provISions (3) The residential component of the mixed use may not exceed 1.0: 1. (4) The non-residential component 01 a mixed use project shall not exceed 50% of the total square-footage of the project. (b) Live/Work Units (I) A live/work unit, for the purposes of this chapter, is defmed asa rental or ownership unit comprised of both Jiving space and work area, WIth the living space occupying a minimum of 60% of the total gross floor area of the unit, and such that the resident of the Jiving space is the owner/operator of the work area. (2) The work area shall be located on the ground level, oriented to the street and provide for at least one external entrance/exit separate from the living space. The work area may be used for office, retail, personal services, or handcrafted goods (unless otherwise limited by this chapter), but sball not be used for restaurants or cafes or for any business involving the storage or use of hazardous materials in excess of the quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (Section 105.8 of the Fire Code). (3) The maximum number of employees who do not reside wlthm the unit is two. (Supp_ No 13 -10/ I 12007) Ch. \8.34 -Page 4 . 18.34.040 PTOD Combining District Regulations (4) The signage shall not exceed the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code and shall require approval and recommendation by the arcbitectural review process prior to approval by the director. (5) The parking requirements shall include a maximum total of two spaces for the residential unit, plus one space per 200 square feet for the gross square footage of the work area, less one space from the total (to reflect the overlap of the resident and one employee). (6) The live/work units are subject to the development standards of the PTOD zone outlined in Table 2 for a 100% residential development, except that the maximum non -residential FAR is limited to 0.40. (7) The maximum size of a live/work unit shall be lilTIited to 2,500 square feet. (8) The design of street frontage of a live/work unit shall be consistent with the context- based criteria outlined for street frontage in Section 18.34.050 below. (9) A live/work unit may be converted to an entirely residential unit where residential use on the ground .floor is not otherwise prohibited.. (c) HoteJs (1) Hotels for the purpose of this section are defined as hotels, motels, or other lodging for which City of Palo Alto transient occupancy tax is collected. (2) Hotels may be constructed to a maximum FAR of2.0 and a maximum height of 50 feet. (3) All hotels are subject to the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.34.050 below. (d) Parking Adjustments· Adjust1nents to the required parking standards lTIay be allowed with the director s approval pursuant to the provisions outlined in Section 18.52.050, with the following additional . allowances and requirements: (1) For multi-family residential or mixed use projects on sites:ezoned to the PTOD combining district, the director may waive a portion of or all guest parking requirements, and may waive any requirement to provide a landscape reserve for parking, subject to the following conditions: (A) The project includes a minimun of four residential units; (B) The average residential unit size is 1,250 square feet or less; and (C) Not more than one parking space per residential unit shall be assigned or secured, such that other required parking spaces are available to other residents and guests. (2) Projects providing more than 500/0 of the project residential units at low or very-low income housing rates may further reduce parking requirelnents by an additional 200/0. (3) In no case, however, shall total parking requirements for the ste be reduced by greater than 300/0 from the standard requirements, or by greater than 400/0 for an affordable housing project consistent with subdivision (2) above, or by more than Ch. 18.34 -Page 5 (Supp. No 13 -10/1/2007) 18.34.040 (4) . ~ ....... _' PlOD Combining District Regulations 500/0 if housing for the elderly is proposed pursuant to Sec60n 18.52.050 of the Zoning Ordinance. For any request for parking adjustments, the project applicant shall indicate parking and traffic demand Ineasures to be implemented to reduce parking need and trip generation. Measures may include, but are not limited to: lin1iting 'assigned"parking to one space per residential unit, providing for Caltrain and/or other transit passes, or other measures to encourage transit use or to reduce parking needs. The program shall be proposed to the satisfaction of the director, shall include proposed performance targets for parking and/or trip reduction, and shall designate a single entity (property owner, homeowners association, etc.) to implement the proposed measures. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the director not later than two years after building occupancy and again not later than fi ve years after building occupancy, noting the effectiveness of the proposed measures as compared to the initial performance targets and suggestions for modifications if necessary to enhance parking and/or trip reductions. (e) Density, FAR, and Height Bonus Provisions The following provisions are intended to allow for increased density, FAR, height, and other developn1ent bonuses upon construction of additional below market rate (BMR) housing units. The bonus allowances shall be allowed subject to the following limitations: (1) Bonuses are only applicable where below market rate (BMR) units are providedin excess of those required by Palo Altos BMR program as stated in Progran1 H-36 of the Housing Element adopted on December 2,2002. Key elements of Program H-36 include: (A) Five or lTIOre units:' Minimum 150/0 of~njts must be BMR units; (B) Five or more acres being developed: Minimum 20% of units must be BMR units; and (C) BMR units shall meet the afforchbility and other requirements of Program H-36 and the citys BMR Program policies and procedures. (2) The following BIVIR bonuses shall be considered and may be approved upon rezoning to the PTOD district: (A) Density Increase: Density may be increased abo-e the maxinlum base density allowed (40 units per acre), such that at least one additional BMR unit is provided for every three additional nlarket rate units constructed. The resultant density may not exceed fifty units per acre. Density shall be calculated based on the gross area of the site prior to development. . (B) FAR Increase: For projects with a residential density greater than thirty units per acre, the allowable residential FAR tnay be increased. The FAR increase shall be equivalent to 0.05 for each additional 5% (in excess of the city requirements) of the total nUlnber of units that are proposed as BMR units, but may not exceed 500/0 of the residential FAR prior to the bonus, and may not exceed a total FAR of 1.5. (C) Height Increase: For projects with a residential density greater than 30 units ·per acre, the allowable project height n1ay be increased. The height increase shall be (Supp. No 13 -10/112007) Ch. 18.34 -Page 6 18.34.050 PlOD Context Based Design Criteria equivalent to one foot above the maxin1un1 for each additional 50/0 (in excess of the city requirements) of the total number of units that are proposed as BMR units, but may not exceed a maximun1 height (50 feet). (D) Other incentives for developn1ent ofBMR units, such as reduced setbacks and reduced open space, may be approved where at least 250/0 of the total units constructed are BMR units and subject to approval by the architectural review board. (3) The provisions of this section are intended to address the density bonus requirelnents of state law within the PTOD District, and the'maximuln bonus density , FAR, and height may not be further exceeded. (Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006) Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District Context-Based Design Criteria (a) Contextual and Conlpatibility Criteria Development in a pedestrian and transit oriented development con1bining district shall be responsive to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of a pedestrian and transit oriented nej ghborhood. (1) Context. (A) "Context" ().s used in this section is intended to indicate relationships between the sites developnlent to adjacent street types, surrounding land uses, and on-site or nearby natural features, such as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to these adjacent uses and features are strongly reinforced by Con1prehensive Plan pohcies. (B) The word ''context'' should not be construed as a desire to replicate existing surroundings, but rather to provide appropliate transitions to those surroundings. "Context" is also not specific to architectural sty Ie or design, though in some instances relationships n1ay be reinforced by an architectural response. (2) Compatibility. (A) Compatibibty is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with the intent of achieving a pedestrian and transit oriented neighborhood, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained. (B) Compatibility goals n1ay be accomplished through various mans, including but not limited to: (i) the siting, scale, massing, and materials; (ii) the rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of the buildings and the spacing between them; (iii) the pattern of roof lines and projections; (iv) the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays, and doorways; Ch. 18.34 -Page 7 (Supp No 13 -10/1/2007) 18.34.050 PTOO Context Based Design Criteria (v) the location and treatment of entryways; (vi) the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features; and (vii) the treatment of landscaping (b) Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings In addition to the findings for architectural review contained in Section 18. 76.020( d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the following additional findings are applicable in the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combming District, as further illustrated on the accompanying diagrams: (I) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment. The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkabiJity, a bicycle friendly envi.ronment, and connectivity through design elements such as: A Connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists with extemal and internal (if any) streets, pathways, or bike facilities \?ee Figure I-I); Figure 1-1 CALTRAIN STATION SIiOng pede~!r,an/bike connections 10 Cal. Ave. and 5131100 + Strong pe<!estnan/bike h~-tt--tt-H../ connections toCal, Aye and Stalion L-X,,--' L ___ Jl_1 LJOL_H_-'!._-'''---I B. Pathways and streets that present a clear hierarchy and connectivity pattern both within a project and to adjacent sidewalks; C Wide sidewalks (built as easements beyond the property line if needed, but not to the detriment of existing or future bike lanes) along Park Boulevard to reinforce the street as a primary pedestri.an and bicycle linkage to the multimodal station;. D. Bicycle amenities that contribute to the areas bIcycle environment and safety needs, such as bike racks, storage or parking, or dedicated bike lanes or paths (See Figure 1-2); E. Ground floor uses that are appealing to pedestrians through well-desiiPed visibIlity and access (See Figure 1-2); (Supp. No 13 -IOI!J2007) Figure 1·2 Active g-Iflt.luntj i'1I.:)C'! 11-':.'='05 a.cli/l$'L>;l tnE' a~r~t Ch. 18.34 -Page 8 18.34.050 F. PTOO Context Based Design Criteria On primary pedestrian routes such as Park Boulevard and California Avenue, climate and weather protection where possible, such as covered waiting areas, building projections and colonnades, and awnings ~ee Figure 1-3); Figure 1-3 Wide SldSr'i'1I3Jf.,s provide a ____ ./ ~"CiSi~V~ ~O~d&'il ~ri.~ft~ in f~l cih~ti>1I t.!W5: G. Streetscape or pedestrian amenities that contribute to the areas streets cape envirorunent such as street trees, bulb-outs, benches, landscape elements, and public art (See Figures 1-4 and 1-5); and H. Vehicle access from alleys or sidetreets where they exist, with pedestrian access from the public street. 1<-- ~,.,~",,, ~'l r~(I" _~_, .".,~~,,- Figure 1-5 Bulbo\J(S jncrease '-----~--._-' pCui.'~lI;a" ~3fety P.(~~p~n)' Uno:= l'1. '1M-\0 Lilw I RBsiden'iia-~ Minllnile vChicle access -~~----~--"-~c~· (0 prollid"s a continuous facade ;;Old nree! pilrking Ch~ 1834 -Page 9 Figure 14 (Supp. No I 3 -1 0/ \ 12007) 18.34.050 PTOD Context Based Design Criteria (2) Street Building Facades. Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalks and the street(s), to create an envirooment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements such as: A Facade articulation reflecting the rhythm of nearby commercial and residential areas such as California Avenue; B. Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, and landscape elements to create strong, direct relationships with the street (!5ee Figures 2-1 alld 2-2); C. Facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectrrral elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass (See Figures 2-1 and 2-2); Orient doorways and --, windows to create strong rela~ionship to streeL Clearly defined enl.,;es~-----~-~~[IfB~;i!l that are ploportional to size of building and use Figure 2-2 Orient doorways and windows to create SHong relationShip to street. Clearly defined enlrie~ that are propOrllOnallQ size 01 building and use. D. Entries and windows that face onto the street (See Figures 2-1 and 2-2); E Entries that are clearly defmed features of front facades, and that have a scale that is in proportion to the size of the building and number of units being accessed; larger buildings should have a more prominent building entrance, while maintaining a pedestrian scale ~ee Figures 2-1 and 2-2); and F. Residential units and storefronts that have a presence on the street and are not walled-off or oriented exclusively inward. (Supp No 1)-10/1/2007) Ch. 18.34 -Page 10 18.34.050 PTOD Context Based Design Criteria (3) Massing and Articulation. Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and provide for articulation and design variety through elements such as: A Buildings that include pedestrian-scaled detail, articulation and craftsmanship of the facade (See Figure 3-1); Figure 3·1 Rooflines can emphasize significant elements such as entries and bays Buildings should provide pedestrian-scaled detail, articulation, and craftsmanship of the facade. B. Rooflmes that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies i;)ee Figure 3-1); C Comer buildings that incorporate special features to reinforce important intersections and create buildings of unique architectural merit and varied styles (See Figures 3-2 and 3-3); 1>"''---'7'''--COfn~( buildings should Figure 3-3 be used to reinforce important ill!ersenions. A retail entry can strengthen the corner. Ch. 18.34 -Page 11 f9=--Cornerbuildin9~shouldbe used to reinforce Impor- tllnt inter~ecliom. (SllPP. No 11-10/112007) 18.34.050 PlOO Conte)(t Based Design Criteria D Design with articulation, setbacks, and materials that minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest from the train and neighborhood east of the tracks; E. Limiting facades such that no more than 70%, and no more than 100 continuous linear feet, of the street facade e!lceeds a height of 25 feet lSee Figure 3-4); Figure 34 No rr'jl:M~ th~m HI pe,rc~_I1L .t).f SltOt:H rataoo f.;t!bUtd a~~_(j 2:5 fe.3{ to-pro~'idb lor gpe-n view c;orriciQ';LSl iwm .adJacen1 D@ilJhborlwo6 ldoil[!!:>~-?le·(fh~3I'\t1;.,Sh"l,J~d be GlS~ to craal~;l Wlf~ 'to the a-d~OO(1t ~o;Ii]ro~1;I lr.act-'"e;. F. Landscape elements to bllffer the rear of the lot and the railroad Iracks, with trees spaced at a ma!limum of25 feet on center and combined WIth other landscape elements such as fencing, hedges or shrubs (lee Figure 3-4); G. Application of daylight plane requirements for R-l and R-2 adjacencies to property boundaries adjacent to the railroad right-of-way lSee Figure 3-5); and H. Maintaining view corridors from Colorado A venue and EI Dorado A venue west to the hills. r······· _. The rear yard daylight plane dennes setback requirements adjacent to (ail road. Daylight plane has initial height of 16 ft and a 45 degree angle. A five foot landscape strip with trees planted at a maximum 25 feet on center. should be used to buffer building from adjac€m tracks. (4) Low-Density ResidentIal TransitIOns. Figure 3-5 Where new projects are built adjacent to e!listmg lower-scale resilentlal development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and pnvacy of adjacent properties through: (Supp. No 13 -10/112007) Ch 1834 -Page 12 18.34.050 PTOD Context Based Design Criteria A TransItions of development intensity from higher density development building types to building types that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding uses (See Figure 4-1); .future ProD '."~"-" "'--"-'-'-'-"'--~-'-'''r-'--:-'--'-'"''''---''''-''-''-'------, exfsling ~development: Figure 4·1 densHy area B. Massing and orientation of buildings that respect and mirror the massing of neighboring structures by stepping back upper stories to transition to smaller scale buildings, including setbacks and daylight planes that match adjacent R·l and R-2 zone requirements (See Figure 4-2); Figure 4·2 Irllll~1 ne-;ght 01 i I \6'~, , .. ,,, y:><d. 10' nl >icl .. y_,d C Respecting privacy of neighboring structures, with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they mirrin1ize views into neighboring propert:ies~ee Figw-e 4-3); D. Minimlzmg sight lnes into and from neighbonng properties r;>ee Figure 4-3); Figure 4-3 , of Trees ~n(l hedges lor Screening E. Limitmg sUn and shade impacts on adjacent properties; F. Providing pedestrian paseos and mews to create separation between uses; Ch. 18.34 -Page 13 (Supp. No 13 -10/1(2007) 18.34.050 PlOD Context Based Design Criteria G. Design witl) artIculatIOn, vaned setbacks, and matenals thaminimize sound reflection to nelghbonng properties adjacent to the railroad. (5) Project Open Space. Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents, visitors,and/or employees of a site. A The type and design of the usable private open space shall be appropnate to the character of the building(s), and shall consider dimensions, solar access, wind protection, views, and privacy; B. Open space should be sited and designed to accommodate different activities, groups and active and passive uses, and should be located convenient to the users (e.g., residents, employees, or public); C. Common open spaces should connect to the pedestrian pathways and existing natural amenities ofllie site and its surrollildings ()ee Figure 5-2); D. Usable open space may be any combination of private and common spaces; E. Usable open space does not need to be located on the ground (See Figure 5-1); F. Open space should be located to activate the street fayade and increase "eyes on the street" when possible (See Figure 5-3); G. Both private and common open space areas should be buffered from noise where feasible; and H. Parking may not be counted as open space. -___ -Fig~5~ be kx.-\ed em pMlo,i"9 pOdlUlll\ Open ~P~Ct_ 10 be IO(~I~d ----'<i~~~r""~1ilOf.. (0 acu\l~le (he rac()d~ ~"d i'''fe''5e-ey~s on m~ ~(ree,H Common op~ .... space, to ---~. to 111~ ~d~,((iiln p.lhways j., '''Y comelMtion of pilvMe 1100 (0<')01'\0» HI~,e~. Figure 5-3 (Supp. No ! 3 -10/)12007) Ch. 18.34 ~ Page 14 18.34.050 prOD Context Based Design Criteria (6) Parking Design. , .~" Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be alowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment, such that: A. Parking is located behind buildings, below grade or, where those options are not feasible, screened by landscaping, low walls, etc.; . B. Structured parking is fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible ~ee Figure 6-1); C. Parking that is semi-depressed is screened with architectural elements that enhance the streets cape such as stoops, balcony overhangs, andlor art (See Figure 6-2); D. Landscaping sucb as trees, shrubs, vines or groundcover is incorporated into surface parking lots (See Figure 6-3); and E. Street parking is utilized for visitor or customer parking and is designed in a manner to enhance traffic calming on the street. Figure 6-1 I I. '1 '" \:~ 1 '~7" ",7'''' I Parktrlg should be wrapped by habitable OBe!'; wilen possible. landscaping should be incQrporated into any stlrface psrkinglots. Semi.oepressed psrking can be used to raise residential uses, to, provide privacy and opportunities for stoops and porches. Figure 6-2 Figure 6-3 eh 1834-Page 15 (Supp. No I J -10/1/2007) 1 B.34.050 PTOD Context Based Design Criteria (7) Large (multl-acre) Sites Large (in excess of one acre) sltes shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood, and such that: A. New development oflarge sites maintains and enhanes connectivity wi th a hlerarchy of public streets, private streets, walks and bike paths (integrated with the Palo Alto Bicycle Master Plan, when applicable); . B. The diverslty of building types increases with increased Jot size (eg., less than I acre = minimum 1 housing type; 1 -2 acres = minimum 2 housmg types; greater than 2 acres = minimum 3 housing types) (lee Figure 7-1);'and C. Where a site includes more than one housing type, each housing type should respond to its immediate context in terms of scale, massing, md design (e.g., lower density building types facing or adjacent to existing single-family residences ~e Figure 7 -1) SuMifl_g (ype l!!fi.o 5 sM:IOI.Lld rei,':\t-e to adf9aenl O~ 'Future [A"'}fI.texts -SIms -gffiai.@rthairl 'J.!le 8cre :sti'lould hav{] aHeast tJn'0 ,l>uildi~g 1;:",,, Si:tG!s gre<;l!er tM-ll ~wo-A'lCfes.. $ho~)Jd haye ,('1"1, lea$t tttree b~lild~rlg typli'!:s. (8) Sustamabihty and Green Buildmg Design. (Supp_ No 13 -IO/ln007) Project design and materials to achieve sustainabihty and green buildig design should be mcorporated into the project. Green bmlding design considers the environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it In Ch. 18.34 -Page 16 18.34.050 PTOO Context Based Design Criteria general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quali ty spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building design: A. Optimize building orienta tim for heat gain, shading, day lighting, and namral ventilation (See Figure .8-1); B. Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects (See Figure 8-2); C Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access; D. Maxlmize onsite stormwater management through landscaping and permeable pavement (See Figure 8-3); E. U se sustainable building materials, F. Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy use; G. Create healthy indoor environments; H. Use creativity and innovation to build.more sustainable environments, One example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants to satisfy a portion of project open space requirements ({Jee Figure 8-2); and I. Provide protection for creeks and riparian vegetation and integrate stormwater management measures and open space to minimize water quality and erosion impacts to the creek environment. South facing windows with Summe,r Sun tf shading devices 10 control Q . overhealing 10 Summer. Winter Sun:Q' . Figure 8-1 Oirect sunlighllhrough south lacing WIndows would improve the passive . healing in Winter. Use of shading devices to control solar loads in Summer and to galln passive heal in Winter. E.,. "-'" oh>. '" .r---" .. ~-..... MinimIze SIOfmwaler Runoff to Impermeable areas Figure 8-2 Soh ~d$C.P' on Roo/lOps in rh.lorm 01 Fi.P±~~~~~~~t~"=·'~"'f6hrllb6lp1~nlllfl 'Urban Agriculture' and roolloplbalcony gardens Figure 8-3 eh. 1834 -Page 17 (Supp No 13 -10/112007) 18.34.060 Review IProcess (c) [Reserved] (d) Historic Preservatioltll Historic resources review, as required in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code, is required for alterations or n10difications to any structure designated on the citys Historic Inventory as a Category 1 or Category 2 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of the Municipal Code or any contributing structure located within a locally designated historic district. The Category 1 or Category 2 designation process for becominK a historic structure is contained in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code. (e) Performance Standards All developm.ent subject to the PTOD District requirements must also comply with the performance standards outlined in Chapter 18.23, pertaining to noise, llghting, visual, and access impacts. (Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006) 18.34.060 Review Process Rezoning and review of a site to a pedestrian and transit oriented development (PTOD) combining district shall be made pursuant to the following procedures: (a) Application to apply the PTOD overlay district may be n1ade by an owner of record of any property located or partially located within the PTOD boundary, or may be initiated by vote of the plaIllling and transportation comn1ission or city council; (b) Applications for rezoning shall be made and reviewed in accordance with Chapter 1330 (Amendments to Zoning Map and Zoning Regulations), including Section 18.80.020 regarding changes in district boundaries. Planning and transportation commission review and city council approval shall establish limits on aliowable or reqt.Iired uses (e.g., the types and appropriate mix of uses, including revenue-generating. uses) and int~Dsity (e.g., density, floor area ratio, height, site coverage) of development. The specified limitations shall be part of the rezoning and shall be recorded as property. restrictions enforceable by the City of Palo Alto. Revisions to these restrictions requires rezoning through the SaIne process, except that the director of planning and community enviromnent may determine that a revision is minor and does not materially alter the city councils restrictions or intent regarding land use and intensity. As used in this subsection, the term ''minor'' means a change that is of little visual significance, does not materially alter the appearance of previously approved improven1ents, is not proposed to change the use of the land in question, and does not alter the character of the structure involved. If the cUlTIulative effect of multiple minor changes would result in a major change, a new application for approval of a pedestrian and transit oriented development is required and shall be reviewed by the architectural review board, planning and transporta60n commission, and/or city council, as detennined by the director. Submittal requirements for the PTOD combining district may be supplemented as detennined by the director of plaIllling and community environment; (Supp. No [3 -10/1/2007) Ch. 18.34-Page 18 18.34.070 i\JonaConforming Uses and Noro-complying Facilities (c) Applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to designate a site consistent with transit oriented residential development shall be Inade and reviewed pursuant to the provisjons of Section 19.04.080; and (d) Upon approval of rezoning of a property to pedestrian transit oriented development (PTOD) combining district, the project plans shall be submitted as a lnajor architectural review to the architectural review board, who shall revjew the project for compliance with the architectural review criteria specified in Chapter 18.76 of the Zoning Code, as well as Section 18.34.050 of this chapter. A single preliminary review by the ARB may be allowed in advance of rezoning approval if plans are submitted and reviewed prior to planning conlmission consideration of the rezoning request. (Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006) 18.34.070 N on-confornling Uses and Non-complying Facilities Owners of sites with existing legal non-conforming uses and non-complying facilities within the PTOD boundary may request the application of the PTOD combining district to the site through the rezoning process referenced in Section 18.34.060 above. In applying the PTOD combining district, the use and/or facility would then be subject to the PTOD overlay standards. (Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006) Ch. 18.34-Page 19 (Supp. No 13·-10/1/2007) ~ .... c CD E .c u ~ « ······i ~-... \\ZL .. ~ .... -... \ ~<~ "Y ~f'-"'-" :,;.i.~ .. -....... . . ' <'~1 \\'~:\. .... ; ..... : it ~ iii II \; \l Th e City of Palo Alto Co) ;:$>-s::: H Co) C\J >'"'0 ~§ ~ 0 .,.....,~ s::: HQ ~ .,.....,0 ~~ U~ This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS ® --o· 400' This documenl is i glaphic representation only of best available 50Uf~es. The City or Palo Alto assumes no responsibnity ror any errors. 01989 10 2006 City or Palo Allo Attachment L PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION . DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: Elena Lee, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: April 15, 2009 SlTBJECT: 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue: Request for a Zone Change from the existing RM-40 zoning to the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD) Overlay District for this site, to allow for a mixed use development consisting of eight residential condominiums above 10,257 sq. ft. of ground floor office space, below grade parking garage and related site improvements. Environmental Review: An Initial Study has been completed and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommend approval of the ordinance (Attachment A) rezoning the site located at 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue from the existing RM-40 zoning to the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD) Overlay District for this site. BACKGROUND: The purview of the Commission is to: A) Review the Initial Study/draft Mitigated Negative Declaration; B) Ensure that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and policies of the City of Palo Alto, including establishing the allowable or required use limits, types and mix of uses, and intensity, including density and floor area ratio; and C) Make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether to approve or deny the proposed zone change after adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration. City of Palo Alto Page 1 Site Infonnation The project site is approximately 19,862 square feet in size, comprised of five parcels. The site is bounded by Birch Street, Sheridan and Grant Avenues, a three-story triplex on Grant Avenue and the Sheridan Apartments, three-story, multi-family development on the south side of the site between Sheridan Avenue and Grant Avenue. The site is located approximately 1,000 feet southeasterly of the California Avenue Caltrain station and approximately 650 feet southeasterly of California Avenue. The site is currently developed with three single family homes, none of which are considered to be historic. The project site is zoned RM-40, Multi-Family Residential district, de.signed to accommodate high density multiple-family residences ranging from 31 to 40 dwelling units per acre. RM-40 residential development containing at least 40 dwelling units may also include eating and drinking services, neighborhood serving personal and retail services, subject to conditional use permit approval. The site's land use designation is Multiple Family Residential, per the Palo Alto 1998 2010 Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation includes a residential density range of 8 to 40 units and 8-90 persons per acre. The site is located in the Cal-Ventura Mixed Use Area, intended for diverse land uses, two-to three-story buildings, and a network of pedestrian oriented streets providing links to California Avenue. The site is also within the California Avenue Transit Oriented Residential designation on the Comprehensive Plan, and within the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented District (PTOD) Combining District. PTOD Combining District The purpose of the PTOD Combining District is to facilitate higher density pedestrian and transit friendly developments to take advantage of the proximity to public transportation and the California Avenue Business District, while also protecting nearby historic resources. The PTOD district specifically allows mixed use development, where residential and non-residential uses are combined, and can be applied to properties zoned R-l, CC(2), CN, GM, PF, RM-30 and RM-40 or with combining districts within the designated California Avenue PTOD boundary, as shown on the City's approved zoning maps, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 18.08 and 18.80 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (P AMC). Once the PTOD Combining District is implemented, the development regulations of the PTOD Combining District would be applied to a development project in lieu of any underlying zoning designation. If development standards such as height and setbacks are not addressed in the regulations, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) has the discretion to determine the appropriate standards within the context of neighboring sites and buildings. PTOD Process The rezoning of a site to the PTOD district may be initiated by the owner of an eligible property or may be initiated by a vote of the Commission or City Council. Rezoning applications to the PTOD district are processed in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.80, the standard rezoning process. The Commission review and City Council approval establishes the allowable or required use limits, such as types and mix of uses, and intensity, including density and floor area ratio. Following Council's approval of a PTOD rezoning, an applicant can submit an application requesting architectural review approval for the new development. The development project would be formally reviewed by the Architectural Review Board in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Page 2 architectural review criteria and recommended to the Director of Planning and Community Environment pursuant to approval findings set forth in P AMC Chapter 18.76, and subject to the ARB finding the project will be consistent with the PTOD Combining District Context Based Design Criteria (P AMC Chapter 18.34.050). Preliminary ARB Review A preliminary ARB hearing was held on August 7, 2008 for a review of the conceptual proj ect design. The ARB was in support of the project concept and offered minor comments toward improvement of the design, such as strengthening the entries on Birch Street and softening the articulation. The ARB did not support use of a Design Enhancement Exception to allow the project to exceed the 0.25:1 maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the non-residential portion of the project. The ARB recommended reducing the amount of nonresidential square footage by incorporating a ground floor residential unit or replacing some of the office floor area with residential support uses. In response to this, the applicant has modified the proposal to request the FAR exception as an incentive under State Density Bonus law. Public testimony from two members of the public focused on the potential for contaminants to be found on (or under) the site and on the preliminary review process for the PTOD zoning applications. Minutes of the August 7, 2008 ARB meeting are attached to this report (Attachment F). Proj ect Description The proposed development is a new three-story office and residential building having a height of approximately 40 feet. A first floor podium, 10,257 square feet of ground floor office space, is intended to support eight, two-story townhomes on the two upper floors, providing 14,534 square feet of residential floor area in total, with a residential density of 17 units per acre. On-site parking facilities for 42 automobiles would be located both below-grade and at the surface, with a potential for ten extra tandem spaces. Two points for vehicular access would be provided. Ramp access to the garage would be provided from Grant Avenue. A second driveway would provide access to three surface parking spaces on the north side of the Birch Street frontage. The parking garage would provide 29 regular parking spaces, two ADA spaces, and up to eight tandem parking spaces (one for each unit), with up to ten extra tandem spaces ifneeded. Pedestrian access to the two ground floor office spaces would be provided from an elevator lobby located in the center of the site and from doors in each unit that would open up onto the Birch Street frontage. Access to the eight townhomes above would be provided from the central elevator lobby and stairwells on Birch Street and Sheridan Avenue. Individual entries to the townhomes would be accessed from the central courtyards. The two-story townhomes would include five three-bedroom units and three two-bedroom units. Two of the three-bedroom units would include a room on the first level that could be used either as a den or a fourth bedroom. Common open space for residents would be provided through a courtyard on the second floor with two distinct areas. A small passive open space would be provided on the ground level along Birch Street, adjacent to the garage ramp. Balconies would be provided for each of the residential units. Storefront glass and stone/concrete tile fayade are proposed at the ground floor/pedestrian level. The residential component of the building would be differentiated from the commercial portion by the use of stucco and vertical yellow cedar walls, with wood trim dual-glazed aluminum windows. City of Palo Alto Page 3 DISCUSSION The Birch Plaza proposal is the second application the City has received requesting the California Avenue PTOD Combining District. In both cases, the proj ects are mixed use buildings adjacent to both non-residential and mUltiple family residential projects. PTOD Zone Change Amendment The PTOD combining district is specifically intended to foster densities and facilities that: 1. Support use ofpublic transportation; The project site is within a 3-block walking distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station. It is also proximate to bus stops along California A venue and EI Camino ReaL 2. Encourage a variety of housing types, commercial, retail and limited office uses; The project includes office uses and townhouse style condominiums, which are compatible in an area that already provides a mix of housing and services. The adjacent multiple family residential communities are a three-story triplex and a three-story multi- family complex. 3. Encourage a project design that achieves an overall context-based development for the PTOD overlay area; and 4. Result in streetscape design elements that are attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists; The project design would be reviewed and potentially modified during the architectural review process. The project concept appears to be consistent with the Context-based designed criteria of the PTOD Combining District, including streetscape design elements that would be attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists. 5. Increase connectivity to surrounding existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities; The project plans currently include five-foot wide sidewalks connecting to existing sidewalks, but only underground bicycle parking facilities. The City regulations also require surface-level bicycle racks for visitors to the non-residential space. Bicycle parking requirements would need to be met in formal plans submitted for ARB review; adequate bike parking would help to increase bicycle connectivity. 6. Implement the City's housing element and Comprehensive Plan. The project would provide housing and non-residential uses that could benefit the immediate area and Palo Alto residents. Comprehensive Plan policies indicate that the actual permitted number of housing units can vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping centers and environmental problems. The plan notes that higher residential densities than what is pennitted by zoning may be allowed where measureable community uses will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be compatible with the overall Comprehensive Plan. The project, with a proposed residential density of 17 units per acre, is within the allowable residential density range for the site's Comprehensive Plan designation (8 40 units per acre) and does not exceed the allowable density allowed within the underlying RM-40 zone district (31-40 units per acre). Comprehensive Plan policies supporting the project are cited in the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A). City of Palo Alto Page 4 The project is also within the Transit Oriented Residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan, which is intended to support densities that would support the use of public transportation, including the Caltrain. Proposed Land Uses Land uses proposed for PTOD projects are identified as items to be reviewed by the Commission and Council. The applicant has proposed land uses that are consistent with the PTOD Combining District in a vertically-mixed use building with ground floor office uses and upper floors providing a residential density of 17 units per acre. The proposed PTOD cOlnbining district allows higher density residential dwellings, including mixed uses, on commercial, industrial and multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station. It specifically fosters densities and facilities that encourage a variety of housing types, commercial, retail, and limited office uses. Allowed non-residential uses include retail, personal services and eating and drinking services. Other non-residential uses allowed, except on the ground floor where a Retail (R) combining district exists, include office, general business services, business and trade schools, private education facilities, day care center, cOrhmunity center and convalescent facilities. The site is not included in an (R) combining district. Research and development uses are allowed only on sites where the underlying zoning district is GM and the use and storage of hazardous materials would be in quantities less than the exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (Section 105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code). Con1pliance with Development Standards Attachment C outlines the project compliance with PTOD development criteria, and indicates that the project would be consistent with all development standards except one. The floor-area ratio (FAR) for the office portion of the project would be 0.52, where PTOD regulations would limit the office FAR to 0.25. The total FAR would, however, comply with the 1.25 FAR limitation. Density Bonus Law Concession to Exceed Maximum Floor Area Ratio The project includes at least 100/0 Below Market Rate units and therefore, the applicant can request one exception or "concession" per State Density Bonus legislation Section 65915 of the Government Code. This provision allows applicants to request and receive "concessions" as incentives from the appropriate decision making bodies for the construction of affordable housing. Incentives may involve exceptions to open space, height, parking, FAR or similar standards. The proposed project would include approximately 10,257 sq. ft. of office use, for a commercial floor area ratio of 0.52. The non-residential component of a mixed use project within a PTOD District is allowed a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) "cap" of 0.25. The project would exceed the cap by 0.27. The applicant's stated purpose in designing the larger non-residential FAR is to accommodate a large enough commercial ground floor to support eight two-story residences above. The applicant requests an SB 1818 "concession" to exceed the non-residential FAR cap that would otherwise require approval of a Variance. Parking Regulations The applicant is providing 42 total parking spaces, consisting of three surface parking spaces and City of Palo Alto Page 5 39 garage spaces. The proposed parking spaces would meet the requirements ofPAMC Chapter 18.52, as indicated in the Table 1 below. The applicant is requesting application of two allowable parking requirenlent adjustments, permitted by P AMC Chapter 18.52.050. The two parking adjustments being requested are adjustments for joint use and housing near transit. The Municipal Code allows for combined parking adjustments for a maximum of 30%. Without the adjustments, the required parking would total 60 spaces. If the adjustments are granted, the proposed number of spaces would meet the revised required parking total of 42 spaces. The project also includes four pairs of tandem parking spaces, for a total of eight spaces, for the residential units. An additional ten tandem parking spaces would be available if needed. Table 1 Required Reduction Revised Proposed Conforms Proposed Per Total PAMC Residential 16 20% total for 12 12 Yes Two Joint Use spaces/unit (30% 2 combined Guest spaces max) Office 42 200/0 for 30 30 Yes One space/250 Housing Near sq.ft. Transit (30% combined I max) Total 60 30% 42 42 I Yes combined max I Context-Based Design Criteria Compliance Review The project must comply with the requirements of the PTOD COITlbining District Context-Based design criteria as outlined in Section 18.34.050 of the Zoning Code. The ARB purview includes design review of the project in reference to these criteria as well as ARB review criteria. The project features appear to comply with the context based design criteria as follows: 1. The Combining district establishes a requirement for promoting pedestrian walkability, a bicycle environment and connectivity through design elements as well as street facades designed to provide a strong relationship with sidewalks and the street to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity. The project would include an attractive street fayade for pedestrians, via a five-foot wide sidewalk and five-foot wide planting strip adjacent to the curb with street trees across the entire frontage. The building was designed to provide pedestrian level interest with well- articulated walls, large store front windows and direct entrances to the office uses and the residential courtyards above. The site is not in an area zoned with a Retail (R) Combining District. 2. The regulations also require that the building be designed to minimize massing and provide for articulation and design variety. The project includes varied rooflines, canopies, decks and other architectural detail to break City of Palo Alto Page 6 I I up the building mass. The residential and commercial components utilize different materials to further break up the mass. Landscaping is proposed around the podium to soften the impact of the building. 3. Public and private open spaces are required so that they are useable to residents, visitors and employees of the site. Both public and private open spaces have been incorporated into the design. Two large and open courtyards are provided on the second level for the residential units above. Each unit is also provided with large private patios/decks. The office units also have private south facing patios for employees. The courtyards and balconies that face the street increase "eyes on the street." 4. Parking needs to be accommodated and not overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. The majority of the parking spaces have been provided in the underground garage, away from public view. Three surface parking spaces are provided on the side. Green Building Regulations Compliance The applicant has prepared draft LEED New Construction and Multi-family Green Point Checklists (Attachment G). Based on the applicant's submittal, the'project would achieve 97.67 points on the GreenPoint Checklist and a LEED silver rating. Green building elements would include the use of low-emitting materials, high efficiency irrigation system, drought resistant plant species, passive solar heating, low-voc paints, and energy efficient equipment. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The site is located within the Transit Oriented Residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan, which would be applicable to projects within walking distance (2,000 feet) from a Caltrain station. The land use category is intended to generate residential densities that support substantial use of public transportation and especially use of Caltrain. The project, as proposed, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations and would support the City's policy objectives for pedestrian and transit oriented development. TIME LINE Application submitted: ARB Preliminary Review Application deemed complete: CEQA public review period began: Commission hearing date: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: June 10,2008 August 7, 2009 March 31, 2009 April 6, 2009 April 15, 2009 A Mitigated Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental issues as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was circulated for a 20-day public review period from April 6, 2009 to April 26, 2009. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are provided as Attachment H. Staff has recommended mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise, which would lessen potential impacts to a less than significant level. The conditions of approval and mitigation measures would be applied to the Major Architectural Review approval, not the zoning. City of Palo Alto Page 7 ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Ordinance B. Location Map C. Development Standards Table D. Applicant's project description* E. PAMC Chapter 18.34 PTOD Regulations F. August 7, 2009 ARB staff report and minutes G. Green Building Checklists* H. California Avenue PTOD Boundary Map I. Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration J. Conceptual Plans (Commission only)* * Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff COURTESY COPIES: David Solnick Harold Hohbach Prepared by: Reviewed by: Elena Lee, Senior Planner Apiy French, Current Planning Manager~A ............ '·'-----'li . "".- . ", •.•... ,,_.) .. <,..<."-.. -~-~ ..... -.'. DepartmentlDivision Head APproval.h.'/ _/;:;; "" .~.(?~";;Q 'fi.:t£)/I., Cur. . illiams, Interim Direc t~ " City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Excerpt Verbatim Minutes 3 April 15, 2009 4 5 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue*: 6 Request for a Zone Change from the existing RM -40 zoning to the California Avenue Pedestrian 7 and Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD) Overlay District for this site, to 8 allow for a mixed-use deve10pnlent consisting of eight residential condominiums above 10,257 9 square feet of ground floor office space, below grade parking garage and related site 10 improvements. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California 12 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. 13 14 Item Number 1 is 305 Grant Avenue and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue, a 15 request for a Zone Change from the existing RM -40 Zoning to the California Avenue Pedestrian 16 and Transit Oriented Development Combining District PTOD Overlay District for this site to 17 allow for a mixed-use development consisting of eight residential condominiums, about 10,2557 18 square feet of ground floor office space, below grade parking garage, and related site 19 improvements. Would the Staff care to make a presentation? 20 21 Ms. Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you Chair, and members of the Commission. The 22 proposal before you is as request to rezone a multifamily residential site to PTOD to allow a 23 higher density pedestrian and transit-oriented friendly development to take advantage of its 24 proximity to transit and the California Avenue Business District. The site is located within the 25 PTOD boundary of California Avenue and therefore eligible for rezoning to PTOD. A copy of 26 this boundary map was included with the Staff report. 27 28 This is the second request for PTOD rezoning within the California Avenue PTOD Combining 29 District Boundary. The process for the PTOD Zoning begins with Commission review and 30 recommendation to Council for their decision on the rezoning request. The PTOD rezone will 31 establish allowable uses including the mix of uses and intensity and project features such as 32 density and floor area. Should the Council approve the rezoning, the Applicant could submit 33 development plans for Architectural Review Design by the ARB. 34 35 The project concept received a preliminary review by the ARB as encouraged by the PTOD zone 36 tax. The proposed 40-foot tall, three-story mixed-use building would have one level of 37 underground parking, four onsite surface parking spaces, approximately 10,000 square feet of 38 ground floor office space and eight two-story resident townhouse style units on the second and 39 third floors. 40 41 The project would be consistent with all Development Standards with one exception. Whilethe 42 project as a whole would meet the floor area ratio maximum of 1.251, the proposed 0.5221 ratio 43 of ground floor office would exceed the 0.25 maximal allowable ratio for office uses. The 44 Applicant requests the additional 0.27 ground floor office area as a Density Bonus Concession. 45 The project is eligible for the Density Bonus Concession through the State's Density Bonus Law 46 because the project includes at least 10 percent below market rate units. Page 1 1 2 The Applicant states that the larger office floor area, at the ground floor, is needed to support the 3 eight two-story residences above. An initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 4 has been prepared and circulated for a 20-day review period beginning April 6th• The public 5 review period ends April 26th• Mitigation measures for trees, noise, hazards and hazardous 6 materials were identified and accepted by the applicant. 7 8 Staff has received a few phone calls from the public on the project, concerns were expressed 9 regarding design and not necessarily the rezoning and, subsequent to the delivery of the Staff 10 report packet, actually today, Staff did receive an email stating concerns about the project from a 11 Joe Vilario that was put at places this evening. Staff recommends that the Commission 12 recommend the City Council adopt the Mitigating Negative Declaration and approve the 13 rezoning request to allow the office and residential mixed-use project at this subject site. Staffis 14 available to answer questions. 15 16 Mr. Curtis Williams, Interim Planning Director: Chair Garber, I just have a couple head-on 17 comments. 18 19 Chair Garber: Planning Director. 20 21 Mr. WilIams: I just wanted to note for the Commission that, as Elena mentioned, there is a 22 request here as a concession to allow an additional amount of office space. The way the PTOD, 23 Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development, District is structured, it allows up to 1.25 floor area 24 ratio for mixed-use, but not more than 2.25 of that is generally allowed to be office use. It's 25 allowed to go to 0.35 if it's retail types of uses, and then the remainder would need to be 26 residential. In this case, they are asking for about 0.5 or 0.52 of office, and we actually think 27 that, in addition to the fact that there is a Density Bonus Incentive option here, there is probably 28 good reason for that in a couple of respects. 29 30 One is that with the concern that exists today for housing, this is actually a reduction in the 31 amount of housing units that could go on the site, and an increase to some extent in the office 32 use. 33 34 Also, I think we are finding as we distance ourselves a little bit from when the PTOD Ordinance 35 was adopted, that (and I know Commissioner Keller, in particular has kind of made this point 36 from time to time) providing employment near transit stations is important as well as housing, 37 and so in this case there is a little better balance of the employment and residential than the 38 PTOD generally would call for. 39 40 And then, the third reason I think you will hear from the Applicant, is just if you think about the 41 typical kind of mixed-use product that might come to mind, this is usually probably the first floor 42 being nonresidential and the second and third floor being residential. Well, if you kind of do the 43 math on that, that first floor is not going to be only 0.25 of a 1.25 total; it's going to be probably 44 at least a third of the three stories so you are going to have the ground floor with the 45 nonresidential, and that is at least a 0.4 or 0.45 or something like that. It does, and again in Page 2 I addition to the density law issues, there does seem to be some reasonable intent here as far as 2 making that request for the additional office space. Thank you. 3 4 Chair Garber: Does the Applicant have a presentation? You will have 15 minutes. 5 6 Harold Hollbach, Project Applicant: I'm Harold Hollbach. I'm of the Hollbach Realty 7 Company who is presenting this Birch Plaza Project to you. 8 9 I think all of you are familiar with the Birch Street off-ramp from Page Mill Road and Oregon 10 Express and Page Mill Road. I think it is one of the main entrances in Palo Alto. I think this is 11 an opportunity for us to address that issue and provide a good solution to this problem and giving 12 something that looks very good, I think, and you'll hear from the architect. 13 14 I would like to point out that we have owned some of this land since 1996, and paid taxes on it 15 all of these years, and we think this is the opportune time now to proceed with the project. 16 17 I am here tonight with David Solnick, who is the architect, and also we have Richard Makdisi 18 with Stellar Environmental Solutions, Inc., to answer any environmental questions. He was 19 instrumental in preparing the environn1ental reports which you have before you today. Thank 20 you. 21 22 Chair Garber: Mr. Solnick, welcome. 23 24 Mr. David Solnick, Project Architect: Hi, I'm David Solnick, the architect on this project, and 25 one correction here for Harold. He has owned it since 1966, not 1996, right? Yeah. 26 27 As you know, this hearing is for rezoning from an existing RM-40 to a PTOD. The PTOD was 28 written to promote sort of a pedestrian friendly and particularly mixed-use design near transit. 29 The ARB was one of the bodies advising that, helping the Planning Staff in the writing of that, 30 and commenting on the writing of it. I was on the ARB at that time so I was quite familiar with 31 the intent of that zoning, so I feel like we bring that to the table in this. 32 33 It's a mixed-use project, as has been described. It has got an office on the ground floor and two- 34 story townhouses above. The townhouses are organized around two courtyards, one here and 35 one here, that face this open area of the property next door. The main entrance to the project is 36 here off of Birch which gives accesses to the offices as well as a stair that gets you up to the 37 courtyard, and that is part of the pedestrian-friendly aspect. to really make it very easily and 38 accessible to the street, for not only the offices, but also for the residents, so that it is sort of an 39 easy in and out and encourages people to walk as opposed to just taking the elevator, although 40 there is of course elevator access on the inside as well. 41 42 I do want to point out that we are not, and just in followup to Curtis, I just wanted to make it 43 clear that there is no increase in the total floor area ratio (FAR) on this project over what is 44 allowed. It's only the proportion between office and residential. And it's a little harder to see on 45 this slide, so let me point out a couple more things on this slide. 46 Page 3 1 There is also, as part of this proposal, a little pocket park right here which includes seating and 2 some public art. At this point, this is a placeholder. That hasn't been designed yet, but the 3 location is there. There is a little bit of surface parking and the rest of the parking is below 4 grade, as has been mentioned. 5 6 Also, right now, there are no street trees along here. The sidewalk is right up against the curb 7 and we are proposing to move the sidewalk away from the curb, creating a conventional planting 8 strip, which allows the planting of quite a number of new street trees all along this area, 9 enwrapping both comers, and I think that it's a total of about six new street trees. 10 11 This bottom one here shows you the comer that you would see if you came off that off-ramp 12 from Page Mill. The intent is to do a little larger massing to sort of hold that comer and to have 13 something quite presentable at that comer which will be very visible and probably more for 14 people in cars than people walking. The other thing that you can start to see is you can see that 15 we've enlivened, and some of the elements in the PTOD zoning talk about enlivening the street- 16 scape, and we've done that with second-story balconies as well as the courtyard itself which 17 overlooks the street. We also, not only have the central entrance to the offices, but we also have 18 individual entrances from the offices, again, providing mUltiple entryways which tend to add 19 interest to the street as well. 20 21 These are a couple of little vignettes. This one shows you what somebody walking along Birch 22 Street might see. There is quite a lot going on in the design. This is the entrance in here, both to 23 the offices and up to the courtyard up here for the residential, and you can see that courtyard 24 overlooks the street. This front courtyard overlooks the street. And this is a second entrance to 25 the residential off of Sheridan, which goes up to this second courtyard, which faces out to the 26 south and will get quite a lot of sun. 27 28 This is a little vignette showing where that pocket park is and, again, that is to be designed in its 29 detailing. This is the main entrance to the offices and then the stairs going up to the courtyard 30 above and overlooking the street. 31 32 A little vignette of the courtyard at the front which has a passageway to the second courtyard at 33 the rear. They are connected to each other and the courtyards. Really, part of the design here is 34 to give the residences a sense of community, that they are not just a series of row houses that 35 don't address each other, but are sort of divided into these two courtyards with about four units 36 each. The idea is that we are trying to develop something beyond what you might get in just a 37 single-family dwelling that only addresses the street, but it addresses this sort of community 38 property as well. Here, you can just see these elements and how they are organized and planned. 39 This is the entrance off of Birch, the stair going up to the front courtyard, the passageway under 40 this, which goes to the rear courtyard, and then that has its own stairs going down to Sheridan. 41 42 There is also, and they are not shown here, but the offices have their own patios, one into this 43 yard and another over into this yard. You can see a little bit of surface parking and the pocket 44 park. There is the underground garage, and nothing terribly remarkable about it. We have met 45 the 42 parking spaces required with the reduction allowed for mixed-use. Actually, however, 46 there are extra spaces. You are only allowed to count a certain number of tandem spaces, and we Page 4 1 had done the calculation in that way. However, we have added, and this parking does include 2 additional tandem spaces, which don't count officially but yet, of course, will be parking spaces. 3 So the total nunlber of parking spaces, between this and the four up on the surface is 53, while 4 yet only, like I said, 42 actually count. 5 6 This is the ground floor, showing the two offices with the lobby, elevator and stair in-between. 7 The stairs and elevator are next to each other, again to encourage walking, and to encourage 8 people to walk even before they get to the elevator. 9 10 I think this is my last slide. This is just, again, showing the courtyards and how they might be 11 landscaped, water features for the front courtyard, and the rear courtyard. 12 13 Just one last word. In hiring us, I think Harold got something a little different than what he may 14 have bargained for. Of course, he hoped that we would help him get through the process more 15 easily and we obviously understood that from the beginning, but it turned out that there was 16 more to it. 17 First of all, as a condition of being hired, we insisted that he use the PTOD zoning, which you 18 may know was not used for the Park Plaza Project. This probably made that process more 19 difficult than it might have been otherwise. 20 21 More importantly, we designed a project that is very much in the spirit of the PTD zoning 22 regulations with elements that encourage walking to nearby services, enlivening the pedestrian 23 environment, and foster a sense of community among the dwellers. We hope you agree and we 24 look forward to your questions. Thank you. 25 26 Chair Garber: Thank you. Does that complete the Applicant's presentation? 27 28 Mr. Hollbach: Yes it does. The Environmental Consultant is here for any questions you might 29 have. 30 31 Chair Garber: Commissioners, I thought that we would go directly to Public Comment, and then 32 we would do questions and discussion after that, if you are agreeable to that. I'm seeing no 33 disagreement, so we will go immediately to the public. We have seven people speaking. The 34 first is Chloe Kamprath, to be followed by Mary Palmer. You will have three minutes. 35 36 Chloe Kamprath. 320 Grant Avenue: I guess what I am concerned about most is that I have 37 lived at Birch Court for over 25 years. I lived in Palo Alto for over 40, and I worry about not 38 maintaining a pleasant place to live, if we put in so many buildings that get high, and we don't 39 have light, and we don't have trees, and we don't have visible Open Space. I think that is going 40 to change. So, for me personally, the little pocket park helps my personal concerns, because I am 41 on the comer that looks at that, so personally I am okay there. But, the other thing that I am 42 concerned about is, as we come out of our garage (and I live on Birch, at Birch Court right across' 43 the street) it is very difficult coming up the driveway because of all the traffic. The traffic that 44 turns off of Birch, onto Grant, comes fast. You can hardly see them at times. So I think that is a 45 danger and a traffic issue. The other thing that is a major issue is the number of times that cars 46 get honked at as they try to cross Birch. So, they come down Grant and stop, presumably, start Page 5 1 out, but when the cars are coming off of Oregon they come very fast and that is a tough place. 2 There are accidents there frequently and there are lots of horns honking, and so that's it. Thank 3 you. 4 5 Chair Garber: Thank you. Mary Palmer to be followed by Bob Brumma. 6 7 Mary Palmer, 350 Grant Avenue: Good evening. My name is Mary Palmer. I'm a homeowner 8 at 350 Grant Avenue. I am also on the Board of the Birch Court Condominium Association. I'm 9 Vice President. I am here this evening and I have three objections. The first one is that I object 10 to the exemption for the parking spaces because of the mixed-use zoning. You may not be 11 aware, but there is another project on the other side of our complex. It's at Sherman and Ash, 12 and that project is also going to be built up to four stories, and it is also asking for a parking 13 exemption for parking spaces. So Grant Avenue is already at full capacity. Our street and our 14 traffic congestion cannot absorb any more, so I am against/we are against the exemption. 15 16 Also, the second thing is the underground parking garage entrance/exit which is on Grant 17 Avenue. That is on Grant Avenue, but it is right at the comer where the stop sign is for Grant 18 Avenue and Birch Street. So you would come up Grant Avenue, you would stop sign, you'd be 19 almost right in front of the entrance/exit for the garage. And, again, I want to stress that this is 20 also a real safety hazard because we have a senior citizen complex that is going to be next to this 21 one, and the senior citizens walk across Grant Avenue as they are going to California Avenue, 22 and so if you are going to put a parking garage there, this is going to create a real safety issue. 23 24 The third thing is rezoning from residential to mixed-use. I've lived in my condominium since it 25 was built back in the 80s. I've seen the area grow. It has been largely high-density residential. 26 It has almost become sort of like a little village. We have a small little park there, and I think it's 27 called the Sara Wallace Park, and I just think that the mixed-use is not appropriate for this. It 28 impinges on the little residential neighborhood that has been developing. Weare also getting 29 more children in the area so I would ask you to please reconsider these things very carefully. 30 Thank you so much, and I have a petition here of homeowners objecting to these things. 31 32 Chair Garber: If you would give that to the Secretary that would be great. Thank you. Bob 33 Brumma followed by Curtis Schneider. 34 35 Bob Brumma, 330 Grant Avenue: I also live right across the street from where the driveway and 36 complex is going in. I've been in Palo Alto since '81 and in this complex since late '84, 37 something like that, so I share many of the concerns of the previous speakers, and I guess I'm 38 concerned about the combination of turning it into business and then bringing in more traffic to 39 an already very congested area, and I think the safety issues can't be over-emphasized. In fact, 40 you can check police records. We had a crash at that comer, I think in the last month or so. You 41 can check that. 42 43 So, I have this very high-quality photo here, but basically what we are talking about is the cars 44 are turning left off of Birch, and they come in here, and they are immediately going to make 45 another left tum, and probably are not able to tum in because cars are stacked up here trying to 46 cross the intersection that Mary just talked about. So my concern is, because we tum it into now Page 6 1 a mixed-use, we are going to have more businesses. Depending upon the nature of the business, 2 they will be coming during the daytime, and yeah some will use the train or bus, but I would 3 wager the majority will drive in. They are going to park and continue blocking wheelchair 4 access ranlps and other things because there is no parking, and I just fear that this left tum, and 5 left tum, is going to just be a bad combination with accidents, honking and things. It would 6 make a lot more sense to bring the cars in off of Birch, or on the quieter street on the next comer, 7 because you don't have as many cars going both ways on that next block. So, some 8 considerations for you. Thank you. 9 10 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Holman, you had a question for the speaker. 11 12 Commissioner Holman: I do. Now that the visual is up here, do you want to use the pointer and 13 show us specifically what you are talking about? 14 15 Mr. Brumma: Okay, so I think one of the three speakers mentioned that there was a main exit 16 off of Oregon, so you come up here, and a little off picture here, you are going to make a left 1 7 tum, pretty busy, and then you are going to make a left tum again into the entrance here into the 18 underground parking. This is where cars are also coming down here, quite congested. I think 19 you are going to find that it's going to be very difficult for these cars to make that left tum, 20 particularly during the hours of7:30 to 9:00 or 10:00 in the morning. It's going to be quite a 21 mess. Then, also coming out, you are going to have similar problems later in the day, and so my 22 suggestion was right now this next block doesn't have quite as much traffic, and so from a traffic 23 flow standpoint it would be safer to have the cars coming in and out of this other side, and I'm 24 sorry I forget what that street is. They all start with S' s on the east side, Sheridan. 25 26 Or another possibility, if you have good traffic control, and trying to slow this down, a good 27 thing to do, regardless of this complex, you could make right turns in and out of here to come 28 and go, and maybe you could put a break in here to allow cars to tum directly into there. But I 29 think that would be safer than the traffic jam of coming left tum, left tum, and trying to cross 30 cars that are backed up here. 31 32 You also see cars when you come out, and you will pull out to the right, and you want to cross 33 Birch Street and go down to Park to get back to the Oregon Expressway. I apologize, for my 34 pointer, but you basically go down the park, go down and you can cross over and loop onto the 35 Oregon Expressway, Page Mill and the other direction. I think you are going to find that this 36 continues to be a hazard. It already is, and again you can check the police records on the 37 accidents there. So that's my concern. Did that help? 38 39 Commissioner Holman: It answered the question, thank you. 40 41 Chair Garber: Gary Schneider to be followed by Harold Hollbach. Are you expecting to speak 42 again, Mr. Hollbach? Okay, to be followed by Richard Geiger. 43 44 Gary Schneider, Palo Alto: Hi, my name is Gary Schneider. I live across the street from the 45 proposed building also, and I just want to reiterate what everyone else has said that putting the 46 parking garage on Grant, at the entrance, would be a mistake. The courthouse is right across the Page 7 1 street. You have people driving up and down that street all day long, and having the entrance 2 right there at that comer would be very dangerous. It would be much better if it would be put, in 3 my estimation, on Birch. I would also like to reiterate that the parking in that area is very, very 4 difficult. We have lots of people that would like to come over and visit us that end up driving, 5 day and night, around the block, and around the block, and around the block, and sometimes it 6 can take them up to a half-hour and they finally get frustrated and go over on the other side of 7 California Avenue to park in that residential area, so it is a very congested area, and if you put an 8 entrance on Grant Avenue you are just looking for accidents to happen. So I'm just repeating 9 what everyone said. 10 11 Chair Garber: Richard Geiger. Did you want to speak on Item Number 2, Mr. Geiger? 12 13 Richard Geiger, 714 E. Charleston Road: Yes, both. 14 15 Chair Garber: You want to speak to both items, okay, very good. Thank you. After Mr. Geiger, 16 will be Herb Borock. 17 18 Mr. Geiger, Palo Alto: Richard Geiger, and I've owned over 10 acres on Page Mill Road since 19 1958, and I noticed somebody said when they owned land at this site we built a house on one 20 acre of a portion. It was zoned one acre at that time, on a one acre portion in the comer of the 21 land, and after building the house, the City came in and down-sold to ten acres for one house, 22 one main house, and just when I came here, I came to speak to the Open Space zoning, but I 23 couldn't help but comment on developments like this, compared to developments that are zoned 24 ten acres per housing unit. I wonder how many houses would be allowed if this was even zoned 25 a generous one acre per house, or how many would be allowed if it was zoned ten acres per 26 house. Our down-zoned ten-acre parcels have a 3.5 percent FAR, compared to a 100 percent 27 FAR for this site, and a 3.5 percent IC, which is impervious coverage, on 10 acres versus what 28 IC would be on this site, and even ifICs are considered on these high density projects. 29 30 Also, this is a transit-oriented development, and there is a question of why are parking spaces 31 even allowed when people can walk, walk to the train station, or walk to where their work is? I 32 just couldn't resist coming up here and making comments, and it doesn't look like there are 33 many trees allowed on this property. Only street trees in the front. We have a 200-foot setback 34 on Page Mill Road, and I don't know what the setback is on this. I didn't really study this. I just 35 walked in, and why there isn't at least a 20 or 30-foot setback in the industrial high-density areas 36 or residential high-density projects, so that some trees can be planted. Okay, I think that covers 37 that and I won't say any more on this, but it's just interesting to see a comparison of properties 38 on Page Mill Road, in one area of the town and near Page Mill Road, and in another area of the 39 town. 40 41 Chair Garber: Herb Borock to be followed by Lynn Chiapella. 42 43 Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Good evening, Chair Garber and Comnlissioners. I attended the 44 preliminary hearing at the Architectural Review Board and Mr. Moss pointed out that there are 45 hazardous waste monitoring wells directly across the street and that the aquifer is between 10 46 foot and 10.5 and 12 feet, and the TCE concentrations are 34 and 18 in those two wells, parts per Page 8 1 billion, with a standard that is only 5 parts per billion. So there is a question of whether it is 2 appropriate to have the underground parking garage. I couldn't tell from the plans posted 3 whether the garage extends to the property line, as it did in the version at the preliminary 4 hearing. And there was concern from the board members that you wouldn't have sufficient soil 5 to support trees, if you were going to extend the underground garage that far. The Council knew 6 what it was doing just as any other legislative body is assumed to know what it is doing when it 7 set floor area ratio limits for offices, and there is an extensive legislative history of hearings as to 8 why that was done. A Bill in the legislature, SBA-18, is mentioned but that is just a Bill that 9 amends a Law. The Housing Density Law, I believe, is in government code section 65915, and 10 it asks municipalities to create standards for the concessions and for this Density Bonus, and the 11 only place Palo Alto has done that is in this particular zone, where it sets what the floor area 12 increase is for Density Bonuses, and that is the Density Bonus concession. That is the floor area 13 concession. You can't get a second floor area concession for office uses, so therefore it's 14 inappropriate because it is riot needed for any economic reason, and secondly because it would 15 be a second bonus when you only get one, and then the only bonus is already in the regulations 16 for the zone district. 17 18 You should also be aware of what this applicant did with his project at 195 Page Mill. He came 19 in with Density Bonus concessions for one type of tenancy, tenant rental housing, and then later 20 came in with a map to create condominiums, for sale units. The Density Bonus law requires you 21 to chose whether you are doing rental or sale, and if they are for sale, they all have to be for sale, 22 and if they are rental, they have to be for the term that the City would normally have for 23 maintaining those rentals as rentals and as affordable units. There is nothing in the staffreport to 24 indicate any of that, because the Mitigated Negative Declaration should be for the entire 25 project,which includes the BMR agreement, and you should tell us which of those units is the 26 BMR agreement. It's not mentioned in the staffreport. Thank you. 27 28 Chair Garber: Thank you. Lynn Chiapella, and that's our last speaker of the evening. 29 30 Lynn Chiapella, Palo Alto: Good evening, I agree with what Mr. Borock said in terms of the 31 bonuses. This was zoned originally as an RM-40 which would have accommodated probably 32 twice as many residential units as are now proposed, so this is really a reduction in housing in a 33 city that is desperately needing housing and not more office jobs. We have many, many 34 vacancies in office buildings. We have lots of offices. We need more housing, not more offices. 35 So I don't believe that this Density Bonus is really justifiable and the 10 percent BMR, I assume 36 that means he is going to have one unit out of the eight will be a BMR. I actually didn't find any 37 enumerations showing how many BMRs. I'm sure it's in here somewhere in this multitude of 38 pages. 39 40 I will say the project is improved over what I saw at the ARB, which was really a catastrophe, 41 and this is a better proj ect than it certainly was then. I do think that the parking is a severe 42 problem in that area, even though I know that PTOD means that everybody will use the bus. 43 They will all use trains, and nobody will have a car or drive. The only problem here is that it 44 hasn't worked out. Every area of town, and I don't care if you are south of California, north of 45 California, or whether you are in midtown, and I don't know if you are down near Greer Park, 46 but there is no parking, day or night, in these reduced parking residences and offices. Parking is Page 9 1 a problem everywhere now. We would like to think everyone lives and works in Palo Alto, but 2 they don't. You have a job in one town. You live in another town. That's just the way life has 3 dealt the hands here, and our prices are such that it will continue to be like that. ·But, even given 4 the parking they have provided, it's tandem parking. Now, this has been tried, and the Planning 5 Department is famous for its tandem parking, and I see this a lot where I live. Three tandem 6 spaces, none of them marked, so none of them used, because nobody knows who is parking in 7 what space. It's not assigned to any property, and these are just tandem spaces. It doesn't work. 8 Tandem spaces in locked parking garages. We have some samples off of California Avenue of 9 that. Nobody knows if anyone uses them. It was just a way of getting around paying for another 10 space in the public parking lot. So I do not think that the tandem spaces will provide the parking 11 that you think. You have a 22-car deficit for parking. It would be nice if everyone would not 12 drive, but this is not the reality of Palo Alto, so I think that you need to seriously take a look at 13 all of these issues that have been brought up, and see if you can justify 10,000 square feet of new 14 offices. Thank you. 15 16 Chair Garber: Thank you. That was our last speaker on this particular item. Commissioner's 17 questions? Commissioner Keller. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I have a few questions for you. There are buildings already 20 on this site? 21 22 Ms. Lee: Yes, there are three single-family homes onsite. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: So we would be losing three housing units and picking up eight, is that 25 the idea? 26 27 Ms. Lee: That's correct. 28 29 Commissioner Keller: And to what extent does it make sense, when you have a parking 30 reduction of the site proposed here, a 30 percent parking reduction, does it make sense to do 31 parking reduction and tandem parking? 32 33 Mr. Williams: Well, in this case, there isn't credit. I mean, there is a limit to how much the 34 tandem parking is credited. What Mr. Solnick, in particular, was pointing out was that there are 35 additional spaces provided through tandem parking, above and beyond what is required after that 36 30 percent reduction. Those additional tandem spaces are available, but they are not counted as 37 part of the 42 required spaces. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: I'm a little confused, looking at the Sheet 4, where it appears that several 40 of these spaces, of the required spaces, in fact, are tandem spaces. I don't quite understand your 41 answer. 42 43 Ms. Lee: That's correct, some of the residential required spaces are tandem, but what Curtis is 44 saying, and what David has mentioned, is that there are additional tandem spaces that are 45 provided that aren't marked as required parking. All the parking spaces, if you are looking at Page 10 1 Sheet 4 (to the right) those marked with a T, those are additional spaces that are available but 2 have not been counted as part of the required parking. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: Although I noticed that two of the nonresidential ones, the 35 and 36, 5 appeared to at least not be labeled as being for a predictable unit, and those are tandem as well. 6 Let me leave that at that. 7 8 To what extent is PTOD zoning a discretionary act? 9 10 Mr. Williams: Well, it is a rezoning, so it is a discretionary action. The PTOD District was 11 created and essentially indicated that this is a boundary area within in which this type of use is 12 generally appropriate. However, there was a desire to look at the specifics of the use and 13 intensity when they came through, less so that the designers felt comfortable with that before 14 changing the zoning to PTOD, but it is a rezoning so it is a discretionary act like any other 15 rezonIng IS. 16 17 Commissioner Keller: So, hypothetically, because PTOD does include some Density Bonuses 18 along with the PTOD, could we condition PTOD zoning, just as a hypothetical situation, on not 19 allowing a further Density Bonus under SB-1818 or whatever the State Housing Density Bonus 20 Law? Could we say, we will give you PTOD only if you only do not have further Density 21 Bonuses, and if you want those Density Bonuses, you've got to be under RM-40? 22 23 Mr. Donald Larkin, Assistant City Attorney: Well, possibly, but that doesn't really get you 24 where you want to go because one of the issues is that under the Density Bonus Law, we are 25 required to allow mixed-use. They could build it, probably the same project with the existing 26 zoning, but you would lose a lot of the PTOD features that I think you are looking for in terms of 27 walk-ability, accessibility and transit-oriented development. You could end up with something 28 far worse in"terms of design, so it may not accomplish what you are trying to accomplish. 29 30 Commissioner Keller: Does that mean that under SB-1818 somebody could use an unlimited 31 amount of Density Bonus on 1818. Suppose they say, I want to violate the amount of FAR, 32 could they have unlimited amount of FAR, or is there some discretion on how much they can 33 allow? 34 35 Mr. Larkin: It has to be related to the BMR Housing, so it wouldn't be unlimited FAR. 36 Generally, we limit the FAR bonus to the amount of FAR that is required to build the BMR 37 housing. In this case, it's a little different because they are not asking for an FAR bonus to build 38 more housing. They are asking for an FAR bonus to build less housing and more commercial. 39 40 Commissioner Keller: And to address the question that was addressed by one of the members of 41 the public, is this rental or for sale? Do we know that and also do we know exactly how many 42 BMR units there will be. 43 44 Ms. Lee: The applicant is proposing eight units for sale and per our requirements for 15 percent 45 BMR units, one would be a BMR unit and the remainder would be in lieu of fees. 46 Page 11 1 Commissioner Keller: Basically, what is happening is the Applicant is getting 0.27 FAR for 2 creating one BMR unit. That's interesting. 3 4 Mr. Larkin: Just to clarify. They are not asking for it, and our Code addresses an overall FAR 5 bonus. They are not asking for an overall FAR bonus. They are only asking for an FAR bonus 6 to limit the housing and increase the commercial, so the alternative would be placing a housing 7 unit on the ground floor which is not probably beneficial at this location so that was one of the 8 reasons that we determined that the FAR bonus for commercial was actually appropriate in this 9 circumstance because it's not feasible to put the housing on the ground floor at this location, so 10 what you would end up having is basically just a big hole underneath that housing. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: Thank you, I will go to the next person. 13 14 Chair Garber: Thank you, just a quick followup. They are asking for 0.27 FAR in lieu of 0.25, 15 correct? 2.52. Thank you. Commissioner Fineberg and then Vice-Chair Tuma. 16 17 Commissioner Fineberg: Clarifying question. The first two members of the public that spoke, I 18 believe they said they lived on Birch Court. Could we have a map of the area, and could you 19 show me where Birch Court is located? Thanks. Okay, so it looks like it's in our packet as 20 Attachment H, and I would just like to know where Birch Court is. 21 22 Ms. Palmer: Birch Street, Grant Avenue, all the way to Ash, although part of that area becomes 23 a public park. 24 25 Commissioner Fineberg: Chair Garber, if I might, there is a map in our packet. If we could put 26 the map up here and then have the pointer used, it would really be helpful. It's Attachment H in 27 our packet, so we can see. 28 29 Chair Garber: And, Ms. Palmer, yes you have a laser pointer. 30 31 Ms. Palmer: I'm going to have to look at the diagranl here. That's Sheridan. This is Birch, is 32 this right? Right, so this is Birch. That's Sheridan, right? So we are Birch, Grant, Ash and 33 Sherman. Now, part of our unit, our unit actually kind of goes and just follow this. It goes 34 straight down, across, up and there. This building here is the new Sherman Building Proj ect, the 35 four-story building that is going up. This is a little public park here, and so this project you are 36 talking about is right here, so we are right here, and this is right here, okay? Everybody got that? 37 38 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you so much. Okay, my next questions are for Staff. I'm a 39 little confused about why the State Density Bonus applies in this particular project if it is related 40 specifically because it is PTOD, or because there is a BMR unit. Why is it kicking in when we 41 haven't seen it in other projects? 42 43 Mr. Larkin: Because it's the Applicant's burden to ask for Density Bonuses, and most applicants 44 haven't, but any project that is actually building BMR units to our Code is going to be eligible 45 for one incentive or concession. State Law does not require BMR housing. We attempted, when 46 we did the PTOD Ordinance, to create some limits on the use of the concessions so that it would Page 12 I have to be BMR units above and beyond what are already required to be provided, but the state 2 law has been anlended to preclude us from doing that. 3 4 Commissioner Fineberg: But relative to Commissioner Keller's questions, there is some 5 relativity between the BMRs granted and the concessions that are granted. Do we know, then, 6 what the square footage is of this extra 0.25 versus the square footage of the BMR unit, either in 7 square footage or value. 8 9 Mr. Larkin: I think they know that and if they are asking for FAR for housing, we've determined 10 that the actual FAR has to match the FAR of the housing. In this case, it's really a question of is 11 the extra FAR needed to support the housing. In other words, if they lost the FAR for the 12 commercial, would they be able to build the BMR unit. The answer is possibly, but I think that 13 what we determined was that having the commercial space on the ground floor supported the 14 housing from the above, and it doesn't necessarily have a direct relationship, but I think we can 15 answer what the square footage works out to. 16 17 Ms. Lee: The average unit sizes range from about 1400 square feet to about a maximum size of 18 1936, and then I think the extra 0.25 comes out to be about 4000 square feet, 0.27/4000 square 19 feet. 20 21 Commissioner Fineberg: So more than double than the square footage of a single unit. Okay, I 22 want to turn my questions to a little bit about the purpose of the PTOD. I'm looking at our 23 Attachment E, Page 1 of Chapter 18.34, and it says that the "California Avenue PTOD 24 Combining District is intended to allow higher density residential dwellings on commercial 25 industrial and multifamily parcels within a walk-able distance to California Avenue's Caltran 26 station." It continues, and that is all I'll read. 27 28 I'm focusing on the purpose of the PTOD is intended to allow higher density residential 29 dwellings, and I'm looking at a parcel that, if it is five parcels with five units, we get five, but we 30 are getting a yield of eight. I'm wondering what yield of residential dwellings would we get if it 31 conformed to the underlying RM-40, and if instead of being office, it was neighborhood-serving 32 retail. Would we actually better serve the purpose of the PTOD District with RM-40 zoning? 33 34 Mr. Williams: Developing this site under RM-40 zoning would allow about 18 units to be built. 35 I think that's a consideration, and the higher density doesn't necessarily mean higher than the 36 maximum that you could achieve under existing, but it means the not low-density housing and 37 then the opportunity for mixed-use. Then there are other items under here about a variety of 38 housing types, commercial retail and limited office uses. The neighborhood-serving retail, the 39 applicant has not proposed that, and we obviously cannot require them to do that unless they are 40 willing to proceed with that. I am not sure if you had that, then you may be having less 41 residential than those 18 units. The FAR, at least, the units could be potentially the same. The 42 floor area for them would probably be less if you had certainly if you had the entire first floor as 43 a retail use, and then you'd cut back considerably on the FAR, because you would then be back 44 to a sinlilar FAR, which is somewhat less than the RM -40 would allow for all the residential 45 units. So, it's that tradeoff. Again, I think that it's important to remember or look at whether 46 you feel like it's, and you know we hear over and over the concerns about additional housing, Page 13 1 and now tonight you've heard, well there should be more housing and not retail. So I think it's a 2 balancing situation. We do have a lot of residential in that area. It's two blocks or less than two 3 blocks from California Avenue, so having offices that are accessible to California Avenue makes 4 sense, but that is ultimately the kind of land use determination that is before the Commission. 5 6 Commissioner Fineberg: And my last question relates a little bit to the benefits the City would 7 get. Our attorney mentioned the benefits of zoning under PTOD and how it would make it more 8 walk-able. I am nlissing how that would work. Would there be such differences under RM-40 9 that somehow it would be less walk-able, or what benefits and what zoning control do we get by 10 being PTOD? 11 12 Mr. Williams: Well the PTOD has a number of criteria in there as far as frontage types and so 13 there are some very pretty specific guidelines for how to do that and ways that are pedestrian- 14 friendly. Now, there is not anything necessarily prohibiting the ARB in its review from 15 imposing those kinds of requirements, even though it's not PTOD. I mean, I think the ARB 16 certainly wants to make any street in this kind of area pedestrian-friendly. For the most part, you 17 are probably going to get the most of that, but here it is that they are prescribed standards in the 18 context-based design section for that which might not pertain ifit were solely even multi-family 19 zoning. 20 21 Chair Garber: As a follow to that, there is far less discretion and opportunity for the Planning 22 Commission, by way of example, if this project were just submitted under RM-40 and we may 23 not even see the project. 24 25 Mr. Williams: That's correct. If you were/ifthis project was proposed as RM-40, it would go to 26 the Architectural Review Board and that would be the end of the process unless either variance 27 were requested that the Commission would have to see, or if it were appealed and then Council 28 would see it, but the Commissioner would not see that. 29 -30 Chair Garber: As just a brief reminder of the history of the PTOD: When it came through the 31 Commission, the great opportunity of utilizing the PTOD as an overlay district in this particular 32 area is that it allows for us to begin to build back an architectural character to the neighborhood 33 that has been intermittent at best and create a continuity that normal zoning would not allow us 34 to have that opportunity to direct and encourage. 35 36 Commissioner Fineberg: Am I correct, though, that if we recommend it, and the zoning is 37 changed to PTOD, it does not come back to Planning and Transportation? And so it's still 38 ARB's design and adoption or recommendations to adopt the Negative Declaration. 39 40 Mr. Williams: The design is, but the uses, the parameters of the uses, the density and that kind 41 of thing are determined by the Commission and Council, and that is actually spelled out in the 42 Zoning and Rezoning Ordinance, and then the design goes through the ARB process. 43 44 Chair Garber: Should the Commission recommend the use of the PTOD District, here, it would 45 give the ARB the opportunities to use the context-based design criteria as a way of making their 46 findings. Did you have other questions? Okay, Commissioner Keller, you had a followup. Page 14 1 2 Commissioner Keller: A quick followup. Commissioner Fineberg asked how many dwelling 3 units would there be under RM-40, and it was mentioned that it would be a maximum of 18. 4 What would be the minimum number of dwelling units allowed under RM-40, because I 5 understand that there is required to be at least somewhere between 31 and 40 units per acre, so 6 what would that come out to be? 7 8 Mr. Williams: There is not a requirement for that. I think it's shown in the Comprehensive Plan 9 or in the Purpose Statement, that it is sort of an intent, but there was considerable debate about 10 whether to have minimum densities and they were dropped from the Ordinance. There was 11 never a minimum density imposed in any of the multi-family districts, but in the Comprehensive 12 Plan ... so here it is. It says that "permitted densities," and this is just a Purpose Statement in the 13 RM -40 District range from 31-40 dwelling units per acre, but then it was taken out of any 14 requirements in here as far as the actual standards because of concerns about prohibiting lesser 15 densities and having a particular site overloaded with density even though this range might have 16 been specified in the Ordinance as being a minimum. So 31 would work out to be 13 or 14. 17 18 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 19 20 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma, followed by myself and then Commissioner Rosati. 21 22 Vice-Chair Tuma: My first question relates to Attachment D which is entitled "Birch Plaza 23 Project Description and Design Intent." I guess my initial question is, whose document is this? 24 25 Mr. Williams: It's the Applicant's document. Under the attachments, we've got an asterisk next 26 to that item that says "prepared by Applicant." 27 28 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, but again we have repeatedly requested that these be marked on the 29 document themselves as to who they come Jrom. It's a little less confusing that way. 30 31 On the bottom of the first page of that document, on the left-hand side, it says that an "ancillary 32 consequence of the larger ground floor is an increase in the site coverage to 55 percent where 45 33 percent is allowed." Is that statement still accurate? 34 35 Chair Garber: Staff, and then we will go to ... would you like the Applicant to speak first, or? 36 37 Mr. Williams: This was relative to site coverage. I think that's comparing it to the multifamily 38 standard. I don't believe that we have specific criteria for coverage in the PTOD. 39 40 Chair Garber: Mr. Solnick. 41 42 . Mr. Solnick: We were initially under the misconception that the RM-40 site coverage governed 43 this, and that turned out to be wrong, and so that Design Intent was written for the preliminary 44 ARB application. Since that time, we've discovered that there is no exception being requested 45 here for site coverage, so that is really not relevant. 46 Page 15 1 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, that clarifies it, thanks. Question for Staff. To what extent in the 2 discussion and decision-making process that we are going through this evening should we be 3 taking into account the issue of traffic flow and entrances and that sort of thing? I mean, are we 4 looking specifically at this project, or are we looking more at whether changing to the zoning is 5 appropriate? 6 7 Mr. Williams: It is changing to the zoning, but there is a Negative Declaration associated with 8 this. We have looked at generally the site layout where there will be additional Environmental 9 Review done for the project, itself, when it goes to the ARB. They would have to be sure that all 10 of the details at that point in time have been complied with. We have some mitigation measures 11 here, but there is even a layer deeper than that, at the ARB, that will be looked at in terms of the 12 Environmental Review. We have looked at the location of the driveways in that. If that is of any 13 concern to the Commission, it is certainly something that you could direct that we look at, as it 14 goes to ARB for more detail, and incorporate further into that and the Environmental Review. 15 16 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thanks. A question for, and I think it's for the City Attorney. There 17 was some discussion, or some comments, made by a couple of the speakers about, in this case, 18 the Applicant seems to be double dipping on the Density Bonus. Could you address that issue? 19 20 Mr. Larkin: And I think there is some confusion, too, because as I mentioned earlier, when we 21 did the PTOD Ordinance, at the time we prepared this Ordinance, our thought was that we could 22 preclude people from using the Density Bonus if they were only providing the minimum BMR 23 total that we would require and already require in our Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The 24 State Law has been clarified to basically preclude us from doing that, in that as long as 10 25 percent of the units provided are below market units, they are entitled to one of the incentives or 26 concessions. Those concessions are spelled out in type, and not in amount. In the State Law, 27 although the State Law also includes this, it is not limited to this. There are probably 28 conceivably other things that could be requested as a concession. And in this case, the requested 29 concession was for an increase in FAR for the commercial property which, in our experience, it 30 has been somewhat unusual and we haven't had this. Usually, the request comes for an increase 31 in the residential property as the FAR bonus, and it's easier to calculate in that sense because, 32 obviously, you can't request more FAR than BMR units that are being added, because in this 33 case it's commercial FAR. It's just what is reasonably related to supporting housing in the 34 private ... did I answer the question? 35 36 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes, that's fine. One last question for now, and it relates to parking and the 37 calculation of the parking reduction. If I read Table 1 (on Page 6 of the Staff Report) correctly, 38 basically any project in the PTOD that is mixed-use would find itself in the position to ask for a 39 30 percent reduction in parking. Is that correct? 40 41 Ms. Lee: Yes, they would have the option of requesting that parking adjustment with the TDM 42 (traffic demand measures). 43 44 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Yeah, what TDM measures are we looking at here? 45 Page 16 1 Ms. Lee: We haven't specifically discussed this at this point, but that is certainly something that 2 we would be discussing further with the Applicant as the project progresses. 3 4 Vice-Chair Tuma: How do we deal with that tonight? 5 6 Ms. Lee: It would be required as a Condition of Approval in the MND, so that it is consistent 7 with City codes. I 8 9 Mr. Williams: And then they would have to provide that program and our traffic section would 10 have to approve it before any building petnlit. 11 12 Chair Garber: There is nothing that would keep the Commissioners from making 13 recommendations about what might be considered as part of that management program? 14 15 Mr. Williams: Not at all. 16 17 Chair Barger: It was going to be me but Vice-Chair Tuma has taken my questions, both on 18 density and parking and ramps, etc. so I may come back to that, but ConlDlissioner Rosati and 19 then Commissioner Holman. 20 21 Commissioner Rosati: Two quick questions, with one, to staff to address a comment that we 22 received in writing from Joe Vilario. Can you comment on the size, and not the density, but the 23 size ofa potential RM-40 development on that site? The concern here is that the proposed 24 building would be very large and take away from sunlight and space from the adjacent buildings. 25 What if there was an RM building that would be approved? How big would that be, compared to 26 this? 27 28 Mr. Williams: The RM Zone allows the same height, 40 feet, and a 1.0 floor area ratio as 29 opposed to the 1.25 that is proposed here and allowed under the PTOD, so somewhat more mass, 30 but the same height. 31 32 Commissioner Rosati: And second question for the Applicant's architect, Mr. Solnick. Can you 33 comment on the access of the parking? There has been a lot of concern about that, given the size 34 and shape of the lot. I can imagine you had to figure out how to optimize that space, which is 35 probably what led you to the tandem spaces to begin with. Would you mind commenting on 36 both the tandem space, and the access of the parking, and what options you looked at? 37 38 Mr. Solnick: Yes, we did look at options for that. The lot, however, you see as an unusual shape 39 in that it has sort ofa panhandle going over to Grant. If that panhandle were not used for the 40 driveway access, there would be no way to meet the parking requirement, the 42 parking spaces. 41 We looked at an access off Birch, we looked at an access off of Sheridan, and both of those 42 alternatives are simply not possible. I suppose you could go two levels underground, but that 43 would require a ramp which would take more space, and that is really not sensible for a project 44 of this small size. So this was the only way to get that number of parking spaces, and the 45 difference in the number of cars between Grant and Sheridan is that they are slightly greater on 46 Grant than on Sheridan, but it is not a dramatic difference. Page 17 1 2 If I might address the issue about the RM-40 versus the PTOD. 3 4 Chair Garber: Mr. Solnick, let me interrupt you for just a moment. The City Attorney just 5 reminded me that we didn't give the Applicant, yourself and Mr. Hollbach a 3-minute rebuttal 6 opportunity. You can consider that now, or you could wait until we complete our questions and 7 take it then. 8 9 Mr. Solnick: Okay, why don't I wait until your questions are complete. 10 11 Chair Garber: Commissioner Rosati, anything else? Commissioner Holman. 12 13 Commissioner Holman: Yeah, a handful of questions. Why does Staff not count tandem 14 parking places as part of the required parking? 15 16 Ms. Lee: It's described, actually, in the Municipal Code as to how many tandem parking spaces 17 can be considered as part of the required parking, as well as for what types of uses. 18 19 Commissioner Holman: I understand that, but I'm going to the intention and the purpose. 20 21 Mr. Williams: Well, initially, for a long time, no tandem spaces were allowed and we had some 22 residential developments that came through and requested tandem spaces by exception and had 23 those approved. They were specifically in the incidences where both spaces were under the same 24 unit ownership, so that you had control over who is parking there, and so when the Zoning 25 Ordinance changes were made to the parking section, and to the multifamily section, they were 26 provisions put in there that recognized that they could operate that way and effectively provide 27 parking spaces, even though they are in tandem, and so there was an allowance added at that 28 point, but I think that there was some concern that this not go too far, or that we at least see for a 29 while how that works. There was a limit of25 percent of the units, or the spaces, or whatever 30 the measure is, not exceeding that. So, in this case, they have more than 25 percent, but those 31 ones that are over 25 percent aren't in not counting their total number, but they are there for 32 parking purposes. I assume they are, and I am not sure how many are used for residential and 33 how many are for commercial, but certainly if they are for residential use that is much more 34 effe.ctive in terms of tandem. 35 36 Commissioner Holman: I'm going to come back to that, the existing parking conditions, and you 37 have heard from me on this at the Alma Plaza Project. What has Staff done to analyze the 38 existing parking situation in the area? 39 40 Mr. Williams: I don't think that we have analyzed the specifics of that, but I would make a 41 pretty major distinction between Alma Plaza and this. This is within the PTOD zone and does 42 have much better access in terms of alternatives, that Alma Plaza did not have, and some other 43 ones in the South EI Camino area. 44 45 Commissioner Holnlan: I understand the differences. The thrust of my question is that if I am 46 not mistaken it seems like whenever there is a possibility of a Parking Exception Allowance, that Page 18 I we give it. Sometimes, it doesn't seem like it's given or considered in context with what the 2 existing parking conditions are in an area. That is the thrust of the question, and that's what I 3 wanted to know. Yes, it is different but to me it is commensurate because with Alma Plaza we 4 said that the Alma Plaza property was not responsible for the adjacent parking, but you still 5 can't, from my perspective, ignore the fact that there is spillover parking from the adjacent 6 project. 7 8 Mr. Williams: I understand. I do want to point out, and I think in the last (and this is purely 9 anecdotal, but) six months I think I have gone to this site, or another one that is currently in the 10 process that is within a block of this, three or four times, and parked on the street right at the site 11 with no problem, and that those are in the middle of the day and not at night. I don't know what 12 it's like at night, but I didn't have any problems parking at those two sites during the day. 13 14 Commissioner Holman: And having to do with SB-1818, could the parking exception be 15 considered one of the bonuses, understanding that it is not a guarantee, it's that the Director may. 16 17 Mr. Larkin: I don't have a definitive answer to that question because it has been a subject of 18 internal discussions, but we have not counted it, primarily just not weighing the risk of a 19 challenge, because it is unclear under the State Law. We have taken the more conservative 20 approach of not counting those things that are essentially entitlements if they meet all these 21 conditions to the satisfaction of the Director to get the Parking Reduction. To consider that a 22 concession is a risk, and so we have chosen not to count that as one of the concessions, and to 23 consider it something that is part of the planning entitlements. 24 25 Commissioner Holman: The BMR unit, is there any way as part of an initiation, should that 26 happen to the rezoning, is there any way that we can stipulate what level of BMR that is, or a 27 nlinimum size for it or that kind of thing? 28 29 Mr. Larkin: Well our Code already requires that it can't be the smallest. It's got to be an 30 average size unit, so it can't be the smallest unit, and it's not going to be the largest unit. It's 31 going to be the unit that comes closest to the average size, and so I think you can, but I think that 32 this is something that you could probably specify as part of the PTOD zoning but it is already 33 covered in our Code. 34 35 Commissioner Holman: And the level of affordability? 36 37 Mr. Larkin: I don't know that you can dictate the level of affordability, particularly for a 38 condominium unit that is generally going to be dictated by our BMR program, and by our BMR 39 program requirements. Typically, those are not going to be/you are not going to have a "for 40 sale" unit in the extremely low or very low rate. It's going to be in the moderate range. 41 42 Chair Garber: If the Commission were to make a recommendation, it's a risk that the 43 Commission would take, and it's a risk that it simply could not be action-ed. 44 45 Mr. Larkin: Yeah, the risk is that you will have a vacant unit because typically there isn't really 46 a market for very low income purchase units because people in that range don't get mortgages. Page 19 1 2 Commissioner Holman: Clarification. It was not stated, at least as I understood it, that the BMR 3 unit is going to be a "for sale" unit. The other eight units it's indicated were going to be for sale, 4 the other seven units, I'm sorry, would be indicated for sale. But, then it just said "and one BMR 5 unit" was what I understood. So is it going to be for sale or for rent, just to be sure? 6 7 Mr. Larkin: It's for sale. 8 9 Ms. Lee: That's the understanding, yes. 10 11 Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you for the clarification. 12 13 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, there is a quick followup by ... 14 15 Mr. Larkin: Just to clarify it. The BMR policy is that it be for sale. There is a possibility, and it 16 is not likely in this case, but in some instances there have been discussions about a mini net 17 policy (?) to allow a nonprofit to purchase the unit and then rent it, but that would require the 18 nonprofit coming forward with an interest in purchasing the unit. 19 20 Chair Barger: Commissioner Holman, Commissioner Fineberg had a followup. 21 22 Commissioner Fineberg: Do we know that that one BMR unit will actually be built or does that 23 need to be conditioned, or might there be an in lieu fee payment instead of an actual unit? 24 25 Mr. Larkin: It has to be built in order to get the incentive. If it is just an in lieu fee, they don't 26 get the incentive. 27 28 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 29 30 Commissioner Holman: Just a couple other little ones, and I guess they are not little but, the 31 Common Open Space on the front sheet of the plan, it says, and if I can read that correctly, it 32 says, I think it's 840 square feet a unit and that can't be accurate. And then in the comparison 33 table in the Staff Report it doesn't mention Common Open Space, as I found it anyway, and I'm 34 interested what the dimensions are of that Common Open Space, currently, and designed. And 35 the other question for the City Attorney, while that is being looked up, does SB-1818 address 36 level of affordability, or it is just any random for sale/rental, any level of affordability qualifies 37 for the bonus? 38 39 Mr. Larkin: Not with regard to the incentives and concessions. It does make a difference with 40 regard to a per unit, and I don't know the details off the top of my head, but I believe that it does 41 include some increases in the number of units per acre that are allowed on a site based on the 42 level of affordability, but not when it comes to the incentives and the concessions. 43 44 Mr. Solnick: On the Common Open Space, that includes the courtyards. I mean, that is 45 primarily the courtyards, and the courtyards are quite big, so I don't have the numbers or the 46 square footage of each courtyard in my head, but I ... Page 20 1 2 Commissioner Holman: I wouldn't want that degree of specificity, but the 840 square feet per 3 unit ofCornmon Open Space, is that accurate as I read it on the sheet? 4 5 Mr. Solnick: Well, 840 x 8 would be 6400 square feet. I think, yes that actually sounds about 6 right. That's about a third. Thirty (30) percent of the site would be the courtyards. Yes, that 7 sounds about right. That's in addition to the pIivate open areas and the balconies as well. 8 9 Commissioner Holman: And then the Common Open Space that you had indicated that is on the 10 comer, do you have any recollection of what those dimensions are? 11 12 Mr. Solnick: I don't. I could certainly look at the plan and give you a sense. I mean, I'm 13 guessing about 1000 square feet. 14 15 Commissioner Holman: A dimension would be helpful. 16 17 Mr. Solnick: It's 25 x 40, 20 x ... okay, let me actually look. There is a scale on the drawings, 18 and ... 19 20 Commissioner Holman: Can I chime in, because I just penciled that out. 21 22 Mr. Solnick: Yeah, actually 20 x 50, so about 1000 square feet, so that's about right. 23 24 Commissioner Holman: 20 x 50, thank you very much. 25 26 The flag lot is about 30 feet at the comer to the round part, but 38 for the length, so if the 27 driveway down is 20 wide, that would leave about 20 for the pocket park and the sidewalk and 28 the tree strip. 29 30 Mr. Solnick: No it's 40 feet for the panhandle and to my eye it looks like, yeah, not quite half of 31 that is the pocket park, so maybe it's 18 x 60 and still coming out to about 1000 square feet. 32 33 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. A few more questions. First, I'd like to look at Sheet Four 36 (4). Now, my understanding is that there are 42 parking spaces required of which four are at the 37 surface, and 38 are in the garage, is that correct? Okay, and I notice that the parking spaces are 38 labeled 1-38. Are those the required parking spaces? And it looks to me like spaces 35 and 36, 39 which are required parking spaces, are tandem parking spaces that are not among the two parking 40 spaces labeled 37 and 38, which are for the housing units. So it appears to me that there are four 41 tandem parking spaces being counted, of which two of them are for the housing units and two of 42 them are for not. So, could you explain that to me? I'm kind of confused. 43 44 Mr. Solnick: If you are interested, I can explain it. Actually, there is a mistake on the drawings, 45 as far as the way the parking spaces are labeled. 46 Page 21 1 Chair Garber: So you would re-Iabel35 and 36? 2 3 Mr. Solnick: That's right. It's just in labeling. What has been indicated as units, where it says 4 Unit 3 and Unit 4, those should be moved. It doesn't have any impact. It's just a matter of 5 where those labels were put. 6 7 Commissioner Keller: So how many tandem parking spaces are there? 8 9 Mr. Solnick: There are two tandem parking places, or depending on what you would you call ... 10 if you call the front and a back, so you are allowed to have a quarter of the parking places be 11 tandem, okay? There are 16 required, 2 x 8, and 8 units x 2 each is 16, so a quarter of that is 4. 12 So there are four tandem parking spaces that we are counting. No, two pairs. Two pairs, yes. 13 14 Commissioner Keller: Okay, why don't you try to tell me this? The tandem parking space is 15 both the front and the back, is that right? 16 17 Mr. Solnick: Right. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: So what you are saying is that there are a total of two fronts, and two 20 backs, that are being counted. 21 22 Mr. Solnick: That's correct. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: Okay, so let's suppose, and just for discussion sake, that those are 21, 22 25 and 37 and 38, okay, which are the ones that are labeled as being tandem. So I'm trying to figure 26 this out, because it looks like 19 and 20, and 35 and 36, are also tandem parking spaces. So, let's 27 assume that 35 and 36 are erroneously labeled, could you tell me which of the parking spaces 28 should be 35 and 36? 29 30 Mr. Solnick: Well I actually did, and I noticed this just as I was preparing for this. And, I did 31 actually write out the way that I would properly label these. I can tell you that; 19 and 20 would 32 be for Unit 1, not tandem. So, yes, 19 and 20 would be for Unit 1. Then, 21 and 37 would be for 33 Unit 2, and so that's two tandems. Then 22 and 23 would be for Unit 3. And 24 and 25 would 34 be for Unit 4, while 26 and 27 would be Unit 5, and 28 and 29 would be Unit 6, with 30 and 31 35 being for Unit 7. Now, 32 and its tandem space would be for Unit 8. So those are the two pairs, 36 32 and the space behind it and 21 and the space behind it, would be the four tandem spaces. All 37 of the others would just be considered at the front of the aisle. 38 39 Coinmissioner Keller: Well, I appreciate that. So what you are basically saying is that 37 is a 40 tandem space, 38 is not a tandem space. You are moving that behind, and if I remember 41 correctly, you said 31, is that right? 32. So 38, is not tandem space, and you said behind 32 is a 42 tandem space, right, so that's 38. I'm still trying to figure out where 35 and 36 goes, because 43 those are numbers that are identified with a parking space, but I can't see where they wound up. 44 I still count only 36 parking spaces, of which four are tandem and then two more are missing, so 45 I'm confused. 46 Page 22 1 Mr. Williams: If I could, and I understand your concern, but it seems to me that this is a level of 2 detail where we can require this, and if there is a direction that you are looking for to be sure that 3 a certain nunlber are tandem, or not, then we can make sure that this happens with the details that 4 move forward, but it is not a Zoning consideration, per se, I don't think. 5 6 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate what you are saying. I have two points about this. The first 7 point is that this does not purport to satisfy the current rules. Per current rules, as far as I 8 understand it, is that tandem is only allowed for residential, and a maximum of four tandem 9 spaces, and it has eight tandenl spaces being labeled. So that's a problem. 10 11 Mr. Solnick: It's just a labeling problem though. We are only having four parking spaces. We 12 only have four. 13 14 Commissioner Keller: I'm not convinced that this is a labeling problem. I believe it's a counting 15 problem, but feel free to count it sonle other way. You can put so many things. There's 16 something in conlputer science called the "pigeonhole principle" and if you move the pigeons 17 from those holes, you are going to find other holes to put the pigeons in, and that's what I 18 learned in my PhD program. So, I don't know what you learned in architect school, but that's 19 what you learn in computer science. With respect to tandem and parking reduction, I think that 20 tandem parking and parking reduction are incompatible, that doing both of those is double- 21 dipping. If you want to do tandem parking, that is why dedicated parking spaces that are 22 attached to units are easier to do, but when you have tandem parking and parking reductions, 23 essentially, the people will decide, "I'm not going to use my tandem space, I'm going to use one 24 of the other spaces," and essentially, I believe that those are incompatibles, but even if you don't 25 consider them incompatible, the math doesn't work on this. 26 27 And, with respect to unit sizes and such, I don't know if you want to verify my math, but I've got 28 659 square feet average unit size. There are 14,534 square feet of residential area. There are 29 1259 square foot of overhead, which is not counted in any of these eight housing units, if I did 30 the math correctly. And then you take the remaining 13,275 square feet of housing units and 31 divide it by eight, and I get 1659. My math was done on a little calculator, so I'm not sure ifit's 32 correct. I may have punched it wrong. 33 34 If you go from 31 to 40 dwelling units, at 40 dwelling units per acre, you get 1089 square foot of 35 housing as the size of the housing unit. Assuming that it is zero overhead, no hallways, no 36 corridors or anything, 100 percent housing at 40 dwellings per acre is 1089 square feet for a 37 housing unit. At 31 housing units per acre it's 1405 square feet for a housing unit. I am 38 wondering whether these housing units are too big for PTOD and whether the idea is they should 39 be smaller housing units in which we would get more likely to be smaller units. Right now, there 40 are three, and if you will, some of the three bedroom units are declared as being four bedroom 41 units, as a den or fourth bedroom. I am wondering about the size of these housing units and 42 whether they are in fact too big for this kind of development. 43 44 Mr. Williams: That's a very interesting question because when we, and again going back to the 45 review of the PTOD zoning, there was at one point a proposal to have like an average 1250 46 square foot unit size. That was not acceptable. That was not acceptable, because there was Page 23 1 concern about that tilting things towards the highest density possible instead of allowing for 2 lower density, less parking impact, etc. with the lower density on the project. I think that most of 3 that came from concerns of neighborhoods about high-density. Some of it came from concerns 4 from developers. I think that Mr. Solnick may have been one of them that had, although actually 5 I think there is some support for that average size, but that parking is actually, in many respects, 6 the driving constraint here. So if, for instance, you tried on this slot to put 18 units and needed to 7 therefore put maybe 40 parking spaces for that, it was difficult to make that work with the 8 residential. I've got what looks like maybe that many, so maybe that would work on this site, 9 but there were some sites that we were looking at, specifically, where parking was really 10 dictating that you couldn't get close to achieving those maximum densities. 11 12 So, philosophically, I have some sympathy for the perspective. I mean, I think my one concern 13 with this would be that, if anything, it's on the low-density, high unit size for this kind of transit- 14 oriented area. But, again, we had that discussion as part of the PTOD and that was not 15 incorporated into that. I find it difficult now to kind of go back and pose that size restriction on 16 the units, but again it's the Commission's call. 17 18 Commissioner Keller: Again, thank you. I just want to point out that the kinds of housing units 19 that we've seen being built elsewhere in the city that have had the nlost severe parking problems, 20 these have been large h,ousing developments, the 3-4 bedroom ones, which have required two 21 cars and that's been a problem. For example, the Arbor Real project, and so I think that the issue 22 of the amount of parking that we require for multiple bedrooms may be insufficient for this, and 23 if we were to correct that in general, that might moderate the tendency for developers to build 24 oversized units in comparison to whatever else is in the neighborhood. 25 26 Do we know what the average size of the neighborhood is, or do we have any ideas what is 27 around there in terms of unit sizes? 28 29 Mr. Williams: No, I don't. I mean, there are a lot of condos around there. I don't know what 30 the unit sizes are. I do want to mention that I think that there is a potential with the area plan for 31 this area to revisit that issue of the size of units. That is something that may come out of that 32 discussion. 33 34 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma had a followup. 35 36 Vice-Chair Tuma: If you know, do you know what the average size of the units are at Arbor 37 Real? Ballpark? 38 39 Mr. Williams: They are larger than this, but I don't know, and some of them are like 2400 40 square feet and that kind of thing. That's not an unusual size for those. 41 42 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg, you had a question or a followup? 43 44 Commissioner Fineberg: The parcel that would make this square, that is just next to the flag lot, 45 it's on Grant and has three units, what zoning is that, and does it conform to ... if it's RM-40, 46 does it conform to that zoning? Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ms. Lee: Staff will have to confirm, but we believe it is a multi-family zoning. That area in general is multifamily zoning. Commissioner Fineberg: There is the one lot that would make this a rectangular parcel. Ms. Lee: It's RM-40. 9 Commissioner Fineberg: The reason I ask that is that this is identical in size to the one on the 10 subject property at the other end, so it seems that you could yield three properties on that, and 11 then if you had one each on each of the single lots, you'd have three, four, five, six and seven. If 12 you squeezed one more in you'd get the same yield as eight on the five lots. So I keep coming 13 . back to why rezone this? And the idea of changing from RM-40 to PTOD is to get additional 14 yield of residential units, and much as we all complain that there are too many houses being 15 built, we've got our ABAG goals. We've got our Comprehensive Plan with all of its policies. 16 I'm struggling now with my instinct that says "build less houses" and here's a project that says 17 ''build less houses," but it's not consistent with everything else, and I'm being told I have to 18 weigh and value when I consider a proj ect. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 I'm struggling to find some benefit to the City, something that makes it more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Can Staff comment on how this is better than if the project were to be done in strict conformance with RM-40? I'm not getting that yet. Chair Barger: It may help if Staff could address the inclusion of the residential in the Purpose Statement. The Purpose Statement misses the direct reference to some of the other mixed-use qualities of this district and the intents that the City has with this district is supposed to address. Mr. Williams: Yes, and that's one of the statements that I made early on about the amount of office that was proposed. Certainly, it's true that in having to try to accomplish higher densities (and this is higher densities than what is out there, but it's not much, but it's on top of office use) it's not just a residential component. This zoning district does encourage mixed-use, too, so I think this site is not going to do a lot for the housing thing. Other sites will do a lot for housing. This one furthers the mixed-use and getting some more employment out there, and it doesn't do much for the housing. If this were that every property were coming in like this, that would be a concern. But, I think that we are going to have a variety of different types of mixes or some sites that, if they are RM-40,and they wanted to do residential, they can just do it under.RM-40. And there are a number of sites out here that are zoned GM and other industrial and commercial uses that will find it more beneficial to use this zoning for residential and accommodating residential on those sites. I think this furthers the goals in terms of mixed-use and providing some employment. It does not strongly further the goals of housing here. It is, again in going back, originally proposed that it did have more of an emphasis on housing. The Comprehensive Plan has this 2000-foot radius circle around the transit station and designates it not PTOD, but Transit Oriented Residential, so the word residential is in there. That's always been an emphasis, but it also talks about mixed- Page 25 1 use in there, and this zoning also talks about mixed-use, so it's not meeting everything down the 2 line, but it's meeting certainly some of the goals of the mixed-use quality of the zoning. 3 4 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, I understand that there are the six additional support elements in 5 the Purpose Clause and the second one does say, "Encourage a variety of housing types: 6 commercial, retail and limited office uses," so I'm still seeing that word "limited office uses" as 7 opposed to this project's design, most of it is office use. 8 9 Mr. Williams: Excuse me, I mean, more of it is residential and office. It's 0.75 residential and 10 [voiced over]. 11 12 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, I stand corrected, okay, but maybe not quite so far as to say 13 "limited." 14 15 The last question I have, I know it's beyond our prevue, but in the ARB Review, it talked about 16 reducing the need for the exception for the nonresidential floor area by putting residential on 17 ground floor. Would that be something that this body would consider? Can we condition the 18 approval of the PTOD with some kind of restriction that sonle of that ground floor be converted 19 to residential? And why did you make the statement earlier that residential is not appropriate on 20 the first floor? The neighborhood is full of residential on the first floor, across the street, next to 21 it and down the street. 22 23 Mr. Williams: Yeah, I think it would probably be best to have the Applicant's architect address 24 why it is not appropriate there, but from our standpoint, to have 80 percent of the ground floor, if 25 the whole ground floor were residential, that would be fine. But then try to mix and have two- 26 thirds or three-quarters of the ground floor be office, and then have a residence or two down 27 there and it's awkward juxtaposition of those uses. But I think Mr. Solnick can probably better 28 answer how that works also from a structural standpoint in supporting the residential and that 29 kind of thing. 30 31 Chair Garber: Mr. Solnick, unless there are other specific questions, let's give the Applicant 32 their three (3) minutes for rebuttal here. If you would like, why don't I give you four (4) 33 minutes, and that way you can take one minute to answer the question, and then you can have 34 your three minutes. 35 36 Mr. Solnick: Okay, I don't think that this site is equivalent to a lot of the other residential sites in 37 this neighborhood, and the reason is that it is on Birch Street. The longest frontage is on Birch 38 Street, which is a very busy street. It is much busier than Sheridan and Grant and some of the 39 other crossing or perpendicular streets. It's also especially shallow. There was am eminent 40 domain taking of Birch Street when the Oregon Expressway was built, and that's what created 41 this lot as being relatively shallow. That means that the lot is especially close. It's hard to get 42 away from Birch because of the shallowness, the shallow depth is in that direction. I think this is 43 an especially poor place to put housing on the ground floor, and that is sort of a segue into my 44 rebuttal. 45 Page 26 1 I think you are seeing this issue of the offices versus residential as sort of being a gift to the 2 Applicant. It was not perceived that way at all. This actually did not come from Mr. Hollbach, 3 this issue of adding more offices. It came from me, and it had nothing to do with economics. It 4 strictly had to do with making a better project. It seemed to me that residential did not belong on 5 the ground floor on Birch Street, and it made a tremendous amount of sense to make that whole 6 ground floor offices, and then make the residential two floors above it, as was done for the first 7 PTOD proj ect that has come through Commission and went on to Council. 8 9 I also want to address the issue that if this were under RM-40, of course, the ground floor would lObe residential, so it would have that problem. The other thing is that you have to realize that the ' 11 zoning density in this town is not determined by anything but the Parking Ordinance. It has 12 nothing to do with the zoning that is in the Ordinance itself. So RM-40 densities are not 13 determined by the density written in RM-40. RM-30 and RM-15, none of them are determined 14 by the density written in the zoning. They are all determined by the Parking Ordinance, because 15 the Parking Ordinance governs. It always is more restrictive than the zoning itself. It has led to 16 a new use ofa verb. Developers ask each other, "Can you park it?" It's a new use of the word 17 "park," and what it means is, "Can you put in that many units? Does the Parking Ordinance 18 allow itT' 19 20 You could not put in the sort of densities you are talking about because of the Parking 21 Ordinance. There is just not enough room for the parking. 22 23 The other thing that has sort of been brought up, the RM-40 FAR is a maximum of 1.0, but under 24 SB 1818, you certainly could ask for an FAR Bonus. This issue of "double dipping" and so on 25 would go away. As has been pointed out, you might give it right back to the other place where 26 you have a very similar proj ect and without any of the attributes of PTOD which seem very 27 appropriate for this location. 28 29 And, yes, we could just take a chunk out of the ground floor and make it residential. We are no 30 longer asking for that bonus. I think it would be a truly inferior design, but it would solve that 31 problem. But that would be solving a paper problenl and not solving an actual physical problem. 32 It's actually, in my opinion, making the project considerably worse. 33 34 I just want to emphasize that the whole purpose of designing it this way was really to do a better 35 design. It was not financial. It was to put the land uses in the places where they made sense, and 36 to do a project which was consistent with PTOD, which is certainly something that the City has 37 really been offering and has been encouraging developers to use, and here we are trying to use it. 38 39 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, discussion, and let's see if we can move towards a 40 Motion. Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Holman. 41 42 Commissioner Holman: Actually, I had my light on earlier. I had two more questions. 43 44 Chair Garber: Okay, please go ahead. 45 Page 27 1 Commissioner Holman: They are not long ones, pardon the voice. My question for the City 2 Attorney is SB 1818, I have understood on the past that the proj ect that came through under 3 SB1818 still has to comply with the City'S Comprehensive Plan. We may have as much control, 4 but it can't violate the Comprehensive Plan, is that correct? 5 6 Mr. Larkin: That's generally correct. I think there are some exceptions, but that is generally 7 correct. 8 9 Commissioner Homan: Thank you, and then the other question, I believe, it was asked here 10 earlier, and that is the comparisons prompted by Joe Vilario about the shading, and the answer 11 was comparably what size buildings could be built with an RM-40, conlpared to this? But my 12 question is, what is the daylight plane requirement for an RM-40 development? 13 14 Ms. Lee: The daylight plane requirements are dependent upon what it is adj acent to. I think, 15 from what we have discovered, the adjacent zoning districts would be RM-30. For the daylight 16 plane for site and rear lot lines for the sites abutting RM-30, RM-40 that don't contain single- 17 family or two-family residential use, it's basically none for lots which are within the width of70 18 feet or greater. If there is width of less than 70 feet, limited to the first ten feet from the property 19 line, it's an initial height of 10 and an angle of 45 degrees. 20 21 Commissioner Holman: So that, comparing to this, would be helpful going forward and to 22 answer Mr. Vilario's question. 23 24 The point is, then, it's not that there is no daylight plane requirement at all, which previously the 25 answer was that we were comparing building sizes to building sizes, and not really addressing 26 the daylight plane issue. 27 28 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 29 30 Commissioner Keller: So, first to follow up on Commissioner Holman's question, does that 31 mean that if these were RM-40 that because the widths are mostly over 75 feet, except for that 32 little panhandle, which is below, that there is no daylight plane? Is that what I understand? 33 34 I heard you say that is correct, thank you. 35 36 Let me make a few comments. The first con1ffient is that I think in this location ground floor 37 office does make sense and I am sympathetic with the idea that putting housing over ground 38 floor office makes sense. In some sense, that's what some people originally thought made more 39 sense for mixed-use, although we've seen projects for mixed-use that don't have that, notably 40 some project with the initials AP. 41 42 But, so I do think that tandem parking and parking reduction are not compatible because of the 43 idea that tandem parking will discourage people from parking in the front and in the back space, 44 which means that people will probably be more likely to take up the extra spaces. I think that 45 those two concepts are incompatible. 46 Page 28 1 With respect to transitioning some of the space from housing to parking, as the applicant is 2 requesting, this has the effect of actually increasing the parking requirement. The reason, as far 3 as I understand it, is that 2.5 parking spaces per housing unit, and that's 1659 square feet as the 4 average housing unit size, while office space is 4 parking spaces per 1000 square feet. 5 6 Essentially, by converting several thousand square feet of office space from housing to parking, 7 the developer! Applicant have essentially increased the parking requirement challenge that the 8 developer has by making that change. For the developer to basically complain about the Parking 9 Ordinance, when the developer is going to a use that has a higher parking intensity than the 10 Ordinance would ordinarily allow, is something odd to me. 11 12 Finally, I think on the issue of unit sizes, I am concerned about the unit sizes being somewhat 13 larger than they might otherwise be, and the fact that the unit sizes are as large as they are means 14 that we are essentially not getting the Housing Density Bonus effectively ofPTOD. And, 15 although I anl very sympathetic with the idea of mixed-use, as Commissioner Fineberg pointed 16 out, it's very easy to build eight housing units on this odd-shaped lot without doing a lot of work. 1 7 In some sense, we are taking these eight housing units and sort of lifting them up and putting a 18 whole office complex underneath it. It would seem to me that, in terms of doing that, if our 19 objective is to have more housing units, which is what ABAG is forcing us to do, and although I 20 certainly am not a fan of having lots of housing units, I'm also not a fan of having very big 21 housing units either in this regard in terms of the multifamily housing, because I don't think it's 22 the kind of mix that makes sense for this area. 23 24 There are no schools nearby, and in that regard there does not seenl1ike there are many amenities 25 for a children-oriented environment. Although I am not sure that we are allowed to make 26 determinations in terms of whether there are families with kids, or whatever, we are not, and I 27 see the City Attorney saying something. 28 29 Nonetheless, it seems to me that the issue is, from a point of view of satisfying the ABAG 30 requirements, building 14,534 square feet of housing units and getting only eight housing units, 31 it does not go very far towards meeting our ABAG goals. In that regard, I would actually be 32 interested in having more housing here and having the unit sizes closer to what was originally 33 proposed by some for a PTOD of a 1250 square foot average house size which probably means 34 somewhere on the order of 12 to 14 housing units. 35 36 I'm just going to put that out there. I'm going to leave it for somebody else who wishes to mull 37 over this and make a Motion. 38 39 Mr. Larkin: I pick this time to interrupt, and I interrupt because it's just after 9:00 and it's time 40 to check in, but I also wanted to correct something that I said earlier in response to 41 Commissioner Holman's question. There has been a change to the Density Bonus law that now, 42 for very low income BMR units, it is now 5 percent of the units being set aside as BMR for very 43 low income that will get you one incentive. A project that meets our minimum requirements 44 with very low BMR housing would get three concessions. 45 Page 29 1 Commissioner Keller: I just want to say one more thing. I think that the fact that we are getting 2 these comments about SB-1818 concessions suggests that we should pass rules affecting what 3 concessions make sense and what the limits are for those concessions. 4 5 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman and then Vice-Chair Tuma. 6 7 Commissioner Holman: Could the City Attorney please repeat what you said. 8 9 Mr. Larkin: We haven't had this issue in "for sale" projects, so it would be difficult, ifnot 10 impossible, to have very low income "for sale" units, but if a project was coming forward, 11 presumably a rental project that was going to offer 15 percent of the unit at very low income, 12 then they would be entitled to three concessions because for each 5 percent of below market 13 housing. If you provide a very low rate, you get one concession as opposed to the 10 percent for 14 just regular BMR. 15 16 Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you for that clarification. 17 18 I am also not going to make a Motion at this point in time. I'm just going to make some 19 comments. 20 21 To be perfectly frank, projects like this make me a little nuts and the reason is not because it's 22 necessarily a bad project. It's not about that, but it does speak to, I guess, primarily 23 Commissioner Fineberg's comments. We have a PTOD Zoning District that is to encourage 24 residential near transit. While there are the other aspects of this, we have other considerations 25 too which are kind of being discounted in consideration of this being an appropriate site for 26 PTOD because, and I'm not saying it's inaccurate in terms of what is heard by people 27 commenting on projects, but it just frustrating that because we do hear a lot of comments on how 28 much housing gets produced and the impacts of the housing, now that we are using that as 29 justification to say, "Well, this is a good site for PTOD because now we can incorporate the 30 office space." And then in creation of offices, we then have a surplus of office space availability 31 in the community, and creating office space when it is not retail. I'm not saying this is a good 32 place for retail because it's not, but when we are creating office space, which then triggers 33 ABAG, which creates some more need for housing, then I feel a little bit like a hamster in a cage 34 here, on the wheel. That's why it's making me nuts, and I hope at least some people can 35 understand that. 36 37 Having said that, I have other issues about the project and its considerations. Well, one thing I 38 will say is that I have not heard anyone from the public, with possibly one exception, saying that 39 they didn't want the project, or they thought the project was too big. There is none of that, and 40 yet every person talked about the parking difficulties in the area. I have to believe that, and I 41 understand. I go to that area sometimes, too, and I don't always have a hard time parking, and 42 you did say it was, you know, random. But/and I understand that, but I have to believe what the 43 members of the public say who live right there. They don't seem to have a hidden agenda. That 44 makes it even more convincing that there is a parking concern there, and I think we can't just be 45 providing the parking exceptions when there are existing conditions that might speak against 46 that. Page 30 1 2 The other thing that I find frustrating about projects such as this is that we are looking at 3 reducing the parking requirement and, because it's a mixed-use project, but yet it's near transit, I 4 think Commissioner Keller has mentioned this a lot of times to, but if it's near transit, and people 5 leave their cars at home. Then, you know, the cars are all still there, and while in some cases I 6 think there are possibilities for trip reductions, but my experience has been, in watching projects 7 that have been built in the last, you know, in the recent past is, there may be some trip reduction, 8 but I haven't experienced any, nor have I heard of any car ownership reduction. So you still 9 have the parking demand. So, let's see, I think I'll end my comments there. 10 11 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma, then myself, and then Commissioner Fineberg. 12 13 Vice-Chair Tuma: I'm, to some extent, having sonle of the similar types of struggles that 14 Commissioner Holman was talking about, except I sort of come down on it, maybe on the other 15 side of where my sense was where she was leaning, but maybe I'm speaking more than I should 16 be. 17 18 It's not perfect in terms of providing a lot more housing, closer to 18, or 17 or 16, or however 19 many we could park on there. But I envision a hearing on a project at the same site where they 20 are asking for 18 housing units, and I envision a discussion where people say, "Well, geez, this is 21 PTOD, and we're encouraging mixed-use, and now we have 18 housing units, where's the 22 mixed-use? Why aren't we getting what we encouraged with PTOD?" 23 24 And I think, to some extent, given the discussion and the thoughts and the ideas that went into 25 PTOD, either we kind of believe that philosophy or we don't. Either we believe that being by 26 transit is going to some extent to reduce trips. Maybe, it's not the trips out of there, or maybe it 27 is the trips out of there, so people leave their cars, but hopefully the people who are coming in to 28 work at the office will possibly be taking transit. That's part of the concept behind PTOD. 29 30 I think that I'm sympathetic to the comment that housing, or that parking [correcting himself], is 31 what limits the site here, because I was sitting here a little while ago thinking, well, Geez, let's 32 make these units a little bit snlaller. Put ten in there. Wait a minute, we can't do that, because 33 then they can't park it. 34 35 So it is a balance, and it is in some regards that part of me says, Gee, this would be better with 36 more housing but, at the same time, if that was the discussion we were having, people would be 37 up in arms about we are puttingin too much housing. 38 39 I struggle with these things, as well, but where I come down, and where I'm leaning towards is, 40 thinking about maybe there are some issues around the use of tandem, even though/or tandem in 41 combination with a reduction. Maybe there is something to be said there to kind of pull that 42 back a little bit but, at the same time, one of the things that we are concerned about is, with this 43 mix in a relatively low number of housing units, the required parking for this amount of office 44 space, required without any reduction, would be 42, okay? For the amount of office space we 45 are talking about here, and that is coincidentally the number of parking spaces that we have. 46 Page 31 I Now, I recognize that there are still eight units there, and that's going to produce some number 2 of cars that will stay home during the day, but it doesn't seem to be that out of line. I think if we 3 had three or four more housing units, five more housing units, I think it's going to get worse. 4 But, here, with the proximity to transit, to drink the PTOD Kool-Aid, we have to believe to some 5 extent that what we put there (the reasons we designed this as PTOD) are going to work, and if 6 not then maybe we do need to address that. Maybe there is a problem with it, but we haven't 7 really given it much of a chance to work, and this is only the second project coming down the 8 pike that says we are going to get these reductions because it's close to transit. 9 10 I think there are some tweaks we could do around the edges here and maybe it is putting more 11 restrictions on tandem, and whatever impact that has on the project, but I don't think it's so far 12 off from a project that meets the overall goals, maybe not all of the goals, but the overall goals 13 and balancing of the different elements ofPTOD that I think it works. 14 15 The other thing is, we have not talked much about the other elements of it, the types of things 16 that, in terms of context base design, and the other elements of PTOD that I think it does. I think 17 the architect and the Applicant have done a nice job of addressing those. 18 19 It's a project that I'm leaning towards wanting to move it forward, but maybe there are some 20 more thoughts or creative ways we could address some of the parking and the balance issue. I 21 fundamentally don't have a problem with there being less housing and some nice office space if 22 that makes the project work. 23 24 Chair Garber: I am in support of all the things that Vice-Chair Tuma has just mentioned. I think 25 this Commission has fought very hard for the PTOD District and the qualities that it brings to 26 this particular area of the City, and for the amount of latitude that it gives the Commission as 27 well as the ARB, and the staff to really change this neighborhood into a more coherent place for 28 our city, visually, as well as in a planning sense. 29 30 I, too, do not have a problem with having all the ground floor as office, and having the remainder 31 as residential. And, I wanted, and I'm just going through a bunch of different thoughts in my 32 head, but the one thing that I did want to remind myself is I wanted to thank the developer, the 33 owner of the property in this case, for allowing the architect to have significant say as to what is 34 not only good for the project, but was is good for the City and the owner's support of that, I 35 think, is commendable. 36 37 The sorts of things that this project presents to us, the amount of Open Space that is given for 38 those residences, the amount of private, as well as public Open Space, I mean, those are all great 39 things. Part of the PTOD District is to create different types of housing projects, different types 40 ofhollsing, and having larger units that might be larger compared to some, but not all, I think, is 41 great. That is what we are supposed to be doing, and it is supposed to be providing for different 42 types of people to live there that may have more, or less, or no children, etc. It just adds to the 43 scale and the variety that you need to have a vibrant and exciting place. 44 45 I see we've got Commissioner Fineberg and then Commissioner Holman. 46 Page 32 1 Commissioner Fineberg: I see a lot of good things about this project and there is this sort of 2 ir~.ternal conflict. Does this, for the purpose of the PTOD District, provide more housing near the 3 transit corridors? And I don't think it accomplishes that. But, there's the alternative of 18, or 4 whatever, or 20 houses, creating more under-parking, so there is sort of a balance in the scale. I 5 think some of those details you will probably iron out, if the proj ect moves forward through the 6 ARB. They did say they want some switching of the ground floor retail to housing. Whether 7 they continue to press for that will be seen. 8 9 If this moves forward, there are a couple of things. Whoever is crafting the Motion, if we could 10 include this language, and I believe that the ARB had mentioned that, to be consistent with the 11 Zoning Ordinance, we would want some ground floor bike parking for the folks that do come on 12 bike to the office space. 13 14 I would agree with Conmlissioner Keller that the parking reduction is not consistent with the use 15 oftandenl spaces, especially in what we are asking people in residences. Unless we can grant 16 some kind of occupancy condition, the residents are going to make their lives easier, and take up 17 the parking spaces that would be for the offices or a member of the public. 18 19 So, I don't know if there is an opportunity to condition the residence to using their two tandem 20 spaces. 21 22 I know that it is not the responsibility of the Applicant, but that empty lot is half-parked 23 frequently, the two. empty parcels. There are people from the senior complex that pull in. We've 24 got pictures from residents, and from the times I've driven,by. So, while it's not the Applicant's 25 responsibility to provide parking for the neighborhood, those cars being forced onto the street are 26 going to further exacerbate the under-parking in the area. That gives even more credence to the 27 fact that people pull into the empty lot, that the area is under-parked. So I think we need to be 28 careful not to under-park this property. 29 30 I'd want to see as a Condition of Approval to the TDM program that we talked about earlier, and 31 then also two other things. 32 33 The driveway location that we talked about, close to Grant, I don't know if that's been analyzed. 34 I assume we wouldn't put it so close that it violates zoning ordinances, but it seems like heavy 35 traffic, 10-15 feet from a busy intersection. While the developer may say that this is the only 36 physical location, is it a safe location? I guess the ARB will consider that, and should there be 37 conditions for analysis of that. 38 39 And, there was one more. It's escaping me, so that will be it for now. 40 41 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, and then Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner 42 Rosati, and then let's get to a Motion. 43 44 MOTION 45 Page 33 1 Commissioner Holman: Actually, I was contemplating a Motion, if that's ... or unless someone 2 else is dying to make it. 3 4 I have, as stated earlier, and I'm pretty conflicted on this, and pretty frustrated by it, and I think 5 when we passed the PTOD Ordinance, there was one set of knowledge that existed, and since 6 then, there have been other data points that have come to light. 7 8 So, and Staffhas known me for a good while now, I'm much more in favor of changing 9 ordinances than justifying acting against it. So, as I said earlier, I feel like a hamster in a cage, 10 and now I'm feeling like I'm ready for the farm because I'm going to make a Motion to 11 recommend Staff recommendations. 12 13 And, it's probably against my better judgment, because of all the conflicts that I have, but I have 14 conditions that I want to put on the project. I'nl hoping that this is, at least, the best outcome. 15 Hearing comments, I think there is going to be a Motion to Approve and likely it would pass, so 16 I'm going to at least try my best crack at conditioning it: 17 18 1. Require that as a part of the rezone, a TDM program that includes Eco Passes. 19 20 2. That, as part of any parking reductions, the tandem parking places not be counted as part of 21 that parking reduction. In other words, not counting the tandem parking places, and then also 22 granting a parking reduction. Does that make sense? 23 24 3. That the parking garage entry be moved away from the comer and that the entry be moved to, 25 is that Sherman or Sheridan that is the back side of that? Sheridan. That the entry be moved to 26 Sheridan. 27 28 There may be other Amendments, but that's my Motion for now. 29 30 Chair Garber: So there are three. So TDM and Eco Passes, is three. Tandem spaces, don't 31 count them. And then number three, the parking entry move away from the intersection? 32 33 Conlillissioner Holman: And move it to Sheridan. 34 35 SECOND 36 37 Commissioner Keller: I'll second that. 38 39 Chair Garber: Discussion? And I apologize, would the Maker like to speak to their Motion. 40 41 Commissioner Holman: I think I've said enough. I feel schizophrenic enough. 42 43 Chair Garber: And then Seconder, and then we will go to Conlillissioner Rosati who was 44 scheduled to speak. 45 Page 34 1 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. First, I'd like to make a comment about parking and theiI 2 make a Friendly Amendment about the parking. 3 4 I'm directing us to Table 1 of the Staff report which is on Page 6, and I notice something quite 5 odd about this. What's interesting is that there is this juxtaposition of where it says, "Reduction 6 proposed per P AMC." So it says, "Residential, two parking spaces per unit, and guest spaces for 7 18 units," and then it says, "20 percent total for joint use, 30 percent conlbined max." 8 9 Okay, so far, so good. Then on the bottom, it says, "Office, one space for 250 square feet," and 10 then says, "20 percent for housing near transit," and I was saying, why do you reduce the office 11 space parking based on housing being near transit? It doesn't make any sense. 12 13 So let me get to this, where I'm thinking. I did a whole different calculation, and the calculation 14 I did is, okay, I can understand 42 parking spaces for the con1fl1ercial, and I can understand 15 reducing that by 20 percent for joint use. So far, so good. 16 17 I can understand taking the 18 parking spaces for the residential and reducing that by 40 percent 18 for both combined reductions, one for the housing near transit, and one for the mixed-use, and 19 with the maximum reduction total being 30 percent. 20 21 Well, if you do the math, 42 x 0.8 is 33.6; 18 x 0.6 is 10.8, which adds up to 44.4, and if you 22 think about it that way, you get down to 45 units and not down to 42, for required parking 23 spaces. 24 25 ANIENDMENT 26 27 I am going to make a Friendly Amendment that the office space parking not be reduced below 20 28 percent, and that the total residential parking space not be reduced below 40 percent, with a total 29 combination being not reduced below 30 percent max. 30 31 Chair Garber: Would the Maker like to query Staff on their thoughts before ... 32 33 Commissioner Holman: Anticipated, will. 34 35 Chair Garber: Perhaps, Commissioner Rosati? 36 37 Commissioner Rosati: Yes, I would like to mention a few things. First of all, I think this is a 38 well thought out project that, from a con1fl1ercial perspective, the office space on the main floor 39 makes conlplete sense. I think that the proportions of the parking are absolutely adequate from 40 my experience. In fact, I think I disagree with Commissioner Keller and would not be able to 41 support this Amendment because, in my experience, the office space that is near public 42 transportation uses a lot less parking, and has a much lesser parking requirement, at least a third. 43 44 Given this location, I can see people coming in from all over the Bay area using trains. I think 45 that there are going to be people that are going to be biking to this facility, and there are going to 46 be a lot of people carpooling as well. I really believe that the projections that are being made, Page 35 1 even with the reduction, are completely adequate, given that we are talking about 10,000 square 2 feet of office space. 3 4 I also believe that the 10,000 square feet of office space are a likely (but I am not an expert on 5 this one in terms of proportion) to warrant more than 30 employees in that space. I think that the 6 requirement of 250 square foot per parking is probably a little bit out of date with the way these 7 spaces are configured today. 8 9 I just wanted to say, nUInber one, I think this is a well thought out project and the office space 1 ° proportions are, in my opinion and experience in these kind of setups (and in fact my office is 11 located exactly near public transportation, comparable to this) more than adequate. 12 13 I also agree on having homes of the size that are projected in this project. I think that it is an 14 entirely reasonable thing, and I personally believe that it would be better, in the interest of the 15 community, to have fewer residences of this size as opposed to several more that would be 16 smaller. 17 18 My big concern is access to parking. I don't think that we have adequately studied whether the 19 access to parking in that particular position of the property is appropriate. However, I also 20 sympathize with the significant constraints that exist on the property, given the size. And, if the 21 developnlent is involving only one level of underground parking, given the shape of the lot, I 22 don't know if there is an alternative positioning, and I'm sure it has been studied extensively. 23 24 I just wanted to make the comment that I appreciate and I am concerned, but I don't know if 25 there are many options, other than potentially creating a curved driveway that ends up on the 26 other comer of the same side instead of on Birch and ends up on the other in the front, where 27 basically the access to the parking lot is. 28 29 I'm saying, specifically, instead of accessing it from Grant, you would access it from Birch, by 30 making a curve, but that's not my job to point out. I'd just like to alert of the possibility of a 31 traffic problem there. 32 33 Chair Garber: I think the Staff, do you have comments? 34 35 Mr~ Williams: Two comments. 36 37 I don't question the math that Commissioner Keller mentioned, but I mean we use these 38 reductions and show that, but we didn't. I mean, there is also a 20 percent reduction in here that 39 has allowed for the TDM program too. We didn't use that because we didn't need it. The other 40 reductions got down to the maximum reduction of 30 percent overall and 42. We could consider 41 that. Also, the bigger two questions I have of problems or concerns are, first of all, I'm not 42 understanding what the issue is with the tandem spaces. There are how many tandem spaces? 43 It's not like there are one or two in excess of the minimum required. But I mean how many total 44 are there? Anyway, there are quite a few extra spaces that are additional tandem spaces, like at 45 least a half dozen, so it's ten? Ten extra tandem spaces. 46 Page 36 1 I mean, it's really, and I understand that they may not all always be available, but they are not 2 ever, I don't think, found to not be available, where none of those are available. So there is a sort 3 of built-in addition here that generally we don't see. I mean, I would think that this is a positive 4 type of thing to see, which is to have some additional tandem spaces thrown in there so that this 5 does provide some relief, and in this case they are needed. 6 7 Then, the other issue was related to the driveway. I think we should ask the Applicant if that's 8 feasible to have that driveway work off Sheridan, given the narrowness of it, and the limited use- 9 ability of the proj ect on the other side. 10 11 Chair Garber: Let me go back to the Maker here. We've got a variety of comments coming up. 12 Commissioner Holman. 13 14 AMENDMENT 15 16 Commissioner Holman: Actually, I was going to amend my own Motion. I wanted to provide 1 7 some t1exibility because my biggest concern is that, and this is an Amendment to my Motion, my 18 biggest concern is that the driveway coming out of the parking garage is nearer the comer. 19 20 Chair Garber: That it is too near the comer? To close to it? 21 22 Commissioner Holman: Currently, it is too near the comer, and I wanted to move it away from 23 the comer, but I will take out the requirement that it be on Sheridan, and it can be optional to 24 either Birch or Sheridan. 25 26 Chair Garber: That the Applicant needs to find a safe way of entering and exiting. 27 28 Commissioner Holman: As far away from the comer as is absolutely possible, but it's too near 29 the comer now. 30 31 Chair Garber: Then, will the Seconder support that Amendment? 32 33 Commissioner Keller: I'd be supportive of the Amendment if it were quantified. So, for 34 example, to the extent that you could ... 35 36 Commissioner Holman: That's too fine in detail. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: I mean, to the extent that you could say that at least so many feet from the 39 comer because otherwise, if you say "as much as possible," they could come back with what 40 they have now, and they could say that is what they could do. 41 42 Commissioner Holman: Does the Code speak to that. 43 44 Vice-Chair Tuma: Just one moment please, point of order, the question was asked, can someone 45 other than the Seconder of the primary Motion second the Amendment? City Attorney? 46 Page 37 1 I apologize. I misinterpreted the question. I think the only way that that works, Vice-Chair 2 Tuma, is if the Seconder does not suppoli that and withdraws his Second, at which point the 3 Second would be open back to the Commission, and then another Second could be offered. 4 5 Mr. Larkin: The alternative is that the Maker could withdraw her original Motion and just make 6 a new Motion, which I think is what the Maker is intending. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: Well, there are several alternatives, and I understand the attorney 9 probably knows Robert's Rules and Orders better than I do, but my understanding is that it could 10 be offered as an Unfriendly Amendment, which would then have a Second and a vote. The 11 Maker of the Motion could withdraw, but I'm just trying to understand the issue of, could you 12 clarify, actually, the effect of your Amendment? 13 14 Commissioner Holman: I'm trying to get the parking garage entry further away from the comer, 15 and I just reminded myselfby looking at the Sheridan Street front of this property, and it's only 16 75 feet. So I don't know that it's possible to get it as far from the comer as is desirable on that 17 75-foot frontage. So, understanding that Birch is a busy street, but yet there is more opportunity 18 to put a driveway in there, on that longer frontage, away from the comer. 19 20 Comnussioner Keller: Are you suggesting that it has to be moved off of Grant? Is that one of 21 the requirements, and that it be preferably moved as far away from the comer as possible? I'm 22 not understanding exactly what the Motion is. 23 24 The problem I have with seconding, is that I am not sure exactly what your Amendment is. 25 26 Comnlissioner Holman: Perhaps the way to clarify this would be to ask the Applicant a 27 question, or ask the Staff a question about an entrance on Birch. I'm sorry if I prematurely made 28 the Motion, because that is the longer street frontage. 29 30 Chair Garber: Would the Applicant like to respond? 31 32 Mr. Solnick: I do appreciate the concern about the proximity to the comer, but there is no better 33 alternative. If you come off of Birch, you of course remove whatever parking spaces are parked 34 against Birch, and in so doing, and you can't put them back in the panhandle. So you lose 35 parking spaces, and I'm guessing, two, just offhand. No, actually it would be three. You would 36 lose three parking spaces, and the same coming from Sheridan. You can't use the panhandle, so 37 you take out parking spaces, and you don't gain any back. So we could move it a little bit farther 38 from the comer on the Grant side, but any other position loses at least three parking spaces, and 39 not three tandem parking spaces, but three long tandem parking spaces.' 40 41 Commissioner Holman: Could Staff comment on that. I'm not understanding why you would 42 lose that many parking spaces. Are you talking about parking garage spaces or curb spaces? 43 44 Mr. Solnick: The driveway has to be 20-feet wide, and a parking space is 8-1/2 feet. 45 46 Commissioner Holman: Are you talking about curb parking spaces, or parking garage spaces? Page 38 1 2 Mr. Solnick: No, in the parking garage. Yes, I'm talking about spaces in the garage, yes. The 3 parking aisle has to be 20 feet. The width of a parking space is 8-1/2 so if you do that math, it's 4 the width you would be taking out when you came in off of Birch. You would have to remove 5 three parking spaces, and yes, the curve. I think you mentioned about Birch going in a curve. 6 That turning radius is too tight and would not be allowed by the Transportation Department. 7 8 Commissioner Holnlan: Thank you, and does Staff want to comment on that, because even ifit 9 would eliminate some parking places in the parking garage, we still don't want to create an 10 unsafe situation, and so that is the heart of this. 11 12 Mr. Williams: Yes, I concur that they would lose two or three parking spaces because you are 13 coming down, and right now you have basically got this rectangle of parking down there, and 14 now you have the driveway that has to come down in there where, right now, it isn't there. Right 15 now, it's on that panhandle area. You are not going to recover those spaces, in that panhandle 16 area, because it's too narrow to use as a parking zone. So, if you are coming off of here, there 17 will necessarily be some spaces but, again, not a lot. But, to get that driveway down over there 18 in the location where those parking spaces are now, and to make that work, is going to take out a 19 few, and I don't see where you recover those, although I guess I should ask. 20 21 I mean, right now, there are those four surface spaces, and I assume those would go over and flip 22 over kind of to the opposite side of that driveway entrance ifit is coming offwhere those four 23 spaces are served now. I don't know if there is any, or if that panhandle area at the surface, 24 could handle those couple of additional parking spaces. 25 26 Chair Garber: Forgive me. Are we trying to redesign the project here? 27 28 Mr. Williams: Again, this is an issue of use an intensity and not design associated with PTOD. 29 30 Chair Garber: I mean, we should be able to make the requirement and move forward with the 31 requirement, and the requirement has to answer to all the codes and zoning that exist within the 32 State and in the City, and it has to meet all the safety requirements. I think we just need, and I 33 think I would keep your condition, but I think I would simply temper it by saying that it needs to 34 safel y address the issue and the nearness that it has to the comer. 35 36 Commissioner Holman: Well, to answer Commissioner Keller's question, my intention is to 37 move it off Grant, because a 30-foot wide parcel does not provide distance enough to get that 38 entry away from the comer enough to provide safety. It also, as one of the members of the 39 public commented, doesn't provide adequate opportunity to get out of the parking garage at peak 40 times, and it doesn't allow opportunity to get in, so it's going to cause congestion in the 41 intersection. So I amended my Motion to say that the entry could be on either Birch or Sheridan, 42 but I do want it off Grant, so if that answers the Seconder's question. 43 44 Commissioner Keller: Yes it does, and perhaps you could say, move it off of Grant and put it off 45 on Birch or Sheridan in a manner that is safe. Maybe it is not necessary, but in some sense, that 46 is the idea, so that I would accept that. Page 39 1 2 Commissioner Holman: If Staff has a better way of wording it, that's fine, but the intention is 3 clear. 4 5 Mr. Larkin: I think because the prevue is limited to use and intensity, the original way the 6 Motion was made is preferable. I think it has to be safe in order to get City approval. It doesn't 7 hurt anything to add it, but ... 8 9 Commissioner Keller: Okay, that's fine, thank you, I will accept that. 10 11 Chair Garber: Commissioner Rosati. 12 13 Commissioner Rosati: The issue was just resolved. While and since I have the opportunity to 14 speak, I wanted to mention that I am not in favor of the tandem parking comment of that not 15 counting, on the Motion that was described earlier. I just wanted to get that on the Record. 16 17 Chair Garber: You support the use of tandem spaces for the housing in this particular 18 circumstance. 19 20 Commissioner Rosati: Exactly. 21 22 Chair Garber: Okay. So we are back to the Motion which is supporting the Staff s 23 recommendation that: 24 25 1) The project be conditioned to include a TDM, Traffic Demand Management Program, and 26 Eco Passes. 27 28 2) That the tandem spaces don't count. 29 30 3) That the parking access not be from Grant, but to be on Birch or Sheridan. 31 32 Mr. Larkin: If I can just clarify, Commissioner. I understand, for the record, the Motion is not 33 seeking to reduce four of the tandem spaces and shrink them to make them four normal size 34 spaces. You just don't want them counted. 35 36 Commissioner Holman: Correct, I just don't want them counted as part of the consideration of 37 there is any parking reduction given. 38 39 Mr. Larkin: I think the confusion is going to be in order to make them not count, that you are 40 actually basically just taking four of those tandem spaces and shrinking them to normal size 41 spaces, and I wanted to just confirm that this is not the intent of the Motion. 42 43 Commissioner Holnlan: That is not the intent of the Motion. 44 45 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma? 46 Page 40 1 Vice-Chair Tuma: Now, I am confused. Sorry, because I think that if you don't count them, 2 doesn't that have the effect of making them two parking spaces instead of four? 3 4 Commissioner Holman: It's a matter of double-dipping. It's a matter of there is a reason that 5 Staff doesn't count tandem parking places any more broadly than they do, and so I don't want 6 the tandem parking places that are now being counted to be counted when there is going to be a 7 parking reduction surely granted. 8 9 Mr. Larkin: I think, if I can explain why I'm asking for the clarifying, because there is some 10 confusion, at least in my mind. They could convert all of those tandem spaces to just single 11 spaces and still meet the parking requirements with the reductions. Instead, they are offering 12 tandem spaces which gives them more parking than they are required, and I want to make sure 13 for Staffs sake, when they are counting the parking spaces, that you are basically not asking 14 them to redesign their parking, because I think Staff is counting those, but they can just count 15 some of those tandem spaces as single spaces. Is that what you are asking, to count the tandem 16 spaces as one space instead of two? 17 18 Commissioner Holman: Correct. 19 20 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma and then Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Rosati. 21 22 Vice-Chair Tuma: My understanding is that they have four tandem spaces that are part of the 42. 23 Is that right? And then there are 10 additional tandem spaces. Okay? Is that right? Okay, so if I 24 understand Commissioner Holman's Motion, the four that they are counting towards the 42 25 would now only be two spaces. So, as designed, they would be at 40. Is that correct? 26 27 Commissioner Holman: Yes. 28 29 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, I can't support that. I'm in the same place that Commissioner Rosati is 30 on this. I think that, not only do they have the 42 with the four tandem, but they also have 10 31 additional tandem spots here. I think that there is plenty of parking, and so I would not be in 32 support of the Motion if it did not count those four tandem spaces that are counted as part of this. 33 34 I mean, there are 10 additional tandem spaces, so I just have a problem. One of the questions, 35 actually of Staff while we are on this, I thought that there was a comment made earlier that up to 36 25 percent, or four tandem parking spaces, were permitted? 37 38 Mr. Larkin: Absolutely, they are. 39 40 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, I can't support the Motion as is. 41 42 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 43 44 Commissioner Keller: Firstly, let me point out that as the diagram is, there are eight tandem 45 parking spaces, as it is labeled. The Applicant tried to indicate how the tandem parking spaces 46 were moved around, but did not do so satisfactorily to indicate where parking spaces 35 and 36 Page 41 1 went. 2 3 So, in fact, as you use this diagram, there are total of eight tandem parking spaces, four front and 4 four back, as well as I guess it's 30 ones that are counted as single spaces, of which somewhere 5 on the order of 10 extra tandem spaces exist which are not counted at all. 6 7 So, that is the first thing. 8 9 Secondly, I believe that as a result of that, the statement made by the City Attorney, that without 10 the tandem parking spaces, this project is sufficiently parked. I do not believe that this is 11 factually correct, and I would like somebody from Planning to confirm whether or not, if tandem 12 spaces are allowed, whether this is in fact sufficient. 13 14 If tandem spaces do not count, they only count as one space, is this sufficiently parked? 15 16 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma can also follow up, and then I suspect that it is on the same 17 question. 18 19 Mr. Larkin: Yes, while Planning staff is looking that up, we were supposed to check in at 9:30 20 on whether or not we would have Item Number 2 after 10:00. 21 22 Chair Garber: Thank you for that reminder. Let's get through this, and can we get through this 23 in ten minutes? 24 25 Vice-Chair Tuma: So regardless of how it's drawn, I think if we put the requirement in there, 26 they have to meet the requirement. So it's drawn, or if it's drawn wrong, and then we've got to 27 move them around, but if we have the requirement in there that they have to have the 42 spaces, 28 okay? 29 30 Then, however it is drawn, that's their problem. They have to meet the requirement in order for 31 it to get through. All we are talking about right here is defining what the requirements are. Ifhe 32 can't, because he has messed it up, or his math is wrong, then he is back to the drawing board, 33 but I don't think that because he has drawn it wrong, which he has admitted, I don't think that 34 this is a reason to not approve it. 35 36 What I would support is a requirement, and I think maybe what you are concerned about is, if 37 they have 8, or 10 or 12, or however many tandem spaces, then they could count all of those 38 towards the requirement. 39 40 I think the answer to that is that they really could only count four of them under the Code, from 41 what I understood the Planning Director said, 25 percent. 42 43 So, if we said that they could have no more than the four as tandems, which is really two slots 44 with two each, this is just what they have, which is two with two each, that would keep it at the 45 requirement and no more than the Code allows. 46 Page 42 1 It doesn't get into how many ever they have drawn, eight or ten or what have you. It's just the 2 four, and that I would be supportive of. 3 4 Chair Garber: Planning Director. I think there was a question here that Commissioner Keller 5 had in front of you. Would you like to reiterate it, please? 6 7 Commissioner Keller: Yes, I asked whether, and the City Attorney had stated (from my 8 understanding) that if tandem spaces do not count as more than once space,. and iil other words, 9 it's just one instead of two, then the project is sufficiently parked. And I would like to confirm 10 whether in fact that is a correct statement. 11 12 Mr. Williams: I'm not sure what he meant, but I think the bottom line is that if you have two 13 pair of tandem, no, two spaces with two spaces behind them, those spaces/that counts as four 14 total spaces. Two of them are in tandem, behind the other ones. All the other units have/cannot 15 be counting tandem spaces, because that is your 25 percent, and two of the eight units. 16 Yeah, so two of the eight units, and so then there is an additional tandem, and I mean, 8, 10, 12, 17 or whatever the number is, that we can go back and verify that is in excess of that, that are 18 tandem, and are available for parking, that are just extra spaces. 19 20 Commissioner Keller: So when you say that there are two tandem spaces, you mean the two in 21 the back. The ones in the back are counted as tandem. The ones in the front are not counted. 22 Those two are counted as tandem. 23 24 Mr. Williams: You can look at it either way, but yes let's say that for analysis sake. 25 26 Commissioner Keller: What I am trying to understand fronl this diagram is, do we have four 27 tandem spaces, the four in the back that have numbers on them? Or do we have eight tandem 28 spaces, the ones in the back and the ones in the front? That's what I'm trying to understand. 29 30 Mr. Williams: We have the two slots, just like Vice-Chair Tuma said, two slots with the two 31 spaces in the back. Those are the tandem spaces. 32 33 Commissioner Keller: And the ones in the front are not called tandem spaces? 34 35 Mr. Williams: Yes. 36 37 Commissioner Keller: They are just really long spaces. 38 39 Mr. Williams: They're spaces and those two units have two spaces, and they are in tandem, and 40 some people would say that "the one in the back," because you pull into the one,. that the one in 41 the back is the tandem, and others could say that the one that you pull farthest into is the tandem 42 space, but those are two tandem spaces. We need to work all this out, but those spaces are 43 allowed by the Code. They are not based on reductions in parking. 44 Page 43 1 Commissioner Keller: So let me just ask and try to clarify this. If you have a space in the front, 2 and the space in the back, on one column, is that considered one tandem space? Or is that 3 considered two tandem spaces under the Code? 4 5 Mr. Williams: It's considered one, wait. It's considered two tandem. 6 7 Chair Garber: It's one tandem that has two parking spaces that are counted as part of the 1egally- 8 required slots, the legally-required parking slots. 9 10 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate what the Chair added, but it does not clarify my question 11 which is, if you have one car behind the other, does that count as one tandem space and one 12 regular space? Or, does that count as two tandem spaces? And I think that we have to 13 understand that in order to be able to resolve this because otherwise, whoever is going to deal 14 with this later, is going to get confused just as I am. 15 16 Mr. Williams: We have to deal with it later. It's a requirement of the Code to deal with it. It's 17 not the Commission's analysis, and at this level of detail, to determine exactly how this provision 18 is addressed on a design. 19 20 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma. 21 22 SUBSTITUTE MOTION 23 24 Vice-Chair Tuma: I would like to offer a Substitute Motion. The Substitute Motion would be 25 that we move the Planning staffs recommendation, adding the requirement for a TDM program 26 that includes Eco Passes, and also that the entrance be moved off of Grant. 27 28 SECOND 29 30 Chair Garber: I'll second that. 31 32 Chair Garber: Would the Maker like to speak to his Motion, and if you would repeat it please? 33 34 Vice-Chair Tuma: I moved the Staff recommendation with the following two conditions, that it 35 would require a TDM program to include Eco Passes, and also that we would require that the 36 entrance be moved off of Grant. 37 38 In speaking to that Motion, the only thing that I would say is that, on the issue of tandem, 39 whether is two is four, or four is eight, or whatever it is, it is the Code requirement. I think what 40 I'm trying to achieve here is a Motion and a recommendation that is consistent with the Code. 41 42 Whatever that works out, that's what Staff has to work out, and they have to make it consistent 43 with Code, and so that is all I'm after here by taking that tandem issue out of the equation. 44 45 Chair Garber: And, I as the Seconder, have no more comments. Commissioner Rosati, and then 46 Commissioner Fineberg, finally, who has been asking to speak. We will come back to you. Page 44 1 2 Commissioner Rosati: I support the Motion as presented. 3 4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg, then Commissioner Holman and Commissioner Keller. 5 6 Commissioner Fineberg: What happens if we approve the rezoning and if the movement of the 7 driveway to not be on Grant, I believe, causes a reduction of parking spaces and then the facility 8 is under parked. Process, what happens next? 9 10 Mr. Williams: They would have to come back. They would have to revise the project to comply 11 because they need to comply with the parking requirements. 12 13 Commissioner Fineberg: And would that be something that Planning and Transportation would 14 then have to approve, or would it be the ARB during nlajor review? 15 16 Mr. Williams: Well, the ARB would see it as part of the review, but the director essentially 17 recommends to the ARB whether it complies with Zoning or not, and in this case, the ARB does 18 not grant the adjustments, per se, or make that determination on their own. It's not a subjective 19 determination. It's based on the Code numbers. 20 21 Commissioner Fineberg: So where would it go if it turned out that they couldn't physically park 22 it properly? 23 24 Mr. Williams: Then they would have to come back with a variance to the COl11Illission, or revise 25 the project to reduce the square footage or the nunlber of units in a way that complied with 26 parking. 27 28 Commissioner Fineberg: However they chose, okay. I don't think this project's reason to 29 rezone or not to rezone hinges on two parking spaces. I'm thinking of it more in terms of 30 something I'll coin "housing neutral." Do we know how many jobs this project will create? And 31 how many housing units is the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) going to require to 32 house those additional employees, and is that greater or less than the housing it is creating? And 33 that, to me, I think is where I am going to hinge my decision, but if I can ask the Staff that. 34 35 Mr. Williams: That's not a project-specific analysis. ABAG incorporates job growth in the City 36 and the region. This is well within the scope of what that is. It does not look at, well, this 37 particular project did this, and this many housing units, and try to mesh those together. We don't 38 do that on a project-by-project basis. We have a project that you saw two weeks ago that's got 39 no mixed-use and we don't necessarily try to look at that, but you see another project that is all 40 residential and another project that is all commercial, and it is all factored into regional and 41 citywide growth projections and so its impossible to say or to require that one project somehow 42 generates that balance or imbalance. 43 44 Commissioner Fineberg: I guess the reason I'm thinking that, though, is if we are rezoning from 45 R:~1-40/51, residential district to a PTOD, and the goal of the PTOD is to increase housing 46 density in that area, then a project that cannot support its own housing needs, to me, flies in the Page 45 1 face ofPTOD. If we have to build more houses because we are adding an employment center in 2 a PTOD, it is just inconsistent with the fundamental zoning. 3 4 So, I am sorry that I did not ask this earlier, but if you can bear with me, in that square footage, 5 about how many employees would we have, and then are we even in the ballpark? 6 7 Mr. Williams: I think you're making a comment, not asking a question. I think, I understand 8 your perspective, and it sounds to me like you are at a point of making comments, and your point 9 is certainly legitimate and if that is your perspective, then Staffs role is not to ..... 10 11 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, I'll pass on getting an answer then. It seems to me that, to go 12 with PTOD, the project needs to provide housing that would be adequate to not cause us to have 13 to build more housing in other areas. Fundamentally, in PTOD, the goal is to increase housing 14 density and I'm not completely convinced that this project does that over the traditional zoning. 15 Ifwe do not approve this, then we lose the ability to condition it, so my decision is going to 16 hinge on if we reject it, losing the ability to condition it, or whether these two conditions make it 17 such a better project that we don't want to lose that chance. 18 19 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman and then Commissioner Keller, and then let's vote. 20 21 Commissioner Holman: Just a quick one. Perhaps as a clarification to the Motion, or perhaps 22 it's an Amendment, and you can tell me. The Motion, as I heard it, said to move the parking 23 garage entry off Grant. It did not reference the purpose of that. so nl0ving the parking garage 24 entry away from comers to provide greater safety, and I don't know if you want to provide that 25 clarity or? 26 27 Vice-Chair Tuma: That certainly was the intent of the Motion. 28 29 Commissioner Holman: Okay, I appreciate that. 30 31 Chair Garber: The Seconder supports that. 32 33 Commissioner Holman: Okay, great. That's very helpful, and all apologies. The discretion we 34 have with this is why I brought up the tandem parking issue, but I'm certainly sorry I brought it 35 up. 36 37 Chair Garber: No worries. Commissioner Keller. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: I think I was actually the first person to bring up the tandem parking 40 Issue. 41 42 Commissioner Holman: I meant as part of the Motion, so that's why I'm taking blame. 43 44 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate that, Commissioner Holman. Thanks to Commissioner 45 Rosati who has this nice printed floor-up version of the Code. Under Multifamily Residential Page 46 1 Development Table, it says, and I'll read what it says about tandem parking as this may help 2 answer the questions that I and others had. 3 4 Tandem parking is allowed for any unit requiring two parking spaces, and I'm going to 5 emphasize the following, provided that both spaces in tandem are intended for use by the 6 same residential unit. For projects with more than four units, not more than 25 percent of 7 the required parking space shall be in a tandem configuration. / 8 9 To me, this means, first of all, that the front and back unit spaces are both considered tandem, not 10 just the ones in the back. The second thing it means is that, in order for you to have tandem 11 parking spaces, they must be dedicated to a unit, and that means that if you have reduction for 12 shared use, then that's somewhat incompatible with the idea of parking spaces being dedicated to 13 units, because essentially you say that if you have the tandem spaces, you have those two units 14 being dedicated. And that is why, in my opinion, the idea of tandem spaces are incompatible 15 with reductions for shared use, and that's the reason that I made that complaint. 16 17 As a result of that, I cannot support a Motion that allows for tandem spaces, and a maximum 18 reduction based on shared use, because it's just logically incompatible with the idea of use by the 19 same residential unit. I also believe that I think that people will avoid tandem spaces whenever 20 possible, and an the other tandem spaces will probably be more used by RV s than two people in 21 the office space using both front and back, because you've got to get somebody to move out of 22 your way so that you can go home. And with that, I will close. 23 24 Chair Garber: Commissioners, let's vote. All in favor of the Motion as stated, say Aye. (Ayes) 25 That would be three with Commissioners Tuma, Garber and Rosati and Holman. That would be 26 four. All those opposed? (Nays) Fineberg and Keller, nay. 27 28 The motion passes 4-2 with Commissioner Lippert absent. We will take a three-minute break. Page 47 Page 48 Agenda Date: To: From: Subject: August 7, 2008 Architectural Review Board. Elena Lee, Senior Planner Attachment M ArclhitectlllJral Review Board Staff Report. 3 Department: Planning and Conlmunity Environment 2640/2650 Birch St., 305 Grant Ave. and 306/320 Sherid~n Ave. [08PLN- 00182]: Request by David Solnick on behalf of Court House Plaza COlnpany for Architectural Revievl of preliminary plans for a new mixed-use developnlent consisting of eight residential condominium units above ground floor office space and a below,-grade parking garage. This revi ew is associated with a request for a zone change fronl RM-40 (Multi-Fmnily) to PTOD (Pedestrian Transit Oriented Developnlent). RECOMMENDA TION Staff recomlnends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct a prelinlinary review of the proposed project and provide C01nment on the proposed design to staff and the apphcant. No formal action may be taken at a preliminary review; conlments made at a preliminary reviev.; are not binding on the City or the applicmlt. SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a zone change request to add a PTOD Conlbining District to allow the construction of a new mixed use building. Upon a favorable reconlnlendation by the Plamling and Transportation Commission (PTC) and approval by the City Council of the proposed rezoning, the applicant would be required to submit an application for nlaj or architectural review of the proposed building. The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18 .34 .060 Cd) allows the applicant to request a single preliminary review of the proposal by the ARB in advance of rezoning approval. Site Information The project site is comprised of five parcels that occupy an entire block on the southern side of Birch Street between Sherman Avenue and Grant Avenue. The site is located approximately 1,000 feet southeasterly of the California Avenue Caltrain station and approximately 650 feet southeasterly of California Avenue, The site is approxinlately 19,862 square feet in size and is currently developed with three single family b0l11es . The site is currently zoned RM-40 Multi- Fal11ily Residential District. 08PLN-OOOOO-00182 Page 1 of 5 Proj ect Description The applicant's proposal is for a new three-story nlixed use office/residential building. The building, which would be located on the four parcels to the right (east), would consist of a parking garage below grade and a podiulll structure above grade containing 10,257 sq. ft. of ground floor office space and eight two-story townhomes above the podium. Access to the underground parking garage would be provided via a ramp on the pan handle shaped parcel to the northwest, from Grant Avenue. This parcel would also house below grade bicycle storage and a nlechanical rOOln. The below grade parking garage would provide 19 regular parking spaces and up to 16 pairs of tandeln parking spaces. Three at grade parking spaces would be provided' as well on the pan handle parcel above the parking garage. Pedestrian access to the two office spaces would be provided by separate entries from Birch Street. The ground floor would also include the entrance to an elevator lobby for the residential units above. A stairwell to the residences would be provided froln Sheridan Avenue. The two-story townhom.es would comprise the seconQ. and third floors of the building. The project includes three three-bedroonl units and three two-bedroom units. The three remaining units were each designed with three bedrooms and a fourth room that could be used as bedroonl.s or studies. Open space for residents would be provided through a couI1yard above the offices that has two distinct areas. The courtyard is also where individual entries to the townholnes would be provided. The building is proposed to be 40 feet tall with storefront glass and a stone/concrete tile fayade at the ground floor pedestrian level. The residential component of the building would be differentiated by stucco and vertical yellow cedar walls. The residential units would have painted wood triITI, dual-glazed aluminum windows and private balconies. The applicant's project description letter (Attacrunent C), provides further detail. DISCUSSION PTOD COInbining District COInpliance The PTOD Combining District, per PAMC Chapter 18.34.101, is intended to allow higher density residential dwellings on comDlercial, industrial and multi-family parcels within walking distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station. The regulations of the combining district apply in lieu of requirenlents of the underlying R.l\1-40 zoning district. The combining district is specifically intended to foster densities and facilities that: 1. Support use of public transportation; 2: Encourage a variety of housing types, comnlercial, retail and limited office uses; 3. Encourage project design that achieves an overall context-based development for the PTOD overlay area; 4. Require streetscape design elenlents that are attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists; . 5. Increase connectivity to surrounding existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and 6. In1.plement the City's Housing Element and Comprehensive Plan. The project is consisten! with the above because the site is within a 3-block walking distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station. It is also proximate to bus stops along CalifoDlia Avenue and El Camino Real. The project includes a variety of land uses, office uses and townhouse style condominiulns, which are conlpatible in an area that already provides a mix of housing and 08 PLI\J-OOOOO-OO 182 Page 2 of 5 services. The project was designed to be consistent with the Context-based designed criteria required in the PTOD Combining District, including elements that are attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists. The project would provide attractive housing and uses that would benefit the in11llediate area and Palo Alto residents. Proposed Land Uses The intent of the PTOD Con1bining District is to allow higher density residential dwellings on comn1ercial, industrial and n1ulti-family parcels. It also specifically allows mixed-use development, where residential and non-residential uses are combined. Allowed non-residential uses include retail, personal services and eating and drinking services. Other non-residential uses, allowed except on the ground floor where a (R) overlay exists, include office, general business services, business and trade schools, private education facilities, day care center, community center and convalescent facilities. Research and developn1ent uses are allowed only on sites where the underlying zoning district is GM and the use and storage of hazardous luaterials are in quantities less than the exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (Section 105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code). All land uses are to be reviewed by the Planning and Transpoliation Con1mission and City Council at the time of a rezoning to PTOD. Proposed Development Regulations The developn1ent regulations of the PTOD are intended to apply in lieu of any underlying zoning district If a development standard (such as setbacks) is not addressed by the PTOD Con1bining District regulations, the Architectural Review Board has the discretion to determine the appropriate standards 'within the context of neighboring sites and buildings. As shown in attachment C, overall the proj ect complies with the PTOD Combining District regulations with the exception of the n1ixed use non-residential floor area ratio (FAR) cap. The proposal meets all other requiren1ents, including open space requiren1ents, the total maxin1um FAR and parking. Floor Area and Design Enhancelnent Exception Request The total allowed FAR cap for the non-residential portion of a project in the PTOD Combining District is 1iInited to 0.35 (0.25 for office and research and development uses) of the total allowed FAR of 1.25'1 for n1ixed uses. Although the total FAR of the project as whole is 1.25, the applicant is requesting a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow 10,257 square feet of office space, an FAR of 0.52, which would be 5,291 square feet above the allowable office floor area, According to the applicant, the purpose of designing the larger non-residential FAR is to have a large enough non-residential ground floor to support eight two-story residences above. A larger base would allow the applicant to accon1IDodate the desired residential square footage in two stories rather than three. Staff has provided an excerpt of P AMC 18.76 as reference for the purpose, applicability and findings for DEE's. Section 18.76.050 (b) Applicability (4) states, "No design enhancement exception shall be grarlted under this section that would increase floor area, decrease the nun1ber of required parking spaces, decrease the amount of required on-site landscaping, or decrease the required open space." The requested DEE is for the re-allocation of 0.27 of the allowable FAR (approxin1ately 5,291 square feet of floor area) from the residential cOluponent to the non-residential component of the project. A determination must be made as to whether the DEE process would be applicable to this request, or whether the Variance process is the applicable process in this case and whether the exception is suppoltable by findings for approval. By proposing other non-residential uses other than office and research and 08PLN-OOOOO-00182 Page 3 of 5 developnlent, the applicant could reduce the r.equested amount of floor area exception by 0.10 FAR or approxilTIately 1,986 square feet. The exception request could be elinlinated entirely be converting the relnaining 3,306 square feet of ground floor space to serve the residents, such as a lounge and recreation area. The conversion of the ground floor space to residential square footage would still allow the project to meet maximum residential FAR of 1.0. The applicant has also requested a Design Enhancement Exception to allow a site coverage maximUIll of 55%. The underlying RM-40 zoning district includes a maXiITIUITI site coverage f 45%. However, if a rezoning request for the PTOD Combining district is approved, regulations for the underlying zoning district would not apply. The PTOD Combining District does not have a maXiITIUm site coverage requirement. Therefore an exception for site coverage is not necessary. Context-Based Desi gn Criteria Compliance The project as proposed appears to comply with the requirements of the PTOD COInbining District Context-Based design criteria as outlined in Section 18.34.050 of the Zoning Code. The project features cOInply with the district as follows: The Co}nbining district establishes a requirement for promoting pedestrian walk-abili~v, a bicycle environm.ent and connectivity through design elements as well as street facades designed to provide a strong relationship with sidewalks and the street to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity. The project provides an attractive street fayade for pedestrians by providing a five-foot wide sidewalk and fi ve-foot wide planting strip adj acent to the curb with street trees across the entire frontage. The building was designed to provide pedestrian level interests with well articulated walls, large store front windows and direct entrances to the office uses and the residential courtyards above. The project provides underground parking for bicycles. The City regulations for bicycle parking include surface parking in bicycle racks for visitors to the non-residential space and these would be required in fonnal plans for ARB review. The regulations also require that the building be designed to minimize massing and provide for articulation and design variety. The proj ect includes varied rooflines, canopIes, decks and other architectural detail to break up the building mass. residential and conlmercial components utilize different nlaterials to further break up the mass. Landscaping is proposed around the podiulTI to soften the iInpact of the building. Public and private open spaces are required so that they are useable to residents, visitors and employees of the site. Both public and private open spaces havy been incorporated into the design. Two large and open courtyards are provided on the second level for the residential unjts above. Each unit is also provided with large private patios/decks. The office units also have private south facing patios employees. The courtyards and balconies that the street increase "eyes on the street." 08PLN-OOOOO-00182 4 of 5 Parking needs to be acco'mmodated and not overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. The majority of the parking spaces have been provided in the underground garage, away froln public view. Three surface parking spaces are provided on the side and away from the building. Staff requests feedback fronl the Board regarding how well the proposal complies with the PTOD requirelnents. Findings for architectural review (P AMC Chapter 18.76.020(d)) will be prepared for review by the ARB once the fonnal ARB application is subnlitted. Findings applicable to the CalifoDliaAvenue PTOD Combining District (PAMC' Chapter 18.34.050(b)) will also be prepared for review. These required findings deal wlth the pedestrian and bicycle environment, street building facades, nlassing and articulation, proj ect open space, parking design and sustainabili ty and green building design. Green Building Regulations Conlpliance The applicant has prepared draft LEED New Construction and Multi-fanlily Green Point Checklists (Attaclunent E). The new Green Building Regulations (PAMC Chapter 18.44) becanle effective on July 2, 2008 and are also retroactive for commercial projects submitted after December 3, 2007. As such, because the application was subnlitted on June of 2008, the project is required to comply with these regulations. Based on the applicant's submittal, the project would achieve 97.67 points on the GreenPoint Checklist and a LEED silver rating. Green building elernents include the use of low-enlitting materials, high efficiency iuigation system, d.rought resistant plant species, passive solar heating, low-voc paints, and energy efficient , equipment. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW No environmental review is required for this Preliminary Review application, as it is not considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ATTACHMENTS Attachment Attaclunent B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment Proj ect Location Map Developlnent Standards Table Applicant's proj ect description P AMC Section 18.76.050, Design Enhancement Exception LEED for New Construction Project and Multifamily GreenPoint Checklist Prelinlinary Development Plans (Board Members Only) COURTESY COPIES David Solnick Court House Plaza Company Prepared By: Elena Lee, Senior Planner Manager Review: Amy French, Manager of Current 08PLN-OOOOO-00182 Page 5 of 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Architectural Review Board Action: The Board recommended approval of the project, (4-0-0-1, Board member Wasserman moved, seconded by Board member Solnick, Board member Malone Prichard was absent) with the following additional conditions to be reviewed by the ARB Subcommittee a) Parking lot lights shall be no more than 15' tall, lower if possible. b) Curb cut on El Camino Real shall be reduced. Add street trees in this location. c) Add landscaping at base of building where appropriate. d) Parking lot tree species size shall be reviewed by staff. Tree shall be appropriate for the parking lot. e) Transom over door shall be aligned better. f) Change base material. g) Bike rack shall be placed at the front of the building. h) Awning shall be placed over entries. Style of awning shall be compatible with other proposed awning on the building. Major Preliminary 3. 2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 305 Grant Avenue, 306 & 320 Sheridan Avenue [08PLN~ 00182]: Request by David Solnick on behalf of Court House Plaza Company for Architectural Review of preliminary plans for a new mixed-use development consisting of eight residential condominium units aboveground floor office space and a below-grade parking garage. This review is associated with a request for a zone change from RM -40 (Multi-Family) to PTOD (Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct a preliminary review of the proposed project and provide comment on the proposed design to staff and the applicant. No formal action may taken at a preliminary review; comments made at the preliminary review are not binding on the City or the applicant. Public Testimony: Bob Moss, Palo Alto: Stated his concerns regarding the small housing units above the garage, and the housing office ratios. He also discussed concerns about this being a Superfund site and how toxins will be handled. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Stated his concern regarding the preliminary review process and his opinion that the application should not be deemed complete. Architectural Review Board Action: As this was a preliminary review no action was taken. 4. Stanford University Medical Center Modernization and Expansion Project: Request by Stanford University Medical Center on behalf of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University for Architectural Review of preliminary plans for the proposed medical office building and parking garage at the Hoover Pavilion site. Zone District PF (Public Facilities). Staff Recommendation: City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Attachment N Betten, Zariah From: Joe A Villareal Uoe.a.villareal@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 5:24 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Request 2640 Birch PTOD Rezoning be Denied Attachments: IMG_0420.jpg; IMG_0417.jpg; IMG_0414.jpg I had planned to be at tonight's meeting to address the rezoning requested for 2640 Birch, unfortunately because of a last minute medical issue I will not be able to attend. I live at 360 Sheridan Ave., a 57 apartment senior housing community, adjacent to this proposed zoning change. Although I have spoken to Mr. Harold Hobach, he has never chosen to speak to us about this project. Perhaps Mr. Hobach has chosen to not discuss the project because we oppose his previous proposal and/or perhaps because numerous times we have requested that he do something about using this the conler portion of the lot on Birch and Sheridan as a parking lot because of the risk it poses to pedistrian. I have numerous occasions encounter cars and trucks entering and exiting the lot with little regard for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Because there is no driveway, cars and trucks enter and exit at multiple point on Birch and Sheridan and have difficulty seeing pedestrians. At times over 20 vehicles have been parked on this site, this means 20 entrances and 20 exits over the course ofth day. Please see attached photos. We at the Sheridan community, believe the size is to large for the property, that it cuts off the limited sunlight we have on the apartments facing the property and that the parking is inadequate for the volume of vehicles that will be generated. Additional, crossing Birch at Park is extremely precarious of pedestrians, with the additional traffic this will make it even more dangerous. This issue has not even been noted and needs to be addressed. We request that the change in zoning be denied until this issues are addressed. Sincerely Joe A Villareal 360 Sheridan Ave Apt # 101 Palo Alto, CA 94306 p: 650.326.7519 4/15/2009 My name is Mary Palmer and I am a honleowner at 350 Grant A venue across from where the proposed development is to be constructed. I am also a board member of the Birch Court Condominium Association. We have 3 objections for the proposed project: • The exemption for the allowable parking spaces required for new construction. There is another project on Sherman & Ash that is also requesting an exemption. Parking on Grant Ave. is already at full capacity and this will only make it worse. • Underground parking garage entrance/exist on Grant Ave. will increase traffic flow. It is located right at the comer of Birch & Grant. This interaction has had accidents and this will increase the potential for more and will create an additional safety hazard for residents crossing at the intersection. • Rezoning from residential to mixed use. The area of the proposed zoning change is surrounded by residential properties and the change would infringe on the character of our residential neighborhood. Commercial interests do not fit in a residential area due to increases in traffic patterns and noise. Parking for current residents and guests will be greatly impacted. It is almost impossible for current residents to find parking on Grant. Sincerely, Mary Palmer 350 Grant Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306 650 322-1766 1 l ,........ ~ T'C ."'DfW'WW~ FORaDD __ ~/ __ ~----_~D.~~ We the undersigned formally protest the proposed Zoning Changes to the property bounded by 305 Grant Ave., 2640 and 2650 Birch Street, and 306 and 320 Sheriden Ave. The reasons are as follows: 1. The area of the proposed zoning change is surrounded by residential properties and the change would infringe on the character of a residential neighborhood. 2. Commercial interests do not fit in a residential area due to increases in traffic patterns and noise. 3. Parking for residents and guests will be greatly impacted. 4. We object to the proposed underground parking garage opening up to Grant Ave. (f)11 ~~ due to the increased traffic flow that will be incurred on a residential street.. ~ 6 S-. (]b. 'ee+ 10 fk ~emrllPn ~k~df:u-b ~. b(V~h Address The Sheridan Residents Petition for a Livable Neighborhood No Change from RM40 to PTOD For Birch Plaza We are residents of The Sheridan at 360 Sberidan Avenue, a 57-unit senior housing complex with just 19 parking spaces, strongly oppose rezoning Birch Plaza (305 Grant, 2640 and 2650 Birch and 206 and 320 Sheridan) to a Pedestrian and Transit ()riented Development (PT()D). In effect, this zoning win REDUCE parking spaces per square foot of developed structures. Exactly the opposite needs to occur in our neighborhood where on-street parking is already 100% jammed with cars 24/7/365. Any observer, casual or otherwise, can plainly see our current and growing parking problem. The central objection to the proposed project is inadequate parking. Every time Palo .Alto has tried something like this, it has blown ~p in the face of the surrounding neighborhood reaction. This time, it is our neighborhood that is under attack. The parking situation at The Sheridan is severe because the number of spaces provided nineteen (19) is about one-third those needed to adequately accommodate current residents, their health care providers and guests. We must drive around and around with our vehicles burning gas and spewing carbon emissions as we vie for available street parking. Because three (3) large developments have occurred on Sheridan Avenue within the past few years, the addition of the proposed PTOD with its inadequate parking will cause a currently severe parking problem to become impossible. Nobody wants that, except apparently Atherton resident and developer Harold C. Hohback. One reason Mr. Hohbach wants to change the zoning from RM-40 to PTOD is so that he will be required to provide less parking. A change would mean that instead of requiring 60 parking spaces, he would only be required to provide 42, a 30% loss. The vacant land for the proposed development at Birch and Sheridan is already being used as an ad hoc parking lot primarily for overflow from Mr. Hohback's Courthouse Plaza. As the attached photos show, the number of cars and trucks parked is about the same number of parking spaces that Mr. Hohbach wants to do away with. Although Mr. Hohbach has been asked to fence the vacant lot to eliminate the parking and pedestrian hazards, he has instead chosen to fill with gravel the worst potholes in the lot to make parking easier, thus increasing traffic 1 hazards and threatening pedestrian safety. RECEIVED theSheridanResidents@gmail.com ~u~ \)12009 Departrnent Of Planning &. ,Commu!lity ~nVlro:-;ment The Sheridan Residents Petition for a Livable Neighborhood No Change from RM40 to PTOD For Birch Plaza Because there is no driveway to the vacant lots, cars and trucks entering and exiting at multiple points on Birch have difficulty-seeing pedestrians. The attached photos illustrate how this vacant lot, contiguous to The Sheridan, is loaded with parked vehicles, the vast majority entering and exiting the lot off Birch Street. Pedestrians using the sidewalk are caught unaware when cars and trucks veer on and off Birch into and out of the makeshift parking lot. This poses a life- threatening situation. Mr. Hohback's parking structure at 235 Sheridan Avenue serving the Plaza and adjacent rentals is simply inadequate. Thus, the parking overflow situation critically impacts our neighborhood. Entrance for the proposed PTOD has been suggested on Sheridan or Birch. There are currently two entrances/exits to The Sheridan, two entrances/exits to 345 Sheridan and another entrance/exit to the Jerusalem Baptist Church. The entrances/exits to The Sheridan and 345 Sheridan are directly across from each other and the entrance/exit to the Jerusalem Baptist Church is adjacent to one of The Sheridan entrance/exits. Placing another entrance/exit on Sheridan Avenue will endanger pedestrians; access to the underground and surface parking for the proposed PTOD should be on Birch, which vehicles are currently using to enter and exit the vacant lot. Moreover, pedestrian crossing of Birch at Sheridan is extremely precarious, if not downright dangerous. With the additional traffic this proposed development will generate, the crossing will become even more dangerous. We thus request Council to deny the proposed change in zoning for 405 .Birch from RM-40 to a PT()I) until the above issues are resolved. Sincerely, The Sheridan Residents Petition signatures and photos attached. theSheridanResidents@gmail.com 2 6/30/2009 The Sheridan Residents Oppose Zoning Change of Birch Plaza 305 Grant Ave., 2640 2650 Birch Str. and 306 320 Sheridan Ave. from Existinf! RM-40 to PT(] tD - Name N Last First Apt 1 Bellairs Daphne 110 2 Bermal1 Abe 216 3 Berman David 209 4 Berman Sylvia 216 5 Cannon Joan 307 6 Cardenas ctor ~ 7 Cardenas Victoria 8 Caruso Leona 116 9 Chen Pei 310 10 Chizari Ozra 305 11 Chou Charlie 204 12 Chou Grace 204 13 Danlgren Doris 111 14 Davis Ronald 106 15 Dunning Peter 309 16 Han Chen 304 17 Han Zheng 304 18 Hassitt N 319 19 Hudson Eneda 119 20 Jett Jane 302 theSheridanResidents@gmail.com Pg 1 of3 6/30/2009 The Sheridan Residents Oppose Zoning Change of Birch Plaza 305 Grant Ave., 2640 2650 Birch Str. and 306 320 Sheridan Ave. from Existinl! RM-40 to PTOD - Name N Last First Apt 21 Jomlson Loie 102 22 Katchenko Bronislav 211 23 Katchenko Lidia 211 24 Kay Helena 315 25 Keyes Bud 212 26 Khazan 316 27 Kwan Kum 114 28 Lawson Maxine ~ 29 Lee Yunwu 30 Orshansky Yevgeniy 214 31 Paleologos Marie 312 32' Peeples Henry 115 33 Pounaki Nehn 308 34 Pshansky Marina 214 35 Quesada Charles 112 36 Rapoport Alex 318 37 Scott Josephine 108 38 Scott Mabel 103 39 Seribner Muriel 314 40 Silva Mona 104 theSheridanResidents@gmail.com Pg 2 of3 613 0/2009 The Sheridan Residents Oppose Zoning Change of Birch Plaza 305 Grant Ave., 2640 2650 Birch Str. and 306 320 Sheridan Ave. from Existinf! RM-40 to PTO - Name N Last First 41 Slocum Jean 42 Sorokina AlIa 43 Thomas James 44 Tong Gladys 45 Trofimenko Nikolay 46 Villareal Joe 47 Vogel Penny r48iWang Mun-Fai 49 Ward Maggie 50 Wyer Melissa 51 Xue Pei 52 Yeatman Vivian 53 Zhu Pei D Apt 311 219 107 313 219 101 117 202 218 303 201 317 208 theSheridanResidents@gmail.com Pg 3 of3 .~ Jl \ k ~ ~ ~ ~ t ('.... CJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ <...,..;l ,t'f\ '-S) ) ( \ <P ~ \ .~ rvJ ~ \-{) a \..9 ~ ~ \.D '~ ~ ~ ~,. It\ rfj ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C '-..... "-..) -> CV) ('lU ~ rJ'>. '-(j ~ -) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ t.[; -00 == .... ~' = == -. ~ CI'1 .J ~ , ... ..-J ~ l' . ..) ~ ::s: ~ ~ '0 {...': C) '0 '';J. ~ ~ V JIIIIIIIIIIIf ( . .-( -~~ J1 \ ~ = ~ .~ ~ \ ~, 1"-'< ~ ( ? I \ f Q J: :s .~ f tt ~ £J '4';. >'i:Q ~ ".J. ~ ~g ~ :;;s ~ .-~ .-':1 Cv \i) ;::c .' '\ '-1\ ~ .-.-..... ,,:,. .J( c{'\ ~ ~ ,,~~ '--.-.....& ~ ~ ~ '~ ,-J) ()Q .~ ~ ,-..:y CY) t' = M <i --.......-.;... ......:> 1:-~ \J-rr "--z ~ Q V .~ --.. -= I ~ I } \ \ ~~ ~ ) \ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ \( '0 .~ .~ '-:J M r'\ r(\ (Y) f'? An e).cJ \i) ~ .-(') r() =1:1: '~ '" tj-' r3 ...... ' ... r ~ ~ va ----~ -... c· ..... ~ -< . .....) to .qs '6 rt -~ ...... ~ Jf~4< Name C)_-1'-c9\. P fr':>:1')<;; f i'------$-' /v',k o/o.-y TYoJ-/wrQ~kL A-(/ CA-$ CJ V"CI 1<.-4' Yf ~ ::5.' '''\ .. ~ " "V "\ .... /". , ..... / D/7/.i.~ c( :f-:' . .L / \ Ce,/ c P7 c: J--? h:'} i../~c-~ Kar 'chd"?7/{'O Yevgf'tVr'y Or~h G/V.<:"j(.X Q / / HarlNCf l)orOSh€tv:l(D Ap t # 73 .it!; ; .J ,? ) <, "t 21Y 2lY Phone 3D .--L G 2; ,!'-,' ...... '1'K ">, ~) {i f, "-..{.; :S ~b 0 i~2 ""f l?/ U ,,,.-c=. 1-,7 I ..-~ ,/ 321)--1811 325~/~:r1 E-Mail .. ~ ~ Signature t1~~1"<- jJf'.P ~£-1:'''"'. <f~, ... w ••• « .... "":) "" (/, . f h /' £ ...... '".. 4.' .~ •• '<' .... "._" .. '/ .. " ~L.-·~~-"'4., 'r--/> /c.c,,, f,.ti )? lC-L .. / !:' c.... .. ~ .,.,; .. ' ",' (fJ~ p /i? 1.a~ The Sheridan Petition Signatures Name ~~ C?~~ ~cb~ .l<wAt/ J1./e£: ~~te/·, /J fl v '. ".V '.... /J., /) '. l /. , .• ~,.r/'1 ~_ __. "./'~' l-A:~>~~ 1'" ;;:;::-" n ~ ,/ L{ \\ ~ ry,-",-,~bC-> \~;{ . /1 j ~ r C:'(!J I~ l " ~c'" Q~LuJL c'-, ~{:;LLr{' \ '(hI \ ':--J~e. fl V~\I flr'-a-~ l Apt # Phone ! I t; I 3'30--0 {; ,;( ~ t (L.. 1 ·'":3?:.~ 71)$ \ U4 "3;{2 -0376 • t /,' ".C~ 1.2. A( ... · l/jA.J.' "p, "~I;:::> P ///0 1 \~ "< '}." ".~ ~ -J 'C, .Lj:=~·CL' 'L~ E-Mail Signature La LC>-· 50 t//7e. , .,,),",',., __ l] /7 5-:e;C.~I(/j.1..lr;:."r (I~--La-~4e, (/ CkLv~ 6J'v'--e~ k ~(7:---ZA.. ~.;:::::7 1'7' / 1, ( 1'-.,.1 7 ~. . !' "/ I /?~ ~[?~:~:::1;:~f:/ 4/ .~" r' \. I' '" .' ", '\ \l . 't, ~ .. ~ Cv~~~~_.j!:::4 .. _-...---~i , f u ~ 'j 1--/ ~ 2-7~?1 .. _ .... .. ... ...... ..L~~ ~~, .. ,7~ to} ;1\ ~lr;t'1\ I hll:\\lWlPrJ.1L. ~t,1dT!J r ' LV r --, -, O· ~'I '-/ / I ' ' v(\"~ f , \./ .fl) t: 4..: ~ ::= v \ ( = ~ J1 ~ ~ .~ ) / .~ < 0 ctJ ( ~:::> f ~ ?i. ;:t: ~ ~ I .v ~ L; '< ~ ",.J. <s:;;Q ~ j ¥::'t ~ ~ ~ w ~ ;:t: '...t'\ .J "'""-.. c--0r .~ .~ ?t ~ -~ Dc> \\C'~ ~ ~ '~ ~, <YJ ~ = <i ............... .~ \J-\fl. ~ -:> ~ ~ c V .~ -= i ) -........ \ \ ~ t ~ ~ "'~ 0· ) \ ........... ~ ''4''( 0 ~ \( ~ 0 ~. r:;~ £.::)...0 f'fJ 1""4\ '" {'t) f', f\() r(j r() =tt. \.,( ()-~ .... >~ ~ () r J(J -----~ -.... -< 0 c::J ~ r6 ~ ................. ...... --............. rJ ''-0 f'{ ;;r t:r) '(J ) {\t ,~ 0"'< «t, \J .~ ''-J I PALO ALTO HOUSING c: C> R P 0 RAT I C> N 725 Alma Street • PaloAlto,CA 94301 • (650) 321 .. 9709 ·f'ax (650) 32} .. 4341 June 24, 2009 ToWholn It May Concern: I al11Sellior ServiceCoordil1ator for Palo AltoH:ousing Corp. P AHC has twentypro:perties.My office is 011 the 2nd floor ·ofTh.e S11eridan Apartrnen 360 Sh.eridan .Avenue,where m.ost of our seniors reside.- Ill1ny position, I hellJ residents retain their ind,epenclenceand age in place, l011g as possible. rrhis 'prevents IJeople froln gOil1g to expen.sive care facilities, \vhich restricts their il1dependellce al1d costs thelTI and tax payers tnuch lnore nl0ney. It is essential that those who provide vital s'up'port services for tllis cOlnmunity are able to find parking llear 'I1l1e Sheridan as they often, COll1e with Inedical equipment alld su.pplies. I, therefore, oppose the change in zoning from an RM-40 to a PTOD. This zoningcllallge ,¥ould actually red'uce thenlllnber of parking Cllrrently available to The Sheridan residel1ts, their family and friends and those wile provide l1ealtll care services to this cOlnmunity. S3:015~ Nora Noldon, Senior Service Coordinator ' Palo Alto :Housin2: Corl'). Departrnent-of rlann~f,g & CommUf,;tj ~rn(!l TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 296:09 DATE: JULY 6, 2009 REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Apply the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District to a Half- Acre Site Zoned Multiple Family Residential (RM-40) to Allow Eight Residential Condominiums Above Ground Floor Office Space, a Below Grade Parking Garage, and Related Site Improvements at 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project is a mixed use development on a 19,862-square foot site having frontage on three streets located near the California Avenue Business District, with approximately 10,257 square feet of ground floor office and eight residential units above. This is the second request the City has processed for application of the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District zoning. The intent of the PTOD Zoning District is to facilitate mixed use and residential projects to encourage pedestrian and bicycle activity in transit oriented areas. Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend approval of the associated environmental document and rezoning with a requirement that the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan include transit passes for occupants/tenants. In addition, the PTC recommends project modifications to move the garage driveway away from Grant Avenue to access either Sheridan Avenue or Birch Street, in response to neighbor concerns for pedestrian safety. Study of such a project redesign has been analyzed and discussed further in the report, such that staff recommends that such a condition not be imposed and the driveway should remain on Grant Avenue. ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 296:09 Page 1 of 8 RECOMMENDATION The PTC recommends: 1. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 2. Adoption of an Ordinance (Attachment A) to change the zoning classification from RM-40 Multifamily zoning district to the California Avenue PTOD Combining District, including provisions to a) require the project to include a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) that requires the provision of transit passes for occupants/tenants (condition number 4f) and b) relocate the parking garage driveway entrance to Birch Street or Sheridan Avenue (condition number 4g). Staff also recommends approval of the rezoning, but recommends the deletion of condition number 4 regarding the driveway location. BACKGROUND The purpose of the PTOD Combining District is to facilitate higher density pedestrian and transit friendly developments to take advantage of the proximity to public transportation and the California Avenue Business District, while also protecting nearby historic resources. The PTOD Combining District specifically allows mixed use development, where residential and non- residential uses are combined, and can be applied to properties zoned R-1, CC(2), CN, GM, PF, RM-30 and RM-40 or with combining districts within the designated California Avenue PTOD boundary, as shown on the City’s approved zoning maps, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 18.08 and 18.80 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Once the PTOD Combining District is implemented, the development regulations of the PTOD Combining District would be applied to a development project in lieu of any underlying zoning designation. If development standards such as height and setbacks are not addressed in the regulations, the ARB has the discretion to determine the appropriate standards within the context of neighboring sites and buildings. Council Purview The rezoning of a site to the PTOD district may be initiated by the owner of an eligible property or may be initiated by a vote of the Commission or City Council. Rezoning applications to the PTOD district are processed in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.80, the standard rezoning process. The Commission review and City Council approval establishes the allowable or required use limits, such as types and mix of uses, and intensity, including density and floor area ratio. Following Council’s approval of a PTOD rezoning, the applicant can submit an application requesting architectural review approval for the new development. The development project would be reviewed by the ARB in accordance with the architectural review criteria and recommended to the Director of Planning and Community Environment pursuant to approval findings set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.76, and subject to the ARB finding the project will be consistent with the PTOD Combining District Context Based Design Criteria (PAMC Chapter 18.34.050). ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 296:09 Page 2 of 8 Project Description The proposed project is the redevelopment of five parcels, totaling approximately 19,862 square feet in size, with a new three-story mixed use building. The parcels are currently developed with three single-family homes and parking. The proposed building would consist of one level of below grade parking, 10,257 square feet of ground floor office space and 8 townhome style residential units above. The property would also include a small pocket park at the corner of Birch Street and Grant Avenue and four surface parking spaces accessible from a proposed driveway curb cut on Birch Street. A parking ramp accessible from Grant Avenue would be provided for vehicular access to the parking garage for 38 automobiles and up to 12 extra tandem spaces. The project would meet the requirement for 42 automobile parking spaces. Access to the office spaces would be provided from a central lobby accessible from the garage and Birch Street. This central lobby and elevator would also provide access to the residential units above. Additional pedestrian access would be provided to the residential units via stairs from both Birch Street and Sheridan Avenue. The two-story townhome style units would include five three-bedroom units and three two- bedroom units. Two of the three-bedroom units would include a room on the first level that could be used either as a den or a fourth bedroom. Common open space for residents would be provided through a courtyard on the second floor (podium level) and the pocket park at the corner of Birch Street and Grant Avenue. Each unit would also feature a balcony for private open space. The proposed office floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.52. The non-residential component of a mixed use project within a PTOD District is allowed a maximum FAR “cap” of 0.25. The project would exceed this cap by 0.27. The applicant’s stated purpose in proposing greater non-residential FAR is to accommodate a large enough commercial ground floor to support the eight residential units above. The applicant requests a Government Code Section 65915 (also known as SB1818) “concession” to exceed the non-residential FAR cap that would otherwise require approval of a variance. This provision allows applicants to request and receive up to three “concessions” as incentives from the appropriate decision making bodies for the construction of affordable housing. Incentives may involve exceptions to open space, height, parking, FAR or similar standards. Staff believes this concession is allowed by State law as the applicant is providing one unit of affordable housing and is appropriate for balanced land use and design. Prior Review The Architectural Review Board (ARB) held a preliminary review of the project’s conceptual development plans on August 7, 2008. A PTC hearing on the review of the rezoning request was held on April 15, 2009. A detailed description of the hearings is included later this report. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The PTC formally reviewed the zoning request on April 15, 2009. Seven members of the public spoke on the project. Primary concerns included traffic impacts and the request for parking reductions. Other concerns regarding the project included impacts on light, trees, mix of uses, ground water contamination and open space. Some members of the public voiced specific ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 296:09 Page 3 of 8 concerns regarding the driveway proposed on Grant Avenue because of the numbers of senior citizens that live nearby who would use Grant Avenue to access the California Avenue shopping area. The PTC voted 4-2-1 (Garber, Tuma, Rosati and Holman voting yes; Keller and Fineberg voting no; Lippert absent) to recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Zoning Ordinance with two modifications: 1) the driveway to the garage be relocated from Grant Ave. to Birch St. or Sheridan Ave., due to concerns about the safety of turning movements, given the proximity of the driveway to Birch/Grant intersection; and 2) that a TDM program, to include transit passes, be submitted to reduce trips and parking for the site. The TDM plan/transit pass modification has already been addressed by the applicant, who has provided a revised TDM plan including transit passes for occupants/residents. Staff notes that elsewhere in this report that staff believes that there is not a safety concern with the driveway, the volumes are minimal, and alternative driveway locations are not practical, and therefore recommends the driveway remain as proposed (on Grant Ave.). The staff report and minutes of the PTC meeting are attached (Attachment H). A preliminary ARB hearing was held on August 7, 2008 for a design review of the conceptual project. The preliminary review is consistent with the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.34.060(d), which states that a single preliminary ARB review may be allowed in advance of PTC consideration of a PTOD rezoning request. The ARB was supportive of the project concept and offered minor comments toward the improvement of the design. However, the ARB did not support use of the Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) process to allow the project to exceed the 0.25:1 maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the non-residential portion of the building. In response to the ARB’s lack of support for use of the DEE process, the applicant is now requesting the non-residential FAR exception as a “concession” under Government Code Section 65915 State Density Bonus law (also known as SB1818) for providing below market rate housing units. DISCUSSION The proposed rezoning ordinance (Attachment A), specifically section 4, identifies all allowable uses and intensities for this proposal as required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code. As mentioned above, there was focused PTC discussion on items such as driveway safety and parking. Staff and the PTC differ on the recommendation for the driveway and this is discussed further below. Driveway The Birch Street driveway provides access only to four surface parking spaces on the north side of the project site. The second driveway, providing access to the underground garage, is located on Grant Avenue, near the corner shared with Birch Street. During the initial review, staff had determined that, with maintenance of sight lines near the corner, the proposed Grant Avenue driveway location would provide for safe vehicle operations and pedestrian movement. However, several members of the public expressed safety concerns over the proximity of the driveway to the corner because of potential conflicts with pedestrians; therefore, the PTC responded with its recommendation for the driveway relocation to Birch Street or Sheridan ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 296:09 Page 4 of 8 Avenue. Following the PTC hearing, staff reviewed the Grant Avenue proposal again, along with the two potential new locations. Staff does not recommend Birch Street for the location of the main driveway leading to below grade parking because additional vehicular conflicts would occur due to the street’s higher traffic volumes, raised median, and because the street also provides a direct link to connectors to and from Oregon Expressway. Although a driveway on Sheridan Avenue would be feasible, it would not provide any safety improvements over the Grant Avenue location. Given the proposed number of parking spaces and anticipated low traffic volumes, the location of the Grant Avenue driveway would not generate a safety hazard. Staff will continue to work with the applicant during the ARB review of the project to ensure that sight lines will be maintained and other safety measures, such as mirrors, will be incorporated into the project. Because relocating the driveway to Sheridan Avenue would not improve safety, staff continues to support the project’s main driveway location on Grant Avenue and recommends that such a relocation condition be deleted from the rezoning conditions. The applicant has also responded to the driveway relocation recommendation. The applicant is requesting that the driveway to the parking garage be allowed to remain on Grant Avenue because this location would maximize the use of the parking garage and number of potential parking spaces. The applicant states that relocating the driveway to Birch Street would create a garage configuration that would be unusable or at best would result in the loss of 12 parking spaces and the deletion of the corner pocket park. The applicant has prepared site plans examining the impacts of moving the driveway, included as Attachment F. The applicant also believes that moving the driveway to Birch Street would create a more dangerous situation because it would force cars onto a much busier street. The applicant has submitted a letter prepared by transportation consultant Fehr & Peers summarizing the traffic conflicts that may be caused by relocating the driveway (Attachment F). Parking Regulations The project includes the provision of 42 total parking spaces, consisting of four surface parking spaces and 38 garage spaces. The applicant requests two parking requirement adjustments, for ‘joint use’ and ‘housing near transit,’ permitted by PAMC Chapter 18.52.050 for a maximum of combined reduction of 30%. Without the adjustments, the required parking would total 60 spaces. If the adjustments are granted, the proposed number of spaces would meet the revised required parking total of 42 spaces. Staff concurs with the adjustments, given the mix of uses, the proximity to transit, and the proposed TDM measures. The project also includes four tandem parking spaces for the residential units. The four tandem spaces meet the 25% maximum tandem spaces allowed by PAMC Chapter 18.52 for multi-family buildings. An additional 12 tandem parking spaces would be available if needed. The parking counts in the plan set have been revised by the applicant in response to a clarification request from the PTC. The proposed parking spaces would meet the requirements of PAMC Chapter 18.52, as indicated in the Table 1 on the following page. ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 296:09 Page 5 of 8 Table 1: Parking Required Reduction Proposed Per PAMC Revised Total Proposed Conforms Residential Two spaces/unit Guest spaces 16 2 20% for Housing Near Transit (30% combined max) 12 12 Yes Office One space/250 square feet 42 20% total for Joint Use and TDM (30% combined max) 30 30 Yes Total 60 30% combined max 42 42* Yes *Plus 12 additional tandem spaces. RESOURCE IMPACT The sales of the residential units and lease of the office spaces from the proposed project will generate additional annual General Fund resources in the form of property, sales, and utility user taxes. Total revenues from these sources are projected to equal approximately $12,000 per year. In addition, one-time documentary transfer tax revenues are estimated in the $30,000 range. One-time impact fees would be $333,800, and in-lieu (below-market rate) fees would be $180,000, bringing total one-time revenues associated with the project to $543,800. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The site is located within the Transit Oriented Residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan, which is applicable to projects within walking distance (2,000 feet) from a Caltrain station. The land use category is intended to generate residential densities that support substantial use of public transportation and especially use of Caltrain. The project, as proposed, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations and supports the City’s policy objectives for pedestrian and transit oriented development. The project site is part of six parcels collectively identified as Housing Opportunity Site (HOS) 8-06 on the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Sites Inventory. Given the mix of office and commercial uses in the area, it was anticipated in the current Housing Element that a minimum density of 15 dwelling units would be redeveloped. Because the subject parcel is approximately 20% smaller without the sixth parcel, the minimum density would be proportionately reduced to 12 dwelling units. The applicant proposes eight dwelling units, four less than the anticipated minimum. Because the City of Palo Alto has permitted 316 more dwelling units than the 1,397 units identified in the Housing Element, the eight dwelling units requested to be permitted as part ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 296:09 Page 6 of 8 of this project would not adversely affect the total amount of housing to be built within this Housing Element cycle. As noted in this report and described in greater detail in the April 15, 2009 PTC report, the applicant requests a State Density Bonus law “concession” to exceed the non-residential FAR cap limitation. Government Code Section 65915 (also known as SB1818) allows applicants to requests such concessions when below market rate housing units are included in a project. The “concession” would not be contrary to the intent of the PTOD zoning. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Mitigated Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental issues as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was circulated for a 20-day public review period from April 6, 2009 to April 26, 2009. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are provided as Attachment H. No comments from the public or other agencies have been received. Staff has recommended mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise, which would lessen potential impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigations include measures to protect trees and to prevent exposure to Trichloroethylene (TCE) during construction and for future occupants. The conditions of approval and mitigation measures would be applied to the Major Architectural Review approval, not the zoning. PREPARED BY: __________________________________ ELENA LEE Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD: __________________________________ CURTIS WILLIAMS Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: __________________________________ JAMES KEENE City Manager ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Ordinance B. Draft Initial Study and Draft MND C. Location Map D. Development Standards Table E. Applicant’s project description* F. Applicant’s study of relocation of the Grant Avenue driveway and TDM measures* G. Transportation Staff Memo regarding the driveway relocation H Applicant’s Green Building Checklists* I. Applicant’s response to Mitigation Measures in the Draft MND* ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 296:09 Page 7 of 8 ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 296:09 Page 8 of 8 J. PAMC Chapter 18.34 PTOD Regulations K. California Avenue PTOD Boundary Map L. April 15, 2009 PTC staff report and minutes (w/o attachments) M. August 7, 2008 ARB staff report (w/o attachments) N. Public Correspondences O. Conceptual Plans (Commission only)* * Submitted by Applicant COURTESY COPIES: NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A Ordinance No. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to Change the Zone Designation for 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue from RM-40 Multi- Fanlily to the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows: (A) The Planning and Transportation Commission ("Commission"), after a duly noticed public hearing on April 15, 2009, has recommended that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("Council") rezone the subject site (305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue) to the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD) zone designation; (B) The Planning and Transportation Con1ll1ission has reviewed the facts presented at the public hearing, including public testimony and reports and recommendations from the direct()r of planning and community environment or other appropriate city staff. (C) The Planning and Transportation Commission finds that the subject site is within the PTOD boundary. (D) The Planning and Transportation Commission finds that rezoning the parcel to the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD) zoning is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site is Multiple Family and within the Cal-Ventura Mixed Use Area. (E) The Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the nlatter on July 6,2009, and has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project and all other relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter. SECTION 2. The Council finds that the public interest, health and welfare require an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto as set forth in Section 3. 1 090623 syn 0120370 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to place the subject site (305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue) in the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD) zoning regulations. SECTION 4. The City Council further determines that the rezoning is subject to the following limitations: a. The development shall be a mixed use project comprising of ground floor office uses with residential use on the upper floors; b. Office uses on the ground floor shall comprise approximately 10,257 square feet; c. A minimum of eight (8) residential units shall be provided, totaling approximately 14,534 square feet in area; d. The maximum building height shall not exceed 40 feet; e. A minimum of 42 parking spaces shall be provided; f. A Transportation Demand l\1anagenlent Program shall be included that requires the provision of transit passes for all occupants/tenants; and g. The parking garage driveway shall be relocated away from Grant Avenue. These limitations shall be recorded as conditions on the property, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and Planning Director. Modifications to these conditions may be approved by the Planning Director only to the extent that increases or decreases do not exceed 10% of the allowable outlined in parts (b) and (c) and remain in compliance with all other zoning requirements. SECTION 5. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the California Environnlental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that no potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the property; therefore, the project would have no significant impact on the environment. II II II II 2 090623 syn 0120370 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31 st) day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney 090623 syn 0120370 3 APPROVED: City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ATTACHMENT B 'Ci ty of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329;2441 FAX (650) 329-2154 www.cityofpaloalto.orq Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration A notice, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended' (Public Resources C d 21 000 ) h 1 £ 11' . '11 h "fi f£ h . 0 e , , et sec. t at tle 0 owmg project WI not ave a sIgnI Icant e ect on t e enVIronment. File N'uniber I'TAZ ·A:WN,;f$.j· '. IDh.t~ . , .: .. , . .'."., ..... 08PLN-00182 I 132-36-074,-020,-070,-069,-073 I 04-03-09 . Prot~ct Name "1?~~J,,~~t;ry!pe "" :., '. ,":' ..... Birch Plaza Rezoning to PTOD, Architectural Review and Subdivision ·QwQ~r·. .. ';' f:~pttl~~ti,lil( , '. ',., .', .... "':'.' . .". '.: .. ' ,'. '.", ',' .; . ': ;.., Couff House Plaza David Solnick Hrql~¢.t,lj()c~HiQn . :: ':'..>:, :;:>." .':' .... '.' , ""'::'.:: ..• >.:"': .:\ " .. :": .. ,., " ." 2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 305 Grant Avenue, 306 & 320 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto, CA " ProJect Besc ripti 0 n .... Zone change from the existing RM -40 zoning to the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD) Overlay District, to allow for a mixed use development consisting of eight residential condominiums above 10,257 square feet of ground floor office space, below grade parking and related site improvements. J?1I rposeQfN otice . : . ".' Notice is hereby given that a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment for the project listed above. In accordance with A.B. 866, this document will be available for review and comment during a minimum 20-day inspection period. Public Review Period: IUegins: Apr;H6,2Q09 ,I' .End'~:·Aprj]:·~6,"20Q9 Public Comments regarding the correctness, completeness, or adequacy of this negative declaration are invited and must be received on or before the hearing date. Such comments should be based on specific environmental concerns. Written comments should be addressed to the City of Palo Alto. Oral COlnments may be made at the hearing. A file containing additional information on this project may be reviewed at the Planning Office under the file number appearing at the top of this form. For additional information regarding this project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, please contact Elena Lee at (650) 617-3196 The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study may be viewed at th~following locations: (1) Palo Alto Planning Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (2) Palo Alto Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Responsible Agencies sent a copy of this docl,lment County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder Mitigation Measures included BRihe project to Jredqcepoten~~~ny~Jgn.i&¢antiIn:pacts to a]ess~than significant level: .. .. . .. . . . Mitigation Measure D-l To assure the street trees will grow to expected size and life span, engineered soil mix base for new sidewalk will provide additional root growing area as compensation for proximity to podium structure limitations. ENGINEERED SOIL MIX (ESM). Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas to achieve normal shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the parking surface and curbs in parking and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering Specifications, Section 30 and Detail #604, designate the areas with cross-hatch symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The teclmology should be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED certification rating. Mitigation Measure D-2 The existing mature street tree near the proposed ramp shall be carefully evaluated for custom safety measures or replacement according to the City Arborist requirements. Mitigation Measure D-3 To maintain the health· of the tree, the following measures recommended by the Tree Protection Report, prepared by any excavation within the tree dripline shall be done by hand or air digging to a depth of 30 inches. Pruning of roots greater than 1-112 inches in diameter shall be supervised by a qualified arborist. Appropriate barricades shall be installed around the tree during construction. Preventive pruning of canopies to remove dead wood shall occur prior to construction. A program of fertilization for the tree shall be implemented in the spring and summer. These measures will be included as conditions of approval. Street trees would be protected to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, based upon the requirements of the City of Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual and the City's Tree Ordinance. Mitigation Measure D-4 An updated arborist report shall be provided with the Architectural Review application. Mitigation Measure G-l The proposed building footprint shall avoid covering the area of bore B4, as identified in the Phase II report prepared for the Birch Plaza Project. During the construction phase of this area, PID screening, inspection, and/or possibly sampling should be performed where elevated tricholorethylene (TCE) contamination in soil- gas was detected. If excavated soil is found, it should be appropriately screen, profiled and disposed of based on the result of the analyses. This work shall be performed by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto. Mitigation Measure G-2 Prior to the submittal of a building pennit, indoor air intrusion risk modeling shall be prepared and submitted to the City for approval to alleviate regulatory concern about the potential for impacts from the one data point where soil-gas concentrations were above the regulatory environmental screening levels. Mitigation Measure G-3 In accordance with Cal/OSHA regulations, a registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) prior to disturbance during demolition activities. All ACM removal shall be undertaken in accordance with applicable regulations using engineering controls, trained personnel, and work methods that reduce the impact to the environment and protect workers from exposure to asbestos. A reporting or lTIonitoring program must be adopted for measures to mitigate significant impacts at the time the Mitigated Negative Declaration is approved, in accord with the requirements of section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Prepared by: Approved by: WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS INITIAL EV ALUATIONIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED APRIL 3, 2009, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS BIRCH PLAZA, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Applicant's Signature CQurf-Hsllffi Plaza /-/6 /;.j & Ar .!d Harold Hobach C; 2)" Mitigation Measure D-l Summary of Mitigation Measures To assure the street trees will grow to expected size and life span, engineered soil mix base for new sidewalk will provide additional root growing area as compensation for proximity to podium structure limitations. ENGINEERED SOIL MIX (ESM). Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas to achieve normal shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the parking surface and curbs in parking and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering Specifications, Section 30 and Detail #604, designate the areas with cross-hatch symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The technology should be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED certification rating. Mitigation Measure D-2 The existing mature street tree near the proposed ramp shall be carefully evaluated for custom safety measures or replacement according to the City Arborist requirements. Mitigation Measure D-3 To maintain the health of the tree, the following measures recommended by the Tree Protection Report, prepared by any excavation within the tree drip line shall be done by hand or air digging to a depth of 30 inches. Pruning of roots greater than 1-1/2 inches in diameter shall be supervised by a qualified arborist. Appropriate barricades shall be installed around the tree during construction. Preventive pruning of canopies to remove dead wood shall occur prior to construction. A program of fertilization for the tree shall be implemented in the spring and summer. These measures will be included as conditions of approval. Street trees would be protected to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, based upon the requirements of the City of Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual and the City's Tree Ordinance. Mitigation Measure D-4 An updated arborist report shall be provided with the Architectural Review application. Mitigation Measure G-l The proposeg building footprint shall avoid covering the area of bore B4, as identified in the Phase II report prepared for the Birch Plaza Project. During the construction phase of this area, PID screening, inspection, and/or possibly sampling should be performed where elevated tricholorethylene (TCE) contamination in soil-gas was detected. If excavated soil is found, it should be appropriately screen, profiled and disposed of based on the result of the analyses. This work shall be performed by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto. 1 Mitigation Measure G-2 Prior °to the submittal of a building permit, indoor air intrusion risk modeling shall be prepared and submitted to the City for approval to alleviate regulatory concern about the potential for impacts from the one data point where soil-gas concentrations were above the regulatory environmental screening levels. Mitigation Measure G-3 In accordance with Cal/OSHA regulations, a registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) prior to disturbance during demolition activities. All ACM removal shall be undertaken in accordance with applicable regulations using engineering controls, trained personnel, and work methods that reduce the impact to the environment and protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Mitigation Measure G-4 In conformance with state regulations, all flaking and peeling lead-based paint shall be removed from structures proposed for demolition, and shall be handled, packaged, and disposed of as hazardous waste. The project shall comply with Cal- OSHA requirements to protect workers from exposure to lead. Requirements include worker training, proper hygiene 0 practices, air monitoring and other controls. Mitigation Measure K-l All noise producing equipment placed at grade shall be include installation of sound-isolating, sound absorbing barrier or enclosure to reduce noise impacts to achieve the City's Noise Ordinance requirements. Mitigation Measure K-2 All roof mounted equipment shall be place a minimum of 20 feet from the residential property line. Mitigation Measure K-3 A noise report prepared by a qualified professional shall be submitted with the Architectural Review application. 2 j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j I j ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. PROJECT TITLE Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project Palo Alto, California 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Elena Lee City of Palo Alto (650)617-3196 4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS David Solnick David Solnick Architect 212 High Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 5. APPLICATION NUMBER 08PLN-00182 6. PROJECT LOCATION 2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 305 Grant A venue, 306 & 320 Sheridan A venue Palo Alto, CA Parcel Numbers: 132-36-074, -020, -070, -070, -069,-073 The project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east of State Route 82 (EI CalPino Real), as shown on Figure 1, Regional Map. The site is located on the southwest side of Birch Street, between Grant Avenue and Sheridan Avenue, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map. Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration 70 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The project site is designated as Multiple Family Residential in the Palo Alto ] 998 -20] 0 Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation includes a residential density range of 8 to 40 units and 8- 90 persons per acre. The actual permitted number of housing units can vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping centers and environmental problems. Higher densities than what is permitted by zoning may be allowed where measureable community uses will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be con1patible with the overall Comprehensive Plan. The site is located in the Cal-Ventura Mixed Use Area. Policy L-31 states that the Cal-Ventura area should be developed as a well-designed mixed use district with diverse land uses, two-to three-story buildings, and a network of pedestrian oriented streets providing links to California Avenue. The site is within the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit- Oriented District (PTOD) designation, which makes the site eligible for the PTOD Combining District. 8~ ZONING The project site is zoned RM-40, Multi-Family residential. The RM-40 zone district is designed to accommodate high density multiple-family residences. Permitted densities in the RM-40 residence district range from 31 to 40 dwelling units per acre. Eating and drinking services and neighborhood serving persona] and retail services may be allowed with a conditional use permit in the RM-40 Zoning District as part of a single residential development containing at least 40 dwelling units. The proposed PTOD combining district allows higher density residential dwellings, including mixed uses, on commercial, industrial and multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station. It specifically fosters densities and facilities that encourage a variety of housing types, commercial, retail, and limited office uses. However, the District has a floor area cap for the non- residential portion of a mixed use. The office component is allowed to have a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25. The proposed project would include approximately 10,257 sq. ft. of office use, for a total floor area ratio of 0.52, which would exceed the cap by 0.27. According to the applicant, the purpose of designing the larger non-residential FAR is to accommodate a large enough commercial ground floor to support eight two-story residences above. Per the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a Variance would be required to accommodate the project. Because the project includes at least 10% Below Market Rate units/in lieu fee combination, the applicant is requesting to receive an exception to the non-residential FAR cap as an incentive per State Density Bonus legislation, SB 1818, which amended section 65915 of the Government Code. SB 1818 allows applicants to request and receive up to three exceptions as incentives from the appropriate decision making bodies for the construction of affordable housing. Incentives can involve exceptions to open space, height, parking, FAR or similar standards. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 305 Grant Avenue, 306 & 320 Sheridan Avenue [08PLN-00182]: Request by David Solnick on behalf of Court House Plaza Company for a zone change from the existing RM -40 zoning to the California A venue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development COlTlbining District (PTOD) Overlay District, to allow for a mixed use development consisting of eight residential condominiums above 10,257 square feet of ground floor office space, below grade parking and related site improvements. The proposed Birch Plaza project ("proposed project") would be located at 2640 and 2650 Birch Street, 305 Grant Avenue and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue within the Multi-Family RM-40 zoning district. The project site is comprised of five parcels that occupy an entire block on the southern side of Birch Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration Street, between Sherman Avenue and Grant Avenue. The site is located approximately 1,000 feet southeasterly of the California Avenue Caltrain station and approximately 650 feet southeasterly of California Avenue. The site is approximately 19,862 square feet in size and is currently developed with three single-family homes. Should a rezoning be approved, the applicant's proposal is to construct a new three-story mixed use office/residential building. The building would consist of a below grade parking garage and a podium structure containing 10,257 sq. ft. of ground floor office space and eight two-story townhomes above the podium. Access to the underground parking garage would be provided via a ramp on the pan handle shaped parcel to the northwest from Grant Avenue. The garage would provide 31 parking spaces, up to 8 pairs of tandem parking spaces, mechanical equipment storage and bicycle parking. Three at grade parking spaces would be provided as well with separate access from Birch Street. Separate pedestrian entries are provided to the two office units from Birch Street. Pedestrian entry to the residential units above would be provided from Sheridan Avenue. An elevator is provided from the garage to the first and second floors in the center of the site. The two-story townhomes that would occupy the second and third floors of the building comprise five three-bedroom units and three two-bedroom units. Two of the three-bedroom units would have a room on the ground floor that can be used as either a study or a fourth bedroom. Open space for residents would be provided through a courtyard above the offices, which will also provide individual entries to the townhomes. The building is proposed to be 40 feet tall with storefront glass and a stone/concrete tile fa9ade at the ground floor level. The residential component would be differentiated by stucco and vertical yellow cedar walls. The residential units would have painted wood trim, dual-glazed aluminum windows and private balconies. The applicant is proposing to reconfigure existing sidewalks to accommodate park strips with new street trees. Approvals Required Approval of the proposed project would consist of the following entitlements: (1) Rezoning the site from RM-40 to the PTOD Combining District, (2) Major Architectural Review pursuant 18.76.020, (3) one concession per State Density Bonus law, and (4) Subdivision Map to subdivide the lot for the purposes of creating commercial and residential condominiums. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The property is located in a fully developed part of the City. Surrounding uses include a County court house on the other side of Birch Street to the north and commercial/office uses to the north and northeast. The remainder of the uses to the east, south and west are primarily multi-family residential buildings. The site is located approximately 1,000 feet southeasterly of the California Avenue Caltrain station. II. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES • County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder • County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health • Santa Clara Valley Water District Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMP ACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the infonnation sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).] 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) hnpacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is ilnplemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated a) Substantially degrade the existing visual x character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1,2,6 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a J public view or view corridor? 1, x MapL4 c) Substantial1y damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within 1, x a state scenic highway? MapL4 d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan x policies regarding visual resources? e) Create a new source of substantial light or x glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1,2,6 f) Substantially shadow public open space x (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to M~rch 21 ? DISCUSSION: The project has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding development on this block of Birch Street. The proposed project is subject to the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board review and compliance with the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, the PTOD Context Based Design Criteria, and Comprehensive Plan policies. The proposed project is infill development in a fully developed area of the City. The building will have a height of 40 feet, which meets the maximum height requirement for both the existing RM-40 and proposed PTOD zoning designations. There are other multi-story buildings within the vicinity of the site. The new building will be designed with attractive facades and add pedestrian interest to the streetscape. The redevelopment of the site may result in negligible increase in light and glare generated from additional lighting of the site. However, the City'S standard conditions of approval will ensure that the impacts will be less than significant. The condition of approval will require that all exterior lights will be shielded and not extend beyond the site. With the required architectural review, the proposed building will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings, therefore no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: None Required Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In detennining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and fannland. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No a) b) c) Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 1 Monitoring Program of the California x Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,8- use, or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9, x Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of 1 x Farmland, to non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: The site is not located in a "Prime Fannland", "Unique Fannland", or "Fannland of Statewide hnportance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Fannland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None Required C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially . Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation x ofthe applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay 1,2,3 Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute x substantially to an existing or projected air 1,2,3 quality violation indicated by the following: i. Direct and/or indirect operational x emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page6 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No c) d) e) f) Significant Significant Significant Impact· Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10); ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) x concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be perfonned when a) project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b) proj ect traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c) project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an x applicable federal or state ambient air quality 1,2,3 standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors )? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels x of toxic air contaminants? 1,2,3 1. Probability of contracting cancer for the x Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) exceeds lOin one million ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-x carcinogenic T ACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEl Create objectionable odors affecting a x substantial number of people? 1 Not implement all applicable construction x emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? DISCUSSION: The subject site is in a developed area of mixed uses including commercial retail, office and residential uses in the Cal-Ventura Area. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the property is not located in an area that contains uses or activities that are major pollutant emitters. The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on air quality. The project may result in temporary dust emissions during demolition, grading and construction activities. The impacts are expected to be greatest during demolition. Therefore, conditions of approval, incorporated as part of an approved demolition and construction management plan secured before building permit issuance. Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 7 Mitigated Negative Declaration The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust related construction impacts: • All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. • All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of freeboard. • All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept and watered daily. • Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance of a demolition pennit. • Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. The standard conditions would result in impacts that are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional 1,8-x plans, policies, or regulations, or by the MapNll California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 7 I b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, 1,8-x policies, regulations, including federally MapNl protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? c) Interfere substantially with the movement of x any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or 1,8- migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use MapNl of native wildlife nursery sites? 17 d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances x protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of 1,2,3 Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.] O)? e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community I x Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 1,2,3 regional, or state habitat conservation plan? I Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potential1y Potential1y Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated DISCUSSION: The project site is located in an established urban area with no riparian or tree habitat for the candidate, sensitive, or special status species in the area. No endangered, threatened, or rare animals, insects and plant species have been identified at this site. The proposed project includes protection measures for the one protected tree located on the project site per the Palo Alto Tree Preservation Ordinance. The existing City tree is planted in the park strip near the proposed ramp to the below grade parking garage. The applicant has submitted an arborist report assessing the impact on the tree. The report concludes that the proposed ramp will not endanger the tree. To maintain the health of the tree, the report recommends several measures, including requiring that any excavation within the tree dripline be done by hand or air, digging to a depth of 30 inches, requiring that pruning of roots greater than 1-1/2 inches in diameter be supervised' by a qualified arborist, installation of appropriate barricades around the tree during construction, preventive pruning of canopies to remove dead wood prior to construction and implementing a program of fertilization in the spring and summer. These measures will be included as conditions of approval. Street trees would be protected to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, based· upon the requirements of the City of Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual. The conditions of approval would result in impacts that are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure D-l To assure the street trees will grow to expected size and life span, engineered soil mix base for new sidewalk will provide additional root growing area as compensation for proximity to podium structure limitations. ENGINEERED SOIL MIX (ESM). Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas to achieve normal shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the parking surface and curbs in parking and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering Specifications, Section 30 and Detail #604, designate the areas with cross-hatch symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The technology should be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED certification rating. Mitigation Measure D-2 The existing mature street tree near the proposed ramp shall be carefully evaluated for custom safety measures or replacement according to the City Arborist requirements. Mitigation Measu re D-3 To maintain the health of the tree, the following measures recommended by the Tree Protection Report, prepared by any excavation within the tree dripline shall be done by hand or air digging to a depth of 30 inches. Pruning of roots greater than 1-112 inches in diameter shall be supervised by a qualified arborist. Appropriate barricades shall be installed around the tree during construction. Preventive pruning of canopies to remove dead wood shall occur prlor to construction. A program of fertilization for the tree shall be implemented in the spring and summer. These measures will be included as conditions of approval. Street trees would be protected to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, based upon the requirements of the City of Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual and the City's Tree Ordinance. Mitigation Measure D-4 An updated arborist report shall be provided with the Architectural Review application. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 9 Mitigated Negative Declaration E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No a) b) c) d) e) f) Significant Significant Significant Impact WouJd the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? x Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource 1,8-x pursuant to 15064.5? MapL8 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique 1,8-x geologic feature? MapL8 Disturb any human remains, including those 1,8- interred outside of formal cemeteries? MapL8 x Adversely affect a historic resource listed or x eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City's 1,2,8- Historic Inventory? MapL7 Eliminate important examples of major periods x of California history or prehistory? DISCUSSION: The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is in a moderate archaeological resource sensitivity zone. Most of the City area east of Interstate 280 is designated in this zone. Although existing and historic development has altered the native landscape, the potential exists that now-buried Native American sites could be uncovered in future planning area construction. The site has not been designated as a historic resource. If archaeological materials are discovered the applicant would be required to perform additional testing and produce an Archaeological Monitoring and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) to be approved prior to the start of construction. The standard condition, detailed below, will reduce this potential to less than significant. If during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner's office shall be notified to provide property direction on how to proceed. If any Native American Resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease imn1ediately after until a Native American descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning Mitigation Measures: None Required. Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 10 Mitigated Negative Declaration F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the See risk of loss, injury, or death involving: below i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, x as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on 1,2 other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 8-MapN-x 10 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 8-MapN5 x iv) Landslides? 8-MapN5 x b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1 x c) Result in substantial siltation? x d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral 8-MapN5 x spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Unifonn Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to 8-MapN5 x life or property? f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems 1 where sewers are not available for the x disposal of waste water? g) Expose people or property to major x geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety technigues? Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration DISCUSSION: The entire state of California is in a seismically active area. According to the Comprehensive Plan the project site is not in an area that is subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake or in an area subject to expansive soils, surface rupture, liquefaction, or earthquake induced landslides. Development of the proposed project would be required to conform to all requirements in the Uniform Building Code, which includes provisions to ensure that the design and construction of all buildings includes provisions to resist damage from earthquakes to the extent feasible and acceptable. All on-site soils on the project site are suitable for use as fill provided that the large pieces of concrete, brick, old pipes and other buried debris is removed. To support the at grade structure on a shallow foundation, th'e upper 2.5 feet of existing fill within the building footprint and all the undocumented deeper and buried debris will be removed and re-worked. The potential onsite exposure to geological hazards wil1 therefore be less than significant. No mitigation is required. The entire site is mostly developed and is fairly flat. Substantial or permanent changes to the site topography are not expected. Standard conditions of approval require submittal of a final grading and drainage plan for the project for approval by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The application of standard grading, drainage, and erosion control measures as a part of the approved grading and drainage plan is expected to avoid any grading-related impacts. The project will not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Mitigation Measures: None Required. G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, x or disposal of hazardous materials? 6,8,9,12 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the x release of hazardous materials into the 6,8,9,12 environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or x waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or 1,6,8,9, proposed school? 12 d) Construct a school on a property that is subject x to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 1,6,8,8-x result, would it create a significant hazard to MapN9, the public or the environment? 12 f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 12 Mitigated Negative Declaration g) h) i) j) adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a x safety hazard for people residing or working in 1 the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety x hazard for peop Ie residing or working the 1 project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response 1,8- plan or emergency evacuation plan? MapN7, x 12 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to x urbanized areas or where residences are 8-MapN7 intermixed with wildlands? Create a significant hazard to the public or the 8,9,12 x environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site? DISCUSSION: Stellar Environmental Solutions prepared a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and a Phase II Site Investigation Report for the project. Both documents have been reviewed and accepted by hazardous materials experts in the Fire Department and Public Works. The Phase I report revealed that based on the age of the building that interior and exterior building materials likely contain asbestos and potentially lead- based paints. The residential site is not documented as having been a user, transporter or generator of hazardous materials. However, there is documentation that the subject property has groundwater contamination by volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The source of the groundwater contamination is a plume from the Hewlett PackardlVarian manufacturing plant located at 395 Page Mill Road, approximately 400 feet southeast of the project site. The groundwater contamination is referred to as the COE HP/Varian plume. The VOC plume has been the subject of investigation and remediation since 1981 by both HP and Varian. Studies of the most recent groundwater monitoring data have determined that the concentrations found are below the threshold that would trigger the requirement for additional soil-vapor sampling. Thus, it was determined that soil-vapor intrusion is unlikely. Because of the plume and the Phase I recommendation, additional soil samples were collected on the subject site and docun1ented in a Phase II report. The Phase II report concluded that groundwater contamination is below the threshold for concern. The consultant concluded that the detected VOC contamination in the site groundwater and soil-gas pose no potential for health-related impacts to vicinity or site occupants. Only one of the several borings, boring B4, was determined to require special protection for excavation. The mitigations identified below will reduce all impacts to less than significant levels for VOC contamination, asbestos and lead- based paint. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure G-l The proposed building footprint shall avoid covering the area of bore B4, as identified in the Phase II report prepared for the Birch Plaza Project. During the construction phase of this area, PID screening, inspection, and/or possibly sampling should be performed where elevated tricholorethylene (TCE) contamination in soil-gas was detected. If excavated soil is found, it should be appropriately screen, profiled and disposed of based on the result Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 13 Mitigated Negative Declaration of the analyses. This work sha11 be performed by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto. Mitigation Measure G-2 Prior to the submittal of a building permit, indoor air intrusion risk modeling shall be prepared and submitted to the City for approval to alleviate regulatory concern about the potential for impacts from the one data point where soil-gas concentrations were above the regulatory environmental screening levels. Mitigation Measure G-3 In accordance with CallOSHA regulations, a registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) prior to disturbance during demolition activities. All ACM removal shall be undertaken in accordance with applicable regulations using engineering controls, trained personnel, and work methods that reduce the impact to the environment and protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Mitigation Measure G-4 In conformance with state regulations, aU flaking and peeling lead-based paint shall be removed from structures proposed for demolition, and shall be handled, packaged, and disposed of as hazardous waste. The project shall comply with Cal-OSHA requirenlents to protect workers from exposure to lead. Requirements include worker training, proper hygiene practices, air monitoring and other controls. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1,8,9,12 x b) Substantial1y deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local 8,9 groundwater table level (e.g., the production 8-MapN2 rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? x c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial x erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1,2,8,9, 12 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration surface runoff in a manner which would result 1,2,8,9, x in flooding on-or off-site? 12 e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted 1,2,12 x runoff? f) Otherwise substantia11y degrade water quality? 1,2,12 x g) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard h) i) j) k) area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1,12 x Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect 8-x flood flows? MapN6, 12 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a 8-MapN6 levee or dam or being located within a lOO-year N8,12 x flood hazard area? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow? 8-MapN6 x N8,12 Result in stream bank instability? 12 x DISCUSSION: The site is in Flood Zone X, which is not a special flood hazard zone. The nearest body of water is the Santa Clara Valley Water District Matadero Canal, which runs southwest to northeast, approximately 1,000 feet from the southeastern border of the property. During demolition, grading and construction, storm water pollution could result. Runoff from the project site flows to the San Francisco Bay without treatment. Nonpoint source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife dependant on the waterways and for people who live near polluted streams or baylands. Therefore, conditions of approval, incorporated as part of an approved demolition and construction management plan (secured before building permit issuance) would include the following: Recommended Conditions of Approval: • Before submittal of plans for a building permit, the applicant shall submit a drainage plan which includes drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. • The Applicant shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMP's) to be incorporated into a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. The SWPPP shall include both temporary BMP's to be implemented during demolition and construction. The standard conditions would result in impacts that are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 15 Mitigated Negative Declaration j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j ! I / ., J ;,' 1;' Th e Cily or Palo Alto Birch Plaza Mixed Use Location Map ATTACHMENT C This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS -. • ATTACHMENT 0 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED PROPOSED STANDARD PTODZONE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS Minim urn Site Specifications Site Area (sq. ft.) None required 19,862 sq. ft. Site Width (ft.) None required 40-85' Site Depth (ft.) None required 185.70-285.82' Minim urn Setbacks Front Yard (ft) N one required Building Setbacks Sheridan Ave.: 10' Birch St.: 7' Grant St.: 100' Rear Yard (ft) None required 10' Side Yard (ft) None required 10' Total Mixed Use FAR 1.25: 1 1.25: 1 Residential Component FAR* 1.0: 1 0.73: 1 Mixed Use Non-Residential FAR** 0.35 (0.25 for Office and 0.52 Research and Development Uses) Usable Open Space*** 100 sq. ft. per unit 138 sq. ft. per unit Minimum dimensions Private open space: 6' Meets requirement Common open space: 12' Meets requirement . Maxim urn Height (ft) 40' 40' Residential Density (net)**** 40 dulac max. 17 dulac * The residential component of the mixed use may not exceed 1.0: 1. ** *** **** The non-residential component of a mixed use project shall not exceed 50% of the total square-footage of the project. Required usable open space: (l) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space; (3) minimmTI private open space dimension 6 feet; and (4) minimum common open space dimension 12 feet. Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial use. j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j I j Birch Plaza PROJECT DESCRIPTION and DESIGN INTENT ATTACHMENT E Submitted by Applicant The site is an assemblage of small existing parcels that will together create a 19,862 sf comer lot at Birch Street and Sheridan Avenue, with a small extension to Grant Street. We propose to change the current RM-40 zoning to PTOD, per the new California Avenue PTOD Combining District regulations. The proposed mixed-use project comprises eight 2-story townhou'ses on a ground floor office podium, with most of the parking underground. The townhouses are configured around two interconnected courtyards. The larger one is oriented toward and accessed by a partially hidden stair from Birch Street. The smaller one, with a southern orientation, is accessible from the quieter Sheridan Avenue. The I solid' office podium is intended to act as a base for the 'village' of townhouses above, with clear distinctions in massing and finishes between office and residential uses. Nevertheless, the two uses share just enough of the building vocabulary to read as a single project. The podium courtyards provide the residential component with generous outdoor common areas, which are intended to foster a sense of community in the project. With each unit also having its own private open space, the total usable open , space is far in excess of the minimum required. The entries are configured in such a way as to allow residential users their own access via the two stairs, or a common access via the elevator, which serves the parking, office lobby, and podium right at the connection between the two courtyards. Even the mailbox location is intended to encourage a mixing of users. The proposal conforms with all FAR, setback, height, daylight plane, and parking requirements, with two exceptions. The new PTOD zoning includes a provision that the 1.25 FAR allowed for mixed-use can have no more than 0.35 FAR assigned to non- -residential uses. As we developed the concept of ground floor office with a residential podium, however, we found that we did not have enough ground floor square footage to physicallysupport the residential above. The only alternative would have been to reduce the residential fo'otprint by making it three stories rather than two, thereby creating a 4-story project. Given the 3-story context, we considered this to be an undesirable alternative, an opinion shared by the Planning Director during our early meetings on the project. We also recognized that PTOD zoning is new and hence not significantly 'field-tested'. Our first experiment here suggests that some flexibility in the FAR ratios between the different uses would be beneficial, even as FAR limits are held firm. An an ciliary consequence of the larger ground floor is an increase in the site coverage to 55%, where 45% is allowed. In a sense, we have swapped some ground level open space for residential common open space above, where it serves the greatest use. Given the additional benefits in reducing the number of floors, we feel strongly that these two exceptions readily qualify as Design Enhancements. Even with this, each of the two main office areas have their own outdoor patios, as well as generous space for landscaping on all four sides. In keeping with the intent of PTOD zoning, as well as our own design propensities, we have endeavored to create an engaging street experience for the pedestrian. This includes a variety of massing articulations, landscape diversity, high quality finish materials, entry canopies, and overhanging balconies. The sidewalk on Birch Street is currently located right next to the curb. We are proposing to move it away from the curb to conform to the configuration on both Sheridan Avenue and Grant Street. More importantly, it would provide a landscape buffer from the street that would be planted with a continuous row of sycamore trees, adding substantially to the existing trees on Sheridan and Grant. The underground garage contains a mixture of conventional and tandem parking spaces, as well as bicycle parking. Additional spaces may be used for storage and tandem parking beyond that required. The parcel' Sl finger' toward Grant Street serves perfectly as the garage ramp~ Indeed, this is the only configuration of the parking that allows us to meet the requirements of the Parking Ordinance. This configuration has the considerable added benefit of providing a mini-park at the corner of Birch and Grant that will act as a resting area and a backdrop for public art. This area, as well as the art, will be developed further once a landscape architect is engaged on the project. BIRCH PLAZA ZONING CONSTRA][NTS 10 June 2008 Addresses: 305 Grant Ave, 2640 & 2650 Birch St., 306 & Sheridan Ave. Existing Zoning: RM -40 Proposed Zoning: California Ave PTOD Combining Proposed Use: Mixed Use: Office/ Business Services and Residential Parcel Size: 19,862 FAR allowed for mixed use: Office/Business Services FAR: Residential FAR: Residential Density Allowed: Residential Density Proposed: 8 units Building Height: Setbacks (per underlying RM-40 zone): Front (Sheridan Ave): Interior Side: Street Side and Rear: Daylight Plane: Lot Coverage: Addi tional allowed for porches, etc. Open Spa~e: Parking Required: Office: 1 stall per 250 sf Residential: 2 stalls per unit Guest Parking: 1 + 10% of units= Total: 1.25 = 24,827.5 sf 0.52 10,257 sf 0.73 = 14,534 40 uni ts / acre max. 17 units/ acre 40 feet o to ft 10 ft o to 16 ft none 55% = 11,357 sf ~% = 993 sf 100 sf/ unit 42 stalls 16 2 60 stalls Adjustment for Joint Use: 20% of total Adjusbnent for Housing near Transit: 20% Total Adjushnent Allowed: 30% of total = Net Parking Required: Tandem Parking: up to 25% of residential = N'o. of accessible parking stalls: 1 per 25 42 stalls 4 stalls 2 stalls, 1 van-accessible Bike Parking: 1 ' (L T) 8 1 10 units for guest bike parking (ST) 1 1 per 2,500 of office space 5 Total 14 Birch Plaza PTOD Context-Based Design Considerations This document addresses the PTOD Combining District context-based criteria listed in section 18.34.050 of the Zoning Regulations of the City of Palo Alto. (1) Pedestrian & Bicycle Environment The the design promotes pedestrian ways: connecti vity and a bicycle-friendly environment in A. The main pedestrian entrance is on Birch Street, under a welcoming canopy. Two wide stairs lead up to two interconnected residential courtyards, the main one on Birch Street and the other on Sheridan Avenue. Each of the two first-floor oHice units has a direct entry off Birch Street. Bike faci.lities are located in the underground parking levet accessed by a ramp off Grant Avenue. B See lA. C. N/A D. Bike storage is provided on the underground parking level. E. The corner of the site at Birch Street and Grant Avenue is an and mvjting mini-park wi.th and public art. F. N/A G. It is proposed that the BiTch Street which is currently right next to the be moved 4' away from the curb such that a strip with a row of street trees can be added that buffers the sidewalk from the street. conform with the on Sheridan and Grant Avenues There is an 8' to 12' wide planting area between the sidewalk and the building, and vertical elements with climbing plants that connect the residen bal courtyards above to the ground leveL Also see 1 E. H. N (2) Street Building Facades The street facades are to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalks and streets, encouraging activity in the following ways: A. N/A B. See 1 A. The office units have generous windows facing all three streets. The townhouses have their windows and decks oriented outwards, addressing the streets. C. Canopies, decks, and vertical fins provide human scale and break up the building mass. D. See 2B. E. The main building entrance 1S a generous with a large shade structure overhead. The Birch Street stair up to the residential courtyard is integrated with this building entrance. This and the Sheridan A venue stair are both next to the tallest building elements in the project emphasizing their function in linking the sidewalk to the residential courtyards above. F. See 2B. (3) Massing & Articulation The project is designed to minimize massing, providing articulation and design variety in the followjng ways: A. The mass of the 2-story townhouses is articulated with projecting and recessed building forms and varied roof heights, minimizing their mass and creating design variety. B. The roofline is highly varied, creating visual. interest. The stairs to the residential courtyards, and the street corner at Birch Street and Sheridan Avenue, have the highest roofs to emphasize their importance. See 2E. C The Birch Street and Sheridan A venue corner is massed and articulated to reinforce this intersection. The I-story podium base rises up to 2 stories and is articulated with vertical fins and generous sun shading. D. N/A E. No more than 70% , and no more than 100' continuous linear feet, of the Birch Street facade exceeds a height of 25'. F. N/A G N/A H. N/A (4) low-Density Residential Transitions N/A (5) Proj ect Open Space There are private and public open spaces for the residents, visitors and enlployees: A. Each of the office units has a priva te south-facing patio. Each townhouse has a deck off the living/ dining room, the majority of which have southern exposure .. B. The office patios serve as convenient lunch or meeting areas for employees. The attractively landscaped residential courtyards are shared by the townhouses and serve to build a sense of community. Also see IE. C See lA and IE. D. There is a combination of private and common open spaces. E. The residential courtyards and residential decks provide usable open space above the grolmd level. F. The residential courtyards look down on to Birch Street and obliquely on to Sherjdan Avenue. There are residential decks on each street facade. These activate the street facade and increase" eyes on the street". G. N/A H. Parking is not counted as open space. (6) Parking Design Parking is designed such that it unobtrusive and does not detract from the pedestrian enviromnent: A Parking is located mainly in the basement. On-grade parking is screened by landscaping and low walls. B. N/A C. N/A D See 6A. E. Street parking is for visitor or customer parking, and is designed to enhance traffic cabning on the street. (7) Large (m ulti-acre) Sites N/A (8) Sustainability & Green Building Design A. The townhouse building form is narrow and organized around courtyards to optimize natural daylighting and ventilation. Sunshading and windo'w overhangs reduce solar heat gain. B. Landscaping around the podium at ground leveL and on the residential courtyards, .is designed to create cOITl£ortable micro-climates and reduce heat island eHects. C See lA. D. The landscapjng around the podium at ground level is 8' to 12' wide. This helps to Dlaximize onsite stormwater management. E. Sustainable bUilding materials will be specified. F. Energy-efficient lighting, plumbing and equipment will be used. G. Healthy indoor environments will be created. H. Other sustainable building practices will be incorporated into the project as much as possible. 1. N/ A Lee, Elena From: Sent: To: David Solnick [david@solnick.net] Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:01 PM Lee, Elena Cc: Williams, Curtis Subject: Re: Birch ATTACHMENT F Submltted~ppljc,ant,_,~,_--,- We are requesting to retain the underground driveway approach at its currently proposed location on Grant Street. It is the only location that allows us to safely provide the parking required for this project. Access from Birch Street (option #1) renders the underground garage entirely unusable, except where the access is near the comer (see below). Access from Sheridan (option #2) results in a net loss of 12 parking stalls. Access from Birch Street near the comer of Grant (option #3) retains the same nurnber of parking stalls, but puts the entrance near the comer of a much busier street; . creates a driveway that curves sharply as it descends; forces cars from the ground level stalls to back onto Birch St; and eliminates the pocket park. ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ laU'~JlU1OS®PlAep iJ3iIHJ}JV 00 ....J ....J ~ 00 tuCl w Z o::=> 1-0 000:: I-C!) 000:: UJ UJ ooCl =>5 CO....J Z....J 0« 00 00 Ll.. o UJ 00 Uoo uo «....J • • OllV Oled 'laallS 46lH U'Z elUJOjueJ 'OllV oled 'laaJlS 4JJIII 059'Z )t:)IN10S (IiAVa VZVld HJ~18 I-W w 0:: I-C/') ::c ~ co 3nN3J\V NVCII~3HS I Iii 2 t:?:.S i ; i? ] • • • .. 3d01;,;ttU -r----l-------------------, , • . .. 3d01;';UO • -,-- - - --' - - - - - - - - - - - - -+-------'---------1 - - - - ---- - ---- - - - - - -+-------~ • • • • I • I • • • T- ~# NOLLdO 9NI)I~Vd ~ ~ I~ • I ~ Vl :::I: U c:::: -I:C :E 0 c:::: LL Vl Vl LLJ " U ;!to! a~ u « LLJ C) ~ ~ ~-- // // // // // // • LOSS OF 12 UNDERGROUND STALLS ,/J- // ~ ~ BIRCH STREIT • • @11%SLOPE • • GARAGE ACCESS FROM SHERIDAN AVE. rARSTFI.OORABOVE • • @22%SLOPE • • • t'ANRoo""""", w ~ z W ~ z C§ ii: w :::c VI FTC 07/28/08 T ~ ~ s: ·E ~ -0 4: ~ ~ 0 ::::.:::~ U~ Z~ ....J.-o ~ VI!:; Q~ >-r ~~ .. E ~ u ~~ «~ N . ~~ a..~ ..<:: :::c ~ Uii:i 0::::0 ti5~ ~ Z o i= a.. o C) z 52 0:::: ~ PRINT DATE: 4128/09 SHErr 4.2 I I 4---- BIRCH STREET _ - - - - - --\-1 - - - - - - - - --1-'-- -- - - - \1 1/ ------~ ~------- L ________ ~[: .,. -I ~ ~~ ~~ ~ r---I-___ _ \ \ G~::OPE /=!===-~-__ "~~~~~ __ -.TI--------1---~ RAMPluPTU BIRCH STREET CWWlEobORABOVE 1.-.--1ST'LOCIRABOYE 1 !!t!!!..1 37 .!m!!.1 J.!l!!ll .Y!:!!ll T • ACCESS ON BUSIEST STREET • GROUND LEVEL STALLS REQUIRE BACKING ONTO BIRCH ST. • LOSS OF POCKET PARK to VO/ I ,W v; TYP. .!:!.!i!il. !!!i!!! UNIT 3 I JI!j!ll GARAGE ACCESS FROM BIRCH ST. @ CORNER PTe 1-10: u c: ~ ~ :x: c: ~ ~ -<I; ~ M ~ z o ~ o C) z 52 c:r::: tt. ~ '" 'E ~ u PRINT DATE: 4128109 SHEET 4.3 Uoli6acli CR.§a(ty Company Limited (J'artnersliip 29 Lowery Drive, Atherton, CA 94027 Tel: 650/322-8242 Fax: 650/853-0325 Curtis Willianls Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mr. Williams: Re: Birch Plaza Project 2650 Birch Street May 21, 2009 I am writing this letter to confirm certain issues David Solnick, the architect for Birch Plaza Project, discussed with you on April 21, 2009, in connection with the zone change application from RM-40 to PTOD heard by the Planning Commission on April 15, 2009. After hearing from condominium owners in the Birch Court Condominium Project, the Planning Conlmission in a 4 to 2 vote approved the Birch Plaza Project with the condition that the entrance to the underground garage be moved off of Grant Avenue. As pointed out during the meeting on April 21, 2009, moving the entrance off Grant Avenue is not feasible because it would in effect destroy the viability of the project. Moving -the entrance to Sheridan Avenue would remove 12 parking spaces . from the project. It would place more traffic on Sheridan Avenue which already has much more traffic than Grant Avenue. Sheridan Avenue in this block already services a seven unit apartment building at 303,305,307,309,311,315 Sheridan Avenue, a 83 unit apartment project at 345 Sheridan Avenue, a 57 unit apartment project at 360 Sheridan Avenue, and the Jerusalem Baptist Church at 380 Sheridan Avenue Placing an entrance for the underground garage on Birch Street is also not feasible because of the limited space in a direction perpendicular to Birch Street to nlake a tum into parking spaces. Providing the access from Birch Street near the comer at Grant Avenue would save the underground parking but would create a driveway that curves sharply as it descends. In addition, this would cause cars parked at ground level stalls to back out into two lanes of Birch Street traffic which would be very dangerous. It also eliminates the small park along Birch Street extending to Grant Avenue. Also, providing entrances on Sheridan Avenue or on Birch Street would substantially eliminate any use of the 305 Grant Avenue property in the Birch Plaza Project. In summary, the Grant Avenue entrance is the only viable entrance for the Birch Plaza underground garage. Any increase in traffic caused by the Birch Plaza Project is best borne by Grant Avenue which carries less vehicular and pedestrian traffic than Sheridan Avenue or Birch Street. A Statistics Request Report, attached hereto as Exhibit A, on Sheridan Avenue from the City of Palo Alto Police Department reports accidents fronl January 2000 to April 24, 2009 at the intersections of Birch and Grant and Sheridan and Birch. The report shows seven reported accidents on Sheridan Avenue for Sheridan and Birch and five on Grant for Grant and Birch. The report shows nineteen reported accidents for the Sheridan and Birch intersection and twelve on Grant and Birch for the Grant and Birch intersection .. The statistics support the placenlent of the entrance to the underground garage on Grant Avenue because it is safer than placing it on the more heavily traveled Sheridan Avenue. The traffic consultant for the project as set forth in Fehr & Peers letter of May 6, 2009, attached hereto as Exhibit B, also recommend that the access to the underground garage for project remain on Grant Avenue. The Grant Avenue entrance also nlakes it possible to provide a landscaped area along Birch Street which, along with the graceful Birch Plaza building fac;ade provides a noteworthy entrance into Palo Alto from the Oregon/Page Mill Expressway. For these reasons we will ask the City Council to approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission except for the condition that the entrance to the underground garage be moved off Grant Avenue. Yours truly, Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership Hohbach Enterprises, Inc., General Partner ~~~ Harold C. Hohbach, President Iill002/006 FROM: David Solnick architect PHONE NO. : 650 3271142 Ma~. 01 2009 11:01AM P2 Statl.stics Requ.est P'~lQ Alt:Q~ P·'o,;l.i<l;~e;! D;elt?:art~,e~t, Date:...........-~~~-4- Name: JdA~ 9/-/~ 'Co gO/../43& cd Address;. .2;5 a? () ¥1/ 6#!« )C err:" V-Gf: City: A rA~re"':r-Q pJ ?? e <$'~ ;z..,7 ; ~ . Phone #: ~' C? 02 z-2 z.c,v-z.. E~~: If&9x: Itt"s;;b/Es-S-c S '2. ~ Co.tact 'hr- ~o .. e V-CN': ,Mad __ \~mall ........................................................ ,. .......... " ......................................................... " .............................. . Loeadon/Repordug Distriet: !RY~dr:e:-:re;l? Ace::,;' P~"'-'J'S' A r 7Yl/O .::c:/V"7~S"~c /o,¥s "' t;...,eA N''--~ !SIRe # "/~.-:r-~~-rs- TilDe Period: FrOID: ::2 060 -------------------To: /J~t? / l.. Type of Statistics _Crime _Calls for servIce _Include Maps Take. by'~~-.,:.. ......... ~....;.& Date, ____ ~~~~-- Fee: A researeh fee ofS60 per hour will be eharged ~ the reqllest requires research. ~~H'A-~.It!!E J;> ,'3 Y (?"a C ,.I .,,(J -;r-A V" A y:[! IS ,..s:- £ ~¢/ '3 2. "J -2.~:.;? t: '" " A Accidents rej)oned at til., intelSection of BIrch and Grant 1 i January 2000 to ~124. 20ft I ! + ! I i i I I . Qccuroate 'Ioiured Occurred ON AT/OR # Feet Direction Cross beet 103-01·2002 81RCHST ' OR 10 S GRANTAV log.2Q..2002 BIRCH ST AT GRANTAV ~01-15-2004 B1RCHST! AT GRAK"ST 01-28-2004 BfRCHST, " AT GRANTAV 04-23--2004 1 BIRCH ST, AT GRAtf."AV 10-29--2004 1 2600BLK BIRCH ST OR 51 S GRAN""AV 01-22-2006 BtRCHST AT GRAN"'"AV 08~31·2000 200BU<. GRANT A'IQ OR 68 E BlRCHST 05--12-2002 300BLK GRANT AV OR 251 W BfRCHST 06$2005 270 GRANT AV ' AT BIRCHST 11 .. 20-2006 GRANTAV \ AT BIRCHST 0+02-2007 GRANTAV AT BlRCHST Page 1 ! Violation Violation DescriDtion 22360VC Basic speed law 21804 VC FaU to y1eJ(! right of way VC Failure to stop at a stop si,gn 21658 VC Unsafe lane change 21802 VC intersection-fail to &tQpJ~ield 22107VC Unsafe tum 21658(A)VC Unsafe lane chan~ 22106VC Unsafe start on bighwavlroadwav 22106VC Unsafe stall on highway/roadway Reported at front desk 21802{A)VC Intersection-faU to stopMetd 21802(A)VC intersectionwfail to stop!yi~d . _ ;a .0 :3 o IlJ S, 0..: W ...... 2, o -,::- III j o ::r ;t (') 't+ lJ 25 Z m z P 8i 6) VJ l\J -.J ,.... ,.... A I\..) ~ llJ If ~ ~ l\) t5J IS) \D ~ ~ ts:J l\J D 3: -0 W p. t- l:J , 2' It A 1;1;. !it v. t§ c:: c:: v. ..... c C 0' AccidentS' ~Grted at tile intersection of Sheridan and Birch i Januarv 20GB to April 24,2001 j , I . , i I , Occur Date tJJniJlred OccunadOn ArlO. # Jfit 02 .. 10.2000 SHERIDAN OR 20 03-02-2002 1 SHERIOANAV AT 08--18-2003 SHERIDANAV AT 11..Q6 .. 2003 SOOBLK SHERlDAN AV OR 40 09--06-:2005 300BlK SHERIOAN AV OR 227 01-13-2006 SOOSLKSHERtOAN AV OR 20 02..Q9-2007 SHERIDANAV AT 02-0&-2000 BIRCHST AT Q4..24-2QOO BIRCHST AT Og.f4-2000 BIRCHST AT 10-07·2000 27QOBL:K BIRCH ST OR 135 12-11-2001 1 2700BU< BIRCH ST OR 16 07·30-2004 2700SLK BIRCH ST OR 35 11·25-2.005 2700BLK BIRCH ST OR 50 12·18 .. 2005 2700 BIRCH ST OR 50 11.(13...2008 0 BIRCH-ST OR 40 -.-.-. 11~14-2006 1 BIRCH'ST AT 02~14-2008 BIRCHST OR 27 05-01-2008 2700BU< BIRCH S7 OR 195 Direction Cross street V'lOlation W BIRCH 22107VC BIRCH 22350VC BIRCHST 22107VC W BrRCHST W BlRCHST 22107VC W BlRCHST 22.10avC BIRCH 22350VC SHERIDANAV 22350VC SHERIDANAV 22107VC SHERiDANAV 21802(A)VC S SHERIDANAV 22350VC s SHERIDANAV 2195O{A)VC S SHERIDANAV 22350VC S SHERIOANAV 22350VC S SHERiCANAV 22350VC S SHERIOANAV 22350VC SHERIOANAV 2181M{A.}VC S SHERIOANAV 221D7VC S SHERIDAN ---,_.-21f:J~VC __ Page 1 VIOlation De$criDlion Lnsafehm Easic~la'W Unsafe tum UnImown Unsafe tum i Unsafe start on bighway/raadway Easic SJ)ead law Basio speed law Unsafe tum Irrtersection-Fatl to stoPiYieid Basic soeed law I )ield righf of way to pedestrian Basic sPeed law BasiC SI)ee<llaw Basic sPeed laW Basic SPeed law Faal to Yield right of Way Unsafebm .Right bait ¢ road wilY __ _ ." ;:u .~ &1 <:: ..... p. tn o J () l' OJ .., () ~ c+ ro () c+ II ::J: o z m Z p ~ ~ I-"" I-"" it 3: OJ If IS) I-'" !\J IS) IS) \.0 I-"" )0.>. IS) I\.) D 3': ~ is Q Q JI;:lo ........ Q Q CI'I } '\:Jt May 6. 2009 Court House Plaza Company Via Fax (650) 853-0325 David Solnick -Architect ~ FI:HR & PEERS 1'IIANSPORTATtON (ONSIJLTANTS Subject: Garage Access to the Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project Palo Alto, CA Dear Mr. Hohbach I Mr, Solnick: RSOB .. 2640 Based an our review of the proposed garage access from Birch Street (dl rectly east of Grant Avenue) and a field visit to the project site during both morning and evening peak hour conditions in May 2009, we recommend that the garage site access remain on Grant Avenue (directly south of Birch Street) for the following reasons: 1) Birch Street is a four~lane roadway providing access to ·and from Oregon Expressway. With traffic volumes significantly higher than the two .. Jane Grant Avenue, constructing the garage entrance from this heavily traveled roadway will result in potential traffic issues with traffic flow on this arterial roadway. 2) With a planted center median, the driveway could only provide right-turn in I right-turn out movements, resulting in increased u-turns at Birch Street I Grant Avenue and Birch Street J Sheridan Avenue. 3) Accident data for the three year time period behNeen April 24, 2006 and April 24, 2009 Show that accidents have occurred primarily on Birch Street, and include unsafe speed, failure to yield right of way and unsafe turn. Therefore, constructing the project driveway on Biroh Street may resuft in an increased potential for certain types of accidents and vehicles enter and exit a heavily traveled roadway into the parking. garage. Sincerely, Fred Choat P.E. r~egistered Traffic Engineer in the State of California No. TR1830 ---1S0 W. Santa Clara Street. Suit~ 675 San Jose, California '9511~O-(408)-·278~1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com fl)OOl/OOl FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM Date: April 24, 2009 To: Court House Plaza Company David Solnick -Architect From: Fred Choa, Fehr & Peers Associates Subject: Elements for 2650 Birch Street -Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project Travel Demand Management Plan RSOB-2616 This memorandum responds to your request for a Travel Demand Management (TOM) Plan for the proposed 2650 Birch Street -Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project in Palo Alto, California. The Proposed Project is comprised of 24,827 square feet, with 10,257 square feet of office space (2 tenants) and 14,534 square feet of residential area (8 two-story townhouses). Trlis TDM Plan includes the following elements: • Recommended measures for the 2650 Birch Street -Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project • Effectiveness of TOM measures RecoITlmended Measures for the Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project Our recommendations for TDM measures at 2650 Birch Street -Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project are based on the following assumptions: • Employees will arrive and depart during traditional commute hours • Employees will likely use transit if convenient and available • There is a Class II Bike Lane on Park Boulevard and a Class III Bike Route of California Avenue • There is an extensive bicycle system throughout the mid-peninsula, connecting Stanford, Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Mountain View, • The CalTrain California Station is located less than 1/3 of a mile from the project site (1,700 feet) • There is extensive public transit on EI Camino Real and Oregon Expressway 1 Page Mill Road provided by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) • There are restaurants, retail, banks and other destinations within walking distance (1,300 feet) on California Avenue between EI Camino Real and Park Boulevard. Based on these Fehr & Peers recommends the following measures for use in a TDM plan for any single tenant having more than 25 employees. Provide On-Site Amenities: In terms of physical improvements that can be implemented in addition to the required bicycle parking are on-site amenities designed to enhance accessibility and convenience of either walking or bicycling. This would include on-site shower facilities located within the men's and women's restroom facilities. 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com April 24, 2009 Page 2 of 4 tp FEHJ\ & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Identify a TDM Coordinator: Most TOM programs include the designation of a TOM coordinator. This coordinator can have a variety of roles including providing information on available transit options, arranging carpools, dispensing transit passes or Commuter Checks, and overseeing the operation of the Guaranteed Ride Home Program. Use of Tandem Parking: When the parking requirements for the office tenants are such that unused tandem parking spaces need to be utilized, the TOM Coordinator shall contact employees of office tenants that would be ideal candidates of tandem parking based on their arrival "and departure times. The TDM Coordinator will assign to designated employees the spaces in available tandem parking spaces. Institute Promotional Programs: Implement educational and promotional programs involving all employees with these efforts supervised by the TOM coordinator. Promotional programs refer to employer-sponsored initiatives, which educate employees about the availability of alternative modes and the benefits of these modes. Promotional programs might include: • TOM Coordinator • Commuter Information Bulletin Board • Guide to Transit Service systems and schedules • Guide to City of Palo Alto and Regional Bicycle Systems • Guide to CalTrain system and schedule CarpoollVanpool Programs: The TOM Coordinator would assist employees interested in carpooling / vanpooling. A carpool is two to six people sharing a ride in an automobile. The most common carpool approach is rotating automobile use among carpoolers with no exchange of money. Another method is a carpool g"roup using one car and sharing commuter expenses. Either way, the driver of the carpool has the vehicle available for personal or company use during the workday. Carpooling reduces the cost of commuting and provides a stress-free ride to and from work for non-drivers. The main impediment to carpooling program is convincing employees to carpool and arranging carpools. Incentives to carpool can be provided through allocating preferential parking or by discounting the cost of parking for carpoolers. Arranging carpools, which entail matching riders with similar home locations, can either be done by an employer formally or through regional agencies such as Rides for Bay Area Commuters. This non-prom agency maintains lists of persons interested in a carpool. Vanpools operate like a mini-transit service, with an organized route, schedule and passenger fare charges. Vanpools typically are comprised of 7 to 15 people. Fares depend 6n the commute distance, the total number of riders, the type of van, company-provided equipment, and incentives and subsidies. Vanpools can be set up by individual employees or by the employer. Rides for Bay Area Commuters will also provide assistance in establishing and operating a vanpool. Provide Transit Subsidies: One of the most common TOM programs is a transit program, by which large employers facilitate the use of transit by their employees. This facilitation can include subsidizing transit passes, providing transit passes on-site, and providing connecting service to the nearest transit stop or station. Two available transit pass programs include Commuter Checks (tax-free vouchers employees can use to purchase transit passes) and Eco Pass. Based on recent changes to Federal Laws, employers can now provide up to $100 a month per employee for use in purchasing transit passes. The Santa Clara Valley 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com April 24, 2009 Page 3 of 4 fp FE J-I R & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Transportation Authority (VTA) operates the Eco Pass program. The one limitation on the Eco Pass program is that CalTrain (which operates a station on California Avenue less than 1/3 of a mile from your facility) does not participate in this program. These subsidies could be provided in the form of Commuter Checks or through participation in the Eco Pass program. Commuter checks would likely be more useful to your employees since this program appears to be more flexible than Eco Pass. You could also provide transit passes to your residents for use by themselves or their visitors. Please note than any transit passes for use by residents would require purchase by the operator of the facility. Alternative/Flexible Work Schedule: Based on research conducted by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, implementation of the recommended TDM Program would result in a reduction of vehicle trips during the traditional morning and evening commute periods. In addition, by providing on-site vending machines and shower facilities, the opportunity to: a) Bicycle or walk to work; b) Take transit / shuttle to work; c) Remain on-site during lunchtime; and d) Leave the project site by automobile before or after the critical a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Alternative work sclledule programs include the following measures: • Flextime-Workers report within varying windows rather than set times • Staggered Work'Hours-Employees arrive in shifts rather than all arriving at once • Compressed Work Week-Employees have the option of working four-day weeks or longer house. For example, the City of Palo Alto allows its employees to work 9 days over a two-week period, with an alternating day off during the week. • Telecommuting-Employees may choose to work at home one or more days a week Effectiveness ofTDM Measures The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publislled a review of information regarding the effectiveness of TDM measures in the Trip Generation Handbook: An ITE Recommended Practice. This review concluded the following: • Support measures, such as transportation coordinators, flexible work hours, and other promotional activities had no measurable impact on the number of vehicles used by commuters. But it has been shown to reduce a.m. and p.m. peak hour vehicle trip generation by providing opportunities to arrive earlier than a.m. peak and depart later than p.m. peak hours (5 to 15 percent reduction) • Transportation services, such as vanpools and carpools had a noticeable impact on number of vehicles used by commuters (8 percent reduction) • Economic incentives including transit subsidies and transportation allowances for large businesses also had a significant impact on the number of vehicles used by commuters (16 percent reduction) This study also concluded that combining transportation services and economic incentives generated the most significant reduction in the number of commuter vehicles (24 percent). Based on this information, it 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com Apri I 24, 2009 Page 4 of 4 11> F Ef-1R & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS would be beneficial to include a variety of measures including on-site amenities, transportation services, and economic incentives. The proposed TDM Plan would reduce the reliance on the single occupant vehicle, enhance the Proposed Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project, and potentially improve traffic operations in the area. 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com ATTACHMENT G TRANSPORTATION DIVISION Memorandum Date: May 8,2009 To: Elena Lee From: Rafael Rius, P .E. Subject: 2650 Birch. -Transportation Comments on the Driveway Location The following is based on our recent discussions related to the driveway access on Grant Avenue. With our department's previous comments to improve sight distances,' we feel that if the comments related to the walls and fences adj acent to the garage ramp were set back appropriately, and parking immediately adjacent to the driveway were restricted, that a driveway at on Grant Avenue can operate safely. A driveway on Birch Street would not be recommended for several reasons including higher traffic volumes on Birch, the raised median (requiring U-turns at adjacent unsignalized intersections, and the direct link to the connectors to and from Oregon Expressway. A driveway on Sheridan Avenue could potentially work and would operate similarly to the currently proposed driveway on Grant Avenue with similar positives and negatives. This is not necessarily recommended over the proposed Grant Avenue location. These conunents should be considered in addition to the previous comments from July 2008, which mayor may not have already been addressed. Please feel free to contact me to discuss further if you have any questions. ex LEED for New Construction v 2.2 Registered Project Checklist Project Name: Birch Plaza ATTACHMENT H Submitted by Applicant DIZA t-T Project Address: 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 306 & 320 Sheridan Avenue Yes ? 36 Yes ? No ____ Sustainable Sites 14 Points ---T"--""""'" Prereq 1 Credit 1 ~--~--~~--~~ Credit 2 ~--~~~~~~~ Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Site Selection Development Density & Community Connectivity f",---'--+"---'-'-""'1-'-'----'-'-,-I Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment f---+--,::.-.i--'-~--"-'--I Credit 4.1 Alternative Transponatlon, Public Transportation f---+---d---'-I Credit 4.2 Alternative Transponation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms f----,.,-+,.,---~~~ ___ --"-'--I Credit 4.3 Alternative Transponation, Low-Emitting & Fuel Efficient Vehicles ~~~~~-+--~~ Credit 4.4 Alternative Transponation, Parking Capacity r-~~----~----~ Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect or Restore Habitat f-:.,,:-c-,-,-+-:-~--:J ___ ~-'-I Credit 5.2 Site Developmen~ Maximize Open Space r-~~~--~~--~ Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control f",--'"--"-+-'--,-,-----"1 Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control ~--~~--~~--~ Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof f----+-'--,---:J-'-c-'-l Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof L-__ ~ ____ ~~ __ ~ Credit 8 light Pollution Reduction Yes ? No Required 1 1 1 ___ . Water Efficiency 5 Points '1 " ..• > ,"c" . ','" Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 1 " " 1 .... c' ,. '. Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping. No Potable Use or No Irrigation r 1···· Credit 2 !nnovative Wastewater Technologies 1 . Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction . " 1 Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction C' ,.','ro1d by Adobe" liveCycle-last Modified: May 2008 1 of 4 Yes CD LEED for New Construction v 2.2 Registered Project Checklist ? No ____ Energy & Atmosphere 17 Points Prereq 1 Prereq 1 Prereq 1 Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems Minimum Energy Performance Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required Required Required "Note for EA.1: All LEED for New Construction projects registered after June26, 2007 are required to achieve at least two (2) points. I)Z. 18 I Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 1 to 10 '--__ -'-__ ...J1~3 __ ___'1 Credit 2 1 Powered bV r I 1 1 1 Adobe" LiveCycle" Credit 3 Credit 4 Credit 5 Credit 6 Credit 1.1 10.5% New Buildings 13.5% Existing Building Renovations Credit 1.2 14% New BUildings 17% Existing Building Renovations Credit 1.3 17.5% New Buildings 110.5% EXisting Building Renovations Credit 1.4 21% New Buildings 114% Existing Building Renovations Credit 1.5 24.5% New Buildings 117.5% Existing Building Renovations Credit 1.6 28% New Buildings 121% Existing Building Renovations Credit 1.7 31.5% New Buildings 124.5% Existing Building Renovations Credit 1.8 35% New Buildings 128% Existing Buildi~g Renovations Credit 1.9 38.5% New Buildings 131.5% Existing Building Renovations Credit1.10 42% New Buildings 135% Existing Building Renovations On·Site Renewable Energy Credit 2.1 2.5% Renewable Energy Credit 2.2 7.5% Renewable Energy Credit 2.3 12.5% Renewable Energy Enhanced CommiSSioning Enhanced Refrigerant Management Measurement &: Verification Green Power 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 to 3 2 3 1 Last Modified: May 2008 2 or 4 Yes ('1 LEED for New Construction v 2.2 Registered Project Checklist ? No c···· , ',:..-" .. __ Materials & Resources 13 Points Prereq 1 Credit 1.1 Credit 1.2 Credit 1.3 Credit 2.1 Credit 2.2 Credit 3.1 >. Credit 3.2 Credit 4.1 Credit 4.2 Credit 5.1 Credit 5.2 Credit 6 1 Credit 7 Yes ? No Storage & Collection of Recyclables Building Reuse. Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof Building Reuse, Maintain 95% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% from Disposal ConstRiction Waste Management) Divert 75% from Disposal Materials Reuse, 5% Materials Reuse, 10% Recycled Content, 10% (post-consumer + 1/2 pre-consumer) Recycled Content, 20% (post-consumer + 1/2 pre-consumer) Regional Materials, 10% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regional Materials, 20% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Rapidly Renewable Materials Certified Wood Required 1 1 1 1 .. __ Indoor Environmental Quality 15 Points Prereq 1 ___ ,-,..,.,, __ Prereq 2 Minimum IAQ Performance Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control )--__ -+~_-+',.c....-,__j Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring F---+-....,.,....,-+'-'---c",.---i Credit 2 Increased Ventilation )--__ -+ ___ +'~,.c....,__j Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction 1--'----1----+---,--,--i Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy !----+-,.c....-'-+-"7:"_-I Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives & Sealants r---~~~~~~,__j Credit 4.2 Low.Emitting Materials, Paints & Coatings F---'-"--c+--.,--+-'---~ Credit 4.3 Low.Emitting Materials, Carpet Systems Required Required r-~~--~~--~,__j Credit 4.4 Low·Emitting Materials, Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products 1--'----1----+--_'--:1 Credit 5 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control r-~~--~~~~-I Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems, Lighting 1----1----+-::....~.,-j Credit 6.2 ContrOllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort F--___ +--Tt--~ Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort, Design r---~----~~---I Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort, Verification 1--'-'---1--___,-+--'---,--i Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces '---, __ ---'-___ -'--__ -'-Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views, Views for 90% of Spaces POWH"d by Adobe" LiveCycle- '1\ 1 1 1 1 last Modified: May 2008 3 or 4 Yes LEED for New Construction v 2.2 Registered Project Checklist ? No ____ Innovation & Design Process 5 Points , 1 f'~we-r~cl by r I 1 1 1 1 Adobe-LiveCycle- Credit 1.1 Innovation In Design: Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design: Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design: Credit 1.4 Innovation In Design: Credit 2 LEE~ Accredited Professional last Modified: May 2008 4 of 4 , (§j.,., A •.•.. ~ .. ' '.' Multifamily GreenPoint Ch~~eklist ""DrzA t--l ~."" ~ The GreenPoint Rated checklist tracks green features incorporated into the home. The recommended minimum requirements for a green home are: Earn a total of 50 points or more; obtain the following minimum pOints per category: Community (6), Energy (30), Indoor Air Quality/Health (5), Resources (6), and Water (3); and meet the prerequisites B.1.a (50% construction waste diversion), A.8 (exceed Title 24 requirements by 15%), C.10.a (3-year subcontractor guarantee and 20-year manufacturer warranty for shingle roofing), and F.1 (incorporate Green Points checklist in blueprints). Build It Green is a non-profit organization providing the GreenPoint Rated program as a public service. Build It Green encourages local governments to leverage program resources to support voluntary, market-based programs and strategies. The green building practices listed below are described in greater detail in the Multifamily Green Building Guidelines, available at www.builditgreen.org/greenpoint-rated/guidelines Enter Total Conditioned Floor Area of the Project: 24,791 Enter Total Non-Residential Floor Area of Project: 10,257 Percent of Project Dedicated to Residential Use 59% .'. '.C .: . •... :: '.~.:.,:< ,c, .. , -" I '-, I ;.0, .......~ .... 1. Inflll Sites ~ a. Project is Located Within an Urban Growth Boundary & Avoids Environmentally Sensitive Sites ~ !!ls~!~51~m~~~u~~ I Current Point Total 1 97.67 1 "; z:. ..c I/) 'c ~ CI) ~ >. ca ~ E CI) ~ }' OJ :I: j E ~ ~ 0 I/) 0 c CI) "c. 0 W 0::: .-. i1..r:J:l. ;·.·i2S~~ii~~i~~i~~~JE~;~~~~~::~~:w~~~~~nUM;~~A;~-~ ... -·u~~ ~ ••• r-----:---;-----i----'---;----I ~ Site has Pedestrian Access Within _ Mile to Neighborhood Services (1 Pt for 5 Or More, ~ts for 10 Or More): ~ 1) Bank ~ 2) Place of Worship ~ 3) Full Scale Grocery/Supermarket ~ 4) Day Care 5) Cleaners b 6) Fire Station ~ 7) Hair Care 8) Hardware 16 9) Laundry ~ 10) Library 11) Medical/Dental ~ 12) Senior Care Facility ~ 13) Public Park 14) Pharmacy ~ 15) Post Office ~ 16) Restaurant 17) School f-18) After School Programs ~ 19) Commercial Office D 20) Community Center ~ 21) Theater/Entertainment cgj22) Convenience Store Where Meat & Produce are Sold. . .. " ----'" 'g'-Proximi~'io-'PubiiC Tran'sit-"--'---' -.,--'----, , ,---,',, __ ,-0," ,-, ,--,---,-",--. -" '-----'---~---'----'----I Development is Located Within: 1/4 Mile of Two or More Planned or Current Bus Line Stops ~ 1/4 Mile of One Planned or Current Bus Line Stop , __ . . . __ ,_, ___ .1!? ~}I~_9f aC:;.9r.n.!T1~~!J@!f!!l:ig~!~?,i!,I~?~,sit?y~t,~,!! __ ",,,_ " ____ ,_ ._"' ___ " ___ ,"' __ .___________"__ ____,, ___ , ____ ''--_--'-__ -"'-_____ ~_--I h. Reduced Parking Capacity: I)<J Less than 1.5 Parking Spaces Per Unit o Less than 1.0 Parking Spaces Per Unit 2. Mixed-Use Developments I)<J a. At least 2% of Development Floorspace Supports Mixed Use (Non-Residential Tenants) D b. Half of Above Non-Residential Floorspace is Dedicated to Neighborhood Services n 3. Building Placement & Orientation a. Protect Soil & Existing Plants & Trees 4. Design for Walking & Bicycling V p a. Sidewalks Are Physically Separated from Roadways & Are 5 Feet Wide b. Traffic Calming StrategiesAre Installed by the Developer c. Provide Dedicated, Covered & Secure Bicycle Storage for 15% of Residents d. Provide Secure Bicycle Storage for 5% of Non-Residential Tenant Employees & Visitors 5. Social Gathering Places a. Outdoor Gathering Places for Residents (Average of 50 sf Per Unit Or More) b. Outdoor Gathering Places Provide Natural Elements (For compact sites onlv) 6. DeSign for Safety fnd Natural Surveillance MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2 ;r;t, . ---",-"-"""-·--,~---",,,,t-,.--,- .~ i Page 1 olf ~ n ~ o o o ~ ,:', a. All Main Entrances to the Building and Srte are Prominent and Visible from the Street b. Residence Entries Have Views to Callers (Windows or Double Peep Holes) & Can Be Seen By Neighbors 9. Cool Site a. At least 30% of the Site Includes Cool Site Techniques 10. Adaptable Buildings a. Include Universal Design Principles in Units 50% of Units 80% of Units b. Live/Work Units Include A Dedicated Commercial Entrance 11. Affordability a. A Percentage of Units are Dedicated to Households Making 80% or Less of AMI 10%of All Units 20% 30% 50%or More b, Development Includes Multiple Bedroom Units (At least 1 Unit with 3BR or More at or Less Than 80% AMI) ~. SITEWORK I 0 ,- I-- I-- ~ r __ ... • ~ ~ 1. Construction & Demolition Waste Management Divert a Portion of all Construction & Demolition Waste: a, Required : Divert 50% b. Divert 65% c. Divert 80% or more 2. Construction Material Efficiencies a. Lumber is Delivered Pre-Cut from Supplier (80% or More of Total Board Feet) b. Components of the Project Are Pre-Assembled Off-Site & Delivered to the Project 25% of Total Square Footage 50% of Total Square Footage 75% of Total Square Footage or More 3. Construction Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Management Plan a. An IAQ Management Plan is Written & Followed for the Project 1. Recycled Aggregate a. Minimum 25% Recycled Aggregate (Crushed Concrete) for Fill, Backfill & gther Uses 2. Recycled Flyash in Concrete a. Flyash or Slag is Used to Displace a Portion of Portland Cement in Concrete 20% 30% or More r 7 MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2 ~ ~'. ,,' ",,: >, '; ::', " '::, I I I ~ B en c Q) :J >-co ~ E Q) :J E e» :::t: 0 .!! Q) ~ en 0 c II) ~ U W 0::: 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 i 1 J I 1 1 : 1 i 1 i i 1 ! 14 1 : : -~. ,.-",.-."' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ! Possible Points -- j i Y ! ; i ! .2. .l i I 2 ; I 1 ! ! I 2 ! j 2 ! 2 2 i .~i1r=1:c. : i J 1 ; : I 1 : : : : 1 ! Page 2 off ® ~~~~~n·@ ';~~~~~ ~~N"EERPROJEC:rYNAMg"~' ... '. . .. '~'.: f l;::-,Cs<I'.,:,;:U' ... . .' .. :.: :-., '.' ...... 3 EJ EJ 3. FSC·Certified Wood for Framing Lumber a. FSC-Certified Wood for a Percentage of All Dimensional Studs: 40% 70% b. FSC-Certified Panel Products for a Percentage of All Sheathing (OSB & Plywood): 40% 70% 4. Engineered Lumber or Steel Studs. Joists, Headers & Beams V A a. 90% or More of All Floor & Ceiling Joists ~ b. 90% or More of All Studs 6 c. 90% or More of All Headers & Beams r-- r-- I R B 5. Optimal Value Engineering Framing a. Studs at 24" Centers on Top Floor Exterior Walls &lor All Interior Walls b. Door & Window Headers Sized for Load c. Use Only Jack & Cripple Studs Required for Load 6. Steel Framing a. Mitigate Thermal Bridging by Installing Exterior Insulation (At Least 1-lnch of Rigid Foam) 7. Structural Insulated Panels (SiPs) Or Other Solid Wall Systems a. SIPs Or Other Solid Wall Systems are Used for 80% of All: Floors Walls Roofs 8. Raised Heel Roof Trusses a. 75% of All Roof Trusses Have Raised Heels 9. Insulation a. All Ceiling, Wall & Floor Insulation is 01350 Certified OR Contains No Added Formaldehyde b. All Ceiling, Wall & Floor Insulation Has a Recycled Content of 50% or More 10. Durable Roofing Options a. Required: No Shingle Roofing OR All Shingle Roofing Has 3-Yr Subcontractor Guarantee & 20-Yr Manufacturer Warranty b. All Sloped Roofing Materials Carry a 40-Year Manufacturer Warranty 11. Moisture Shedding & Mold Avoidance a. Building(s) Include a Definitive Drainage Plane Under Siding b. ENERGY STAR Bathroom Fans are Supplied in All Bathrooms, Are Exhausted to the Outdoors & Are Equipped with Controls c. A Minimum of 80% of Kitchen Range Hoods Are Vented to the Exterior 12. Green Roofs a. A Portion of the Low-SlOpe Roof Area is Covered By A Vegetated or "Green" Roof 25% 50% or More D. SYSTEMS ~ 1. Passive Solar Heating a. Orientation: At Least 40% of the Units Face Directly South b. Shading On All South-Facing Windows Allow Sunlight to Penetrate in Winter, Not in Summer c. Thermal Mass: At Least 50% of the Floor Area Directly Behind South-Facing Windows is Massive D 2. Radiant Hydronic Space Heatil1g a. Install Radiant Hydronic Space Heating for lAO purposes (No Forced Air) in All Residences B 3. Solar Water Heating a. Pre-Plumb for Solar Hot Water b. Install Solar Hot Water System for Preheating DHW D 4. Air Conditioning with Advanced Refrigerants a. Install Air Conditioning with I~on-HCFC Refrigerants 5. Advanced Ventilation Practices ,--Perform the Following Practices in Residences: ~ a. Infiltration Testing by a C-HERS Rater for Envelope Sealing & Reduced Infiltration b. Operable Windows or Skylights Are Placed To Induce Cross Ventilation (At Least One Room In 80% of Units) c. Ceiling Fans in Every Bedroom & Living Room OR Whole House Fan is Used 6. Garage Ventilation ~ a. Garage Ventilation Fans Are Controlled by Carbon Monoxide Sensors (Passive Ven~lation Does Not Count) MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2 "iJ, ! 2 1 1 I __ ..... __ ....... I:.-._._ ........ _~i ...... _ ....... _ •. .,... 1 _ .. +!' ...... , ......... 1 1 2 1 ! : 2 ! 1 1 : 1 : 2 ; : 2 i j 2 ! i 2 i 2 i 2 i 2 : 1 I 1 ; ! 1 Y ! 1 : ..... _-, .. i i 4 ; 1 , ; 2 2 i 2 Possible Points ... , 2 , I ! 1 i ! J : 2 : i 2 ! I \ , 1 ! i ; 4 r ! ! 1 ! : ; \ 2 i , "-. : 1 ! 1 : . 1 i i i 1 i i Page 3 off t6 ...... , .. ' ;.',.,;,,,,:;',< .' , ENTER PRb~~GT: . c><J .' '.' '., ~'.'.'~' .. '.' ". . '.' .... ". R ' ~ Ale Installed Wherev9( Unear Fluorescent Lamps Are Used b: / Produds, ! Where", Compact I ,Ale Used 10% 20% 300/0 or more j ~~ay is Pro"dod in a V1ewable Pu~k: A"", ,'< "';( , .' ....... ~ .... , II .. , .... , .... ::--'+"''''-+1 ""2~-+"""- 1 .1-·· .. +· __ . __ ;': .. _ .. +i ---+ ... --1 1 :' I ._ .. 1,-_.1.-'--_'--'_,--,1'--1_-1 2 : 2 :--_.'_._ _.~_ ,,_ Z : 2 , . ._! ..... _ ~ -.. ~.+ :., ;'-- ~ ~~'~~'~'ln~II~~ ____________________________ -L __ ~_~;_~' __ --I a, .~a! ENERGY STAR Refrigerato<s. Al Localions I._~ _ .. ;~;~~.l:~~~ .... _ ......... _._ .... _. ,, __ . ____ _ - b, .~ Et£RGY STAR Dishwashe<s. Al locations AI ~he<s ~ ENERGY STAR-quaInod Residenlil11llode Dishwashe<s Use No ""'" ~an 6,5 Gallons Per C)c~ c. Inslal ENERGY STAR Clothes Wasbets kl A1ll0ca00ns d. ,In: EftIciency ; ; .. ___ .. _._ ... _ 1,--__ -,-1 -,--1 _'_--,-;_...., := __ .;. : _-:1",_ =t .. C--'--'''------.+:---L: a.Use Ret)ded Water !of Lafldscape Irrigation Of to Aush TolietsAAinals ~2 b.Use Ca~ Rainwater for Landscape Irrigation or 10 Flosh 5%01 Toilets &/0( Urinals ! 4 >< c. Water is: ! 10< Each Residential Un, & I ' : 4 • . 1. Construction Indoor Air Quality Man.gement o a. Pertorm a 2-Week Whole Building Flush-Out PrIor to Occupancy ~ Entryw.ys R a. Proykje Permanent Walk-Olf Mats aoo Shoe SloI'age at All Home Entrances b. Permanent Walk-Off Systems Are Provided at All Main Building Entrances & In Common Areas 3. RacycDng & W.sta Colldon [XJ a. Residences:, Provide Bulll·ln Recycling Center In Each Unit r , MF GIWnPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2 \ . . I : 1 , : I· -.. ---.~---.. + 1 ! I 1 , I , 2 Page 4 01 6 4. Use Low/No-VOC Paints & Coatings a. Low-VOC Interior Paints «50 gpl VOCS (Flat) and <150 gpl VOCs (Non-Flat)) -.. ~ -_ .. --T' ... _______ ... __ .i ... ___ .. ____ ... _ .. _.1.,._ ....... _ ... _ .. __ ---_~_ ... __ ._ ... _ ... _. __ .. _ •..• __ L .. __ .. ___ .. L_Q.~~_~ .. J ______ .... .1-. .. -- i 0.41 : I ~ In All Residences D In All Non-Residential Areas: .-.-.-..... -, .... _---_._-.---.-~-.---.----~ .. -.-.-.... -.-.-~-.-.--.. -. "'---'~-"-"-"-~-'-"-'-'----' ,---.'_ .•. _---_., ... _ ......... _--, ....•..•. -.. ' -_.-., .•..... _."""-... --. -.-'-" ---"",-,"'.', -.. -..... _ ...... _ ...•.. --_ .. - b. Zero-VOC: InteriorPaints «5 gpl VOCs (Flat)) B In All Residences 1 0.59 ! i ___ ... ________ I_~~II~~~_~~~i~~_n~~I.~r~~: __ . ___ ... _. ____ .. _______ .... _ ..... "'_ ._. . .... _. __ ._ .... _ ._ .... ___ ... _____ . _____ . ___ ... ____ '--_~ __ ---'-. ~_·O_ .. ~_4_i_-.. '_!·-_···_· .. -_· -_--'-~_-._--_ .. -_-.~ ..... c. Wood Coatings Meet the Green Seal Standards for Low-VOCs .-~-.-.-..... :~.~.::~;.~~;~~~I_~~~~~:-------.. -.... -.-. ___ .. _ ...... _ ... d. Wood Stains Meet the Green Seal Standards for Low-VOCs In All Residences In All Non-Residential Areas: 1.18 i "o~8iT._-._-_· ---' __ -I 5. Use Recycled Content Exterior Paint a. Use Recycled Content Paint on 50% of All Exteriors 1 6. Low-VOC Construction Adhesives a. Use Low-VOC Construction Adhesives «70 gpl VOCs) for All Adhesives 1 7. Environmentally Preferable Materials for Interior Finish Use Environmentally Preferable Materials for Interior Finish: A) FSC-Certified Wood, B) Reclaimed Lumber, C) Rapidly Renewable D) Recycled-Content or E) Finger-Jointed a. Residences: At Least 50% of Each Material: ~ i. cabinets ii. Interior Trim iii. Shelving iv. Doors _ .. __ ... ........ _. v:.~u.~~~!.!~P~ .. _._.__.. . .. __ .. __ ...... _ .. __ _._ ... _____ . - ---- b. Non-Residential Areas: At Least 50% of Each Material: i. cabinets ii. Interior Trim iii. Shelving iv. Doors v. Countertops 8. Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish Materials Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish Materials (Section 01350) for At Least 50% of Each Material Below: a. Residences: ~ i. Cabinets ii. Interior Trim .---------.-:;:-~;:;~----------.----_._ ........ _ .. _------.. __ .... -...... __ . __ .... _ .. -_ .. -._ ...... _-......... _ .. ---_ ... -... --. -_ ......... _._. ~ b. Non-Residential Areas: i. cabinets ii. Interior Trim iii. Shelving iv. Subfloor 9. Environmentally Preferable Flooring , : 0.59 ; ... -........... --.... -..' ..... -....... ; ...... --.. ---1. ........ --.-- ____ .. _:_ .. __ .. _ . j 0.59 1 __ -; .. . ___ ._. __ ... ~ .. ---... -.I::Q~.~~·:.[~~-~.-~{_.-.--.-.. - ! 0.59 ! : i 041 i i ... ~ .. -....... ----.. +-.. --.' .. -.-..... ~---....... --:--... _---.-' ; , 041 ' , :.:·.~.~:.--:.~·1::~--· .. ~~ ..• =r.Q~~4i:t'-:·.~ .. =·~ . .t:~.-:.-.~.~~ , 1 0.41 ! Use Environmentally Preferable Flooring: A) FSC-Certified or Reclaimed Wood, B) Rapidly Renewable Flooring Materials, C) Recycled-Content Ceramic Tiles, D) Exposed Concrete as Rnished Floor or E) Recycled-Content Carpet. Note: Flooring Adhesives Must Have <50 gpl VOCs. a. Residences: ~ i. Minimum 15% of Floor Area ii. Minimum 30% of Floor Area iii. Minimum 50% of Floor Area iv. Minimum 75% of Floor Area ............ ' .... _ .................. _ ..... _ ........... _-.... -. ...... .. b. Non-Residential Areas: i. Minimum 15% of Floor Area ii. Minimum 30% of Floor Area iii. Minimum 50% Of Floor Area iv. Minimum 75O/~f Floor Area 10. Low-Emitting FlOOring . .. _ .. ____ ._+ __ .. ____ . __ .i .. __ .. _ ... _J.Q.:_~~_L .... ...... _ ...... ____ ... _ ... ; ! 0.59 j · .. ·· .... -r·-·-·--· --I ·~~-~·.:·~·~r·~~~·~~·r~- ........... -..... --................................... --.... --'-----'-----'-----'---''---'--'------i 0.41 : a. Residences: Flooring Meets Section 01350 or CRI Green Label Plus Requirements (50% Minimum) I ........ _. L.Q.59 ! MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2 ~ Page 5 off IS tEHNITER.PRb~~CTNAME ·C.·L...--,-~ ..-,-... --.-c--.-. ··--,-.~·--,--.{\'L.;i .... . , b. Non-Residential ATeaS: Fkxxing Meets Sectioo 01350 or CRI Green Label Plus Requirements (500/0 Milimum) n • 11. Durable Cabfnllta [nstall Durable Cabinets in All: a Residences b. Non-Residential Areas 12. Furniture & Outdoor Play Structures a. Play Structures & Surfaces Have an Overall Average Recycled Content Greater Than 20% b. Environmentally Preferable ExleOOr Site FurnishIngs c. At least 250/0 of All newly Supplied Interior FurnIture has Environmentally Preferable Attributes 13. Vandalism Deterrence a. Project \ocIudes Vandalism Resistant Rnlshes and Strategies 1.lncofporate GreenPoint Checklist in Blueprints a. Required: Incorporate GreenPolnt Checklist In Blue rints 2. Operations & Maintenance Manuals , I ~ J , 0.41 '--,--, 1 ' --',-"'-"-"-'T "~-----I---i---i '-~--- ______ •. -: .• ___ • ____ }._. I.. _. ,.~ 1 1 , , y a. Provide O&M Manual 10 Building Maintenance Staff :'--}1-...!.._. ___ --f" _ _L ~~~~b~.~p~rn~~~e~07&M~M~a~nu=a~II~O~~~~~~~ _________________________ ~ ___ ~'__ 1 3. TransttOptiona a. Residents Are Offered. Free or Discounted Transit Passes 2 4. Educational Slgnage a. Educational Signage Highfighllng & Explaining the Project's Green Features Is Included 1 5. Vandalism Managemwrt. Plan a. Project Includes a VandaUsm Managemeot Plan for Dealing with Disturbances Post-Occupancy 1 6. Innovation: Ust innovative measures that meet the green building objectives of the Multifamily Guidelines. Enter up to a 4 Points in each category. Poinls will be evaluated by local jurisdiction or GreenPoinl rater. o lnnovaOOn III Community: Enter up k> 4 ·Points at left. Enter doscriptjon Mero b · . • o klnowtioo in Energy: Enlei up!O 4 PoInts at lett. Enter descripton heI8 o k'I00\'aIXn il WItIr: Enter up to 4 POOts allett Enter description hera Summa Points Achieved from Specific Categories Current POint Total Project Has Met All Recommended Minimum Requirements r MF GreenPOlnt Checklist . 2005 E~ltIon v,2 ., ~ 97.67 Page 6 01 S ATTACHMENT I Subm,iited by Applicant 2198 SIXTII STREET, SUITE 201·BERKELEY, CA 94710 TEL: (510)644-3123 . FAx: (510)644-3859 GEOSCIENCE & ENGINEERING CONSULTING May 21,2009 Ms Elena Lee Senior Planner City of Palo Alto JUN ~lJ 2fiGD 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Addressing the proposed Birch Plaza Gland G2 mitigation measures for the proposed Birch Street Project, 2650 and 2640 Birch St., 305 Grant Ave., and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto, California Dear Ms. Lee: Stellar Environmental Solutions, Inc. (SES) is providing this sumn1ary of how the referenced G 1 and G2 mitigation measures ate being addressed on behalf of the Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership. The G I-Mitigation Measure is addressed by: r , • The above ground area of the proposed building does not overlay the bore B-4 that showed the highest concentration ofTCE in soil gas (from 15 feet bgs) • Bore B-4 does overlay the area of the garage but the garage is not a normal point of exposure as people are transient in a garage. • Risk evaluations assume potential exposure for commercial space at 8 hours a day, five days a week and residential exposure at 24 hours a day, seven days a week. • The soil will be screened for potential VOC while excavation although since no local source area is responsible for the VOC, any encountered soil with VOC's it is expected to be minor, if detected. Ms. Elena Lee May 21, 2009 Page 2 The G2 Mitigation Measure is addressed by: • There being no vapor instruction risks of any regulatory significance based on the data collected and the Treadwell & Rollo risk assessment using the highest TCE concentration (6,400 J..lg/M3) found at B-4 with conservative site conditions. • The California Departn1ent of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) screening model used clays as the default soil based on the property eight bore logs • The DTSC risk model using the worst case scenario assumptions showed 10-7 risk, as discussed in the attached Treadwell and Rolla technical letter. • The 10-7 risk (equivalent to one excess cancer in 10,000,000) is considered to be insignificant risk, one in 1,000,000 being the most restrictive normally used by EPA, DTSC, and/or the RWQCB. We trust this addresses your concerns. Please call me at 510-644-3123 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Richard S. Makdisi, P.G., R.E.A. Principal geochemist cc-Harold Hohbach--Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership. r , Stellar Environmental Solutions, Inc. '~ ·Treadwell&RoIlo 6 May 2009 Project 4758.01 IVlr. Harold Hohbach Hohbach Enterprises, Inc. 29 Lowery Drive Atherton, California 94027 Subject: Results of Vapor Intrusion Model Screening 2650 and 2640 Birch Street, 306 Grant Avenue, and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue Palo Alto, California Dear Mr. Hohbach: On behalf of Hohbach Enterprises, Inc., Treadwell & Rollo, Inc. presents these vapor intrusion modeling results related to trichloroethene (TCE) impacts in soil gas at the properties located at 2650 and 2640 Birch Street, 305 Grant Avenue, and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto, California (Site). This vapor intrusion modeling was performed at your request on 14 April 2009. Draft results from this modeling effort were previously provided to your environmental consultant, Stellar Environmental Solutions. The purpose of the vapor intrusion mO,deling was to assess the risks to human health via the indoor air inhalation pathway associated with the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), principally TCE, in soil gas at the Site. A simple screening version of the Johnson/Ettinger vapor intrusion model! (J/E model) developed by the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC) was used in this assessmentl . Vapor intrusion modeling was performed utilizing data collected in September 2008 during a site investigation performed by Stellar Environmental Solutions during which TCE was detected in soil gas at a concentration of 6,400 micrograms per cubic meter (j..Ig/m3) at boring location B4 at a depth of 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). This result is the highest TCE soil gas concentration detected at the Site. A Site map and boring logs provided by Stellar Environmental Solutions are provided in Attachment A. Soil boring logs for B1, B3 and B6 indicate that the upper 15 feet of the Site is mostly underlain by fine- grained soil (silt and clay). Exceptions include a laterally discontinuous silty gravel layer from ground surface to 1 foot bgs in borings B1 and B3, and from 4 feet bgs to 11 feet bgs in boring B6. Also, gravelly clay was encountered at about 11 feet bgs to 17 feet bgs in boring B1. A log for boring B4 was not prepared. Soil boring logs are included in Attachment A. Based on the boring logs, silty clay was selected as the predominant soil type for use in the vapor intrusion model. Since no physical analyses have been performed on the soil present at the Site, the default parameters for silty clay contained in the DTSC version of the J/E model were used (bulk density, porosity, and soil water content). In addition to the use of a silty clay soil in the model, the following input parameters were used in place of the DTSC default parameters: • The Chemical CAS number 79016 (for TCE) was used. • A soil gas TCE concentration of 6,400 j..Ig/m3 was used. r 1 Johnson, P.c., and R.A. Ettinger, 1991. Heuristic Model for Predicting the Intrusion of Contaminant Vapors into Buildings. Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 25, no. 8, pgs. 1445-1452. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2004. Interim Final, Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air. 15 December. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 555 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 1300 SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94111 T 4159559040 F 415 955 9041 www.treadwellrollo.com Mr. Harold Hohbach Hohbach Enterprises, Inc. 6 May 2009 Page 2 Treadwell&RoIlo • A depth below grade to the bottom of the enclosed space floor (Le. slab thickness) of 15 cm was used as recommended by the DTSC2 for a "slab-on-grade" structure with no basement. • A soil gas sampling depth below grade of 457 cm (approximately 15 feet) was used. The use of these input parameters in the DTSC screening version of the JjE model produced an incremental risk from vapor intrusion to indoor air of 3.8 x 10-7 for carcinogens and a hazard quotient from vapor intrusion to indoor air of 7.8 x 10-4 for noncarcinogens. The calculated incremental risk is below the common residential threshold value of 1 x 10-6 for cancer risk and below the threshold value of 1.0 for the hazard quotient for acute risk. Attachment B provides the input sheet, calculation sheets, and results sheets from the DTSC screening tool. We appreciate the opportunity to prepare and present these vapor intrusion modeling results. If you would like to discuss these results with us, please do not hesitate to contact either of the undersigned at 415-955-9040. Michael D. Chendorain Senior Project Scientist 47580103.MDC Attachments cc: Richard Makdisi, Stellar Environmental Solutions· r , . ~~ inis, PhD, PE Senior Associate r , Treadwell&RoIIo Attachment A Site Information Provided By Stellar Environmental Solutions o LEGEND I 50 I <ri > « C a:l .... G 0 C") C") 0 C\I C") • Existing key HP monitoring well location - ---Subject property boundary • B 1 SES Sept. 2008 soil vapor sampling locations All concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter (tig/m3) TCE = Trichloroethene TCA = 1,1, 1-trichloroethane DCE = 1, 1-dichloroethene ND = None detected above laboratory reporting limit Parking for Superior Courthouse • F34A F35B 260 Sheridan Avenue ~ F32A F32B I.1!i:II 410 ~ NO I ~6,400 I BIRCH STREET I.I!L.) 42 IlI!I)I NO I..L!!.;J NO r I w ::J Z w > « ... z « a: C!J I1!!JI NO I I1!!JI 2001 / '\ I~ 60..1\ I -B8130~ ~rant~v~o ~ ~ ~~ ~4-- --otl I I .". B7 B6 Bircl1 Birch 306-320 B3 I L -----=r ----St. ~ Sheridan Ave. I ~ NO ./ I '----Parking I IIlL!LJ NO I B5 I ~:lI320 I IB1 B2 I I.I!:;;) NO I J L.. ____________ _ 360 Sheridan Ave. / I1!i.:I NO I IRI NO I Apt. Complex ASH STREET Il.L!:l:I NO I ~Nol 398 Sheridan Ave. _--+-1 __ -,-Jerusalem - T / Baptist Church • F29A1U I w ::J Z w > « z « c a: w J: tJ) APPROX. SCALE IN FEET 1" = 50 FT. 303-315 . Sheridan Ave. Apt. Complex I 345 Sheridan Ave. The Mayfields Apt. Complex I 1 SEPTEMBER 2008 SOIL VAPOR ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR TCE, TCA AND DCE * ~u~lL[L~~ ~ ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC """""" GEOSCIENCE « ENGINEERING CONSULTI.~O 2650 & 2640 Birch St., 305 Grant Ave., & f-B...;;,Y_: _M_J_C ___ ......... S_E_P_T_E_M_B_E_R_2_0_0B---i 306 & 320 Sheridan Ave., Palo Alto, CA Figure 4 , , ,B711 :. I c ____ ~ , ~------~ I I Existing 3-story apartment building ,--- , , ,. , 66 • ~--- B5 • , , , , , 1 ______ - r---, , , , , , , "--------,I .' '!.. 01' I~' , ~=-_ _ !I: I B1·· B2 ___ __________ 1 ______ - LEGEND 81 • Subject property boundary SES Sept. 2008 boring location Existing site buildings -tr ST~rlrl#),~ ~ENYIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC GEOSCIENCE Ii ENOIHEF.W;O CO~SUI.TIIIO Existing 3-story apartment building o 20 I I APPROXIMATE SCALE" 1" = 20 FEET BIRCH PLAZA PROPOSED BUILDING PLAN WITH SOIL BORE LOCATIONS 2650 & 2640 Birch St., 305 Grant Ave., & 306 & 320 Sheridan Ave., Palo Alto, CA '- Figure 5 by:MJC OCTOBER 2008 f t:r §TE tLfL~lFt ~E NVlRONMENTAL SOLUTJONS, INC :Jt;-a; GEOSCIENCE &: ENGINEER.ING CONSULTING PROJECT Birch Plaza LOCATION Palo Alto, CA TOTAL DEPTH _--=2",3...::fe""e::...t b"'9"'s ____ _ SU RFACE ELEV. _-",3",-0-,-,ft-"(a""m",,sCLI) ____ _ DRILLING COMPANY _--=E""C"'A ___ _ Soil Boring log BORING NUMBER -=B:..:...l _ Page _1 _ of OWNER Court House Plaza Co. PROJECT NUMBER "'20"'0.::..8-.:::35"--______ _ BOREHOLE DIA. _2::..:.::..:25::...:i:..::nc""h _______ _ WATER FIRST ENCOUNTERED .!..:19::...:f~ee':.!..t!Olbgt:.s __ _ DRILLING METHOD GeoProbe 5410 Direct Push DRILLER Brent GEOLOGIST H. Pietro paoli DATE DRILLED 9/1512008 ~ i::r S u ~ [L lL #\ l??,. ",,4 ... , E NVIRONMENTAL SOLlJTIONS, INC ~ GEOSCIENCE &: ENGINEER.ING CONSULTING PROJECT Birch Plaza LOCATION Palo Alto, CA Soil Boring log BORING NUMBER -=Bc::...3 _ Page _1 _ of OWNER Court House Plaza Co. PRO,IECT NUMBER 2=::0~08:!::-3",,5~ _____ _ TOTAL DEPTH _--=2:;::8...::fe::..::e::...t b""'g"'s ____ _ BOREHOLE DIA. _2::::.::::25::..:i""ncech'---_____ _ SURFACE ELEV. _--",30"-,-,-ft-",(ae.:.m""sl",,,) ____ _ DRILLING COMPANY _--=E""C'-'-A ___ _ WATER FIRST ENCOU~ITERED 26.5 feet bgs DRILLING METHOD GeoProbe 5410 Direct Push DRILLER Brent GEOLOGIST H. Pietropaoli DATE DRILLED 9/15/2008 DEPTH (feet) r--O r-- r-- r-- HO- r-- r-- r-- r-- H5- r-- r-- GRAPHIC LOG 63-15 SG-3 ~-% ~ -20- - - -- - --. • • • • • • • r25--, • • • • • • • . P.I.D. READING o DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION GM, loose, silty gravel CL, dark grey brown silty clay, dry, hard, 10% coarse sand, red brick fragments (fill) ML, mottled olive grey orange 0.2 clayey silt, stiff, dry Higher clay fraction @ 7-8' 0.1 Moist to wet @ 13', loose 0.4 CL, mottled olive yellow orange silty clay, moist, plastic Y SP, mottled olive red brown silty fine sand, moist, loose -7 • • • • • • • • 'Sl Saturated @ 26' -~)~--r_~-r~--~~------~--------------------~ REMARKS Notes: PID ~ Photoionization Detector "Readings" are in parts per million per volume air (ppmv) Continuous core sampling-100% core recovery unless specified otherwise Grab groundwater sample collected. Temporary screen set at 19-24' bgs . ( SG-3 ) Soil-gas sample collected for laboratory analysis. __ ~LLLLLL ____ _ -- .f!:., EI~~ ~"1'2~~iS ~o.!!,~!~ __ Bottom of boring = 28 ft. bgs IL----=6~3-:..!1:o!.5_-.J1 -30- - - Soil sample collected for laboratory analysis. ~_~ ________ L-__ ~ __________ ~ _______ ~ '5l.... First encountered groundwater Y Equilibrated groundwater level * ~u ~lL[L ~~ /A,,,!,E NVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC .;:. ~ .... GEOSCIENCE &: ENGINEE~rNG CONSULTING PROJECT Birch Plaza LOCATION Palo Alto, CA Soil Boring Log BORING NUMBER --=-B-=--5_ Page _1 _ of OWNER Court House Plaza Co. PROJ ECT NUMBER 2::..:0.=,;OS=---3::..:5 ______ _ TOTAL DEPTH _--=2""S'-'f"'ee:..:t-,ob"'gs=---____ _ BOREHOLE DIA. _2::.;.::;25:...;i,:.:;nc""h'--_____ _ SIJ RFACE ELEV. ---'---"'30::...:ft"'("'-am"'s""I)'--___ _ WATER FIRST ENCOUNTERED 27.5 feet bgs DRILLING METHOD GeoProbe 5410 Direct Push DR I LLI NG COM PANY _-=E=CA'-'-----___ _ DRILLER Brent GEOLOGIST H. Pietropaoli DATE DRI LLED 9/15/200S DEPTH (feet) o 5 10 15 GRAPHIC LOG B5-15 P.I.D. READING 0 0.2 ---- 0 ---- 0 ---- SG-5 DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSifiCATION Organic rich topsoil CL, dark brown to black silty clay, stiff, hard, dry ML, olive brown gravelly silt, dry, hard ML, mottled reddish brown grey clayey gravelly silt, damp, slight plastic. ,,25% angular fragments Becomes moist at 12' CL, yellowish brown clay, plastic, moist, soft ML, yellowish brown clayey silt, soft, moist, sl. plastiC REMARKS Notes: PID = Photoionization Detector "Readings" are in parts per million per volume air (ppmv) Contin uous core . sampling-100% core 20-f-J,.l-'-+J....L,1-I-J,.-L--Y-J....L,,J....1--!+---+---------------1 recovery unless 25 30 CL, olive silty clay, moist, plastic. soft, dry white sandy patches ,,114" -+-rfrrrrr'rrfTTrr-fr-r+---{'Sl CL, light gray gravelly clay, moist, stiff ---- I ML, mottled yellow olive clay, soft, I plastic, moist 1 ______ ----------- Bottom of boring = 2S ft. bgs specified otherwise Grab groundwater sample collected. Temporary screen set at 19-24' bgs. ( SG-5 ) Soil-gas sample collected for laboratory analysis. B5-15 Soil sample collected for laboratory analysis. 'Sl.... First encountered groundwater .y. Equilibrated groundwater level * S T~L [L#~~ ~ENV1RONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC '" wi"': .. GEOSCIENCE &. ENGINEERING CONS[JLTING PROJECT Birch Plaza LOCATION Palo Alto, CA Soil Boring log BORING NUMBER .=B:::.,6_ Page _1 _ of OWN ER Court House Plaza Co. PROJ ECT N U M BE R 2""0:::;08""-3""5'-----_____ _ TOTAL DEPTH _....::2::::4-"fe",e",t b""g"'s ____ _ BOREHOLE OIA. _2::.: . .:::25~i~nc~h'___ ______ _ SURFACE ELEV. ~-:::;30~ft;..J(~am.:::s~I) ____ _ WATE R FI RST EN C 0 U NTE R ED ",20"",f""ee'-'.t ""bg""s __ _ . DRILLING COMPANY _--=E~CA~ ___ _ DRILLING METHOD GeoProbe 5410 Direct Push DRILLER Brent GEOLOGIST H. Pletropaoli DATE DRILLED 9/16/2008 DEPTH (feet) o 5 10 15 20 25 r ! : GRAPHIC LOG ] .. .. P.I.D. READING o o 0.2 0.4 o DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION 4 inches concrete CL. Dark brown silty clay, abundant organics, roots, dry, stiff GM. medium brown silty gravel. fill (?), loose. fragments :51-1/2", damp GM, medium brown'silty gravel . . fragments :51". damp. sli. plastic matrix ML. mottled olive yellow reddish brown silty clay, damp. slightly plastic CL, mottled olive green. reddish brown silty clay. soft. damp 10 moist. plastic Bottom of boring = 24 ft. bgs REMARKS Notes: PID = Pholoionization Detector "Readings" are in parts per million per volume air (ppmv) Continuous core sampling-100% core recovery unless specified otherwise Grab groundwater sample collected. Temporary screen set at 19-24' bgs. ( SG-1 ) Soil-gas sample collected for laboratory analysis. B6-15.5 30 Soil sample collected for ~ laboratory analysis. iLL_~ _____ ~ __ ~ ________ ~ ______ ~ '5l. Firsl encountered groundwaler r , Treadwell&RoIIo Attachment B lIE Model DTSC Version Worksheets SG-SCREEN Reset to Defaults ... , I M~RE I I M~RE I I M~RE I DTSC/HERD Last Update: 11/1/03 ENTER Chemical CAS No. (numbers only, no dashes) I 79016 ENTER Depth below grade to bottom of enclosed space floor, LF (15 or 200 em) Soil Gas Concentration Data ENTER ENTER Soil Soil gas OR gas conc., conc., Cg Cg (j..lg/m' (ppmv) 6.40E+03 I I ENTER ENTER ENTER Soil gas Vadose zone sampling Average SCS depth soil soil type below grade, temperature, (used to estimate Ls Ts soil vapor (em) (0G) ~ermeability) DATA ENTRY SHEET OR DTSC Vapor Intrusion Guidance Interim Final 12104 (last modified 1121/05) Chemical Trichloroethylene ENTER User-defined vadose zone soil vapor permeability, kv (em2) ~.15 I 457 T 24 SIC I I ENTER Van dose zone SCS soil type ENTER ENTER Vadose zone soil dry bulk density, ENTER Averaging Averaging ENTER Vadose zone soil total ENTER ENTER Vadose zone soil water-filled porosity, ewv (cm3/em3) ENTER time for time for Exposure Exposure carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency, ATc ATNc ED EF (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) (day~rJ ENTER Average vapor flow rate into bldg. (Leave blank to calculate) QsoiJ (LIm) DTSC Indoor Air Guidance Unclassified Soil Screening Model I 2650 & 2640 Birch Street 5/6/2009 2:53 PM -. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES SHEET Henry's Henry's Enthalpy of law constant law constant vaporization at Normal Unit Diffusivity Diffusivity at reference reference the normal boiling Critical risk Reference Molecular in air, in water, temperature, temperature, boiling point, point, temperature, factor, cone., weight, Da Dw H TR LlHY•b Ta Tc URF RfC MW ~, END \ ",;J&- 1 of 1 -~ \ ~;fi.- DTSC 1 HERD Last Update: 11/1/03 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATIONS SHEET Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Floor- Source-soil effective soil soil soil wall building air-filled total fluid intrinsic relative air effective vapor seam Soil separation, porosity, saturation, permeability, permeability, permeability, perimeter, gas LT 9aY Ste k; krg kv .><crack conc. (cm) (cm3/cm3) (cm 3/cm3) (cm2) (cm2) (cm2) (cm) (f.lg/m3) Bldg. ventilation rate, Qbuilding (cm3/s) 442 0.265 0.284 1.52E-09 0.844 J 1.28E-09 4,000 6.40E+03 3.39E+04 Area of Vadose Crack-Crack Enthalpy of Henry's law Henry's law Vapor zone enclosed space below grade, to-total depth vaporization at constant at constant at viscosity at effective Diffusion area below ave. soil ave. soil ave. soil ave. soil diffusion path ratio, grade, temperature, temperature, temperature, temperature, coefficient, length, As (cm2) 11 Zcrack liHv.Ts HTs H'TS f.lTS Deify Ld (unitless) (cm) (cal/mol) (atm-m 3/mol) (unitless) (g/cm-s) (cm2/s) (cm) 1.00E+06 5.00E-03 15 8,382 9.80E-03~ 4.02E-01 1.80E-~ 4.10E-03 442 Exponent of Infinite Average Crack equivalent source Convection Source vapor effective foundation indoor path vapor Crack flow rate diffusion Area of Peclet attenuation length, conc., radius, into bldg., coefficient, crack, number, coefficient, Lp Csource rcrack QSOil Dcrack Acrack exp(Pef) (l (cm) (f.l9/m3) (cm) (cm3/s) (cm2/s) (cm2) (unitless) _umitless) Infinite source bldg. conc., CbUilding (f.l9/m3) 15 6.40E+03 1.25 2.26E+00 4.10E-03 5.00E+03 3.01 E+OO 7.31 E-05 4.68E-01 Unit risk factor, URF (jlg/m3r1 Reference conc., RfC (mg/m3) 2.0E-06 6.0E-01 END DTSC Indoor Air Guidance Unclassified Soil Screening Model 2650 & 2640 Birch Street 5/6/2009 2:52 PM ..... , 2650 & 2640 Birch Street RESUL TS SHEET INCREMENTAL RISK CALCULATIONS: Incremental risk from vapor intrusion to indoor air, Hazard quotient from vapor intrusion to indoor air, carcinogen noncarcinogen (unitless) (unitless) 3.8E-07 7.5E-04 MESSAGE SUMMARY BELOW: 1 of 1 I ., SCSSoiType K,(cnYhl C 0.6. Ct. 0.3< L 0.50 l$ ~38 $ 2&78 5C 0.47 SCL ~ .. SI 1.82 SIC ~40 SICt. ~ .. SIl n76 SL .... CAS No. Che~ 56235carbon!~.nctilOrio't' $77"9CntJ,(f~ ~4pM'Q.Ho:H;L;r;oa~l G0297Ellylether &0571Ciddfln 67a41Acetone 8765301Iorot .. 'fm m21Ho'~chlOrce-t".I)r.fo 71432801l.ClI'\e 71550I.I.I·TrlchIotoelhane ~~=¥hb1 748J9Melhylbt~ 748T3Ila:t'ytcNo:";:!c{~lt"oC'.h'lI~1!1 74903H)'d~lIncyanj(Je 7495.J ... ettrytenebromide 75003 (::lIlQrooUlllne{ilti't:r1d"llQlWXJ) :!: ==OC!) (c1IIoI00tho.-.l:) 7501O~c:ct.,ld~ 7I5092r.le:tlyteNJcJlbnd"! 7515OCllrtondisu66e 75218Elt"Ir'...-.ooafdc 75252BlOI'fI)lo-m 7S274.1!10/"I-.»cM::!'Orr~o 7529G2-C1'I~ 753431.1..c;.-..h:cr.Ie'J'ldl~ 7&3S41.I..QlchIoroeU'ly"nll 75456ChlOto:flftuommethll1le 7S694TrlchlOtoftJorornethane 75716 OichJotodlllucwmeUlllne 7613't.l.2·TrldlIoro-I.2.2-U"!1tuoro.\lla 76448H~~d".bf ~~~=~lopetllacJklne 786751,2~ =~~r~::~a~bUUlnonel 79018U.cnbr:M:I.hY'ene 79209 MIII'IyIlIQ1111\e 79345I.f.2.2·rO\JIICh:.)rC'tOl8~ 794692 .. 'II~"OpMe Me28 Melhyknelhll~e 83J2gA09nap/Vl6ne M137FIUO/ene 87683.I .... ac::h>J:'/l·I.J.~JI8r:e S8~o-f{l\roIoiOJe1I.e 91203N.atllln~ 915T52..ue~lh ... ne m24Dij)llenyl 95478o-Xyttne SI05Otl.2..Qi:hlorcbenz:ene 955782-ChlOtcphenot 956361.2.4-Trltnelhyliben:efMl 961641.2.:s...Tric1'lL'I~1o/l 96333"'elhyJlcry"Ia 97632EltJyltl'leCtllayflti 9&OG61et1-8UTy1be1u:QtttI 98828Cumll\e ==:e l00414EI.hy1bt.nz:ene l0042S$tyr.ne l00447e-~o 10052781fl.z:alddryde 103651n-PrQl)'flbenrene 10 .. 515n-8u1y1bemene 10&42Jp.Xylane 1064571."·~eM 10~1.;H'IQ;tM'C4!""''''(a'Jrf.tn6of..-t; 1069001.J.8utDdl~ 107028AcrolOin 1070621.:!.C:;cNo~ 107131 ~ .. .tyi(tI:IIi!tl 10eo54Vqtleu,-,e 108101 Mw.,tisobutylllMone( .. -me\hy1.~ 108JS3m-Xyiene 10M781.3.6-Tri"netlWylbenl9n8 ~=~:~~ 108907~rmme 1~I-CNorobutane I10009Fwan 110543H .... 8~ "'''448~2..;~)ttt:e-t 115297 EnclOsulfan 1187 .. , H&x&;:hl()lob!:nre..... 12082.11.2.4-TrichloIOOenune ~=~==~:::31) 12SQ87MllCNcryla"litrile 12'B9Q82-CNoro-l,3-butadiene(chb/qlf 1271&1 TwatIIlM:-othyleno :==~nJn ,_...autylbellz:ene ''''786 EtlWylecailti l~cls--l.2.()kb1onJeltlyf!ne 1566051rM1·1.2.Ofct1io1"oell'ryien. 2O-59926enz:OI.bl'uor.In'N!"I1I! 2I&o19CJKr".er-e J09OO2~11rin 31904G:J'CIha-HC~t'\Jo.."'.>f!~} 541731'.3·0idliorobenJene ::~:~~==~~ 1634C44UT8E 7439976"'erOJry(el~1) (' 1 50i Properties lOOkup Table BU&OetIsty G.1(t/em) N(unitless) M(unitIBSs) n{eml/an') O.(cm'fcm') MeanGl'8lnOiamtter(cm) (~cm') 0.01496 '.253 0.2019 0.459 0.098 0.0092 .... 3 0.01581 1.416 0."'" ~"2 om. 0.016 .. .. 0.01112 un 0.3207 .., .. 0.061 0.020 '.59 0.03475 1.746 0."273 0.390 0.049 ~ ... •. 62 0.03524 3.177 0.8M2 o.J" M., 0.0 .... .. 00 0.03l42 '.208 O.lm 0= 0.117 0.025 1.63 0.02109 1.330 0.2481 0.384 0.063 0.029 '.63 0 ...... '.679 ~-0 .... O.osa O.OOCS '.35 0.01622 1.3'21 0.243) no •• 0.111 MOlO '.38 ~0083' 1.521 0.3425 0.462 0 .... 0 ..... '.37 0.00506 1.663 0.3987 0.439 0 .... 0.011 1.49 0.02687 1.01411 0.3099 0."" 0.039 0.030 '.62 Ch~tn8~locl!.UPTeblt = ~~( law~~~nl """"""" :l O::Ar DiffusMty ..... , ~::"'I IIllWtefwnc:o reference lnwsl«. soIU~. ten'\plrallJre. 18t1"1gel'1lurw. ... D. D. If H T. (em'to) an't, ""'~ C_, unijes:s .1nHn't"""1 rC) 1.74e+02 7.8OE-02 a.80E.()6 7.93E+02 1.24E4OO l.03E-02 25 1.20E·05 I.t6E-Ol <l37E-o& S.6D~2 ..... -03 ".65-E-OS .. t07Et003 1.42E-02 7.304E-08 7"",,'" S.73E-04 1.4OE-05 2. 5.13E*OO 7.82£.02 &61E-08 5.68E+o.t 1.35E.OO 3.29£-02 .. 2.t4EtO<t I.25E.02 ".74E-06 1.~-O1 6.18E-04 1.51E-05 2' 3~E.!: 1.24E-OI 1.14E-05 I.ooe·oe 1.S9E..03 3.87E-05 .. UME-OI 1.00E* 7.~E~ I.~E-Ol 3.6&E-03 .. 1.78E-*03 2.50~3 6.80E-OO 5.ooE101 1.S9E~1 3.a8E.(I3 .., 5.89EIOI UOE.02 9.80E-08 1.79E+03 2.27E.(I1 5.54E-03 .. 1.IOE+02 7.80E.02 8.8JE-06 1.33E+03 7.03E.(I1 1.72e.02 .. 9.77E+04 1.56E-02 4.46E.(16 I.00E.(I1 &46E.o.t I.54E-05 .., 4.47E'06 1.44E.02 5.87E.(I6 1.20E.(I1 ........ ~09E ... .. 1.05E+Ol 7.28E-02 1.21E-05 1.52Et04 ........ 6..22E-03 25 2.12ElOO 1.26E.(I1 a ...... ..".003 3.6IE.(I1 UOE-03 .., 3.&OE+OO UJe-OI 2.10E-05 1.00E+O& 5.44E..().3 I.33E.(I4 .. t.26E+OI 4.JOE-02 8ME.(I8 1.19Et04 3.52E-02 8.59E-04 .. 4.40EIOO 2.71E.(I1 1.15E.(I$ 5.68E+OJ 3.6IE.(I1 a&OE.(I3 25 1.86E+Ol I.06E-01 1.Z3E.(I$ &eoEIOJ 1.10Eloo 2.69E.(I2 25 4.20ElOO ...J'.28E.(I1 Ui&E.05 ~::~:: 1.42£-03 ;.~~: 2S 1.06E+00 1.24E.(II 1.41E.05 3.23E..().3 .. I.I7E+Ol 1.01E.(I1 1.17E-05 I.30EI04 .... -02 2.lae-03 .. 4.S1E+ot 1.04£.(11 I.ooE.05 1.19EIOJ Cl4E"00 3.02E.(I2 .., 1.33E'00 1.04£-01 1.45E-05 3.04E~ 2.27E-02 5.54E-04 25 8.7IE'01 1.C9E-02 1.03£-05 3.10EtQ3 2.41E-02 5.S8E-04 .. 5.5OEIOI 2.98E-02 I.DtlE.1J.5 6.7"EIOJ 6.54E.02 1.60E.(I3 .. 9.14E+OO &88E.(I2 1.01E.(I5 3.T3EIOJ 5.93E.(I1 1.45E-02 .. 3.18EIOI 7."2E.(I2 1.05E-05 5.05EIOJ 2.3OE.(I1 5.6IE.(I3 2S 5.89E+Ol 9.00E-02 1,00E-05 2.2:$£103 1.07ElOO 2.SOE-02 .., 4.T9EIOI 1.01E-Ol I.2SE-05 2.ooE+OO 1.10ElOO 2.70E.(I2 :IS ".97Et02 8.1OE.(I2 9.70E.06 1.10Et03 3.97E·00 9J58E-02 .. 4.57E+02 6.65E-02 9.9lE-06 2.80E"02 1.40EIOI 3."2E.(I1 :IS 1.I1E+O" 7.&oE.(I2 &"20E.(16 1.1OEt02 U7EIO' ".80E.(I1 :IS 1."'E+08 1.12£.(12 5.69E-06 l.aoE.(I1 8.05EIOI l.46ElOO 2S 2.00E+05 1.8IE-02 7.21E.(16 !.80ElOO l.l0E"00 2.69E.02 25 2.59E+()() &60E.(I2 9.JOE-08 8.5OEI04 .(JI3E.(I" 1.18E-O$ 2S ".37E+OI 7.82E.(I2 8.73E.(16 2.eoEIOJ 1.15E.(I1 2.79E-03 25 2.3OE ... 8.0aE-Ol 9.«)E-06 2.23Et05 2.29E-03 5.:!I8E-05 25 5.0IEIOI 7.80E-02 6.80E.(16 ... ael03 3.T.lE.(I2 9. 11 E-04 .., 1.66EI02 7.90E-02 9.10E.(I6 I.47EI03 4.21E.(I1 1.0JE.02 2S ~2OE'" 1.0"E-Ol ~:=: 2.00E·03 4.ME.(I3 I. 18E.o.t 25 9.33E101 7.IOE-02 2..96E'03 1."'E.(I2 3 ..... E-04 2S 1.17E+01 9.23i!.(I2 1.0 I E.os I.1OE'04 5.03E.(I3 1.Z3E-04 .. 6.98E+OO 7.1OE-02 &SOE-06 UiOE·04 I.38E.02 3.36E-04 :IS 7.08EtOO .... 21E-02 7.69E.(16 3.57E'00 6.3<E-03 1.55E-04 :IS 1.38E+O" 3.63E.02 7.88E.(16 1.9R-00 2.SOE-03 6.3<E ... 2S 5.37EIO" 5.6IE.(I2 6.16E.(I8 ~:~: 3.33E-OI & 13E..().3 .., 3.24Et02 5.87E.(I2 8.67E.oo 5.IIE.(I" 1.25E!-O$ 2S 2.00E--OJ .... E-02 7..50E.(16 3.\OEIOI 1.98E.(I2 ".&2E-O" 2S 2.8IEt()J 5.22E-02 7.75oE.(I6 2. .. seIOI 2.'lE-02 5. 17E.(I" 2S ".34Et03 ".0"E-02 3.15E.(I6 7.ee100 1.2JE.(I2 2.99E.(I" 2S 3.83Etm &70E-02 1.00E.(I5 1.78E+02 2.12E.(II 5.f8E-03 25 6.17E102 &90E-02 UOE.(16 1.56£+02 7.77E.(I2 1.90£-03 .. 3.88EI02 5.01E.(I2 ~ ...... 2.20E+O" 1.60E-02 3.00E.(I" .. I.35EtOO 8.06E.02 7.92E-06 5.70EIOI ,..,. ... G.14E-03 .. 2.20EIOI 7.10E.(I2 7.90E.(16 1.75E+OJ 1.61f-02 ".OSE-04 .. 4.53E+OO 9.78E.(I2 I.02E-05 6.00Et04 7.88E..(I3 1.87E.(I4 .., 2.~+O1 6.53E.(I2 8.37E.(I6 3.57EIOJ 3.4oCE.(I2 &4OE .... .. 7.71E.002 6..G5E.(I2 8.02E-06 ~IOI ".87E.(I1 1.19E-02 2S ".89'E+02 6.5OE.(I2 7.IOE-06 8.13E"01 ".7"E+Ol 1.16fiOO 2. 5.T7E+OI 6.OOE.(I2 8.T.lE.(16 &IJEIOJ ".3aE.(I" 1.07E-05 .. 6.46E+01 7.GOE.(I2 &60E.(I8 2.0ge103 9.82:E.(I" ~39E'" 2. 3.63E102 7.~.02 7.80E.(16 1.6SlEtOl 3.22E.(I1 7.86E-03 .. 7.76E.02 7.10E.02 8.00E.(16 3.10E+02 1.12E.(I1 2.74E.(I3 .. 6.1"E.Ol 7.5OE.02 7.80E-08 i~: 1.1OE-02 ... I"E-04 25 ".59E.Ol 7.21E-02 9.07E.(16 9.T3E-04 2.37E-05 2S 5.61£+02 5.0lE.(I2 7.53E-06 &OOE+Ol 4.31E-Ol 1.07E.(I2 .. 1.11EtOJ 5.1OE-02 8.12E-08 2.00E+oo 5.38E-Ol 1.31E.02 .. 3.a9E-02 Ui9E-02 8.4"E-06 U5Etm 3.13&01 7.64E-03 2S 8.I7EI02 6.9OE.(I2 7.90E..Q6 7.90EI01 '.82E-02 2.39E.(I3 .., 2.5OEIOI 2. 17E-02 1.19E-05 ".16EI03 3.04E-02 7."'E~" 2. 1..91E+01 2."9E-Ol 1.0SE-05 7.3I5E_02 3.01E100 7.34E.(I2 2. 2.76E100 1.05E.(I1 1.22E-05 2.IJEtOS 4.99E.(I3 1.22E-04 .. 1.7"E 1(1 I 1.04E.(I1 9.90E-OO 6.S2EIOJ .... OOE-02: 9.nE-04 .. 5.90ElOO 1.22E.(I1 1.34E.05 7.4OE+04 ".21E-03 1.03E.(I4 .. 5.25E'00 MOE-02 9.20E.(16 2.00E+O" ~09E-02 5.10E·0" .. 9..DfiEtOO 7.50E..Q2 7.80E-OO 1.9lE+()04 5.64E-03 1.34E.(I" .., ".07EI02 7.00E.02 7.80E-06 U1E+02 100£-01 7.3lE-03 25 1.35EI03 M2E-02 8.67E-06 2.oOE", 2. .. IE..Ql 5.87E..Q3 2' 7.WIO' 7.35E-02 8.52E-06 I.4OE+Ol .. .22EIOO 1.0JE.(I1 .. 1.52Et02 3.70E.02 &GOE-08 .26E<02 2.72E-01 &82E.OJ .. 2.19Et02 7.30E-02 8.70E-06 ... mt02 1.51E-OI 3.69E.(I3 .. l.nelOI &26E..Q2 1.00E-05 1.10Et03 6.93E-01 J.M1E.(I2 .. U16E"01 '.O"E-Ol 1.22E..QS 1.00E+()04 2.21E-01 5.J9E-03 .. ".l4E+Ol 2.00E-Ol 7.71E-G6 1.2"E+OI 6.82E+Ol I.ME+OO 25 I.55EIOI am-02 7.53.E~6 l.nE+04 7.34E..()4 1.80E-05 .. 2.14£103 1.15E.Q2 ,USE-08 5.IOE-Ol 4.5SE-04 I.12E-05 .. 5.5OEI04 5."2E-02 5.9IE-08 5.00E-03 5.40E-02 1.32E.(I3 25 1.7eelOJ 3.00E.02 &2.31!-06 4.S8E+Ot 5.81E..Q2 1."2E-03 :IS ".62ElOO Q.5«-02 1.07E-05 U9E..,. 7.99£.o.t 1.95E.(I5 .. 6.3IE+O, 1.9I5E.(I2 1.0SE.1J.5 2.GOEIOJ 3.20E..Q2 7.8IE.(I" 25 3.58E"+Ol 1.12E.(I1 1.32E..Q5 2.54Et04 1..0 1 E-02 2.46£..0" .. 6.73£101 8.!58E-02: l.o3E-05 2. 12:EIQ3 4.91E-01 1.201:..02 25 1.55E102 7.20E..Q2 &20E.os ~OO .... 7.53E-01 1.S4E-02 25 t.O~I05 2.72E-02 7.2"E-06 1.~E+OO 4.5OE-O" I.l0E-05 .. 5.15£103 ~38E-02 &OOE·oe 3.IOE+OO 5.1$E..Q" I.26E-05 2S 9.6EEI02 5.1OE-02 8.12E-06 3.94E+oo 5.65E..QI 1.39E..Q2 .. 6.44EI00 7.32E..Q2 9.70E-08 &03E+()04 5.64E-03 I..33E.(I" .. 3.55EIOI 7.JOE-02 I. 13E.(I$ 3.50E+03 UTE.(Ii ".07E..Q3 .. 5.25EIOI 7.01£-02 1.19E-05 "-'lOEOO3 3.54£.(11 9.36E-03 2S 1.23EIOS ~26E-02 5.56E-06 I.~E-03 4.54E..Q3 1.1IE.(I" 2S 3.98E+05 ~"'-02 6..21E-06 3.30E-03 3.87E-03 9.44E-05 .. 2.0&5E+OS 1.32E-02 4.86E.(I6 I.70E.(I2 6.95E..().3 I.1OE~ .. .. 1.23EI03 1."2E..Q2 7.34E-06 2.ooE4oo ".34E.(I4 1.06E-05 .., 1.9SE+03 6.92E-02 7.e6E-06 1.34E+02 1.27E-Ol 3..o9E..Q3 .. ".57E+Ol 6..26E-02: 1.00E.(I5 2.IIOE-OJ 7.24E-Ol 1.77E-02 .., 1.16£102 7.10£-02 7.90E-OO 1.IOEIOJ 9.90E-02 2."'E-03 25 7.26E+()() 1.02E..Ql 1.05E~5 5.IOEI04 2.56E.(I2 6.23E.(I" .. 5.20E+Ol 3.07E-02: &3OE-06 2.00EIOt 4.4OE.(I1 1.07E.(I2 .. e .. (c:m1/cm'} SCS Soil N8mo O.215Ct1y O.I68CISyLoam O.I48l.oam M76LoamySand 0.05<$000 0.197 Sandy Clay ~::~~ndyCIay~m O.2t6S1lyCISy 0.198 SllyCISy Loam ~~:::~ CatEPA TOJlk:ttyCrittrr.rn bQld EnU\.t.lpyd 11n1:lted 1121105OTSCMERD) --va:::'1I1 "' .... CtiIIca. ... ReI ... "", Molecular ..... lempenlure. bol"IftgDO! .... laC\or. """". ...,,", T, 'T, .... , URF (::.~ MW ('1<) ("1<) ",'mol ',glm'" Jgt .... "'~90 ...... 7,127 ".2&05 .. .oE-02 1.54E+02 624.24 .... 73 .~ooo 3.4£-04 7.oE-Oot ".IOe·02 "'.55 &30.36 .~ooo l.lE-Q4 I.IE-03 2.91e"02 J07.SO 466.74 6.338 o.oe·oo 7.oE-Oi 7."'12-401 613.32 5042.25 17,000 ".&E-03 1.8E-04 3.61Et02 329.20 S08.IO a ... o.oe·oo 3.5E-Ol 5.B1EtOI 3JA.32 ...... ~9" 5..3E-06 3.0E-Ot 1.19Et02 .... 00 695.00 9,$10 1.1E.(I5 3.5£-03 2.37E<02 3>3.>< 562.18 7.3<2 2.9E.(I5 :; t~l::·:l2 7.81E101 347.24 ....... 7.13e o.OEIOO f.OE+oO 1.33E+02 6$1.02 _ .. .aooo O.OEIOO I.8E.02 3.4eE102 roe.44 .... 38 15.000 9.7E.(I5 o.OE+OO 3.18E+02 276.71 ..... 00 5,714 o.OElOO .. ..., 9.49EIOI 249.00 41425 5.115 1.0E-06 9.OE-02 S.05EIOI m.00 .... 70 6.678 o.OE+oo j·i2"·~ 2.70E+Ol 310.00 5aJ.00 7 .... o.OEloo 3.~-O2 I.74E+02 28S.JO ...... • .879 &3E·07 :.~i' •• (.; 6..45E+Ol 259.25 <3~00 ~~ 7.8E.(I5 I.OE-Ol 425EIOI ,.. ... ...... O.OEtOO 6.0E-02 4.IIEIOI 293.10 466.00 6.1S1 2.7E-06 9..OE-03 4.41E401 313.00 510.00 ..700 l.oE.(I6 4.0E.(II 8.49E10I 319.00 "~OO 15.391 O.OElOO ".QI;:"~: 7.6IEIOI =60 46900 5.104 3.8E·05 3.0E.(I2 4.4IEIOI 422.,. .... 00 9.47V I.IE-06 7.0E-02 2.53E·02 363.15 .... 8S 7 .... 3.7E-05 7.0E.(I2 I.6"E·02 _70 .... 00 6.288 o.OE+oo 1.0E.(I1 7.85E+Ol 330." SZl.OO ..... 1.6E-06 5.0E.(I1 9.90E'01 ,...." 5ni.05 6.247 O.OEloo 7.0E-02 9.69EIOI Zl~40 "'.30 '.'" O.OElOO 5.0EIOI &65EIOI 296.70 "71.00 5 .... O.oElOO 7.0E.(I1 1.37EI02 2<3.20 384 ... 9,"21 ~:~~:: 2.0E-Ol 1.21E.002 320.70 487.30 6."63 3.0E+01 1.87EI02 .. 3.69 848.31 13.000 1.8E·03 1.8E-03 3.T.lEI02 512.15 7<d00 10.931 o.OE+OO 2.0E-04 2.T.lEI02 341.04 547.78 '0.936 O..oE+OO I.IE"OO 7."'EIOI ,.. .. 2 572.00 7.'" 1.0E.(I5 ".OE-03 1.13EI02 ,.~SO "'.76 7.481 o.OE·oo 5i~;~~ 7.2IE+OI 3M.l$ 602.00 8.322 1.6&05 I.33E+02 360.36 5<4.20 7.'" 2.OE.(I6 6.0E-OI I.31E+02 329.80 .... 70 7.260 o.OEIOO 3.5E+00 7.41EIOI "'9.60 661.15 ..... is.1I~5 2.1E-Ol 1.68€-02 393.20 .... 00 ..,., 2.7E-03 2.0E-02 a.g'E+Ol 3"'-"700 8.975 o.OE·OO 7.0E-Ol 1.00EI02 550 .... 6OJ. •• 12, ISS o.OEIOO 2.IE-Ol I.54E-02 510.44 .7000 '~666 O.oE+OO 1."E-01 I.ME+02 <86.'5 738., 10.206 2.2E.(I5 7.0E-04 2.SIEI02 .... 00 72000 '~239 o.OElOO 3.5E.(I2 1.37EI02 "91.1" 748.40 10.313 3. .. e.o5 )':12··;,1 1.28E+02 51".26 nil.00 ~~: o.OEloo 7.0E-02 1."2E+02 529.10 789.00 o.oE+OO 1.8E-01 1..54E+02 "17.50 6Jo.3O 8.661 O.OEloo I.,·~..ol 1.06E"02 "3.01 105.00 9.100 O.OE+oo 2.0E.(Ii I."7EI02 447.53 675.00 9.5n O.OEtOO 1.8E.(I2 I.29E_02 "~30 649.17 9.389 o.OElOO 8.0E-03 1.20EI02 430.00 .. ~oo 9.171 5.7E-O" "_9E·OJ 1."7EI02 353.70 "'.00 7.749 o.OElOO 1.1E.(I1 &61EIOI 390.00 571.00 10.9.57 O.OEloo 3.2E-Ol I.I"EI02 .... 2.10 1120.00 ..... D.OElOO l."E-Ol 1.34E"02 ."" .. 631.10 10.335 O.OElOO ".OE.(II I.20E102 ''''00 709.-lI.m O.OElOO 3.5E-OI I.20EI02 ..,.os 719.00 10.5&6 o.OElOO 2.0E-03 1.23EI02 .... ,.. 617.20 8.5131 O.OE+OO ~.?l:1~' 1.06EI02 "18.31 63600 8.137 O,OE+OO 9.0E-Ol 1.04EI02 4S~00 685.00 &m 4.9E.(I5 O.OE'OO 1.27EI02 "52.00 .... 00 11,658 O.oE+OO 3.5£.(11 1.06E+02 432.20 630.00 9.123 O.OE+OO 1.4£-01 1.20E+02 ""'6 .... so 9.290 O.OEIOO 1.4E-01 I.J..4E.02 411.52 616.20 ~m O.OElOO IC:21J1 1.06EI02 447.21 .... " 9.271 I.IE.(I5 6.OE.(I1 1. .. 7EI02 ..... "".00 8.310 7.IE.(I5 8.cJE·O" 1.68E'02 ""' .. '2MO 5.370 1.7E.(I" "].'-(0'1 5."'E·01 315." .... 00 8.731 O.oEIOO 5.8IEIOI ,.. ... 561.00 7.543 2.1E.(I5 . ..... 9.90E-OI "".30 519.00 7.'" 2.9~" '<·l~·::.!-5.31E-01 ,..~ 519.13 7.'" O.OE"OO 2.0E.(II 8.81E+01 _so S11.00 8,243 ~~: 8.0E-02 1.GOel(l2 .. 12.27 617.05 aoZl :.~.~.~ I I.Q6EI02 "37.89 837.25 9.321 o.OElOO 6.0£-03 J.20E+02 373.90 57220 7 ... 7 .. O.OElOO 3.0E"00 9.82EIOI 30176 591.79 7.930 O.oElOO 3.0E..Ql 9.21EIOI .... 87 632.'0 8."'0 O.OElOO 1.0E+OO 1.13EI02 3$1.60 542.00 7.263 O.OElOO 1.4E+00 9.2se+OI ,... ... "90.20 ~'" O.oE"OO ~".OJ 6..51EIOI 341.70 506.00 ..... O..oE+OO "].0;:-·:)1 8.62EIOI 0&51.15 659.79 10.803 7.\E·04 O.oElOO U3Et02 674.43 .. ~ .. 1 ... 000 O.OEIOO 2.1E-02 4.07Et02 .. ~ .. 825.00 14.4"7 5.tE..Q4 2.8E-03 2.85E-02 486.15 n5.00 10."71 O.cJE·OO 2.0£.(11 talE+02 375.20 ,...00 9 5.4E..Q" O.OE+()() 7.olEIOI 416.1" .... 20 5 .... 2.7E-O$ 7.0E-02 2.08E+02 363.30 ..... 00 7.'" O.OE+oo 7.cJE-O" 6.71E+01 =<0 520.00 .~7S O.oE+OO 7..oE-03 8.85E+Ol "'.40 620.20 &288 is.9f-06 3.~..Q2 1.866+02 667.i5 936 ,<371) O.oE_OO I.IE..QI 2.0lEI02 E60 .24 ..... O.OEIOO 1.4E.(I2 I.68E+02 .... 5 679 ..,30 O.OElOO 1.4£.(11 1.34E"02 ,...,. 023.3 7""," O.OElOO 3.2ElOO 8.81EIOI =60 ... 7192 O.OE+OO 3 ....... 9.89E+01 320.85 516.5 6717 o.OE"OO 7.0E-02 9.G9E+01 715.9 .... 27 '7000 I.IE·O" O.OElOO 2.52Et02 714.15 979 ... 55 f.tE..Q5 o.OfiOO 2.28E+02 503.01 &19.37 '5000 ....9~3 I.IE..Q4 3.65EI02 ...... 830.36 '5000 7.7E-04 O.OE+OO 2.91Et02 ... ... 9230.16 O.OElOO I.IE..QI 1.47EI02 381_15 587.34 7900 l.fiE.(I5 20E-02 I.IIEI02 "03.5 62. 9768.2S2525 7."E-OI5 I.IE-Ol I.68EI02 326.3 497.1 5677.~ UiE·07 'l:E-:~ 882E+OI 025 .. I7SO ''''27 O.OEIOO 9.0E..Q5 2.01E"0"2. URF RIC _ted extraool.IN X X 7 X X X X X X ? X X X X X X ? X X X X X X X X X 7 X X X X X X ? X X X 7 7 X X X X X 7 X X X X X X X 7 ? X X X '" Orig' IEPAVatu " Unit '''' RRleft1IOII flidOr. a>ne.. URF RIC ,~".:;., (::") aw.poIated extrI,POIated X (Xl UiE-050.0E*OO I.OE-04 7.0E-04 3.7E--04 1.1E-OJ X X O.OE+oO 7.0E-OI X ".6E-03 1.8E-04 X O.OE+oO 3.~-O1 X 2.3E-OS' o.oEt{)(I 4.0E-06 3.SE-03 X 7.8E-O& O.OE+oO D.OEtOO 2.2E+OO O.OE+OO 1.8E.02 X 9.7E-050.0EIOO X O.OE+oO 5.OE-03 1.0E-06 9.0E-02 O.OE+OO 3.0E.(I3 O.OE+OO 3.5E.(I2 X 8.3E·071.0E+01 X 6..8E.0II ,.oE.(I1 O.OE+OO 6.OE.02 2.2E-06 9.0E-03 4.7E.(I73.0EtOO O.OE+OO 7.0E.(I1 1.0E-040.0EtOO I.IE.(I67.0E-Q2 X 1.8E..Q5 7.0E-02 X X O.OEIOO 1.0E.(I1 O.OE+OO 5.0E.(I1 O.OE+OO 2.0E-Ol O.OE+OO 5.OE+OI O.OE+OO 7.0E-01 0.0£+00 2.0E-Ol O.OEIOO 3..oEI01 1.3E-03 1.8E.(I3 X O.OE+oo 2.0E-O" O.OE+OO I.IE'OO X 1.9E.(I54.0E-03 X O.OE+OO 1.0E+oo 1.8E-05 1.4E.(I2 X !.IE·O" 4_0E-02 X O.OE+OO 3.5E+oo X 5.8EooM 2.1E-01 X 2.7E.(I32..OE-02 O.oEt()O 7..oE-Oi O.OE+OO 2.IE-OI X O.OE-OO l."E-Ol X 2.1£.(I57.0E-04 X O.OE+oo 3.~.(I2 X O.oE+OO 3.0E-03 O.OElOO 7.0E.02 X O.OE+OO 1.5E.(I1 X O.OE+OO I.OE.(I1 O.OE+oO 2.0E-OI O.OE+OO 1.8E.(I2 X O.OE+OO &OE-03 5.7E-O" <.9E-03 X O.OE+OO 1.1E.(Ii X O.OE+OO 1lE·Ol X O.OE+oo 1.4E·Ol X O.OE+OO .... OE.(II O.OE+oo 3.SE.(I1 X O.OE+OO 2.0E-03 O.OE+OO 1.0E+OO O.OE+()() 1.0E+oo 4.9£:45 O.OE+OO X O.OElOO 3.5E.(II X O.OEtOa l."E.(I1 X O.OElOO I."E.(I1 X O.OE+oo I.OE.(II O.OE'OO 8.0E-Ol 6.OE-0" 9.0E-03 3.0E·05 O.OE-OO O.OE+()() ~OE'" 2.GE-05 O.OElOO a8E", 2.OE-03 O.OE+OO 2.OE..QI O.oElOO a.oE..Q2 O.oE"OO 1.0E..Ql O.oE+OO 6.0E..Q3 O.OEIOO 3.oE"00 O.OE+OO ...oE·OI O.OE+()() ME.Q2 O.OEIOO 1."E-OO X O.OElOO 3.5E.OJ X O.OE+OO 2.0E.(lI 13E-04 ....... 0.0£+00 2,IE~2 X ".6E..()4 2.8E~3 X O.OE-OO 2.0E.(Ii 5."E-O" O.OEIOO X ~ ..... 7.0E-02 X X o.OE+OO 7.0E-04 O.oE"OO 7.OE.(I3 3.0E-06 O.GE+()() O.OEIOO 1.1E.(I1 X O.OEIOO ""E.(I2 X o.OElOO l."E.(I1 X O.OElOO ;':: X O.OEIOO X O.OE"OO 7.0E-02: X 2.1E-O" O.OEIOO X 2.1E..QG D.OEt-{X) X 4.9E-03 1.1E-04 X I.8E-03 0.0E400 O.OE+OO 1.1E-Ol X 4.0E-05 ~0E.Q2 7.4E..QG 1.1E~1 X O.OElOO 3.0E+OO o.OEtOa :l.OE..Q4 CelEPA I USEPA Po\encyR.atio ~ .. 3." 0 ... NC f.OO NC 0.23 ~,. ~n NC NC .~o NC 1.00 NC NC '.00 .... NC '.Zl ~13 NC 0 ... '.00 2~' NC ClI~Aonty C C NC NC He NC 1.2] NC NC 0." NC 1.00 0.02 I.e '.00 1.00 NC NC NC 1.00 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC He 1.00 NC NC ~ NC NC He NC 1.00 NC NC NC NC .~~~:onIY M7 NC 0.8. '2. He He NC NC NC NC NC He He He .. ,. I.e 1.11 He 1.00 1.13 NC He 1.97 He NC NC NC NC NC 0." U. 1.00 0.<3 He "'0 1.00 al~Aonly 18.34.010 ATTACHMENT J Chapter 18.34 PEDESTRIAN AND TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (PTOD) COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS Sections: 18.34.010 18.34.020 18.34.030 18.34.040 18.34.050 18.34.060 18.34.070 18.34.010 Purposes Applicability Land Uses Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Developm.ent (PTOD) Combining District Regulations Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District Context-Based Design Criteria Review Process Non-confoID1ing Uses and Non-complying Facllities Purposes (a) California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Cornbining District . The California. A venue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District is intended to allow higher density residential dwellings on comlnercial, industrial and multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of the CalifOlnia Avenue Caltrain station, while protecting low density residential parcels and parcels with historical resources tbat may also be located in or adjacent to this area. The cOlnbining district is Jntended to foster densities and facilities that: (1) SlJpPOrt use of public transportation; (2) Encourage a variety of housing types, commercialretail and limited office uses; (3) Encourage project design that achieves an overall context-based developn1ent for the prOD overlay area; (4) Require streetscape design elen1ents that are attractive pedestrians and bicyclists; (5) Increase cormectivity to surrounding existing and plarmed pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and (6) Implement the city S Housing E1elnent and Comprehensive Plan. (b) [Reserved] (Ord. 4914 §2 (part), 2006) 18.34.020 Applicability (a) The California A venue Pedestrian and Transit Giented Development Combining District (PTOD) may be combined with any R-1, CC(2), CN, GM, PF, RM30, or RM40 district or combination of such districts within the designated California Avenue PTOD boundary (Exhibit A, reflected on the city S Zoning Map)., consistent with the provisions of Chapters 18.08 and 18.80. Where so combined, the regulations established by this Ch. 18.34 -Page 1 (Supp No 1 J -10/112007) 18.34.030 Land Uses chapter shall apply in lieu of the provisions estahlished by the underlying CC(2), CN, GM, RM30, andlor RM40 zoning district(s). Compliance wi.th the provisions of Chapter IS.30(A), Retail Shopping (R), and Chapter IS.30(B), Pedestnan Shopping (P), combining districts shall also be required where such combining districts are applicable. (b) [Reserved] (c) A pedestrian and transit oriented develojIDent combining district may be applied to a parcel through rezoning of the site, within the specified boundalies of the district, as shown on the city S approved zoning maps, pursuant to the provisions and process outlined in Section IS.34.060 of this chapter and Chapter IS.S0 of the Zoning Ordinance. (Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006) 18.34.030 Land Uses (a) The foll'owing land uses shall be pe=itted in the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District, subject to limitations outlined in Sections IS34.040 and IS.34.050. TABLE 1 -LAND USES Mixed-use development, where residential and non-residential uses are oomblned P See Seclion 18.34.030(b) below for uses lIvelWork Units CUP Hotel Subject to limitations of Seelion 18 P Subjecllo limllations of SectKln 18.34. (b) Mixed use development, where residential and non-residential uses are combined, may include two or more of the following uses: (1) Multi-family residential; (2) Non-residential uses, limited to: (A) Retail and personal services; (B) Eating and drinking services; (C) Other non-residential uses allowed except on the ground floor where an (R) overlay exists: (i) OffIces; (ii) General business services; (iIi) Business and trade schools; (Supp_ No 13 -10/112007) Ch. IS.34 -Page 2 18.34.040 PlOD Combining Dislricl Regulalions (iv) Private education facilities; (v) Day care center; (vi) Community center; (vii) Commercial recreation; (viii)Convalescent facility; and (ix) Research and development, limIted to sites where the underlying zoning district is GM and involving the use and storage of hazardous materials in quantities less than the exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (Section 105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code). (c) Prohibited uses in the California Avenue PTOD (1) Single-family and two-family uses; (2) Manufactw'ing, processing, warehousing and distribution; and (3) Research and development where hazardous materials are used or stored in excess of quantities less than the exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (Section 105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code) (d) All land uses must be reviewed and approved by the planni.g and transportation commission and city council at the time ofrezoning to PTOD. (Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006) 18.34.040 Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District Regulations (a) Properties in the PTOD combining district are sul:ject to the following regulations TABLE 2 -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Il-" S!fi ndilrdS \ :, , PTQtj --,ealJ!g.t{lla.'Avlf~ .0; '*pTbo ~ Li>O,Wrj!,<iwltlR.eS"elYe.~I)~. Max. Dwelling Units: 40 DUlAC 2 Max. FAR: 100% Residenllal FAR 1.0:1 2 Mixed Use FAR '. 1.25:1.2, 3 Tolal: 0.35 ' Mixed Use Non-Residenilal FAR Cap Ofnoe and research and development uses 025 FAR Holels 2.0 Height: 40 feel 2 Open Space: Minimum area required 5 or fewer unils: 200 sJ per unil 6 or more unils: 100 s.f. per unil Minimum dimensions Privale open space 6 feel Common open space: 12 feel ITable Conllnues on Next Pagel Ch. 18.34 -Page 3 (Supp No I} -I 0/1/2007) 18.34.040 PlOD Combining District Regulations . StilOdan'iS 1." iC" h ~". ,PTob...Y'P;illfqri1i~. 4~~,", ~T~ -QowntooJlo lFlesjctlgJ Parking: Rales estabRshed by use. per Chs. 18.52 and 18.54 Parking Adjustments: See Section 18.34.040 (d) Setbacks and daylight plane requirements for properties adjacent to R-1 and R-2 zones: On portion of site Ihat abuts: Setbacks 1. Interior side yard: 6 feet 2. Rear yard: 20 feet On portion of site Ihat abuts: 1. Interior side yard: a. Initial height at interior side lot Ime: 10 feet Daylight Plane b. Angle (degrees) 45 2. Rear yard: a. Initial height at rear setback line: 16 feet b. Angle (degrees) 45 Setbacks and day tight and day tight plane requirements for properties adjacent to Caltrain Right-of-Way: Setbacks On portion of site that abuts Caltrain right- of-way: 5 feet (landscaped) On portion of site that abuts Cal train right- of-way: Daylight Plane a. Inilial height at property line w/Caltrain righl-of-way' 16 feel b. Angle (Degrees) 45 (1) Non-residentia! development thai is not consistent with the mixed-use limitations set forth aoove, with the exception of hotels. musl be developed per the underlying zoning district regulations. (2) See Section 18.34.040(e) for Below Market Rate (BMR) bonus provISions (3) The residential component of the mixed use may not exceed 1.0: 1. (4) The non-residential component 01 a mixed use project shall not exceed 50% of the total square-footage of the project. (b) Live/Work Units (I) A live/work unit, for the purposes of this chapter, is defmed asa rental or ownership unit comprised of both Jiving space and work area, WIth the living space occupying a minimum of 60% of the total gross floor area of the unit, and such that the resident of the Jiving space is the owner/operator of the work area. (2) The work area shall be located on the ground level, oriented to the street and provide for at least one external entrance/exit separate from the living space. The work area may be used for office, retail, personal services, or handcrafted goods (unless otherwise limited by this chapter), but sball not be used for restaurants or cafes or for any business involving the storage or use of hazardous materials in excess of the quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (Section 105.8 of the Fire Code). (3) The maximum number of employees who do not reside wlthm the unit is two. (Supp_ No 13 -10/ I 12007) Ch. \8.34 -Page 4 . 18.34.040 PTOD Combining District Regulations (4) The signage shall not exceed the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code and shall require approval and recommendation by the arcbitectural review process prior to approval by the director. (5) The parking requirements shall include a maximum total of two spaces for the residential unit, plus one space per 200 square feet for the gross square footage of the work area, less one space from the total (to reflect the overlap of the resident and one employee). (6) The live/work units are subject to the development standards of the PTOD zone outlined in Table 2 for a 100% residential development, except that the maximum non -residential FAR is limited to 0.40. (7) The maximum size of a live/work unit shall be lilTIited to 2,500 square feet. (8) The design of street frontage of a live/work unit shall be consistent with the context- based criteria outlined for street frontage in Section 18.34.050 below. (9) A live/work unit may be converted to an entirely residential unit where residential use on the ground .floor is not otherwise prohibited.. (c) HoteJs (1) Hotels for the purpose of this section are defined as hotels, motels, or other lodging for which City of Palo Alto transient occupancy tax is collected. (2) Hotels may be constructed to a maximum FAR of2.0 and a maximum height of 50 feet. (3) All hotels are subject to the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.34.050 below. (d) Parking Adjustments· Adjust1nents to the required parking standards lTIay be allowed with the director s approval pursuant to the provisions outlined in Section 18.52.050, with the following additional . allowances and requirements: (1) For multi-family residential or mixed use projects on sites:ezoned to the PTOD combining district, the director may waive a portion of or all guest parking requirements, and may waive any requirement to provide a landscape reserve for parking, subject to the following conditions: (A) The project includes a minimun of four residential units; (B) The average residential unit size is 1,250 square feet or less; and (C) Not more than one parking space per residential unit shall be assigned or secured, such that other required parking spaces are available to other residents and guests. (2) Projects providing more than 500/0 of the project residential units at low or very-low income housing rates may further reduce parking requirelnents by an additional 200/0. (3) In no case, however, shall total parking requirements for the ste be reduced by greater than 300/0 from the standard requirements, or by greater than 400/0 for an affordable housing project consistent with subdivision (2) above, or by more than Ch. 18.34 -Page 5 (Supp. No 13 -10/1/2007) 18.34.040 (4) . ~ ....... _' PlOD Combining District Regulations 500/0 if housing for the elderly is proposed pursuant to Sec60n 18.52.050 of the Zoning Ordinance. For any request for parking adjustments, the project applicant shall indicate parking and traffic demand Ineasures to be implemented to reduce parking need and trip generation. Measures may include, but are not limited to: lin1iting 'assigned"parking to one space per residential unit, providing for Caltrain and/or other transit passes, or other measures to encourage transit use or to reduce parking needs. The program shall be proposed to the satisfaction of the director, shall include proposed performance targets for parking and/or trip reduction, and shall designate a single entity (property owner, homeowners association, etc.) to implement the proposed measures. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the director not later than two years after building occupancy and again not later than fi ve years after building occupancy, noting the effectiveness of the proposed measures as compared to the initial performance targets and suggestions for modifications if necessary to enhance parking and/or trip reductions. (e) Density, FAR, and Height Bonus Provisions The following provisions are intended to allow for increased density, FAR, height, and other developn1ent bonuses upon construction of additional below market rate (BMR) housing units. The bonus allowances shall be allowed subject to the following limitations: (1) Bonuses are only applicable where below market rate (BMR) units are providedin excess of those required by Palo Altos BMR program as stated in Progran1 H-36 of the Housing Element adopted on December 2,2002. Key elements of Program H-36 include: (A) Five or lTIOre units:' Minimum 150/0 of~njts must be BMR units; (B) Five or more acres being developed: Minimum 20% of units must be BMR units; and (C) BMR units shall meet the afforchbility and other requirements of Program H-36 and the citys BMR Program policies and procedures. (2) The following BIVIR bonuses shall be considered and may be approved upon rezoning to the PTOD district: (A) Density Increase: Density may be increased abo-e the maxinlum base density allowed (40 units per acre), such that at least one additional BMR unit is provided for every three additional nlarket rate units constructed. The resultant density may not exceed fifty units per acre. Density shall be calculated based on the gross area of the site prior to development. . (B) FAR Increase: For projects with a residential density greater than thirty units per acre, the allowable residential FAR tnay be increased. The FAR increase shall be equivalent to 0.05 for each additional 5% (in excess of the city requirements) of the total nUlnber of units that are proposed as BMR units, but may not exceed 500/0 of the residential FAR prior to the bonus, and may not exceed a total FAR of 1.5. (C) Height Increase: For projects with a residential density greater than 30 units ·per acre, the allowable project height n1ay be increased. The height increase shall be (Supp. No 13 -10/112007) Ch. 18.34 -Page 6 18.34.050 PlOD Context Based Design Criteria equivalent to one foot above the maxin1un1 for each additional 50/0 (in excess of the city requirements) of the total number of units that are proposed as BMR units, but may not exceed a maximun1 height (50 feet). (D) Other incentives for developn1ent ofBMR units, such as reduced setbacks and reduced open space, may be approved where at least 250/0 of the total units constructed are BMR units and subject to approval by the architectural review board. (3) The provisions of this section are intended to address the density bonus requirelnents of state law within the PTOD District, and the'maximuln bonus density , FAR, and height may not be further exceeded. (Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006) Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District Context-Based Design Criteria (a) Contextual and Conlpatibility Criteria Development in a pedestrian and transit oriented development con1bining district shall be responsive to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of a pedestrian and transit oriented nej ghborhood. (1) Context. (A) "Context" ().s used in this section is intended to indicate relationships between the sites developnlent to adjacent street types, surrounding land uses, and on-site or nearby natural features, such as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to these adjacent uses and features are strongly reinforced by Con1prehensive Plan pohcies. (B) The word ''context'' should not be construed as a desire to replicate existing surroundings, but rather to provide appropliate transitions to those surroundings. "Context" is also not specific to architectural sty Ie or design, though in some instances relationships n1ay be reinforced by an architectural response. (2) Compatibility. (A) Compatibibty is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with the intent of achieving a pedestrian and transit oriented neighborhood, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained. (B) Compatibility goals n1ay be accomplished through various mans, including but not limited to: (i) the siting, scale, massing, and materials; (ii) the rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of the buildings and the spacing between them; (iii) the pattern of roof lines and projections; (iv) the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays, and doorways; Ch. 18.34 -Page 7 (Supp No 13 -10/1/2007) 18.34.050 PTOO Context Based Design Criteria (v) the location and treatment of entryways; (vi) the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features; and (vii) the treatment of landscaping (b) Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings In addition to the findings for architectural review contained in Section 18. 76.020( d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the following additional findings are applicable in the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combming District, as further illustrated on the accompanying diagrams: (I) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment. The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkabiJity, a bicycle friendly envi.ronment, and connectivity through design elements such as: A Connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists with extemal and internal (if any) streets, pathways, or bike facilities \?ee Figure I-I); Figure 1-1 CALTRAIN STATION SIiOng pede~!r,an/bike connections 10 Cal. Ave. and 5131100 + Strong pe<!estnan/bike h~-tt--tt-H../ connections toCal, Aye and Stalion L-X,,--' L ___ Jl_1 LJOL_H_-'!._-'''---I B. Pathways and streets that present a clear hierarchy and connectivity pattern both within a project and to adjacent sidewalks; C Wide sidewalks (built as easements beyond the property line if needed, but not to the detriment of existing or future bike lanes) along Park Boulevard to reinforce the street as a primary pedestri.an and bicycle linkage to the multimodal station;. D. Bicycle amenities that contribute to the areas bIcycle environment and safety needs, such as bike racks, storage or parking, or dedicated bike lanes or paths (See Figure 1-2); E. Ground floor uses that are appealing to pedestrians through well-desiiPed visibIlity and access (See Figure 1-2); (Supp. No 13 -IOI!J2007) Figure 1·2 Active g-Iflt.luntj i'1I.:)C'! 11-':.'='05 a.cli/l$'L>;l tnE' a~r~t Ch. 18.34 -Page 8 18.34.050 F. PTOO Context Based Design Criteria On primary pedestrian routes such as Park Boulevard and California Avenue, climate and weather protection where possible, such as covered waiting areas, building projections and colonnades, and awnings ~ee Figure 1-3); Figure 1-3 Wide SldSr'i'1I3Jf.,s provide a ____ ./ ~"CiSi~V~ ~O~d&'il ~ri.~ft~ in f~l cih~ti>1I t.!W5: G. Streetscape or pedestrian amenities that contribute to the areas streets cape envirorunent such as street trees, bulb-outs, benches, landscape elements, and public art (See Figures 1-4 and 1-5); and H. Vehicle access from alleys or sidetreets where they exist, with pedestrian access from the public street. 1<-- ~,.,~",,, ~'l r~(I" _~_, .".,~~,,- Figure 1-5 Bulbo\J(S jncrease '-----~--._-' pCui.'~lI;a" ~3fety P.(~~p~n)' Uno:= l'1. '1M-\0 Lilw I RBsiden'iia-~ Minllnile vChicle access -~~----~--"-~c~· (0 prollid"s a continuous facade ;;Old nree! pilrking Ch~ 1834 -Page 9 Figure 14 (Supp. No I 3 -1 0/ \ 12007) 18.34.050 PTOD Context Based Design Criteria (2) Street Building Facades. Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalks and the street(s), to create an envirooment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements such as: A Facade articulation reflecting the rhythm of nearby commercial and residential areas such as California Avenue; B. Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, and landscape elements to create strong, direct relationships with the street (!5ee Figures 2-1 alld 2-2); C. Facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectrrral elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass (See Figures 2-1 and 2-2); Orient doorways and --, windows to create strong rela~ionship to streeL Clearly defined enl.,;es~-----~-~~[IfB~;i!l that are ploportional to size of building and use Figure 2-2 Orient doorways and windows to create SHong relationShip to street. Clearly defined enlrie~ that are propOrllOnallQ size 01 building and use. D. Entries and windows that face onto the street (See Figures 2-1 and 2-2); E Entries that are clearly defmed features of front facades, and that have a scale that is in proportion to the size of the building and number of units being accessed; larger buildings should have a more prominent building entrance, while maintaining a pedestrian scale ~ee Figures 2-1 and 2-2); and F. Residential units and storefronts that have a presence on the street and are not walled-off or oriented exclusively inward. (Supp No 1)-10/1/2007) Ch. 18.34 -Page 10 18.34.050 PTOD Context Based Design Criteria (3) Massing and Articulation. Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and provide for articulation and design variety through elements such as: A Buildings that include pedestrian-scaled detail, articulation and craftsmanship of the facade (See Figure 3-1); Figure 3·1 Rooflines can emphasize significant elements such as entries and bays Buildings should provide pedestrian-scaled detail, articulation, and craftsmanship of the facade. B. Rooflmes that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies i;)ee Figure 3-1); C Comer buildings that incorporate special features to reinforce important intersections and create buildings of unique architectural merit and varied styles (See Figures 3-2 and 3-3); 1>"''---'7'''--COfn~( buildings should Figure 3-3 be used to reinforce important ill!ersenions. A retail entry can strengthen the corner. Ch. 18.34 -Page 11 f9=--Cornerbuildin9~shouldbe used to reinforce Impor- tllnt inter~ecliom. (SllPP. No 11-10/112007) 18.34.050 PlOO Conte)(t Based Design Criteria D Design with articulation, setbacks, and materials that minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest from the train and neighborhood east of the tracks; E. Limiting facades such that no more than 70%, and no more than 100 continuous linear feet, of the street facade e!lceeds a height of 25 feet lSee Figure 3-4); Figure 34 No rr'jl:M~ th~m HI pe,rc~_I1L .t).f SltOt:H rataoo f.;t!bUtd a~~_(j 2:5 fe.3{ to-pro~'idb lor gpe-n view c;orriciQ';LSl iwm .adJacen1 D@ilJhborlwo6 ldoil[!!:>~-?le·(fh~3I'\t1;.,Sh"l,J~d be GlS~ to craal~;l Wlf~ 'to the a-d~OO(1t ~o;Ii]ro~1;I lr.act-'"e;. F. Landscape elements to bllffer the rear of the lot and the railroad Iracks, with trees spaced at a ma!limum of25 feet on center and combined WIth other landscape elements such as fencing, hedges or shrubs (lee Figure 3-4); G. Application of daylight plane requirements for R-l and R-2 adjacencies to property boundaries adjacent to the railroad right-of-way lSee Figure 3-5); and H. Maintaining view corridors from Colorado A venue and EI Dorado A venue west to the hills. r······· _. The rear yard daylight plane dennes setback requirements adjacent to (ail road. Daylight plane has initial height of 16 ft and a 45 degree angle. A five foot landscape strip with trees planted at a maximum 25 feet on center. should be used to buffer building from adjac€m tracks. (4) Low-Density ResidentIal TransitIOns. Figure 3-5 Where new projects are built adjacent to e!listmg lower-scale resilentlal development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and pnvacy of adjacent properties through: (Supp. No 13 -10/112007) Ch 1834 -Page 12 18.34.050 PTOD Context Based Design Criteria A TransItions of development intensity from higher density development building types to building types that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding uses (See Figure 4-1); .future ProD '."~"-" "'--"-'-'-'-"'--~-'-'''r-'--:-'--'-'"''''---''''-''-''-'------, exfsling ~development: Figure 4·1 densHy area B. Massing and orientation of buildings that respect and mirror the massing of neighboring structures by stepping back upper stories to transition to smaller scale buildings, including setbacks and daylight planes that match adjacent R·l and R-2 zone requirements (See Figure 4-2); Figure 4·2 Irllll~1 ne-;ght 01 i I \6'~, , .. ,,, y:><d. 10' nl >icl .. y_,d C Respecting privacy of neighboring structures, with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they mirrin1ize views into neighboring propert:ies~ee Figw-e 4-3); D. Minimlzmg sight lnes into and from neighbonng properties r;>ee Figure 4-3); Figure 4-3 , of Trees ~n(l hedges lor Screening E. Limitmg sUn and shade impacts on adjacent properties; F. Providing pedestrian paseos and mews to create separation between uses; Ch. 18.34 -Page 13 (Supp. No 13 -10/1(2007) 18.34.050 PlOD Context Based Design Criteria G. Design witl) artIculatIOn, vaned setbacks, and matenals thaminimize sound reflection to nelghbonng properties adjacent to the railroad. (5) Project Open Space. Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents, visitors,and/or employees of a site. A The type and design of the usable private open space shall be appropnate to the character of the building(s), and shall consider dimensions, solar access, wind protection, views, and privacy; B. Open space should be sited and designed to accommodate different activities, groups and active and passive uses, and should be located convenient to the users (e.g., residents, employees, or public); C. Common open spaces should connect to the pedestrian pathways and existing natural amenities ofllie site and its surrollildings ()ee Figure 5-2); D. Usable open space may be any combination of private and common spaces; E. Usable open space does not need to be located on the ground (See Figure 5-1); F. Open space should be located to activate the street fayade and increase "eyes on the street" when possible (See Figure 5-3); G. Both private and common open space areas should be buffered from noise where feasible; and H. Parking may not be counted as open space. -___ -Fig~5~ be kx.-\ed em pMlo,i"9 pOdlUlll\ Open ~P~Ct_ 10 be IO(~I~d ----'<i~~~r""~1ilOf.. (0 acu\l~le (he rac()d~ ~"d i'''fe''5e-ey~s on m~ ~(ree,H Common op~ .... space, to ---~. to 111~ ~d~,((iiln p.lhways j., '''Y comelMtion of pilvMe 1100 (0<')01'\0» HI~,e~. Figure 5-3 (Supp. No ! 3 -10/)12007) Ch. 18.34 ~ Page 14 18.34.050 prOD Context Based Design Criteria (6) Parking Design. , .~" Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be alowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment, such that: A. Parking is located behind buildings, below grade or, where those options are not feasible, screened by landscaping, low walls, etc.; . B. Structured parking is fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible ~ee Figure 6-1); C. Parking that is semi-depressed is screened with architectural elements that enhance the streets cape such as stoops, balcony overhangs, andlor art (See Figure 6-2); D. Landscaping sucb as trees, shrubs, vines or groundcover is incorporated into surface parking lots (See Figure 6-3); and E. Street parking is utilized for visitor or customer parking and is designed in a manner to enhance traffic calming on the street. Figure 6-1 I I. '1 '" \:~ 1 '~7" ",7'''' I Parktrlg should be wrapped by habitable OBe!'; wilen possible. landscaping should be incQrporated into any stlrface psrkinglots. Semi.oepressed psrking can be used to raise residential uses, to, provide privacy and opportunities for stoops and porches. Figure 6-2 Figure 6-3 eh 1834-Page 15 (Supp. No I J -10/1/2007) 1 B.34.050 PTOD Context Based Design Criteria (7) Large (multl-acre) Sites Large (in excess of one acre) sltes shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood, and such that: A. New development oflarge sites maintains and enhanes connectivity wi th a hlerarchy of public streets, private streets, walks and bike paths (integrated with the Palo Alto Bicycle Master Plan, when applicable); . B. The diverslty of building types increases with increased Jot size (eg., less than I acre = minimum 1 housing type; 1 -2 acres = minimum 2 housmg types; greater than 2 acres = minimum 3 housing types) (lee Figure 7-1);'and C. Where a site includes more than one housing type, each housing type should respond to its immediate context in terms of scale, massing, md design (e.g., lower density building types facing or adjacent to existing single-family residences ~e Figure 7 -1) SuMifl_g (ype l!!fi.o 5 sM:IOI.Lld rei,':\t-e to adf9aenl O~ 'Future [A"'}fI.texts -SIms -gffiai.@rthairl 'J.!le 8cre :sti'lould hav{] aHeast tJn'0 ,l>uildi~g 1;:",,, Si:tG!s gre<;l!er tM-ll ~wo-A'lCfes.. $ho~)Jd haye ,('1"1, lea$t tttree b~lild~rlg typli'!:s. (8) Sustamabihty and Green Buildmg Design. (Supp_ No 13 -IO/ln007) Project design and materials to achieve sustainabihty and green buildig design should be mcorporated into the project. Green bmlding design considers the environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it In Ch. 18.34 -Page 16 18.34.050 PTOO Context Based Design Criteria general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quali ty spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building design: A. Optimize building orienta tim for heat gain, shading, day lighting, and namral ventilation (See Figure .8-1); B. Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects (See Figure 8-2); C Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access; D. Maxlmize onsite stormwater management through landscaping and permeable pavement (See Figure 8-3); E. U se sustainable building materials, F. Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy use; G. Create healthy indoor environments; H. Use creativity and innovation to build.more sustainable environments, One example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants to satisfy a portion of project open space requirements ({Jee Figure 8-2); and I. Provide protection for creeks and riparian vegetation and integrate stormwater management measures and open space to minimize water quality and erosion impacts to the creek environment. South facing windows with Summe,r Sun tf shading devices 10 control Q . overhealing 10 Summer. Winter Sun:Q' . Figure 8-1 Oirect sunlighllhrough south lacing WIndows would improve the passive . healing in Winter. Use of shading devices to control solar loads in Summer and to galln passive heal in Winter. E.,. "-'" oh>. '" .r---" .. ~-..... MinimIze SIOfmwaler Runoff to Impermeable areas Figure 8-2 Soh ~d$C.P' on Roo/lOps in rh.lorm 01 Fi.P±~~~~~~~t~"=·'~"'f6hrllb6lp1~nlllfl 'Urban Agriculture' and roolloplbalcony gardens Figure 8-3 eh. 1834 -Page 17 (Supp No 13 -10/112007) 18.34.060 Review IProcess (c) [Reserved] (d) Historic Preservatioltll Historic resources review, as required in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code, is required for alterations or n10difications to any structure designated on the citys Historic Inventory as a Category 1 or Category 2 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of the Municipal Code or any contributing structure located within a locally designated historic district. The Category 1 or Category 2 designation process for becominK a historic structure is contained in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code. (e) Performance Standards All developm.ent subject to the PTOD District requirements must also comply with the performance standards outlined in Chapter 18.23, pertaining to noise, llghting, visual, and access impacts. (Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006) 18.34.060 Review Process Rezoning and review of a site to a pedestrian and transit oriented development (PTOD) combining district shall be made pursuant to the following procedures: (a) Application to apply the PTOD overlay district may be n1ade by an owner of record of any property located or partially located within the PTOD boundary, or may be initiated by vote of the plaIllling and transportation comn1ission or city council; (b) Applications for rezoning shall be made and reviewed in accordance with Chapter 1330 (Amendments to Zoning Map and Zoning Regulations), including Section 18.80.020 regarding changes in district boundaries. Planning and transportation commission review and city council approval shall establish limits on aliowable or reqt.Iired uses (e.g., the types and appropriate mix of uses, including revenue-generating. uses) and int~Dsity (e.g., density, floor area ratio, height, site coverage) of development. The specified limitations shall be part of the rezoning and shall be recorded as property. restrictions enforceable by the City of Palo Alto. Revisions to these restrictions requires rezoning through the SaIne process, except that the director of planning and community enviromnent may determine that a revision is minor and does not materially alter the city councils restrictions or intent regarding land use and intensity. As used in this subsection, the term ''minor'' means a change that is of little visual significance, does not materially alter the appearance of previously approved improven1ents, is not proposed to change the use of the land in question, and does not alter the character of the structure involved. If the cUlTIulative effect of multiple minor changes would result in a major change, a new application for approval of a pedestrian and transit oriented development is required and shall be reviewed by the architectural review board, planning and transporta60n commission, and/or city council, as detennined by the director. Submittal requirements for the PTOD combining district may be supplemented as detennined by the director of plaIllling and community environment; (Supp. No [3 -10/1/2007) Ch. 18.34-Page 18 18.34.070 i\JonaConforming Uses and Noro-complying Facilities (c) Applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to designate a site consistent with transit oriented residential development shall be Inade and reviewed pursuant to the provisjons of Section 19.04.080; and (d) Upon approval of rezoning of a property to pedestrian transit oriented development (PTOD) combining district, the project plans shall be submitted as a lnajor architectural review to the architectural review board, who shall revjew the project for compliance with the architectural review criteria specified in Chapter 18.76 of the Zoning Code, as well as Section 18.34.050 of this chapter. A single preliminary review by the ARB may be allowed in advance of rezoning approval if plans are submitted and reviewed prior to planning conlmission consideration of the rezoning request. (Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006) 18.34.070 N on-confornling Uses and Non-complying Facilities Owners of sites with existing legal non-conforming uses and non-complying facilities within the PTOD boundary may request the application of the PTOD combining district to the site through the rezoning process referenced in Section 18.34.060 above. In applying the PTOD combining district, the use and/or facility would then be subject to the PTOD overlay standards. (Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006) Ch. 18.34-Page 19 (Supp. No 13·-10/1/2007) (:l'~ :J1 DF F'il,LD /\Ll-·0, Cf~ L I r Y CL [fUrS 0FF IOfjJ{oli6acli fR/a[ty Company Limited' (Jlartnersfiip oq IU'~ 29 P"'1 3: 00 29 Lowery Drive, Atherton, CA 94027 , v .r I.. Tel: 650/322-8242 Fax: 650/853-0325 Curtis Williams May 21, 2009 . Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mr. Williams: Re: Birch Plaza Prqject 2650 Birch Street I run writing this letter to confirm certain issues David Solnick, the architect for Birch Plaza Project, discussed with you on April 21, 2009, in connection with the zone change application from RM-40 to PTOD heard by the Planning Commission on April 15, 2009. After hearing from condominium owners in the Birch Court Condominium Project, the Planning Commission in a 4 to 2 vote approved the Birch Plaza Project with the condition that the entrance to the underground garage be moved off of Grant Avenue. As pointed out during the meeting on April 21, 2009, moving the entrance off Grant Avenue is not feasible because it would in effect destroy the viability of the project. Moving the entrance to Sheridan Avenue would remove 12 parking spaces from the project. It would place more traffic on Sheridan Avenue which already has much more traffic than Grant Avenue. Sheridan Avenue in this block already services a seven unit apartment building at 303, 305,307, 309,311,315 Sheridan Avenue, a 83 unit apartment project at 345 Sheridan Avenue, a 57 unit apartment project at 360 Sheridan Avenue, and the Jerusalem Baptist Church at 380 Sheridan Avenue Placing an entrance for the underground garage on Birch Street is also not feasible because of the limited space in a direction perpendicular to Birch Street to make a turn into parking spaces. Providing the access from Birch Street near the comer at Grant A venue would save the underground parking but would create a driveway that curves sharply as it descends. In addition, this would cause cars ..... _ ......... VI .Rl4uJ:\O 1lI002/006 FROM: David Sclnick architeot PHQNE NO. : 650 3271142 Ma~. 01 2e0~ 11;alAM P2 • . Statisti~? Re:.quest: .P~lQ A:ttQ" P.·(();l:tee) ]i .. :);eltl·a£t:t~~~t Phone': fiG/;:ll. z-2 ~7!:.. EW..-. ,~Q:. t:"~/..B~-0 ~ '2. :$"'" Ii .. It J ............ "." ... ,..A •••••••••••• " ••••••••• " ......... ", •• _ ............................. " ••• " ................. ,. ............ "' ........... /1 ........................ _ ... 100 ............ ,.." .... .. Loeadon/Repordag Dlstrlet: ,~dgel? ctfJcc./ .p~"""'r'$· d r 7"'h/o :;z:::-~~c;: t>1"VS ~ G;tt!' tl rrr-t: SL(i'kt'i ./~:Z::~.lf5c!f?:r- 'Ome Period: From: :;;? 060 Type of Statistios _Crime _Calls for service _Include Maps Takea by'"",-~~~~,,~ Date. ____ ~~~~-- To: I'!!JY.ll 23 2. 6£19 , I Fee: A researeh f'ee of860 per hour 'WIll be e ....... d ,If'die request requires re.eareh ... r'~;;!!: 'A .r'C P.5 I,? ,g y .t?,4 a ,/ AI -;r-A V" A. ~ 6S'..s: 6~/ JI a "J.-2. .s:-"#'t. N I, A , , Page 1 " ~ .~ w s:. W :;--~ ~ o y .- f iJ is ffi :z p m IS) u ~ ..... .... 1::.. IU t If. Eil) I-'" ~ I,Q l-'" ..... .. ~ Gl 11 " tl p g §J ~ 0 .W "'-<::I <::I a. · ~_ cJ Iltht itdI ... _--, 2GOIl1a AIri "'-'WItlCl IlJf land8irch ISS ~ ~ 106 11'\"1 tllWrad 1" 0; ifiOd .. ~ I mrae.tianiCmAG Straat )R 2C W BIRCH IDANAV AT BIRCH ':JAN AV AT BIR.CH Err ~ SHERIDAN AV OR 40 W BIRCH ST (SHERIDAMAV OR 227 W BIRCH ST ~ C SHERI1JANAV BlRCH.ST !lANA'!.' .... A1. SlRCH iST AT ANI BIRCH sr . AT SHERIDAN 107VC ILmara han IU1VC iimvc we :....1.--"'1-... :;::: lim I UIl!safe &tart en SasicP_ easIc !Mi!llaw "...,. .. - )8.f4-2000 BlRCf:i ST AT SHERIDAN AV 21 ~8Jl to 1C-CJ7-2000 21DQSU(BlRCH ST OR 135 S SHERJDAN AV 22350VC Sasic GPeldIaw 12-114001 1 2100BU<BlRCHST OR it S SHERIDAN AV 2195O(A)VC 'iieklriahiof~to 07-30-2004 2700BLKBlRCHST OR as S SHERIOANAV 22350VC 8118ic_dtaw -------. .... 25-2005 2100BLKSIRCHST OR SO S DAN AV 22350VC iBalk:~ law ·1&.200S 2700BlRCHST OR 50 S ~AV Ia8iosoeec laW .... -... a BiRCH'ST OR 40 S ~A.V ~vC 8atic soeec law 'I BlRCH':ST AT SHERIDAN AV 21804(AlVC If.altDJleldd!1htofwaY nR 27 S OBtR~S7 lOR I 195 S ISHERIDAN W Iii: .altOf ~i Page 1 OJ .~ ~ -tl. ~ 2. ~ 9i 9-.... M ~ ~ ~ ~ UJ ~ l-" l-" ~ ~ IF IS) 10'> ~ \() I-> ... .. ~ :3- ~ ~ ~ " ~ It ~ I>i l.( ::c tr. §I Q Q II> ...... Q Q '" ... -~------~-.. , 'MayS,2009 Court House Plaza Company Via Fax (650) 863-0325 David Solnick -Architect fP ff:I-fR & PEfRS TIiANSNIRT4r1IlN (ONSIlt.1ANfS Subject: Gerage Access to the Birch Plaza Ulxed-U$e Project Palo Alto, CA Dear Mr. Hohbaah I Mr. Solnlck: RSOB .. 2B40 Based on our review of the proposed garage access from Birch Street (dlrectt~ east of Grant Avenue) and a field VISit to the project site during both morning and evening peak hour conditions in May 2009, we recommend that Ihe garage site access remain on Grant Avenue (dlrectfy south of Birch Street) for the following reasons: 1) Birch street Is a four~lane roadway providing access to and from Oregon Expressway. With traffic volumes slgnlfioantJy higher than Ihe two-lane Grant Avenue, constructing the garage entrance from thts heavily traveled roadway Will re9ult in potential traffic Issues with !raffle flow Of) Ihls arterIa' maCIWay. 2) Witt"! a planted center median, the drIveway could only provide rlgnHtlm in I right-turn out movements. resulting in increased u-turns at Birch Street I Grant Avenue and Blrcn Street I Sheridan Avenue. 3) Accident data for H:le three year time period between April 24, 2006 and April 24. 2009 show (flat accidents have ooourred primarily on Birch Street, and include unsafe speed, faUure to yietd right of way and unaafe tum. Therefore, constructing the project driveway on Birch Street may result in an increased potential' for certain types of accidents and vehicles enter and exit a heaylly traveled roadway Into the parkIng garage. Sincerely . Fred Choa, P.E. Registered Traffic Engineer In the State of Calffornla No.TR1830 ,--180 W. Santa Clara Street.-SUlte 675 SanJose. California" 95110{4'ii',)-27S:1-:;ooFax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com ", 1lI001/001 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: JULY 6,2009 CMR: 298:09 REPORT TYPE: REPORT OF OFFICIALS SUBJECT: Approval of A Residential Parking Permit Program For The College Terrace Neighborhood EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On July 30, 2007, in response to a Colleagues Memorandum from then Mayor Kishimoto and Council Members Beecham and Drekmeier, Council members recommended that Council direct staff to initiate an assessment of a residential parking permit program in College Terrace and report back to Council with a status report. Staff was authorized to retain outside expertise as needed to supplement staff, using the $100,000 deposited with the City from Stanford University. These funds were to be used to develop a residential permit program in College Terrace that would likely be implemented only in portions of the neighborhood and to survey all households to ascertain support. The assessment would need to advise Council and residents on the potential staffing requirements, cost and fee structure for the program. The program would also have to be revenue neutral to the General Fund. A program has been developed and is being presented to Council for approvaL Staff will return to Council for adoption of an Ordinance for the parking permit program prior to implementation of the program. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Adopt the attached project's Negative Declaration (Attachment K); 2. Approve the elements to be included in a Residential Parking Permit Program in College Terrace, as outlined in Attachment A; 3. Direct staff to prepare a program ordinance approving the College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program as described in this report and return to Council for approval; CMR:298:09 Page 1 of 11 4. Direct staff to return to Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $36,839 (representing interest earned on Stanford University's $100,000 deposit) to provide additional funding for the initial start-up costs; and 5. Authorize staff to accept additional petitions from College Terrace neighborhood blocks that did not initially receive 51 % support, through September 30, 2009, for the initial permit parking program's first year implementation. BACKGROUND The College Terrace neighborhood, located adjacent to Stanford University and Stanford Research Park (See Project Area Map, Attachment B), has historically been affected by substantial non-neighborhood traffic and parking. Residents continue to be affected by a longstanding and growing problem with daytime and night time parking by students and employees of the university and other nearby employers who regularly park on neighborhood • streets to avoid the cost of parking permits or because of convenience. Increasingly, as Stanford works to discourage commute trips onto campus, more people may park nearby and walk, bike or take the Marguerite Shuttle to their campus destination. The construction of multi-story graduate student housing immediately adjacent to Stanford Avenue appears to have added to the problem as well, since some of the student residents and guests prefer to park on nearby city streets rather than pay to park in campus parking facilities. The nature of College Terrace compounds these problems. Small lots and relatively dense housing is common throughout this neighborhood. Many residents have inadequate or no off- street parking. Drivers frequently park too close to intersections, driveways and fire hydrants, creating visibility and safety hazards. This is especially problematic along Stanford A venue, a route used by many children who walk or bike to school. Parking permits have long been discussed in several congested Palo Alto neighborhoods. Previous surveys in University South and Downtown North have indicated strong but mixed support for residential parking permits. The College Terrace Resident's Association (CTRA) has had, for some time, a parking issue task force evaluating permit programs and support for them. The task force's surveys had indicated that support for a residential permit program is strong, though not universal. In 2000, as part of Condition of Approval H.2.a., of the Stanford University's 2000 County General Use Permit, Stanford University was required to provide a $100,000 deposit to the City of Palo Alto for a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) for the College Terrace neighborhood. These funds were specifically designated for the consideration and initiation of a RPPP program and were deposited with the City in October 2001. On July 30, 2007, a Colleagues Memorandum (Attachment C), from former Mayor Kishimoto and Council members Beecham and Drekmeier, recommended that Council direct and authorize staff to retain outside expertise, as needed to supplement staff, using the $100,000 deposited with the City from Stanford University, to initiate an assessment of a residential parking permit program in College Terrace and report back to Council with a status report. CMR:298:09 Page 2 of 11 The direction to staff was to develop a residential permit program in College Terrace that would likely be implemented only in portions of the neighborhood. The assessment would include two outreach meetings in the community to conceptually design a potential program and conducting a survey of all households to ascertain support. The assessment would need to advise Council and residents on the potential staffing requirements, cost and fee structure for the program. The program would also have to be revenue neutral to the General Fund. DISCUSSION In January 2008, staff retained the services of transportation consultants, Kimley Hom and Associates, to initiate and develop a RPPP in College Terrace. A Project Advisory Committee (PAC) consisting of eight College Terrace residents appointed by the College Terrace Residents Association (CTRA) Board, staff from Transportation, Police Department and Revenue Collections and consultants was formed to work on the development of the residential parking permit program. On-street Parking Occupancy Survey In early March 2008, in order to understand the current on-street parking conditions in the College Terrace neighborhood, to document baseline parking demand in the neighborhood and to help establish how much of the neighborhood should be included in the program, a parking occupancy study was conducted for both a weekday (Thursday, March 6th, 2008) and a weekend day (Saturday, March 1 st, 2008). On each day, vehicle occupancies on the streets were surveyed midday (roughly 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.) and in the evening (roughly 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.). The number of cars parked were counted and compared to calculated available parking spots, resulting in a parking density by street segment. These occupancy levels were graphed on a map of the neighborhood and color coded by percentage occupancy, as seen in Attachment D, Figures 1 through 4. The weekday midday results showed a relatively high percentage of parking occupancies along Stanford Avenue, with most blocks having greater than 50% occupancy. This occupancy trend continued through the commercial district at the eastern end of the neighborhood and through the cross streets between Stanford Avenue and College Avenue. The occupancy levels were found to decrease at College A venue and on the streets to the south of College A venue. On weekday evenings, the higher occupancies were found to be spread more evenly throughout the neighborhood. There was still a high percentage of parked cars along Stanford Avenue and in the commercial area, but there were also higher percentages along the cross streets within the neighborhood as well as along College Avenue. The survey found relatively low parking density along California Avenue during the evening hours. This is most likely the case because the main non-residential usage along California A venue is Stanford Research Park, which would tend to empty in the nighttime hours. The weekend midday survey showed a high density of parking in the commercial district and along some areas of Stanford A venue. College A venue and some of the cross streets had areas of higher parking occupancies, while California A venue again displayed lower occupancies. CMR:298:09 Page 3 of 11 In summary, during both midday and evening time periods on a typical weekday and weekend day, the on-street parking levels of College Terrace were found to be relatively high in specific areas. Program Alternatives The first neighborhood outreach meeting was held on March 19, 2008. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce and discuss the RPPP and to provide opportunity for residents to share their observations and concerns with members of City staff and the consultants. Approximately 35 people attended this meeting. After a brief presentation, the residents provided input on what type of problems they experienced, where they felt the majority of the parking problems were and the time of day when they felt it occurred. Throughout the next few months, staff continued to work closely with the Project Advisory Committee to study options for a RPPP that would address parking issues in the neighborhood. As a result, four options for a RPPP were discussed and recommended for further study. The following narrative details the specifics of each option: Option 1: Permits required for all on-street parking from 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday. Only vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permits would be permitted to use on-street parking, Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 5 pm. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods would be cited by the Police Department. Option 2: Parking limited to 2 hours without a permit from 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday. Permit allows unlimited parking. Vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit would be permitted to use on- street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit could park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods and exceeding the 2-hour maximum parking allowance would be cited by the Police Department. Option 3: Permits required for all on-street parking from 8 am to 5 pm, 7 days a week. Only vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit would be permitted to use on-street parking, all seven days of the week (Monday through Sunday) between 8 am to 5pm. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods would be cited by the Police Department. Option 4: Permits required for all on-street parking from 8 am to 10 pm, Monday through Friday. Only vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit would be permitted to use on-street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 10 pm. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods would be cited by the Police Department. CMR:298:09 Page 4 of 11 CTRJ\ Board Review On July 17,2008, staff met with the College Terrace Residents Association (CTRA) Board. All four residential parking permit program options were presented and staff discussed the next steps involved in the development of the residential parking permit program. The College Terrace Board also expressed its complete support of Option 2 -Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm (with 2-hour parking) as recommended by the PAC, as their preferred option. The members were all in support of the direction City staff was proposing to take for further development of this program (see Attachment E) and to present at the next neighborhood meeting. Staff and the PAC felt that this option would address the majority of the neighborhood concerns and would also allow for the flexibility of visitors in the neighborhood to be able to park at leisure within the two hour time frame. Staff also supports Option 2 as the preferred option. Recommended Program Details For the preferred option (Option 2), a cost estimate and report was prepared (see Attachment F), detailing the recommended program rules and procedures, guidelines, staffing requirements, start up and operational costs, cost recovery plan, permit types for residents and visitors, enforcement hours and methods, permit fees and neighborhood signage. This cost estimate was prepared for scenarios that included one-half of the neighborhood and for the whole neighborhood. The Final Program Background and Development Memorandum is included as Attachment G of this report. Below is a description of the cost assumptions that were made in preparing the cost estimates. • One (1) residential parking permit will be issued for each vehicle of a household owner or person(s) renting a household in the College Terrace Neighborhood. Residents applying for a permit will be required to provide proof of vehicle ownership and residency. Therefore, a vehicle registration form as well as one ofthe following would be required at the time of registration showing College Terrace residency: o Driver's License o Rental Agreement o Recent Utility Bill With Street Address Noted • Multiple resident permits could be purchased per physical address based on multiple vehicle ownership and the following criteria: o The RPPP year is proposed to take place between September 1 and August 31 of the following year. Yearly permit renewal date is September 1. This RPPP year was selected based on consultation with the City's Revenue Collections staff workload and schedule as well as flexibility for the Stanford students residing in the College Terrace neighborhood, but this date could be changed. o Parking permits may be purchased yearly starting August 1st each year, through September 30th• o A grace period will be recognized from September 1st to September 30th for residents with previous year permits (i.e. vehicles not displaying a permit during CMR:298:09 Page 5 of 11 the grace period will be cited but vehicles displaying the permit from the previous year will not be cited during the grace period). o The annual parking permit will consist of a bumper sticker that is to be affixed to the rear bumper, to the left of the license plate bracket. o The annual parking permit will be a different color each permit year (September 1 to August 31 st the following year). o New residents to College Terrace may purchase resident permits throughout a permit year. Parking permit fees will be pro-rated based on date of purchase. o No refund will be administered for any resident, guest, or day permits. • Two (2) reusable guest passes (at no cost) will be issued for any household that has registered for at least one resident parking permit. This allowance is to provide accessibility for resident services in the neighborhood such as lawn care, house cleaners, contractors, etc. as well as for guests of the household. Guest passes are provided per household rather than per vehicle ownership. Guest passes will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror and must be clearly displayed in this fashion. The selling of guest passes will be considered illegal under the adopted ordinance. • Residents will be required to complete their initial application for the resident parking permit and guest passes in person at the Revenue Collections office at Palo Alto City Hall located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Applications will require name, household address, license plate number, car manufacturer, color, year and model. Subsequent renewals of the residential parking permits and guest passes could be completed by mail or online, as this program evolves. • There will be a $10 re-issue fee for lost permits or new vehicle ownership for existing residential parking permit holders. • Day permits may be purchased in person at the Revenue Collections office. Day permits will be applicable for one 24-hour period. At the time of purchase, the date of each day permit will be logged in a registry at the Revenue Collections office based on the number of the day permit. A fee of $2 will be charged for each day permit. Day passes will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror and allow the user to scratch off the day of usage, which must be clearly displayed. The total number of day permits issued will be limited to 20 day passes for each quarter that the College Terrace RPPP applies. • Construction and maintenance permits will be available for long-term construction activities, consistent with current practice by the City. • The percentage of homes on each block that must approve the RPPP petition to be considered for the program is to be set at 51 % of households. • The residential parking permit program does not obviate the compliance with the City's ordinance relating to vehicles parked on the street for more than 72 hours. CMR:298:09 Page 6 of 11 Second Community Meeting A second neighborhood meeting was held on October 15, 2008 to present the draft program to the neighborhood, to obtain additional comments and to determine if minor adjustments would be needed before finalizing the program. Approximately 35 residents attended this meeting. The recommended proposed program was presented and discussed in full detail. Approximately 8 written comments were submitted. Comments included full support of the program, a request that Stanford pay for the cost of the permits and a request that the City implement the program within the whole neighborhood, as opposed to a block by block opt in basis. Neighborhood Survey Process In February 2009, a detailed letter and neighborhood survey postcard (see Attachment H) was sent to all households to ascertain the level of support and to determine the number of interested households who would like to participate in the RPPP. The survey letter included a description of the parking problem, proposed program elements, anticipated program rules and procedures, and estimated costs. The cost estimate for each residential parking permit is $25 if 50% or less of the blocks in the neighborhood (half neighborhood) voted to be included in the program or $15 if more than 50% of the blocks (whole neighborhood) voted for inclusion in the program. In the letter, staff clearly explained that, if residents were not experiencing the described parking problem within their neighborhood or street, it would not preclude them of problems in the future, once the RPPP is implemented on their neighboring blocks. Currently residents on Stanford Avenue including the streets that have access to Stanford Avenue (Yale, Wellesley Oberlin, Harvard, Hanover, and Dartmouth), experience the most problems with long-term parking. Once the RPPP is implemented in these blocks, cars could possibly move to the neighboring streets without residential parking permit enforcement. Strong recommendations were made that this be considered when casting their votes and mailing in their postcards. Approximately 900 postcards, which included residents in both the residential and commercial zoning areas, were mailed out. Each resident was asked to read the accompanying letter that fully described the background of the project, the description of the proposed rules, procedures and cost of the RPPP. They were then asked to fill out a postcard survey that asked if their household wanted their block to participate in the proposed RPPP as described in the letter, and were given a choice to either vote "yes" or "no." The requirements called for 51 % of the number of houses on a street block to vote "yes" in order for their block to be included in the RPPP. Residents were given three weeks to send back their postcards and were encouraged to work with their neighbors to decide on whether or not they wanted to have the RPPP implemented on their block. Staff extended this deadline by 2 weeks because a high number of postcards had to be resent to residents who had either not received the ballot or had misplaced/lost it and who wanted to be able to have their voted counted and/or to be able to participate in the program. During this time, staff worked closely with the PAC to help with the education and outreach efforts for this program. PAC members, along with the CTRA board, prepared reading materials CMR:298:09 Page 7 of 11 and FAQ's to hand out to the neighborhood to encourage them to get involved and send in their votes. Approximately 47 % of the survey postcards were returned. Attachment J, figures 1 and 2, provides the detailed breakdown of the responses based on the total number of households (not including the vacant households) and the number of "yes" and "no" votes received for each block. The survey resulted in one-third of the total number of street blocks (21 /63 blocks) in the neighborhood voting "yes" to have RPPP implemented on their block. (See Attachment J). Each one of these 21 blocks had a m~ority (over 50 percent) of the households on that block in favor of having their street block opt into the RPPP. Recent Concerns It is important to note that, on May 14, 2009, Facebook moved its 850 local employees to a 150,000-square foot office building in the Stanford Research Park at 1601 California Avenue. This move has raised new concerns for residents in the upper College Terrace neighborhood as the overflow of employees are parking in the neighborhood streets. Staff anticipates that because the survey for this program was conducted before this move, the neighborhood had not realized the extent of the impact of Facebook moving into the neighborhood and most likely did not vote in favor of a RPPP for their block. Staff is proposing to provide a 60 day opt in period prior to the start of the program implementation, allowing the opportunity for residents faced with this new parking challenge the time to work with their neighbors to reconsider opting in to the program. Staff anticipates that additional blocks will want to opt in to the program, resulting in increased program revenue. College Terrace Commercial District The College TelTace commercial neighborhood (CN) zoning area, bounded by EI Camino Real on the east, California Avenue to the south, and all of Canlbridge and Staunton and portions of Oxford Avenues, consists of a mixture of single family residential, neighborhood serving retail and commercial propelties. Concerns were raised at the neighborhood meetings and by the CTRA Board that parking for the residences in the CN areas would be greatly exacerbated if no parking controls (RPPP) were offered on these streets. A letter from the CTRA Board (Attachment K) requested that the City also survey residences in the eN zone and that they be included as part of the initial RPPP implementation. On April 28, 2009, a letter was sent out to residents in the CN Zone (Attachment K) which included residents on both Cambridge A venue and Staunton Court. Businesses were not included as part of the required 51% vote. Unfortunately, the number of postcards returned did not qualify these streets to participate in this initial RPPP implementation. These results are also shown on Attachment 1. CMR:298:09 Page 8 of 11 Program Start-Up Costs While staff has estimated costs for this program to be revenue neutral, start-up funds are needed for the design and installation of street signs and for hiring temporary personnel and purchase of office equipment in the Revenue Collections Department. The initial costs are needed to cover the purchase of the permits, preparation of educational brochures, office supplies and equipment, and purchase and installation of the street signs. Staff is proposing to use the interest of $36,839, which has been accumulating on the initial $100,000 deposit from Stanford University since 2001, to help fund the initial start up costs. The interest amount will be replenished and added as part of the program funds as parking permits are purchased and citation revenues are generated. It is also important to note that the cost and resources needed for implementation of this program have been prepared for the College Terrace neighborhood only and do not include provisions for other neighborhoods in the City. Because this program is required to operate as a revenue neutral program, costs of permits for College Terrace may increase if other neighborhoods come forward and request to have a RPPP implemented in their neighborhoods. Although the Police Department has stated that it could staff this current program in College Terrace without the necessity to hire another CSO, if other neighborhoods request to have a RPPP in their neighborhood, additional staffing and resources will be needed in both the Police Department and Revenue Collections Division. Program Management Following Council direction, staff from the Transportation Section has completed the design, program procedures and guidelines for a residential parking permit program for College Terrace. The ongoing management and oversight of the program will be a collaborative effort by the Police Department and Revenue Collections. RESOURCE IMPACT Staff has prepared a detailed cost estimate that includes the cost of signs, office equipment and supplies and additional personnel required to operate and maintain the permit parking program. Because of the workload associated with the set-up, issuance, renewal and tracking of permits, additional staff hours are required in the Revenue Collections Department. N0 additional staff is needed during the first year of implementation for the Police Department, as they will be absorbing the shared cost of a Community Service Officer (CSO). They will, however, need an additional parking enforcement vehicle for the CSO to be able to patrol the RPPP areas in this neighborhood. The assessment of the College Terrace RPPP was funded by the $100,000 from the Stanford University General Use Permit. $46,200 of the initial fund amount was used for consultant fees for the development of the RPPP. The balance of the deposit, $53,800, and the interest earned, $38,839, will be used for the set up of the College Terrace RPPP, which includes the purchase of the police department patrol vehicle and equipment. The College Terrace RPPP will be established as a Special Revenue Fund with the intent of capturing and segregating future revenues and costs within this program and maintaining CMR:298:09 Page 9 of 11 neutrality to the General Fund. After the first year of implementation, full cost allocations will be applied to the program. Revenue projections for such a program are difficult to calculate due to the uncertainties in the actual number of citations that would be issued and the number of resident permits that would be purchased. The number of citations issued and revenues collected for the program, as shown in Attachment F, are based on historical citation rates evaluated in the City of Palo Alto and compared with other cities with similar residential parking permit programs. Although the intent of the program is to result in cost recovery with no impact to the General Fund, due to these uncertainties the full impacts are unknown. The true cost of the program may not be accurately assessed until the program is actually implemented. Staff recommends that these costs be assessed and evaluated one year after implementation in order to determine if adjustments to the permit costs will be necessary to remain at cost recovery levels. TIMELINE The next steps in the process would be for staff to work with the City Attorney's office to draft an ordinance for Council approval. Preliminary work involving the design and purchase of permits and signs, hiring temporary staff, and purchase of necessary equipment would also take place during the remainder of the calendar year. Staff will also solicit the neighborhood blocks that did not initially opt in to the program, to find out ifthere are any other blocks that would like to opt in prior to this initial implementation. The proposed program would be ready for implementation beginning no later than January 2010. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The implementation of a Residential Parking Permit program is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan T-47: "Utilize engineering, enforcement, and educational tools to improve traffic safety on City roadways." ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Negative Declaration (ND) has been completed and is attached to this report (Attachment L) for approval. The draft Negative Declaration was available for review as of June 12, 2009. A minimum of 20-day public comment period has been provided prior to the finalization of the Negative Declaration. PREPARED BY: ~~ :HAHLA YAZDY Transportation Engineer DEPARTMENT HEAD: CURTIS ILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR:298:09 Page 10 of 11 CITY MANAGER APPROV AL: ATTACHMENTS A. College Terrace Proposed Parking Permit Program B. Proj ect Area Map C. Colleagues Memorandum D. College Terrace Parking Occupancy Survey Email of Support from CTRA F. Cost Estimate for Option 2 G. Final Program Background and Development Memorandum H. Neighborhood Survey Letter and Postcard 1. College Terrace Parking Results -ParticipatingINon-Participating Residences J. Proposed College Terrace RPPP blocks K. Letter from CTRA Board (CN Zone) L. Letter to CN Zone Residents M. Negative Declaration COURTESY COPIES: College Terrace Resident's Association Board College Terrace Project Advisory Committee Jean Mc Cown, Stanford University CMR:298:09 Page 11 of 11 ATTACHMENT A COLLEGE TERRACE PROPOSED PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM 1. Provide for enforcement of the blocks, in the residential parking permit program, Mondays through Fridays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Vehicles displaying a permit may use on-street parking during this period. Vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to 2 hours during this period. Violators will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. Weekends and holidays will be exempt. 2. Allow a block to opt into the residential parking program (RPPP) if 51 % of households on that block sign a petition to be considered in the program. 3. Require blocks that enroll in the program, to opt in for a period of 2-years, to prevent blocks from entering and exiting the program after initial program implementation. 4. Provide one (1) residential parking permit for each vehicle of a household owner or person(s) renting a household in the College Terrace Neighborhood. The annual parking permit will consist of a bumper sticker that is to be affixed to the rear bumper, to the left of the license plate bracket. 5. Require residents to complete their initial application for the residential parking permit and guest passes in person at the Revenue Collections office at the City of Palo Alto City Hall located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Residents applying for a permit will be required to provide vehicle registration and proof of residency such as a driver's license, rental agreement or a utility bill with street address noted. Application will require name, household address, license plate number, car manufacturer, color, year and model. There will be a $10 re-issue fee for lost permits or new vehicle ownership for existing residential parking permit holders. 6. Allow new residents to College Terrace to purchase resident permits throughout a permit year. These parking permit fees will be pro-rated for half year increments. No refund will be administered for any resident, guest, or day permits. 7. Provide, at no cost, two (2) annual guest permits per household in the College Terrace neighborhood that has registered for at least one resident parking permit. This allowance is to provide accessibility for resident services in the neighborhood such as lawn care, house cleaners, contractors, etc. as well as for guests of the household. Annual guest permits are provided per household rather than per vehicle ownership. Guest permits will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror and must be clearly displayed. The selling of guest passes will be considered illegal under the adopted ordinance. 8. Allow residents to purchase one-day permits for a fee, in person at the Revenue Collections office. One-day permits will be applicable for one 24-hour period. Day permits will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror and allow the user to scratch off the day of usage, which must be clearly displayed. The total number of day permits issued will be limited to 20 days passes for each quarter that the College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) applies. 9. Allow normal construction and maintenance permits to be available for long-term construction activities on regulated streets, consistent with current practice by the City. 10. Provide residential parking permits at an initial cost of $25, or $15 if more than 50% of the blocks in the neighborhood vote for inclusion in the program. ATTACHMENT B COLLEGE TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD -PROJECT AREA MAP Date: To; From: Subject: ATTACHMENT C 18 CITY OF PALO ALTO COLLEAGUES tlJEMORANDUM July 30, 2007 City Council Colleagues Mayor Kishimoto and Council Members Beecham and Drekmeier Recommending the Council to Direct Staff to Explore the Feasibility of College Terrace Parking Permit Program Recommendation: We recommend Council direct staff to initiate an assessment of a residential parking permit program in College Terrace and report the results back to Council. The assessment would include approximately two outreach meetings in the community to co nce ptu a IIY,d esi 9..Q~li-!?~._!2E9.g[.9}l:L.c;LOsL.i;LSJJIy.eY_._Q.L9J I households to asc:~rtainsupport. Staff would be authorized to retain outside expertfseas ne'eded"to supple"me"nt staff, using funds deposited with the City from Stanford University for the College Terrace permit parking program pursuant to the 2000 General Use Permit conditions of approval. Problem: College Terrace residents suffer from a longstanding and growing problem with daytime and night time non-resident parking. Students and employees of the university and other nearby employers regularly park on neighborhood streets to avoid the cost of permits or because of convenience. Increasingly, as Stanford works to discourage commute trips onto campus, more people park nearby and walk, bike or take the Marguerite to their campus destination. The construction of multi-story graduate student housing immediately adjacent to Stanford Avenue at Oberlin Street has added to the problem as well, since some student" residents prefer to park on nearby city streets rather than in campus parking facilities. The nature of College Terrace compounds these problems. Small lots and relatively dense housing is common throughout. Many residents have inadequate or no off- street parking. Drivers frequently park too close to intersections, driveways and fire hydrants, creating visibility and safety hazards. This is especially problematic along Stanford Avenue, a route used by many children to walk or bike to school. Discussion.: Parking permits have long been discussed in several congested Palo Alto neighborhoods. Previous surveys in University South and Downtown North have indicated strong but mixed support for residential parking permits. The College Terrace Residents Association has had for some time a parking issues task force evaluating permit programs and support for them. As elsewhere, the task force's surveys indicate that supoort for a residential permit program is strong though not universal. In addition, as rt of Stanford's cu General Use Permit, the city has a fund of $1001000 supporting a parking permii: program. A residential permit program in College Terrace would likely implemented only in portions of the n hborhood. The assessment recommend above would need to include means for defining the bound of the program as well as a system for easily adjusting ,.--' bo'und over time as conditions and residential preferences chan The assessment would also need to adv Council and residents on the potential staffing requirem cost and for the program. The program should b-e-'revenuen-e'ulrar't6 the general fund in the long"run ."We encourage staff to find best practices and new technolog available to reduce operational costs and reduce administrative burden on staff, visitors and residents. This memorandum has been reviewe.d by staff. ATTACHMENT D Figure 1 College Terrace Parking Occupancy Study Weekday -Midday Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Thursday, March 6th, at 12:00-1 :OOpm during the midday, The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below. EI Camino Real \ Midday Occupancy = Total Available Parking Spaces Kimley-Horn and ASSOCiates, Inc. ColiegeTerraceRPP _ Occupancy(color)052909.xls Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dal1mouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst 0-25% Occupancy 26-50% Occupancy 51-75% Occupancy = 76-90% Occupancy = 91·100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed 05129/09 Figure 2 College Terrace Parking Occupancy Study Existing Weekday -PM KimleY-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Thursday, March 6th, at 7:00-8:00pm during the PM The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below, \ EI Camino Real !Xl = Midday Occupancy ~ = Total Available Parking Spaces Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc, College TerraceRPP _ Occupancy(color)052909 ,xis 0-25% Occupancy 26-50% Occupancy 51-75% Occupancy = 76-90% Occupancy = 91-100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed 05129109 Figure 3 College Terrace -Parking Occupancy Study Weekend· Midday Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Saturday March 1st, at 12:00-1 :20pm during the midday. The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below. \ Midday Occupancy Total Available Parking Spaces Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ColiegeTerraceRPP _Occupancy(color)052909.xls Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Oartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst 0-25% Occupancy 26-50% Occupancy 51·75% Occupancy 76-90% Occupancy ., 91-100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed 05/29/09 Figure 4 College Terrace -Parking Occupancy Study .... vj,.,.h ...... Weekend. PM Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Saturday, March 1st, at 7:00-8:00pm during the PM The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below, \ = Midday Occupancy = Total Available Parking Spaces Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc, College TerraceRPP _ Occupancy(color)052909,xls 0-25% Occupancy 26-50% Occupancy = 51-75% Occupancy = 76·90% Occupancy = 91-100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed 05129109 ATTACHMENT E Page 1 of2 Yazdy, Shahla From: greg tanaka [gltanaka@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 8:35 AM To: . Likens, Gayle Cc: Yazdy, Shahla; CTRAboard@googlegroups.com Subject: Board Approval Gayle, The College Terrace Residents' Association Board, Permit Parking and Traffic Calming subcommittees appreciate the work you and your staff have done on the Traffic Calming and Permit Parking issues. The Board has unanimously voted in favor of the following recommendations: The Permit Parking Option #2 -We believe it best meets the needs of the neighborhood. Option 2 Summary: Vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit are permitted to use on-street parking in the College Terrace Neighborhood on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Holidays would be exempt. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these spe~ified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these periods and exceeding the two (2) hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. All vehicles may utilize on-street parking in College Terrace outside of the specified time periods. The Traffic Calming Goal & Action Plan --Goal: Lower speed and cut-through traffic in College Terrace while enhancing pedestrian safety and anticipating pressures from future developments. Facilitate an inclusive process, positive relationships with neighborhood, City staff, and consultants, and an expeditious resolution to College Terrace Traffic Calming trial --Short-term Action Plan: -Remove circle at Hanover, make intersection 4-way stop -Flip stop signs at Columbia --Long Term Action Plan: -Additional traffic counts -Review intersection by intersection with CTRA Traffic Calming subcommittee and City staff to develop feasible recommendations that would ensure that the final plan is an improvement on the current trial and what existed before the trial. -Continued interaction with CTRA, CTRA subcommittee, and College Terrace neighbors on this issue. 6/1612009 First Year Costs First Year Citation Revenues Less Revenue from Citations Annual Cost per Household to Recover Expenses 'Day permits are not included in cost estimate process because the physical cost of permit and processing time is offset by the $2 planned charge. $87,577.20 -$63,060.00 $24,577.20 $45.51 $136,160.35 -$111,930.00 $24,230.35 $22.44 ~ () I s:: m z -I -n ATTACHMENTG Memorandum ~-1Ir1I Kimley-Horn 1IIII.......l_~ and Associates, Inc. To: From: Re: Date: Shahla Yazdy and City of Palo Alto Jim West, P.E. and Michael Mowery, P.E. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Final Program Background and Development Memorandum 29 l\JIay 2009 INTRODUCTION The College Terrace neighborhood, located adjacent to Stanford University and Stanford Research Park, has historically been affected by large amounts of non- neighborhood traffic and parking for more than 20 years. Past efforts to address the problem have included traffic calming measures to help reduce cut-through traffic and speeding; however, College Terrace residents continue to suffer from a longstanding and growing problem of non-resident parking during both day and night time periods. As a condition of their revised County General Use Permit in 2000, Stanford University provided $100,000 to the city of Palo Alto for a residential parking permit program (RPPP) for the College Terrace neighborhood. These funds are for the consideration and initiation of a RPPP program. In 2003, the City conducted an occupancy survey to gauge the need for the establishment of a College Terrace RPPP, however, no consensus regarding criteria or implementation was reached at that time. During the same period, the concern regarding cut-through traffic and speeding was evaluated through a neighborhood traffic management project (NTMP). In late 2006, traffic circles, speed tables, and other traffic management measures were installed in the neighborhood as outcomes of the NTMP. The completion of the NTMP led to a renewed focus on the parking concerns of the neighborhood and in a memorandum dated July 30, 2007, Mayor Kishimoto and Council Members Beecham and Drekmeier recommended that the City Council direct City staff to initiate a study of an RPPP in College Terrace. Kimley-Horn was retained by the City of Palo Alto to conduct this project, the background and results of which are discussed herein. OCCUPANCY SURVEY To understand the current on-street parking conditions in the College Terrace neighborhood, a parking occupancy study was conducted for both a weekend day (Saturday, March 1S\ 2008) and a weekday (Thursday, March 6th, 2008). On each day occupancies were surveyed midday (roughly 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.) and in the evening (roughly 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.). City of Palo Alto -College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program College T erraceRPP P. FinalProg Background&Devp .doc Page 1 29 May 2009 Field conditions on both days were good, with clear skies and low pedestrian and vehicle traffic on most of the roadways and survey days were considered to represent a typical day. However, there were construction activities in the neighborhood that affected the weekday midday occupancy counts, and "No Parking" areas were indicated near those zones for weekdays. The streets affected by the construction activity were mainly California Avenue and College Avenue. Counting on non- construction days was not possible due to the long duration of the construction project. The number of cars parked were counted and compared to calculated available parking spots, resulting in a parking density by street segment. These occupancy levels were graphed on a map of the neighborhood, and color coded by percentage occupancy, as seen in Figures 1 through 4 on the following pages. The weekday midday results show a relatively high percentage of parking occupancies along Stanford Avenue, with most blocks having greater than 50% occupancy. This occupancy trend continues through the commercial district at the eastern end of the neighborhood, and through the cross streets between Stanford Avenue and College Avenue. The occupancy levels were found to decrease at College Avenue, and on the streets to the south of College Avenue. On weekday evenings, the higher occupancies were found to be spread more evenly throughout the neighborhood. There is still a high percentage of parked cars along Stanford Avenue and in the commercial area, but there are also higher percentages along the cross streets within the neighborhood as well as along College Avenue. There was found to be relatively low parking density along California Avenue during the evening hours, most likely since the main non-residential usage along California Avenue is Stanford Research Park, which was generally unoccupied in the nighttime hours. Weekend midday shows a high density of parking in the commercial district, and along some areas of Stanford Avenue. College Avenue and some of the cross streets have areas of higher parking occupancies, while California Avenue is again displaying lower occupancies. During the weekday evening, the inner cross streets were found to have higher occupancy levels, as did Stanford Avenue. In summary, during both midday and evening time periods on a typical weekday and weekend day, the on-street parking levels of College Terrace were found to be relatively high in specific areas. The parking levels surveyed in the Spring 2008 Occupancy Study were compared and found similar to those collected in 2003 when the College Terrace RPPP was first considered. Therefore, the relatively high level of parking occupancy experienced in the neighborhood was determined to be a consistent occurrence during the five year term between the studies. City of Palo Alto -College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program ColiegeTerraceRPPP.FinaIProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 2 29 May 2009 Figure 1 College Terrace Parking Occupancy Study Weekday -Midday Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Thursday, March 6th, at 12:00-1 :OOpm during the midday. The results 01 the occupancy study are illustrated below . ~ ., "E 0) c: ~ .!!l ll! "0 til 0 0 Kimiey-Hom and Associates, Inc. College T erraceRPP _ Occupancy( oolor)052909.xls ., 0\ '" "0 'c ." .0 5 E :t ., ro 0 0 \ = Midday Occupancy = Totat Available Pal1<ing Spaces i = 0-25% Occupancy ti§i~ = 26-50% Occupancy = 51-75% Occupancy = 76-90% Occupancy = 91-100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed 05/29109 2 College Terrace Parking Occupancy Study WeeK(l(W • PM Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Thursday. March 6th, at 7:00-8:00pm during the PM The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below. " '" m 'E Q) " '1" oS 'E OJ :g ,g " ~ .l!l E .lll '0 '" iii <1) 0 U U u Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc. College T erraceRPP _ Occupancy(color)052909.xls EI Camino Real Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst \ Midday Occupancy Total Available Parking Spaces 0-25% Occupancy 26-50% Occupancy 51-75% Occupancy 76-90% Occupancy 91-100% Occupancy Or No Parking Allowed 05/29/09 Figure 3 College Terrace -Parking Occupancy Study Existing Weekend -Midday Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighborhood on Saturday March 1 st, at 12:00-1 :20pm during the midday. The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. College T erraceRPP _ Occupancy(color)052909.xls \ !xl = Midday Occupancy ~ = Total Available Parking Spaces 1= 0-25% Occupancy .. = 26-50% Occupancy . . = 51-75% Occupancy = 76-90% Occupancy = 91-100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed 05/29/09 College Terrace -Parking Occupancy Study Weekend -PM Kimley-Horn staff conducted a parking occupancy study of the College Terrace neighbortlOod on Saturday, March 1 st, at 7:00·8:00pm dunng the PM The results of the occupancy study are illustrated below, Kimley·Horn and Associates, Inc, ColiegeTerraceRPP _Occupancy(color)052909,xls Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst \ = Midday Occupancy = Total Available Parking Spaces ; = 0·25% Occupancy ';'i': " 26-50% Occupancy = 51-75% Occupancy = 76-90% Occupancy "91·100% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed 05129/09 Based on the slightly higher occupancy survey results in the neighborhood area north of College Avenue, a preliminary evaluation was conducted to determine the results of applying an RPPP only in this half of the neighborhood. As expected, the non- resident parking would be forced to park elsewhere, likely first moving to College Avenue as that would be the closest non-RPPP street, and then spreading south throughout the remaining cross streets and California Avenue. An updated occupancy diagram is shown as Figure 5 for weekday, midday parking conditions, and demonstrates the potential impact of implementation of an RPP program in only the north section of College Terrace. To create this example of potential parking locations, the percentage of residents versus non-residents in each block was calculated from a 2003 license plate survey conducted by Palo Alto Police Department. These percentages were then applied to the total number of vehicles parked in the roadway segments as counted during the March 2008 field survey. In the north neighborhood area where the RPPP was studied, those vehicles that were not assumed to be residents were moved to neighboring streets. College Avenue was first filled to approximately 90% capacity, assuming that most relocated vehicles would park there as it would be the closest non-permitted parking to their previous locations. Once College Avenue was nearly occupied, the remaining relocated vehicles were evenly dispersed amongst the cross streets between College Avenue and California Avenue, as well as along California Avenue itself. Figure 6 depicts the potential parking availability during weekend midday hours. The methodology was identical to that used during the weekday midday exercise, in order to show the most conservative estimate if the parking program were to be in effect on the weekend. The results of this evaluation illustrates the predicted impact of application of a College Terrace RPPP in only one section of the neighborhood and the likely relocation of non-resident parked vehicles to other portions of the neighborhood. This evaluation utilized the north half of the neighborhood but the results are considered a representative illustration of the continued impacts that non- resident parking may have on the College Terrace neighborhood if only part of the neighborhood adopts an RPP program. City of Palo Alto -College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program ColiegeT erraceRPPP .FinalProg Background&Devp .doc Page 7 29 May 2009 College Terrace Parking Occupancy Study Future Weekday· Midday Below is a descriplion of cars parked after the residential parking permll program is in place. Non-residents are now reslricted from parking on slreet in the neighborhood bordered by Slanford Ave, to the north, EI Camino Real 10 the east, Amherst St. 10 the west, and College Ave. to the south. Non-residents are allowed to park on College Ave. Yale Williams Wellesley Cornetl Princeton Oberlin Harvard Bowdoin Amherst Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ColiegeTerraceRPP _RelocatedOccupancy(colorl05290Rxts \ !xl = Midday Occupancy ~ = Tolal Available Parking Spaces 1= 0-20% Occupancy :'T~g = 21-40% Occupancy = 41-50% Occupancy = 50+% Occupancy aT No Parking Allowed = 90+% Occupancy 05129109 College Terrace -Parking Occupancy Study Future Weekend -Midday Below is a descriplion of cars parked after Ihe residenlial parking pennit program is in place. Non-residents are now restricted from parking on street in the neighborhood bordered by Stanford Ave, to the north, EI Camino Real to the east, Amherst SI. to the west, and College Ave. to the south. Non-residents are allowed to park on College Ave. Yale x X \ = Midday Occupancy = Total Available Parking Spaces " .. ~ = 21-40% Occupancy = 41-50% Occupancy 1= 0-20% Occupancy = 50+% Occupancy or No Parking Allowed = 90+% Occupancy Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Harvard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ColiegeTerraceRPP _RelocatedOccupancy(colorJ052909.xls 05129109 RPP BEST PRACTICES FROM OTHER CITIES To determine best practices and/or ideas for implementation in the College Terrace neighborhood, a literature review was conducted comparing various residential parking permit programs in the local area. The cities selected for comparison were Berkeley, Cupertino, Emeryville: Oakland, Monterey, Santa Cruz, and Walnut Creek. The research focused on the following points of the permit policies: • Enforcement Agency: The agency that enforces the program. In some areas, this may be the public works department, finance department, parking division, or other department. • Cost of Yearly Permit: Most programs have an annual fee, others charge a fee once every two years. • Threshold for Adopting RPP: The percentage of residents within the proposed program limits that must sign a petition for the program to be considered. • Enforcement Periods: Defined by the days of the week (usually Monday through Friday) and the hours during the day which the program will be enforced. • Parking Time without Permit: Allowed time for a vehicle with no permit to park in a restricted street parking spot. This time period usually ranges from one to two hours. • Voting Privileges: Whether the owner, resident, or renter gets to vote to implement a program. • Guest Permit Violation Policy: Policy for violation of guest permits such as ticketing and towing after 72 hours. • Enforcement of Guest Permit Violations: Actions taken for guest permit violations. • Residences in Commercial Districts: Policy on how residences in commercial districts are handled such as obtaining a permit and parking in a metered space and not have to pay the meter or parking in a residential district. • SellinglTransfer of Guest Passes: Policy on replacing or transferring guest passes such as a $25 fee to replace the guest pass. An option is available in some programs for homeowners to purchase a certain number of one-day guest passes for use throughout the year. • Adoption Entity: Amount of neighborhood that will be part of the program, i.e. full neighborhood or street by street participation. Usually requires 2/3 majority or 51 % of residents participate. • Commercial/Contractor/Maintenance Vehicles: Treatment of vehicles such as gardeners or contractors who park in the street but do not have a parking permit. Most locales allow for issuance of guest passes to facilitate commercial and non-resident parking. • Application Process: Action necessary to apply for a residential permit. • Form of Permit: The form of the permit, such as a sticker to put on your car bumper. City.of Palo Alto -College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program ColiegeTerraceRPPP.FinaIProg6ackground&Devp.doc Page 10 29 May 2009 • Proof of Residency: List of acceptable proofs of residency such as a driver's license, utility bill, rental agreement, etc. • Time to Issue: Amount of time expected to be necessary to obtain permit • Day Passes: The cost associated with a day pass and the duration of the validity of the pass. A summary of the RPP programs reviewed was compiled and summarized in Table 1. The results of the local area RPPPs aided in the selection of alternative elements in the College Terrace RPPP based on the specific issues and cost ramifications of establishing a successful RPPP in other areas. City of Palo Alto -College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program ColiegeTerraceRPPP.FinaIProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 11 29 May 2009 Finance Rowcloa CUstomer 510-981-7200 Servic::e Center/Office 01 Transportation Table 1: Local Area RPP Programs 530 Oaify passes can get ahead of tlmo when you apply for annl.l.al permit COLLEGE TERRACE RPPP ALTERNATIVES Based on the local area RPPP research and concerns discussed with the project advisory committee (PAC), alternatives were developed for consideration for the College Terrace RPPP. At the April 16, 2008 College Terrace RPPP PAC meeting, four options for a College Terrace RPP Program were discussed and recommended for further study. The following narrative details the specifics of each option; with further details concerning types of permits contained in later text. • Option 1: Only vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit are permitted to use on-street parking in the College Terrace Neighborhood on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Holidays would be exempt. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these periods will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. All vehicles may utilize on-street parking in College Terrace outside of the specified time periods. • Option 2: Vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit are permitted to use on-street parking in the College Terrace Neighborhood on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Holidays would be exempt. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these periods and exceeding the two (2) hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. All vehicles may utilize on-street parking in College Terrace outside of the specified time periods. • Option 3: Only vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit are permitted to use on-street parking in the College Terrace Neighborhood on all seven days of the week (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Holidays would be exempt. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these periods will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. All vehicles may utilize on-street parking in College Terrace outside of the specified time periods. • Option 4: Only vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit are permitted to use on-street parking in the College Terrace Neighborhood on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Holidays would be exempt. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these periods will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. All vehicles may utilize on-street parking in College Terrace outside of the specified time periods. City of Palo Alto -College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program ColiegeTerraceRPPP.FinaIProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 13 29 May 2009 COLLEGE TERRACE RPPP PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE On July 15, 2008, the College Terrace RPPP PAC in consultation with the College Terrace Board recommended to City staff that Option 2 be considered the primary option for RPP program implementation. The following describes the recommended details for the College Terrace RPP program under the Option 2 criteria. For each program, parking enforcement officers would be required to ensure that the provisions of the program are being met; otherwise fines would be issued to violators. For the preferred alternative, the City of Palo Alto Police Department has stated that they could staff this option without the need to hire another Community Service Officer (CSO). [A summary of the estimated cost of the preferred alternative, based on staffing hours, rates, overtime compensation, and other costs was computed. Since the program is required to operate as revenue-neutral, an estimate of the number of citations issued and revenues collected is also calculated for the program based on historical citation rates evaluated in the City of Palo Alto as well as cities with existing RPP Programs. These citations are assumed to cost $35 per citation, based on the current downtown parking violation citation cost.] The following Program Details and Cost Assumptions explain the Preferred RPPP Alternative, Option 2. A survey was sent out to all households in the College Terrace neighborhood in spring of 2009 by US mail. The survey resulted in approximately 200 households choosing to opt-in to the RPPP in the initial deployment. Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the voting results by neighborhood block for households choosing to opt-in or not participate in the RPPP initial deployment, respectively. Based on the results of the survey, the City of Palo Alto staff is revising the Cost Estimate for permits in the initial deployment area. These updates include the number of households in the neighborhood updated from 1080 to 900 households, a revision of staffing support time and expenses to operate the program, and application of the General Use Permit funds to be included in the program. The final Staff Report for City Council review will include this Cost Estimate update and final program details. City of Palo Alto -College Terrace Permit Program Page CollegeTerraceRPPP.FinaIProgBackground&Devp.doc 29 May 2009 Figure 7: College Terrace Parking RPPP Survey Results (Participating Residences) Stanford Oxford College Cambridge California Yale Oberlin r-____________ ~--l--L--H~aNaro Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Legend I xx I xx I Yes voles I T alai # of houses xx I xx No voles I TOlal # of houses OS/29/09 Figure 8: College Terrace RPPP Survey Results (Non-Participating Residencies) Stanford Oxford College Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc. Cambridge California Legend I xx I Xl( EYes votes I Total # of houses __ .... "'.IINO votes I T olal # of houses ~~~r-IT~rr~~elle5Iey Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin 05/29/09 Program Details: • One (1) resident permit will be issued for each vehicle of a household owner or person (s) renting a household in the College Terrace Neighborhood. Residents applying for a permit will be required to provide proof of vehicle ownership and residency. Therefore, a vehicle registration form as well as one of the following would be required at the time of registration showing College Terrace residency: o Driver's License o Rental Agreement o Recent Utility Sill With Street Address Noted • Multiple resident permits may be purchased per physical address based on multiple vehicle ownership and the following criteria: o The RPPP year is defined as between September 1 and August 31 st of the following year. Yearly permit renewal date is September 1. (This RPPP year was selected based on consultation with the City Department of Revenue Collections as well as flexibility for Stanford students residing in the College Terrace neighborhood.) o Parking permits may be purchased yearly starting August 1st each year, through September 30th• o A grace period will be recognized from September 1 st to September 30th for residents with previous year permits due to the start of school each year (Le. vehicles not displaying a permit during the grace period will be cited but vehicles displaying the permit from the previous year will not be cited during the grace period). o The annual parking permit will consist of a bumper sticker that is to be affixed to the rear bumper, to the left of the license plate bracket. o The annual parking permit will be a different color each permit year (September 1 to August 31 st the following year). o New residents to College Terrace may purchase resident permits throughout a permit year. Parking permit fees will be pro-rated for half year increments, e.g. permits applied for from February 1 to July 31 st will pay half price. o No partial or full refund will be administered for any resident, guest, or day permits. • Two (2) guest passes will be issued per household in the College Terrace Neighborhood that has registered for at least one resident parking permit. This allowance is to provide accessibility for resident services in the neighborhood such as lawn care, house cleaners, contractors, etc. as well as for guests of the household. Guest passes are provided per household rather than per vehicle ownership. Guest passes will be designed to hang from the rear view City of Palo Alto -College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program CollegeTerraceRPPP.FinaIProgBackground&Devp,doc Page 17 29 May 2009 mirror and must be clearly displayed in this fashion. The selling of guest passes will be considered illegal under the adopted ordinance. • Residents will be required to complete their initial application for the resident permit and guest passes in person at the Revenue Collections office at the City of Palo Alto City Hall located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Subsequent renewal of the resident permit and guest passes must be completed in person at the Revenue Collections office. Application will require name, household address, license plate number, car manufacturer, color, year and model. There will be a $10 re-issue fee for lost permits or new vehicle ownership for existing resident parking permit holders. • Day permits may be purchased in person at the Revenue Collections office. Day passes will be applicable for one 24-hour period. At the time of purchase the date of each day permit will be logged in a registry at the Revenue Collections office based on the number of the day permit. A fee of $2 will be charged for each day permit. Day passes will be designed to hang from the rear view mirror and allow the user to scratch off the day of usage, which must be clearly displayed. The total number of Day Passes issued will be limited to 1/3 of the total days each 3 months that the College Terrace RPPP applies (e.g. 60 weekdays in a 3 month period would allow a resident to purchase 20 day passes for that quarter). Day permits may only be purchased by College Terrace residents. • Construction and maintenance permits will be available for long-term construction activities, consistent with current practice by the City. Program Cost Assumptions: • Permits will be applied for and renewed annually. • 900 U.S. Postal Service households in College Terrace used for "whole neighborhood" cost, 450 used for half, and 225 used for quarter. • Total available parking spaces in College Terrace are estimated to be 1,246 parking spaces, with an estimated 644 parking spaces in half the neighborhood. • The percentage of homes on that block that must approve a RPPP petition to be considered/go into effect is to be set at 51% of households. • Enforcement of the ~-hour limitation will be conducted by coding license plates in electronic format and not chalking tires. • After the initial survey, to enroll a block in the College Terrace RPPP, there is 1 year opt in period. A block may only enter the RPP program on the program renewal date of September 1. • Once a block is enrolled, there is a 2 year opt out period to prevent blocks from entering and exiting the program frequently and causing confusion. For City of Palo Alto -College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program ColiegeTerraceRPPP.FinaIProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 18 29 May 2009 example, a block that joins the program on September 1, 2009 will be a RPPP block until at least August 31,2011, if an opt-out process is completed. • RPP program sign installation and maintenance cost is to be funded by the College Terrace RPPP. • The City of Palo Alto public library located in the College Terrace neighborhood is exempt from the College Terrace RPPP. • The residential portion of the CN zone on the east side of Yale Street will be included in the College Terrace RPPP. • The development and implementation of the College Terrace Program is initially funded by $100,000 from a Standard University General Use Permit fund contribution. The initial fund amount will be used for set up of the College Terrace RPPP including consultant fees and one police department patrol vehicle. To apply this fund equitably for all neighborhood residents, the remaining fund balance will be applied on a percent of blocks partiCipating in the program through the third full year of the program. After the third full year RPPP program completion, the remaining fund balance will be applied to the program to offset resident permit costs. For example, if half of the neighborhood opts-in to the RPP program for year one, one half of the fund balance will be applied to offset program costs. City of Palo Alto -College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program CoIlegeTerraceRPPP.FinaIProgBackground&Devp.doc Page 19 29 May 2009 February 18, 2009 Resident «AddressBlock» «Ad(lressBlock» ATTACHMENT H SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM IN COLLEGE TERRACE- POSTCARD BALLOT Dear Resident, As a follow up to the letter of January 28, 2009, I am sending with this letter a postcard ballot to all College Terrace households in the residential zoning area, to find out if your household would like to have your street block opt in to the proposed Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP). As previously discussed, the proposed program would allow vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit to use on-street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods and exceeding the two hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the Police Department. The cost of a parking permit is $25 for each vehicle, if less than 50% of the street blocks in College Terrace vote to be included in the program. If more then 50% of the street blocks vote for inclusion in the program, the cost for each vehicle will decrease to $15 for each permit. Attached you will find the program details, cost, rules and regulations that are being proposed in this RPPP. Please note that the majority of the number of houses on your street block must vote "yes" for your block to be included in this program. For example, 4 out of 6 homes on a block must vote "yes" in order for the block to be included in the initial RPPP. Blocks that choose to opt into the program are required to participate for 2 years. Enclosed is a postcard ballot for your vote on whether your household would like to opt into the residential parking permit program. When filling out the postcard, please note the following: 1. Please print your name and address CLEARLY. 2. Only one vote per household is allowed. 3. 51 % of homes on a block must request inclusion in the Program. (i.e. 4 of 7 homes on a block must vote "yes" for the Program to be included in the initial RPPP Program). 4. Please check "yes" if you would like your block to participate in this RPPP program. 5. Please check "no" if you do not want your block to participate in this program. 6. Please stamp and return the postcard no later than March 11, 2009. The final recommended College Terrace RPPP and voting results will be presented to the City Council, for consideration and adoption of a new College Terrace RPPP, which would be initiated on September 1, 2009 on the neighborhood blocks which voted to be included in the program. Residents are strongly encouraged to work together to decide whether or not you would like your block to be included in this initial offering. Blocks that choose not to participate at this time will have to wait one year before they can request to be included in the program. More detail on how residents can apply for an RPPP for the following year will be developed and presented at a later time. I would like to remind you again that if you currently don't experience a problem with an excess of cars parking on your street now, it doesn't mean that you won't in the future, once the RPPP is implemented on your neighboring blocks. Currently residents on Stanford Avenue including the streets that have access to Stanford Avenue (Yale, Wellesley Oberlin, Harvard, Hanover, and Dartmouth) experience the most problems with long-term parking. Once the RPPP is implemented in these blocks, cars will most likely move to the neighboring streets where there isn't any residential parking permit enforcement. We strongly recommend that you consider this when you cast your vote and mail in your postcard. All of the background information and studies that have been completed to date, including notes from the neighborhood meetings can be found at the following website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/city projects/transportation/college terrace residential parkin g permit program.asp. Results of this ballot will also be posted on the website as information becomes available. If you have any questions you can email me at Shahla.yazdy@cityofpaloalto.org or call me at (650) 617-3151. Sincerely, Shahla Yazdy Transportation Engineer Attachment College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) Program Enforcement Period will be Monday-Friday, between 8:00am and 5:00pm. • Vehicles displaying a permit may use on-street parking during this period. • Vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to 2 hours during this period. • Violators will be cited by the City of Palo Alto Police Department. • Holidays will be exempt. • All vehicles may utilize on-street parking outside of this period. One resident permit may be issued for each vehicle of a household owner or person renting a household. • Residents applying for a permit will be required to provide a vehicle registration form as well as a Driver's License, rental agreement, or recent utility bill with street address noted. • Residents will be required to complete initial and renewal applications for permits in person at the Revenue Collections office at the City of Palo Alto City Hall. Applications will require name, household address, license plate number, car manufacturer, color, year and model. • Multiple resident permits may be purchased per household if multiple vehicles owned. • The RPPP year is between September 1 and August 31 of the following year. • Permits may be purchased yearly starting August 1. • A grace period will be set from September 1-30 for residents with previous year permits. • Resident permits will be a sticker affixed to the rear bumper, to the left of the license plate. • Resident permits will be a different color each permit year (September 1-August 31 ). • New residents to College Terrace may purchase resident permits throughout a permit year. • Resident permits will cost $25 if 50% or less of the blocks in the neighborhood vote to be included in the program or $15 if more than 50% of the blocks vote for inclusion in the program • Resident permits will be pro-rated for half year increments (permits applied for Feb 1-July 31 will pay half price). • A $10 re-issue fee charged for lost permits or new vehicle ownership for existing permits. • No partial or full refund will be administered for any permits. • A person employed by or a representative of a neighborhood-serving establishment may purchase one resident permit per vehicle owned. Two annual guest permits may be issued per household that has at least one resident permit. • Annual guest permits provide accessibility for resident services in the neighborhood such as lawn care, house cleaners, contractors, etc. as well as for guests of the household. • Annual guest permits will be free. • Annual guest permits are provided per household rather than per vehicle ownership. • Annual guest permits will hang from the rear view mirror. • Selling of guest passes will be considered illegal under the proposed ordinance. Day guest permits may be issued for one 24-hour period based on additional purchase. • At the time of purchase the date of each day guest permit will be logged in a registry at the Revenue Collections office based on the number of the day permit. • A $2 fee will be charged for each day guest permit. • Day guest permits will hang from the rear view mirror and allow user to scratch off day of use. • Total number of day guest permits will be limited to 20 each 3-month calendar quarter. • Construction and maintenance permits will be available for long-term construction activities, consistent with current practice by the City. • Selling of day guest passes will be considered illegal under the proposed ordinance. College Terrace RPPP Cost: Annual Guest Permit"'* On Permit*** Lost Residential Parki Permit Permit 10 Reissue for transfer to new vehicle ownershi 10 .~. ~~rrr.'i~.s p~r~~~~~9~~ rit1~the 2nd half of~~~R P PPYE!c> ~ti~~~r-il~r~~l to A u~~s.~~~tpi'ly~alfpri~E!~ **Max imu m of~.pE!~~it~p~! Y~i'I:p~~r"e .. s ... i.d .. e .... n ... c ... e ........... w ....................... . *"'*Maximum of 20 its in a 3 month per residence. Initial Ballot Voting Process • A voting ballot will be sent to all residents in 2-3 weeks. • Each household receives one vote for inclusion or exclusion in the initial Program. • 51 % of homes on a block must request inclusion in the Program. (i.e. 4 of 7 homes on a block must vote "yes" for the Program to be included in the initial RPPP Program). • "Block" means any street segment intersected by two other streets. (e.g. Yale Street from Stanford Avenue to Oxford Avenue). • Residential portion of the CN zone on east side of Yale Street will be included in the RPPP. • Parking spaces located "behind" Palo Alto public library located in the College Terrace are exempt from the RPPP. Additional information on this program can be found at the following web address: www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/city projects/transportation/college terrace residential parking permit program.asp City of Palo Alto Contact Info: Shahla Yazdy (650) 617-3151 or shahla.yazdy@cityofpaloalto.org College Terrace Resident's Association Contact: Steven Woodward (650) 858-2908 (evenings) College Terrace Project Advisory Committee Contact: Diane Finkelstein (650) 857-0400 College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Does your household want your block to participate in the proposed Residential Parking Permit Program as described in the enclosed attachment? Please check only one box. __ YES ___ NO You must print your address CLEARLY on the reverse and mail it by March 11,2009, for your vote to be counted. Stanford ATTACHMENT I College Terrace RPPP Survey Results (Participating Residences) Oxford College Cambridge iii .It I Library I ~ .. 15129 1 129 California lUI 'ill '" • Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin Legend Yes votes I Total # of houses" No votes 1 Total # of houses" " # of houses does not include vacancies College Terrace RPPP Survey Results (Non-Participating Residences) Stanford Oxford College Cambridge California Legend ameli Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Yes votes I Total # of houses· No votes I Total # of houses· • -# of houses does not include vacancies ATTACHMENT J PROPOSED COLLEGE TERRACE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM (RPPP) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CollegeTerraceRPPPEnforcementArea.062509.xls EI Camino Real Yale Williams Wellesley Cornell Princeton Oberlin HalVard Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Bowdoin Amherst \ • = RPPP enforcement area (Represents 51% of the number of households on a block that voted ''yes'') 05129109 ATTACHMENT K TO: Shahla Yazdy Transportation Engineer, City of Palo Alto Via email shahla.Iazdy@cityofpaloalto.org FROM: Greg Tanaka President, College Terrace Residents' Assn. DATE: November 13,2008 SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM IN COLLEGE TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD Shahla, Thank you for your hard work with other city staff, the consultants and the Advisory Committee to devise a parking solution. It is encouraging to see the progress toward finding a feasible solution for the problems of parking scarcity in a growing segment of the College Terrace neighborhood. The purpose of this letter is to consolidate the feedback of the CTRA Board of Directors, with input from the Advisory Committee, about the proposed Residential Parking Permit Program for our neighborhood, as outlined by City Staff at the October 15th neighborhood meeting. As presented, the residential pennit parking program would reduce the problem of stored vehicles of non-residents on College Terrace streets as well as the intrusion of commuter parking from Stanford University and surrounding commercial areas. The recommended restrictions would apply on blocks that opt-in to the program between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. Vehicles without permits could park on these blocks for two hours, after which they would be subject to tickets. Overall, the Board remains supportive of the recommended option, a.k.a. "Option 2", which is based on a review of programs that have been successful in similar neighborhoods in other cities and is projected to meet the City Council requirement of revenue neutrality. However, some issues identified in the October 15 meeting need to be addressed before moving to the next step of sending out a ballot to all College Terrace households. Our feedback focuses on three areas: 1. Overnight parking (problems after 5:00 pm) 2. Block voting process 3. Parking controls in the CN zone Overnight parking (problems after 5:00 pm) The expectation is that the proposed two-hour parking limit for cars without permits on weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. wil"l significantly reduce the non-resident parking intrusion caused by both day commuters and Escondido Village residents who currently use adjacent College Terrace streets to park for free. However, on the most impacted College Terrace blocks (near the comer of Stanford Ave. and Wellesley St.), residents are concerned that this reduction will not carry over to the evening hours, due to overnight parking by residents of a nearby 4-story graduate studio apartment complex and related visitors. We understand that there are logistical and budget issues that arise with any proposal to extend enforcement past 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. However, we believe that not having a solution to overnight parkers could be an obstacle to getting permit parking approved in this segment of the neighborhood, unless there is a written commitment to consider modifications for this impacted zone if need be within a reasonable period after program implementation. We would like to see the PAC and City team re-visit this issue and see if there is a way to address it prior to the next step in gaining official neighborhood input. Opt-in Voting Process We agree that the program should roll out block by block as residents come together to seek parking relief. Neighbors can opt-in to the program on a block by block basis via a ballot process. However, some streets have only three residences; others have dozens of apartment units who tend to have less involvement in neighborhood issues. Our request is that we count the Yes or No votes of each residence returning ballots -one vote per residence. Non-voters should not be counted as if they had voted no; instead we urge that the normal definition of majority approval be used, i.e. based on the total number of household ballots returned. Parking controls in the eN zone Congested parking problems also affect several streets in the CN-zoned portion of College Terrace, which has a mixture of residences, neighborhood-serving retail and other commercial uses. The currently proposed parking program would not cover the CN zone, leaving them with no parking control of any kind. The CN-zoned portion of College Terrace is bounded on the north by Stanford Avenue, by EI Camino Real on the east and by California Avenue to the south, and includes all of Cambridge, Oxford and Staunton plus portions of Yale Street. Our concern is that controlling parking on the residential streets outside the CN zone while offering no controls within the CN will greatly exacerbate the parking problem on streets within the CN zone. We understand that you share this concern and that staff have informally discussed it. Our request is that city staff quickly initiate a formal process designed to address the parking concerns of CN residents and businesses, so that the proposed residential permit parking program does not exacerbate the existing CN zone parking challenges. In summary, the CTRA Board of Directors and Parking Advisory Committee feel that, with changes in these three areas, the proposed program will be ready to present to our neighbors. Please let me know if you have and questions or would like to meet about any of these topics. We are eager to move forward quickly with the implementation of the permit parking program in our neighborhood. Once again, you have our many thanks for your assistance. ATTACHMENT L April 28, 2009 SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM IN COLLEGE TERRACE- POSTCARD BALLOT -COMMERCIAL ZONING AREA Dear Resident, The City of Palo Alto has been working on a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) for the College Terrace neighborhood and we are sending this letter to households located in the commercial neighborhood (CN) zoning area to ascertain the level of interest in the participation of this program. I am sending with this letter a postcard ballot to find out if your household would like to have your street block opt in to the proposed Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP). This process included close consultation between residents, neighborhood stakeholders, and City Engineering, Revenue Collections and Police Department staff. The study has included discussion and presentation at multiple College Terrace Board and Resident Public Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings, as well as two neighborhood meetings held on March 19, 2008 and October 15, 2008, where the recommended College Terrace RPPP Option was presented to the neighborhood residents. A ballot has already been sent out to all of the households in the residential zoning areas and approximately 1/3 of the street blocks have opted into the RPPP. A map of the voting results has been posted on the project website (see web address below). We now have a program that we feel will address the majority of the neighborhood concerns and at this time, we would like to assess the level of support for all households that are located in the CN zoning areas in College Terrace. The proposed program would allow vehicles displaying a resident permit, guest permit, or day permit to use on-street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods and exceeding the two hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the Police Department. The cost of a parking permit is $25 for each vehicle, if less than 50% of the street blocks in College Terrace vote to be included in the program. If more then 50% of the street blocks vote for inclusion in the program, the cost for each vehicle will decrease to $15 for each permit. Attached you will find the program details, cost, rules and regulations that are being proposed in this RPPP. Please note that if you currently don't experience a problem with an excess of cars parking on your street now, it doesn't mean that you won't in the future, once the RPPP is implemented on your neighboring blocks. Currently residents on Stanford Avenue including the streets that have access to Stanford Avenue (Yale, Wellesley Oberlin, Harvard, Hanover, and Dartmouth) experience the most problems with long-term parking. Once the RPPP is implemented in these blocks, cars will most likely move to the neighboring streets where there isn't any residential parking permit enforcement. We strongly recommend that you consider this when you cast your vote and mail in your postcard. Please note that the majority of the number of houses on your street block must vote "yes" for your block to be included in this program. For example, 4 out of 6 homes on a block must vote "yes" in order for the block to be included in the initial RPPP. Blocks that choose to opt into the program are required to participate for 2 years. Enclosed is a postcard ballot for your vote on whether your household would like to opt into the residential parking permit program. When filling out the postcard, please note the following: 1. Please print your name and address CLEARLY. 2. Only one per household is allowed. 3. 51 % of homes on a block must request inclusion in the Program. (i.e. 4 of 7 homes on a block must vote "yes" for the Program to be included in the initial RPPP Program). 4. Please check "yes" if you would like your block to participate in this RPPP program. 5. Please check "no" if you do not want your block to participate in this program. 6. Please stamp and return the postcard no later than MAY 15, 2009. The final recommended College Terrace RPPP and voting results will be presented to the City Council, for consideration and adoption of a new College Terrace RPPP, which would be initiated on September 1,2009 on the neighborhood blocks which voted to be included in the program. Residents are strongly encouraged to work together to decide whether or not you would like your block to be included in this initial offering. Blocks that choose not to participate at this time will have to wait one year before they can request to be included in the program. More detail on how residents can apply for an RPPP for the following year will be developed and presented at a later time. All of the background information and studies that have been completed to date, including notes from the neighborhood meetings can be found at the following website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/city projects/transportation/coliege terrace residential parking permit prog ram.asp. If you have any questions you can email me at Shahla.yazdy@cityofpaloalto.org or call me at (650) 617-3151. Sincerely, Shah la Yazdy Transportation Engineer Attachment • ATTACHMENT M City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: June 11, 2009 Project Name: Project Location: Applicant: Owner: Project Description: College Terrace Residential Parking Pennit Program The project area is the College Terrace Neighborhood and is located in the southern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and west of State Route 82 (El Camino Real), and is bounded by Camino Real on the east side, California Avenue on the south side, Amherst Street on the west side and Stanford A venue on the north. City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 The proposed project, the Residential Parking Permit Program, requires participants to purchase a parking pennit (resident pennit, guest penn it, or day pennit) for display on their vehicles that would allow use of on-street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a pennit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a pennit during these specified time periods and exceeding the two hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the Police Department. As part of the RPPP, permit parking/2 hour signs will be installed on affected blocks. Depending on the length of the block, approximately 2-3 signs will be placed on each block face to warn drivers that the street block is designated as residential parking permit only. The signs will be placed between property lines and behind the sidewalk. The signs will be no larger the 14 inches by 20 inches in size. The signs will be a minimum 7 feet high from the ground to the bottom of the sign. Sign poles will be 2-inch tubular galvanized steel post and will be posted 24 inches below ground and surrounded by 6 inches of concrete. No damage will be done to existing landscaped areas. II. DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto's procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: Page 10f2 ;.~'.c,;.JJUle •. ~¢g1l~h:en~Clarat~~~~n,,J·Iijitinl.·Studyma}iA)~vieive,<li!tJlJefo.nowillglo~ati9ns:. I (1) Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • (2) Development Center, 285 Hamilton A venue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ! .T8~s.pO~$ij)t¢.A~nde~s~ilta~()p.y. of.thisdQctimenf:· . ) Not Applicable. *~I~~~I,)~~$.iIl;clll~¢di~.thep' toje~ttor~d"9~p()tentiaJiy .siglrific~lltill1PIl~ts 19,11 less tban nnev~l::,' ,. ... ... ... .. ..... .... .. . ..... . . Prepared by: Clare Campbell, Planner CXc;,-t I -~\ Date Page 2 of 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. PROJECT TITLE College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Shahla Yazdy City of Palo Alto 650-617-3151 4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS Shahla Yazdy, Transportation Engineer Transportation Division 5. APPLICATION NUMBER Not applicable 6. PROJECT LOCATION College Terrace Neighborhood Palo Alto, CA The project site is located in the southern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and west of State Route 82 (EI Camino Real). The College Terrace Neighborhood is bounded by EI Camino Real on the east side, California Avenue on the south side, Amherst Street on the west side and Stanford Avenue on the north as shown on Figure 2. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 1 Figure 1: City of Palo Alto Figure 2. College Terrace Neighborhood College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 2 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The College Terrace neighborhood is designated as Single Family Residential in the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 Comprehensive Plan. The area predominantly contains single-family residences except for a small amount of commercial uses along El Camino Real. Main land uses surrounding College Terrace area consist of Stanford University on the north and west sides and Stanford Research Park on the south side. 8. ZONING Zoning within the College Terrace neighborhood includes Single-Family Residential (R-l), Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District (RMD), Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP), Public Facilities District (PF) and Neighborhood Commercial (CN). 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background The College Terrace neighborhood, located adjacent to Stanford University and Stanford Research Park, has historically been affected by large amounts of non-neighborhood traffic and parking. Residents continue to suffer from a longstanding and growing problem with daytime and night time parking of students and employees of the university and other nearby employers who regularly park on neighborhood streets to avoid the cost of parking permits or because of convenience. Increasingly, as Stanford works to discourage commute trips onto campus, more people park nearby and walk, bike or take the Marguerite Shuttle to their campus destination. The construction of multi-story graduate student housing immediately adjacent to Stanford Avenue has added to the problem as well, since some of the student residents and guests prefer to park on nearby city streets rather than in campus parking facilities. The nature of the College Terrace neighborhood compounds these problems. Small lots and relatively dense housing is common throughout. Many residents have inadequate or no off-street parking. Drivers frequently park too close to intersections, driveways and fire hydrants, creating visibility and safety hazards. This is especially problematic along Stanford Avenue, a route used by many children who walk or bike to school. In January 2008, staff retained the services of transportation consultants, Kimley Hom and Associates, to initiate and develop a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) in College Terrace. A Project Advisory Committee (PAC) consisting of eight College Terrace residents appointed by the College Terrace Resident's Association Board, staff from Transportation, Police and Revenue Collections Department and consultants, was formed to work on the development of the Residential Parking Permit Program. In early March 2008, in order to understand the current on-street parking conditions in the College Terrace neighborhood, to document baseline parking demand in the neighborhood and to help establish how much of the neighborhood should be included in the program, a parking occupancy study was conducted for both a weekday (Thursday, March 6th, 2008) and a weekend day (Saturday, March 1st, 2008). On each day vehicle occupancies were surveyed midday (roughly 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.) and in the evening (roughly 7 p.rn. to 8 p.m.). On weekday evenings, the higher occupancies were found to be spread more evenly throughout the neighborhood. There was still a high percentage of parked cars along Stanford Avenue and in the commercial area, but there were also higher percentages along the cross streets within the neighborhood as well as along College Avenue. There was found to be relatively low parking density along California Avenue during the College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 3 evening hours, most likely since the main non-residential usage along California Avenue is Stanford Research Park, which would tend to empty in the nighttime hours. Weekend midday survey showed a high density of parking in the commercial district, and along some areas of Stanford Avenue. College Avenue and some of the cross streets had areas of higher parking occupancies, while California Avenue again displayed lower occupancies. In summary, driving both midday and evening time periods on a typical weekday and weekend day, the on- street parking levels of College Terrace were found to be relatively high in specific areas. Proposed Project The proposed project, the Residential Parking Permit Program, requires participants to purchase a parking permit (resident permit, guest permit, or day permit) for display on their vehicles that would allow use of on- street parking, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition, all vehicles not displaying a permit may park up to a two (2) hour limit during these specified time periods. Vehicles not displaying a permit during these specified time periods and exceeding the two hour maximum parking allowance will be cited by the Police Department. As part of the RPPP, "Permit Parkingl2 hour" signs will be installed on affected blocks. Depending on the length of the block, approximately 2-3 signs will be placed on each block face to warn drivers that the street block is designated as residential parking permit only. The signs will be placed between property lines and behind the sidewalk. The signs will be no larger the 14 inches by 20 inches in size. The signs will be a minimum 7 feet high from the ground to the bottom of the sign. Sign poles will be 2-inch tubular galvanized steel post and will be posted 24 inches below ground and surrounded by 6 inches of concrete. No damage will be done to existing landscaped areas. A workable community majority has been reached in favor of the Residential Parking Permit Program. The percentage of homes on a block that must approve a RPPP petition to be considered and to go into effect is set at 51% of households on a street block. Initially, it is anticipated that approximately 25 blocks will participate, but will likely expand into other blocks of the College Terrace neighborhood. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The neighborhood consists primarily of single family residential properties, with some neighborhood and regional/community commercial properties on the easterly edges of the neighborhood adjacent to El Camino Real. Local parks are located within College Terrace neighborhood. Stanford University is located on the north and west sides of College Terrace area. Stanford Research Park is located on the area's south side. 11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES REQUIRING REVIEW None College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).] 2). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (0). ill this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting illformation Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 5 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated a) Substantially degrade the existing visual 1,2,4 X character or quality of the site and its surroundings? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1,4 X public view or view corridor? 2-Map L4 c) Substantially damage scenic resources, 1,4 X including, but not limited to, trees, rock 2-Map L4 outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1,4 X policies regarding visual resources? e) Create a new source of substantial light or 1,2,4 X glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? f) Substantially shadow public open space 1,2,4 X (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? DISCUSSION: The Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) would result in some street signs placed in the neighborhood where residents have requested to have parking permits on their street block. These signs will be noticeable but are not uncharacteristic features of a typical streetscape. The proposed signs will not detract from the residential character of the streets nor will it significantly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and surroundings. It is anticipated that the implementation of the RPPP will actually help improve the street aesthetics (where applicable) as it will reduce the number of non-resident vehicles from parking on the residential streets. The proposed project will not damage scenic resources, creative new source of light or glare that will impact views in the area nor shadow public open spaces. The project area does not include designated scenic routes as indicated by the California State Department of Transportation. Mitigation Measures: None required B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No a) b) c) Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 1,2 X or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2- use, or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9 X Involve other changes in the existing 1 environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of X Farmland, to non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program ofthe California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and will not convert or result in the conversion of farmland and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None required C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation 1 X of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 1 X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation indicated by the following: 1. Direct and/or indirect operational 1 X emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitTOgen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine palticulate matter ofless than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10); ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) 1,2 X concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page? Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No c) d) e) f) Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be performed when a) project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c) project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1,2 X increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels 1 X of toxic air contaminants? 1. Probability of contracting cancer for the 1 X Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) exceeds lOin one million ll. Ground-level concentrations of non-1 X carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEl Create objectionable odors affecting a 1 X substantial number of people? Not implement all applicable construction 1,2 X emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? DISCUSSION: The proposed Residential Parking Permit Program will not conflict with any applicable air quality plans, expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants, nor add any objectionable odors to the neighborhood. This program will not contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard and will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions from stationary sources in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning and review process. All development in Palo Alto is subject to the BAAQMD regulations. Mitigation Measures: None required College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 8 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either I, X directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, 2-MapNI or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 1, X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 2-MapNl community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? c) Interfere substantially with the movement of 1, X any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 2-MapNl species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,2,5 X e) protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? Conflict with any applicable Habitat 1,2 X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION: The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any species, or have any substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, or interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources (trees), such as a tree preservation policy or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project area is entirely within the urban setting, with urban adapted wildlife species. There are no native habitats, sensitive plant or wildlife species, or adopted Habitat Conservation Plans for the project area, nor are there any wetlands that could be affected by the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: None required College Tenace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 9 E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact a) b) c) d) e) 1) Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural 1,2 X resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1, X significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? 2-MapL8 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1, X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 2-MapL8 Disturb any human remains, including those 1, X interred outside of formal cemeteries? 2-MapL8 Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 1,2-X eligible for listing on the National and/or MapL7 California Register, or listed on the City's Historic Inventory? Eliminate important examples of major periods 1 X of Califomia history or prehistory? DISCUSSION: Much of the City of Palo Alto is identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIR (1996) as having at least moderate sensitivity with respect to archaeological resources. Several pockets of "Extreme Sensitivity" are also indicated. The proposed project has virtually no potential to impact archaeological resources. This project does not involve widening onto previously undisturbed ground that would have a potential for impacting archaeological resources. There are no known historical resources that would be impacted by the proposed project. None of the project features are located in areas of known paleontological resources or unique geological features. In addition, implementation of project sign poles would not involve excavation to depths that would reveal unknown paleontological resources. This project will not directly or indirectly destroy any local cultural resources, directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or disturb any human remains, or adversely affect any historical resources listed. Mitigation Measures: None required F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISlVllCITY Issues and Supporting Informatiou Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, 1,2 X as delineated on the most recent College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 10 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,2-X MapNlO iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 1,2-MapN5 X including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 1,2-MapN5 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss 1 X of topsoil? c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 X d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 1,2-MapN5 X unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 1,2-MapN5 X Table l8-l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? t) Have soils incapable of adequately I X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? g) Expose people or property to major 1,2 X geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? DISCUSSION: This proposed project is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay area and an area with expansive soils, but this project would not increase the risk to the public and safety or increase the potential for geo-seismic hazards. The project streets are located in an area of high potential for surface rupture along fault traces and potential for earthquake induced landslides where sloped. Since the project streets are on flatlands, there is no impact. The proposed project will not create any new geology, soils and seismicity impacts. The City is subject to fault rupture and related seismic shaking from several faults in the area (Comprehensive Plan, 1996). The risk associated with the project is no greater than any other construction activity and, in fact, is considered low because of the relatively small amount of construction involved and its short duration. Once implemented, the project would not significantly expose people or structures to hazards associated with fault rupture to any greater seismic risk than that which would otherwise be experienced. Mitigation Measures: None required College TelTace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 11 G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Sa(etv if the primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Wonld the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,2 X environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,2 X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous 1,2 X or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Construct a school on a property that is subject 1,2 X to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list 1,2-MapN9 X of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use 1 X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1 X airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the . project area? h) Impair implementation of or physically 1,2-MapN7 X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 2-MapN7 X ofloss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,2 X environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site? College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 12 DISCUSSION: The proposed project will not create any new hazards and hazardous materials impacts. The project implementation includes improvements entirely within the public right-of-way. The project does not increase the exposure to hazardous materials. The project area does not include any hazardous materials sites. The project is not within 1/4 mile of the runway at Palo Alto airport, the only airport within Palo Alto. The project streets are not identified in the city of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as primary evacuation routes, nor are they located in areas of wildland fire risk. Mitigation Measures: None required H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,2 X discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 1,2-X interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit MapN2 in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,2 X of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,2 X . of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would 1,2 X exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,2 X g) Place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard 1,2 X area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area 2-MapN6 X structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk College Tenace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 13 j) k) ofloss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or being located within a 100-year 2-MapN6 X flood hazard area? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1 X Result in stream bank instability? 1,2-Map X N2 ~ DISCUSSION: The proposed project would comply with City, State and Federal standard pertaining to water quality and waste discharge and storm water run-off. City standard conditions of approval require incorporation of Best Management Practices for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations. The project would not create any new water quality and hydrology impacts. Mitigation Measures: None required I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No a) b) c) d) e) 1) g) Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Physically divide an established community? 1,2 X Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 1,2,3,4,5 X policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat 1,2,4 X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Substantially adversely change the type or 1,2,3,4 X intensity of existing or planned land use in the area? Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,2,3,4 X the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? Conflict with established residential, 1,2,3,4 X recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1,2 X farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. The project will not create any new land use impacts. Compliance with the designated land uses and zoning is a requirement for all projects. The implementation of the project would further the goals of policies and programs in the Transportation Element of the College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 14 City's Comprehensive Plan The project is consistent with the following Transportation Goals T-47: Utilize engineering, enforcement and educational tools to improve traffic safety on City roadways. Mitigation Measures: None required J. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources • Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 1,2 X mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-1,2 X important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-l). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other resources. There is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto. Mitigation Measures: None Required. K. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 1,2 X levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 1,2 X excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1,2 X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2 X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proiect? e) For a project located within an airport land use 1,2 X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to College TelTace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 15 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact f) g) h) i) j) k) ~: .... 1) Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private 1,2 X airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1,2 X increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1,2 X an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? Cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an 1,2 X existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,2 X development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,2 X than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,2 X daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? DISCUSSION: All development in the City, including construction activities, must comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less than significant. This proposed project will not expose persons to noise levels in excess of the established standards nor will it create any new noise impacts. Mitigation Measures: None required. L. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Induce substantial population growth in an 1,4 X area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 1,4 X housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 16 ! Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigatiou Incorporated c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 1,4 X necessitating the construction of replacement I housing elsewhere? d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1,2,4 X employed residents and jobs? e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1,2,4 X poplJ.lation Erojections? DISCUSSION: The proposed project does not encourage growth and development in the district and therefore will not create any new population and housing impacts. The proposed plan's goal is to reduce non-resident parking in the College Terrace neighborhood. This project does not add any new, nor displace existing housing nor will it induce population growth or displacement of the existing population. Mitigation Measures: None required M. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the ~ublic services: ~ i a) Fire protection? 1,4 X -....... b) Police protection? 1,4 X c) Schools? 1,4 X d) Parks? 1,4 X e) Other public facilities? 1,4 X DISCUSSION: This project does not encourage growth and development in the City and is not anticipated to generate a significant number of new users as to create impacts to the existing public services for the City. The installation of the necessary parking signs could result in increased maintenance workload for upkeep of these features but compared to the total City maintenance needs, these additional features do not represent a significant increase in maintenance requirements. Mitigation Measures: None required College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 17 N. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources I Potentially I Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact I Mitigation Inc«:Jrporated a) Would the project increase the use of 1,4 I X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ... b) Does the project include recreational 1,4 X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? _. - DISCUSSION: The proposed project does not result in any new land uses and does not increase the demand for recreational facilities or curtail the use of existing facilities. This project does not encourage growth and development in the district and is not anticipated to generate a significant number of new users as to create impacts to the existing City recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures: None required O. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources ! Potentially I Potentially I Less Than Noimpact I Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 1,4 X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity ofthe street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at I intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 1,4 X a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, 1,4 X including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 1,4 X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible lL<;es (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,4 X ~. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 18 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? . g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative 1,4 transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & 1,2,3,4 t--_..:..b1c.,.·c.ycle facilities)? h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1,4 to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average t d d I £ th '1' I t b s oppe e ay or e cn lca movemen s y four seconds or more and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase I i by 0.01 or more? I 1) Cause a local intersection already operating at ! 1,4 LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate 1,4 from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause critical movement delay at such an intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the critical VIC value to increase by 0.01 or more? k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F 1,4 or contribute traffic in excess of 1 % of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? 1) Cause any change in traffic that would 1,4 increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environm~l1t (TIRE) index by 0.1 ()r more? m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1,4 comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. n) Impede the development or function of 1,4 planned ~edestrian or bic~cle facili!ies? 0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,4 result of congestion? p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,4 DISCUSSION: x x x X X ! I X X X X X X The proposed project does not encourage growth and development in the district and is not anticipated to generate transportation impacts. This project will not cause an increase in traffic nor directly add vehicle trips to the area. Therefore, the operational level of service (LOS) in the project area is not expected to deteriorate to less than acceptable (LOS F). College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 19 Signs installed within the project area will prevent fewer non-resident cars being parked on the streets therefore there will be an increase in safety due to improved visibility and sight distance and less congestion along the sides of the road. The proposed project will not impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities to the operation of a transit system and create any operational safety hazards. Mitigation: None required P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Infor~~tion Resources I Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 1,4 X the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new 1,4 X , water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new 1,4 X storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? T:Have sufficient water supplies available to 1,4 X serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? r---e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,4 treatment provider which serves or may X serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider'S existing commitments? it) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 1,4 permitted capacity to accommodate the X project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 1,4 X and regulations related to solid waste? h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1,4 of a public facility due to increased use as a X result ofthe project? DISCUSSION: No utilities or service systems would be affected by the proposed Project. This project does not encourage growth and development and therefore no significant increase in the demand on existing utilities and service systems or impacts to these services are expected. Mitigation Measures: None required. College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 20 Q. MANDATORY FINDI~GS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incor orated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife 1,4 x population to drop below self-sustaining 1 Is thr t t r . tit eve , ea en 0 e nruna e a p an or amma community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal I or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are 1,4 I X individually limited, but cumulatively .. considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? '--'---.. . c) Does the project have environmental effects 1,4 X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION: The proposed project area is within the existing public right-of-way and therefore does not have the potential to significantly degrade the environment as discussed above. The project would not have any impacts that would be considered cumulatively significant. The nature of the proposed project is relatively small in scope and would have no significant adverse effects on human beings .. Global Climate Change Impacts Global climate change is the alteration of the Earth's weather including its temperature, precipitation, and wind patterns. Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring and anthropogenic generated atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases allow sunlight into the Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping into outer space, which is known as the "greenhouse" effect. The world's leading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate change is underway and is very likely caused by humans. Agencies at the international, national, state, and local levels are considering strategies to control emissions of gases that contribute to global warming. There is no comprehensive strategy that is being implemented on a global scale that addresses climate change; however, pursuant to Senate Bill 97 the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is in the process of developing CEQA guidelines "for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions." OPR is required to "prepare, develop, and transmit" the guidelines to the Resources Agency on or before July 1, 2009. The Resources Agency must certify and adopt the guidelines on or before January 1,2010. Assembly Bill 32 requires achievement by 2020 of a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions, and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost- effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. By 2050, the state plans to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. While the state of California has established programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are no College Terrace Residential Parking Pennit Program Page 21 established standards for gauging the significance of greenhouse gas emissions; these standards are required to be in place by 2012. Neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines provide any methodology for analysis of greenhouse gases. Given the "global" scope of global climate change, the challenge under CEQA is for a Lead Agency to translate the issue down to the level of a CEQA document for a specific project in a way that is meaningful to the decision making process. Under CEQA, the essential questions are whether a project creates or contributes to an environmental impact or is subject to impacts from the environment in which it would occur, and what mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce impacts. The project would not generate substantial greenhouse gases because it is minor in scope with little physical construction (i.e. street signs). Although not studied, the implementation of a parking permit program may reduce vehicles trip duc to the disincentive of limited or paid parking. Given the overwhelming scope of global climate change, it is not anticipated that a single project would have an individually discernable effect on global climate change (e.g., that any increase in global temperature or rise in sea level could be attributed to the emissions resulting from one single development project). Rather, it is more appropriate to conclude that the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the proposed project would combine with emissions across the state, nation, and globe to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. To determine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact on global climate change is speculative, particularly given the fact that there are no existing numerical thresholds to determine an impact. However, in an effort to make a good faith effort at disclosing environmental impacts and to conform with the CEQA Guidelines [§ 16064(b )], it is the City's position that based on the nature of this project with its nominal increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the proposed project would not impede the state's ability to reach the emission reduction limits/standards set forth by the State of California by Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32. For these reasons, this project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions. ------------------------"--"---- College Tenace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 22 SOURCE REFERENCES 1. Project Manager's knowledge of the proposed project; Shahla Yazdy, Transportation Engineer 2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 -Zoning Ordinance 4. Technical Memo with Program Details 5. City of Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance, PAMC Section 8.10 College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program Page 23 DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ! I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the • environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wlll not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A lVIITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. i I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared by: Transportation Engin Reviewed by: ~¢::C2 ---mnne ~ 00-\ \ -01 Date College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program x Page 24 Page 1 of2 [", J \ ~ C'j :}I Sent: Wednesday, July 01,200910:12 AM To: Council, City Subject: College Terrace Permit Parking Dear Council members - I am a resident of College Terrace on Yale Street. Our block of Yale voted for permit parking for the following reasons - • Stanford staff/students who park on the street, get out their bikes and ride off to campus leaving their cars parked on our street all day and sometimes into the evening or taking the Margaritte at the closest stop. And they probably collect money from Stanford for riding their bikes to work or taking public transportation. • Workers who work on EI Camino (Wahoo's etc.) and beyond into the commercial district of College Terrace on the East side of EI Camino who park their cars all day and into the evening (sometimes 9PM and after) because they have no place to park at their place of work or choose not to buy a permit to park in public parking in that area. • Campers, car dwellers, car collectors etc who park their vans and old cars on our street and then leave them for weeks, some of them occupied by people sleeping or living in them. (One car dweller recently parked for two weeks -and the morning he opened his door on the sidewalk side and stuck his hand out with a plastic bottle full of urine and dumped it onto the street at the curb in front of me and my apartment was the day I confronted him and told him it was time for him to go.) • Workers in the commercial buildings in the first block of College Ave who choose not to use their off street parking and choose to park on the street but have start-up hours and arrive at 10 AM and don't leave until 10PM leave us with little parking when we arrive back home in the evening after work. Many of us in this area and throughout College Terrace live in very old units, built in the 40's and 50's, and we do not have enough, if any, off street parking. On Yale, because it is one block off of EI Camino, we have the added condition of homeless folks who can be drunk or drugged wandering around at times making it an issue of safety or comfort if we are unable to park within a reasonable distance of our homes. Parking 2-3 blocks away at night and walking to our apartments and homes is not the most comfortable of circumstances. Being able to require folks to either have a permit, or park for only 2 hours when they would need to move their cars, prevents folks from arriving during the day and parking on into the night on our street. I ask that you take the necessary steps to approve our request for permit/two hour parking in our neighborhood to mitigate the pressures we have from the University, the homeless and the commercial districts that boarder us. I appreciate your hard work with this process. Regards, Wendy Smith 7/1/2009 RPPP Council, City From: Brookes, Toby [Toby.Brookes@merrJllcorp.co~~ . qt:\\lt.\) ct:\ct ~\,t.\.1,;. ~:S (){ ~ Sent: Wednesday, July 01,20099:25 AM ,~~\\~flt. . To: Council, City C\'\'( Subject: RPPP Page 1 of 1 '0;~I"TO, CA ;) OFfICE· 09 JUl -f PH I: 32 I am writing to express our strong support for the RPPP, currently being considered for the College Terrace neighborhood in Palo Alto. Thank you for taking our opinion into consideration. Toby Brookes 1630 S California Ave Palo Alto 7/112009 Council, Cit From: Sent: To: Subject: Melissa [melissa94306@gmail.com] \ ~~ -U::i{K'S O/:,nci'i Wednesday, July 01, 20099:51 AM ~\.. ~ d\.\) ~~Q:S-JUL '"'I PI Council, City \)~ .> ""\:.\..~,,,\\s '07 I: 32 College Terrace Residential Parking Permit prog~\iit>-<,j.€ \:,\,'\ ~ Please pass the College Terrace Residential Parking Permit Program and provide for its implementation as soon as possible. Our parking problems are already serious, and they are worsening with the arrival of Facebook and the construction along Stanford Avenue by Stanford. Thank you. Melissa Campbell College Terrace resident 1 Council, Ci From: Sent: Patty Hartsell [hartsell@stant~d.edul .. \c,~ Wednesday, July 01, 20~;JS""AM. ,:\..\~\.~s ~~~ To: Council, City yJ;.<V '\)t~ College Terrace RPPP '{ ",~¥-t--: Subject: c,\\ People, I am looking forward to attending the Monday, July 6, 2009 council meeting and hearing the discussion about the College Terrace Resident Permit Parking Program. PLEASE insure that the council members receive the appropriate packets about this issue. Patty Hartsell, RN,~A Research Nurse T:650 736.1886 F:650.725.7724 P:#18510:L.D. 415.607.4403 E:hartsell@stanford.edu See you Monday. Patty 1 From: .. ~" . '\.~0\~~ron Svensson [sharonsvensson@yahoo.comj Sent: n. '$J,x.,"'x;~~~ Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:09 AM To: <;$'J ~~~ Council, City Subject: -\. \."~ College Terrace Parking \}'\ 09 JUL -I PH J: 3 I AS a long time resident/owner on Bowdoin St. I want to add my vote to the installation of the parking permit program. Since Facebook has moved in and many of have us have no driveways, our street in particular has become crowded with cars and if I leave my house in the morning for any reason, there is no where to park when I return with groceries, kids, etc. It has become a substantial inconvenience and has our quiet residential street looking like a massive parking lot.not to mention that one neighbor (mid-block between College and California already has 11 cars .... 4 or 5 of which are covered on the street and take a major portion of the block already We really appreciate as many votes as possible to make this permit program happen ar any cost. Sincerely, College Terrace resident 1 Page 1 of 1 ~ .. \)' Council, City .,. \ ~~ ~ From: ~osemary Dinelli [rosemarydinelli1 @Y~~~"\..~\..~~\)" 0\\\& Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11 :31 PM '\ ,:\fl,"~. To: Council, City tS,\ 09 JUL -I PN I: 3 I Subject: College Terrace Parking Permit Program Dear Member of the City Council, I strongly support a parking permit program for California Ave. between Harvard and Hanover. I own the property at 1230 California Ave. Sincerely, Rosemary Dinelli 7/1/2009 Council, Ci From: Sent: To: Subject: Susan Wilson [suwilson@pacbell.neU, ... \ ~ . Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:57 ~ ~\)\. 'i~;\) (J~t\ct Council, City ':\\5:S-\~S Permit Parking College Terrace ~~~t>.u C\\'{ 09 JUL ... I Pt1 I: 3 I Dear Council Members: I have been a resident of College Terrace for more than 30 years. I love the neighborhood and can't imagine living any where else. However, our neighborhood is being abused by Stanford and Facebook parking on our streets. Stanford parking fees go up and our neighborhood gets the run off; Facebook moves to the end of my street without adequate parking for their employees and suddenly my street (Amherst) becomes their auxiliary parking lot. There is no solution to this problem other than a permit parking system which uses a computer to input license numbers, so cars don't simply move from one parking place to the other in two hour increments. On my street, I have been putting notes on Facebook cars asking them not to park on residential streets as was promised by Facebook management. As a result Amherst has fewer Facebook cars than California, Bowdoin, or Columbia, but it shouldn't be my job to manage Facebook parking. It's a job for a city that cares about its residential neighborhoods. Soon after Facebook moved in, I went to the fire station and asked the chief if she would drive up to Amherst and see if a fire truck could get through the narrow turn at California and Amherst. She called that afternoon to say that the truck was not able to make the turn with cars parked on the street. I gave that information to the City, however cars are still parking on the turn. I now call the police and they ticket these cars because they are parked in the lane. This also is the job of the CIty, not me. Why not paint the turn red so no cars park there, so if my house has a fire I have a fair chance of it being saved. A house did burn to the ground on Amherst since I've lived here and believe me it was frightening. So I ask you to implement a plan to get permit parking underway. I know if all of College Terrace or even just Amherst Street were to park their cars on Stanford property, Stanford would solve the problem in no time at all. I'm asking you to be as aggressive in solving our parking problem. We need permits now. We need them to be checked using computer to prohibit repeat parking. Thanks, Susan Wilson 2303 Amherst Street Palo Alto CA 94306 650 857-93 92 1 Council, City ~, ~~~\ ~ .. ' ~\~~ ----. ?>-~\.. .J\~~\)~ KarieEpstein@aol.com '\S \l-x-\l;\:;~~ Tuesday, June 30,200910:48 PM:\,\ ~~~ Council, City ,,\ From: Sent: To: Subject: College Terrace Parking Permit Program Dear City Council, Page 1 of 1 09 JUL -I PN I: 3 I I am writing you to let you know I strongly support the proposed College Terrace Parking Permit Program. As you know, parking in our neighborhood, by people whose destination is Stanford campus or the Research Park, has been growing and growing over the years. Every other major university in Northern California has some sort of parking permit program for residential neighborhoods adjacent to the university. Only College Terrace, which is surrounded on three sides by Stanford land, does not. Please help us recover some normalcy in our neighborhood and stop College Terrace from being the de facto parking lot for Stanford University and its affiliates. Thank you, Karie Epstein 1143 Stanford Ave. It's raining cats and dogs --Come to PawNation, a place where pets rule! 7/1/2009 Page 1 of 1 Council; City \ ~~ \fj' ~\ t · Y AliOGA --~--------:t'\q,::-... ~~~",.,....""-, :v~~,\q~t5~?s""(S&'X~'P\\J",-x.----____ .-:;;;.eJf.FI'ct Sujata Patel [pateLsujata@hotmail.com] v ~\,c; f'".t~ 09 JUt -/ PN 1: 3 1 From: Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:46 PM CC\\'{ \~'p.~'r' To: Council, City Subject: College Terrace RPPP Dear City Council Members: Our names are Sunil Kulkarni and SUjata Patel, and we live at 615 College Ave, in lower College Terrace. We strongly support the College Terrace Resident Permit Parking Program ("RPPP"), and urge a "yes" vote. There are two main reasons why we favor the RPPP: 1. It will free up parking for residents. Parking by non-residents, especially Stanford students, faculty, and staff, increases every year and is a growing problem. 2. On our street, we often have seemingly-abandoned vehicles and/or people living in their cars. The Palo Alto police have been very responsive in responding to our calls about this, but a more systemic solution is necessary. While not perfect in this regard, the RPPP likely will reduce both the abandoned vehicles and the people living in their cars. Again, please vote "yes" on the RPPP. Sincerely, Sunil Kulkarni and Sujata Patel 615 College Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®. See how. 7/1/2009 From:' .J!.:~. Michelle Oberman [moberman@scu.edu] Sent:'·4n.~ ,~~ ~~~ueSday. June 30. 2009 10:29 PM To: , ,~'\;j ~ Council. City SUbjeC~" \O~~<? Residential Parking Permit Program for College Terrace ~~ ?;~~'?-<'3 'V ~'" Dear Ci# Council Members, 09 JUL -I Pt1 I: 31 I write as one who initially opposed the idea of residential parking permits for my street, Dartmouth Street. I live at the corner of California Avenue and Dartmouth, where parking and driving conditions over the past 6 weeks have changed so dramatically that my family and I have become strong advocates for the permits. Traffic from the new Facebook offices now makes California Ave into a thoroughfare during workday hours. Although I am pleased that our city kept their business, and that their employees likely will bring needed foot traffic to the businesses on California Avenue, the parking situation on my street is abysmal. During the workday, cars routinely speed into the dead end street on which we live, cruising for parking spots, or perhaps just trying to find a way out of the maze of streets in my neighborhood. Cars now park very close to the intersection of Dartmouth and California, making it difficult to see when attempting to exit my street. Moreover, the combination of tennis court traffic and Facebook traffic often makes it difficult to find street parking in front of my house. Although the permit program would not solve all of these problems, I support it because I think it would deter people from filling up the side streets in our neighborhood, thus improving lines of vision for residents seeking to exit. Moreover, the permit program might also solve some of the problem of cars speeding into the sides streets, particularly in the morning hours, when the start of the work day and the start of the school day (or the summer camp day) coincide. Thanks for taking my concerns into consideration. Sincerely yours, Michelle Oberman Michelle Oberman Professor of Law Santa Clara University School of Law 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95050 Tel: 408 551 7104 http://www.scu.edu/law/faculty/profile/oberman-michelle.cfm http://ssrn.com/author=232686 1 Page 1 of 1 ~ .. \)\ Council, City , \ ~~ ~ ----~~ 'u ~~~ From: Barbara Heller [barbara.heller@gmail.oo1\,r .. x,\::o("\l~~ '\)x Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:34 PM '(.~~~~ cS''\ To: Council, City Subject: College Terrace Parking Permits As a resident of College terrace for thirty years, I just want to add my support to initiating the resident permit parking plan for our neighborhood. I have never before seen our streets as crowded as they have recently become. Due to the ever increasing demand for parking spaces, since we are adjacent to both the University, which has continued to restrict access to parking on the perimeter of the campus, and the industrial park with a significantly increased demand for parking since the arrival of our new Facebook neighbor It is urgent that we go forward with a permit plan, preferably before the Stanford students return for the Fall quarter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Barbara Heller 2020 Amherst Street 7/1/2009 Council, Ci From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Carol Li [cli@apr.com] .. \.~. ~ "tot Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:12~~\. ,.x.,.\,-\,-:-y";) ~'{'\ Council, City \!i ~'t.\:;t>.\:J.'-~ Carol Li ,~'f-.~ I support RPPP program! c..\\'\ 09 JUt - / PN 1: 3 I Hi City Council members, I am the homeowner on 2105 Princeton street in Col Terrace. Palo Alto is the only community in the State of California adjacent to a major university without a RPPP. There is no doubt that non-residents parking in our neighborhood is a growing problem. The only effective way to correct the problem is to institute a RPPP. I support this program. Regards, Carol Li 650.281.8368 cli@apr.com 1 Council,: ,- \ . . ~ vi i" >'?( . ""A From: ~\..... ~\(,.,?~~er.Lee@Sun.COM on behalf of Walter Lee [walter.Lee@sun.c v6Ml 1'S f3Ffit:t' Sent: P> ~ ,r.\"<V~'(,..~ -I uesday, June 30,20096:46 PM 09JUI -1 P To: <s \'~~~ Council, City to. rI I: 31 Subject: -{ ~~ We support College Terrace Resident Permit Parking ,Program (RPPP) t'0. Hi, Council members, We need your support this program on July 1st meeting, " For the following reasons the CTRA Board and the RPPP Task Force encourage Council to adopt this program: Palo Alto is the only community in the State of California adjacent to a major university without a RPPP. The only effective way to correct the problem is to institute a RPPP. There is no doubt that non-residents parking in our neighborhood is a growing problem. I always see other cars parking in front of, around, and near my house. Best Regards, Walter Lee 1 Page 1 of 1 Council, City From: Sent: To: Council, City Subject: Please support the College Terrace RPPP I am the owner of2340 Dartmouth S1. in College Terrace and believe this program is necessary. Please include me as a supporter to pass the RPPP. Thanks, Ken Ken Thom kenthom@gmail.com 650-224-4344 7/1/2009 Page 1 of 1 Council, City From: Allegra Seale [Lallegra@pacbell,net] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:36 PM To: Council, City Subject: College Terrace Residence Parking Permit Program We strongly support RPPP in College Terrace. Parking in front of our home has become impossible. Thank you, Allegra Seale Brian Feldman 1510 S. California Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306 711/2009 Council, Ci From: Sent: To: Subject: Holly Welstein [holpwel@esrthlink.net] ... \ ~~' . Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:34 PM ~\.. . ' \) ~,\\;,t Council, City ~~ .. \t\tS~~.S \} College Terrace Parking program\~~~t~ t.\'\i >(\ Dear Councilmembers. I am writing in support of the proposed College Terrace Resident Permit Parking Program. Although my block did not vote to "opt in," I know that many blocks have terrible problems with (especially) Stanford affiliated drivers filling up the available street parking spaces and leaving no space for residents. The problem is particularly severe in College Terrace because narrow lots and lots with multiple units mean that there is limited street parking in the first place. The problem has been studied extensively and I believe the Permit parking Program will help alleviate the parking shortage for residents. Holly Welstein 2246 Harvard St. 1 Council, Ci From: Sent: To: Malcolm Slaney [malcolm@slaney.org] Tuesday, June 30, 20095:16 PM Council, City Cc: Subject: Sara Anderson; Doria Summa Parking Program Dear City council Member. I am writing to you because I am unable to attend the July 6th meeting. I strongly endorse the proposed parking program and I encourage you to implement it as soon as possible. Stanford has a tradition of pushing their parking problem off campus. The development permit they have with the county limits the number of cars that may enter campus. Thus they have set the price of parking high to discourage car trips. But this also serves to push people to park off campus. They can park in front of my house for free, but if they park 200 feet further north then Stanford charges hundreds of dollars. Commuters make the rational choice. Stanford further encourages parking in College Terrace by providing free shuttle service from our neighborhood (actually across the . street) to the rest of campus. We are not the only university town with this problem. I have tried to save money on trips to UC Berkeley by parking in the neighborhoods, felt the wrath of the parking police and now park in the University garages. Stanford does many wonderful things for the community, but keeping their car trips down by pushing their students and employees to park in College Terrace is not one of them. We see many drivers on our street get out of their cars and walk to the Stanford bus stop. The parking program is not perfect. a permit or two. There would be no paying the $50/year that the permit than nothing. I wish every household in the neighborhood was given need for a patchwork of rules. I wish Stanford was is costing my home. But this permit system is better I hope you will direct the city staff to implement the parking program as soon as possible. You will definitely improve the quality of life in Palo Alto with this decision. Sincerely, Malcolm Slaney Yale Street 1 Page 1 of 1 Council, City .. ~\, .... (\"\ ~-----------------_. -------,~\_1~~~~~----~----- From: Lie-Yea Cheng [lieyea_cheng@yahoo.comh. J~\. r ",X,:O c~\c~ \1"') ~ \,,,\'4 .s \J' Sent: Tuesday. June 30. 20094:45 PM '\l.\",u~" Council. City C\\"< ",f.' To: Subject: College Terrace Parking Permit Program Dear city council members: My family live on 1360 S. California Avenue, which is located in College Terrace. In the past two years, I noticed that more and more cars from companies across the street start to part in our neighborhood. Many times, our baby sitter could fmd a parking spot ours ide of our house. She had to park farther away and walk my son and daughter back to our house. I believe the companies neighoring College Terrace should provide sufficient parking spaces for their employees. This situation has caused us great inconvenience. We are also worried about safety of our children, since different strangers park outside of our house on a regular basis. College Terrace has proposed a Parking Permit Program. We hope this program will ease the problem. Please put voting of this program in the agenda of your July 6 meeting. We need your help to make our lives manageable and to keep our children safe. Best regards, Lie-Yea Cheng, Brian J. Brown, Nathan Brown, and Olivia Brown Residents of 1360 S. California Avenue 7/1/2009 Page 1 of 1 Council, City From: Annette Branger [annettebranger@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:36 PM To: Council, City Subject: Residential parking permit program in College Terrace Hello- My name is Annette Branger and I currently reside at 1410 S. California Ave, in the College Terrace neighborhood of Palo Alto. With the recent move of Facebook to the top of California Ave, and Stanford Medical Services taking over the building across the street, we suddenly face a parking situation in which both sides of the street are completely taken up with vehicles from Facebook and Stanford Medical employees Monday through Friday, 9 am to 6 pm. I am in support of a parking permit program on the streets impacted by the recent increase in traffic. As a compromise I recommend that the side of S. California Ave where the offices are located are free parking (no permit required) and the side of the street that is residential housing become permitted. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Regards, Annette Branger 1410 S. California Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306 cell: 650.269.5530 711/2009 Council, City , \\\\ \S ' Solon Finkelstein [solonf@comcast.netJ \ ~~ .. Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1 :02 PM . ~ jU\' ,... ~ C<'- Council, City ~~C\\~\:.~S \.I,y~.(. board@ctra.org . W;·< ~(;t\\ College Terrace residential parking permitsc"'< 'i'\f\~ From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: We have lived in College Terrace for 42 years. Over the past several years the quality of life in our neighborhood has deteriorated because of the parking issues. For this reason we strongly support the establishment of a residential parking permit program in our neighborhood College Terrace has become, by default, the free parking lot for Stanford students and staff. Everywhere on campus parking is regulated and paid permits are required. But, not in Palo Alto, although Stanford not only recognized this problem in College Terrace in 2000 but also gave the City $100,000 in order to establish permit parking in the Terrace. Up to now the City has done nothing to solve this problem, and as the years have gone by it has grown worse. Students and staff fill our streets with their cars and take the free shuttle onto campus or use the bikes they leave chained to poles and fences when the day is done. Some of these parkers even collect the "cash not cars" benefit from Stanford, since they drive to campus but not onto campus. Moreover, the influx of hundreds of Facebook employees into the Stanford Industrial Park just across California Avenue has flooded another part of the Terrace with the need for parking control. It is time, at long last, to adopt a residential parking permit program in College Terrace like the ones in other cities where colleges and universities are located. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, Diane and Solon Finkelstein 2049 Dartmouth Street 1 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL DATE: July 6, 2009 SUBJECT: Request for Adoption of Ordinance Amending Section 2.40.040 of Chapter 2.40 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to Municipal Elections for Web Posting of Campaign Contributions. RECOMMENDATION The Office of the City Clerk recommends that the Council adopt an Ordinance Amending Section 2.40.040 of Chapter 2.40 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to Municipal Elections in an effort to both enhance voter education and promote cost savings to the City Clerk budget. BACKGROUND Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.40.040 currently states: "On the Friday preceding any special or general election, the city clerk shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation the name of each person and committee from whom a contribution or contributions totaling $50.00 or more have been received, the amounts, as such appear on the campaign statements filed within the six-month period prior to the election pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 84200) of the Government Code." The City Clerk recommends that the Council adopt a modification to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section, as noted in bold: "The city clerk shall post online on the City of Palo Alto, California public website within five days of the date on which campaign statements are required to be fded in accordance with applicable California and local laws, rules and regulations, including the rules and regulations of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, the name of each person and committee from whom a contribution or contributions totaling $50.00 or more have been received, the amounts each person or committee contributed, and the candidates or committees which received such amounts, as such infonnation appears on the campaign statements filed within the six-month period prior to the election pursuant to Article 2, (commencing with Section 84200) of the Government Code." The reasons for the requested modifications are: • The publishing requirement for campaign statements was establishe<i over 34 years ago approved by the City Council on February 24, 1975. Technology has dramatically transfonned the way we communicate. • Many voters are now voting by mail well before the Friday preceding the election and they do not have access to the campaign information published. • Dissemination of the information online within five days after the required filings in September and October as required by Fair Political Practices Commission and other applicable laws actually enhances voter education about the candidates for public office. • The publishing of the information concerning campaign contributions online actually relieves a financial burden for the City of Palo Alto, which has been required to pay $3,000 for a two-page ad in a newspaper of general circulation and also to translate the ad into the required languages of Chinese and Spanish at a cost of $7,000. The public can view the campaign contributions on the computers at the libraries. This effort also reinforces the efforts of the city to reduce the amount of paperwork (going green). For these reasons, the City Clerk's Office requests the Council adopt the amended ordinance to effectuate the purposes of the amended ordinance. CITY CLERK. APPROVAL: ~~~b~ DONNA J. GRIDER. MC City Clerk ATTACHMENT NOT YET APPROVED Ordinance No. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.40.040 of Chapter 2.40 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to Municipal Elections for Web Posting of Campaign Contribution NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Section 2.40.040 of Chapter 2.40 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, as follows: 2.40.040 Contributions and Contributors On the Friday preoeding any special 01' general election, theThe city clerk shall publish in a fle'tvspaper of general oiroulationpost online on the City of Palo Alto, California public website within five days of the date 011 which campaign statements are required to be filed in accordance with applicable CaHfornia and Jocallaws, JUles and regulations. including the JUles and regulations of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, the name of each person and committee from whom a contribution or contributions totaling $50 or more have been received, the amounts each person or committee contributed, and the candidates or committees which received such amounts, as such infonnation appear on the campaign statements filed within the six-month period prior to the election pursuant to Article 2, (commencing with Section 84200) of the Government Code. For the purposes ofthis section, the definitions contained in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 82000) of the Government Code apply. SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code section 21080, subdivision (b)(8). 1/ 1/ II 1/ 1/ 1/ II 090519 jb 0013151 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective upon the commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATIEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Senior Asst. City Attorney 2 090519 jb 0073151 DATE: July 6, 2009 TO: City Council Colleagues FROM: Mayor Drekmeier and Council Members Espinosa and Klein SUBJECT: Increasing the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) from Five to Seven Members. RECOMMENDATION We ask our Council colleagues to join us in supporting a motion to increase the number of commissioners serving on the UAC from five to seven members, effective 30 days after adoption of an ordinance amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code. BACKGROUND Every City commission is comprised of seven commissioners with the exception of the UAC and the Architectural Review Board. We feel it would benefit the City and the Utilities Department to increase the size of the UAC to seven commissioners in order to tap into additional community expertise. Doing so also would further our Council priority of Civic Engagement for the Common Good by providing an opportunity for two more citizens to benefit from the experience of serving on a City commission. The UAC is one of Palo Alto’s most important commissions, providing oversight of and recommendations to our Utilities Department. With a budget of more than $300 million per year, and increasing responsibility for implementation of the City’s Climate Protection Plan, the Utilities Department plays a critical role in the health and well-being of our City. We believe an expanded UAC would provide additional support for the Utilities Department. With the large pool of exceptional UAC candidates Council interviewed on June 23, now would be an excellent time to increase the size of the Commission. Because increasing the size of the UAC would require a change to the Municipal Code, we plan to propose we direct the City Attorney’s Office to draft an ordinance increasing the UAC’s membership, to be presented for a first reading on Monday, July 13. The second reading would be July 27 and the ordinance would become effective August 26, the first date that the 2 additional members could be seated. On Monday, July 6, Council could select the top three vote getters, and select an additional two candidates to be seated contingent upon Council adoption of the new ordinance. The additional two commissioners could begin serving 30 days after adoption of the ordinance. To stagger the terms of the new Commissioners, we recommend that the ordinance grant a full term to the fourth place candidate, and create a two year term for the fifth place finisher. That way, in 2011 three seats would be up, and in 2012 four. We look forward to discussing this proposal with you.